Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Corporate Media Continue to Play to Conservative Arguments on Health Reform

Posted by Joshua Holland, AlterNet at 3:20 PM on September 1, 2009.


Nothing new, but worth noting how this whole effort might look with more accurate reporting.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get Politics in your
mailbox!

 

It's axiomatic that if you can frame the terms of a debate, you've gone a long way towards winning it. And opponents of the moderately progressive health reform bills working their way through Congress have had a huge assist from the supposedly "liberal media" in doing just that.

Consider how the political dynamics of the debate were characterized in a recent article in The Hill titled, "Dem split on the public option casts doubt on reform of healthcare." (The whole piece is pretty much garbage, but I just want to highlight these descriptions to make a point.)

Democratic aides and lawmakers are questioning how their party can pass a health reform bill next month with centrists and liberals at odds over a core aspect of the legislation.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-Calif.) has pledged to include a government-run insurance option in the House bill that will be voted on next month. This reassures liberals but will make it difficult or impossible to get the votes needed to pass it if the public option is included.

Democratic centrists and vulnerable lawmakers in the party are signaling that they are not happy with Pelosi's plan.

One Blue Dog said Pelosi's pledge to include a public option favors her liberal base in the Democratic Caucus.

Other Blue Dogs say overhaul legislation can be done if it is brought back to the center of the political spectrum.

The centrists’ concerns were reflected earlier this month when House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), leadership's liaison to the Blue Dogs, suggested a public option might need to be dropped to pass a bill.

Centrists think the bill is too burdensome to small business, and that its $1 trillion price tag is too high.

Others worry that Pelosi is trying to force centrists to vote for provisions that are unpopular in their districts and may never become law.

With Republican opposition expected to be nearly universal, Pelosi will need centrists if she is to win a simple majority.

That leaves Pelosi caught in an increasingly bitter feud between her liberal and centrist factions.

On the liberal side, 60 members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus signed a letter saying they would oppose a Blue Dog deal that they believe would weaken the public option.

OK, so Republicans will stand united, and "centrist" Dems are bickering with "liberals." Pretty straightforward analysis. Now consider just two basic points of fact ...

First, the overwhelming majority of true liberals and progressives, in and out of Congress, believe a single-payer system is the cleanest, most efficient way to tackle our health care crisis. The public insurance option is without doubt already the centrist compromise in this whole debate. It has always been pitched as such -- substantive reforms that leave the employer-based, private insurance that many Americans have now intact in a desire to get centrist support.

Second, look at this poll from Rasmussen, sponsored not by some lefty outfit but by a coalition of business groups that includes Blue Cross and Blue Shield:

Minus the government insurance option, 68% of Republicans remain opposed to the plan, down from 79%.

As for those not affiliated with either major party, 70% are opposed if the public option is dropped. That’s up from 62% in the previous survey.

According to Rasmussen, around 7 in 10 who identify themselves as "conservative" agree.

Now, we know that most Americans don't have a clue what the "public option" even means. So, imagine for a second what this debate would look like if the legislation that's on the table were accurately portrayed as a centrist compromise opposed by conservative lawmakers from both parties, and that those pols were out of step with their constituents, be they from left, right or center.

It's safe to say we'd have a pretty different ballgame.

Digg!

Tagged as: media, centrism, blue dogs, conservatism, liberalism, health reform

Joshua Holland is an editor and senior writer at AlterNet.


Will Joe Lieberman Be the Only Dem to Sabotage Health Reform?
Joe Lieberman will work with Republicans to kill health care reform, no matter the consequences for the millions who are counting on this bill to pass.
Post by Steve Benen. November 24, 2009.
What Does it Mean to Take Sarah Palin and the Tea-Bagger Set "Seriously"?
I know we're supposed to, but ...
Post by Joshua Holland. November 24, 2009.
Dems Have No Excuse for Failing on Health Care
Yes, political changes are hard. But if Democrats don't deliver now, no excuse will cut it.
Post by Mike Lux. November 24, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Great Reporting Josh ...
Posted by: mmckinl on Sep 1, 2009 4:40 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You've been a go to source throughout this mess ...

Thanks

mmckinl

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Great Reporting Josh ... Posted by: Joshua Holland
HR3200 is still too cumbersome and contentious
Posted by: wrinklemomma on Sep 1, 2009 5:12 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I still don't get why we are spending time and energy on such a flawed and divisive bill. There are simpler solutions. We need to divorce health coverage from employment and stop allowing for-profit commodification of a need that causes such economic and psychic distress for so many. No other industry has been given such conciliations. We killed off heavy industries in this country without regard for the personal and financial fallout. We shipped high-tech work to other countries and told our people to re-train yet again. Why are we coddling an industry that adds nothing to the healthcare equation, yet takes much of our healthcare dollar. We NEED single-payer now, and we need to be bold enough to get it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We need to divorce health coverage from employment ~ Exactly Right !
Posted by: mmckinl on Sep 1, 2009 5:35 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Making business pay for health care directly puts all business at a disadvantage, especially small business that now does not pay, that ceates the majority of new jobs. It hurts large business that competes with foreign business at home and abroad.

We need Single Payer to be paid for by government through higher taxes on the rich by inverting the tax code to reward work and profit and tax the rentier income of interest, capital gains, dividends and estate inheritance ...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Once Again:
Posted by: oregoncharles on Sep 1, 2009 6:29 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you offer people what they WANT, framing becomes much less important. It's real simple: this is the cheapest, most practical approach, proven in many other countries; and THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN: this is their will.

A half-assed, Clintonian "public option" is not what the people WANT. They WANT, and legitimately need, to be shut of their crooked, murderous insurance companies.

So, Joshua, how about the information we really need:

Why is the Democratic Party, with a few noble exceptions (NOT including my Rep., Peter DeFazio), OPPOSED to giving the people the healthcare reform they clearly want? It isn't that it would be "bad politics," when 70% support it. In fact, it would give the Democratic Party guaranteed majorities for at least a decade.

So why are they dead set against it? I think we should know that, and we sure as hell aren't going to hear it from them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Which numbers? Posted by: oregoncharles
» Polling numbers Posted by: Drclaw
» It's been a bipartisan effort Posted by: weightman
» Polling Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Once Again: Hep me Posted by: the director
And then they wonder
Posted by: Ahimsa on Sep 1, 2009 7:08 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why people believe in conspiracies.
When one corporation is in combination with another corporation to get more money from you, isn't that a conspiracy? And you a sucker?
How many of those deals happen daily around us?
Conspiracy theories... maybe not that theoretical, I'd say.
290 million suckers at the mercy of a system of daily, consisten state of conspiracy. SOunds like fascism. Amwerickha, Fuck Yeah!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: And then they wonder Posted by: VZEQICVA
A-W-W-W-W...SHOOT!!!
Posted by: jvaljon1 on Sep 1, 2009 7:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We're already--and we have been for years and years--paying for Universal Health Care; just, not for us.

Our Senators and Congresspeople--having years ago voted (for) themselves and their families, the same Universal Healthcare that they are now working so hard to deny us--should be forced to let go their own Universal Healthcare--for as long as they force their constituents (that's US, folks!!!) to do without. AN EFFECTIVE WAY TO DO THIS:

NAME TODAY'S LEGISLATORS (2009) who have Universal Healthcare, who don't pay penny one for it. Make sure that you run ads in their constituents' districts that explain this fact, just before the next elections.

And (most especially) enumerate the weighty "contributions (read "bribes")" that these crooked legislators receive, from either United Healthcare or Blue Cross/Blue Shield, to fight like devils AGAINST their constituents receiving the same Universal Healthcare that these crooks voted themselves--ON OUR DIME!!!

Hmmm...maybe THAT will change things? Cause even though most of our 'legislators' in Congress and the Senate, are now multi-millionaires (for making Blue-Cross/Blue-Shield and United Healthcare their REAL constituents--) THEY'RE not afraid of using any 'government-run' plan. Gee--wonder why not???

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: They pay about 30%... Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: They pay about 30%... Posted by: Bozwell
Paranoid
Posted by: Brent H on Sep 1, 2009 10:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Whatever you do people, if the highest authority doesn't wan to approve this, a waste of time to talk about this thing. Well if we can see it's effect, many are getting paranoid waiting for this health reform. Everyday lots are dying hoping to have secured health insurance but this in't happening. - Quiverfull

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Seniors love Medicare
Posted by: Chloe2005 on Sep 2, 2009 9:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Couldn't Obama just sign an Executive Order saying that anyone without health insurance could join Medicare immediately? It would be a good experiment to test Single Payer. If Single Payer is not popular, no one would join. On the other hand, it might just show that millions would be happy to pay $97 a month for coverage.
I am not employed. I am a 24/7 unpaid caretaker for a 100% disabled man. He is on Medicare and is very happy with it. I am a wife under 65 with no insurance. I could pay $97 a month for my health insurance. I just can't pay the $900 plus that I am quoted now.
Lets start the move toward Single Payer.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Seniors love Medicare Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: Seniors love Medicare Posted by: Chloe2005
» RE: Seniors love Medicare Posted by: Basenjis
» RE: Seniors love Medicare Posted by: cdmsr
» RE: Seniors love Medicare Posted by: luzmejor
Capitalism works great . . . for Capitalists
Posted by: cdmsr on Sep 2, 2009 1:45 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."

That is a quote from Abraham Lincoln, you know, the president that the Repuglicans claim as their own, as a founder of their putrid party.

But in every collision of Capital and Labor, with whom do they stand?

At the town hall meetings, when the bussed-in Astroturf morons (we can thank a long line of Greedy Old Party "Education Presidents" for them) are shouting against healthcare reform as Socialist, they aren't even cognisant that they are championing their enemy, the capitalists. Socialism isn't the opposite of Capitalism, Laborism is.

Laborism should be the political orientation of every worker in this nation. I'm not talking about socialism or communism, but a recognition of the principles Lincoln espoused in the opening quote. Labor, constituting as it does the majority of the citizenry, is the logical base for a just democracy.

Capitalists have waged a sustained effort to destroy organized Labor in this country since its founding. The Repuglican messiah, moRon Reagan, dealt a harsh blow in their cause with the Air Traffic Controllers Union's defeat. Obama struck another with the castigation of the UAW in the auto rescue.

And Laborism keeps getting the short end of the stick.

Health care reform would be a step in the right direction. Unbinding health insurance from work breaks a link in the chain of wage slavery. With the Public Option being the only element in the current mix that weakens the Capitalists' choke hold on workers, it is no wonder their lackeys oppose it.

Public Option is Healthcare reform.
Single Payer is Healthcare Repair.
Onward and Upward: "[T]he dream will never die."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

OUR INVISIBLE POPULATION
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Sep 5, 2009 9:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All the people we throw in jail for almost no reason so we can support the "Privitized Jails" get FREE medical care. This is a double whammy to the American taxpayers. Why not reduce the prison populaton and let people gets jobs and become productive like the rest of us. MOst of them would prefer it, I'm sure.
Over a year ago there was an article in "The Nation" about an older woman who had a serious disease and knew she couldn't afford her medical expenses. She parachuted out of an airplane and landed in Bush's "protected air space' accidently on purpose. She was arrested, found guilty of terrorism and thrown into what she felt was a nice jail where she knew the medical care she needed was avaialble to her for free. Turns out the other women inmates were very nice to her and visited and chatted with her, All in all it worked out very well. What a gutsy lady. ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Corporate Media and the Opinions of Walter Cronkite
Posted by: hadashito on Sep 7, 2009 2:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Before our recent retirements from academe, my wife I were associated with Arizona State University, so we attended the annual Walter Cronkite School of Journalism's journalism awards dinners each year for a number of years. Walter Cronkite attended regularly to help with the awards ceremonies, but also always gave a speech about the state of current journalism.
Well, he did NOT ever paint a pretty picture at all. He regularly excoriated corporate journalism in very definite terms and in considerable detail for the reasons our corporations that dominate the media are failing miserably in their Constitutionally mandated responsibilities.
Our media, especially the corporate press and TV news industry are utter failures. Boring evening news lacking in detail and incisive reporting, and a long list of inexcusable failures.
I no longer watch the evening news programs on TV or any of the Sunday gab fests. They are a bore and reveal little of the REAL news or much truth about the underlying factors creating the news they report. Pale, lifeless, stenographic "reporting". He said, she said crap with no clarification or attempt at rebuttal when someone being interviewed indulges in crap or even outright lies, no analysis, or sometimes even accuracy of facts.
I get all my news from the Wall Street Journal (except, of course the right wing editorial page) and MSNBC with Motormouth what's 'is name (if his guests can get a word in edgewise), Keith Olbermann, and then Rachel Maddow (the best !) each evening. ACCURATE FACTS and sound, incisive analysis, and no Billsh _ _. That's what journalism is supposed to be and they are the only ones on TV that offer it.
No surprise that the corporate media play to conservative arguments. They are AFRAID of the right wing for calling them LIBERAL media. OMG ! CNN, the rest of the three channel news programs have been intimidated to the point at which they offer almost nothing. It's no wonder that health care reform is at the bottom of their news lists. It's oh so controversial ! So they bury it under a mountain of useless palaver.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]