Andrew's+Page+09

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/05/13/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5011399.shtml 12% thought it does a decent job
 * = =Healthcare= ||
 * = =There are many pressing issues today currently garnering the attention of the national media. Obama’s foreign policy. The global recession. Swine flu. Nevertheless, there is one pressing issue that draws substantial news coverage, and deservedly so. There are millions of Americans that are currently without healthcare. This is a major problem because without healthcare many people are unable to get the proper care, or they attempt to take advantage of the system, like many illegal immigrants do. In addition to this problem, healthcare has become increasingly more expensive. In 2008, total national health expenditures were expected to rise 6.9 percent -- two times the rate of inflation. Total spending in 2007 totaled 2.4 Trillion dollars, or about 7900 per person. In the midst of an economic crisis, these numbers are very depressing. How can one nation spend so much money on healthcare; and yet, there still exists that many problems? For years, the Democrats and Republicans have battled; pushing across different health care plans hoping theirs will be the final solution. This issue has been covered extensively by the mainstream and citizen media groups, allowing the public to gradually formulate their own opinions. = ||
 * = =Mainstream Media Coverage= ||
 * = =Mainstream Media Coverage= ||
 * The Obama administration has said that health care reform is a major priority for them. Americans also agree with this need, as in an April New York Times Poll, they stated that health care reform was the most important domestic issue after the economy. Health Care needs a major overhaul. Same feelings since early 1990s.
 * 49% good elements, but needs fundamental changes
 * 38% feels the need for compete rebuilding of it
 * Everyone criticizes healthcare, Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. They see the lack of Universal Health Care is seen as the biggest problem. 54% feel getting health care to all is most serious problem, while 40% think keeping costs down is the major factor.These, however, are decided by partisan lines. 57% of Republicans feel it is necessary to keep costs down while 69% of Democrats feel need for providing insurance to all.Individually, people are generally satisfied with their own costs, but they are not happy with the rising costs on the national level. New York Times Poll conducted in 2007 found similar results. Few Americans believe that Obama can enact a change quickly. They believe it will take at least two to three years, with some people doubting he can make a positive change at all. Most people, however, believe that it is likely Obama can enact a positive reform, not very likely though. ||

=Citizen Media Coverage= Senator Merkley: Words Designed to Kill Health Care Reform http://blog.thehill.com/2009/05/08/words-designed-to-kill-health-care-reform-sen-jeff-merkley/ || May 8th, 2009 Over and over again, I hear from Oregonians that we need real health care reform that provides every American with access to quality, affordable care. That is why Congress and President Obama are so focused on this issue. Of course there are folks in the insurance and hospital industries, from the medical profession, and both political parties who will have different ideas about how to achieve our goal. But I was shocked when I read a memo from Republican strategist Dr. Frank Luntz laying out plans to dismantle any effort to give all Americans access to quality health care. Dr. Luntz, the man who developed language designed to promote preemptive war in Iraq and distract from the severity of global warming, is at it again — this time with a messaging strategy designed to sink our historic opportunity for health care reform. Let’s be clear: this is not a strategy to push certain ideas about health reform. It is a strategy intended solely to kill reform efforts altogether. In his own words, Dr. Luntz has stated, “You’re not going to get what you want, but you can kill what they’re trying to do.” Not surprisingly, since the American public is strongly in favor of fixing the broken health care system, the Luntz strategy is predicated on deception. In his memo, Dr. Luntz lays out multiple ways that opponents of health care reform can trick and manipulate the American public. One strategy that stood out to me is to call efforts to reform our broken health care system a “bailout for the insurance industry.” This is ridiculous. This statement is developed to serve the same interests who stopped at nothing to derail health care reform in the 90’s, who blocked health care coverage for low-income children, and whose top Medicare priority for 15 years has been transferring money from seniors and taxpayers to the insurance industry. When support for a prescription drug benefit in Medicare became too powerful to ignore, President Bush and his allies created the convoluted system we now have. Rather than simply add a prescription drug benefit to the tried, true, and popular Medicare program as Democrats wanted, they devised a giveaway for insurance companies. For years Dr. Luntz’s clients have virtually abdicated health care policy making to the insurance industry; the last thing it needs is a bailout. Today though, even the insurance industry is engaged in constructive negotiations about how to repair the health care system. Unfortunately for the vast majority of Americans who support reform, however, Dr. Luntz’s new game plan to stop change is being embraced by leaders in the Republican Party. In a briefing where Dr. Luntz presented his strategy to Republican House members, Rep. Mike Pence from Indiana, the chairman of the House Republican Conference, made it official by saying, “Frank is back.” So expect a massive misinformation campaign coming to a health care debate near you. Opponents using Dr. Luntz’s doublespeak will argue for a “balanced, common sense approach” to health care but what they really want is to keep the system the way it is. They’ll say that a public plan will not be “patient centered,” but their real goal is to block accessible health care for every American. They’ll say reform will deny Americans “choice” even when every American will be allowed to keep their health insurance and their doctor. They’ll claim that the “quality of care will go down,” while callously ignoring the fact that millions of Americans have no health care at all and millions more are denied the medications and procedures they need. What we are seeing, yet again, is that while Dr. Luntz and his clients may have excellent polling data, they are utterly clueless about what the American people want. But, I have to give Dr. Luntz credit on one front: he points out that Republicans need to appear to be on the “right side of reform” or they lose the health care argument. The problem is that you can’t fake support for reform. You’re either for improving the quality and affordability of health care or you’re against it. You’re either for expanding coverage to every American or you’re against it. At the end of the day, no matter what talking points they use, each member of Congress is going to have to vote for or against improving our broken health care system. With small businesses and families being buried by rising costs, with 47 million uninsured, millions more underinsured and American companies losing ground against their global competitors, it is evident to anyone that our health care system is broken. There are Republicans and Democrats, insurance executives and patient advocates, physicians and hospital representatives all working to meet one of America’s most pressing challenges. We certainly do not all agree on what a reformed health system should look like or how to get there, but there are people on all sides who are negotiating in good faith. The country deserves that debate on the merits, not poll-tested attack lines intended to prolong the broken system we have today. ==//* People across the country are constantly asking for reformed health care. //== - ||
 * < ==**[|Words Designed to Kill Health Care Reform (Sen. Jeff Merkley)]**==
 * Dr. Frank Luntz is trying to prevent this reform. He is the man responsible for creating the language that influenced going to war in Iraq and diverting the severity of Global Warming away from the public's attention
 * He is trying to kill reform all together
 * Luntz suggests many ways in which health care reform can be stymied, such as calling it the bailout of the insurance industry.
 * This is a ludicrous statement, because according to Merkley, the last thing they need is a bailout.
 * "Opponents using Dr. Luntz’s doublespeak will argue for a “balanced, common sense approach” to health care but what they really want is to keep the system the way it is."
 * Real goal is to block sensible health care for every American
 * They have good data but they have no idea what the American public wants
 * Merkley thinks that he makes one good point in that Republicans must be on the right side of reform or they will lose the health care argument.
 * = =CBS Healthcare Interview=

media type="custom" key="3851227" - || //== - || Putting the political cart firmly before the horse, the Senate Finance Committee heard testimony last week on how to pay for reform—before they had reliable estimates of how much it is likely to cost. It’s not that there aren’t plenty of estimates to choose from. A recent [|Associated Press report] offered ten-year forecasts ranging from “the president’s $634 billion…is likely to be the majority of the cost” (White House budget director Peter Orszag) to “$125 billion to $150 billion a year” (New America Foundation economist Len Nichols) to “$1.5 trillion to $1.7 trillion would be a credible estimate” (Lewin Group consultant John Sheils). Take your pick. What’s really the number that Senate Finance members must find a way to fund? Leaving aside mythical savings like the $2 trillion sort-of promised by health care industry bigwigs, and the almost as questionable cost reductions for delivery system tweaks offered at previous Senate Finance sessions, the question becomes: how much new spending will universal coverage add? Despite the willingness of numerous experts to offer estimates, only one [|detailed study] has been published. Urban Institute researchers projected in 2008 that additional spending would have been $122 billion, in 2008 dollars, if universal coverage had been in place in that year. At current health care cost growth rates, this would equate to $135 billion in 2010 and a ten-year estimate of close to $1.5 trillion, both in 2010 dollars. But could this number be too high? Maybe. Here are some reasons: The Urban Institute study projected a total of 54 million uninsured in 2008. The Census Bureau CPS estimate for 2007 was 45.7 million. The current CBO estimate for 2009 is 45 million. Using the lowest of these estimates would reduce the ten-year cost projection to $1.25 trillion. The Urban Institute study assumed that the newly-insured would be split between public and private insurance in the same ratio as lower-income individuals already with coverage. If reform were based on private coverage expansion, the ten-year estimate could fall by another $250 billion, to around $1 trillion. A combination of the effects of insurance exchange price competition and some taxation of employer-paid benefits could further reduce the projection, perhaps by another $100-200 billion. Unfortunately, the Urban Institute estimate could also be too low: Continuation of the recession combined with possible CPS undercounting could put the actual number of uninsured close or even above the number projected by the Urban Institute. (This would be consistent with Massachusetts’ reform experience of the actual uninsured count proving to be significantly higher than estimated by state analysts.) The Urban Institute study did not include the underinsured, estimated to be as many as 16 to 25 million, who might be expected to incur additional costs if they had better coverage. (Both estimated counts are from Commonwealth Fund papers, which defined underinsured as expending more than 10 percent of income on out-of-pocket health care costs.) In addition to those counted as underinsured, many others individuals might also incur additional costs with improved coverage. It’s your choice, Senate Finance Committee! ||
 * < ==//* Government sets aside 80 Billion a year, supposed to be defrauded
 * Obama wants to create a public plan
 * Eliminates private insurance
 * Will collaspe upon itself just like Medicare
 * Then it will become a government run healthcare, just become like every other nation
 * This will be disastrous, do not want government run healthcare
 * Already have good results such as good cancer rates, sickness recovery
 * Obama's goals are expanding coverage and control coverage
 * Must work in tandem
 * = = http://www.thehealthcareblog.com/the_health_care_blog/2009/05/the-cost-of-health-reform-15-trillion-or-.html Cost of Healthcare Reform: Outrageous or Reasonable=
 * < ==* * The Senate Finance Committee heard testimony on how to pay for reform, without any quality estimates.
 * The AP offered varying reports, 634 Billion or 125 billion to 150 billion
 * while 1.5 trillion to 1.7 trillion would be more reasonable
 * The question remains how much new spending will universal coverage provide
 * no detailed estimates only one published report - 1.5 trillion
 * Some reports could vary from as much as 250 billion
 * Makes one wonder how one can pay for reform when the Senate has no idea how much money they are going to spend

> == == == || = While examining the different materials from the mainstream and citizen media sources, there is an apparent difference between the two. The mainstream media tended to have a direct and clear point of view. They presented the topics that were important at the time, and tended to have more factual based evidence. The CBS news article involving Obama’s healthcare plans and the views of the public were clear and concrete. It simply stated what Obama’s goals were, and included many polls that reflected how the American people felt about the issue of healthcare. This point proved to be the same when examining the CBS news video that included interviews with various people in Washington. These people more or less gave factual based opinions that gave the viewer an accurate portrayal of what was really happening. There did not appear to be any political bias in the two sources I looked at. Nevertheless, this was not the case when examining the citizen media sources. One of the sources involved a blog entry from an Oregon Senator. He had a clear, concrete motive in that he wanted to persuade people not to listen to Dr. Luntz’s absurd proclamations about the dangers of healthcare. He wants people to know that he speaks reasonably, and that reform is good. His message is clearly biased towards his own opinion. The other news source can also be said to have some, though not as much, political bias. The author points out that the committee is trying to make informed decisions without having any idea of what the actual right information is. Though he may be correct, one does not know if he is biased in presenting the facts one way or the other. There is a concrete difference between the news of mainstream media and that of citizen media, which is reflected in the prose and attitude reflected in the writing. = ||
 * < =Comparative Analysis=