President Obama does use the media very well, but now he has some opposition from the other side organizing and using the media too. The media might become like a double edged sword for the President. I read the section that everyone is calling the death bill yesterday though and I would have to say that I thought this was really no more than what they used to call a living will. The hospital where I work has a DNR-CC, they ask patient's if they would want to prolong their life with artificial means or use only end of life comfort care. I think this is reasonable as long as the patient or the patient's family understanding the patient's wishes has the final say.All efforts should be used to sustain life. However, some people with terminal end of life issues just want comfort care and not agressive measures, if they are competent to make that decision they should be able too. I think that is all this part of the bill says nothing more scary than that. There are lots of issues like this though that have not been explained and who has time to read through 1000 pages or even to understand all of it.? This is the frustration people are feeling. One person said that a part of the proposed health plan is a hugh electronic storage of medical records and they did not like the government having all that information. These are the kinds of things that people are worried about. They don't want this shoved down there throats. Part of it may just be fear of the unknown. That is why these debates are so important, but they don't seem to accomplish anything unless there can be civil discussion. We don't need President Obama question and answer sessions with only what he wants us to hear, we need open and honest debate from both sides and so far I don't think the President has provided it.

Z, I have Reliable Sources recorded in my box. Can't wait to see it! See you after church.

Hi Sherry, Thanks. I think the opposition and debate is important to getting this right. Z

Good article/post
While I know you're still in the tank for him, it's good of you to point out the obvious when others don't

A story in yesterday's "Washington Post" traces the strong opposition, both coherent and incoherent, to major governmental change throughout U.S. history. I grew up in a household, for example, in which my father really believed that F.D.R. had been a dictator. (Surely, Republicans attacked the New Deal, including Social Security, as "socialism.")Two things are different now, as you know. First is the highly repetitive 24-hour news cycle and its underlying profit motive. The second is that "back in the day," mainstream media may have reported the looney tunes ideas, but they did not give them nonstop coverage. Now we see the same images over and over, and I think this repetition of an incoherent person shaking his fist at a member of Congress, for instance, gives the rant more credibility than it deserves. I too am concerned about how health care reform is going to be paid for, but I feel shortchanged and manipulated by endless coverage of outright lies including "euthanasia" and "death panels." Show me the posters of Obama as the "joker," but not over and over again.

Stacked the deck with supporters? Obama meeting tickets were first come first served..unlike Bush Town Halls where tickets were given out by the local republican comittees.Never once did I see an opposing viewpoint at a Bush town hall. You are adding to the misinformation that feeds so much of the anger by making a definitive statement such as this. People clearly opposed to the president's plan asked questions and were encouraged to do so..but since they were civil in their discourse with each other it wasn't all that exciting.

Tickets for the first town hall alst week were only given to Democratic legislators -- Axelrod acknowledged that at one of his daily briefings. I heard it myself. Z

I am in complete agreement with Obama! 24/7 Cable does a terrible job of reporting the news. This has been researched and verified by many serious studies. Remember weapons of mass destruction? The overinflated housing/financial markets? Anyone who gets most of their information from reading, NPR or PBS could see the truth to these incredible disasters, yet cable and network tv was extremely unreliable. The same is happening now. No one bothers to ask, "what's in it for you?" to the promoters or detractors of health care reform. If you look to the winners and losers it's a pretty clear story. Cable/network news succeeds in muddying what should be simple facts. I'm baffled to see Z defending them. Maybe if you actually watch them 24/7 you get a general sense of accuracy. Who has that kind of time besides media critics?

Hello TR: "Many serious studies" is not specfic enough to make your case. And the big failure on weapons of mass dsestruction was that of the New York Times -- not cable Tv. Thanks. Z

THE PROTESTS WORKED.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aRqy6w7DFAB0

Finally they realized the public option was killing Obama's ratings and the Democrat party quick.

I challenged any blogger yesterday to debate me on the merits of the public option. Why would anyone challenge me now when Obama himself is waving the white flag?

This is the best news I've heard in months. The major part of Obama's agenda has been defeated by astroturf, eh?

And for any Obama fan, he finally doesn't look tone deaf anymore; thats the only positive part of this for you. The healthcare debate hurt his presidency, but it hasn't killed it yet.

Glad to see that he finally realized that he would be on the wrong side of history.

Why does he always invoke his grandmother when he's in political trouble? He brought her up during the Rev. Wright issue and he did it just he other day regarding healthcare.

I agree with Z's criticism, and I'll take it a step further. He's sounds like a whiny moma's boy whenever he cries about the media or the deficit he inherited.

I took over management one time for a person that had passed away from cancer. Things were bad when I took over, but I manned up like most Americans that believe you got to work to eat. I didn't whine 2 weeks, 2 months, or 8 months after taking over. I put my head down and went to work. I never used the tragic situation as an excuse for anything.

It's time for the moma's boy/ formerly popular prom king to go to work in the real world. This isn't community organization, buttercup.

This time communities organized to defeat Obama and his supporters.

We can only hope that he would be as smart as Clinton after his healthcare defeat to jump right of center. As a conservative, I will always hail a Democrat that signaled the "end to big government."

I was really surprised that President Obama gave in so quickly, but I do think it might have been his only option to pass through any kind of reform. I am not sure what this will mean for the living wills and the DNR-CC code status that are currently in place in the healthcare system where I work. It is good to see that President Obama was finally open to see both sides of the issues. Now we just have 999 more issues to become clear on before this is passed. Agree with Baltz Mahoney. I could not come up with an absolutely great reason to debate in favor of the public option. It will be interesting to see where we go from here, but glad to see debate can strengthen us!

I challenged any blogger yesterday to debate me on the merits of the public option. Why would anyone challenge me now when Obama himself is waving the white flag?

Maybe nobody wanted to debate you because you resort too much to name-calling, more heat than light.

I could protest Obama, too, but I wouldn't be out there screaming at him about things that aren't even being considered.

Well, actually, I am upset about something that isn't even boing considered. I'm a liberal, which he isn't. (Conservatives call everyone to the left of themselves "liberals" -- even if they're talking about people who are still right of center. Obama may be left of center, but he's no liberal.) We don't need a public option, we need the entire plan public. That's not going to happen, though -- we must protect the insurance industry at all costs, apparently

As for David's original point -- I know from the early news reports I thought that every town hall meeting had one of these organized protests. I didn't realize at first that not every meeting had been targeted. Eventually I saw that some were going as planned, and it could well be that I just hadn't been paying enough attention. But the coverage did seem to be more about the screamers than the issues. And the fact that CNN may have done a good job this morning has nothing to do with the initial coverage.

Throw The Healthcare Obstructionist Out!

More than two thirds of the American people want a single payer health care system. And if they cant have a single payer system 76% of all Americans want a strong government-run public option on day one (85% of democrats, 71% of independents, and 60% republicans). Basically everyone.

We have the 37th worst quality of healthcare in the developed world. And the most costly. Costing over twice as much as every other county. Conservative estimates are that over 120,000 of you dies each year in America from treatable illness that people in other developed countries don't die from. Rich, middle class, and poor a like. Insured and uninsured. Men, women, children, and babies. This is what being 37th in quality of healthcare means.

I know that many of you are angry and frustrated that REPUBLICANS! In congress are dragging their feet and trying to block TRUE healthcare reform. What republicans want is just a taxpayer bailout of the DISGRACEFUL GREED DRIVEN PRIVATE FOR PROFIT health insurance industry, and the DISGRACEFUL GREED DRIVEN PRIVATE FOR PROFIT healthcare industry. A trillion dollar taxpayer funded private health insurance bailout is all you really get, without a robust government-run public option available on day one. Co-OP's ARE NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR A GOVERNMENT-RUN PUBLIC OPTION. They are a fraud being pushed by the GREED DRIVEN PRIVATE FOR PROFIT health insurance industry that is KILLING YOU!

YOU CANT HAVE AN INSURANCE MANDATE WITHOUT A ROBUST PUBLIC OPTION. MANDATING PRIVATE FOR PROFIT HEALTH INSURANCE AS YOUR ONLY CHOICE WOULD BE A DISASTER. AND UNETHICAL, CORRUPT, AND MORALLY REPUGNANT. AND PROBABLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS WELL.

These industries have been slaughtering you and your loved ones like cattle for decades for profit. Including members of congress and their families. These REPUBLICANS are FOOLS!

Republicans and their traitorous allies have been trying to make it look like it's President Obama's fault for the delays, and foot dragging. But I think you all know better than that. President Obama inherited one of the worst government catastrophes in American history from these REPUBLICANS! And President Obama has done a brilliant job of turning things around, and working his heart out for all of us.

But Republicans think you are just a bunch of stupid, idiot, cash cows with short memories. Just like they did under the Bush administration when they helped Bush and Cheney rape America and the rest of the World.

But you don't have to put up with that. And this is what you can do. The Republicans below will be up for reelection on November 2, 2010. Just a little over 13 months from now. And many of you will be able to vote early. So pick some names and tell their voters that their representatives (by name) are obstructing TRUE healthcare reform. And are sellouts to the insurance and medical lobbyist.

Ask them to contact their representatives and tell them that they are going to work to throw them out of office on November 2, 2010, if not before by impeachment, or recall elections. Doing this will give you something more to do to make things better in America. And it will make you feel better too.

There are many resources on the internet that can help you find people to call and contact. For example, many social networking sites can be searched by state, city, or University. Be inventive and creative. I can think of many ways to do this. But be nice. These are your neighbors. And most will want to help.

I know there are a few democrats that have been trying to obstruct TRUE healthcare reform too. But the main problem is the Bush Republicans. Removing them is the best thing tactically to do. On the other hand. If you can easily replace a democrat obstructionist with a supportive democrat, DO IT!

You have been AMAZING!!! people. Don't loose heart. You knew it wasn't going to be easy saving the World. :-)

God Bless You

jacksmith — Working Class

Twitter search (#welovethenhs) Check it out.

I REST MY CASE (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/25/why-markets-cant-cure-healthcare/)

Republican Senators up for re-election in 2010.

* Richard Shelby of Alabama
* Lisa Murkowski of Alaska
* John McCain of Arizona
* Mel Martinez of Florida
* Johnny Isakson of Georgia
* Mike Crapo of Idaho
* Chuck Grassley of Iowa
* Sam Brownback of Kansas
* Jim Bunning of Kentucky
* David Vitter of Louisiana
* Kit Bond of Missouri
* Judd Gregg of New Hampshire
* Richard Burr of North Carolina
* George Voinovich of Ohio
* Tom Coburn of Oklahoma
* Jim DeMint of South Carolina
* John Thune of South Dakota
* Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas
* Bob Bennett of Utah

It seems Obama's idea of a constructive meeting is any meeting were everyone agrees with him.

If there is a loud protest of people who agree with Obama's policies, he calls them concerned citizens. If you disagree with him, your an angry mob!

How dare Obama act like a Republican and complain about the media. Who does he think he is anyway?

You all might be afraid to admit it, and I might be called a racist for it, but my personal opinion is that a lot of the media are afraid to criticize President Obama because they don't want to be called racist. ...

i remember during the 60s riots and kent state the communists took 2 steps forward and 1 step back like fhe communists in congress are doing now. during the early plane hijackings the muslims took 1 soviet plane. the military went in and killed all the muslims. there the only country not afraid of muslims. ...

Do you actually believe what you are writing about the administration trying to control the media and that he is comparable to nixon and agnew in the way they spoke about news coverage? You are comparing apples and oranges here...it is a complete different thing when obama is simply making an observation about what has been covered recently and their taste for 'ruckus', the other two men actually suggested what they should cover in order to present a differing and sterilized point of view...it honestly cant get much different than those two opposing examples.
Also, "many major studies" isn't sufficient to prove someone's point? TR is correct there are a plethora of studies showing the ineptitude of cable news networks in covering anything other than conflict and stories that fit into the framework of their preconceived agendas. Most networks even admit to this, like fox, msnbc, cnn, so it really isnt news that it occurs, and surely doesnt need to be confirmed by major studies when the networks themselves do not dispute it.
Z, i know you feel that you are very experienced in this type of thing, but maybe you dont have enough perspective from outside of the US to make this judgement call. I am a proud american with two advanced degrees from schools in london and paris and have done such a variety of case studies on the media in the united states that i can assure you there is a horrendous bias and inability to cover the things that need to be covered, particularly in our current healthcare debate, but also in many other areas when they should be covering things for the benefit of the nation and the education of our people, not for the benefit of their own agendas...but sadly we both know that will never happen as they are private corporations and can push whatever news they want without fear of any major repercussions except loosing viewership...I just wish more people would realize that and stop taking the word of these networks as the definitive truth..I am not even an Obama supporter, but i have to say that i agree with him on this one...

You cannot make generalizations like "cable TV news." CNN, for example, is very different in how it lives up to the responsibility of providing verified information vs. Fox or MSNBC. I believe these sweeping indictments are part of the problem. Who said without precision in language, there can be no morality? There can also be no meaningful discussion. Thanks. Z

Z, i know you feel that you are very experienced in this type of thing, but maybe you dont have enough perspective from outside of the US to make this judgement call. I am a proud american with two advanced degrees from schools in london and paris and have done such a variety of case studies on the media in the united states that i can assure you there is a horrendous bias and inability to cover the things that need to be covered, particularly in our current healthcare debate, but also in many other areas when they should be covering things for the benefit of the nation and the education of our people, not for the benefit of their own agendas...but sadly we both know that will never happen as they are private corporations and can push whatever news they want without fear of any major repercussions except loosing viewership...I just wish more people would realize that and stop taking the word of these networks as the definitive truth..I am not even an Obama supporter, but i have to say that i agree with him on this one...

I totally agree with much of the TV news industry failing to serve its role ion a democracy of providing reliable, verified information so that citizens can make the best choices about their lives. Yes, I agree totally on that -- but not all fail, and we have to make those disticntions. Thanks. Z

Complaining about the media. Like Sarah Palin.

Oooh, Lisa. That's cold. (kidding) But, serously, I think you are also correct in making the comparison. Thanks. Z

Great song from the satire singer Steve Taylor in the later 80s about the corrupt biased press.....

Meet the Press
Steve Taylor

In a ninety floor Manhatten address

Lives a watchdog called the National Press.

And around his collar's written the lines

"The Protector Of Our Hearts and Minds."

Hark! Hark! The dog will bark and we believe this hierarch.

But read between the lines and see this dog's been barking up the wrong tree.

CHORUS

Meet the press! Meet the press!

Verse
When the ratings point the camera's eye
They can state the facts while telling a lie.

Bridge
And the watchdog shows to the viewers at ten
He's a bloodhound with a pad and pen.

Can't pin the blame, he's out of reach
Just call the dog "His Royal Leech"
We held the rights for heaven's sake
'Till we gave this sucker an even break

Chorus

When the godless chair the judgement seat
We can thank the godless media elite.
They can silence those who fall from their grace
With a note that says we haven't the space.

Well looky there, the dog's asleep
Whenever we march or say a peep.
A Christian can't get equal time
Unless he's a loony committing a crime.
Listen up if you've got ears
I'm tired of condescending sneers.
I've got a dog who smells a fight
He still believes in wrong and right!

Chorus

Copyright 1983 C.A. Music/Birdwing Music/Cherry Lane Music Publishing

Is it the lawyers (or fear of) or is it the system? Ask any doctor who they fear most. Also go to any school with lawyers and doctors graduating and notice the 10 to 1 ratio. Or watch all the commercials that dominate TV about suing doctors. Or all the billboards posted all over the place about Malpractice. The government has setup private insurance (of doctors) to fail because they have no protection and are liable for every action.

Quote from wikipedia

"The Commonwealth Fund, in its annual survey, "Mirror, Mirror on the Wall", compares the performance of the health care systems in Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Germany, Canada and the U.S. Its 2007 study found that, although the U.S. system is the most expensive, it consistently underperforms compared to the other countries.[26] Two differences between the U.S. and the other countries in the study is that the U.S. is the only country without universal health insurance coverage, and the highest cost of malpractice insurance than any nation in the study."

As a real working class guy, I work hard.

AND PLAY HARD.

We'll talk tomorrow JaCK sHIZZ. And we'll see who's really working class.

Ballz Mahoney wrote:

"We'll talk tomorrow JaCK sHIZZ."

This is what I was talking about before. Do you want to debate or name-call? And it isn't "whoever is the deepest in the working class wins," who cares about that? It's what you have to say in response to Jack's points that matter.

David Z.,

"There he goes again...."?

Hmmm...sounds awfully familiar don't it , Mr. Z. ?

Can we a ALL say former GOP President Ronald Reagan boys and girls? (Just substitute "we go" for your "he goes", and voila, we have old Ronnie's pet phrase.)

David, you're not suddenly changing your political stripes now, are you?

Frankly, I didn't really hear anything OVERLY critical of the pro-Right-wing Cable T.V. news media coming from Pres. Obama's lips , of late, unfairly, or unduly criticizing the over-zealous Cable T.V. news (read FOX News) for focusing on the more 'conflictual' aspects of the town-hall healthcare forums, as remotely as damning, or damaging as Richard Nixon's attack-dog V.P. Spiro Agnew's (who you cited, in your article) blatant vitriolic, incessant Leftist-media-bashing, paint-with-a-single-brush, derogatory smear campaign of the '70s liberal-establishment-press and television, encapsulated in his classic coined phrase, "those nattering nabobs of negativism".

David, I find your current slight softening of your former fairly hard-line critical attitude toward the FOX News purveyors of innuendo, misinformation, and personal attacks, a tad ingenuous, in light of, what I view, as an apparent shift in your fundamental political perspective; now, all of a sudden, portraying these wackos at FOX News as straight-shooting, tell-it-like-it-is transmitters of the truth w/ their incessant coverage of all these citizen flare-ups, and grassroots expressions of over-the-top 'civil disobedience' at these open town-hall gatherings.

As I interpret your 'new perspective', you now seem to perceive FOX News as this media window of clarity into what's really happening at these sundry town-hall forums--warts and all. Just happens that for some odd reason they conveniently like to emphasize the nasty warts (the ugly brouhahas, dramatic squabbles, and lashings-out at the key-note speaker(s)), and downplay any constructive dialogue, and civil discourse that may have actually transpired.

When FOX News viewers see a constant barrage of images of out-of-control attendee hostility, and protest for mere protest sake, it tends to foment anger, anxiety, confusion, and, in sum, a distorted view of what actually transpired for many average Americans.

I don't think that Pres. Obama, in his recent critical salvos fired against the inflamatory Right-wing Cable news folks, is trying to take 'official' steps to sanitize, censor, or manipulate legitimate news reportage of events, but he IS urging a more balanced, responsible, less cherry-picked brand of hard-news coverage.

Obama is a most intelligent, hardly naive politician and legal scholar, and recognizes this current healthcare initiative issue is a very contentious and difficult one, w/ even several members of his own Dem Party not seeing eye-to-eye w/ him on some aspects of his proposed healthcare revamp, let alone the litany of rabid, and outspoken naysaying, hard-line Republicans who see any concession to a government healthcare option as an alternative to free-market, laissez-faire competition between rival health insurance companies, as a sure-fire road to disaster.

Obama is NOT speaking out against town-hall protesters across the board, per se, especially those who offer their criticisms civilly, cogently, and w/ sound and reasonable alternatives, and points of view.

But he has little time, or patience for the 'professional' hecklers, the organized obfuscaters, and in-you-face manic spewers of invective and rancor (many egged-on by the FOX News 'brigade', by the way), whose strident screaming and wild gesticulating tactics at these town-hall public forums amounts to a huge distraction and disruption , not a positive force for constructive discourse and reasonable debate.

David, your claim that, early on, FOX News "was the only channel providing what little watchdog coverage of the White House we have" was a most scary thought....... well maybe this was the case when George Dubya was in the White House and FOX News conveniently looked the other way 95% of the time that he was in Office; as unabashed media apologists for his lame GOP Administration.

Usually, David, I march pretty much in lock-step-accord w/ most of your political musings, opinions, and ideological positions, as evidenced by several of my past blog posts, giving you kudos, when warranted, for your mostly fair, balanced and insightful observations.

But it appears that now that Pres. Obama's popularity numbers are slipping, and his Administration is showing a few new chinks in its armor, reeling on the ropes, largely over the healthcare debate flack, you are starting to waffle from what was your solid backing of the President, and not unlike a drip-drip-drip victim of Chinese water-torture, (or the Bush/ Cheney version, water-boarding), you appear to be be slowly cajoled, drop, by drop by the unceasing pounding of Right-wing media anti-Obama rhetoric, and seem to be having doubts, and second thoughts about Barrack Obama's being the right man to get this country back on the rails to respectability in the eyes of the World, and reestablishing confidence and prosperity at home.

As I've stated on this blog before, I feel EXTREME 'civil disobedience' has a time and a place in American's democratic process, and I don't believe town-hall meetings, in light of their basic mandate and intention as forums for constructive, and hopefully spirited debate on the issues of the day, (plus information gathering and sharing), is one of them.

David, I still respect and enjoy you as a fine, thought-provoking critic and blogmeister, but I guess on this particular point of how Pres. Obama is handling his media critics, of late, we will just have to agree to disagree.

Don't sell out to the 'dark-side', oh Z.-Blogwalker !

Oops, there I go again!

ALEX

Why NOT ?

1. In an effort to avoid inaction & bankruptcy, there is no denying Single-Payer Plan is the most cost-effective way, and the Public / Private Option is a partial adoption of it. At present, roughly 20 million of the uninsured are young adults, the possible enrollees of lower costs, accordingly, this partial adoption could be more cost-effective than the full one by ratio.

2. As common sense goes, in terms of fire, preventing it ahead or containing it in earlier phase is the most sensible cost containment of all, and the essential and most cost-saving preventive care programs call for expansive investments of non-profit.

3. One of three pillars in a new foundation, this health care redesign, to be sure, is going to lead to much-needed massive job creation.

4. We need to accept Sebelius' remark this way; If the death panel is true, she is willing to open the door for deficit-driven nonsense.

5. Good News !

A staff writer at The New Yorker and some experts have examined Medicare data from the successful hospitals of 10 regions, and they have found evidence that more effective, lower-cost care is possible. Thankfully, the provisions in the reform include more expansive policies than they have.

Please be 'sure' to visit http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/opinion/13gawande.html?hp for credible evidences !

Some have followed the Mayo model with salaried doctors employed, Other regions, too, have found ways to protect patients against the pursuit of revenues over patient.
And a cardiac surgeon of them said they had adopted electronic systems, examined the data and found that a shocking portion of tests were almost certainly unnecessary, possibly harmful.

According to analysis, their quality scores are well above average. Yet they spend more than $1,500 (16 percent) less per Medicare patient than the national average and have a slower real annual growth rate (3 percent versus 3.5 percent nationwide).

Surprisingly, 16 % of about $550 billion (the total of medicare cost per year) is around $88 billion per year, except for Medicaid (total cost of around $500 billion per year), medicare 'alone' can save $880 billion over the next decade.

In addition, under the reform package, along with the already allocated $583 billion, the wastes involving so called "doughnut hole" , the unnecessary subsidies for insurers, abuse, exorbitant costs by the tragic ER visits etc are weeded out, the concern over revenue (below) might be a thing of the past.

(( Net Medicare and Medicaid savings of $465 billion + the $583 billion revenue package = $1048 billion - the previously estimated $1.042 trillion cost of reform = $6 billion surplus - $245 billion (the 10-year cost of adjusting Medicare reimbursement rates so physicians don’t face big annual pay cuts) = the estimated deficit of $239 billion ))

In modernized society, the business lacking IT system is unthinkable just like pre-electricity period, nevertheless, the last thing to expect is happening now in the sector requiring the best accuracy in respect to dealing with human lives. Apparently the errors by no e-medical records have spawned the crushing lawsuits (Medical malpractice lawsuits cost at least $150 billion per year), and these costs have led to the unnecessary tests, treatments, even more profits so far. And in different parts of the U.S., patients get two to three times as much care for the same disease, with the same result.

Thank You !

Z,
I actually really like the response to BP in the post above. But, it is driving me crazy, help me with an answer here. "Who said that without precision in language, there can be no morality?"
I like that phrase. I'm not sure I am smart enough to figure it out. Do you mean that these opposing views are good for us, I totally agree, the President can't use the media to make it one-sided. We have to look at all the cable news channels as outlets for expression, but not necessarily as definitive truth. Sometimes exactness in speech can be misleading? Is that what you meant. Sorry can you explain this to me Z. I would appreciate it so much I really want to understand the comment you posted - I like it.

Hi Sherry, I do not know the author. That's why I posed iot as a question. I was hoping a reader would know. I'll try to track it down today when I get a chance. Thanks. Z

Thanks Z,

If you or a viewer can give us an answer then I can go on with my day.
I have thought about this since I saw it. I don't have OCD do I???

Thanks again Z - Sherry

David Z.,

Early this fine morning out here in LA LA Land, the so-called Left-Coast, after a restless night's shut-eye, I'm feeling a little 'blogger's remorse', if you will.

It kind of stuck in my craw to have to respectfully disagree w/ your take on Pres. Obama's recent tack in dealing w/ his Cable news media harsher critics, especially those lambasting him and his Administration's new healthcare initiative.

I now realize that it is dangerous to paint the whole broad range of Cable news outlets w/ the same singular diehard Right-wing apologist brush, a similar stereotyping accusation that I pointed out in my last posting to what old V.P. Spiro Agnew did in the turbulent Nixon era, w/ his referring to the critical media of the Left as "those nattering nabobs of negativism".

Your point, in the above article is well taken, that this past Sunday morning CNN's "State of The Union's", John King presented video segments from various recent town-hall meetings, where the over-riding tenor of these forums was one of civility, constructive dialogue and few out-of-control, disruptions, or vituperative outbursts.

In retrospect, maybe Pres. Obama has become a bit of an over zealous kvetching (?) 'cry-baby', and should not irresponsibly portray ALL purveyors of Cable news town-hall coverage as guilty of distorted, drastically manipulated reportage, although I still maintain that FOX News, in the main, does try to put as much on-air negative, 'conflictual' spin on these public forums as they figure they can get away with, to give the over-riding impression that all of grassroots America is "mad-as-hell" over Obama's healthcare initiative, (especially w/ the government option proposal), and is rising up in one huge, monolithic sunami of righteous-protest, and "refuse to take it any more".

Remember that great, '70s (?) thought-provoking film addressing soul-numbing rampant media hypocrisy and disinformation, "Network", starring the brilliant Peter Finch, who at the cathartic point in the drama screamed out his plea to the host of victims of broadcast ethics run amok from his apartment window, "I'm mad as hell, and I'm NOT going to take it anymore!" ?

Fellow bloggers today in America, I ask you, are WE at a comparable breaking point, a critical watershed moment that questions the very integrity and validity of what we see and hear over our airwaves?

I don't know how many of you tuned into, dare I say it, the Network news Sunday broadcast of "Meet The Press", w/ host David Gregory?

Interestingly, it was the usual in-studio forum w/ the theme-de-jour being "Making Sense of Healthcare"; very timely indeed.

The gathered guests included Frm. Rep. Dick Armey (Rep-TX), Sen. Tom Coburn, M.D. (Rep-OK), Fmr. Senator Tom Daschle (Dem-ND), and Rachel Maddow, political commentator for MSNBC.

Rep. Charlie Rangel (Dem-NY) / Chairman of the House Ways and Means Commitee, Bruce Justin, Exec. VP of the National Chamber of Commerce, and Gov. Bill Ritter (Dem-CO) were all called on to address aspects of the current healthcare debate by remote feed from there home bases.

What was so refreshing and so different from so much of the on-air media back-and-forth vituperative banter and hostility, of late, surrounding the issue of healthcare reform, was the respectful, coherent, reasoned exchange of opinion, where all participants were predictably true to their basic party mantras, yet were willing to hear out, and listen to the arguments and viewpoints of their ideological rivals.

It was especially valuable to have a politico like Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn, who is also a still-practicing (part-time) Medical Doctor, who brought a very informed, yet conservative-tinged perspective to the discussion, while former Rep, Dick Armey, a kind of living political legend out of Texas, argued for the laissaez-faire, free-market model of private health insurance providers, and came down hard (very predictably), on any notion of adopting a government health insurance option. A Republican to his dying day.

Rachel Maddow, I felt acquitted herself quite well, as did former Senator Tom Daschle, who both argued fairly persuasively for a two-prong healthcare initiative, w/ a built-in government-pay alternative, to the free-market shopping around for the best provider approach.

What struck me was nary a voice was raised in anger, or self-righteous indignation; few, if any personal barbs were thrown, and many intricate aspects of Obama's plan were laid out on the table and somewhat demystified.

What could have devolved into a nasty ideological battle of wits, and defensive posturing, actually played out beautifully for the viewer, who came away perhaps a little more savvy, and hopeful that cooler heads in Washington, and the hinterland will prevail.

Again, I'm an admitted apologist for both NPR (KPCC/ 89.3FM/ Pasadena, CA) and PBS (KCET, KOCE and KCLS in the L.A.). Even thou the Right in America views most political reporting and commentary from these stalwart not-for-profit media outlets as totally skewed to the hard-line Leftist, or Progressive end of the political continuum, and view them as in-bed w/ the Dems and Obama.

Again I think it is very short-sighted, and dangerous to discount and ignore these valuable public forums for elevated, meaningful, intelligent and relevant social, cultural, artistic, AND political discourse, exchange of ideas, and spirited conversation.

My local NPR outlets, both my go-to station KPCC based at Pasadena City College, and the equally outstanding KCRW at Santa Monica City College, in their talk-formated political discussions, generally present guests w/ opposing viewpoints, or opposite positions on any given issue, as well as airing audience calls responding to the topic at hand, which often don't necessarily reflect the political bias, or views of either the host, or the in-studio guest(s).

For just plain, unadulterated hard news stories, as it happens, you can't beat the worldwide sweep, and collective expertise of NPR, w/ its foreign bureaus and crack field reporters spanning the globe, and regular feeds from both the BBC and the CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corp.). Had to get that plug in for my "Home and Native Land". HA! HA!

We in the West are extremely fortunate to have the freedom to choose what media outlets, from the vast array available to us, we want to plug into, and in this ever-evolving, exciting cyber-age our options will only increase exponentially.

Sadly, there are many countries in the World today, whose totalitarian, suppressive regimes force their citizens to live in ignorance and disillusionment vis a vis 'the outside world', but as we witnessed in the grassroots groundswell of populist clamoring for freedom and a fair and open election in the streets of Iran this summer, the new ubiquitous and user-friendly technologies of the Internet age, and the digital era will facilitate the exposure of the Truth, in real time, cutting thru all the propaganda and disinformation propagated by intolerant, totalitarian regimes.

Well I guess I'll get off my little soap-box about now.

David Z., I think you are still very much in the Obama camp, but have rightfully questioned how much of a role, if any, should government (this Administration) play, or is playing in the free and open dissemination of the news, when there actions, in this regard, may border on outright strong-arming, and direct manipulation of our news media, Cable T.V., or otherwise--- a very slippery slope, indeed.

(David, I know the Ronald Reagan dig in my earlier post was a bit of a cheap shot, and I apologies.)

ALEX

Hi ALEX: No apology needed, believe me. I love your thoughtful and passionate comments. Z

Obama is correct. The media are suckups - they are courtiers looking for favors. They lack professionalism and do not know the meaning of journalism.

No- plainly the mass media is negative.

Let's say Repubs win and deny us health care.ie no public option..will that be positive?

Do the town hall bullies work for the health care industry? They might as well.

Have I heard praise for Ben Bernanke now that the economy is leveling out? No- and I won't... not from the Sun, definitely not from the preponderantly right wing mass media (I take Olbermann and Maddow and Colbert and Maher as exceptions- not Matthews).

It is a tiresome drum beat and Z, you join in.

A change in the country from militaristic, profit mongering-say to a more non violent and green progress a la Martin Luther King.... that would be positive.

So I called a random poster "jack shizz" In my humble opinion, his working class claim was just that.

Z, you'll love this, I was watching the best network ever, NFL Network of course. I heard about "townhalls" during the broadcast of the 9'ers and Broncos game. Former 1st Rd pick, Alex Smith, said he was working with his coach on avoiding throwing the ball into "townhalls." He used the townhalls as a metaphor for good secondary coverage like the Tampa 2.

I was hoping to hear support for the public option that included a commen sensical explanation. I saw lots of statistics. And, you know what Mark Twain said....

I work in the healthcare system, and we need reform. However, I do not see how a public option is the answer.

When you involve the government, you involve buraeucracy. Al Gore did some great things for the US as VP, and it was the National Performance Review not his recent fearmongering exploits. Good doctors and good practices don't want to get involved with medicare or medical assistance; they don't reimburse well. It's a fact. And, like California, they have the power to pay you later if they want to.

When government is involved, bad things happen. Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are all going bankrupt because why? They are run by the government.

As a guy that has worked on several initiatives that reduce healthcare costs, there are multiple layers to this issue. One of the initiatives I've worked on since 02' is the identification and proper treatment/ referral of co-occurring disorders. In 05, we began screening ER patients in need of mental health/ substance abuse treatment in local ER's, and we diverted them to care that would be much more comprehensive while not adding a costly ER admission. There are many solutions out there that don't even bring the public option into the conversation.

It comes down to this. If you put healthcare in government hands. What happens when tax reciepts are low. Chicago just shut down most government operations yesterday due to budget shortfalls. Will hospitals close down during government shortfalls?

For all the progressives, how will you feel when a new administration takes over that you didn't vote for. How would you feel when they have control? Do you trust Republicans with your healthcare because you'd be signing that control away 4 or 8 years from now. This is probably why 40% of Democrats oppose the public option.

Lastly, I leave you with this. Maryland's Mental Health Administration just switched from utilizing APS to Value Options as it's MCO for public mental health services. You know why? It wasn't based on quality of care. The bureacrats chose Value Options because they underbid APS by like $5 million. Most of us providers are now wondering, how much less will we get reimbursed now?

But this is the nightmare of government involvement, and proponents want more government involvement?

Freud said a "fee is a cure." After seeing family and friends for several years for free while doing his research, he started to charge a fee. He noticed that folks got better quicker.

"Free" healthcare doesn't mean better care especially if you want the individual invested in recovery.

Ballz, thanks for a reasoned response.

The issues you raise are things that need to be dealt with, but they seem like things that need to be dealt with no matter what the health care system turns out to be. You've been working on them for years already yourself, so these are ongoing problems (during both Republican and Democratic administrations).

Can the bureaucracy of government-in-health-care possibly be worse than the beaucracy of insurance-companies-in-health care? (Insurance companies see their job as denying as many health care claims as possible.)

In a recent Senate hearing, some Senators brought up that health care forms are needlessly complicated because if the client makes any mistake on them, claims can be denied for that reason. An application with an error on it can be held in reserve, so that if a large claim is made years later it can be denied on the basis of "fraud" on the application. The Senators told the insurance company CEOs that they'd like to work on reducing that problem; the CEOs said, no, that was a major tool for them, and if the Senate was going to try and take their tools away there was no incentive for the companies to try and work with the government at all.

So, yes, I'd be happy to see Medicare extended to cover everyone from birth. Putting all the healthy people into it would make the costs easier to manage. Medicare right now is a victim of its own success -- people live longer, so they need health care longer, so more money needs to be paid out for them.

With a public plan, there would be the problem of Republicans forever trying to dismantle it, just as they are constantly trying to dismantle Social Security. The problem they have with Social Security is very simple -- they can't get rich off it. All their other claims -- it's socialism, it's inefficient, whatever -- are smoke screens. They have to put some of their own money into it, and they don't have access to the money everybody else puts into it. And despite the fear-mongering claims, it's still pretty healthy.

So, there would be problems with health care if the government ran it, and there would be problems with health care if industry ran it. Some problems would be the same either way, and some problems would be different. We need our elected officials to carefully weigh the pros and cons of all the issues involved.

Unfortunately, the Republicans in the House and Senate have chosen to come out against reform entirely. This is purely a political decision. If they helped make reform happen, they feel Obama would get all the credit -- and that's unacceptable. Better, they think, to stay out of it; then they'll be free to hammer the Democrats about whatever isn't working at the next elections.

I write my Democratic congresspeople with my views, but all I'm doing is registering support, and trying to pull them a little more left. What's really important is for Republicans -- lots of Republicans -- to write their congresspeople and say that they're interested in good health care, too. That they want their friends and family members who are working two or three part-time jobs, none with benefits, to finally get health coverage.

I know I'm not going to get what I want, a single-payer system. But over the years I've sent money to a number of friends who've been left destitute by uninsured hospital stays. What I really want is to never have to do that again.

Well Z still hoping you get your facts straight on whether Obama Town Halls were deck stacked...from the Grand Junction Sentinel....info regarding the then upcoming town hall in Colorado.....

White House: Town hall audience not screened

Click-2-Listen
By EMILY ANDERSON/The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel
Wednesday, August 12, 2009

Neither the questions asked of the president nor the potential attendees will be prescreened before Saturday’s town hall meeting with President Obama at Central High School, a White House spokesman said Wednesday.

Each person who gets a ticket to the event will be selected at random, spokesman Adam Abrams said. Abrams said he did not know whether the White House would conduct background checks on ticket holders, but each guest at the event will be screened in a fashion similar to an airport-security check line.

Those hoping to attend the event can visit www.whitehouse.gov/advance/ColoradoTownHall8-15-09 to RSVP before noon today. The Web site asks for a first and last name, phone number, e-mail address and ZIP code. Entering a street address and city is optional.

Filling out the form does not automatically mean a person will get into the event, nor does it guarantee a seat. Doors open at 1:45 p.m. Saturday for the 4:15 p.m. town hall. Applicants can get one or two tickets and will receive information about how to pick up the tickets if they are selected to be in the audience.

As of Wednesday night, White House officials still had not revealed how many tickets will be awarded.

The president hosted a town hall meeting in Portsmouth, N.H., on Tuesday and will host another one Friday morning in Bozeman, Mont.

Video of the New Hampshire event shows that the shouting and finger-pointing present at some town halls hosted recently by members of Congress didn’t occur in the president’s crowd. Attendees were not prescreened for that event either, according to the White House.

The tickets only went to Democratic legislators for the Town Hall I referenced. I have my facts absolutely straight on that. I said nothing about "screening" the audience, which this piece does. It also ttotally takes the word of an unnamed "White House spokesman" as gospel. Thanks. Z

I'm 30. I'm not depending on SSI. It's a pay as you go system. When it started it was 7 to 1. Now its down to 3 to 1.

Putting healthy people into medicare and medicaid won't make it solvent. That's an extremely unintelligent argument. I'll grant you that chronic illnesses contribute to the costs, but fraud is rampant. Double and Triple billing happens quite frequently. More health patients won't resolve fraud.

\I heard is your attack on Republican lawmakers for blocking this. I support blocking the public option like most Americans.

It's not like the Democrats that blocked slots when Ehrlich was in office for pure political gain. The majority of Maryland supported slots in the polls.

Have you tracked American sentiment on the public option? Favoring the public option puts you into the minority, sir. And, Obama is losing political capital everyday he tries to Rham this thing through.

Now, it doesn't really matter if we get slots because Deleware is where folks will go considering they now have table games and sports betting.

That is a good example of politics hurting the people. If we did slots in 2002, we wouldn't be making so many cuts now nor would we be facing tax hikes.

I'd much rather deal with an insurance company than the government. Denials equate to rationing, and it will be incorporated to healthcare no matter who's involved. You have no recourse against government malpractice. Have you ever tried to sue the government? It's extremely difficult.

And, again, someday JDS, Republicans will be back in control. They will administer your healthcare. Now, you claim these evil Republicans don't want reform. How will you like when they are administering your public option?

Well, there goes an hour wasted, as my post just got deleted during preview.

What I said was something along the lines of:

"Most Americans" do not oppose the public option. Depending on how a poll is worded, I've seen strong support for it, narrow support, and narrow opposition. 47% to 43% against still isn't "most Americans."

Fraud needs to be battled regardless of the system. You can't say that private plans are better than public ones just because there's fraud in Medicare; Blue Cross pays fraudulent claims, too.

The Democrats' poor handling of the slots issue is irrelevant, except as an example of politicians behaving stupidly. Yes, politicians can behave badly, and corporate CEOs can behave badly. There's no reason here to choose one over the other.

(I'm not a Democrat, I'm a liberal. The Democrats drive me as crazy as they do you. The Republicans drive me even crazier. But remember, I don't really want just the public option; I want a public single-payer system.)

The question is: Do you trust the government with your health, or do you trust a corporation with it? The answer, of course, is "Trust no one,"

But the countries that have government-run health, anecdotal horror stories aside, have better health care than we do. I'd like to see ours get to their levels.

(Ballz, when I started working, 30-some years ago, I didn't think Social Security was going to make it to my retirement either. Now I'm pretty sure it will. Don't give up hope.)

So Democrats and Republicans drive you crazy, but you still want those gibroni's in charge of your healthcare?

Fraud is a problem with other insurance companies, but are they going bankrupt like medicare?

Like I said, most Americans oppose the public option.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/32463072

Just like Obama said, "It's the post office thats always having problems."--- So, the public option will always have problems too?

Is it unreasonable to ask that we fix medicare, medicaid, and SSI before we add another entitlement?

So Democrats and Republicans drive you crazy, but you still want those gibroni's in charge of your healthcare?

Government programs chug along regardless of who is in office.

Fraud is a problem with other insurance companies, but are they going bankrupt like medicare?

Who knows? I haven't seen their books. With Medicare, we know the increase in expenditures is a problem that needs to be fixed. The "bankruptcy" is inevitable only if nothing is done to fix it.

Like I said, most Americans oppose the public option.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/32463072

This is the poll I quoted, as the one most favorable to you. 47% is still not "most Americans." And many of that 47% are only responding to the fear tactics of "death panels" and such -- many of them love their Medicare and aren't connecting it to the public option. ("Keep your government hands off my Medicare" was one quote.)

Is it unreasonable to ask that we fix medicare, medicaid, and SSI before we add another entitlement?

There isn't really "a fix," there's an ongoing series of fixes -- or call these adjustments. That's the way things work.

I'm sorry JDS, but if you can't fix Medicare, then why should we trust an expanded benefit.

It makes no sense at all. Another thing that doesn't make sense is to increase federal spending in midst of a recession.

Between Bush's TARP and Obama's stimulus we have spent 3 trillion dollars, and you want to spend more? It's simply not practical.

When your income is reduced, do you spend more? The tax revenues are at an all time low right now, and we are supposed to spend/borrow more?

And, on top of that, we are fighting two wars that Obama promised he would be winding down.

I like most Americans just want the pols hands out of my pocket!

You're not taking into account the money going into the system, which would otherwise be going into the private insurers -- enough for them to make a profit, even with their much higher administrative costs.

And you're going to continue to say "most Americans," aren't you?

Anyway, I think we've taken this about as far as we can, and we might as well sign off. The topic is so far down the blog that we're probably the only two left checking it out. Thanks for the good discussion.

--Jeff

jds and Ballz Mahoney,

No this has been an enlightening discussion about medicare, the public option, costs, the heathcare plan in general. Please feel free to continue, I have learned a lot through your very civil discussion.

Thanks - Sherry

Thanks for the exchange. One of my best freinds is a socialist, so I'm sure you can imagine how much we go back and forth.

Differing views help me to understand an issue much more than listening to people that already agree with me.

Here are a couple comments about the single-payer system.

The first, from Helenair.com, is part of a news report about a town hall-style event in Missoula, Montana:

Steve McArthur is a management consultant.
Read self-employed.
That means he has to buy his own insurance, a Blue Cross Blue Shield policy that costs him $584 a month and carries a $10,000 deductible.
On Tuesday morning, he listened for a long time as Missoulians discussed health care reform at a listening session at St. Patrick Hospital sponsored by U.S. Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont.
The hearing ranged broadly over the possibilities for reform, but what clearly resonated for McArthur was something Baucus' chief of staff, Jon Selib, said a couple of times.
Discussing why a single-payer system of health insurance wasn't viable, Selib made reference to the more than 150 million Americans who are covered by some sort of employer-provided health care.
"A lot of people like that," Selib said.
When the time came for questions, McArthur stood up and asked a simple question. Looking across a standing-room-only crowd of about 275, he asked how many were happy with their employer-based health insurance.
Fewer than 10 people raised their hands.
"The number is bogus," McArthur said. "It's not working for 95 percent of us."
McArthur drew resounding applause.

And here is a group of doctors from Oregon planning a cross-country drive to promote a single-payer plan:

https://madashelldoctorstour.com/Home_Page.html

This is one of the doctors' comments:

Let’s be clear. Health insurance companies don’t pay for medical care. You do. You pay through taxes, through your insurance premiums, and through your out-of-pocket expenses. As your physician, I also get paid from multiple sources: Medicare, Medicaid, for-profit private insurance companies, direct pay from patients, and a few other oddball places. If this sounds complex, you understand the situation.
In a Single Payer System, your taxes go toward a government regulated, not-for-profit agency administered by medical personnel.You pay nothing else – not out-of-pocket, not to for-profit insurance companies (unless you really like giving your money away). When you see a physician, or go to the hospital, or buy medications, the physician, hospital, or pharmacy is paid by this agency. This agency is the Single Payer.
It sounds simple. It is.

This is what many of us want -- in some polls, a strong majority are in favor of it. The government refuses to consider it. The government has not merely overlooked this possibility, it has deliberately ignored it. When the first hearings about health care reform were being held, and advocates for the single-payer system asked to be represented, they were told they could not even attend the meetings, much less speak at them.

A blogger named BDBlue wrote this today, and I think correctly:

This is why single payer never got a seat at the table. Not because it wasn't politically popular with voters. If that were the case, they would've given it a seat and then ignored it.
The reason it's been denied air everywhere - and why they had to come up with the "public option" buzzword to deny it air even among a lot of progressives - is because it would be wildly popular. So popular, they wouldn't be able to stop it.

It's the best system. We should have it.

You can fool some of the people, some of the time, but you can't foll all the people all of the time!

This guy and his Elitist Off-Shore Foreign Banker friends are the biggest liars and thieves we've ever seen in the American Government, they should be impeached for High Treason!