Public Radio Corrects "Non-partisan" Error
A couple days ago, I posted a blog entry complaining of the too cozy a relationship between public radio and its for-profit business donors. While I still think there is undue influence, I'm happy to report that yesterday PRI's program "The World" clarified its description of the Lewin Group as a "non-partisan" health care consulting business.
Pointing out that United Healthcare owns the Lewin Group was only right and came after many listeners, this one included, pointed out to PRI that Lewin's vice-president was no one to interview for unbiased information on whether health care reform would cover illegal immigrants.
I guess there's still hope for public radio as long as we're vigilant. Now if NPR would let Mara Liasson and Juan Williams flee to Fox along with ABC News' John Stossel.
Pointing out that United Healthcare owns the Lewin Group was only right and came after many listeners, this one included, pointed out to PRI that Lewin's vice-president was no one to interview for unbiased information on whether health care reform would cover illegal immigrants.
I guess there's still hope for public radio as long as we're vigilant. Now if NPR would let Mara Liasson and Juan Williams flee to Fox along with ABC News' John Stossel.
Advertisement
Disclosure is always a good thing.
But it is not enough.
September 18, 2009 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, Republicans say it is non-partisan, and they should know as all the corporate contributions they get are from non-partisan for profit corporations, and the GOP itself is always non-partisan and just wants what is best for America.
link for above
Both Ingenix and UnitedHealth Group recognize that the value of The Lewin Group is its ability to provide independent, objective analysis of health care trends and policies. The impartiality and integrity of The Lewin Group’s work is core to what we do.
Above is from The Lewin Group, who we are!
September 18, 2009 8:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oy
I wish Marketplace would lose David Frum. It's all I can do not to vent my displeasure on some unsuspecting "McCain 2009" bumper stickered idiot.
September 18, 2009 8:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
At least Mara isn't quite as partisan on NPR, but it's still hard to hear her voice, then picture her face from Fox. I sorta feel sorry for Juanie; too many years of The Constipated Brit Hume closing his eyes and saying, "Juan, Juan, Juan..." I know I would at least ONCE have had to leap across that desk and...never mind.
September 18, 2009 10:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amen to this. Doesn't NPR pay a living wage? And if it does, why isn't there a moonlighting rule in effect? I can't imagine Dan Rather doing the midnight wrap-up on NBC.
September 19, 2009 9:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't see your earlier post, Ripper, but I'm willing to believe the Lewin Group's claim of independence on at least some issues. Commissioned by private insurers to assess the impact of the House healthcare reform proposal, HR 3200, the Group appears to have done what I presumed the insurers wanted - an honest appraisal, including bad news for them as well as good, so that they could determine how to react.
If you read the Lewin report, you'll find that the Group told the industry some things they probably didn't want to hear:
http://www.lewin.com/content/publications/LewinAnalysisHouseBill2009.pdf
September 18, 2009 10:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fred, the Lewin Group is never impartial. Lewin concocted one of the most inaccurate, biased and widely cited figures in the health care debate, projecting that a public option would strip 88-110 million customers from private insurers--10 times CBO's estimate. Honest appraisal? Humbug. No wonder the stuff industry "didn't want to hear" never made news.
September 19, 2009 12:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Please tell me Lewin's report on HR 3200 is NOT where you got whatever information has led you so often to dismiss the necessity for a public option.
September 19, 2009 12:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Did you read their report? If not, you should, as should anyone else interested in the Lewin assessment, so that they can make their own judgment. They will also understand why the industry has been careful not to link to the report, even if it has quoted some sections out of context.
To answer your question, my conclusion that a public option, although desirable, is not central to healthcare reform, is based on a multitude of sources. One could argue that the Lewin analysis, when read in full, made a case in favor of the public option, and it does, but I have not seen any evidence to refute the conclusion that the cost savings from a public option would be fairly inconsequential compared with the magnitude of the challenge we face to constrain costs arising within healthcare itself.
For those interested in more of the rationale for my conclusions, I recommend visiting my blog item on the public option.
September 19, 2009 12:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the update, Ripper! I listened online the following day and dropped a comment on the story's page - there was one comment there before me. Glad to see we got the clarification from them.
I just spent some time going thru the Lewin Report. Thanks, Fred. It IS worthwhile reading!
Now, Fred (or anyone else), correct me if my skimming conclusions are wrong, but it appears that the Lewin Group concludes that the public option will CUT OVERALL GOVERNMENT (federal, state, local) SPENDING by $111.6 BILLION between 2010-19! (pages 4-5) In addition, it will decrease employers' spending and will decrease consumers' spending.
Where does that come from? Well, the interesting thing (to me) is that the report does NOT explicitly predict the downfall of the private insurance system; however, it seems to lead you right up to that conclusion, and allows you to make it for yourself. (Of course, that may be right.)
They indicate that providers will take a hit from the Medicare-plus payment limits. BUT, they predict that those providers would make up for quite a bit of that by hitting private insurers/insureds. (Part of what'll make the ins cos less competitive.)
More later, but a worthwhile read, with their possible biases in mind.
September 19, 2009 2:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Azpaull - The report does estimate savings of about $111 billion over ten years (i.e., about $11 billion per year average), as you suggest. This is not a reduction in expenditures, but rather a reduction in net costs. Expenditures would increase, but costs would increase less.
Since then, the House has watered down the bill to reduce the differential between the public plan and private plans, and so the estimated net savings would be less for the economy as a whole and on a per capita basis.
Apparently the Commonwealth Fund, which tends toward a liberal perspetive, arrived at estimates similar to those of the Lewin Group.
September 19, 2009 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I phrased part of the above in a misleading manner. Expenditures would increase, but net costs would decline because when revenues are factored in (e.g., from "play or pay" and from income tax surcharges), the savings would outweigh the increase in expenditures.
September 19, 2009 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
I heard this too, Ripper. Even heard a bit of an apology in the tone--"we should have". I was going to give you a shout on this but you got it without me straining a tonsil. :-)
September 19, 2009 9:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is completely off topic, Ripper, but I noticed in your Favorite Quotes section, attribution to RFK of a quotation that concludes, "I dream things that never were, and ask 'why not?'"
This originated with the great Irish playwright George Bernard Shaw in his play, "Back To Methuselah" (written between 1918 and 1920). I have read that RFK gave Shaw the proper credit, but many others have credited Kennedy rather than Shaw with the saying.
http://www.online-literature.com/george_bernard_shaw/back-to-methuselah/2/
September 19, 2009 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink