You'll never guess what i heard on NPR
Today NPR had two long-time doctors on the show talking about their experiences. Towards they end of the interview, they asked one what he would do about the health care system.
He said he wanted a single payer system implemented. They didn't bleep it out or nothing. Usually i only expect to hear phrases like "single payer" on DFH sites like DailyKommie and CommunistUnderground [1]. To top it off, the other guest (who is customerally, the counterpoint), brought up the spectre of rationing....but not as a boogie man, just to say, that private insurances should still be available for those denied procedures. (I find it funny to think that private insurers will be more lenient with their benefits, but i guess if you pay enough).
Oddly enough they didn't explain what single payer was, (i can't imagine everyone knows all the buzzwords). Maybe that's what NPR thinks of as balance.
Or maybe the media is liberal...i guess we should prepare ourselves for the onslaught of angry mail complaining that they had two doctors on instead of a more balanced story with one doctor and one cold-hearted SOB.
[1] just in case: sarcasm
He said he wanted a single payer system implemented. They didn't bleep it out or nothing. Usually i only expect to hear phrases like "single payer" on DFH sites like DailyKommie and CommunistUnderground [1]. To top it off, the other guest (who is customerally, the counterpoint), brought up the spectre of rationing....but not as a boogie man, just to say, that private insurances should still be available for those denied procedures. (I find it funny to think that private insurers will be more lenient with their benefits, but i guess if you pay enough).
Oddly enough they didn't explain what single payer was, (i can't imagine everyone knows all the buzzwords). Maybe that's what NPR thinks of as balance.
Or maybe the media is liberal...i guess we should prepare ourselves for the onslaught of angry mail complaining that they had two doctors on instead of a more balanced story with one doctor and one cold-hearted SOB.
[1] just in case: sarcasm
Advertisement
I heard the story also. Yes one said the words "single payer" and the other said if one is 70 you will not be treated for quality of life things like knee replacement because of age. (What BS)
So the scrooge through the fear factor in, he won the argument by scaring the hell out of listeners and there was no clearing of the facts by NPR.
What I want is a discussion of the dying and the families of the dead that did not get treatment. I want the people that lost limbs because of gangrene that did not get treated in time or the children that did not get vaccinations. I want a story on how we are venerable to germ warfare because of our health care system.
I want a story on what happens if you have the best health insurance policy and gets hurt at work. Workman Compensation health care sucks. Most of the Doctors do not take it and one may have to go across the state for a specialist that takes State Workman Compensation. A simple panoramic jaw x-ray, lord forbid a hand injury, Florida is a tragedy for any health care. If one has health insurance and is hurt at work say it happened anywhere else if you want treatment.
I want single payer health care.
June 30, 2009 8:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
=(
I think I hear a good healthcare story in here someplace.
Just sayin'
June 30, 2009 9:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't really hear it as an argument though. The primary counterpoint seemed to come earlier in the show with an interview with some liberterian person in the context of co-ops. NPR seemed to want to push the co-op position and single-payer just sort of got in there accidently anyway.
The second doctor did bring up the fear factor, but even so gave an out through private secondary insurance. Although i agree he may have just wanted to connect single-payer to the 'rationing' word.
June 30, 2009 11:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
A physician on radio yesterday pointed out that one of the standard "scare stories" out there today against single payer is that in Canada if you need a hip replacement you are put on a list and may wait months.
Then he went on to point out that here in the US someone can be given a hip replacement within a very short time of when the requirement is identified. And I'll swear there was a grin in his voice when he went on to point out that hip replacements are required for the aged over age 65, so when they go in for a hip replacement here in the US it is always paid for by Medicare. Medicare is, of course, singly payer government health insurance for the elderly.
So hip replacements here are already part of a single payer government run finance system. The Canada story is not an argument against single payer health insurance. We already have it here.
July 1, 2009 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I so love the right-wing argument about Canada's health care system (patently false - just ask a Canadian). The question I always ask when confronted with this bit of "information" is how long do WE (who have insurance) here in the U.S. wait for urgent care under our insurance providers?
I myself waited three weeks to see my PCM and was routinely denied access. A staph infection and subsequent "rare" reaction to an antibiotic landed me in the hospital for a week with a blood disorder. Frankly, we all know that our system is disigned to keep sick people away. That's the main issue now, isn't it? The HMOs have gotten the idea that killing people is cheaper than treating them. And the military has gotten in on the act as well.
A public plan is the most realistic proposal out there at the moment and the most attainable. Though the public option should be viewed as a stepping-stone to a singlepayer system in my opinion.
Unfortunately we're just too broke for a single-payer system at the moment... George and company saw to that.
Meanwhile... I for one am not taking this lying down.
July 1, 2009 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wait - are you trying to say that NPR is centrist? I am not surprised at all that NPR would have on a guest who is supportive of single-payer. And I would not expect NPR to try to balance it out.
June 30, 2009 10:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't intend to make any concrete or serious statement about NPR's leanings. But i was genuinely surprised single payer was brought up.
NPR has a narrow ideological range and sometimes seems to distort arguments coming from the edges (and i don't mean fringes, i mean reasonable folks on left and right). Since the right tends to be more strident at times in order to shift the center of debate to their side, this often plays out in the left side getting shorted. Republican congressfolk don't seem to have a problem making strong and sometimes hyperbolic statements. On the other hand, a lot of democratic congressfolk try to be conciliatory and centrist and take great pains to avoid being labeled a kook.
They have no similar compunction about being labeled spineless though.
June 30, 2009 11:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
So would you say that NPR is center, left or right?
July 1, 2009 5:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure it's that simple.
A first approximation is (the U.S.'s) center-center-left. They are generally perceived to be left-ish. There is then some amount of overcompensation (conscious or not) to fight that perception by various methods. Add to that, that the various hosts have different ideological leanings, and that there are folks who are lazy or are just plain poor journalists, as well as, the choices of co-produced stories and commentators and it becomes nearly impossible (for me) to accurately describe them with a label. What i can say for certain is that NPR is left of Fox and most 20th century fascists.
These days, what i listen for in NPR is not so much an understanding of issues or events but an idea of how they are playing out in the media. The internet has allowed people unprecedented access to primary and secondary sources and actual expert opinion (not just expert media opinion) which tend to be far more valuable sources of information. So now i just check in to the mass media to see how various groups are trying to spin things, what information is actually getting to the public, what ideas are gaining traction, etc. (Note though that i'm talking about my relationship to media outlets, i'm not saying that NPR, NYT, WAPO, etc are useless in an absolute sense).
Hopefully, i've adequately evaded your question.
July 1, 2009 6:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
FAIR study of NPR bias
Yes, NPR is fairly centrist.
July 1, 2009 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Then of course there's the UCLA study which says there are not in the center. So it's up in the air but I think I have a fair case for saying that it's left of center. And yes there's also the Univ of Maryland study, etc etc. which will all say different things. So it's not as clear cut as one might think
July 1, 2009 9:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
What gives you the impression that NPR is so left leaning, MCB? The Univ. of Maryland did a study in 2003 on significant misperceptions of the Iraq war held by people and the source of their information.
Those who primarily watch Fox News are significantly more likely to have misperceptions, while those who primarily listen to NPR or watch PBS are significantly less likely.
Is accurate information left leaning in your opinion?
July 1, 2009 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reality does have a bias, you know. . .
July 1, 2009 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
You also have to consider that the US center is somewhat offset because of the tone of rhetoric. And compared to the rest of the world, we're pretty much all neocons. :>
July 1, 2009 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, of course accurate information is not leaning any which way. Although information is rarely ever just facts. How you report facts can certainly lead to bias. But I'm not sure what your link has to do with my question. I'm glad listeners to NPR are well-informed. I wish everybody were well-informed.
You cited the Univ of Maryland study - and I could have cited the UCLA study which said that NPR hardly differs from the "average mainstream news outlet". (I would view the average mainstream news outlets like CBS and NBC to be left-leaning) The study also said NPR is similar to Time, Newsweek and US News. I think Time and Newsweek are also left-leaning.
From my own personal experience of listening to NPR, the guests seem more often than not to have a liberal point of view. I am not saying that it's a far-left station, but I wouldn't say it's in the center, either.
July 1, 2009 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Give me a break. NPR is like every other news organization except for Fox and MSNBC. They all play everything 50/50, or attempt to, and go so far as to gin up counterbalancing views when the facts are incoveniently tilted one way or the other. Why do you think so many elections are so close?
Balanced...yes.
Fair...seldom.
Truthful...never!
July 1, 2009 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
We have had MD's, therapists and other health professionals screaming for single payer.
Just cause the AMA says something, does not mean all doctors think the same.
OH and good post. Yes. I would never know what is going on NPR unless TPMers told me.
June 30, 2009 11:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am a physician and I used to greet the words "Single Payer" with the sign of the cross, as if warding off a vampire. However, I now think it is the only answer that makes sense. It will have to be forced on us involuntarily. I don't think that will happen until things get much much worse.
If we got single payer today, I would open up my own clinic tomorrow. I wouldn't have to afford health insurance for myself and family, and I wouldn't have to employ someone simply to do paperwork.
I will say one thing about single payer. If we do get it, no one, and I mean NO ONE, will like it. Mark my words.
July 1, 2009 12:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
The health-care system can be a member of the pantheon of government services everyone loves to complain about, reasonable people know is wasteful, and most secretly benefit from when no one else is looking.
That said, i really doubt we'll get a single payer system. I'm sure we'll still be able to find something to complain about.
July 1, 2009 1:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Steevo, I think you are right about no one being happy. But, I don't much see how we have any choice. We can't continue to have so many without access to affordable health care. There doesn't seem to be any way to make the current insurance system work for everyone...Rock, meet hard place...
July 1, 2009 1:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
I used to be happy with the system, but that was when my health insurance cost $17 a week and it covered everything, with only a $10 co-pay on my part, $50 for hospital and ER, and no deductibles.
Now we are lucky because my wife's insurace only costs $250 a week, with a $25 co-pay, and a $3,000 deductible, after which they pay 80%. The same plan at my work costs $400 a week.
I am not happy with the current situation, and I don't know anybody who is, if they have to pay over a thousand a month for shitty coverage. The only people who seem happy with it are those with generous enough employers who get free or super-cheap health coverage, and those who make billions of dollars off the current system. My parents, who are on Medicare, rarely complain about their coverage, and visit the doctor without a second thought when they have a need. I, on the other hand, have put off an expensive but necessary procedure, for three years.
July 1, 2009 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Steevo. You have cheered me up today. Thank you for this.
And I always appreciated Batman over Superman. Batman always appeared 'more human'. ha!
July 1, 2009 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
How much worse can it get? The private insurers are okay with letting patients die rather than treating them... and entirely for the sake of profit. Its become their modus operandi. And surely you've heard of "patient dumping" by hospitals, notoriously in the Los Angeles area. There IS no "down" from here. But it's good to know of physicians who support the single-payer option.
July 1, 2009 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
You said it Here. And with all the irony befitting a conscious soul. Thank you Here.
July 1, 2009 1:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
hey, are you callin' me ugly!?
thanks for reading.
July 1, 2009 1:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're probably ugly. You're writing.
July 1, 2009 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're probably ugly. You're writing.
July 1, 2009 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok saying it once is just stating the truth, but the second time was all about hurting my feelings!
:D
July 1, 2009 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for sharing this. I am glad to hear it.
I am frankly concerned about the way the public has bought into the public option. I don't think it going to give us what we really need and it will extend/drag out the fight for single payer.
July 1, 2009 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kenneth Tomlinson, was appointed by Bumble (read Bush) to head The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, but he was formerly the CEO of "Readers Digest" (perhaps the most secretive neo-conservative organization in the country, with the possible exception of Dobson's Focus on the Family).
Anyways Tomlinson, actually GAVE MONEY to the Wall Street Journal to produce a weekly program, called Wall Street Week. He also paid six figures to a PR firm to do a study to prove how liberal NPR and PBS was. After he got the results he refused to allow anyone to see them.
Oh and this man drove Bill Moyers to retire and then eventually harassed him so much he
un-retired to produce his own show for PBS.
The neo-CONS have very nearly ruined PBS and NPR.
July 1, 2009 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
If i recall correctly it was either Reader's Digest or Cosmo that orchestrated the false flag terrorist attacks! :D
I kid, i kid!...i'll be here all week, thanks, and remember to tip your wait staff!
But seriously, Tomlinson's was a sad and deeply troubling era in public broadcasting. I'm not quite sure it has yet recovered.
July 1, 2009 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
They obviously should have had one doctor who has treated patients and tried to get paid for it, together with one typical whacked-out economist with an agenda.
July 1, 2009 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I'm far from interested in "how biased" any particular news outlet is. Fox (and, to the other side, MSNBC) annoys me, but I've always found NPR to be decent.
That said, of course a lot of doctors are for single payer. For the vast majority of doctors, single payer would be a windfall. It would instantly create a massive shortage of doctors, and thereby increase their salaries.
However, the better connected and wealthier AMA has a financial interest in the current system.
Doctors, like everybody else, vote their pocketbooks.
July 1, 2009 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you know one large bloc that definitely DOESN'T vote their pocketbooks? Lower and middle-class republicans. They are continually screwed by their party, but because they vote based on fear, it over-rides their own needs.
THE DEATH TAX!! Gotta vote for republicans so I don't get taxed for dying -- how many of these people are leaving behind over a million dollars in probate-qualified estates? Pretty much none, but they are scared by the words, "Death tax."
GET PUBLIC HEALTH CARE AND YOU WON'T GET TO CHOOSE YOUR OWN DOCTOR! Since Congress has publicly-supported health care, we could ask them if they have trouble choosing a doc, but no -- all you have to do is say, "BOO!" and the republican voting base, march like lemmings off the cliff.
and on and on....
July 1, 2009 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
One could say the same about well educated liberal Democrats. In both cases, I think the stereotypes are overused and inaccurate.
July 1, 2009 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
The difference is that well-educated liberal Democrats believe in a philosophy of the common good. They (we) are not motivated by fear. We believe that when all our citizens are healthy and educated our country will be a better place to live and to bring up our families. We believe we will be a stronger country if we have a good standard of living for all of us.
That is not the same as being motivated by fears that are completely unwarranted and that have nothing to do with those who are the victims of the fear-mongering (like they would ever pay an estate tax, for example).
July 1, 2009 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
So the hysterics that Krugman, among others, engage in over global warming, health care, and conspiracies of rich people don't count as fearmongering?
And the lower middle class "red state" voters aren't entitled to care as much about their values as you are about yours?
What an arrogant and condescending point of view.
I haven't voted Republican except in local matters and once for Arnold Schwarzeneggar, just to say I had. But I am ashamed to share the Democratic Party with that sort of elitist claptrap.
July 1, 2009 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is a difference between hysterics and science. Too bad you can't tell the difference.
July 1, 2009 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Awww cmon, the first sentence of your reply was on target, but the second one was uncalled for.
July 1, 2009 8:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Didn't you read what I wrote? The DEATH TAX, the big government getting between them and their doctors, and on and on...
The fear is injustified! The VOTING base of the republican party is in no danger of an estate (read DEATH) tax; they either have insurance from an employer, which they would lose if they got seriously ill, or they don't have it in the first place, but they are so afraid of having someone in charge who is pro-choice they would rather screw themselves, even if they don't spend the time it takes to even look at the issue.
July 1, 2009 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I read exactly what you said.
However, I thought that since you have clear ideological opinions about, for instance, a supposed right to free health care, I thought it might be reasonable to expect that you could understand that other people had ideological opinions about other things.
There's nothing less rational about a poor, religious voter considering abortion to be a critical issue than a rich, secular person thinking health care is a critical issue.
Both people have things they care about. In a democracy, we let them decide for themselves what policies they pull the lever for. I happen to think it is paternalistic, arrogant, and demeaning for liberal voters to deride people who disagree with them about fundamental issues as being manipulated and fearful.
The conservative voters who stick to the party line because of abortion or gay marriage are entitled to their opinions; they just disagree with you. Liberals would be better served to argue the issues with these voters than to insult them by asserting that they are incapable of making their own decisions.
And I'm concerned about government interfering with medical care without any help from (or even exposure to) Rush Limbaugh or Fox News, thank you very much.
July 2, 2009 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
You really are pulling stuff out of where the sun don't shine. I am not, and have never been in favor of free health care, except for the people who already have it such as Medicaid patients.
A health care program that includes everyone and therefore shares the risk would be affordable to almost all, and could be subsidized (not free) for those who need it.
This "free health care" is just another fake bogeyman the repubs like you throw out there to scare people away. You cannot find one quote from me anywhere advocating for government paid-for health care. I don't even think it is a good idea.
I am far more concerned about the proven interference in health care that I see every day from insurance companies. Medicare is a good example of a program that works; if it included the young and healthy as well as the old and infirm, it would pay for itself with reasonable premiums.
July 2, 2009 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not a Republican. I am a registered Democrat who voted (with reservations as usual) for Obama (I voted for Hillary in the primary).
If you aren't for government funded health care, I applaud your for not bowing to the lemming effect around here; but that wasn't what we were discussing. We were discussing the tendency of certain groups of people to vote against their short term economic interests.
Incidentally, I don't think any health care system would be affordable for all. We won't know until Congress passes something and we go bankrupt though, unfortunately.
More health care means more money spent on health care. "Cost savings" are an excuse. They never materialize.
July 2, 2009 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
NPR frequently interviews Juan Williams and Maura Liasson, both of whom are regulars on Fox, without any attribution as to their affiliations; they are just described as NPR "analysts." I did hear a correction as a result of a negative letter regarding Williams, but after the one time, that was it.
I love the comment above about the hip replacements being done here under our "Single-Payer" (Medicare) program! That is one to remember!
July 1, 2009 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Last night on Charlie Rose, Krugman blew up the specious hip-replacement arguments by the ridiculous-right.
http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/10433
PS - He also told POTUS to get tough, tough, tough. Draw lines in the sand, and fight like your life depended on it. I agree.
July 1, 2009 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I heart Krugman, even though on tv he always looks to me like he's being pursued by police who are only a few minutes behind him.
July 1, 2009 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're right! He does look like he just stole some cupcakes or some other harmless but fun caper...
July 1, 2009 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
1) NPR's greatest failing is their hardlock on moderation. The scholarship is excellent, and they present data. Then they have people argue about the interpretation. It just turns out that truth is liberal, and the people arguing against what progressives want no message but the conservative invention.
2) Insurance companies ration care right now, and they keep the prices high. They get between us and our health and extort a living for thousands of otherwise useless bastards.
July 1, 2009 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can't argue with one word. The idea that in order to be fair you have to quote liars as well as those who tell the truth in order to provide balance, is beyond ridiculous.
July 1, 2009 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink