“If other countries’ systems are so successful, why do their people fly to the United States for health care all the time.”  Views such as this are usually programed by the opposition depending on the issue. Fiction as fact is the best argument, especially when ones mind is fostered to believe what it is told with out knowing the facts, truth has a long climb to the top, will it ever make it?

MeHere, June 20 at 11:07 am #

ardee:

You didn’t read my post properly.
...............................

Sorry, but no. Your second post in no way matches the content or intent of your first criticism of NPR.

Have fun in your ‘retirement’.

Actually I’ve been listening to NPR for about 25 years now.  It has been my main source of news.  If I did not find NPR I would not support it.  I used to listen to Fresh Air regularly.  There are so many stories that you will get nowhere else.  However, when it comes to certain issues there is not the balance there should be.  I take nothing back on my thought about the way NPR is handling the health care reform issue.  Read the comments at the end of most of the health care stories and regular viewers are feeling this way, too. 

Marketplace, on the other hand, had an excellent story last night on health care and in a pretty short time they hit on all sides of the issue.  I had the opportunity to meet David Brancaccio, the original host, years ago in a free lunch hosted by my PR station at Danford’s Inn in Port Jefferson.  There I learned about shadow stats for the first time when it came to unemployment.

Don’t make assumptions that because people don’t agree with the way NPR is reporting on a particular very important issue that they do not search out all the facts and do not think for themselves.  When it comes to health care many of us are experiencing the facts up close and personal.

ardee:

You didn’t read my post properly.  I didn’t say NPR doesn’t mention the less known positions and alternatives involved in political issues. I said that they do not devote the same amount of time to them—actually much less.  I clearly remember an appalling, brief interview they did with R. Nader during which they rushed him and treated him very rudely—very different from the treatment I heard others get.

You say you “have no clue” as to what I mean….. I wish I could help you with that.  I’m glad that you are an NPR “thinking listener.”  That’s what the country needs, thinking people that will not buy fraud and deceit.  In the meantime, I’ll “crawl back into the woodwork” and develop my thinking skills so I can become an elightened NPR listener.

mehere,

NPR does what it can to get out real fair and balanced news, and has better programing than all others, perfection is difficult to achieve.

I suggest constructive criticism, instead of destructive criticism.

As a member of the 70% Majority Common Population, I listen to NPR every day and I am thankful that NPR is on the dial, otherwise, there would only be right-wing propaganda or nothingness. 

Peace.

MeHere, June 20 at 4:50 am #

I must point out that those are incorrect assessments. When it comes to current political issues, NPR has been following the same criteria of mainstream media in choosing what they report, who they interview, and what they discuss.  Only their style is different.  They have not given equal time to the single-payer option.  And they never gave equal time to the third party alternative during the last election.  Therefore, the facts on politics that NPR fans get are limited.
..........................

I do not know the reason you post untruths in this fashion, but I have noticed that there are regular attacks on NPR by posters who hit and then run. I will not let my imagination run wild with supposition as to whom you represent or why you post such unsubstantiated nonsense.

NPR has had numerous discussions regarding the health care options facing this nation, and, during the last election, had every third party candidate on the ballot given air time, including Bob Barr, Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney. That is a statement no other station can make I believe. Should you care to peruse their archives available at NPR.org Im certain you will find them.

As to the reportage being: NPR has been following the same criteria of mainstream media in choosing what they report, who they interview, and what they discuss.  Only their style is different. Ive no clue as to what this broad brush “indictment” is meant to convey. You do not state in what way NPR follows the same criteria…do you mean they use the English language, or that they interview?

As a long time member of NPR and a long time listener I stand by my statement that this public broadcasting medium is the most impartial, the most honest and has the widest coverage available to thinking listeners. Perhaps that is the very reason some crawl out of the woodwork with such spurious and sophomoric charges.

ardee says:

NPR “is the best reportage available” and that “the fans prefer to get all the facts and think for themselves.”

I must point out that those are incorrect assessments. When it comes to current political issues, NPR has been following the same criteria of mainstream media in choosing what they report, who they interview, and what they discuss.  Only their style is different.  They have not given equal time to the single-payer option.  And they never gave equal time to the third party alternative during the last election.  Therefore, the facts on politics that NPR fans get are limited.

NPR has programs on other subjects that are often quite good.

To MeHere….

Thanks for the links.

Cathy, June 19 at 8:53 pm #

I have ranted out NPR’s skewed reporting on health care and the words “single payer” is rarely uttered out loud.
.......................

and to prove your point you post a link to an interview in which the term “single payer” plays a prominent role. Hmmm

As one who listens to NPR throughout the day I do not subscribe to your negative views on this outlet. It is, in my opinion, the fairest reportage available. Some seem to think that, because they refuse to become “Limbaugh Left”, they are worthy of criticism.

Steve Inskeep is, by the by, the best of the best, along with Terry Gross of Fresh Air, perhaps the best interviewer plying the trade.
I believe those who criticize NPR differ from those who applaud it in the distinction that the fans prefer to get all the facts and think for themselves.

I have ranted out NPR’s skewed reporting on health care and the words “single payer” is rarely uttered out loud.  I thought it was my imagination, although I was assured it wasn’t.  Then Sebelius talked this week and was interviewed by Steve Inskeep.  Check out the comments after this one story.  The comments after the other stories on health care were just as scathing.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2009/06/hhs_secretary_suggests_obama_c.html

http://counterpunch.org/pace06122009.html

These are two excellent programs recently presented by Bill Moyers on the issue of the single-payer option which is not being considered by the government.  They are interviews with two physicians and a nurse who, along with their organizations, are actively pursuing this option.  You can watch the programs or read the transcripts:

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/05222009/profile2.html

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/05222009/transcript1.html

To William W. Wexler:
In one of those programs, or in another one (also recent) where Moyers interviewed Robert Reich, there is a reference (and video clip) to Obama’s support for single-payer when he was a Senator in 2003.

It’s amazing that we Americans are searching for a solution to our exploding health care costs and our inabilities to bring universal health care to WE THE PEOPLE.

Maybe we should ask people from any of these countries if they have any ideas:

Argentina
Austria
Belgium
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Brazil
Brunei
Bulgaria
Canada
Chile
China
Costa Rica
Croatia
Czech Republic
Cuba
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Georgia
Germany
Greece
Hong Kong
Hungary
Iceland
India
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Kuwait
Latvia
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Mexico
Netherlands
Norway
Pakistan
Panama
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Saudi Arabia
Serbia
Seychelles
Singapore
Slovakia
Slovenia
South Korea
Spain
Sri Lanka
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
Thailand
U.K.
Ukraine
Uruguay
Venezuela

Just an idea….

Outraged, June 18 at 11:26 pm

maybe we should have a huge, non-violent, quiet march to mourn OUR DEAD from lack of healthcare (much like the Iranians are for their fellow reformers). That’s 18,000 people a year, their deaths should be recognized.  They shouldn’t become a mere statistic of political volleyball.

I wonder if Iran has a more vibrant democracy than do we? Hundreds of thousands in the streets protesting an election while we, who reside in “the belly of the beast” cannot protest the inhumanity we inflict abroad or the theft of our own democracy at home.

Where on earth are the people in all this? Some post in forums like this, expressing rage, or vision, or plans that seem logical, most remain at home , if they haven’t been foreclosed upon yet, watching their pensions slip away more each day. The only thing, in my opinion, that is going to make a difference is tens of thousands of people in the streets in every major city across this nation seeking to take back our government.

Are we so filled with ennui that we care but not enough to act? If so then we do not deserve the restoration of our democracy.

Single payer will not keep anyone out because they can’t afford healthcare, but as it exists in Oregon and Canada it excludes drugs that are judged too expensive even though they work—lots of cancer drugs, the TNF monoclonals that keep many RA patients walking around, a drug to prevent MS-caused blindness, etc. Any single payer program should make it possible for effective drugs to be used. This means that the drug companies have to be brought into the conversation, not just insurers and the AMA.

My internist’s two sons shifted their studies to engineering and psychiatry, because they have watched their father struggle to take care of his patients despite their ability to pay or lack of same. When the multi-doctor practice he belongs to decided no patient should get more than 15 minutes, he got his own bookkeeper. When they said no more Medicaid patients, he worked longer hours and kept it off the book. They got rid of his bookkeeper so he tried to buy out of the practice but they named a figure he couldn’t afford so he works even longer hours. He’s been practicing 31 years (I know because he was just hanging out his shingle when my husband and I were married in San Francisco, went looking for a good doctor and found him.) He starts seeing patients at 8a.m. and frequently leaves at 8p.m. Once home he answers all the phone messages from patients he didn’t have time to call because he was seening too many people. He also belongs to the AMA. Not all that group’s members fit their lobbying profile.

On the other thread ardee and wykydred had made these comments:

Wykydred: “You aren’t including the millions of people in this country who DON’T vote because they stood back and just see the bullshit lies and promises. Their voices mean nothing to ANY side of the political coin, and a coin seems to only have two sides.

Ardee:  I look upon the fifty percent or so of the electorate who dont vote as fertile ground for change. Of course, providing the impetus for their involvement in the process is the key.

This got me to thinking…. these people may not vote or support A CANDIDATE (I know a quite a few of them), however….. they DO SUPPORT issues.  This group might be the straw that breaks the camels back, especially in large numbers, if we can reach these…... it could be a game changer.

I was thinking too, as I watched the news….. maybe we should have a huge, non-violent, quiet march to mourn OUR DEAD from lack of healthcare (much like the Iranians are for their fellow reformers). That’s 18,000 people a year, their deaths should be recognized.  They shouldn’t become a mere statistic of political volleyball.

They are the unspoken centerpiece, we’re next.  Everyone who suffers a debilitating illness knows that.  Lose your health, then….lose your livelihood, then…..lose most of what you own, then….become homeless or close to it,then….lose your healthcare then,....die. 

The safety net is torn to shreds and Social Security benefits take YEARS to acquire, although it is shorter if you threaten to commit suicide.  What does that tell you…...

Brusays,

With single-payer health care for ALL, our nation could save money by getting rid of all military hospitals and pharmacies, VA Hospitals and Pharmacies, Medicare, and Medicaid because there would be no need of these because everyone would be covered. Government ran single payer health care would be really cost effective.

boggs….In my area there are doctors who will not accept any more HMO patients. In my area there are pre-med students who dropped out of school rather than get mixed up in the current care giver vs. insurance company crap. 

Single Payer isn’t Medicare (available only for the elderly or disabled) nor is it an HMO or a PPO. Single Payer can take on many forms and operate and be funded at Federal, State or local levels. It can be customized to match an area’s demographic or actuarial needs. Whatever.

Single Payer spreads the risk over a far broader population. Everyone’s in; nobody’s out. With a broader base, per-patient costs come down. Administrative costs come down. Personal bankruptcies due to medical costs end. And almost incredibly, because most current health insurance programs do not reimburse for doctor-recommended preventative screenings, Single Payer would lower costs as most patients would receive earlier, less costly care. Under Single Payer you can choose your doctor rather than your “plan’s doctors.”

To those who claim Single Payer will move health decisions from the doctor to a bureaucrat just aren’t paying attention. Every time a doctor recommends a procedure for an insured patient, he or she has to clear it through a bureaucrat - a health insurance worker - who’s first concern isn’t your health but cost containment within their for-profit operation.

Well, I’m afraid you will see Doctors drop out of the profession in great numbers if you tell them they have to take single payer or nothing.
Already in my community many doctors will not accept new medicare patients.

Just what WE THE PEOPLE need, a socialist coalition of wealthy doctors against the common majority population.

The Doctors in the AMA who feel like healthcare is only for the wealthy, should hang up their placard that they don’t accept single payer and I would gladly seek out a Doctor who does. The ones who are in it solely for the wealth aren’t good with other peoples problems anyway. They are far too busy scheduling their next golf tournament.

Why we cannot have single payer, and why Obama is not in support of single payer, one must bolster status quo, the hand that feeds.  People, what people?

“Save $400 billion a year in bloated corporate administrative and executive compensation costs.” Insurance companies are so important in the grand scheme of things, especially to the money sucking machine known as Congress.

Thanks for posting Nader’s email, ardee… I was thinking about doing it myself.  I forwarded it to several people last night.

I would have liked it better if Nader would have cited the exact quote where Obama said he supported single payer.  That’s because I noticed in about February or March of last year, just after the Iowa Caucus, that Obama was calibrating his message about health care to be more noncommittal and ambiguous.  My first real evidence that he was NOT for single payer was a speech he gave in that time frame to a small business group where he was talking about “making health insurance affordable for small business”. 

Any statement that includes the phrase “health insurance” is referring to the private insurance system.

I was not surprised by this, or maybe I was, but it came in a flurry of other equivocations about FISA, public campaign financing, Iraq, and expanding the “faith based initiative”.  (As an aside, I sent several nastygrams to the campaign about the F-B-I asking for my campaign contributions to be refunded.  They actually started answering me personally; first, with the statement that candidate Obama thought we needed “all hands on deck” to solve our many social problems, then they finally, graciously offered to refund my contributions!  The offer was sufficient.)

To the topic of the article…. it’s apparent that the AMA is now and has for decades been a front for a right wing extremist group.  Doctors who do not believe in this crap should quit and boycott the AMA.

-Wexler

Sorry for the double but I just got this email and want to share it:

(in part)
From: “Ralph Nader” <noreply@noreply.com>

In 2003,  Barack Obama said he was for single payer.

What would it take to get single payer enacted?
                 
“First, we have to take back the White House, the Senate and the House,” Obama said at the time.

Fast forward six years.

The Democrats have taken the White House.

The Senate and the House.

And now what’s Obama’s position?

In a speech this week in Chicago before the American Medical Association, Obama made clear he was now opposed to single payer.

And his lieutenants suggested that Obama would support legislation to make sure that single payer does not become a reality in America.

There’s only one explanation for Obama’s flip-flop on single payer.

The health insurance and drug corporations have a hammerlock on Washington.

And Obama is going along to get along.

What’s the net result?

Sixty Americans are dying every day due to lack of health insurance. (Institute of Medicine report.)

Instead of getting behind single payer, Obama and the Democrats are engaged in the what Dr. Marcia Angell, former editor-in-chief at the highly regarded New England Journal of Medicine calls “the futility of piecemeal tinkering.”

Earlier this week, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that the most liberal of the Democrats’ tinkering plans would cost $1 trillion over ten years and still leave 37 million Americans uninsured.

Single payer on the other hand would cost less than we are overpaying now—and cover everyone.

Zero uninsured.

As Dr. Angell puts it—single payer is not only the best option.

It’s the only option that will both control costs and cover everyone.

Replace 1,300 insurance industry payers with one payer.

Save $400 billion a year in bloated corporate administrative and executive compensation costs.

Free choice of doctor and hospital.

Use that money to insure everyone.

No bills, no co-pays, no deductibles.

No exclusions for pre-existing conditions—because under single payer, you are insured from the day you are born.

No bankruptcies due to medical bills.

No deaths due to lack of health insurance.

Cheaper. Simpler. More affordable.

Everybody in. Nobody out.

According to recent polls, the majority of Americans, the majority of doctors, the majority of nurses, even the majority of health economists want single payer.

That’s why almost every health care town hall event I hear about is dominated by citizens speaking out for single payer.

Last month, we asked that you help fund a new non-profit organization - Single Payer Action - to focus this citizen energy, break through the corporate logjam in Washington and make single payer a reality.

You came through with flying colors—and blew past our initial fundraising goal.

The foundation was set for action.

Out of the blocks, Single Payer Action led a stand up protest before Senator Max Baucus’ Senate Finance Committee.

Thirteen doctors, nurses, lawyers and other single payer advocates were summarily arrested and charged with “disruption of Congress.”

(Baucus later told single payer advocates that he regretted not inviting them to testify before his committee.)

The arrests of the Baucus 13, their upcoming trial, and other similar single payer actions around the country have galvanized a nationwide movement.

Considering that less than one third of all Doctors are AMA members I find it difficult to understand why this hidebound and stodgy group wields so much power over our decisions regarding health care.

Just another chink in the armor of our “democracy” I guess…..Will America ever awaken from its slumber, or perhaps stupor is a better descriptor.