Tim, I wish your article had been entitled "Is the PUBLIC Media Protecting Private Insurance?"

FRONTLINE'S actions vis a vis T.R. Reid and "Sick Around America" have permanently damaged its credibility as an investigative organization, and their published responses to the outcry have been pathetic.

In 1997, my sweet, smart, funny husband died because his internist (a "gatekeeper" who was paid a bonus NOT to refer patients to specialists) refused to refer him to a cardiologist for his heart symptoms, although he had a history of heart disease.

Everyone who HAS insurance needs to understand that we are ALL under-insured, because we are at the mercy of the private insurance industry, and they have no mercy!

My husband was only 60 when the insurance industry let him die. Since then, things have gotten steadily worse. I am self-employed and my health insurance premium goes up $100 per month every year because, guess what? Every year I am one year older and therefore more of a risk to the insurance company. Of course, if I had a pre-existing condition, I wouldn't be able to get insurance at all.

How bad does is have to get before Americans DEMAND single-payer national health insurance? What kind of people are we, anyway?

I think the lesson here is that "the media" still has a lot to learn, a reminder that we have not had good, comprehensive coverage of healthcare issues in the US. Even Frontline, I think, is in many ways late to this story, and I suspect that's the lesson of the second documentary. I also think a lot of people say they want "journalism" when they mean "serious advocacy" - it's clear many progressives will not accept much beyond the most criical assesments of private insurers, the lauding of Medicare, and outright advocacy of universal, sib=ngle payer plans. That's fine... but it's not, exactly, journalism, where we'd need to follow the story wherever it leads, and face up to just how hard some of this is going to be, with choices no one may like much.

I don't think insurance has ever been the answer to our problems; but the public debate that has been shaped out of the 1993-1994 mess has focused on "coverage" first... and bigger issues like "care" and "cost" have been left aside. I don't think AHIP's the (only) bad guy in a "coverage" debate... but more to the point, I think "coverage" has warped what we're trying to solve. I think in order to refocus from coverage to our other pressing issues, you'd need a public discussion of what those issues are... which is, um, journalism. And, well, we're not getting that. Still.

This is the most badly written article I have read in a long time.  I don't understand what Mr. Foley is trying to say, and he also jumps from one subtopic to another.  The writing is very unfocused.  I think he's trying to say that T.R. Reid disapproved of unchallenged insurance industry assertions in the Frontline program.  If so, why does it take so many words to say this?  If I were Mr. Foley, I would instead ANSWER these unanswered assertions.  We need folks who will present the truth with CLARITY.

All so true TIM, plus the fact that there is now an entirely new business that is a go-between between insurance purchasers/employers and the insurance companies. It fight the insurance companies for the insurance buyers. Saving the companies money, presumably, although costing them for its services,  but only further reducing the amount of actual $$ used to pay for health care. Billions and billions each year wasted on this too.We must have some form of non-profit insurance no matter how anti-capitalistic that sounds. Actual providers of services will still be paid for their services, but no go-betweens to rake off non-care money.

Timothy Foley: "But what you never see balancing the discussion is any acknowledgment that cherry-picking health customers and denying care to those who need it is a morally repugnant business practice to begin with."

Usually when we think of murder, we think of someone using a gun or knive to take another person's life. However, there are more insideous ways of killing another human being as the health insurance industry demonstates.

When a health insurance company rescinds someone's insurance or denies a claim after that person has become seriously ill, the insurance company is effectively cutting the cord to that person's life support. They might as well have pushed the patient off a cliff and blamed the rocks below for killing him.

Stark terms for a stark reality. But it's the reality of our situation that congressional reformers often ignore; the pain of others little more than an abstraction to them. We need meaningful reform. We don't need another compromise with the source of our discontent.

Republicans will tar and feather anything that hints of reform with the charge of "socialism!" They did to the Clinton Health Plan, and they're doing it to Obama, too.

Mr. President and Democratic Members of Congress: you are already "socialists" in the eyes of the Republican minority and will be called such no matter what you do. So you might as well do something that counts and enact national health insurance. It won't be a moment too soon.

To repeat a post I made earlier about the media's fear of single payer.


From the Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting Study

"Single-payer--a model in which healthcare delivery would remain largely private, but would be paid for by a single federal health insurance fund (much like Medicare provides for seniors, and comparable to Canada's current system)--polls well with the public, who preferred it two-to-one over a privatized system in a recent survey (New York Times/CBS, 1/11-15/09). But a media consumer in the week leading up to the summit was more likely to read about single-payer from the hostile perspective of conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer than see an op-ed by a single-payer advocate in a major U.S. newspaper.

Over the past week, hundreds of stories in major newspapers and on NBC News, ABC News, CBS News, Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, NPR and PBS's NewsHour With Jim Lehrer mentioned healthcare reform, according to a search of the Nexis database (2/25/09-3/4/09). Yet all but 18 of these stories made no mention of "single-payer" (or synonyms commonly used by its proponents, such as "Medicare for all," or the proposed single-payer bill, H.R. 676), and only five included the views of advocates of single-payer--none of which appeared on television.

Of a total of 10 newspaper columns FAIR found that mentioned single-payer, Krauthammer's syndicated column critical of the concept, published in the Washington Post (2/27/09) and reprinted in four other daily newspapers, accounted for five instances. Only three columns in the study period advocated for a single-payer system (San Diego Union-Tribune, 2/26/09; Boston Globe, 3/1/09; St. Petersburg Times, 3/3/09).

The FAIR study turned up only three mentions of single-payer on the TV outlets surveyed, and two of those references were by TV guests who expressed strong disapproval of it: conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks (NewsHour, 2/27/09) and Republican congressman Darrell Issa (MSNBC's Hardball, 2/26/09)."


http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3733

"Is the media protecting private insurance?" I would say yes. Some networks unconsciously, some consciously. This "pack" of "collective thinking" has permeated most of our news resources, which is truly disheartening.

What I find most curious is the refusal to seriously and respectfully discuss the single-payer option at any major media network. They focus on squabbling about the public option, the promises made by insurance companies to cooperate with "reforms," and occasionally refer to the Republicans who cry "Socialism!" thereby continuing to demonize and marginalize anyone who speaks up for a single-payer system.

Thanks for posting this, Tim. Very good question that needs to be explored on a national level. I could debate this all day, haha, and I'm sure you could too.

The so-called mainstream media has definitely ignored reporting accurately on single payer national health care even though we have an actual bill in Congress, HR 676.  If media was bombarded by letters/emails/faxes from single payer advocates commenting on either the absence of single payer from the media coverage or corrected misinformation about the report that included single payer it would be hard to ignore because there are so many single payer advocates.  It requires following radio, TV, print, internet which is more than a full time job.  I also urge single payer advocates to contact comedians, especially Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, to address the media "blackout" of single payer.  The way media and politicians ignore single payer is the perfect fodder for their type of satire - hyprocrisy and lack of response to the wishes of the citizenry.  And the media is quite sensitive to being the butt of jokes by Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert.  If we could persuade them to direct their satire to healthcare reform, media would not be able to ignore single payer health care reform.

Hmmm, this whole health care evolutionary growth over the past 20 or so years is a sore that we have allowed to fester without treatment...and restraint.

I have long felt the greedy insurance conglomerate that has swallowed up the practice of medicine needs to be exorcised!
I'm sick of seeing the continuing regurgitation of political rhetoric about forcing insurance costs down while we absently allow the insurers total control of the parameters by which the practice of medicine has instead become a shell game of practice-by-risk-management.

My thinking: NON-PROFIT.

Why non-profit health consortiums run much like credit unions where we deposit our money into a common pool , where there are no profit incentives, nor shareholders to pay? Or fat cat CEO's getting millions, even for doing a miserable job! 

I recall a USA Today article back in the late 80s or early 90s about a group of Seattle doctors who opted out of the insurance racket, shunning the insurance companies and offering their patients instead much less costs by offering direct payment for their services.

Then I kept wondering, where the hell is the AMA and other health care professions on this idea? But apparently they, too, have been swallowed up by the insurance monolith.

For states and government to "require" us to purchase insurance is imposing economic servitude on those of us least able to afford it. There should be lawsuits in all 50 states, and eventually the Supreme Court, challenging any laws where health-profiteering clearly strikes the hardest and most unfairly upon the most vulnerable Americans...the uninsured.

Hmmm, this whole health care evolutionary growth over the past 20 or so years is a sore that we have allowed to fester without treatment...and restraint.

I have long felt that the greedy insurance conglomerate that has swallowed up the practice of medicine needs to be exorcised!

I'm sick of seeing the continuing regurgitation of political rhetoric about forcing insurance costs down while we absently allow the insurers total control of the parameters by which the practice of medicine has instead become a shell game of practice-by-risk-management.

My thinking: NON-PROFIT.

Why non-profit health consortiums run much like credit unions where we deposit our money into a common pool , where there are no profit incentives, nor shareholders to pay? Or fat cat CEO's receiving millions for lackluster performance while average Americans are laid off or fired for theirs!

I recall a USA Today article back in the late 80s or early 90s about a group of Seattle doctors who opted out of the insurance racket, shunning the insurance companies and offering their patients instead much less costs by offering direct payment for their services.

Then I kept wondering, where the hell is the AMA and other health care professions on this idea? But apparently they, too, have been swallowed up by the insurance monolith.

For states and government to "require" us to purchase insurance is imposing economic servitude on those of us least able to afford it. There should be lawsuits in all 50 states, and eventually the Supreme Court, challenging any laws where health-profiteering clearly strikes the hardest and most unfairly upon the most vulnerable Americans...the uninsured.

Look, let's cut to the chase, shall we? The "media" is an oligarchy that needs trust busting. Where's Obama on that? It should be job one. So far, the silence is deafening.

Job two is to ensuring there's a public, non-profit health insurance option -- at least -- with which private insurors have to compete. Where's Obama on that? Again, crickets.

I'll admit Obama is riding a wave of approval now, but if he continues to ignore these things, and do his other kowtows to the oligarchs like stiffing the unions on card check, grinding workers at domestic auto makers, and gifting trillions to Wall St, well, he's not going to last through a second term. Heck, he'll get a Republican congress in the mid-terms, and that's quite an accomplishment.

There's far too much "more of the same" from this administration. Reaganomics, globalization and union busting have got us where we are. Paul Krugman says that the initial attempts at single-payer healthcare were quashed because the Dixiecrats were afraid it would integrate Southern hospitals. You'd think Obama of all people would break from that tradition, but if he continues to follow these other policies, he's not promoting "Change you can believe in"... it's "the more things change, the more they stay the same."

I would have to agree and say that I think amungst the other things they are trying to cover up that is one and its due largely to the fact that in hard times its such a big money maker, along with pharm. drugs.
my blog

I echo what NYC Webboy said above -- the media indeed has a *lot* to learn about reporting health care payment issues.  Beyond the fact that their coverage has been, unfortunately, dictated by the political whims of various candidates, just on the most basic level, the concept of funding health care in this country is enormously complicated.  Distilling the how-to's of how Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurance works, with the multiple layers of organizational structure and contracting for rates, is a tremendous task, even if your audience are relatively educated individuals.

If I were ever to make a documentary a la Frontline, I would follow the trail of the fee schedule.  How do insurers decide that your physician visit costs $800 and that your lab test for a simple blood draw is $1,300?  I'm convinced they make these numbers up, even as they claim that these are "actual and reasoanble" costs of coverage. A-ha, perhaps this is the tack towards educating the public about the pitfalls of a for-profit health insurance scheme.

Come on folks, while Universal Healthcare is a novel idea it is not a valid solution. The government will not be able to run this efficiently and will ultimately destroy the healthcare we do have (which is arguably the best in the world). Can you honestly tell me when the last time you said to yourself, wow the post office is really efficient and well run. 
What we need to do is put the costs of all of this in the hands of the people. What I mean, kind of in line with what some have said about education, is that the consumer needs to take responsibility for the system. What did we expect would happen when we let out insurance company handle the bills. We in fact were righting a blank check. We need to take control. Perhaps make people pay the bills and get reimbursed from the insurance company. Or at the very least require itemized bills and have patients have to approve the billings before they can be paid out or submitted. 

It is indeed amazing that we pay enormous amounts of cash to support an entire industry of healthcare middlemen. It seems like the system is set up so that companies have every incentive to profit without actually having to worry about something like satisfying their customers.

As a potential future participant in the US medical system, I worry every day that I'll end up being stuck as some kind of two-faced gatekeeper (like Carla's internist) who works to help some company turn a profit while pretending to have the patients best interests at heart.

I know exactly what everyone is talking about, because I'm a victim of the practices of the Insurance Industry, I had a very well known company, I needed help for an injury to my spine, and they say NO, this is from a company I was paying every month, it took many months, the pain was unbearable at times, I moved around my house alot of times on my hands and knees, while my attorney was fight for my rights, after the judge viewed the MRI and XRAY, he passed his orders, I was given 3 surgeries over time, but it was too late for me, I live in pain everyday, I'll never know, what if I could have received medical care when I got injuried the very first day, would I have a real chance. I just don't know. This is a real example of the healthcare we have now. and we as American citzens don't need anything like this. I do not want another man, woman or child to ever have to endure what I had to.

We need to point out to people that we have "socialized police forces," "socialized firefighters," "socialized schools," and "socialized libraries." We have decided that these entities are so vital to civilized society that we will cooperate to pay for them together.

Of course, to live in a civilization, it is essential to have health care, too. At any given moment, 20% of the population accounts for 80% of the health care resources (costs). Why should 100% of the people pay for the health care of the 20%? Well, we could say we should pay because we are compassionate human beings. But the more self-interested reason is that most of us have spent some time being part of that 20%, and at some point, ALL of us WILL.

Babble. babble and more babble.  Someone needs to march up to the White House and say, "Mr. Pres. Obama,  Talk is cheap!!  You made promises and said things in your campaign that seemed to favor universal single payer health are for all.  Now you appear to be listening to the insurance and drug companies only.  Why was it that only after pressure did you invite a few single payer folks to your so-called discussions for all the stakeholders?  Answers, we demand answers!!"

I am in Medical Care in Washington DC and it is really quite simple--when you turn 65 you get Universal Healthcare whether you like it or not and it is called Medicare!  I opt for placing ALL Americans under Medicare...it is already in place and sets the standard for commerical insurance anyway.  I would not allow doctors to opt out of the system if they have a license in the USA--they HAVE to participate.  We need to tweak the system to make it more like France or to create our own Gold Standard.  We CAN do this here in the USA and get rid of the for profit insurance companies that can deny coverage at any stage of the game--they really need to be outlawed.  We really cannot continue making money off of sick patients--doctors should earn bonusues when people stay healthy or improve their health--not get paid to keep people sick with expensive medicines etc.  Other countries do it and so can we!

Tim Foley, if you possibly can, please announce this more widely and at the top of the "Health Care" page:

Everyone reading this, if you have not already, PLEASE go to healthreform.gov, click on "Join the Discussion" at the bottom of the page, and tell President Obama in your own words, what you EXPECT from health care reform. The more people who clearly state that they want and expect single-payer national health insurance, the harder it will be for the White House to completely ignore us.

Send this message to everyone on your email list. Don't worry if not all of them tell Obama they want Medicare-for-all. Enough of them will that it could make a difference.

The President keeps saying he wants our input. For Heaven's sake, let's give it to him!

Carla, I did just what you suggested.  Now if everyone would do so who reads your post--it may just make an impression.

Thanks for the information,
Jennifer

Carla, I did just what you suggested.  Now if everyone would do so who reads your post--it may just make an impression.

Thanks for the information,
Jennifer