About This Blog
If the cost of health care continues to rise in America, who will it hurt the most?
It won't be the wealthy, they will be able to continue to afford medical coverage, because...they're rich.
It won't be the poorest or the seniors. Medicaid and Medicare will still cover those two most vulnerable groups.
That leaves the rest of us, those who work for a living, those who aren't wealthy, earn too much to be on Medicaid and are too young for Medicare. If private health insurance costs continue to rise, along with deductibles and co-pays....as they have been for a number of years....working families will be hurt the most.
It's Labor Day, 2009 and it has become clear that the forces behind driving health care costs even higher are winning the propaganda wars against American workers.
And the main media has been the biggest reason why those forces are winning.
The AB Journal chose to print not one, but two, AP articles today....BY THE SAME WRITER, and on the same topic....the health care "debate". One is "analysis", one is, I guess, "news". Both are full of anti-health care reform propaganda.
The AP writer, Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, in his "analysis" piece tells readers there are three distinct groups with three different ideas about health care reform. Read how ole' Ricardo interprets these three arbitrarily-constructed groups.
"Democrats — and liberals in particular — want heroic measures and large-scale intervention. They think the legislation needs big new ideas such as a public insurance plan that would have government offering coverage to middle-class workers and their families."
Here's a compiliation of polls taken using variations of the "do you support a public option" in a health care reform package.
As early as June, 72% of Americans favored a public option. But to the AP "journalist", it's particularly Democratic "liberals" who favor such "heroic measures and big new ideas" like...umm..."a public insurance plan."
Zaldivar, instead of explaining that a majority of Americans would like to see a public option included in the bill....claims, and without proof, that only the "liberals" in Congress, those who have silly stars in their eyes, those who are childish enough to want "heroic measures" passed, are the only players who stubbornly insist on this cockamamie "big new idea."
The second group the AP's Zaldivar defines are the Republicans....
"Republicans want a conservative treatment to relieve the worst symptoms of America's health-care malaise. They're proposing help for small-business owners and the self-employed, and some GOP lawmakers probably could go along with expanding current programs that cover the poorest of the poor. But no new government plan and no guarantees that everyone would be covered."
Actually, the two "worst symptoms" of America's health care are 1) the high number of uninsured and 2) health care costs, including health insurance, are too expensive. According to Zaldivar, because no further explanation is offered, the "worst symptoms" could be what Republicans say are the "worst symptoms". The poor, small business owners and the self-employed need some changes made...but that's about it. This, of course, is preposterous, but Zaldivar leaves it at that.
The third group, and this is where the AP writer tips his biased hand, is made up of "moderates".....
"A third group, including moderates from both parties, supports a holistic approach that would put the country firmly on track to coverage for all. They believe government should help some middle-class people through subsidies for private coverage, but that a federal insurance plan isn't needed. Some are willing to include malpractice changes that appeal to conservatives."
Nancy Pelosi and the House Democrats have made it clear that a bill will not pass the House without the inclusion of a public option. So where are these "moderates" the AP's Zaldivar speaks about? Who is in this "third group" and why would a "journalist" call what that third group supports a "holistic approach?"
This "third group" only exists in the minds of the Villagers. To Zaldivar, the Senate's ludicrous Gang of Six senators on the Finance Committee is the only group sensible enough to take a "holistic approach", a grand compromise, Solomon-splitting-the-baby-in-half, full-of-wisdom, approach to health care reform. This "holistic" take on health care, oh-so-sensible in it's bare-bones simplicity, is to tinker around the edges of the status quo system.
The Gang of Six is made up of 3 Republican senators, 3 Democrats. Taken together they represent 2.7% of America's entire population. TWO POINT SEVEN PERCENT.
See how the Villagers do it?
One group has "large scale intervention" and "heroic" ideas for reforming health care, ideas supported by a majority of Americans....but tsk, tsk,....poor dears, that group means well but, you know, they're mostly "liberal" with national health care sugar-plums dancing in their silly little heads. The AP writer fails to ever mention that a majority of Americans voted for, and still want, "heroic" ideas implemented, ideas like a public insurance option. That didn't fit the writer's pre-determined framing.
The second group is made up of Republicans. They are the grownups who only want to "relieve the worst symptoms". No clarification or fact-checking by the writer is done to prove the claim that only a small group of poor and self-employed people bear the brunt of these "worst symptoms", but there it is.
The Goldilocks third group, the one the Villager Zaldivar thinks is just right, the group which "supports a holistic approach", definitely the writer's preferred group, is made up of 6 senators representing 2.7% of Americans.
It's Labor Day. Republicans, some Democrats and the Villagers want those who labor in America to pay more and get less when it comes to health care. Conservatives and media-moderate-pretenders will do anything they can possibly do to maintain the status quo profits of big medical industry corporate players, by suggesting feckless tinkering around the edges.
Those who actually represent the view of the American people, those in favor of a public option, are just oh-so-Unserious "liberals" with "heroic" intentions and "big new ideas".....but they are just so silly and so out of touch, they can't be taken seriously.