Broken News

I find the phrase "breaking news" (sometimes just "breaking") strangely farcical. Today another celebrity died. Another celeb is likely to keel over tomorrow. If I don't find out about it until next week these "news-makers" will be just as dead then as now.

Most news you see on TV is really more in the way of advertising - literally created by public relations firms in the form of PR videos.

Your local station doesn't actually go to Pfizer and interview people about the benefits of some new wonder drug that will make your cock harder for longer periods of time, Pfizer provides that material as a PR video. Then, your local news station might do some strange editing that shows one of their own interviewers asking questions with the Pfizer representative apparently answering these amazingly incisive questions. Except that the backgrounds and lighting might be different as they bounce between one subject and the other - just as if the interviewer and the interviewee were not in the same place at the same time. Just as if the whole thing had been awkwardly ultra-scripted and the two subjects had been filmed up to several months apart. Amazingly - it's an advert!

So when you watch the news - itself often one long advert of some kind or other for a whole host of things - and they break away for actual commercials, what is happening is that one bigger advert is being interrupted by a series of shorter adverts. It all just blends together.

Even the news from the government is shocking pre-prepared and sanitized. The government has been known to hire PR firms to get certain propaganda shoved down our throats. Of course, we paid for it too.

U.S. Army Commercial Slogan: Be all that you can be.

Pos-T-Vac Commercial Testimonial: "You're gonna be all that you can be, or you're not gonna be all that you can be. It helps you be all you can be."

I can't think of the last time I heard something that was so truly momentous that knowing about it "this minute" was somehow important.

It's all adverts in the main. Almost all of it aimed at the young, vain and foolish; or at the old, vain and foolish. When your a kid it's all about pimple creams and the tinsel strength of long hair. And apparently, when you're over sixty years old two of the most important things are to wear adult diapers and to have a mechanism for maintaining erections that last several hours.

I know what you're thinking: this guy is completely conflating/confusing the idea of news with the idea of advertising.

Maybe...

So, I ask you: what is the difference between 95% of what you see offered as news and an advertisement?

DUMBFUCKISTAN LIVES!

Source: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/09/analysis-public-option-is-likely.html

I voted for Obama and all I got was that lousy speech.

Bob Cesca: The Most Nightmarish Health Care Reform Bill Ever

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/the-most-nightmarish-heal_b_281214.html

And the Baucus Plan doesn't offer a public insurance option.

So you're basically screwed if you have moral objections to being forced by the government to hand over a chunk of your monthly income to the same corporate criminals who heretofore have engaged in practices that can accurately be defined as death panel-ish: canceling the policies as soon as you get sick, denying claims, refusing to pay for life-saving procedures, or, as we read about this week, randomly hiking the premiums for 114,000 Michigan residents by around 30 percent effective immediately. If you happen to object to financing such corporate practices (past or present), there's no public option waiting for you in the Baucus Plan.

Instead, you would have to buy a private insurance policy or be penalized by the federal government like so:

Penalties for failing to get insurance would start at $750 a year for individuals and $1,500 for families. Households making more than three times the federal poverty level -- about $66,000 for a family of four -- would face the maximum fines. For families, it would be $3,800, and for individuals, $950.

Let me repeat this another way. Max Baucus wants to force us to hand over billions of dollars in free cash to the private health insurance cartels and if we refuse, we'll be fined thousands of dollars if we object to paying these mafia-style tributes to Baucus' dons.

------

I'm glad I am not the only one to notice these significant defects in anything currently being offered, with the notable exception of HR676 (which hasn't any traction at the moment).

I think there are legal challenges waiting to be made on this kind of mandate. It's one thing to trigger having to buy liability insurance by wanting to drive a car; it's quite another to be forced to hand over hard-earned money to a private industry just for being alive and able to pay.

Cenk Uygur: The Problem with Obama's Speech

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/the-problem-with-obamas-s_b_281665.html

In his analysis, Uygur cites this portion of the speech:

Obama: It is only one part of my plan, and should not be used as a handy excuse for the usual Washington ideological battles. To my progressive friends, I would remind you that for decades, the driving idea behind reform has been to end insurance company abuses and make coverage affordable for those without it. The public option is only a means to that end - and we should remain open to other ideas that accomplish our ultimate goal.

What has to be noticed by anyone actually looking at those words is that Obama is pointedly re-framing health care reform as merely correcting the abuses of the private insurance industry. As if we all wanted private health insurance - NOT!

Obama is really out to lunch on this one. I NEVER wanted a mere band-aid on private health insurance. I don't want to fix it. I don't want to buy it. I don't want to be forced to buy it or face a fine. I don't want the private health insurance industry to gain millions of new customers that can't afford their weak tea bullshit.

Seriously, what the fuck is this? If that's Obama-care, he can fucking keep it.

Single-payer or nothing. Truly.

Let's put the U.S. health insurance industry in its grave.

Kucinich Opposed

From his website:
http://kucinich.us/index.php

------

The President's health care policy speech was brilliant but when you get into the details another picture emerges. Unfortunately, at this point, the proposal outlined last night is the ultimate corporate giveaway. It's not health care, it’s insurance care. As many as thirty million new customers for an insurance industry which makes money not providing health care. The only way this country will see true health is by investing in real health care. That is the essence of HR676, the single payer bill.

The President opened his speech speaking of how we have solved the economic crisis - how? By rewarding those who caused the crash! Is this the way we solve the health care crisis? Rewarding the insurance companies? Helping insurance and pharmaceutical stock to soar, propping up markets while skimping on health care? The very same system which caused the health care crisis is being rewarded with the guarantee of tens of millions of new customers mandated - by law - to have health care. The latest plan rewards the very companies that have denied treatment, denied care, denied drug coverage while their profits grow daily.

The only way this country will see true sustainable economic recovery is through investment in the real economy, priming the pump through job creation. The only way this country will see true health is by investing in real health care.

The "public option" has been relegated to insignificance. What we will now get is yet another "private option", not a public option, because single-payer is "off the table." We the people deserve better. We have been faced with general warfare in Iraq and Afghanistan - multi-trillion dollar bailouts for arms merchants, $12 trillion in bailouts for Wall Street, bailouts to coal and nuclear industries, and now proposed huge subsidies for the insurance and pharmaceutical industries. What's wrong with this picture? Everything!

------

Yeah, that's how I saw it too. What a total dick Obama is turning out to be. Totally fucking useless.

Obama's Health Care Reform Speech 9 Sept. 2009

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

This was more of the usual smooth-talking fluff.

The Good:

Obama: What this plan will do is to make the insurance you have work better for you. Under this plan, it will be against the law for insurance companies to deny you coverage because of a pre-existing condition. As soon as I sign this bill, it will be against the law for insurance companies to drop your coverage when you get sick or water it down when you need it most. They will no longer be able to place some arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or a lifetime. We will place a limit on how much you can be charged for out-of-pocket expenses, because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they get sick. And insurance companies will be required to cover, with no extra charge, routine checkups and preventive care, like mammograms and colonoscopies - because there's no reason we shouldn't be catching diseases like breast cancer and colon cancer before they get worse. That makes sense, it saves money, and it saves lives.

That's what Americans who have health insurance can expect from this plan - more security and stability.

Now, if you're one of the tens of millions of Americans who don't currently have health insurance, the second part of this plan will finally offer you quality, affordable choices. If you lose your job or change your job, you will be able to get coverage. If you strike out on your own and start a small business, you will be able to get coverage. We will do this by creating a new insurance exchange - a marketplace where individuals and small businesses will be able to shop for health insurance at competitive prices. Insurance companies will have an incentive to participate in this exchange because it lets them compete for millions of new customers. As one big group, these customers will have greater leverage to bargain with the insurance companies for better prices and quality coverage. This is how large companies and government employees get affordable insurance. It's how everyone in this Congress gets affordable insurance. And it's time to give every American the same opportunity that we've given ourselves.

For those individuals and small businesses who still cannot afford the lower-priced insurance available in the exchange, we will provide tax credits, the size of which will be based on your need. And all insurance companies that want access to this new marketplace will have to abide by the consumer protections I already mentioned. This exchange will take effect in four years, which will give us time to do it right. In the meantime, for those Americans who can't get insurance today because they have pre-existing medical conditions, we will immediately offer low-cost coverage that will protect you against financial ruin if you become seriously ill. This was a good idea when Senator John McCain proposed it in the campaign, it's a good idea now, and we should embrace it.

The Bad:

Obama: That's why under my plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance - just as most states require you to carry auto insurance. Likewise, businesses will be required to either offer their workers health care, or chip in to help cover the cost of their workers. There will be a hardship waiver for those individuals who still cannot afford coverage, and 95% of all small businesses, because of their size and narrow profit margin, would be exempt from these requirements. But we cannot have large businesses and individuals who can afford coverage game the system by avoiding responsibility to themselves or their employees. Improving our health care system only works if everybody does their part.

The "lie" part:

Obama: Some of people's concerns have grown out of bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost. The best example is the claim, made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens. Such a charge would be laughable if it weren't so cynical and irresponsible. It is a lie, plain and simple.

A little later he also said this:

Obama: My health care proposal has also been attacked by some who oppose reform as a "government takeover" of the entire health care system. As proof, critics point to a provision in our plan that allows the uninsured and small businesses to choose a publicly-sponsored insurance option, administered by the government just like Medicaid or Medicare.

So let me set the record straight. My guiding principle is, and always has been, that consumers do better when there is choice and competition. Unfortunately, in 34 states, 75% of the insurance market is controlled by five or fewer companies. In Alabama, almost 90% is controlled by just one company. Without competition, the price of insurance goes up and the quality goes down. And it makes it easier for insurance companies to treat their customers badly - by cherry-picking the healthiest individuals and trying to drop the sickest; by overcharging small businesses who have no leverage; and by jacking up rates.

And:

Obama: Add it all up, and the plan I'm proposing will cost around $900 billion over ten years - less than we have spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and less than the tax cuts for the wealthiest few Americans that Congress passed at the beginning of the previous administration. Most of these costs will be paid for with money already being spent - but spent badly - in the existing health care system. The plan will not add to our deficit. The middle-class will realize greater security, not higher taxes. And if we are able to slow the growth of health care costs by just one-tenth of one percent each year, it will actually reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over the long term.

My thoughts:

The obvious intent is for the public offering to be floated as if it were meant to take over as a similar plan did in Canada. But, now the details...

One of the problems is the timing of it all. If this all happens 4 years from now, who's to say it won't be a political football for all of the time intervening between now and then? Might it be rescinded by a new president and a new congress four years hence? What's with the four years anyway - is Obama trying to get himself and his congress re-elected with this stuff?

And 5%? WTF? That will not be enough to have this thing take over. It will be too small and too weak.

We won't save on administrative overhead (i.e. paper pushing bullshit) because we will still have a kabillion private insurers biting back for every dollar. So the possible 30% savings that could be realized there is now gone.

I am very concerned about mandates. I am also concerned about penalties connected to a mandate. It's all too ambiguous. Too flimsy.

The last thing I want is to have to buy insurance from the same private insurance companies whose numerous acts of criminality are what necessitated a movement for health care reform in the first place. And what's the option again? Buy or pay a fine. Fuck that noise.

Matt Taibbi has neatly laid out how true reform was torpedoed from the first (see previous posts for links). David Sirota doesn't seem too impressed either, as is summed up at the end of a recent HuffPo piece:

------

David Sirota on "Reviewing President Rahm Emanuel's Health Care Speech"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/reviewing-president-rahm_b_281559.html

I mean, I seem to remember an election just a few months ago that resulted in a Democratic president, and huge Democratic majorities in Congress - and I seem to remember there was a Barack Obama who only a short while ago said geting those electoral results was the only obstacle to a full-on single payer health care system, much less a weakened public option. But again, I guess it's just too bad that after that election, President Emanuel now rules America.

------

To echo Sirota's and Taibbi's many excellent points along the same lines: who are the Democrats attempting to appease? They own congress and the oval office. They could just ram through whatever the fuck they like. But no, first it has to be watered down into meaningless pap.

Okay, so maybe Obama's now only 95% Cheney as per Greg Palast's equation.

Taibbi: Sick & Wrong Update

Rolling Stone has updated their site with the full text here:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/29988909/sick_and_wrong
or print version:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/29988909/sick_and_wrong/print
or download this digest-sized PDF version:
http://jump.fm/HEYHH