…so badly that it might not know east from west.
Obviously someone from the right wing noise machine has gotten through to FT reporters Jeremy Lemer and Ed Crooks, and given them just the right talking points. For example, when discussing state insurance exchanges, they write:
Where they have been used at state level, their record has been mixed; they have failed in Texas, Florida, North Carolina and California.
I literally don’t know what they are talking about: Schwarzenegger signed California’s legislation to create its exchange just a few weeks before leaving office. Maybe it’s those high-risk pools that Harold has often criticized: but those are not the same as the insurance exchanges that the ACA will set up in 2014.
Then Lemer and Crooks say that the ACA’s promised cost savings might not materialize, which why “business opposition” has materialized. And what might that opposition be? Why, the US Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the National Federation of Independent Business, essentially groups that are allied with the Republican Party. This, of course, is never mentioned by the FT — and neither is the fact that had it not been for such groups, ACA implementation would have occurred earlier, and states would not have to rely on the high-risk pools that they earlier criticize.
Meanwhile,
Pat Felder, who runs a car parts distributor in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, says her employee insurance premiums went up by 17 per cent last year, and she has been warned to expect a 20 per cent-plus rise this year. She says the insurance companies blame the rise on the new legislation.
(emphasis added). Well, yes, they would, wouldn’t they? Earlier, Lemer and Crooks noted that for years, rates have been increasing at more than 20%. So why blame this latest one on the ACA?
And finally, we get the pure GOP talking points:
Critics are offering alternative proposals. Republicans in Congress want to curb medical litigation, which encourages unnecessary tests and procedures to avoid lawsuits. Many businesses favour abolishing regulations that prevent health insurance being sold across state lines, limiting choice.
Except that, you know, neither of these things will do anything significant to reduce costs, and just give more power to insurers. Lemer and Crooks never mention this.
Funny, I thought Rupert Murdoch had bought The Times, not the FT….
[...] Health Care: The FT Gets Spun… …so badly that it might not know east from west. Obviously someone from the right wing noise machine has gotten through to FT reporters Jeremy Lemer and Ed Crooks, and given them just the right talking points. For example, when discussing state insurance exchanges, they write: [...]
Nice text it is interesting. Keep creating more great articles.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Health News, Emeliza Palma, Dana Tight, healthy_life, Health and others. Health said: Health Care: The FT Gets Spun… « The Reality-Based Community: Many businesses favour abolishing regulations that… http://bit.ly/fDUfOL [...]
I guess I didn’t expect any better from a periodical called “Financial Times.”
But yeah, disgraceful. Any reporter who doesn’t have the sense or the integrity to look into both sides of an issue should find some other line of work, like bagging groceries.
Shocked I tell you, I am shocked. Journalists failing to point out the obvious. Surely, they are inherently adversarial towards “sources.” That is what journalists do for a living! Or, are they merely stenographers for propaganda?: http://contusio-cordis.blogspot.com/2011/02/propaganda-posing-as-journalism.html
Crooks is sort of remarkable for being monumentally dumb. He regularly writes very dumb things, so much so that I don’t bother reading anything by him. He’d fit right in at the Washington Post, which is maybe what he has in mind.
Perhaps the reference to failure in California, TX, FL, and NC refers to a HIPC (Health Insurance Purchasing Cooperative — pool) created by the CA in the early 1990′s. This HIPC, established to support purchase of health insurance atgroup rates for employees and owners of small businesses, had modest success and evenutally was spun off into a private non-profit entity. The number of businesses and insured persons participating grew initially but eventually participation slowly declined, and the ability of the pool to maintain a size that allowed significant price reductions relative to the non-HIPC small business/individual insurance market dissipated. Keep in mind that participation in the HIPC was voluntary. I don’t know what happened in TX, FL,or NC. In any event, the circumstances facing participants likely to use the exchanges contemplated under the ACA likely will be quite different.
[...] 1990′s. This HIPC, established to support purchase of health insurance …Read the full story here Previous Topic: Federal Judge dismisses religion-based health care lawsuit | [...]
Isn’t the more pertinent point that ACA’s exchanges most resemble the ones in Massachusetts? You know, the exchange that has (to date) succeeded?
I thought Murdoch bought the Wall Street Journal, not the Times.
Hi Jonathan,
Thank you for taking the time to read our piece on the health care
reform act and the broader issue of rising health care costs and its
impact on businesses in America.
(http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/85a4eb62-3e03-11e0-99ac-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1EejepLCu)
On the issue of health care exchanges, you seem to have misunderstood
our reference to their historical track record.
Governor Schwarzenegger did indeed take steps to implement an exchange
in California before he left office.
But we were referring to previous attempts to set up a health exchange
in the state which began in 1993 and fell apart in 2006.
There are plenty of insightful reports on the failure of the
California exchange and the challenges involved in setting up new
exchanges as per the requirements of the PPACA.
For your convenience, here are some links.
http://www.chcf.org/publications/2009/07/building-a-national-insurance-exchange-lessons-from-california
http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411875_health_insurance_marketplaces.pdf
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/Publications/Fund-Reports/2010/Sep/Health-Insurance-Exchanges-and-the-Affordable-Care-Act.aspx
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/Publications/Fund-Reports/2010/Jul/Health-Insurance-Exchanges-and-the-Affordable-Care-Act.aspx
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/06/opinion/06mcgarr.html
The thrust of your post, however, is that we have been taken in by the
right wing groups critical of the health care reform legislation. If
you read the piece again we feel there is little to support your
contention.
Our article attempts to explain, not to endorse, the views of the
business community. And regardless of their political affiliations,
organizations like the NAM represent the views of a substantial chunk
of American businesses, and surely therefore deserve a hearing.
The piece also clearly makes the point that health care costs have
been rising dramatically for decades, and that the changes enacted by
the PPACA have added only modestly to that rate of increase.
As for the “pure GOP talking points” that you mention, they are
immediately followed by two quotes suggesting that those ideas will
not make enough of a difference to the underlying problem.
All of that said, we are always looking for ideas to help
improve our coverage and we welcome comments and suggestions. If there
are important aspects of the issue you think we have missed, please do
let us know.
Best wishes,
Jeremy Lemer and Ed Crooks