LA Times' subtle bias in health care reporting
A front-page story in Tuesday's (March 17) Los Angeles Times reveals the subtle and inadvertent bias that creeps into the reporting of the debate over health care.
The story, by reporters Peter Nicholas and Janet Hook, was headlined "Obama Tries Hard Sell on His Agenda," describing the president's efforts to mobilize support for his budget plan. In the story's fourth paragraph, the reporters wrote: "The return to campaign-style tactics is intended to pressure lawmakers to back Obama's plans in Congress, particularly his $3.6-trillion budget. That would be a tough sell in any environment, with lawmakers and industry lobbyists skeptical of sweeping and costly plans to revamp healthcare, convert to alternative fuel and stabilize the financial sector."
The use of the word "costly" to describe Obama's health care proposal illustrates the way that bias creeps into journalism and frames the public debate on this important issue. In reality, Obama's proposal, as outlined during his campaign and by his health care advisors, would reduce health care costs.
Every economist and health care expert acknowledges that the United States currently spends more on health care on a per-capita basis and as a percentage of GDP than any other nation -- by a wide margin. Our current system is "costly." Indeed, the high cost of our existing health care system hurts our economy, our businesses, and our competitiveness with other nations as well as being costly in terms of the physical neglect of a large segment of the population (the 16% without insurance and the many more who are under-insured), which in turn makes people sicker and less productive.
The health care plans being formulated by Obama's team and Congressional Democrats would actually lower health care costs on a per-person basis and as a percentage of our GDP. This would be accomplished in part by controlling the costs of drugs , private insurance (by reducing the current huge administrative costs), and other expenses, and by allowing employers, the self-employed,and those without employer-sponsored insurance to participate in public or private risk-sharing insurance pools.
By framing the debate in this way -- by labeling Obama's plans "costly" -- the Los Angeles Times story inadvertently lends credibility to the conservative and Republican attacks on any Democratic proposal to reform health that would use government tools to restrain and reduce costs.
Unfortunately, the LA Times is not alone is framing the debate in this way. In general, the media report proposals to streamline, manage, reform, regulate, and expand health care coverage as "expensive," "costly, " "inefficient," and similar adjectives. By doing so, they are parroting, no doubt unwittingly in most cases, the conservative echo chamber. The media would be more accurate if they described such plans as proposals to "expand health care coverage and reduce costs."
What makes you think it is inadvertent?
The mainstream media has a strong corporatist bias, because all the big outlets are owned by large corporations. The corporatists are aligned far more closely, idealogically, with the Republicans and neo-conservatives. So the reality that this corporatist bias finds its way into the reporting doesn't seem like an accident to me.
-- ARG
March 19, 2009 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm 100% in agreement with ya ARG! But it doesn't help that Obama and his key financial/economic people are corporatist Demcorats of the DLC variety. That position actually undermines everything else Obama says he wants to do.
March 19, 2009 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, ARG! I had the exact same thought! I do not believe what gets printed anymore is "inadvertent". Especially health care!
March 19, 2009 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
.
I'll "frame" their debate. . .
Eighty-five cents a newspaper that's been reduced to less than 122 column inches in the entire front page section of the print addition? That's really too damn "costly" for me especially if it continues to help underwrite the wages of this type of "journalism."
But anyhoo...
The country currently bleeds in the neighborhood of $2.3 trillion on health care costs. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Without action, we will double our current national expenditure on health care from $2.3 trillion to $4 trillion, continue to witness the plight of tens of millions of our citizens without health insurance cost shifting to those who do, continue to tolerate poor quality that leads to nearly 100,000 deaths a year.
So to these authors at the LA Times, and/or whoever was working the editor's desk, what the hell is low cost, versus high cost to them?
Maybe the two should watch the video I've posted here at my Cafe blog:
HEALTH CARE: A Tale of Two Countries
Next . . .
~OGD~
March 19, 2009 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I highly recommend this comment!
March 19, 2009 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
.
Well I'm totally surprised . . .
Hahahahahah . . .
Hi there Thera!
~OGD~
March 19, 2009 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
How many of you are writing cogent letters to the editor on this?
How many take "costly" as a challenge to push Obama to present a concise rebuttal?
March 19, 2009 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
.
Why?
You keeping notes?
And as to Obama rebutting this particular article? The battle is yet to fully unfold. Do you play poker with with your cards face up?
And what is your activity related to the health issue consist of outside of asking others what there actions are?
I believe it was you that I had a short discussion with a little while back over what the main issue would come down to. I said competition. And lo-and-behold that's mainly what the conservatives on the hill and the insurance interests are fretting over. Did you ever watch this video posted at my blog? If you do bother to watch it, listen closely to the remarks of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee as they lay out their basic partisan just say no strategy. Neither one of them were fretting over the cost of a plan. They pointed out that they don't wish for any public policy to be offered to compete with the private insurance interests. Right?
So-- why should Obama be showing any cards this early in the game. Both the House and Senate are setting their schedules for this to come to a debate before the fall recess. A lot of time and lot of water will flow under the bridge between now and then.
~OGD~
March 19, 2009 10:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
So much for telling us the truth and transparency.
March 20, 2009 5:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
.
Ahhhh . . .
Is someone listening to Nora O'Donnell too much?
Or was it Jughead, as DD would say?
My life is not that boring.
Try vegetable gardening.
O' Rutabega !
~OGD~
March 20, 2009 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, but should I listen to Nora?
March 20, 2009 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Although you are correct about media bias in reporting the facts about health care reform in general, your particular example is wrong. In fact the Obama/Baucus proposals would increase both total costs and federal government costs. As do all plans that are not more or less single payer. And please, dont take the word of a single payer advocate for this. Since Baucus is on record as opposing an honest CBO analysis for now, the best recent analysis we have is by Lewin Group for Commonwealth:
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/Publications/Fund-Reports/2009/Jan/An-Analysis-of-Leading-Congressional-Health-Care-Bills--2007-2008--Part-I--Insurance-Coverage.aspx
Their stand-in for single payer (really public option on steroids; keep your current plan if you want to; expanded and improved Medicare if you want to) is the Stark proposal. Their stand in for Obama/Baucus, similar to Clinton and Edwards and earlier Hacker mandate proposals is the so called Building Blocks plan.
Read it yourself and weep:
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/Publications/Fund-Reports/2009/Jan/An-Analysis-of-Leading-Congressional-Health-Care-Bills--2007-2008--Part-I--Insurance-Coverage.aspx
While chronic care management, prevention, health IT and EHRs, evidenced based medicine are all good things, the preponderance of evidence is that they do not save money, at least not within a 10-20 year horizon. And single payer does them better too.
Again, no evidence that Obama/Baucus saves money (total costs as %GNP), and only analysis to date says that it does not. Strong public option like Starks proposal, and true single payer do. That is conclusion of indepdenent and honest advocates of Obama/Baucus, such as Commonwealth now on record as admitting this.
What their needs to be to have honest debate is a complete, honest, side-by-side comparison of all proposals, including HR-676, by the Congressional Budget Office. The side-by-side comparison should include projected costs to state governments, employers and to households of different income levels. For 2010 and beyond."
See also:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/2/25/701460/-Health-Reform-and-CostsThey-Are-Lying-To-You-(Obama-too)
March 20, 2009 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
hiv test london - Offering std and HIV tests, efficient confidential service.
June 16, 2010 9:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
lose weight - LOSE WEIGHT FAST - NO Dieting, Exercises, Pills, Surgery or EFFORT needed. 14lb loss in 4 weeks Guaranteed.
July 14, 2010 5:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Buy Erectile Dysfunction Medicine Online Buy Cheap Meds Online ¦ Discount Prescription Drugs Online at Super Cheap Meds Online Pharmacy! Discount Pharmacy, Discount Prescription Drugs.
September 3, 2010 6:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
This information is very useful! Thanks!
Best regards, Katya, CEO of hyper v vista, hitachi iscsi
March 31, 2011 9:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Medical care has always been the land of controversy between political representatives and health specialists. Bias is a common matter of it, for instance. I most of the times take the lead and make research on my own when it comes to some medical issue. It is vital that you make some inquiry on naturist products before going for conventional medicine treatments. There are health and wellness issues that we can`t quite solve at once because they were caused by a sum of factors from distinct causes. Which is why you better try nymphomax instead of anything else to see if it works. Best remedies come from where you least expect.
April 20, 2011 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
The post is written in very a good manner and it entails many useful information for me. I am happy to find your distinguished way of writing the post. Now you make it easy for me to understand and implement the concept. Thank you for the post.
Georgia Health Insurance Web
April 20, 2011 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nonin oximeters : MidMeds Medical Supplies, UKs leading supplier to the Primary Care market of Supplies, Consumables, Equipment and Surgical instruments.
April 22, 2011 5:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Si vous etes interesses par le dossier, ou desirez en savoir plus, contactez-moi par mail, et je vous mettrai en contact.
Best regards,Jane, CEO of cluster high availability
April 28, 2011 9:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
"We have had the "tobacco fight" in our Supreme Court of Canada: the government lost. Soon we will have the "gun fight": and, my bet, is that government will lose again.
Sands Resorts
May 4, 2011 10:21 PM | Reply | Permalink