NBC & PBS "journalists" grace AHIP speakers network

No need to wonder any longer why the MSM spews corporate talking points.

No wonder why Dr. Gupta spouts nonsensical misinformation about SiCKO and Michael Moore on CNN (though Sanjay is not the subject of this diary).

Sanjay ought to spend less time on Michael and more on his "journalist" colleagues, their suspect affiliations, and who they carry water for.

Some of them pretend to be journalists but are in fact, paid speaker/shills for the for-profit insurance industry.

How's this for conflict?

Nancy Snyderman, MD, the health corresponded for NBC News, Robert Bazell another NBC news health correspondent and very sadly, Susan Dentzer of the News Hour all participate on the AHIP Speakers Network.

For those of you new to their racket, AHIP (America's Health Insurance Plans) is the trade association which represents the for-profit insurance industry in the United States.

These "journalists" and others just like them, will now join forces with AHIP to do whatever they can (think the lead up to the invasion of Iraq), to spread fear and crush healthcare reform in the United States.

This is from Dr. Snyderman's official NBC News bio, where her title is Chief Medical Editor. It does not reveal that she is on the AHIP Speakers Network.

Dr. Nancy Snyderman joined NBC News as the Chief Medical Editor in September 2006. Her reports appear on "Today," "NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams," "Dateline NBC," MSNBC and MSNBC.com.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/...

Robert Bazell is the chief science and health correspondent for NBC News, this is his official NBC News bio. It does not state that he too, is an AHIP speaker.

Robert Bazell is NBC News' Chief Science and Health Correspondent. His reports appear on "NBC Nightly News," "Today" and "Dateline NBC."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/...

This last name is sad because I think Susan Dentzer generally tries to do decent journalism. But once again, here's a piece of her official PBS bio and no mention of her connection to the AHIP Speakers Network.

Susan Dentzer is an on-air correspondent with The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer on the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). She leads a unit dedicated to providing in-depth coverage of health care, health policy and Social Security. The unit, begun in 1998, is funded by a grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

http://www.pbs.org/...

If you go to this link, you'll see that the "journalist" Robert Bazell of NBC News, seems to be the flavor of the month.  AHIP is really pushing him, I suppose they believe a "journalist" has some credibility and might therefore be believed when he shills for the industry.

This is the homepage for the AHIP Speakers Network. Just scroll down the list of speakers and you'll find Snyderman and Dentzer.

Robert Bazell, NBC News' Chief Science and Health Correspondent

Robert Bazell's reports appear on NBC Nightly News, Today and Dateline NBC. During his career with NBC News, Bazell has reported on a wide range of subjects in the areas of science, technology and medicine, from throughout the United States and around the world. NBC viewers have long known that when there is a major breakthrough in science or medicine, Bazell will be there to explain it in a lively and understandable way.  

Read the full article ...

http://www.ahiphealthspeakers.org/...

This is also from the AHIP Speakers Network--what they call "Speaker News". This is their offical dismissive view of healthcare reform.

It's back in vogue. Translation: it's fashionable to do something because 18,000 Americans die every year directly as a result of not having access to basic healthcare.

"Most voters already have insurance". This is particulalrly toxic. "Voters" is the buzz word for those dwindling numbers of slightly more affluent Americans who can still afford the skyrocketing premiums for what amounts to for-profit junk insurance.

Although fixing health care is back in vogue, some analysts worry that the prescriptions of the presidential candidates miss the heart of the problem. All the talk about creating universal coverage has obscured the fact that most voters already have insurance, some analysts say, and what they are most concerned about is curbing costs.

http://www.ahiphealthspeakers.org/...

I suppose if you and your family have good insurance from NBC-General Electric and PBS then maintaining the status quo is a good thing.

I also suppose this is what Michael Moore must have meant when he said in SiCKO that "in the United States, it's all about me, not we."

So please keep in mind as you listen to the MSM present the "news" in the days ahead, about the S-CHIP legislation which Mr. Bush promises to veto, this is what these lying bastards and their media enablers are up to.

You might want to call the "news" organizations cited and suggest to them that their on-air personalities should reveal who pays them to deliver the AHIP "news".

Here' a link to NBC:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/...

This is for the NewsHour:

http://www.pbs.org/...

And this is what it's all about. If the American people are fed a steady diet by the MSM of AHIP regurgitated lies, healthcare reform will not happen.

Is the debate over S-CHIP funding an unwelcome omen for the advocates of far-reaching reforms who hope for a window of opportunity in 2009? Children are cheap to cover and effective symbols in political campaigns. When reauthorization of a program such as S-CHIP, which has broad support, struggles to make it through Congress, do more far-reaching reform proposals potentially face much greater hurdles?

Is the struggle over the S-CHIP reauthorization a cautionary tale--the proverbial canary in the mine?

Representative Charles B. Rangel, the New York Democrat who is chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, said the House bill would "reverse the Republican drive to privatize Medicare," by reducing payments to private health plans that care for 8 million of the 43 million Medicare beneficiaries.

Proponents of the private plans, offered by companies like UnitedHealth and Humana, say they provide more benefits than traditional Medicare.

But the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said the government paid the private plans, on average, 12 percent more than it would have cost to care for the same people in traditional Medicare. Moreover, it said, payments to the fastest-growing type of plan, known as private fee-for-service plans, are 19 percent higher than the cost of traditional Medicare.

The House bill would gradually reduce these payments so that Medicare would pay the same amount, regardless of whether a beneficiary was in a private plan or in traditional Medicare.

. . ."Cuts of this size would mean the end of a lifeline for many seniors," said Karen M. Ignagni, president of America’s Health Insurance Plans, a trade association.

Michael J. Tuffin, executive vice president of the association, described the insurance industry’s "grass-roots strategy" to oppose the cuts in a recent e-mail message to member companies. Mr. Tuffin said "field operatives will organize small gatherings of seniors across the country" and rent minivans to take them to the district offices of House members, to "speak out against the cuts."

http://www.nytimes.com/...

Grass-roots strategy?  

You can bet that you'll see the MSM news organizations dutifully covering spinning these small gatherings.

•  It never ends . . .

  Trying to keep ahead of all this is a full time job.

  by nyceve on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 05:19:45 AM PST

  •  and you are one of my heroes

    for doing so

    thank you

    by mooshter on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 05:26:09 AM PST

    •  Mine, too

      It always felt really lonely campaigning for universal health care on my own, now I feel like I'm on a team, with nyceve as captain!

      by CoolOnion on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 06:56:27 AM PST

      •  Mine as well.

        Keep fighting the good fight, nyceve.  We will get there eventually.  It may hurt in the process, but we will get universal healthcare in this country.

        by Noor B on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 11:15:22 AM PST

  •  And the worst part of this horrible conflict of

    interest, is that the entire network will use these paid shills as their "objective" source for their own biased reports against reform.  

    I mini echo chamber, all bought and paid for by the AHIP, and of course, the networks know that these reporters have this conflict; they just don't care.

    GE/NBC/CNBC/MSNBC need cover to promote the right wing agenda, and then they will also take advertising dollars from all of the pharma, health insurers, and trade associations like AHIP, to ensure their cash flow.

    In the words of Barbara Bush, "this is working out quite nicely for them".

    by Do Tell on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 05:59:46 AM PST

    •  "Quite nicely." If only those 18,000/yr would

      have gone "to the Emergency" like the "compassionate conservative" prezy told them to do....why they'd have "coverage" and be alive today. There's no better "basic healthcare" than what the Emergency does for those poor people. Except for when they don't treat them because they are dying and they come too often and get ignored and lie dying on the floor (as the LA video recently revealed).

      Or when the problems are less than urgent and there is absolutely NO health care. I guess only very obvious life-threatening health problems count as worthy of attention to him. What a joke.

      Of course Bush never thought about HOW people would even get to "the Emergency" when they have serious health problems. For instance, if as I do they live 20 minutes out of town with no taxi service, and not enough money to pay for one if there were, and the problem is not right at that moment life threatening so they can call for an ambulance, then who will take them to "the Emergency?"

      Poor people, many of us anyhow, are not going to believe that they can just call 911 and expect to be driven in an ambulance to "the Emergency" for treatment of even very serious health problems--not without being liable to being billed for the ride which can be several hundreds of dollars, if the problem is determined by others to be non-life threatening.

      So when Bush said recently that everyone in America had health coverage because people (without --insurance--without coverage) could go to "the Emergency"--he filled me with rage at his callous, stupid, arrogant attitude toward those with less, those to whom his Jesus taught compassion.

      by Gorette on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:08:16 AM PST

  •  No, it never ends and it won't ever end

    until we get corporate power out of our political process.  I'm not sure that can be accomplished, but that is the task we face.

    Our elected officials get their campaign coffers filled up by the very people they are supposed to be making laws and regulating against...conflict of interest anyone?  Of course those large dollar donations affect their decisions and voting record.

    Paid shills in the media is nothing new either, it's just now with the internet people are more aware.

    The internet is the last place of freedom and our only hope in getting this country back into the hands of 'we the people', and out of the hands of the highest bidder.

    by CTLiberal on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 06:26:10 AM PST

    •  You ought to read this . . .

      from the Public Editor at the New York Times about why the paper is in such trouble.

      Tiptoeing Around the Family Business

      One of America’s leading companies, a world-famous brand, has hit a rough patch. Its revenues and profits are declining, its debt rating has been downgraded, and a leading Wall Street house has advised investors to dump their shares. With sales of its core product falling, the company is raising the price and investing heavily in new technology that is slow to pay off.

      A major outside shareholder has been agitating to end the stock structure that has allowed one storied and powerful family to run the company for four generations. As another family in the same troubled industry appears ready to throw in the towel, will this family be able to stick together and find new success?

      This is dramatic and important stuff. And it’s the kind of story you often read on the front page or the Sunday Business front of The New York Times.

      . . .Today’s Times is caught in unprecedented changes sweeping through an industry whose readers and advertisers are decamping from the printed newspaper to the Internet, where content is mostly free and the advertising rates that support newsrooms are comparatively low.

      http://www.nytimes.com/...

      You know it's very interesting, when I first came to Daily Kos, many years ago, I told people,  what you read on Daily Kos you'll see in the NY Times a few weeks later.

      We've (the internets) have improved a lot since then and the reading public knows this.

      by nyceve on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 06:36:49 AM PST

      •  That Is One Thing I've Noticed...

        that the "breaking" stuff in the news has already long since been broken, discussed and debated on the 'nets...

        Even during my hiatus, Daily-Kos was still my primary source of American news...

        The MSM is dead. Long live the NSM!!!('net-stream-media)

        by TheManWithNoPoint on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:27:48 AM PST

    •  Yeah, the cabal's reach is huge,

      and its influence is exponentially larger than its actual size.  What's worse, it's a financial parasite on the national economy.

      by Noor B on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 11:19:35 AM PST

•  We should have expected this

  and I suspected things like this all along, but having it all put in one diary like this makes me just shake my head.  

  The insurance industry AND the pharmaceutical industry have been busy little beavers buying up companies (like AARP - I still haven't gotten over that one) and people.

  Thanks for the clear and concise summation of where these 'journalists' true allegiance lies.  

  I believe the same can go for many environmental groups, science groups, and on and on and ...

  Great diary.  Thanks for the effort.  I will recommend because this information needs to be put in front of people all the time - although people here already knew this, didn't we.  

  by GrandmaJ on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 05:25:26 AM PST

  •  and which candidate has WON!

    for the little guys against the POWERFUL Insurance and Pharma industries??  The one the corporate media is bashing 24/7 for his haircuts - because his universal health care plan is brilliant!
    Some people are waking up to the media-hair connection.

    by annefrank on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 08:33:13 AM PST

•  Except for a few holdouts like Bill Moyers...

  journalism is dead.

  The only place the tradition of the free press lives on is on the blogs.  And you have earned a prominent place there nyceve.  Thank you for your dedication and hard work.  You do us all a great service!

  Save the Internet!

  by One Pissed Off Liberal on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 05:31:50 AM PST

  •  I am making it a mission to let the media know

    we are on to them.  I'm writing LTTEs til my fingers are bloody stumps.

    by nannyboz on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 06:16:26 AM PST

    •  Good on ya nannyboz!

      They need to hear it over and over again.

      Save the Internet!

      by One Pissed Off Liberal on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 06:28:59 AM PST

    •  Yes, Nannyboz!

      This needs publicity!
      How many viewers of these dedicated professionals know that they are on a consummately corrupt gravy train?
      I may be naive, but I did not until I read this diary.

      by NogodsnomastersMary on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 06:41:53 AM PST

      •  Nor did I Nogod . . .

        And I like to think I'm reasonably up-to-date on all double dealing going on.

        But I can tell you something, this is nothing. If we knew what was really going on, two-thirds of Washington would either be under indictment or in jail.

        by nyceve on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 06:46:50 AM PST

    •  And while we're at it, let's be sure

      the Foundation providing the funding for PBS's group knows that the head of that group is now taking corporate money to spout corporate views.  I wonder if there is anything in their grant language on this?

      by edgery on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 12:20:11 PM PST

      •  the Corporation for Public Broadcasting?

        The management is packed with Bush shills... that's why I no longer support funding public broadcasting and recommend that others stop doing so.

        by alizard on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 02:45:26 PM PST

    •  I sent this diary

      to a number of them - asked Keith Olberman how news organizations expect us to believe they are providing us with unbiased news when we learn things like this.

      Sent to Mike Malloy as well and am about to send to Amy Goodman.  Hope others will send to Air America radio hosts.  I posted to a local newspaper blog where the "journalist" had suggested that we should rely on regular media for our information about health care issues instead of Moore and Sicko - lets get this story out there.

      by SarahLee on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 01:42:59 PM PST

  •  How is this different from Armstrong Williams?

    Mr. Williams took money from the Federal government to push its agenda and didn't disclose it.  It was considered a scandal at the time, though I noticed him the other day on Hardball.  Apparently all is forgiven inside the beltway.

    Medical speakers are expected, as a matter of routine ethics, to disclose any associations outside their primary academic or practice activities.  Not to do so is a serious breach of medical ethics.

    Why don't journalists have a similar ethical standard?  And how dare they berate bloggers' ethics if they don't?

    by Dallasdoc on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 07:16:01 AM PST

    •  Great point, Dallasdoc . . .

      Damned if I know.

      Journalist-whores?

      by nyceve on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 07:18:04 AM PST

    •  Thanks doc. It's so funny when the 'journalists'

      get all snooty and look down their noses at us saying that we don't have ethical standards - as if they do!  They have disgraced a once proud and important profession by selling out to propagandize for the Corporatocracy.  They sold their souls only to cast aspersions on us for daring to tell the truth.  Well, somebody's gotta do it - and it sure isn't going to be them.

      Save the Internet!

      by One Pissed Off Liberal on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 07:47:24 AM PST

      •  Just for the record ...

        ...some newspapers require reporters to follow ethical standards. Here, for instance, is the Los Angeles Times's code. An excerpt:

        Staff members may not enter into business or financial relationships with their sources. Similarly, staff members may not cover individuals or institutions with which they have a financial relationship.

        In no circumstance will staff members allow personal investments to influence their news decisions. They may not work on stories that could, in any way, shape events for their own financial gain. Likewise, they may not use nonpublic information obtained by The Times to make personal investment decisions.

        In the case of, say, a personal finance columnist who owns securities in a company or shares in a fund, the columnist must disclose this financial interest to readers whenever writing about the company or fund.
        Because these issues arise most frequently for journalists covering business, a supplementary set of guidelines applies to the business staff.

        Outside affiliations and community work Editorial employees may not use their positions at the paper to promote personal agendas or causes. Nor should they allow their outside activities to undermine the impartiality of Times coverage, in fact or appearance.

        Staff members may not engage in political advocacy – as members of a campaign or an organization specifically concerned with political change. Nor may they contribute money to a partisan campaign or candidate. No staff member may run for or accept appointment to any public office.

        Staff members should avoid public expressions or demonstrations of their political views – bumper stickers, lawn signs and the like.

        by Meteor Blades on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 11:57:43 AM PST

        •  actually, I don't object to this kind of

          conflict of interest as long as the 'outside' interests of these journalists are disclosed up front.

          HST said "objective journalism is a pompous contradiction in terms". . . what we need to know is what the journalist's biases are so we can despin their articles.

          If the PBS "journalist" had scrolling text saying "this person has accepted $xx,xxx from the medical insurance industry to advocate their anti-national health positions" at the bottom of the screen every time they appeared, I wouldn't mind at all.

          Of course, nobody would believe them.

          by alizard on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 02:50:16 PM PST

•  WHOOOOA

  Hold on ...

  These people are paid employees of a public affairs marketing campaign?  At the same time they are appearing as journalists on TV?

  WHAT?!

  by bink on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 05:34:55 AM PST

  •  bink, I would slightly . . .

    re-phrase your comment.

    These people are journalists who are participating in the AHIP Speakers Network.

    I would think they are paid by the organizations before whom they appear.

    Then, the usual arrangement is for a percentage of what they are paid to go to the Speakers Bureau--in this case AHIP.

    But obviously I don't know the details of the financial arrangements.

    by nyceve on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 05:51:31 AM PST

    •  Okay

      Yes -- that makes more sense.  Just seems so bizarre to me, whether or not they are directly paid by AHIP, or if AHIP acts as a broker for their services and then takes a cut.  In either case, by all appearances, they participating in a marketing campaign for a private industry whose practices they supposedly cover as part of their jobs.

      by bink on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 05:59:23 AM PST

      •  Absolutely correct, AHIP is the broker . . .

        and must be taking a cut. These "journalists" spout AHIP talking points.

        I agree totally with your comment, but I would remove the "by all appearances". They participate--end of story.

        Why don't they just sign up with a non-AHIP speakers bureau?

        In either case, by all appearances, they participating in a marketing campaign for a private industry whose practices they supposedly cover as part of their jobs.

        BTW, if anyone wants to research Nancy Snyderman, she's been a shill for ages and I think she lost her job at ABC over really inappropriate shilling.

        by nyceve on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 06:04:34 AM PST

        •  This Is A Health Industry Investment

          I'm sure market analysis has shown that people believe journalists WAY MORE than obvious promoters. This shit is indicative of the Brave (but not particularly New) World of the Mainstream Media, hand in glove with the titans of corporate America.

          There has been no backlash so why should they stop?

          It is not unlike Cheney and Bush, without any backlash they have little incentive to stop or even slow down their tactics.

          by KOTCrum on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 06:43:06 AM PST

•  Yes! Propaganda for the masses

  Brought to you by the mainstream media and paid for by the insurance companies. It's nice to know that the America media understands the meaning of the word objective. What a minute. They don't.

  by Mishima on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 05:34:57 AM PST

•  Here is the telephone number for Robert Wood

  Johnson Foundation: [phone].

  Foundations absolutely hate bad press or negative feedback.  They exist to convince the public that capitalism is good, and their "name brand" is extremely important to them.

  Getting calls from folks all over the US asking why they are funding PBS to publish AHIP propaganda should make a serious impact.

  by TheFatLadySings on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 05:36:01 AM PST

  •  Another plan of attack:

    Foundations risk IRS investigation of too much of their grant money is used for lobbying.  Lobbying can be defined as information campaigns aimed at building public pressure for specific pieces of legislation.  The foundation buzzword for this kind of activity is "grassroots lobbying."  

    Ask them why they are allowing PBS to divert RWJ money for a "grassroots lobbying campaign" generated by AHIP.  Offer to contact the IRS to ask the same question.

    [phone]

    by TheFatLadySings on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 05:43:12 AM PST

  •  FatLady, I personally find it . . .

    very sad--even bleak that Susan Dentzer doesn't know better than to participate in this shilling.

    The NewsHour is one of the only remaining decent shows and her healthcare segments are usually a cut above what we see elsewhere.

    In the end, all of this sucks to high heaven.

    by nyceve on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 05:58:51 AM PST

    •  nyceve, to suggest that she doesn't know better

      than to participate is incorrect, she knows perfectly well whose $$$ she is being paid when she gives her speeches.  

      She does know better, but choses to line her pockets anyway.  

      by Do Tell on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 06:02:32 AM PST

    •  We really don't know why she is on this

      list.  Maybe we should email and ask her.  The common assumption is that it pays well, but maybe it provides necessary access to a required resource.

      We need to know how the business of information control actually works.  Sort of like people joining the Bath Party in pre-war Iraq.  Their name on the list didn't mean that they actually supported Saddam's goals or views, but that they needed a job.

      Look who took over PBS.  It is conceivable that they require certain memberships of their journalists in order to prove the "balanced" nature of their disposition.

      by TheFatLadySings on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 06:27:35 AM PST

      •  Even worse, FatLady . . .

        Susan Dentzer cannot be an AHIP speaker and tell the truth about our broken system.

        This is the crime, she can't say this:

        The U.S. spends twice as much as other industrialized nations on health care, $7,129 per capita. Yet our system performs poorly in comparison and still leaves 46 million without health coverage and millions more inadequately covered.

        This is because private insurance bureaucracy and paperwork consume one-third (31 percent) of every health care dollar. Streamlining payment though a single nonprofit payer would save more than $350 billion per year, enough to provide comprehensive, high-quality coverage for all Americans.

        http://www.pnhp.org/

        by nyceve on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 06:41:50 AM PST

        •  We know that our airwaves are censored.

          The means of censorship is likely diverse and sophisticated.  We need to know how the knot is tied in order to best unravel it.

          by TheFatLadySings on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 06:48:51 AM PST

•  nyceve links to "some analysts":

  Although fixing health care is back in vogue, some analysts worry that the prescriptions of the presidential candidates miss the heart of the problem. All the talk about creating universal coverage has obscured the fact that most voters already have insurance, some analysts say, and what they are most concerned about is curbing costs.

  http://www.ahiphealthspeakers.org/...

  Well . . .

  2/23/07 - 2/27/07

  24. If you had to say, which do you think is a more serious problem right now — keeping health care costs down for average Americans, OR providing health insurance for Americans who do not have any insurance?

  Keeping costs down: 31

  Providing for uninsured: 65

  DK/NA: 5

  And . . .

  Most Support U.S. Guarantee Of Health Care

  By ROBIN TONER AND JANET ELDER; MEGAN THEE, MARINA STEFAN AND MARJORIE CONNELLY CONTRIBUTED REPORTING.
  Published: March 2, 2007

  A majority of Americans say the federal government should guarantee health insurance to every American, especially children, and are willing to pay higher taxes to do it, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

  Nearly 8 in 10 said they thought it was more important to provide universal access to health insurance than to extend the tax cuts of recent years; 18 percent said the tax cuts were more important.

  -- snip --

  What is very interesting to me is that, in order to defend their greed and inhumanity , the insurance industry has to argue that Americans are greedy and inhumane.  It has to lie about the very people it wishes to sway, in the hopes that, just maybe, it can convince the American people to be just as hearltess as it claims the American people already are.

  The lies, trickery, deception, and really indefensible moral bankrupcy involved here is remarkable.  

  by LithiumCola on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 05:48:54 AM PST

  •  And, of course,

    having the health reporters for the major news organizations out there to give "equal time" to your constituentless, baseless mendacity; reporters who somehow neglect to mention, over and over and over again, that damn near no one wants what the industry is selling, is pivotal to maintaining the illusion that there is debate as to whether the current system needs to be torn down.

    There is not total agreement as to what should replace the current, but there is no serious disagreement amongst the population to whom these TV persons speak, and whom they claim, outrageously, to be "informing" -- no serious disagreement about what to do with the system defended by the TV rich.

    Tear it down.  Tear it all down.

    by LithiumCola on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 06:07:00 AM PST

  •  The key to those statistics is that so many of us

    who have insurance pay enormous premiums, have gigantic deductibles, and have to fight to get the coverage that we paid for.

    Our own family's medical out of pocket last year was $21,400; insurance, deductibles, co-pays and things that were not covered.  We are self employed and self insure dental and vision care, and are a family of three with no real dramatic problems.

    by Do Tell on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 06:07:05 AM PST

    •  Two things:

      (1) Holy crap about your out of pocket.

      (2) Could you say how that is key to the statistics?

      by LithiumCola on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 06:09:07 AM PST

      •  Sure.

        >>Nearly 8 in 10 said they thought it was more important to provide universal access to health insurance than to extend the tax cuts of recent years; 18 percent said the tax cuts were more important.<<</p>

        Even though I have the means to pay for my insurance today, I worry that I won't tomorrow.  I worry that my adult children, who both have to pay their own health insurance costs, will not be able to afford to pay if they can't find a job that will cover some of the costs.

        Medicare takes everyone, and a single payer plan would also, with no pre-existing condition exclusions.  

        I think that most know universal coverage  will cost them a great deal, but at least they will be covered and they will not have to live in fear of losing their coverage, being denied benefits, or changing jobs.  

        We have not had a deep and painful recession for a long time, but if there were to be one with mass layoffs, there will be massive increase in the uninsured, and too many cannot afford those expensive Cobra plans.  

        The fear factor is huge today with those who have to cover families, and that is why those statistics are key.  

        by Do Tell on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 07:02:04 AM PST

      •  NB. costs are undefined by the statistic.

        the unstated assumption is, premium payments are not a cost or, more politic, their real value is indeterminant.

        so question #24 is poorly worded. it does not describe the problems. it specifically forces respondents to prioritize characteristics of health care delivery that are effectively incomparable and extemporaneous.

        disambiguation however does not prevent us from inferring:

        -americans are willing to pay any cost for health care delivery.

        -most americans are worried they will be unable to obtain financing (insurance) at any cost.

        this is not news.

        OTOH, current MSM statisticians' bias limits discussion and comparative analyses of cost/benefit of health care business operations to (i) insurers' administrative overhead; (ii) insurers' and MDs' risk premiums; (iii) market value of insureds' basket of pharma goods; and (iv) market size of medical procedures (e.g. financial losses in industry and morbidity in the population, attitbutable to 'rationing' consumer/patients).

        by MarketTrustee on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 07:52:05 AM PST

        •  anachronistic, not extemporaneous n/t

          by MarketTrustee on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 07:54:29 AM PST

        •  I think the politicians are losing the battle on

          calling premium payments something other than a medical expense. I've heard accountants classify premiums as assets until the month passes, then they become an expense.

          To the every day person. Premiums are an expense, until they can't pay it anymore....then it's a worry.

          BTW, I didn't mean to upset you wil my diary the other night...really I didn't. I'm sorry one of my examples hit so close to home.

          by JDWolverton on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 08:12:28 AM PST

          •  bosh and posh. JD, you don't upset me.

            news upsets me. the perpetration of ignomy, arbitrage, indifference, and exploitation upset me. i dropped you a note there. thnx for your kind words.

            by MarketTrustee on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 08:46:48 AM PST

    •  It sounds like extortion

      (maybe because it is extortion).

      by marina on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 06:11:12 AM PST

      •  Oh, yeah, it feels like extortion as well when

        I pay the bills and fight for coverage.  My policy is written so that routine check ups are not covered, and routine tests are not either, so now BCBS has taken to denying coverage for things that they once covered and then they make you fight for your money.  

        by Do Tell on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 07:06:31 AM PST

    •  And we've learned the hard way

      That even if we have insurance today, that:

      1. If we get sick and lose our job, our insurance is gone.

      2. If our kids get sick and lose their jobs, or can't buy insurance, we're going to have to dig deep to cover their expenses

      3. If our parents get sick and lose their insurance, we're going to have to dig deep to cover their expenses

      4. If our friends get sick or hurt, even if they have insurance, they could be looking at tens of thousands of dollars of bills, and they're going to need help.

      Each person who falls down the spiral pulls on everyone they know and everyone who cares about them. We shouldn't be having to raise money with change jars at local businesses to help a community member in trouble.

      by elfling on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:11:50 AM PST

      •  Rich get richer and the poor get

        One of the reasons for continuing poverty in America is that uninsured medical care costs are highly contageous, and spread from an uninsured poor person to her siblings, to his parents, to the children, to concerned friends, even to caring if marginally profitable employers.

        A sick person without insurance can infect all the loved ones with financial strain, diverting money from child care, from tuition and other school costs, from nutritious food, from more reliable transportation, from better housing, and from other necessities for escaping poverty.

        These problems are like an epidemic among the poor, not so much in the acre-lot-zoned suburbs and the gated "communities" where Repub voters hide from seeing the unhappy lives of others less fortunate.

        by Woody on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:23:16 AM PST

  •  And it needs to build a false dichotomy

    between keeping costs down for the insured, and insuring everyone. In fact insuring the uninsured and underinsured to the extent that they get timely or even preventive care will reduce costs substantially across the board. Using the emergency room only is about the most expensive way to get care, and the costs for those who can't pay their bills are passed on to those who can anyway, raising costs for everyone.

    by Snarcalita on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 07:54:55 AM PST

•  I am so tired

  of not being able to trust anyone to give me the truth anymore.

  Spin and greed seem to be the order of the day in so many places.

  Thanks for staying on top of this stuff.  I was skeptical of HMOs when they became all the rage, and my vague fears turned out to be well founded. It really ticks me off that our health care dollars go to support this behemoth of an industry instead of paying health providers...so much money goes into keeping the insurance providers fat and happy (oh, and their stockholders too.)

  And "journalists" are our there spinning for them too.  Where does it stosp?

  by blue armadillo on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 05:55:32 AM PST

  •  Let's make and support independent media.

    We can investigate and report just as well as these credentialed shills, and we can tell the truth.
    We already have Democracy Now, Air America, and GoLeft TV. Let's have more.

    by NogodsnomastersMary on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 06:45:23 AM PST

•  Looks like Bonnie and Clyde

  ride again.  In the form of health insurers Robbing and Killing 18,000 real people a year by refusing to provide the insurance they "sold" them.  

  Go Bonnie.  Go Clyde

  by william f harrison on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 06:11:52 AM PST

•  Astroturf strategy - great diary exposing shills

  The shills probably don't even see that there's a conflict of interest. There is so much drug and insurance company advertising money feeding the main stream media machine that the MSM reporters must think it's mana from heaven.

  by FishOutofWater on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 06:12:53 AM PST

  •  I'm not sure what word best describes these

    people and their job description.  "Apologists" seems to come close.

    They might as well be lobbiests.  The fact, as nyceve rightly points out upthread, that AHIP isn't paying them but merely pimping them, hardly matters.

    Paid apologists.

    by LithiumCola on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 06:18:19 AM PST

•  The "critics" and "journalists" ARE PAID SHILLS

  They may see the speaker's bureau/ AHIP gigs as professional bonuses related to their job as health care analysts. The point that this is DIRECTLY related to preserving the private insurance broken system that America has is ignored or covered up. They don't advertise this connection, or admit to it in their stories . You won't see this in any of their stories:

  "Disclaimer", "I participate in various activities and PR stories for the private insurance industry".

   This is important exposure of the enemy in health care struggles because if these people don't get outed, debunked and exposed as shills along with their lobbyist friends in Washington, nothing moves in the health care fight.

  by Pete Rock on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 06:17:36 AM PST

  •  Pete Rock, I cringe every time . . .

    I see a healthcare story covered. It is always so slanted and so fear-inducing. But little did I dream that "journalists" were actually doing the bidding of the special interests.

    And then you think back to Iraq, and how miserably they peformed.

    What a meltdown we have in this country.

    by nyceve on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 06:24:16 AM PST

•  Good diary...

  It's great that you draw such a clean line between the Corporate Health Care Cartel and Corporate Sponsored Journalists, but it's no suprise.

  It's not a 'Main Stream' media. It's a corporate media. And that's that.

  Nothing will change until people, especially people here on dKos, get the idea that Corporate Sponsored Public Policy is bad. They need to get that idea and run with it.

  Corporations and their Cartel like behavior, as illustrated by the AHIP, have got to be challenged.

  The people, given a constant healthy dose of 'Government is Bad' need to be shown that there is another reason for all of our ills. Until the corporate agenda is exposed, and the sole blame is lifted from government, there will be no change in our current course. Period.

  by k9disc on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 06:20:56 AM PST

•  The best media money can buy?

  There is little eithical journalism left in this nation.  Journalistic ethics have become an oxymoran.

  As usual, great diary, Eve.

  by TomP on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 06:22:30 AM PST

•  PR shills are gradually won over by corruption.

  Another name is the syndicated columnist, Froma Harrop.

  10 years ago she was a 'reformer', pushing for improved health care delivery, even nice words about single payer. Nowadays she rails against Canadian medicine (that's a 180 degree change) and mutters darkly about the  sins of single payer systems.

  She has also gotten tenure at her latest journo job, being on the board at the Providence Journal and a syndicated columnist.

   Her stuff is now defense of the status quo in medicine, be it HMO's, or insurers ruling the system, a big change from her "crusader for health " days.

  by Pete Rock on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 06:26:03 AM PST

•  F-A-C-S-I-S-M

  It is what it is.

  by barnowl on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 06:30:52 AM PST

  •  "Mouse-olini"

    I made this when Disney pulled support from "Fahrenheit 911":
    

    by CoolOnion on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 07:36:28 AM PST

•  Report from Vienna by 81 yr old Nurse:

  Five years ago this month my aunt and uncle were touring Europe just before their 50th Wedding Anniversary.  He had retired from AT&T, she retired as a professor of nursing.

  In Vienna he had a brain hemmorage followed by a heart attack [his fifth].  For 16 days he underwent brain surgery, heart surgery, and supportive procedures before lapsing into a comma.  My aunt was there with him alone - except for the hospital staff.  As far as they were concerned, she was their patient, too.

  After 16 days, my aunt was resigned to the fact that my uncle was not going to be comming home with her.  She flew home, cancelled a very big celebration and waited.  He died on their anniversary.

  Because they weren't citizens of Austria, my aunt had to pay the highest rate for his multiple surgeries, care, and maintenence.  The Austrians were distraught - the total cost was $410 per day.  That covered everything.

  I thought you would like to know.

  by llbear on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 06:31:11 AM PST

•  I can't wait for Judy Miller to report on how

  Aetna has our best interests at heart.

  by Geekesque on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 06:35:05 AM PST

•  Insurance and Health

  Thanks Eve for the great post.
  CSPAN this am just ran a segment on how if we just stopped smoking, exercised more and did preventitive measures all woold be well.Not a word about the 47 million without insurance.Fat chance  they could even see a doctor. And they even took a call from someone who said he was a neurosurgeon and that HSAs- health spending accounts-were the answer.You got 150 grand sitting around in case you need a brain tumor removed? What planet do these people live on?
  The cons have really done a wonderful job in pressing the idea  that the govt can do nothing right; the market is the answer to everything. What a crock of  shit. I wonder how many of these folks would like it if a doctor came to your house at night if you needed it or you could stay in a hospital as long as you needed to or paid about $5 a prescription no matter what? It is just so depressing to realize that every industrialized country in the world can provide top notch healthcare at a lower cost with better outcomes and all that matters here is how many millions
  a CEO can rake in.

  by cagernant on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 06:36:59 AM PST

  •  The fact is

    People just get sick and hurt even when they are trying to do their best to stay healthy. Thin people get diabetes. People who exercise and eat well have heart problems.

    Heck, a friend of mine is vegetarian and does 200 mile bike rides. The picture of health right? If anyone could go bare it would be her? Sure, except that she took a spill off her bike and needed a $50,000 knee surgery.

    by elfling on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:15:01 AM PST

•  It is disturbing

  to hear that Susan Dentzer medical correspondent on The News Hour is linked with this group.

  by ctsteve on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 06:40:19 AM PST

  •  Disillusioned

    "It is disturbing to hear that Susan Dentzer medical correspondent on The News Hour is linked with this group."

    Yeah, I hear ya.  I've always stopped to listen when Snyderman and Bazell are making medical reporting statements on NBC.  They had creds with me.

    Not anymore.  Thank you, Eve, for doing so much to keep us informed about the ever-tightening health-care noose around us.

    (I had my own "medical emergency" on Friday.  I'm deathly allergic to bee stings.  And dammit, I got stung on my front porch last Friday afternoon.  I was prepared with my Epi Pen ($65.00 a shot, not covered by insurance), to use it if I had any symptoms of anaphalaxis.  However, the spouse panicked and called emergency rescue, so suddenly I had six (count 'em), six fire department personnel and 3 EMTs with ambulance coming through the door in 5 minutes.  I very fortunately did not have any allergic reaction to the sting (maybe I brushed the bee away before too much venom was injected).  But I'm sure I'll have a helluva ER bill to pay now. "Sorry, it's NOT COVERED!"  Junk insurance...)

    by sockpuppet on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 08:50:06 AM PST

•  Big bucks for speakers

  At $5,000 to $15,000 a pop, it is a nice supplement to an already inflated salary.  Moore is right.  It's about the 'me' in this country, not the 'we'.  And 'me' likes all that moolah.

  by Knut Wicksell on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 06:44:27 AM PST

•  Good article, but one detail

  Don't tell people that their health insurance is "junk insurance". They won't believe you. Most people in the U.S. who have insurance like their medical coverage. That is why people tend to support the status quo, and what allows insurance companies to repeatedly foil attempts to initiate universal health care.

  But there is a "hook"... health care costs. We are truly a selfish society. People don't care about other's health care. We tend to assume that they'll manage somehow (i.e. go to the emergency room, a wasteful and often ineffective solution to missing health care). We always assume that the bad stuff will happen to other guys. But we are all afraid of increasing medical insurance premiums. That hits us in the pocketbook, and instills fear that our employers will decide to make "us" insured people one the "those" non-insured people. We fear a major illness that makes us unable to work, so that we lose our coverage.

  by dianem on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 06:46:04 AM PST

  •  dianem, here's what I mean . . .

    When every year, we all receive staggering premium increasing, higher deductibles and co-pays, the insurance held by all of us, becomes increasingly worthless.

    This is why I call it junk insurance--because it is.

    To say nothing of the fact if God forbid you need to use it, the roadblocks put in our way by the for-profits are nightmarish and obscene.

    by nyceve on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 06:50:43 AM PST

    •  If you need to explain it, it's not a good term

      "sky-rocketing insurance" works wonderfully. People get it instantly. "Corrupt for-profit insurance companies" also works. "junk insurance" sounds like you think that the insurance we have is worthless, when our experience says otherwise. Americans know that their insurance coverage is good. Heck, they know that Americans have better medical coverage than any other nation (whether it's true or not).

      I love my insurance. It provides me with extensive medical care for a reasonable price. At the same time, I worry about rising prices and decreasing coverage. I worry about my mother getting adequate care (so far she has been treated very well). I worry about losing my job and my medical coverage. I worry about what will happen when I retire and have to cover medical insurance myself. How much will it cost? Will I be able to afford the coverage? The drugs? I don't worry about my plan not covering something, because it has never happened to me or anybody I know.

      Sorry, my point is just that if you want to reach people, you have to 1) use terms that mean to them what they mean to you and 2) identify their fears and respond to them.

      by dianem on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 07:29:24 AM PST

      •  People in Sicko thought they had good insurance

        too.  Then they got very sick and their insurance companies refused to pay.

        by Bob B on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 08:37:58 AM PST

        •  It's reality vs. perception

          People see what's around them. I don't know anybody who has had problems getting treated for medical problems due to insurance issues. My mother, who travels in senior citizen crowds, does not know anybody who has received less than stellar care. I know that there are cases where people were denied treatment, but how common are these? The truth is that most middle-class Americans have good medical coverage. The other truth is that we are a serious illness away from losing our coverage, and that more lose their coverage to spiraling health care costs every year, and that pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies record huge profits every year while millions of Americans rely on emergency rooms for basic medical care.

          We're not going to change medical care in the U.S. until we convince middle class Americans that it needs to be changed. And we won't do that by making arguments that they feel to be untrue. Most American's won't see Sicko. Their information will come from people like us who bother to keep informed about the issues. We need to have our arguments honed.

          by dianem on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 08:47:58 AM PST

          •  Question: who's your insurer - for profit or non?

            Your elderly friends are on a virtual single payer, Medicare, so it makes sense that they're not complaining. That's what we all need.

            I am covered by a staff-model nonprofit and so, like Medicare, no problem with care except for the  $1000/mon premiums. When I was employed and in a large group plan, same, at no monthly cost.

            So, while on a large group plan, you have a chance of satisfaction because your benefit administrator is running interference for you and is paying dearly for it. See the HR Admin's diaries here...

            However...you must either stay there or you must transition into the identical model or you will be uninsurable except for the high risk/high cost pools set up for the uninsurables. Your children today face fewer alternatives for employment with affordable health care: either a large corporation, the government, or the military.

            Most people on Daily Kos are covered by large group policies which can work fine for them, if they're lucky, unless and until they do one of the following: retire before the age of 65, quit to move to a small business, quit and open your own business, get laid off (or is it layed off???), have your job eliminated for some reason, or your company just plain can't afford the cost anymore.  

            by kck on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 12:57:07 PM PST

  •  It is junk, no matter what you have

    I supposedly have "good" insurance, but it's still based on a for-profit model that puts their bottom line ahead of my health.

    I have never put in a claim, but I know--even after having paid in for years--that they will fight me tooth and nail when I need them most, spending more on fighting the claim than paying it.  That's how the business model works.

    by CoolOnion on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 07:25:02 AM PST

    •  I have used my insurance

      Extensively, actually. I have bipolar disorder. I see a psychiatrist for medication, a regular therapist, and am involved in group therapy. I have regular mammograms and obgyn checks. I get notices when I need vaccinations, get regular blood tests for diabetes (which runs in my family), get free vaccinations, and am able to contact a nurse to get an appointment on a few hours/1 days notice when I have a minor problem. My mother is older, and she see's a doctor regularly, receiving treatment for numerous ailments. My husband is Canadian, and he says that our current health plan is comparable to what he had in Canada, except for the co-pays. He would like to see co-pays instituted in Canada.

      We are an example of everything that can go right with insurance, and we, or at least people like us, are the biggest obstacle to reform of the medical system. I have to admit that I am reluctant to change a system that is serving me so well. The only reasons I'm willing to change is that I don't like that so many Americans don't have any coverage, and the coverage of so many others is endangered due to rising costs and the inefficiency of our work-based insurance system. It also bothers me that anybody who gets really sick will lose their insurance because they can't work. I can understand why the insurance companies love employer based insurance, because it ensures that any really sick people will lose their coverage, but I can't understand why the general public stands for it.

      by dianem on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:00:17 AM PST

    •  Group insurance plans

      Purchased by an employer, are often quite well-behaved, especially for straightforward situations. It's the individual plans where most of the abuses occur.

      by elfling on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:19:42 AM PST

      •  No one should be tied to an employer

        We need universal health care, where you can change jobs, get laid off, whatever, and not have to worry about insurance or have to keep a job that you detest just for the health care.

        by CoolOnion on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 10:10:25 AM PST

  •  Another issue is

    that insurance really only covers us as long as the main breadwinner is healthy enough to work. If you get really sick or hurt, You're On Your Own.

    It doesn't matter how good your insurance is if you miss the premium on the first of the month, or if your employer is no longer covering you.

    by elfling on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:17:40 AM PST

    •  This is the hook that will change things

      Insurance companies can convince people that they provide a valuable service, that they are financially efficient (whethere they are or not), and that they will treat all of our ills. But they can't get rid of that nagging feeling that we all have that we are all very close to losing that wonderful coverage. If the health insurance system ever changes, it's going to be because people get sick of being dependent on employer based health care and demand more flexible coverage. First, though, we have to convince them that there are better options. As long as we have a meme that says that the United States has the best health care in the world, we won't be able to change anything.

      by dianem on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:25:19 AM PST

•  Here is email address for president of NBC News

  When MediaMatters exposed NBC's Jim Miklaszewski's being paid $30,000 to bash John Edwards (see http://mediamatters.org/... they suggested that people write to Steve Capus, the president of NBC News.

  Let's write to Capus about this conflict of interest, too!  His email address is: [e-mail]

  by Bob B on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 07:03:20 AM PST

•  In my opinion, we need Congress to pass laws

  concerning journalists' rights and conflicts of interest: Is their job not important to the public and contributes greatly towards a functioning democracy? Perhaps we should determine which activities journalists are to be prohibited from engaging in, which gifts they should be compelled by law to refuse?

  Furthermore, I believe that laws should determine the extent to which the owners are allowed to influence news coverage. They should also taxatively specify reasons for which journalists can be fired and their minimum wage. Journalists should also be able to influence their medium's policies.

  At least, that's my opiion on the matter in general. If we cannot ensure objective jounalism, can we truly make an informed choice. And don't talk to me about blogs replacing traditional media - that's a whole other story.    

  by Dauphin on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 07:03:32 AM PST

  •  Some congresscritters are so hot for definitions

    they can't resist the urge to re-define marriage, for example. I think there should be an official legal definition for purposes of the Fourth Amendment. In other words, if you want the constitutional protections, you have to meet the standards, like not taking money from outside sources that could influence your reporting, not serving as a shill for astroturf organizations to promote their hidden agendas (and keep those agendas hidden from the public).

    by carolita on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 11:58:05 AM PST

•  My email to NBC

  In the interest of "full disclosure," you need to tell viewers that your two medical reporters are on the speaker's bureau for AHIP, a lobbying group for the insurance industry (see AHIP http://www.ahip.org/... and are, therefore, biased regarding the issue of non-insurance based universal health care:

  Nancy Snyderman
  http://www.ahiphealthspeakers.org/...
  Robert Bazell
  http://www.ahiphealthspeakers.org/...

  When doing news reports on the benefits of universal health care, please find a spokesperson who is not connected with the insurance industry.  Also, please update the bios of Nancy Snyderman and Robert Bazell to reveal their associations with the health insurance industry.

  I'll also do one to PBS.

  by CoolOnion on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 07:13:30 AM PST

  •  My email to PBS

    In the interest of "full disclosure," you need to tell viewers that your medical reporter, Susan Dentzer, is on the speaker's bureau for AHIP, a lobbying group for the insurance industry (see AHIP http://www.ahip.org/... and is, therefore, biased regarding the issue of non-insurance based universal health care:

    Susan Dentzer
    http://www.ahiphealthspeakers.org/...

    When doing news reports on the benefits of universal health care, please find a spokesperson who works for the American people, not the insurance industry.  Also, please update Susan Dentzer's bio on your website, to reflect her conflict of interest.

    by CoolOnion on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 07:22:51 AM PST

    •  Thanks CoolOnion, I'm going to use . . .

      your excellent email as a template and send something similar.

      by nyceve on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 07:28:21 AM PST

•  Shame on you, George Halvorsin, shilling for AHIP

  Mr. Halvorson inherited an HMO that had as its first and foremost mission to service the community. What happened to change that long gone mission? Speaking in support of Kaiser Permanente's forprofit competition, and advocating against the best interests of the state's populations in need of health care, is an affront to the citizens of California. How and at what point does community responsibility enter into the equation any more? The  Governor should be reminded that the state has invested over 50 years of lost tax revenue on Kaiser Permanente's hospitals, facilities, billions in monthly billing, and, as one of the state's largest land owners, properties.

  What's the deal with this?

  George Halvorson Joins the Health Care Speakers Network
  George C. Halvorson is the chairman and chief executive officer of Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. and Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, which is headquartered in Oakland, CA.  Kaiser Permanente is the nation's largest nonprofit health plan, serving more than 8.4 million members in 9 states and the District of Columbia.  

  As a California taxpayer I ask, what's in this for me?

  by kck on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 07:29:52 AM PST

  •  Thanks kck, for outing . . .

    another shill

    I just focused on the "journalists",

    Anyone else who cares to out some of the other shills, that would be very welcome.

    by nyceve on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 07:45:22 AM PST

    •  OK

      Here's a few:

      Stuart Altman:

      Between 1971 and 1976, Professor Altman was Deputy Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation/Health at HEW. While serving in that position, he was one of the principal contributors to the development and advancement of the Administration's National Health Insurance proposal.

      Robert Brook:

      Robert H. Brook, M.D., Sc. D., is vice-president and director of RAND Health, and professor of Medicine and Health Services at the Center for Health Sciences at the University of California, Los Angeles, where he directs the Robert Wood Johnson Clinical Scholars Program.  A board-certified internist, he received his M.D. and Sc.D. degrees from Johns Hopkins University.  He has been on the medical school faculty at UCLA since 1974, and divides his research time between UCLA and RAND.

      Paul Ginsburg:

      Dr. Paul Ginsburg is President of the Center for Studying Health System Change (HSC).  Founded in 1995, HSC conducts research to inform policymakers and other audiences about changes in organization of financing and delivery of care and their effects on people.  Data are gathered through the Community Tracking Study, which includes surveys households and physicians and conducts site visits to interview health system leaders in 12 communities that are representative of the nation.  HSC is widely known for the objectivity and technical quality of its research and its success in communicating it to policy makers and the media as well as to the research community.  A sister organization to Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., HSC is funded principally by The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, but also receives funding from other foundations and from government agencies.

      Trisha Meili:

      Trisha Meili, known to the world as The Central Park Jogger, revealed her amazing story of survival and recovery 14 years later in her best-selling memoir I AM THE CENTRAL PARK JOGGER: A Story of Hope and Possibility.

      I cherry-picked, of course.  There are plenty of speakers in the bureau I would only go to see to boo: Gail Wilensky, for example; Richard Lamm, for another.

      by mspicata on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 08:50:25 AM PST

•  Thanks for the action item, nyceve.

  I will call and write to each one today. How low can these broadcasters go, lending the public airways to concealed shills.

  PBS! Sequestering our content from this brand of merchantilism and government intrusion is your raison d'etre, your platform, the reason WE GIVE YOU MONEY!

  by kck on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 07:35:11 AM PST

•  Most voters already have insurance?

  Well, they really don't need it, according to an LTE yesterday.

  Discussions about improving health care seem to revolve around making insurance available to more people. What we really need is health care itself accessible to more people.

  Experience shows us that insurance coverage will never keep up with escalating costs, so making it more available would only be a temporary fix. I think most of us would be OK paying for doctor visits, dental and vision care and everyday blood tests.
  What we can't afford is the $3,000 stress test every year; expensive, repeated diagnostic MRIs, or $200,000 hospital stays.

  Can someone in health care tell me why these things are so expensive?

  http://www.dallasnews.com/...

  by Catte Nappe on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 07:38:24 AM PST

•  Thank you for this information...(more)

  Looks like we have to start making a database of MSM and even Public Radio reporters who have ties to industries and lobbying groups.  

  I'm glad you posted this info because it shows us that MSM, besides being owned by corporations, employs staff that have conflicting interests as well.

  I always mention NPR in these matters, because of how NPR and NPR stations are funded---corporate money via underwriting and outright grants.  Yes, individuals make pledges, and this is important too, but I can tell you that there's nothing like getting a call from a major underwriter or grantor who complains about a program or a news item and threatens to withdraw support---boy is that fun to deal with.  

  by quantumspin on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 07:41:52 AM PST

  •  You can add faculty "experts" to that database

    I know way more than my share of faculty, particularly economics and business administration faculty members, who have no problem taking two-week all-expense-paid junkets to Europe to speak for 15 minutes at an industry-sponsored "health care symposium."

    by carolita on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 12:04:13 PM PST

•  Before we go crazy here...

  Here's some background.  This is a 2006 press release announcing the formation of the network.  It's a partnership between AHIP and Leading Authorities, Inc., a preeminent speaker's bureau -- and an equal opportunity one, at that: They book Arianna Huffington as well as Dan Bartlett.  This may be exactly what we suspect it to be, or it may simply be that AHIP paid a fee to Leading Authorities to have their name grace a bureau.  Our focus ought to be on Leading Authorites, and the question should be: Does AHIP have any creative influence over the speakers?

  by mspicata on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 07:46:08 AM PST

  •  Thank you as always, mspicata . . .

    Who's arguing about Leading Authorities--not me.

    We're talking about these "journalists" being a part of the AHIP Speakers Network. These people are on the AHIP web site.

    Who cares if Leading Authorities books Arianna and Dan Bartlett.

    by nyceve on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 07:58:19 AM PST

    •  Then you're missing my point

      If AHIP is simply looking for credibility by lending their name to this network, and Leading Authorities does all the booking and vetting, then there's pretty much no issue here.

      by mspicata on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 08:06:12 AM PST

•  Most people don't care about health care until

  they or their spouse or their child is sick. Until it becomes personal, we don't think about getting sick.

  I know several families that are uninsured and have been for years because they can't pay premiums. Their children get their vaccinations late and usually from the health department. One family lost all of their savings when the mother broke her wrist. Now the father has high blood pressure. Now they want insurance and can't get it because their entire family is considered uninsurable.

  This system is unconscionable.

  by JDWolverton on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 08:01:43 AM PST

  •  therein lies my hope in Sicko

    The catastrophic system of delivering medical care in this country touches the majority of people, I think. Even the insured often have to contend with insurance companies. That's why I think Sicko will have a serious impact on the next election. I sure hope it does.

    by DrReason on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 12:19:14 PM PST

•  Thanks, nyceve, as always.

  Regarding healthcare reform, here's my usual pitch. You ready?

  Despair about the awful reality of healthcare in America, I very well understand.

  But as long as we think they're unbeatable, the bastards win. From progressives, I have heard far too much, "The health-insurance lobby and the pharmaceutical companies have all the money. They have all the power. We are never going to get anywhere, reforming healthcare." You know what? I am so sick of it, it  makes me want to scream.

  The way to beat AHIP and their evil minions, to finally have cost-effective government-funded universal healthcare, is to build a simply phenomenal grassroots movement. The way to build this grassroots movement is to involve everybody, all progressives and would-be progressives.

  Get involved in your local single-payer lobby, kicking in what you can afford. In California, that would be the campaign for SB 840, a single-payer healthcare bill out of the state senate. In the rest of the country, you can get behind HR 676, Conyers' single-payer bill in the U.S. Congress.

  It doesn't take much. You fit your activism around the rest of your life. Find a few minutes here and there to make phone calls or send emails, no matter how busy you are. Stop by a local rally.

  The only way to bring down for-profit healthcare funding is to make a lot of noise, an unseemly racket the MSM and the politicians can't drown out.

  by karmsy on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 08:18:38 AM PST

  •  There is another bill

    called H.R. 1200.

    SEC. 201. COMPREHENSIVE BENEFITS (0 / 0)
    (a) In General- Subject to the succeeding provisions of this title, individuals enrolled for benefits under this Act are entitled to have payment made under a State health security program for the following items and services if medically necessary or appropriate for the maintenance of health or for the diagnosis, treatment, or rehabilitation of a health condition:

    (1) HOSPITAL SERVICES- Inpatient and outpatient hospital care, including 24-hour-a-day emergency services.

    (2) PROFESSIONAL SERVICES- Professional services of health care practitioners authorized to provide health care services under State law, including patient education and training in self-management techniques.

    (3) COMMUNITY-BASED PRIMARY HEALTH SERVICES- Community-based primary health services (as defined in section 202(a)).

    (4) PREVENTIVE SERVICES- Preventive services (as defined in section 202(b)).

    (5) LONG-TERM, ACUTE, AND CHRONIC CARE SERVICES-

    (A) Nursing facility services.

    (B) Home health services.

    (C) Home and community-based long-term care services (as defined in section 202(c)) for individuals described in section 203(a).

    (D) Hospice care.

    (E) Services in intermediate care facilities for individuals with mental retardation.

    (6) PRESCRIPTION DRUGS, BIOLOGICALS, INSULIN, MEDICAL FOODS-

    (A) Outpatient prescription drugs and biologics, as specified by the Board consistent with section 615.

    (B) Insulin.

    (C) Medical foods (as defined in section 202(e)).

    (7) DENTAL SERVICES- Dental services (as defined in section 202(h)).

    (8) MENTAL HEALTH AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT SERVICES- Mental health and substance abuse treatment services (as defined in section 202(f)).

    (9) DIAGNOSTIC TESTS- Diagnostic tests.

    (10) OTHER ITEMS AND SERVICES-

    (A) OUTPATIENT THERAPY- Outpatient physical therapy services, outpatient speech pathology services, and outpatient occupational therapy services in all settings.

    (B) DURABLE MEDICAL EQUIPMENT- Durable medical equipment.

    (C) HOME DIALYSIS- Home dialysis supplies and equipment.

    (D) AMBULANCE- Emergency ambulance service.

    (E) PROSTHETIC DEVICES- Prosthetic devices, including replacements of such devices.

    (F) ADDITIONAL ITEMS AND SERVICES- Such other medical or health care items or services as the Board may specify.

    (b) Cost-Sharing-

    (1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in this subsection, there are no deductibles, coinsurance, or copayments applicable to acute care and preventive benefits provided under this title.

    (2) COST-SHARING FOR LONG-TERM CARE SERVICES-

    (A) IN GENERAL-

    (i) payments for home and community-based long-term care services are subject to coinsurance of 20 percent; and

    (ii) payments for nursing facility services are subject to coinsurance of 35 percent.

    (B) EXCEPTION- With respect to the coinsurance established under subparagraph (A)--

    (i) such coinsurance shall not apply to an individual with income (as defined by the Secretary) of not more than 100 percent of the income official poverty line applicable to a family of the size involved; and

    (ii) in the case of an individual with such income that exceeds 100 percent, but is less than 200 percent, of such applicable poverty line, the coinsurance shall be reduced in the same proportion as the proportion of such income is less than 200 percent of such applicable poverty line.

    (c) Prohibition of Balance Billing- As provided in section 531, no person may impose a charge for covered services for which benefits are provided under this Act.

    (d) No Duplicate Health Insurance- Each State health security program shall prohibit the sale of health insurance in the State if payment under the insurance duplicates payment for any items or services for which payment may be made under such a program.

    (e) State Program May Provide Additional Benefits- Nothing in this Act shall be construed as limiting the benefits that may be made available under a State health security program to residents of the State at the expense of the State.

    (f) Employers May Provide Additional Benefits- Nothing in this Act shall be construed as limiting the additional benefits that an employer may provide to employees or their dependents, or to former employees or their dependents.

    SPECIFIED PREVENTIVE SERVICES (0 / 0)
    (A) Basic immunizations.

    (B) Prenatal and well-baby care (for infants under 1 year of age).

    (C) Well-child care (including periodic physical examinations, hearing and vision screening, and developmental screening and examinations) for individuals under 18 years of age.

    (D) Periodic screening mammography, Pap smears, and colorectal examinations and examinations for prostate cancer.

    (E) Physical examinations.

    (F) Family planning services.

    (G) Routine eye examinations, eyeglasses, and contact lenses.

    (H) Hearing aids, but only upon a determination of a certified audiologist or physician that a hearing problem exists and is caused by a condition that can be corrected by use of a hearing aid.

    Dental Services (0 / 0)
    (1) IN GENERAL- In this title, subject to subsection (b), the term `dental services' means the following:

    (A) Emergency dental treatment, including extractions, for bleeding, pain, acute infections, and injuries to the maxillofacial region.

    (B) Prevention and diagnosis of dental disease, including examinations of the hard and soft tissues of the oral cavity and related structures, radiographs, dental sealants, fluorides, and dental prophylaxis.

    (C) Treatment of dental disease, including non-cast fillings, periodontal maintenance services, and endodontic services.

    (D) Space maintenance procedures to prevent orthodontic complications.

    (E) Orthodontic treatment to prevent severe malocclusions.

    (F) Full dentures.

    (G) Medically necessary oral health care.

    (H) Any items and services for special needs patients that are not described in subparagraphs (A) through (G) and that--

    (i) are required to provide such patients the items and services described in subparagraphs (A) through (G);

    (ii) are required to establish oral function (including general anesthesia for individuals with physical or emotional limitations that prevent the provision of dental care without such anesthesia);

    (iii) consist of orthodontic care for severe dentofacial abnormalities; or

    (iv) consist of prosthetic dental devices for genetic or birth defects or fitting for such devices.

    (I) Any dental care for individuals with a seizure disorder that is not described in subparagraphs (A) through (H) and that is required because of an illness, injury, disorder, or other health condition that results from such seizure disorder.

    Mental Health (0 / 0)
    and Substance Abuse Treatment Services-

    (1) SERVICES DESCRIBED- In this title, the term `mental health and substance abuse treatment services' means the following services related to the prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and rehabilitation of mental illness and promotion of mental health:

    (A) INPATIENT HOSPITAL SERVICES- Inpatient hospital services furnished primarily for the diagnosis or treatment of mental illness or substance abuse for up to 60 days during a year, reduced by a number of days determined by the Secretary so that the actuarial value of providing such number of days of services under this paragraph to the individual is equal to the actuarial value of the days of inpatient residential services furnished to the individual under subparagraph (B) during the year after such services have been furnished to the individual for 120 days during the year (rounded to the nearest day), but only if (with respect to services furnished to an individual described in section 204(b)(1)) such services are furnished in conformity with the plan of an organized system of care for mental health and substance abuse services in accordance with section 204(b)(2).

    (B) INTENSIVE RESIDENTIAL SERVICES- Intensive residential services (as defined in paragraph (2)) furnished to an individual for up to 120 days during any calendar year, except that--

    (i) such services may be furnished to the individual for additional days during the year if necessary for the individual to complete a course of treatment to the extent that the number of days of inpatient hospital services described in subparagraph (A) that may be furnished to the individual during the year (as reduced under such subparagraph) is not less than 15; and

    (ii) reduced by a number of days determined by the Secretary so that the actuarial value of providing such number of days of services under this paragraph to the individual is equal to the actuarial value of the days of intensive community-based services furnished to the individual under subparagraph (D) during the year after such services have been furnished to the individual for 90 days (or, in the case of services described in subparagraph (D)(ii), for 180 days) during the year (rounded to the nearest day).

    (C) OUTPATIENT SERVICES- Outpatient treatment services of mental illness or substance abuse (other than intensive community-based services under subparagraph (D)) for an unlimited number of days during any calendar year furnished in accordance with standards established by the Secretary for the management of such services, and, in the case of services furnished to an individual described in section 204(b)(1) who is not an inpatient of a hospital, in conformity with the plan of an organized system of care for mental health and substance abuse services in accordance with section 204(b)(2).

    (D) INTENSIVE COMMUNITY-BASED SERVICES- Intensive community-based services (as described in paragraph (3))--

    (i) for an unlimited number of days during any calendar year, in the case of services described in section 1861(ff)(2)(E) that are furnished to an individual who is a seriously mentally ill adult, a seriously emotionally disturbed child, or an adult or child with serious substance abuse disorder (as determined in accordance with criteria established by the Secretary);

    (ii) in the case of services described in section 1861(ff)(2)(C), for up to 180 days during any calendar year, except that such services may be furnished to the individual for a number of additional days during the year equal to the difference between the total number of days of intensive residential services which the individual may receive during the year under part A (as determined under subparagraph (B)) and the number of days of such services which the individual has received during the year; or

    (iii) in the case of any other such services, for up to 90 days during any calendar year, except that such services may be furnished to the individual for the number of additional days during the year described in clause (ii).

    (2) INTENSIVE RESIDENTIAL SERVICES DEFINED-

    (A) IN GENERAL- Subject to subparagraphs (B) and (C), the term `intensive residential services' means inpatient services provided in any of the following facilities:

    (i) Residential detoxification centers.

    (ii) Crisis residential programs or mental illness residential treatment programs.

    (iii) Therapeutic family or group treatment homes.

    (iv) Residential centers for substance abuse treatment.

    (B) REQUIREMENTS FOR FACILITIES- No service may be treated as an intensive residential service under subparagraph (A) unless the facility at which the service is provided--

    (i) is legally authorized to provide such service under the law of the State (or under a State regulatory mechanism provided by State law)

    SEC. 631. MANDATORY ASSIGNMENT (0 / 0)
    (a) No Balance Billing- Payments for benefits under this Act shall constitute payment in full for such benefits and the entity furnishing an item or service for which payment is made under this Act shall accept such payment as payment in full for the item or service and may not accept any payment or impose any charge for any such item or service other than accepting payment from the State health security program in accordance with this Act.

    (b) Enforcement- If an entity knowingly and willfully bills for an item or service or accepts payment in violation of subsection (a), the Board may apply sanctions against the entity in the same manner as sanctions could have been imposed under section 1842(j)(2) of the Social Security Act for a violation of section 1842(j)(1) of such Act. Such sanctions are in addition to any sanctions that a State may impose under its State health security program.

    SEC. 615. PAYMENTS FOR PRESCRIPTION DRUGS (0 / 0)
    (a) Establishment of List-

    (1) IN GENERAL- The Board shall establish a list of approved prescription drugs and biologicals that the Board determines are necessary for the maintenance or restoration of health or of employability or self-management and eligible for coverage under this Act.

    (2) EXCLUSIONS- The Board may exclude reimbursement under this Act for ineffective, unsafe, or over-priced products where better alternatives are determined to be available.

    (b) Prices- For each such listed prescription drug or biological covered under this Act, for insulin, and for medical foods, the Board shall from time to time determine a product price or prices which shall constitute the maximum to be recognized under this Act as the cost of a drug to a provider thereof. The Board may conduct negotiations, on behalf of State health security programs, with product manufacturers and distributors in determining the applicable product price or prices.

    (c) Charges by Independent Pharmacies- Each State health security program shall provide for payment for a prescription drug or biological or insulin furnished by an independent pharmacy based on the drug's cost to the pharmacy (not in excess of the applicable product price established under subsection (b)) plus a dispensing fee. In accordance with standards established by the Board, each State health security program, after consultation with representatives of the pharmaceutical profession, shall establish schedules of dispensing fees, designed to afford reasonable compensation to independent pharmacies after taking into account variations in their cost of operation resulting from regional differences, differences in the volume of prescription drugs dispensed, differences in services provided, the need to maintain expenditures within the budgets established under this title, and other relevant factors.

    Taxes (0 / 0)
    SEC. 811. PAYROLL TAX ON EMPLOYERS.

    (a) In General- Section 3111 (relating to tax on employers) is amended by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d) and inserting after subsection (b) the following new subsection:

    `(c) Health Care- In addition to other taxes, there is hereby imposed on every employer an excise tax, with respect to having individuals in his employ, equal to 8.7 percent of the wages (as defined in section 3121(a)) paid by him with respect to employment (as defined in section 3121(b)).'.

    (b) Self-Employment Income- Section 1401 (relating to rate of tax on self-employment income) is amended by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d) and inserting after subsection (b) the following new subsection:

    `(c) Health Care- In addition to other taxes, there shall be imposed for each taxable year, on the self-employment income of every individual, a tax equal to 8.7 percent of the amount of the self-employment income for such taxable year.'.

    (c) Comparable Taxes for Railroad Services-

    (1) TAX ON EMPLOYERS- Section 3221 is amended by redesignating subsection (c) as subsections (d) and inserting after subsection (b) the following new subsection:

    `(c) Health Care- In addition to other taxes, there is hereby imposed on every employer an excise tax, with respect to having individuals in his employ, equal to 8.7 percent of the compensation paid by such employer for services rendered to such employer.'.

    (2) TAX ON EMPLOYEE REPRESENTATIVES- Section 3211 (relating to tax on employee representatives) is amended by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d) and inserting after subsection (b) the following new paragraph:

    `(c) Health Care- In addition to other taxes, there is hereby imposed on the income of each employee representative a tax equal to 8.7 percent of the compensation received during the calendar year by such employee representative for services rendered by such employee representative.'.

    (3) NO APPLICABLE BASE- Subparagraph (A) of section 3231(e)(2) is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new clause:

    `(iv) HEALTH CARE TAXES- Clause (i) shall not apply to the taxes imposed by sections 3221(c) and 3211(c).'.

    (4) TECHNICAL AMENDMENT-

    (A) Subsection (d) of section 3211, as redesignated by paragraph (2), is amended by striking `and (b)' and inserting `, (b), and (c)'.

    (B) Subsection (d) of section 3221, as redesignated by paragraph (1), is amended by striking `and (b)' and inserting `, (b), and (c)'.

    (d) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall apply to remuneration paid after December 31, 2008.

    SEC. 812. HEALTH CARE INCOME TAX.

    (a) General Rule- Subchapter A of chapter 1 (relating to determination of tax liability) is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new part:

    `PART VIII--HEALTH CARE INCOME TAX ON INDIVIDUALS

    `Sec. 59B. Health care income tax.

    `SEC. 59B. HEALTH CARE INCOME TAX.

    `(a) Imposition of Tax- In the case of an individual, there is hereby imposed a tax (in addition to any other tax imposed by this subtitle) equal to 2.2 percent of the taxable income of the taxpayer for the taxable year.

    `(b) No Credits Against Tax; No Effect on Minimum Tax- The tax imposed by this section shall not be treated as a tax imposed by this chapter for purposes of determining--

    `(1) the amount of any credit allowable under this chapter, or

    `(2) the amount of the minimum tax imposed by section 55.

    `(c) Special Rules-

    `(1) TAX TO BE WITHHELD, ETC- For purposes of this title, the tax imposed by this section shall be treated as imposed by section 1.

    `(2) REIMBURSEMENT OF TAX BY EMPLOYER NOT INCLUDIBLE IN GROSS INCOME- The gross income of an employee shall not include any payment by his employer to reimburse the employee for the tax paid by the employee under this section.

    `(3) OTHER RULES- The rules of section 59A(d) shall apply to the tax imposed by this section.'.

    (b) Clerical Amendment- The table of parts for subchapter A of chapter 1 is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

    `Part VIII. Health Care Income Tax on Individuals.'.

    (c) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2008.

    Subtitle C--Increase in Excise Taxes on Tobacco Products

    SEC. 821. INCREASE IN EXCISE TAXES ON TOBACCO PRODUCTS.

    To learn more visit:
    http://thomas.loc.gov/...

    by SingleVoter on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 01:39:44 PM PST

    •  Thanks, SingleVoter

      Now, I wish you'd summarize this bill, to make it more readable. And in your brief summary (of, say, one paragraph), include who's sponsoring the bill, and where it's originating.

      That would be very helpful.

      by karmsy on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 01:56:41 PM PST

•  This is outrageous

  Thank you for unearthing this extraordinary conflict of interest.

  Strongly recommended.

  by Frederick Clarkson on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:17:15 AM PST

•  I am constantly amazed

  Trying to reform this system means confronting toxic tendrils from the industry everywhere.  Lobbyists, journalists, doctors, politicians, and policy makers all drinking from the golden trough and willing to do everything possible to protect profit margins and stock prices of the insurance and pharmaceutical companies.  What a terrible situation.  I expect graft and a lack of integrity from lobbyists and politicians, but journalists and medical care professionals are supposed to be above the fray, willing to expose and demand accountability from the corporations, and looking to protect the welfare of the American people.  

  I wonder if conflict of interest ceases to exist if journalists view their role as protecting the interests of the corporations rather than the American people.

  by DWG on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:24:48 AM PST

  •  Deregulation and suspending

    the 'fairness' doctrine, not to mention that all regulatory agencies are run by the foxes not the hens.
    Wish this aspect of reform were more of an issue campaign wise, as capitalism run amok serves no one but the rich.

    by shaharazade on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 11:27:29 AM PST

    •  Well put

      Capitalism run amok serves no one but the rich.

      by DWG on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 01:03:05 PM PST

•  Sanjay Gupta's hit piece

  the other day had the look and feel of a bought and paid for video press release.  I've gotten pretty good at spoting VPR's on the local news.  I don't know it for a fact, but I'd take the bet that Dr. Gupta had a lot of help producing and writing that BS piece against SICKO.  In fact, I'd wager the entire thing was written by industry PR folks.

  by TexH on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 10:27:17 AM PST

•  Important diary, thanks for posting it. n/t

  by pidge not midge on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 11:19:03 AM PST

•  I find it hard

  to convince my 'liberal' friends even the ones of low income that universal health care is not a suspect socialist and unamerican concept. The free market myth is hard to pierce. I listened to PBS for ten years it was my only news source. In the 90's it started becoming more and more corporate and even science Friday became so compromised that it was nothing more then marketing for corporate technology. It felt like old times emailing them again. This time I was calmer as I don't expect anything from them but elitist propaganda disguised as civil debate.  

  by shaharazade on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 11:20:02 AM PST

•  Nina Totenberg

  I had a similar reaction when I heard "Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me" on Saturday. With US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald as a guest, they played audio of Nina Totenberg playing along that she was miffed that after months of covering the Libby trial -- and giving up paid speaking engagements -- that Peter Sagal was able to get microphone time with the Fitzman before she.

  I've often wondered what sort of self-censoring effect just the prospect of gaining, or losing, speaking income has on DC journalists and how willing they are to take on the establishment.

  This isn't intended as an attack on Totenberg, whose reports I value very much. But I think there should be some discussion and soul-searching regarding how much money journalists who cover the country's power structure should be taking from it on the side.

  by chapel hill guy on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 11:22:51 AM PST

•  Lift up the rocks

  and watch the bugs scurry around. Thanks, NYCeve!!

  Lets hope they all go "Down with the AHIP" (type intentional).

  by dnamj on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 11:36:36 AM PST

•  Death Eaters, every last one!

  Whether they do the deed or not, they all have the mark!

  Maybe that's why some of the far-right evangelicals don't like Harry Potter?

  by thingamabob on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 11:39:06 AM PST

•  Kudos, Eve. n/t

  by Meteor Blades on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 11:58:34 AM PST

•  I love this particular weasel phrase...

  "...some analysts say..." as in:

  "All the talk about creating universal coverage has obscured the fact that most voters already have insurance, some analysts say, and what they are most concerned about is..."

  I'm curious about who would say that, or who actually said it, if anyone actually did.

  Is this a point that was made in a well-researched article that was published in a respectable journal, you know, one that would include endnotes and citations?

  Or, was some analyst holding forth drunkenly at a cocktail party, trying to pick up the attractive woman in the low-cut dress who arrived by herself, and threw this in as a way to impress?

  Or, did some AHIP marketing/PR flunky dream this up at a brainstorming session?

  It's hard to figure.

  I certainly also agree with your upstream comment, Eve, that the traditional print and broadcast media is dying, and that its participants fear losing the money and perks that have come to them too easily for too long.

  They can't handle two-way conversations, they don't want to be held responsible and accountable for what they say and write (or, as you point out, for the lucrative side gigs that they whore themselves out for).

  So, they're gonna dig in with both heels and all ten well-manicured fingernails, and fight it every step of the way.

  Well, I say Fuck Sanjay Gupta and his ilk. If he's such a hot shit neurosurgeon, as Wolfie likes to remind his viewers so often, then why isn't he drilling holes in skulls or fusing vertebrae?

  See you in Chicago ;^)

  by RubDMC on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 12:41:01 PM PST

  •  Rub, would you want to have . . .

    Sanjay burrowing deep into you brain?!

    Not me. Rather have him lying on CNN.

    by nyceve on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 12:44:11 PM PST

    •  I think it's a question of...

      ...where he might do less harm. Hard to tell.

      I work with neurosurgeons every day. I have no illusions. Nobody wants their brain burrowed into by anybody.

      Unless it might help.

      For the record, most neurosurgeons don't even touch brains. There's more work, more money, and a lot less risk in working on their spines. We're all getting older, and our spines are getting brittle.

      Drink your milk.

      by RubDMC on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 12:51:21 PM PST

•  You are too young to remember but there was the

  same media frenzy in 1948 when Truman tried to push National Health Care after the war.

  Then it was branded as a communist plot seeking to destroy the "Sacred Doctor Patient Relationship".

  We were basically manipulated by everyone we thought we could trust and by my estimation it has cost just under 9 million unnecessary deaths over the past 59 years.

  Possibly global warming is really caused by the over heating of Hell Fire as these scumbags have died over the years and gone to their just reward.

  But then that couldn't really happen because we now have it on good authority  that God is actually a Neo Con too.

  Keep fighting the good fight. I can sense that the battle is turning.

  by rontripp on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 12:44:06 PM PST

•  do these "journalists"

  belong to the Society of Professional Journalists?

  If there are any members around here, please file complaints of professional misconduct against them over obvious conflicts of interest.

  While it won't get them fired, it may embarrass them. If they're capable of being embarrassed.

  by alizard on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 02:37:54 PM PST

•  thanks for a great diary, nyceve

  I'm pleased this diary created such a welcome response. Thanks for all your work.

  by QuickSilver on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 11:30:24 AM PST

•  well done guys

  by McJagger on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 11:42:33 AM PST

•  "for-profit junk insurance"

  I wish someone (Obama? Edwards? Dodd?) would use this kind of pithy language to describe the current situation.

  NYCEVE FOR PRESIDENT!

  :)

  by mftalbot on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 01:16:09 PM PST