Skip to main content

View Diary: NPR Hatchet Job at Trying to Discredit Medicaid and Obamacare: Prime Example of a Corporate Shill (183 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  That's the way propaganda works. It creeps up (57+ / 0-)

    on you.  And that's how cons work.  Many of us listen to NPR and would like to think it is fair (and balance?), and we like the nice tone of voice they use, the intellectual tone.

    And we trust them; in a sea of garbage when it comes to the media, how can one question public-funded NPR?

    I stand by my assertion.  This "report" was a shameful hatchet job against Medicaid.  The narrative is ALEC boilerplate.

    •  Too true. (14+ / 0-)

      In many "discussions" of rw talking points, my husband will say
      he heard it on NPR, so am I suggesting they are not liberal? Yes, that is what I am saying, not all the time anyway.

      Oh for crying out loud!

      by 4mygirls on Thu May 02, 2013 at 05:01:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Washington Journal is suffering from this, too. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Ray Pensador

        The infiltration of radical right-wing callers and rw guests themselves have really morphed the program into something much different from it was even just 10 years ago.

        If the plutocrats begin the program, we will end it. -- Eugene Debs.

        by livjack on Thu May 02, 2013 at 10:55:46 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Julie Rovner is a crappy health reporter (25+ / 0-)

      I don't know how much is her incompetence versus her being a believer in things corporate. She has consistently produced stupid reports for NPR for many years.

      Look at the shallow questions she asked and the really stupid conclusions she reaches here. Obviously a very constrained Medicaid program doesn't change all the chronic problems, like crappy diet, that come with poverty.

      The conservative doc is kind of right. Medicaid needs to provide better access to specialized care.

      look for my eSci diary series Thursday evening.

      by FishOutofWater on Thu May 02, 2013 at 05:13:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Exactly (10+ / 0-)

      and calling it "overreaction" feeds right into what they're trying to do, particularly when it's an obvious hatchet job--yes, obvious.  It is. All those who would question you have to do is read the damned text.


         Now the researchers have dug a little deeper into their data, and the new results, published in the latest New England Journal of Medicine, are not quite as uniformly positive.  
       ....

       Overall, the findings were uniformly positive. People with insurance used more care, spent less money. "We found big improvements in self-reported health," Baicker said. "We asked people how they felt, how their health interfered with their normal daily activities. And they reported substantial gains when they got Medicaid coverage, relative to the randomly assigned control group that didn't have Medicaid coverage."

      Set next to the title, it is a case study in propaganda.
      Second Thoughts On Medicaid From Oregon's Unique Experiment
      On balance, methinks someone took your critique way too personally....anyway....
      This stuff is so pervasive that at this point I don't know if these journalists are in on the con, are that stupid, are choosing to look the other way, or are being manipulated, used as corporate hacks.
      In all honesty, most are simply looking the other way, so they can make a living. It's sickening.

      "The “Left” is NOT divided on the need to oppose austerity and the Great Betrayal. The Third Way is not left or center or even right. It is Wall Street on the Potomac."--Bill Black

      by lunachickie on Thu May 02, 2013 at 05:53:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Having read the piece, you are wrong (0+ / 0-)

      they report both the positives and no results of the study.

      Fact is, for what the study looked at they didn't find a big or any improvement in some health measures.  IN others they did.

      In fact, this study does a credible job of reporting the results of an important study. Frankly, your characterization is scientifically utterly illiterate since you don't seem to understand the scope of questions asked or the methods employed.

      Those of us in the reality based community value actual data, even when it doesn't comport with our narrative, or even especially when.  I'm sorry, but those are the facts.

      Touch all that arises with a spirit of compassion

      by Mindful Nature on Thu May 02, 2013 at 08:49:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It seems that "reality based" is starting to (3+ / 0-)

        change meaning to "apologist" of the corrupt system.

        The NPR report was deceptive.  It is an obvious and objective observation.

      •  Nope - you're wrong - you've been conned (6+ / 0-)
        this study does a credible job of reporting the results of an important study
        Important study? Sez who - you? Why would you call it important? You've got nothing to back that up.
        In fact, this study does a credible job of reporting the results of an important study
        HA! You're drowning in self-delusion. The ONLY quoted "expert" is from American Enterprise Institute. That's not balanced in any way. THAT'S a fact to chew on.
        your characterization is scientifically utterly illiterate since you don't seem to understand the scope of questions asked or the methods employed.
        And yet you give nothing to back that statement up. Zero. We're just supposed to take your word because... you!
        Those of us in the reality based community value actual data
        The reality based community --- bwaaaahaha!

        Krugman has a spiffy reaction to this "important" study:

        Somehow, conservatives think this is a big win for their opposition to universal health insurance. Why? What it suggests is that the health benefits of ANY kind of health insurance are somewhat hard to identify over a two year period; so, are you about to give up your own insurance, or is your best bet that having that insurance is still a very good idea?
        http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/...

        Mindful - you've been conned. In a successful con the mark doesn't even know they've been conned. You, mindful, have been successfully conned.

        •  I love to see this type of ruthless destruction (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Capt Crunch

          of fallacious arguments.  I just love it!  Thank you.

        •  nope (0+ / 0-)

          what I have done is been scientifically trained.

          Shall we?

          1) Important study?  Yes, the only randomized study of the effects of medicare is important because it represents a highly unsual circumstance in this natural experiment.  Since one can't generally do randomized studies on people of this kind, the ORegon lottery represents a scientifically more valid approach than most other available approaches.  Therefore, as the report notes, it is an important study.

          2) Note, I didn't talk about experts, you brought that in as a red herring. What I did was compare the report to the findings in the study.  They are accurate.  However, you will note that you are easily disproven.  They also quoted Katherine Baicher, the author from the Harvard School of Public Health, which pretty much makes her an expert.

          3) Fair enough, let's take a few of Ray's gems

          Yes, the so-called "new study" found that people on medicaid are also afflicted by hypertension, high cholesterol, and diabetes...
          Well, no need for scare quote.  It is a study, based on a natural experiment.  THose indicators are fairly useful indications of the impacts on common chronic illnesses.  Surely, the question of what the impacts of a health care system on health is important?  It is ridiculous to try to undermine the research this way.
          Yes, they wanted to go a little deeper
          Yes, they did. THey wanted to go beyond self-reporting (which has all kinds of known bias) to actual measures of health.  Again, if you are studying a health care system, it makes no sense for Ray to attack a study for studying, well, health.
          And wait for this... The "researcher" found that there were financial benefits for those who had medicaid coverage, but that it came at a cost to society and taxpayers!

          WTF?  Of course it has a cost!  That what societies do.  At least that's what decent societies do; that's what every other industrialized (modern, first world) country does, except the U.S., of course (when it comes to universal health care).

          Well, yes, the researcher actually agrees with Ray, but somehow this is some terrifying corporate shill conclusion!  But wait, he agrees with it, so conspiracy, I guess.
          Muddle the waters, confuse the issues, challenge the data, and the science (and the findings), pay off "researchers" to do their bidding
          Now, here is where Ray goes full teabagger.  He decides that a Harvard/MIT study funded by the a series of left-leaning health care foundations and the U.S. Government
          Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, Department of Health and Human Services; the California HealthCare Foundation; the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation; the National Institute on Aging (P30AG012810, RC2AGO36631, and R01AG0345151); the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation; the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation; the Smith Richardson Foundation; and the Social Security Administration (5 RRC 08098400-03-00, to the National Bureau of Economic Research as part of the Retirement Research Consortium of the Social Security Administration); and by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
          Ray presents zero evidence of any corporate funding, and his only evidence is that he doesn't like part of the evidence.  NEither the study nor NPR are funded by Koch, yet he says they are without evidence, based largely on the fact that he doesn't like the findings.  Seriously.  He doesn't like it, therefore it must have been done by corporate shills.  THAT is the argument.  Tell me how this is different from the GOP guys shutting down CDC studies of gun violence because they don't like the results.

          Furthermore, I notice he didn't attack NPR report, also from Julie Rovner, for reporting the study that was super supportive of medicaid.

          I also notice he doesn't quote the bits of the story which are quite favorable.

          But I am done with you folks.  Can't stand the "make up you own facts" right wing loonies, and I can't stand the "make up your own facts" left wing ones either.

          Touch all that arises with a spirit of compassion

          by Mindful Nature on Thu May 02, 2013 at 01:40:32 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  NPR always has R commenters (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Capt Crunch, Ray Pensador

      The R foundations ALWAYS have someone available for comment.

      These assholes assholes are never identified as 'Conservative' or 'Right Leaning'.

      I won't donate to my local station any longer unless I can be sure the money won't fund anything from NPR.


      The Fail will continue until actual torches and pitchforks are set in motion. - Pangolin@kunstler.com

      by No one gets out alive on Thu May 02, 2013 at 09:07:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Also, an example of propaganda (0+ / 0-)

      would be to not report on a study that reported results we progressives find unfavorable. Would it not?

      Other than vague allusions to the study being "Koch funded," you didn't really even try to discredit the study itself.

      And you also missed this part of NPR's reporting, somehow:

      The study did find, however, increases in the diagnosis and treatment of those common ailments in the Medicaid group.

      And there was a significant decrease among the Medicaid population in the likelihood of being diagnosed with depression. "It was about a 30 percent decline in the probability of screening positive for depression among those who had Medicaid than among those who didn't," she said.

      Baicker said there was also a clear financial benefit for those who gained coverage. "They're protected from catastrophic financial expenditures," she said. "Medicaid coverage virtually eliminates having medical costs that are more than 30 percent of your income."

      Sure seems to me the pros and cons were presented even-handedly by NPR, but I suppose the American people would be better served by suppression of this new study.

      You never trust a millionaire/Quoting the sermon on the mount/I used to think I was not like them/But I'm beginning to have my doubts -- The Arcade Fire

      by tomjones on Thu May 02, 2013 at 10:01:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Look at the entire narrative of the "report." And (3+ / 0-)

        look at the closing statements.  It was propagandist, ALEC-boiler plate stuff, punctuated by one of the most egregious corporate propaganda organizations, the American Enterprise Institute.

        No amount of apologia is going to change that FACT.

        •  Two points: (0+ / 0-)

          1) It was a negative study as far as Medicaid is concerned. No getting around that.

          2) If NPR tried to spin the study as positive, or minimize the conclusions, then that would be pro-liberal bias.

          In conclusion:

          No amount of apologia is going to change that FACT.

          You never trust a millionaire/Quoting the sermon on the mount/I used to think I was not like them/But I'm beginning to have my doubts -- The Arcade Fire

          by tomjones on Thu May 02, 2013 at 11:59:50 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  This POS diary (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cryonaut

      makes unsubstantiable charges that a study and NPR are in the pocket of right-wing foundations.

      As the diarist writes:

      I don't know if these journalists are in on the con, are that stupid, are choosing to look the other way, or are being manipulated, used as corporate hacks.  I don't know for sure.
      That's right:  he doesn't know.  But that won't stop him.  There's a term for what he does--McCarthyism.

      "Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation..."--David St. Hubbins

      by Old Left Good Left on Thu May 02, 2013 at 12:28:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site