FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Excerpt: "A majority of federal rulings on the substance of President Obama's health care reform law have found it to be constitutional. But a Media Matters review finds that the media overwhelmingly focused on rulings that struck down the law."

The corporate media focuses on the minority of federal rulings that struck down Obamacare. (photo: Media Matters for America)
The corporate media focuses on the minority of federal rulings that struck down Obamacare. (photo: Media Matters for America)



Corporate Media's War on Obamacare

By Media Matters for America

24 June 12

 

majority of federal rulings on the substance of President Obama's health care reform law have found it to be constitutional, including the law's mandate that individuals purchase health insurance. But a Media Matters review of the five largest newspapers and the flagship CNN, Fox News, ABC, CBS, and NBC evening news programs finds that the media overwhelmingly focused on rulings that struck down the law in whole or in part -- 84 percent of segments on the broadcast and cable programs reviewed and 59 percent of newspaper articles that reported on such rulings -- while largely ignoring rulings that found it constitutional or dismissed the case.

Individual Mandate A Conservative Idea, Assumed Constitutional Until Health Reform Fight

Individual Mandate Invented By Conservative Heritage Foundation, Supported By GOP In '90s. In an article for The New Yorker, Washington Post columnist Ezra Klein wrote:

The mandate made its political début in a 1989 Heritage Foundation brief titled "Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans," as a counterpoint to the single-payer system and the employer mandate, which were favored in Democratic circles. In the brief, Stuart Butler, the foundation's health-care expert, argued, "Many states now require passengers in automobiles to wear seat-belts for their own protection. Many others require anybody driving a car to have liability insurance. But neither the federal government nor any state requires all households to protect themselves from the potentially catastrophic costs of a serious accident or illness. Under the Heritage plan, there would be such a requirement." The mandate made its first legislative appearance in 1993, in the Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act--the Republicans' alternative to President Clinton's health-reform bill--which was sponsored by John Chafee, of Rhode Island, and co-sponsored by eighteen Republicans, including Bob Dole, who was then the Senate Minority Leader. [The New Yorker, 6/25/12]

Klein: "It Was Hard To Find A Law Professor In The Country" Who Found Health Care Law Unconstitutional When It Was Passed. Klein quoted several law professors questioning the legal standing of the argument suggesting that an individual mandate for health insurance is unconstitutional at the time legal challenges against it began:

In March 23, 2010, the day that President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law, fourteen state attorneys general filed suit against the law's requirement that most Americans purchase health insurance, on the ground that it was unconstitutional. It was hard to find a law professor in the country who took them seriously. "The argument about constitutionality is, if not frivolous, close to it," Sanford Levinson, a University of Texas law-school professor, told the McClatchy newspapers. Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of the law school at the University of California at Irvine, told the Times, "There is no case law, post 1937, that would support an individual's right not to buy health care if the government wants to mandate it." Orin Kerr, a George Washington University professor who had clerked for Justice Anthony Kennedy, said, "There is a less than one-per-cent chance that the courts will invalidate the individual mandate." [The New Yorker, 6/25/12]

Law Professor Unable "To Find Even A Hint Of The Constitutional Objection Before Obama's Election." Andrew Koppelman, a John Paul Stevens Professor of Law and Professor of Political Science at Northwestern University who is writing a book on constitutional objections to the law, wrote in Salon:

The constitutional limits that the bill supposedly disregarded could not have been anticipated because they did not exist while the bill was being written. They were invented only in the fall of 2009, quite late in the legislative process. [Salon, 5/31/12, emphasis in original]

More Courts Have Upheld The Law Than Overturned It. According to a compilation of court cases related to the Affordable Care Act by Kaiser Health News, four courts -- the Northern District of Florida, the Eastern District of Virginia, the Middle District of Pennsylvania, and the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals -- have struck down the law in whole or in part. In contrast, five courts -- the Western District of Virginia, the Eastern District of Michigan, the District of Columbia, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, and the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals -- have upheld the individual mandate as constitutional. The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals later vacated the judgments of the Virginia district courts and remanded those cases for dismissal on jurisdictional grounds. In several other cases, courts dismissed the complaint without ruling on the constitutionality of the law. [Kaiser Health News, 11/14/11]

Media Overwhelmingly Focused On Rulings Against Constitutionality

84 Percent Of Broadcast And Cable Segments Reported On Rulings Striking Down The Law. Out of a total of 31 segments on ABC's World News, CBS' Evening News, NBC's Nightly News, CNN's The Situation Room, and Fox News' Special Report that reported on court rulings related to the health care law, 26 (or 84 percent) dealt with rulings that found the individual mandate unconstitutional. In contrast, only three (or 10 percent) segments reported on rulings that upheld the law. Two segments (or six percent) reported on court rulings that dismissed their cases without ruling on substance.

Broadcast And Cable Spent 97 Percent Of Time Devoted To Health Care Ruling Coverage On Decisions Striking Down The Law. Cable networks spent the most time -- about 50 minutes -- on reports on court rulings that found the individual mandate unconstitutional. The Situation Room devoted about 22 minutes, and Special Report devoted about 28 minutes, with each devoting less than one minute to reports on rulings upholding the law or dismissing the case. In broadcast, ABC and CBS only produced reports on court rulings that found the individual mandate unconstitutional -- about two-and-a-half minutes for World News and about three minutes for Evening News. Nightly News spent almost three minutes on reports on court rulings that found the individual mandate unconstitutional and less than 30 seconds reporting on rulings upholding the law.

Nearly 6 In 10 Print Articles In Leading Papers Reported Rulings Striking Down Law. Out of a total of 59 articles on court rulings in the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post, 35 (or 59 percent) reported on decisions that found the individual mandate unconstitutional. In contrast, only 17 (or 29 percent) articles reported on rulings that found the provision to be constitutional. Eight articles (or 13 percent) reported on court rulings that dismissed their cases.

Articles On Rulings Finding Law Unconstitutional Far More Likely To Land On Front Page. Between all five papers, 10 articles reporting on court rulings that struck down the law in whole or in part were published on their respective front pages. In contrast, only a single article, from USA Today, about a court ruling upholding constitutionality of the law was published on the front page.

Message Received: Americans Now Overwhelmingly Believe That The Individual Mandate Is Unconstitutional

According To Polls, Americans Believe That The Individual Mandate Is Unconstitutional. The media's treatment of these court rulings puts the fact that many Americans now believe that the individual mandate is unconstitutional into important context. A USA Today/Gallup poll from February found that 72 percent of Americans believe that the provision is unconstitutional while only 22 percent believe that it is constitutional. Another poll from April by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that 51 percent of American adults think that the Supreme Court should rule that the individual mandate is unconstitutional while only 26 percent think that the court should rule for constitutionality. Similarly, a McClatchy-Marist poll conducted in March found that 53 percent of American adults hold the opinion that the Supreme Court should either "declare individual mandate unconstitutional" or "repeal [the law] completely" while only 35 percent believe the court should "let it stand." [Gallup, 2/17/12; via Polling Report]

Methodology

Media Matters searched the Nexis database for news segments and articles within three days of each ruling from ABC's World News, CBS' Evening News, NBC's Nightly News, CNN's The Situation Room, Fox News' Special Report, the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, USA Today, and The Washington Post. We searched the Factiva database for The Wall Street Journal.

We did not include MSNBC in the data because the cable network does not broadcast a straight-news program in the evening. NBC holds 50 percent ownership in MSNBC, and thus, does not schedule such a show to compete with its flagship program, Nightly News.

We counted any segments or articles that included keywords "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act," "Affordable Care Act," "Patient Protection," "Obamacare," or "health care" within 50 words of keywords "appeals court," "district court," "appellate court," "lower court," "court," "lawsuit,"or "judge." We determined the length of each segment by reviewing the raw video.

For television, we did not include teasers or minor mentions within a segment unless such a mention generated significant discussion (e.g., a multiguest panel where one of the topics was a relevant court ruling). For print, we did not include op-eds or editorials.

The rulings we searched are listed below by date, ruling judge(s) and court, and result.

  • June 17, 2010; David K. Duncan, District of Arizona. Case dismissed.

  • September 8, 2010; Susan Webber Wright, Eastern District of Arkansas. Case Dismissed.

  • October 7, 2010; George Caram Steeh, Eastern District of Michigan. Constitutionality upheld.

  • November 4, 2010; Curtis Collier, Eastern District of Tennessee. Case dismissed.

  • November 30, 2010; Norman Moon, Western District of Virginia. Constitutionality upheld.

  • December 8, 2010; Susan Wigenton, District of New Jersey. Case dismissed.

  • December 13, 2010; Henry Hudson, Eastern District of Virginia. Ruled unconstitutional.

  • December 16, 2010; Thomas Schroeder, Middle District of North Carolina. Case dismissed.

  • January 31, 2011; Roger Vinson, Northern District of Florida. Ruled unconstitutional.

  • February 22, 2011; Gladys Kessler, District of Columbia. Constitutionality upheld.

  • March 7, 2011; James Mahan, District of Nevada. Case dismissed.

  • March 30, 2011; Joseph Laplante, District of New Hampshire. Case dismissed.

  • March 31, 2011; Michael Schneider, Eastern District of Texas. Case dismissed.

  • April 21, 2011; Freda Wolfson, District of New Jersey. Case dismissed.

  • April 26, 2011; Rodney Sippel, Eastern District of Missouri. Case dismissed.

  • June 18, 2011; Keith Giblin, Eastern District of Texas. Case dismissed.

  • June 29, 2011; Boyce F. Martin, Jr., Jeffrey S. Sutton, James Graham, 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. Constitutionality upheld.

  • August 3, 2011; Michael Chagares, Kent A. Jordan, Joseph A. Greenaway Jr., 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals. Case dismissed.

  • August 12, 2011; Joel F. Dubina, Frank M. Hull, Stanley Marcus, 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. Ruled unconstitutional.

  • August 13, 2011; 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Case dismissed.

  • August 27, 2011; Dana Sabraws, Southern District of California. Case dismissed.

  • September 8, 2011; Diana Gibbon Motz, Andre M. Davis, James A. Wyan, 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. Case dismissed.

  • September 13, 2011; Christopher Conner, Middle District of Pennsylvania. Ruled unconstitutional.

  • November 11, 2011; Brett Kavanaugh, Harry Edwards, Laurence Silberman, D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Constitutionality upheld.
 

Comments   

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

 
-11 # ronnewmexico 2012-06-24 11:20
It is true how the media is focused on the losers as opposed to winners of this thing but I see not a necessarily corporate tilt.
Overall hospitals and insurers will benefit by its success, and the inverse will occur with its failure. Other pockets of the health care industry will benefit and others loose depending on this thing.

Overall it is probably more a plus to corporate interest than a negative. A large large influx of peoples will now flow into the insurance industry.
If they do not they will suffer a tax...that is the program in majority, with some reformers to the industry and some add ons such as the indian public health service funding.

Now hospitals and state governments most notably take it on the chin with uninsured patient care.

A large large negative to the Obama campaign and quite notably would be this failure of such a large large program...I see that as the news interest. So it is simply more interesting if it fails..so they report the things that support the more interesting thing.

Corporately..pretty much a wash...looking at the stock valuations of the health care industry since its passage tells one that.....genera lly they have appreciated in whole.

That this thing is a great great success for the working person....a Obama propagandistic tool is that to my opinion.
All stocks would be far reduced in value in this area if it was....it is firmly not.
 
 
+4 # soularddave 2012-06-24 19:55
Not sure why all the negatives, but then, I'm not understanding the last three lines.

The media is focused on what keeps eyes on the tube. Negativity, and the rest of the splashy production will do just that for people weather they're fer it or again it. It's the horse race, once again, because it's framed that way by the people who know how to get you (not me!) to watch the commercials in exchange for little substance.
 
 
+63 # juliajayne 2012-06-24 12:15
Media Matters does a great job of keeping track of conservative misinformation. And despite this canard of the press being liberal, it's pretty apparent that it skews right/corporate at best. At worst, it's in your face ideological, such as Fox "News".

Rachel Maddow has done a good job of delineating how very much the Repubs LOVED mandates until the Afordable Healthcare was signed into law. I swear, if Obama said that breathing was good, all of the Repubs would suffocate themselves!
 
 
+8 # readerz 2012-06-24 12:50
The stock in asthma drugs would go up...
 
 
+3 # John Locke 2012-06-24 13:35
juliajayne: Try it and lets see!
 
 
+3 # Barbara K 2012-06-24 19:49
Here is the link to the Health Care Bill if you'd like to check it out.

www.WhiteHouse.gov/healthreform.
 
 
0 # RLF 2012-07-01 08:15
We will soon see if we are better off for this law or if Obama is as 'corporate friendly' as clinton.
 
 
-35 # jimattrell 2012-06-24 13:06
Rachael Maddow? You use that as a source of your information? My family (four) monthly health care cost is going to $2,200.00 per month. My neighbor is unemployed and to get insurance coverage he is going to either have to cough up this amount somehow or pay a fine? Have you all gone nuts?
 
 
+23 # X Dane 2012-06-24 16:00
jimattrell.
First get off of Fox, for Pete's sake. Next, If you are out o work, you are certainly excused, or you will get some form of help.

Then try to familiarize yourself with what's IN the law. The more people learn about it the more they like it.

Obviously you do not realize that we ALREADY pay for the uninsured. 10$ ???? aspirin and other exorbitant posts on hospital bills should make you understand that.

Costs are also sky rocketing because uninsured people use the emergency room, when they are so sick that they DO NEED CARE. They can not afford to go to the doctor. In a great many ways we pay for the uninsured.

We PAY, when people who can't go to the doctor, spread bad diseases, and make a lot of people ill. DID THAT EVER OCOUR TO YOU??
 
 
+9 # Barbara K 2012-06-24 18:17
XDane: Thank you! I've been wondering if the media is being paid by the wealthy for all their nastiness towards this great Health Care Bill? It isn't perfect, but it is the best they could do with the Rs in Congress trying to stop it. At least it is a start, and it can be amended as needed to make it even better, after we get Dem majorities in congress. We had a filibuster-proo f majority for only 2 months, and that is when they got this Bill worked out in the first place. Wish Sens. Kennedy and Byrd had remained healthy and in the Senate. We would be in much better shape than now. But anyway, has anyone else wondered if the media is being paid off to poo poo this Bill? It is a great thing for the uninsured and formerly uninsurable. I watched all the debates, votes, and the entire thing going thru the Senate and it is a good Bill, and yes, the more others are becoming familiar with it, they like it; especially those already using it, and waiting for their rebate checks to come in.
 
 
+5 # readerz 2012-06-24 22:04
Paid or not, the media is inundated by "press releases" from unreliable sources. For example, consider the SCOTUS corporations are persons ruling which is called "Citizens United." That is an example of the kinds of misleading names the Repubs use. And "research" paid for by right-wingers is always going to have results they want. Exception: the Koch bros. funded a project to disprove global warming, but it proved it, and the best that they could do was bury the information and blog blog blog that there was "other evidence" to the contrary. So, even if media were honest (which it is not), they might have skewed information.
 
 
+1 # RLF 2012-07-01 08:19
This is not a great bill. It is another bill written by the insurance industry with a million loopholes and an unenforceable profit ceiling for the insurance co.s.
 
 
+7 # Adagio 2012-06-24 16:23
>"My neighbor is unemployed and to get insurance coverage he is going to either have to cough up this amount somehow or pay a fine?"INAL PENALTIES.—In the case of
any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed
by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any
criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure.
‘‘(B) LIMITATIONS ON LIENS AND LEVIES.—The Secretary
shall not—
‘‘(i) file notice of lien with respect to any property
of a taxpayer by reason of any failure to pay the
penalty imposed by this section, or
‘‘(ii) levy on any such property with respect to
such failure.’’

Early in the debate Justice Breyer got so carried away with the antisemanticism that at one point he wondered whether the mandate itself should even in fact be considered a mandate. With an explicitly unenforceable and uncollectable penalty as its only backstop, Breyer seemed to get a bit hung up on the mandate's lack of... mandatoriality. Your neighbor won't have to pay any fine. If your monthly cost is that high, why don't you dump your provider??
 
 
+16 # Adagio 2012-06-24 16:35
>"Rachael Maddow? You use that as a source of your information?"na ccurate? Anytime she finds herself in error, she corrects that error on TV. But then she is really good with facts, so that's a rare happening.
 
 
+1 # thomachuck 2012-06-26 15:55
Just for the record, and to "ile on" to your post, Rachel Maddow truly is a stickler for accuracy. Her show is laced with rumor debunking and the exposition of lies. Anyone denouncing her as "not a good source of factual information" has had their brain marinated on GOP BS.
 
 
-4 # Sea Star RN 2012-06-24 18:43
"Have you all gone nuts?"

Yes, Americans have and this article also misses the boat.

The Affordable Care Act should be ruled unconstitutiona l for a whole different set of reasons, according to these 50 doctors who also filed an amicus brief.

They will hold a press conference tomorrow , June 25 at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.

"...In an amicus curae brief, we joined 50 doctors to make the case that Congress has already demonstrated it can regulate healthcare markets effectively by implementing single payer systems such as Medicare or the Veterans Health Administration...."

http://www.singlepayeraction.org/blog/?cat=3
 
 
+2 # readerz 2012-06-24 22:12
If SCOTUS gets rid of it though, it will never be replaced.

Congress could improve it, and that would be the only safe way to get a better bill.

Perfectionism isn't worth destroying any chance of a health care bill passing at all.
 
 
0 # jimattrell 2012-06-25 13:53
Anyone who lives and works in the middle of this ObombusCare mess and is unemployed knows the truth..... Obombuscare needs to be repealed and then simple fixes put in place to cover pre-existing conditions, coverage for college kids etc. Take the good parts and make them law and get rid of the rest of the nonsense.
 
 
0 # thomachuck 2012-06-26 16:19
There are doctors who are in favor of the survival of the law as well. The Supreme Court is going to be sorely tested here if it makes a decision that even seems like it was politically motivated. Its own reputation will follow that of Congress into the dumper. Congress established that it could require people to purchase personal firearms in a 1792 law which was never challenged. Some people call it the "musket mandate."
 
 
+7 # soularddave 2012-06-24 20:02
That's exactly why UNIVERSAL health care would work for everyone, regardless of circumstance. You would complain, though, because you'd be paying for your neighbor.

Point is, you'd be paying more like $1500 in taxes, and not $2200. How much is your peace of mind worth?? Oh, and you're already paying for your neighbors' emergencies if they happen.
 
 
+1 # jimattrell 2012-06-25 13:56
You should look to Canada if you think that works. They are trying to get out of it because it is bankrupting the system with all the free-loaders... .And I help my neighbor. That is the right thing to do and the solution to many of our countries problems. People helping others, not the Government that has become "you vote for me, I will get you free stuff, then you will need to vote for me again only next time... you need to support my re-election by sending me back some of that free stuff"...
 
 
+5 # readerz 2012-06-24 22:09
Poor people will not be forced to pay, period.
If you feel so scared of common regular middle class folks who need health care, then maybe you are saying that you are scared of this great big country of ours that is full of people.

And get better insurance for yourself; it is out there.
 
 
0 # Todd Williams 2012-06-25 07:06
No, we haven't all gone nuts! Unless you are a 1%er, you may be eligible for the govt. subsidy to help defray the cost of buying insurance. There are quite a few programs available under the Affordable Health Care Act, many which are yet to kick in. And yes, I do use Maddow as a source of info. She is extremely well read and on top of the news. Maybe you should watch her more often. You might actually learn something other than the skewed bias of Fox and Rush Limpballs.
 
 
0 # jimattrell 2012-06-25 13:58
I am sure Maddow is a nice person and I do watch her a lot.... for entertainment value, not the news....
 
 
0 # Adagio 2012-06-27 00:23
Why would you watch her for entertainment? You're saying you watch her a lot, but not for news? How do you watch her and not listen to what she's saying? If you watch her a lot, then you are seeing her debunk tons of garbage being put out by Fox and Republicans. What part of what she says do you disagree with? Have you found her dishonest?? If so, when?
 
 
+23 # djnova50 2012-06-24 13:06
Didn't the health care law that is being called "Obamacare" start out as Romneycare? It seems like the original proposal would have been better; but, the Republicans kept voting it down. In the effort to compromise with the Republicans, parts were taken out so that the end result was something that the Republicans should be happy with. The current health insurance law is not Single Payer/expanded and enhanced Medicare for all. The mandate that requires everybody to purchase insurance wouldn't even be a question if we had Single Payer.
 
 
+6 # Adagio 2012-06-24 16:27
The original idea came out of the Heritage Foundation. The mandate made its political début in a 1989 Heritage Foundation brief titled "Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans," as a counterpoint to the single-payer system and the employer mandate, which were favored in Democratic circles. In the brief, Stuart Butler, the foundation's health-care expert, argued, "Many states now require passengers in automobiles to wear seat-belts for their own protection. Many others require anybody driving a car to have liability insurance. But neither the federal government nor any state requires all households to protect themselves from the potentially catastrophic costs of a serious accident or illness. Under the Heritage plan, there would be such a requirement." The mandate made its first legislative appearance in 1993, in the Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act--the Republicans' alternative to President Clinton's health-reform bill--which was sponsored by John Chafee, of Rhode Island, and co-sponsored by eighteen Republicans, including Bob Dole, who was then the Senate Minority Leader. [The New Yorker, 6/25/12]
 
 
-6 # Michael_K 2012-06-24 18:24
Absolutely correct. It was a Rethuglican boondoggle to benefit insurers, then as now.

Obama merely borrowed the Clinton trick of co-opting rethuglican policy, but he isn't quite slick enough to emulate BillyJeff.

Who will deliver us from all these knaves?!
 
 
0 # readerz 2012-06-24 22:18
Universal care? They wouldn't even pass the bill they had written. Considering that these same Rethugs (and especially Lieberman) sat on the version that they had proposed, and the Dems tried every which way to involve all Americans in the decision, it would be important to support this, and then to improve it. We can't re-write Kennedy's brain tumor, and then Massive-two-cen ts' lackluster campaign for his successor and the worst kind of tea party guy instead, but at least we can look to the future and put in somebody better there, and support Dems in Senate and Congress to keep improving the health care bill.
 
 
-2 # Michael_K 2012-06-25 10:09
"improve it"???? you mean make a better silk purse from a sow's ear? who are you kidding? and PLEASE.. everyone stop calling this crap a "healthcare bill"!
 
 
+1 # phantomww 2012-06-24 20:45
If they kept taking things out to make the R's happy, how many R's voted for it?

You are correct in that if we had single payer then there would be no constitutional quesiton, but we don't and a mandate from the federal govt is probably unconstitutiona l IMO. But then we will all find out this week.
 
 
+8 # railroadmike 2012-06-24 13:24
In rality the people know the question is not whether the law in constitional or not. Its boils down to Wall Street profists. I can go into the stats like 45,000 died each year because Nixon signed off on Pre Exusting Conditons, the bankruptcys,rui ned creit. The politicians and rich care less. Polite Genocide what our health care system should be called and the politicians and Insurance get away with manslaughter.
 
 
+3 # ronnewmexico 2012-06-24 13:41
The supreme court does not in any manner tally up winners and losers of lower court decision and make theirs on that basis.

REally what the media thinks of this or the people think is irrelevant to their decision in the immediate.
Used as right wing hay to serve their cause to elect Romney...sure, if this fails which I surmise in part it will this will help that. But to say corporate interest is republican and not democrat....spe aks against what we find in this thing itself.

Universal care, medicare for all...those would be threats to corporate interest in this thing.
The present thing....some reforms, some good ones and needed. A mandate for the uninsured to get insurance, some specific aids such as to the public health service for natives but overall...same old same old.

Those expecting great changes under Obamacare...wil l not find it.
Under the present system the health insurance costs are eating up a larger and larger share of income and nothing in this really stops that.
What good health care if all of your income goes to support it...nothing here changes that.

What was needed was universal health care or a extension of the already existent program of medicare to those of lower ages.....the idea this opens the door for other things of improvement is also silly...medicar e already exists...that door was opened in the sixties....all that was needed was to extend it..
 
 
+7 # X Dane 2012-06-24 16:30
The "care" we have now is highly immoral. Stockholders are making money on other people's misery. It is to their advantage that sick people are refused costly operations, for then they will make more money.
GREED, GREED, GREED. And it KILLS

In the early sixties the insurance companies did not have stockholders, and the cost was more reasonable. Then some realized, there was money to be made on illness. Stocks were sold in the companies. Problems multiplied and cost started to sky rocket. Now we are all going nuts.

Some people are against the new law, because they HAVE insurance and feel smug and safe......let them loose their job, and maybe get ill??....Let's see how safe they feel THEN. Quite a few have found out.

What we SHOULD have is single payer, and then the ones wanting a gold plated insurance, can take out additional. Many already do that with what they now have??

There should be good oversight so doctors and others in the medical business are not committing fraud. Quite a few are now. we must rectify that.
 
 
-21 # JackB 2012-06-24 13:48
The Supreme Court will decide the constitutionali ty of Obamacare.

Obama has told the world the thing is of little value but there people who didn't listen. The healthcare issue is more than a century old & has been before Congress a number of times without a resolution as the Clintons can attest. Barry gave Congress four months to have bill on his desk. Assuming as a member of Congress he became familiar with the process of bringing a bill to the President's desk he would have been aware there was no time to discuss the bill - just rubber stamp it. He wanted something to sign for the photo-op. He never read it & Congress never read it. But it's wonderful. So wonderful he had to spend almost a billion dollars to bribe his own party to vote for it.

It does not address the healthcare problem - just the symptoms so the problem will be with us, at a great cost, for a long time more.

Anybody wonder why Barry has spent more time talking about Romney's dog than how wonderful Obamacare is?
 
 
+1 # Todd Williams 2012-06-25 07:18
As with most right wingers, you cite not one shred of evidence in your shallow, misconstrued arguments. All nonsense parroting Fox Noise! Think, research and read before you write such drivel.
 
 
-1 # jimattrell 2012-06-25 14:02
Ted, you are a little hung up on Fox News.... Thanks for all the free press for a great NEWS network. Of course they don't really need it because most middle class folks like myself watch Fox for news and the rest for entertainment. MSNBC loses audience every day as they become more and more an entertainment venue. Fox is the only network that actually has both sides of the political spectrum on almost every show. Its much better way to get the news and understand points of view.
 
 
+1 # JackB 2012-06-25 16:21
RSN permits 1500 characters in a post. If you want evidence do it yourself. Prove me wrong.

Use Google to get the date Divine Barry charged Congress to have a Health bill on his desk.

Use Google to get the date he wanted it by. The difference between the two is how much time he allowed.

If you know how a bill goes from inception to the President's desk you know he did not allow any time for discussion. Just get something for him to sign.

What was the rush? It had been a problem for 100 years. Why couldn't it have been done right?

Why did he have to bribe his own party to get it done? Why doesn't it address the underlying reasons for the escalating Healthcare costs? Are they suddenly going to go away?

In addition to fees the government will cut half a trillion dollars in waste to pay for this? Riigghht!!!

If it is so great how come he isn't going coast to coast bragging about it?

It is a matter of record that when it was passed neither Obama nor anyone in Congress had read it.
 
 
+14 # Mrcead 2012-06-24 13:58
It's sad that the conservatives have to crib from Hitler's propaganda playbook to fight this battle.
 
 
-5 # Michael_K 2012-06-24 15:26
When it comes to disinformation, I'm not sure who generates most of it!

As you will recall, during the Clnton vs Obama campaigning, both put forward a mislabeled Insurance Plan mischaracterise d as a "health plan". The junior senator from NY proposed imposing an individual mandate, and the erstwhile Constitutional instructor did not. That was essentially the only difference between both plans, neither of which ever attempted to address the actual delivery of healthcare, or squelch its spiraling costs.

This is not in any conceivable manner a "healthcare reform". It is an insurance boondoggle and monumental hypocrisy. Most civilised nations have addressed the problem, and only America has a sufficient quantity of debilitatingly stupid people to be able to avoid the obvious solution.
 
 
0 # thomachuck 2012-06-26 16:04
I agree with and applaud most everything in your post but you SHOULD be sure who generates the most disinformation (misinformation ?). The lie machine that the Republicans mobilized to shoot holes in this law was stupendous. Look at the rumor debunking sites snopes.com and politifact and see who has the most pants on fire awards for their untruthfulness.
 
 
+11 # fredboy 2012-06-24 16:01
Quality research proves the point: the news media is no more--it's simply the Republican media. Funny that Republicans are raising such hell about Obamacare, as scores of Republicans in Nashville are making millions off it and recreating the healthcare industry around it. These parasites don't care what the system is, as long as they can figure out ways to exploit it.
 
 
-19 # brucbaker 2012-06-24 16:05
My argument against Obama-care is simple.

ONE ... DID YOU READ THE BILL YOURSELF?

TWO... IT TAKES OVER THE ENTIRE HEALTHCARE INDUSTRY and FORCES PEOPLE TO USE THE GOVERNMENT SYSTEM.. not right away .. but why would pay a PRIVATE system more when you can BUY more healthcare... at least on paper. IN PRACTICE ... NO .. you will get LESS healthcare.

Three...It is MATHEMATICALLY impossible to FUND Obama-care if everyone uses the program. The DAY the Obama-care program passed... PRIVATE Healthcare bumped up their payments knowing this bill would make Private Healthcare Insurance the Luxury program.

Bottom line .. you will be forced to use emergency room care, be told when and where you can get health-care, and just like the government always does .. it will COST ten times more than estimated by the CBO... information is out there ... go FIND IT.
 
 
0 # Todd Williams 2012-06-25 07:24
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. I've read most of the law and your points are simply dead wrong. Read before you speak. TYou last paragraph is remarkably uniformed, shallow and dead wrong!
 
 
+1 # Todd Williams 2012-06-25 10:47
Again you are dead wrong. Why don't you do some basic research into the plan before you shoot your mouth off. Bring on the red votes you right wingers. I love them. the more the happier I am!
 
 
0 # Michael_K 2012-06-25 11:31
Quoting Todd Williams:
Again you are dead wrong. Why don't you do some basic research into the plan before you shoot your mouth off. Bring on the red votes you right wingers. I love them. the more the happier I am!


Umm... it hasn't yet dawned upon you that YOU are the one praising what was essentially a Rethuglican boondoggle for the insurance industry? How sad!
 
 
0 # jimattrell 2012-06-25 14:03
Right on brucbaker! You hit the nail on the head. Just ask any Canadian.
 
 
0 # thomachuck 2012-06-26 16:08
Todd Williams is right; you are dead wrong. The law basically operates on the private enterprise insurance system. The health insurance industry should be happy if the Supreme Court approves the law because it will benefit mightily. Where the hell are you getting this stuff? There is no rationing, no death panels, no government dictated treatment guidelines--not hing that the Republican Rumor Mill has trotted out is true.
 
 
-8 # RY25L 2012-06-24 20:17
If Obama, Pelosi, and Reid had bothered to explain this law in detail in the first place and then kept reminding people when key benefit "kick in" dates would happen, this might not be as bad as it is. 95% of people with existing insurance still have NO idea what this will all mean to them financially and benefit wise and how this affects Medicare. Obama had an obligation to make this clear by working with party and union leaders to explain it to their base and KEEP explaining it over and over to silence the GOP. But I guess he was too busy sending drones out to destroy anybody and anything he wanted as well as caving and folding to all GOP demands at the expense of his base. I don't feel one bit sorry for Obama or the DEMS who are acting like victims when they should have been roaring lions all along. Instead they were rolled over by 70 year olds in baseball caps in the summer of 2010 resulting in one of the worst political reversals in modern history. Gutless...too busy.....Arab Spring crap....endless nonsense in Afghanistan and Iraq and now Somalia and who know where else...GITMO still there....kill American citizens without due process..have Tim Geithner come with blood on his whiskers out of the chicken coop and then run the Treasury......W onderful. Obama is no victim other than getting back what he deserves for being a leaderless, test- the-wind type of yuppie wannabe. Like the GOP is saying now, he could have done his immigration reform but did cash/clunkers instead.
 
 
+4 # readerz 2012-06-24 22:25
They HAVE been explaining it, but the point of this article, if you read it, is that the big media refused to print/televise/ air any of the explanations!
 
 
0 # readerz 2012-06-24 22:26
Suddenly, the negative commentators. Hmmm...
 
 
+1 # Todd Williams 2012-06-25 10:50
They appear like magic out of the cracks, corners and dark crevices. Like roaches, they crawl forth spewing their vile sputum. Schills for the rich right wing power brokers, they are like an army of undead. Scary? I'm terrifed of the right.
 
 
+1 # JSRaleigh 2012-06-25 12:11
Quoting Todd Williams:
They appear like magic out of the cracks, corners and dark crevices. Like roaches, they crawl forth spewing their vile sputum. Schills for the rich right wing power brokers, they are like an army of undead. Scary? I'm terrifed of the right.


I've noticed a massive upsurge in right-wingnutz commentary on putatively "liberal" blog sites. I'm beginning to think that many are provocateurs being PAID by the Koch brothers et al to drown out progressive commentary by burying it under a tidal wave of bullshit.
 
 
0 # thomachuck 2012-06-26 16:10
Or maybe it is simpler: we just have a massive body of uninformed people out there who parrot everything the people who they hang out with say without questioning its accuracy.
 
 
+2 # LegendBert 2012-06-25 07:49
I think many are missing the point of this article. Even if the justices totally despises the ACA, they still must decide its constitutionali ty based on the Constitution. Anything less would be treasonous. The media's reporting has only helped to obfuscate this basic issue. They can't even get the name right -- it's the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
 
 
+1 # JSRaleigh 2012-06-25 08:12
Looks like the CORPORATIONS are just having a psychotic episode. They hate Obama and everything he's done from knee-jerk reflex, yet the Obamacare boondoggle is going to give them the biggest profit windfall they've ever had.

The cognitive dissonance is making them crazy.
 
 
0 # jimattrell 2012-06-25 14:05
Don't confuse Corporations with the Small Businesses Corporations that employ 70% of the population. And the large Corporations all give money to Obama....
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN