Too Many People Are Going to Have Insurance?


Fox News Channel
Fox News Channel (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Too Many People Are Going to Have Insurance?

Are we scraping the bottom of the barrel of Anti Obamacare arguments? Is that all that’s left? Too many people are going to have insurance (and doctors may be paid less?)?

“There’s too much health insurance.” He says. Where? When?

I myself have been denied benefits in circumstances I would have not thought possible. And my friends have as good or better stories than mine.

It must be nice to live in his world and get up in the morning and be outraged by people getting “too much health insurance.”

James Pilant

Fox News’ Dr. Siegel: Too Many People Have Health Insurance Under Obamacare

On The Hannity show last night, yet another in a zillion Fox News segments designed to trash the Affordable Care Act “Obamacare”, Fox News contributor Dr. Marc Siegel revealed that his number one concern was not how well the ACA covers his patients or even how affordable it is but that too many people will wind up with health insurance. And that inconveniences him and the “haves” he treats.Siegel said:Before they started this, we were all in trouble with insurance to begin with. There’s too much health insurance. It covers too much. Too many people have it and they can’t in my office to see me. I’m full. …I can’t see all these people.There’s a shortage of doctors. So what do they do? They’re going to pay us less.So the answer is less health care? So Dr. Siegel won’t be inconvenienced and/or get paid less? Doesn’t this violate the Hippocratic Oath?

via Fox News’ Dr. Siegel: Too Many People Have Health Insurance Under Obamacare VIDEO –.

From around the web.

From the web site, Health Care for All California.

http://healthcareforallsfv.wordpress.com/2013/10/01/even-fox-news-cant-tarnish-the-positives-involved-in-the-aca-obamacare/

The Fox News article then goes on to claim that jobs are being hurt by the ACA. By the “employer mandate” specifically. A mandate that will not even go into effect until 2015 and may be significantly changed before then. The Obama administration and others know it is a flawed portion of the law. This is widely agreed upon. Which is why it has been delayed. To claim that anyone lost a job or job hours due to a mandate that doesn’t yet exist is ludicrous. In fact, the Investor’s Business Daily “study” that claims that over 300 employers cut employees or employee hours due to the mandate is either based on hearsay OR has links that actually admit that no work hours have been cut BECAUSE the mandate has been delayed (for example, the so-called evidence provided for Biola University cutting employee hours. Which it has not. Because the mandate has been delayed).

And Fox News AGAIN inadvertently reiterates the argument that insurance should not be tied to employment.

We will be sure to reference this FoxNews.com article frequently to show why we need Single-Payer in California and beyond.

Hannity Obamacare Attack Non-factual


Fair & Balanced graphic used in 2005
Fair & Balanced graphic used in 2005 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

Hannity Obamacare Attack Non-factual

 

Lies, Damned Lies, and Fox News – NYTimes.com

 

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/19/lies-damned-lies-and-fox-news/?_r=0

 

The other day Sean Hannity featured some Real Americans telling tales of how they have been hurt by Obamacare. So Eric Stern, who used to work for Brian Schweitzer, had a bright idea: he actually called Hannity’s guests, to get the details.

 

Sure enough, the businessman who claimed that Obamacare was driving up his costs, forcing him to lay off workers, only has four employees — meaning that Obamacare has no effect whatsoever on his business. The two families complaining about soaring premiums haven’t actually checked out what’s on offer, and Stern estimates that they would in fact see major savings.

 

You have to wonder about the mindset of people who go on national TV to complain about how they’re suffering from a program based on nothing but what they think they heard somewhere. You might also wonder about what kind of alleged news show features such people without any check on their bona fides. But then again, consider the network.

 

via Lies, Damned Lies, and Fox News – NYTimes.com.

 

I’m kinda’ in the same boat here with Paul Krugman. A major television network does three interviews with couples explaining that Obamacare costs more than what they had before without any actual knowledge of what their costs would be. An analysis of what they said and later interviews convincingly suggests that all of them would save money under the program. Someone is falling down on the job here.

 

Doesn’t the concept of a “news” imply knowledge? .. at least a little knowledge?

 

As a matter of business ethics, it’s very similar to skipping interviewing actual participants in an event because you don’t want to drive that far. Why do your job when it’s hard? Why work up intelligent news coverage when half-done and half-baked with do?

 

In short, this is a spectacular ethics failure. Interviewing people who don’t know anything about an important subject and acting as if what they are saying is factual is unethical unless your intent is to purely mislead.

 

James Pilant

 

From around the web.

 

From the web site, The Secular Jurist.

 

http://thesecularjurist.wordpress.com/2013/10/19/fox-news-obamacare-victims-werent-at-all-victimized-by-obamacare/

 

A recent Obamacare special on Fox News’ Hannity illuminated the
network’s political bias, pattern of misinformation, and questionable
use of anecdotal evidence, brought to light when a former adviser to
Montana’s governor fact-checked the special and found that not one of
the show’s guests–who lamented the horrors of the Affordable Care Act
(ACA) on air–had directly suffered from the law or even visited the
insurance exchange. Hannity’s reliance on guests who condemned Obamacare
due to existing political bias demonstrates Fox News’ habit of
misinforming on the ACA and raises serious questions about the
credibility of other guests that have recounted the “consequences” of
the law.

 

Poor People Having Air Conditioning Offends Fox News


Fox News Channel
Fox News Channel (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

Poor People Having Air Conditioning Offends Fox News

 

I’m originally from Oklahoma and we often have weeks of above 100 degree temperature. In fact, one year Oklahoma City had fifty one days in a row of above 100 degree temperature.

 

So, I find air conditioning to be a necessity for many people not to mention those like me with serious allergies. And, of course, air conditioners are now mass produced to the extent that new ones are less than one hundred dollars and used ones much less. So, even poor people can often acquire one. It does not make me angry that poor people have them.

 

Should poor people have to actively suffer so that Fox News commentators can feel better about themselves? I hope not.

 

Being poor is hideous. Every expense is a problem that may not be solvable. Every day is another day of not having things other people take for granted; having things like food. Apparently the reality of food insecurity in this country is not taken seriously by Fox News.

 

  • In 2010, 17.2 million households, 14.5 percent of
    households (approximately one in seven), were food
    insecure, the highest number ever recorded in the United
    States 1
    (Coleman-Jensen 2011, p. v.) 
  • In 2010, about one-third of food-insecure households
    (6.7 million households, or 5.4 percent of all U.S.
    households) had very low food security (compared with 4.7
    million households (4.1 percent) in 2007.
    In households with very low food security, the food
    intake of some household
    members was reduced, and their normal eating patterns
    were disrupted
    because of the household’s food insecurity
    (Coleman-Jensen 2011, p. v.,

    Nord  2009
    , p. iii.) .

 

I’ll let them have air conditioning. It doesn’t diminish me.

 

James Pilant

 

Hasselbeck Says People On Welfare Shouldn’t Have Air Conditioners

 

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/10/11/hasselbeck-says-air-conditioning-entitlement-video/

 

When the right-wing talks about welfare and ‘entitlements,’ their not-so Christian attitude becomes abundantly clear. They have all sorts of stories about how welfare recipients experience all of the finer things in life and clearly they are abusing the system. Welfare recipients are not supposed to have nice clothes; they should wear rags instead so that Republicans are satisfied that they are indeed poor. Recipients are not allowed to have a decent looking car, who cares if it was bought before they fell on hard times. People on welfare should never, ever buy junk food. Oh that cake was for your kid’s birthday? Too bad, celebrate with mud pies. A welfare recipient has a phone? Well they shouldn’t! Poor people shouldn’t have phones! Well now Elisabeth Hasselbeck and her fellow co-workers over at Fox News have new items to add to the list of things poor people should not own or use: televisions and air conditioning.

 

Hasselbeck Says Welfare Recipients Don’t Deserve Air Conditioning

 

Yes, you read that right. Hasselbeck thinks that if a person is on government assistance they are not entitled to a television in their home — or an air conditioner.

 

via Hasselbeck Says People On Welfare Shouldn’t Have Air Conditioners.

 

From around the web.

 

From the web site, Poverty and Policy.

 

http://povertyandpolicy.wordpress.com/2011/08/09/how-many-poor-people-in-america-heritage-foundation-says-damn-few/

 

Seems that the Heritage Foundation has dusted off some old rhetoric and shaped some new data to fit it. Thus it proclaims, much as it did
in 2007, that “many of the 30 million Americans defined as ‘poor’ and
in need of government assistance” are actually doing very nicely, thank
you.

 

First, a word of clarification. The reference to 30 million is just sloppy blogging. The Foundation’s actual report says “over 30 million.” Technically accurate, but minimizing. The latest Census Bureau income and poverty report tell us that there were nearly 43.6 million people in poverty in 2009.

 

As I (and many others) have written before, this figure is based on a rather primitive and woefully outdated measure, i.e., the inflation-adjusted cost of what used to be the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s cheapest meal plan.

 

The Census Bureau is developing an alternative measure based on recommendations from the National Academy of Sciences.

 

But the Heritage Foundation doesn’t care for that — indeed, has
delivered its latest blast in part to argue (again) that the new measure
is a sneaky scheme by the Obama administration to advance a “spread the
wealth” agenda.

 

Its main goal, however, is to give aid and comfort to Republicans in Congress who want to slash spending on public benefits.

 

 

Is there Hope for the 99%, Can Individuals Still Make a Difference in a Nation Dominated by the 1%?


I had the pleasure of reading the article quoted below. It’s written by Erica K. in Open Salon. It’s entitled –

Requiem for the Jerry Springer Nation

(An excerpt from the article) –

Then came the Occupy movement, people from all walks of life banding together for a common cause, with good intentions, fighting for the least of their brothers and sisters, not the wealthiest and slimiest. It filled me and many with hope, and others with disdain, but it was something. A something that spread from Wall Street across the nation and into other parts of the world. Something is better than nothing.

I, too, have wondered if change was possible. Sometimes, the Obama’s servitude to the great economic interests particularly financial institutions, has driven me to rage. The Democratic and Republican seem interested in the 99% only the most unusual circumstance. Generally speaking, either party can be counted on to be obedient to corporate money.

So, the current political situation is hopeless. It is virtually impossible in most states to find a candidate who has any degree of fidelity to the middle class, the people that actually make America work.

I am a member of the 99%, and I know what to do. It’s been done many times before.

We take over a political party. I don’t care which one.

History shows successful takeovers by Progressives at the turn of the Twentieth century and the liberals in the 1930’s.

Please understand, you don’t influence politicians by editorials and tough words in meetings, you beat them in elections. They have to be humiliated, vilified, driven from electoral politics.

No prisoners.

When some Democratic says the phrase, “What I’m doing is tough for you, but think what the Republicans would do.” That person is an enemy. You dry up his money. You pound him with criticism and ridicule at every turn, and then you beat him at the polls. You knock him down so that he never enters politics again. Every time, a candidate who believes wholeheartedly in defending and restoring the middle class wins, you win. Every time a compromising, corporate dependent candidate with some generally sympathetic views wins, you have suffered a humiliating defeat. If you compromise, you will be sold. Corporate contributions demand that result and they get that result.

For more than three decades, Liberals, Progressives and Unions have voted for the more liberal of the candidates in lock step. The result is that those candidates can ignore their interests moving to the right year by year to pander to corporate interests. Time after time, I hear the phrases, “We have to settle for what we can get, we have to face reality, we can only do what’s possible.” These are the words of compromise and slow, agonizing defeat. And for thirty years, the nation has moved to the right.

The left got what it deserved for its compromised: millions of jobs shifted overseas, workers rights stomped into insignificance, financial interest freed to speculate with public money, tax breaks and subsidies for countless industries, and, last but certainly not least, well organized, well financed attacks on Social Security.  This has been the result of compromising, of settling for what was “possible.”

The Republicans openly declare their fealty to the one percent and the Democrats are so toothless, weak and doctrineless that voting is almost pointless.

Occupy Wall Street has brought me hope. Maybe there is chance that this country can be run by its citizens, not as an oligarchy but as a democracy.

James Pilant

Enhanced by Zemanta