The Secret Agenda Behind House Republican ACA Hearings is Obama Impeachment
By: Sarah Jones
Tuesday, December, 3rd, 2013, 10:14 am
Fox News is making the Republicans’ House hearing case for them by helping the GOP make the case for impeachment.
The House is holding a hearing today (one of four
ObamaCare hearings on your tax dollars) on “Presidential power”,
alleging that President Obama disregarded the constitution when he
tweaked the timing of the implementation of the individual mandate. This
precedes impeachment, and that’s why they’re holding this hearing.
Megyn Kelly did what Fox does best; she “raised the question” of
whether or not Obama has violated his duty. Has the President
substituted his judgment over the Congress’ judgment?
Watch the December 2 edition of Fox News’ The Kelly File here via Media Matters:
First “Judge” Andrew Napolitano claimed Obama had let a large group
of people off and refused to prosecute them for some kind of quid pro
quo, but Megyn Kelly quickly steered him back to the Talking Point of
the Day – Healthcare.gov, aka, ObamaScare. Stay on point, Andrew!
Kelly reminded Napolitano that they are both lawyers so they know how
things work. I beg to differ. I know plenty of ignorant lawyers.
Knowing enough about the law to pass the bar says almost nil about
understanding government, unless you are a constitutional lawyer (like
the President). Or you’ve worked on government (like the President).
Working on Fox “News” is a good
indicator that you may have difficulty understanding logic and
processing facts, or you have sold out so completely that your take on
the “law” is pretty worthless. But I digress. Back to impeachments.
So Andrew, who also thought the President should be impeached over
the sequester pending cuts imposed by Republicans, championed by
Republicans and crowed about by Republicans on Andrew’s very own
network, announced that the President violated the constitution when he
decided to give “exceptions/exemptions” from the obligation of the law
to some groups and not to others.
Kelly played fair cop with Napolitano. “That’s an administrative
decision,” she barked. I might remind everyone here that Republicans in
Congress make many such decisions – like how oil companies get subsidies
but groups of poor people should not, or even other energy groups do
not. Fox wants to indict on ideology, apparently. Kelly pretend-pushed
him that the executive has the power to make these decisions, so that he
could be set up to explain Why It’s Different This Time (aka, ‘cuz
Obama did it).
This is the Outrage When the Black Man Uses His Authority segment of
the program, when the two very white people smirk disdainfully over the
“power grab” (assertion of proper authority) of the black person. It’s
all very Southern Strategy on Fox.
So now we find out what Kelly is going for (aka, what the GOP
leadership sent her re their hearing today). Delaying the individual
mandate! Sure, “timing” used to fall under the purview of the executive
branch, but not anymore, they tell us. The President may not change the
date of implementation of a part of a law according to Napolitano.
In reality, the President controls policy implementation. That’s his
role in the process. By delaying the individual mandate, Obama is simply
changing an implementation date, not rewriting the law.
And now we come to the landing that sets up the Republican Congressional hearing today.
“What’s the remedy, you say impeachment, but can you go into court
and challenge him? Can you try to impeach him, how would that happen?”
Kelly wonders.
Sadly, Napolitano doesn’t think Obama will be impeached because of
the experience “we had the last time when Bill Clinton’s eye was off the
ball.” Yes. Never mind Iraq, WMD, Katrina, etc. Never mind Nixon. A
breach of executive power is best exemplified in Foxland by the delaying
of an implementation of a law these people don’t agree with.
But Kelly is very sad because impeaching Clinton backfired against
the poor Republicans and then Napolitano reminded everyone that if
Clinton hadn’t been impeached he wouldn’t have ignored Osama bin Laden,
even though he admits that bin Laden attacked “in the early days of the
Bush administration”.
These are the same people who will whine if you blame Bush correctly
for the economic mess the country is in. In their minds, Clinton caused
911 because he should have left office when he was impeached. Try not to
get lost in the crazy.
Here’s the point of the hearings today, and this is important because
it clues us into where they are going. Judge Napolitano tells us that
the Republicans may enact a resolution, “Will it lead to impeachment? I
don’t know, but it will further diminish and destroy the trust he
(Obama) once had with the American people.”
That resolution is what could lead to impeachment. Fox is trying to
help the Republicans whip up a public fury to call for impeachment. This
call for impeachment will be as good as an impeachment for them,
because it will allow Republicans to use the soundbites and run against
Obama in 2014 instead of having to come up with an actual platform.
How does Napolitano know ahead of time, since this was taped
yesterday, that Obama will be found guilty in these GOP-led House
hearings? Oh, I kid. No one thinks that Republicans are looking for
facts.
The Secret Agenda Behind House Republican ACA Hearings is Obama Impeachment was written by Sarah Jones for PoliticusUSA.
The political press has apparently learned nothing.
It
all seemed so positive. Bloggers relying on actual political science
(rather than just hunches and manufactured garbage) appeared to be
making serious inroads. The Monkey Cage (and my own blogging) are at the
Washington Post; political scientists have columns at lots of top
sites. A book on the 2012 election by political scientists John Sides
and Lynn Vavrick, which argued, in large part, that most of the gaffes
and the day-to-day ups and downs of the campaign didn’t really amount to
much, was getting terrific reviews.
It’s not just political
scientists. Nate Silver and a whole bunch of analysts good with numbers
have made reality-based political coverage, I thought, so much better.
Ezra Klein’s Wonkblog is excellent. Plenty of top reporters and analysts
(Salon’s Steve Kornacki and Brian Beutler very much included) are political science friendly.
And then? This week. In which we were treated to an all-out, no-holds-barred press frenzy. Kevin Drum surveyed what was going on:
Politico,
by my count, has no fewer than 14 front page headlines today about the
great Obamacare debacle. The Washington Post’s four top news articles
and its four top op-eds are all about Obamacare, and the top op-eds are
uniformly panicky…Ruth Marcus thinks Obama’s entire presidency at risk.
Ditto for Milbank. And if that’s not bad enough for you, Krauthammer
suggests that yesterday’s events spell doom for the entire liberal
project.
Not just conservatives, either; Ronald Brownstein devoted a column to, well, how the entire liberal project was at risk.
It
was a frenzy over … exactly what, anyway? The only shred of news about
the Affordable Care Act this week to hang all of the hype on was the
numbers on October signups, but given the thoroughly covered disaster
with the initial rollout, the results were surely no surprise at all. As
for the other strand of trouble, the pledge about keeping insurance,
that’s been around for a few weeks now and nothing really happened this
week to create a bigger flap.
All of which suggests that this is a press story, not a presidency or policy story.
The
press is comparing this healthcare disaster (presumably the one that
happened six weeks ago?) to Bush’s Katrina. A better comparison might be
from the Bill Clinton era: Whitewater.
Now, granted, it’s not
true that there’s no underlying story here. The healthcare.gov rollout
was a fiasco, and while it’s getting quite a bit better, it’s not a done
deal yet. The president’s rhetoric about keeping plans that people
liked was worth knocking down, although it was as worth knocking down in
2009 or 2010 or 2011 as it was this week. The continuing horror stories
about rate shock and canceled plans? Well, not all of them have been
debunked, and some of them will no doubt turn out to be real, even after
the exchanges are fully up and running. The press should absolutely be
tracking all of this. It’s a big, important story.
The problem is
that the big, important story is almost completely unrelated to the
press frenzy. As far as I can tell, most of the media riot was set off
by a single poll, a Quinnipiac poll, which wasn’t exactly an outlier,
but did come in lower than other polls out there (a 39 percent approval
rating for Barack Obama, compared with a bit over 42 percent in HuffPollster’s current estimate).
That went along with a press narrative that had focused on (very real)
Republican problems from the shutdown, without noticing that Obama’s
approval also fell during the same time. It all produced a sudden,
sharp, shift: “Obama survived the rollout fiasco thanks to the
shutdown!” suddenly, overnight, became “Obama’s approval in free fall!”
even though there really was no actual plunge.
So
why like Whitewater? The last media frenzy about Obama’s collapse (not
counting a smaller one over Syria) came in the spring, when Triple
Scandals threatened to destroy him. But those scandals fizzled
prematurely, leaving the scandal-loving press with a bad case of
frustration. Indeed, as Brandon Nyhan was writing before those Triple Scandals,
Obama was way overdue for something like that. When it didn’t pan out,
the press was presumably still primed for a pile-on, and even though ACA
implementation may not have been a promising topic, they worked with
what they had.
In other words, it’s like Whitewater because it’s
the result of the press primed and ready and waiting for something to
blow up around. It’s different because there is a real story here, but
that doesn’t seem to have anything to do with how the press is behaving.
Like
Whitewater, or like the Triple Scandals from April, the phony frenzy
part of this will blow over soon. But not before there’s plenty of
damage – to the reputation of much of the working press, that is.
There’s this week’s real fiasco.
Bill Lawrence of Texas recently posted on his Facebook page that he sold his business because of Obamacare.
Naturally, Mr. Lawrence was then invited on Fox News to be interviewed about his ordeal. He was on the Megyn Kelly show a week ago Friday.
Most
of Kelly’s questions were fat softballs or in some cases just
statements (“Employers like you might just have to say, ‘I’m gettin’ rid
of my company!’”; “Your thoughts on having your livelihood directly
affected based on what politicians in Washington felt was best for
you?”).
I looked up Bill and decided to give him a buzz to learn
more. He lives outside of Houston. We spoke for 45 minutes. He’s a guy
who’s sort of hard not to like — funny, very sharp and obviously a very
good businessman who built a large business from scratch.
Bill
recently sold his company Bubbles Car Wash, with 13 locations and 290
employees, to a private equity fund for what he admitted was a
tremendous price. “I’ve been very successful,” he acknowledged. (He
boasted in a 2011 Houston Business Journal article that he owns two Mercedes and a Bentley convertible.)
With
290 employees, his business would be subject to the Affordable Care
Act’s employer mandate that kicks in in 2015 (assuming it isn’t delayed,
as it has been once already), which will force companies to offer
insurance to workers or else pay a penalty. Bill says it would have run
him in the neighborhood of $400,000 annually.
My first question to
him was: Would he show me some of his business’s financial records?
Maybe an annual report, preferably something audited, so I could analyze
his claim about the catastrophic effect Obamacare would have had on his
business? He would not.
Did Megyn Kelly request such verification? No, he said, she did not.
I
then pressed Bill on whether there were any other reasons he was
selling his business. He admitted to me that there were plenty of others
(“myriad reasons,” in his words). What were some of them? “You ever
run a business?” he asked with a chuckle. And then he began ticking off a
bunch of problems in his life that he said he’d now be glad to be rid
of. The headache of managing workers. Taxes, fees and permits of every
shape and size and color (dumpster permits, gate permits, this permit,
that permit). He complained to me that he has to pay $300 for an “auto
dealer’s” permit just to sell air fresheners at the checkout counter of
his car wash centers. From
the sound of it, Gov. Rick Perry is more to blame for Bill’s choice to
retire than Obama. Perhaps Texas is not the pro-business eden that Perry
portrays it to be.
Nonetheless, Bill insisted that the Affordable
Care Act was the “primary” reason he chose to sell out and retire after
22 years. He told me he spent a year attending seminars and seeking
advice from lawyers and insurance experts on the employer mandate, and
it was universally made clear to him that the new federal law would make
it too costly to stay in business.
There’s no questions that
Bubbles Car Wash will have to absorb a new cost under the employer
mandate. The question is how great it will be, and whether it will
impact the business enough to have required Bill to unload it. Although
Bill wouldn’t show me any hard financial data, I asked him if he could
give me a brief sketch of his company’s revenue. He thought for a while,
and then said he’d estimate that the company had around $13 million a
year in revenues and about $900,000 in earnings — earnings, meaning
post-salary (he wouldn’t tell me what his annual salary had been as an
owner of the business).
Bill also told me most of his wage earners do not want health insurance.
He’s offered a mini-med program in the past, a very cheap and
bare-bones plan that employees could purchase, and they usually decline
it. If that’s the case, Bill’s burden will be much smaller than what he
told Megyn Kelly. Under the Affordable Care Act, Bill must simply offer
his employees a chance to share in the cost of an insurance plan. The
worker’s share can legally be as high as 9.5 percent of the worker’s
household income. Once Bill has made this offer to an employee, if the
employee declines the coverage then Bill is off the hook and doesn’t
have to pay a penalty.
And sadly, Bill might be correct that his
wage earners (who earn $8.50 to $10 an hour) can’t afford to spend as
high as 9.5 percent of their salaries sharing the cost of an insurance
plan.
I sent Bill an article from a recent Forbes magazine
that shows how businesses of his size, and specifically Texas
businesses, will have ample opportunity to keep Obamacare costs very low
by strategically offering insurance plans that they know their
employees will reject, forcing them onto the individual exchange in some
cases. He did not respond.
Incidentally, Bill also told me that
the private equity company that bought him out had approached him as
early as “three or four years ago,” so he was at least speaking to the
buyers before Obamacare ever existed. A spokesperson for the new owner
refused to talk to me for this article. Suffice it to say, however, that
a private equity firm sees enormous potential in Bubbles Car Wash with
or without Obamacare.
In the final analysis, Bill is a strong
conservative who believes government has no business saddling him with
new costs. He said it would be nice if every citizen could be insured,
but “even if the cost were only 10 percent of what I’ve estimated,” he
said to me, “why should the federal government make it my responsibility to pay for it?” (We decided to agree that there is no right or wrong answer to that question, only opinions.)
And
as for Megyn Kelly, she asked very few probative questions before or
during the interview, preferring instead to just take Bill’s claim about
Obamacare at face value. But clearly there was another side of the
story. Special thanks to Bill Bertovich, one of my readers, who tipped me off to the above segment.
Eric Stern lives in Helena, Montana. He was senior counsel
to Brian Schweitzer, former Governor. Follow him on Twitter at @_ericstern.
CBS News, already in trouble for not bothering to fact-check sensational claims about the Benghazi attacks, has stepped in it again with an exclusive story on the Affordable Care Act that has quickly fallen apart. On November 11, CBS News reported
that the "project manager in charge of building the federal health care
website was apparently kept in the dark about serious failures in the
website's security." CBS investigative correspondent Sharyl Attkisson's report
was based on an exclusive "first look at a partial transcript" of
closed-door testimony by project manager Henry Chao that was likely
leaked to the network by Republicans on the House Oversight Committee.
Other media outlets picked up CBS's scoop and ran with it.
According to Attkisson, Chao was presented with "a memo that outlined
important security risks discovered in the insurance system," and said
he was unaware of that memo. CBS News reported that this indicated that
Chao had been "kept in the dark about serious failures in the website's
security" that "could lead to identity theft among people buying
insurance."
But as Washington Post media blogger Erik Wemple
demonstrated, Rep. Gerald Connolly (D-VA) questioned Chao at a November
13 Oversight Committee hearing and revealed how misleading CBS News'
report was. The memo shown to Chao dealt with portions of the website
that aren't yet in use -- not the website as it currently exists, as the
partial transcript and CBS News' report wrongly suggested. And those
portions won't include personally identifiable information, making it
impossible for the security risks to lead to identity theft.
Here's the video and transcript of Connolly's questioning of Chao:
CONNOLLY: Mr. Chao, during your interview with committee staff on
November 1, you were presented with a document you had not seen before.
And it was entitled "Authority to Operate," signed by your boss on
September 3, 2013, is that correct?
CHAO: Correct.
CONNOLLY: The Republican staffers told you during that interview that
this document indicated there were two open high-risk findings in the
federally facilitated marketplace launched October 1. Is that correct?
CHAO: Correct.
CONNOLLY: This surprised you at the time.
CHAO: Can I just qualify that a bit? It was dated September 3 and it
was referring to two parts of the system that were already--
CONNOLLY: You are jumping ahead of me. We are going to get there. So
when you were asked questions about that document, you told the staffers
you needed to check with officials at CMS [Centers for Medicare and
Medicaid Services] who oversee security testing to understand the
context, is that correct?
CHAO: Correct.
CONNOLLY: The
staffers continued to ask you questions, nonetheless, and then they --
or somebody -- leaked parts of your transcript to CBS Evening News, is that correct?
CHAO: Seems that way.
CONNOLLY: Since that interview, have you had a chance to follow up on
your suggestion to check with CMS officials on the context?
CHAO: I have had some discussions about the nature of the high findings that were in the document.
CONNOLLY: Right. And this document it turns out discusses only the
risks associated with two modules, one for dental plans and one for the
qualified health plans, is that correct?
CHAO: Yes.
CONNOLLY: And neither of those modules is active right now, is that correct?
CHAO: That's correct.
CONNOLLY: So the September 3 document did in fact, not apply to the
entire federally facilitated marketplace despite the assertions of the
leak to CBS notwithstanding, is that correct?
CHAO: That's correct.
CONNOLLY: And these modules allow insurance companies to submit their
dental and health care plan information to the marketplace is that
correct?
CHAO: Correct.
CONNOLLY: That means that
those modules do not contain or transmit any personally identifiable
information on individual consumers, is that correct?
CHAO: Correct.
CONNOLLY: So to be clear, these modules don't transmit any specific user information, is that correct?
CHAO: Correct.
CONNOLLY: So when CBS Evening News
ran its report based on a leak, presumably from the majority staff, but
we don't know, of a partial transcript, excerpts from a partial
transcript, they said the security issues raised in the document, and I
quote, "could lead to identity theft among buying insurance," that
cannot be true based on what we just established in our back and forth,
is that correct?
CHAO: That's correct. I think there was some
rearrangement of the words that I used during the testimony in how it
was portrayed.
CONNOLLY: So to just summarize, correct me if I'm wrong, the document leaked to CBS Evening News didn't
in fact not relate to parts of the website that were active on October
1. They did not relate to any part of the system that handles personal
consumer information, and there, in fact, was no possibility of identity
theft, despite the leak.
CBS News aired a misleading report
on Monday about security issues concerning the federal health insurance
exchange website based on leaked partial transcripts of a health care
official's testimony, according to the Washington Post.
CBS reported that Henry Chao, lead project manager of
Healthcare.gov at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, had
been unaware of two major security holes in the website that could lead
to identity theft.
"CBS News has learned that the project manager in charge of building
the federal health care website was apparently kept in the dark about
serious failures in the website's security," the CBS report reads.
"Those failures could lead to identity theft among buying insurance."
When questioned by Rep. Gerald Connolly (D-VA) Wednesday at a House
Oversight and Government Reform committee hearing, it became apparent
that the security flaws that the CBS report discussed could not actually
lead to identity theft.
According to Chao, the two modules the CBS report referenced are not
currently active on the exchange website and that neither module used
personally identifiable information.
Connolly, while questioning Chao on Wednesday, implied that the partial leaked transcript came from Republican committee staff.
“So when CBS Evening News ran its report based on a leak, presumably
from the [Republican] staff, but we don't know — of a partial transcript
— excerpts from a partial transcript — they said the security issues
raised in the document, and I quote, 'could lead to identity theft among
buying insurance,' that cannot be true based on what we established in
our back and forth. Is that correct?” Connolly asked during the hearing,
as quoted by the Washington Post.
Chao responded that Connolly was correct.
There may never be a more classic line in the pantheon of empty
boasts by competitive news organizations. On Monday night, CBS News
reporter Sharyl Attkisson came up with what looked like a significant
story: “Memo warned of “limitless” security risks for HealthCare.gov.”
As the story and on-air broadcast alleged, the person entrusted with
putting together HealthCare.gov was “apparently kept in the dark about
serious failures in the website’s security. Those failures could lead to
identity theft among [those] buying insurance.”
How did Attkisson know this? “CBS News has obtained the first look at a partial transcript of his testimony.”
Which is like saying you’ve got the exclusive on half the story.
To consume Attkisson’s story is to freak out about HealthCare.gov.
The scoop here is that Henry Chao, Healthcare.gov’s chief project
manager at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), somehow
didn’t know about a Sept. 3 memo warning of issues on that troubled
government Web site. The transcript to which Attkisson gained access
spells out some serious alleged difficulties with the site. From the
televised report: “In excerpts we’ve obtained, Chao was asked about a
memo that outlined important security risks discovered in the insurance
system. Chao said he was unaware of this Sept. 3 government memo written
by another senior official at CMS. It found two high-risk issues which
are redacted for security reasons. The memo said, ‘The threat and risk
potential to the system is limitless.’ The memo shows CMS gave deadlines
of mid-2014 and early 2015 to address them.”
Via Attkisson’s treatment, Chao comes off looking clueless about a
critical aspect of HealthCare.gov. In her narrative, a Republican lawyer
questioning Chao asked him if he found it “surprising” that he’d never
seen that memo before. Chao replied, “‘Yeah . . . I mean, wouldn’t you
be surprised if you were me?’ He later added: ‘It is disturbing. I mean,
I don’t deny that this is . . . a fairly nonstandard way’ to proceed.”
In a hearing of the House oversight and government reform committee
today, Attkisson’s story received something of a public fact-check.
Rep. Gerald Connolly, apparently rankled by the CBS News piece, launched
a series of pointed questions at Chao. The short take from the exchange
is this: The CBS News report looks completely misleading. Here’s a
selective summary of what Connolly discussed with Chao:
Connolly: Correct that Republicans presented you with a document you hadn’t seen before? Chao: Correct.
Connolly: Correct that the document indicated that there were two
“open high-risk” findings in Obamacare exchange? Chao: Correct.
Connolly: Correct that someone leaked parts of your transcript to CBS News? Chao: “It seems that way.”
Connolly: Correct that the document discusses risks relating to two
Web site modules on dental plans and qualified health plans? Chao:
Correct.
Connolly: Correct that neither of those modules is active at this point? Chao: Correct.
Connolly: Correct that the Sept. 3 memo did not apply to the Obamacare marketplace? Chao: Correct.
Connolly: Correct that modules do not contain any personally identifiable information on consumers? Chao: Correct.
“So when CBS Evening News ran its report based on a leak, presumably
from the [Republican] staff, but we don’t know — of a partial transcript
— excerpts from a partial transcript — they said the security issues
raised in the document, and I quote, ‘could lead to identity theft among
buying insurance,’ that cannot be true based on what we established in
our back and forth. Is that correct?”
Chao replied: “That’s correct. I think there was some rearrangement
of the words I used during the testimony and how it was portrayed.”
The Erik Wemple Blog raised similar questions to CBS News yesterday. It declined to comment.
Attkisson’s story did contain this nod to the administration’s
position: “Health and Human Services told CBS News the privacy and
security of consumers’ personal information are a top priority, and
consumers can trust their information is protected by stringent security
standards.”
Journalism veterans and media observers continue to strike the same chord while launching a chorus
of criticism at CBS News in recent days: The network needs to be
transparent and explain exactly what happened with its botched Benghazi
report, and start detailing how such an obviously flawed report made in
onto the most-watched news program in America.
And yet it's silence from CBS, which is now stonewalling press
inquiries, as well as the calls for an outside review of its Benghazi
reporting. CBS' refusal to undergo a public examination in the wake of
such a landmark blunder stands in stark contrast to how news
organizations have previously dealt with black eyes; news organizations that once included CBS News.
CBS is now taking a radically different approach. There appears to
have been a corporate decision made that granting members of an
independent review panel unfettered access to 60 Minutes represents a greater danger than the deep damage currently being done to the network's brand via the two-week-old scandal.
So again and again the question bounces back to this: What is CBS hiding? And who is CBS protecting?
I'm sure network executives there are embarrassed by the controversy
and wish the report hadn't aired as it did. There's a reason Jeff Fager,
Chairman of CBS News (above left), ranked it as among the worst mistakes in the nearly 50 year history of 60 Minutes.
But as we learn more and more about the errors and oversights, it's
becoming increasingly difficult to understand the magnitude of the
malfeasance; the refusal by CBS to follow even rudimentary rules of
journalism.
In a small but telling example, Mother Jones recently reviewed
the Benghazi book that CBS' discredited "witness," Dylan Davies,
co-wrote, and which CBS supposedly relied on to corroborate this tale,
which included him informing the FBI about his heroic actions the night
of the attack at the U.S. compound in Benghazi. (It was later confirmed
Davies wasn't even at the compound and the book was quickly recalled.) Mother Jones found Davies' published account to be completely, and almost comically, unbelievable:
Davies' improbable account of FBI agents weeping and spouting grateful platitudes only underscores how negligent 60 Minutes
was in vetting its story. Even if the FBI wouldn't confirm Davies'
account, why didn't they corroborate his tale with others who'd been
there?
But is being embarrassed really justification for not trying to find
out why the mistakes were made and to inform viewers what happened? And
if CBS refuses to learn from these sloppy mistakes, isn't the network
guaranteed to repeat them?
As it stonewalls, CBS cannot avoid the fact that in 2004 when 60 Minutes II
was caught in a crossfire of conservative outrage after airing a
disputed report about President Bush's Vietnam War record, the network
appointed a former Republican attorney general, Richard Thornburgh, to
investigate what went wrong. The review panel was given
"full access and complete cooperation from CBS News and CBS, as well as
all of the resources necessary to complete the task." Those resources
included reporters' notes, e-mails, and draft scripts. The panel worked
for three months, interviewed 66 people, and issued an-often scathing 234-page report.
Today, that standard established by CBS is being purposefully
bypassed. But why? Is it a fear of even further embarrassment? If you're
asking what could be more embarrassing than the current set of facts in
which CBS was duped by an "eyewitness" impostor, the answer is, plenty.
Imagine the possibly explosive findings to these questions: *Did CBS executives have internal discussions about the network's clear conflict of interest
with regards to Davies' book being published by CBS-owned Simon &
Schuster and decided not to reference that conflict in the final
Benghazi report? *Did the impending book release impact the reporting in the segment or the timing of the broadcast? *Did 60 Minutes producers have extensive contacts with partisan Republican sources while reporting on Benghazi? *Did any CBS executives express serious doubts about Davies' account only to be overruled by Logan? *Were script changes made to remove any doubts about Davies' account? *Did any co-workers think that Logan was pursuing a political agenda with the Benghazi report?
My guess is that a truly transparent review would find 'yes' answers
to two or three of those questions. But without an independent inquiry
we won't know. In that regard, refusing to appoint a review panel covers
up more bad news, which is what CBS seemingly wants. But a review could
also help exonerate CBS with regards to some allegations, and address
doubts about its professionalism.
Recall that one of the key conclusions from the National Guard panel review was that political bias did not
play a role in how the controversial 2004 story was put together. For
the Benghazi story though, it's impossible to know if CBS is equally
free of prejudice unless there's an independent assessment.
The other key question: By resisting an honest and open evaluation,
are CBS bosses trying to protect key players? Keep in mind that
following the release of the National Guard panel review, several
employees were fired, including the executive producer of 60 Minutes II.
Given the extent of the Benghazi screw-up, it's likely an outside
review today would find fault with the executive producer of today's 60 Minutes. Who is executive producer of 60 Minutes? It's Jeff Fager, who also runs CBS News. (The dual titles seem like an obvious conflict of interest.)
And since 60 Minutes correspondent Lara Logan says she was
deeply involved in the reporting and the editing of the Benghazi piece,
it's likely she would be the target of a stinging rebuke. So is CBS
refusing to appoint an independent panel in an effort to protect its
news boss Fager and its rising star Logan?
It certainly looks that way.
The Media's Obamacare "Horror Stories" Continue To Collapse
›››
JUSTIN BERRIER
Following the October 1 roll out of the Affordable Care Act's exchanges,
media outlets hyped several anecdotal stories of people who will be
negatively affected by the law. These stories have ranged from the
misleading to the outright false.
Media "Horror Stories" Conflict With Reality
MYTH: ACA Caused Cancer Patient To Lose Her Coverage. In a Wall Street Journal op-ed, cancer patient Edie Littlefield Sundby blamed the ACA for the loss of her coverage, calling herself "one of the losers" of the health care law:
For almost seven years I have fought and survived stage-4 gallbladder cancer, with a five-year survival rate of less than 2% after diagnosis. I am a determined fighter and extremely lucky. But this luck may have just run out: My affordable, lifesaving medical insurance policy has been canceled effective Dec. 31.
My choice is to get coverage through the government health exchange and lose access to my cancer doctors, or pay much more for insurance outside the exchange (the quotes average 40% to 50% more) for the privilege of starting over with an unfamiliar insurance company and impaired benefits.
Countless hours searching for non-exchange plans have uncovered nothing that compares well with my existing coverage. But the greatest source of frustration is Covered California, the state's Affordable Care Act health-insurance exchange and, by some reports, one of the best such exchanges in the country. After four weeks of researching plans on the website, talking directly to government exchange counselors, insurance companies and medical providers, my insurance broker and I are as confused as ever. Time is running out and we still don't have a clue how to best proceed. [The Wall Street Journal, 11/3/13]
REALITY: Sundby's Coverage Is Being Dropped Because Her Insurer Did Not Want To Pay For Sicker Patients. In a ThinkProgress post, Igor Volsky pointed out that Sundby's dropped coverage is a result of her insurer, United Healthcare, being unwilling to insure sicker patients:
But Sundby shouldn't blame reform -- United Healthcare dropped her coverage because they've struggled to compete in California's individual health care market for years and didn't want to pay for sicker patients like Sundby.
The company, which only had 8,000 individual policy holders in California out of the two million who participate in the market, announced (along with a second insurer, Aetna) that it would be pulling out of the individual market in May. The company could not compete with Anthem Blue Cross, Blue Shield of California and Kaiser Permanente, who control more than 80 percent of the individual market. "Over the years, it has become more difficult to administer these plans in a cost-effective way for our members," UnitedHealth spokeswoman Cheryl Randolph explained. "We will continue to keep a major presence in California, focusing instead on large and small employers." [Think Progress, 11/4/13]
MYTH: Obamacare Caused Businessman To Cut Back On Employment. On the October 11 edition of Fox News' Hannity ¸ host Sean Hannity interviewed Paul and Michelle Cox, business owners who claimed that ACA regulations were causing them to "cut back on hiring full-time employees" and "keep [employees] below 30 hours":
MICHELLE COX: We received a letter from our insurance company stating that we would no longer be able to have our existing health plan, despite the president's promise that we would be able to keep that existing plan.
As a business, we are jumping through more hoops, more regulation, more paperwork. And we've also cut back on hiring full-time employees because of the health care costs involved, even though we'd love to do that.
HANNITY: You'd like to hire full-time employees --
MICHELLE COX: We would love to.
HANNITY: -- but you -- so you're going to keep them below 30 hours.
MICHELLE COX: Exactly.
PAUL COX: We've had to keep them below 30 hours or we wouldn't be able to -- you know, not that we wouldn't want to pay it, we just wouldn't be able to --
MICHELLE COX: Yes.
PAUL COX: -- stay in business and pay it. [Fox News, Hannity, 10/11/13]
REALITY: Cox's Business Has Only Four Employees And Not Subject To ACA Regulations. In an October 18 Salon post, Eric Stern, a senior counsel to former Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer, contacted Paul Cox after the segment and found that his business employed only four people, well below the 49-employee threshold that would have affected his business:
First I spoke with Paul Cox of Leicester, N.C. He and his wife Michelle had lamented to Hannity that because of Obamacare, they can't grow their construction business and they have kept their employees below a certain number of hours, so that they are part-timers.
Obamacare has no effect on businesses with 49 employees or less. But in our brief conversation on the phone, Paul revealed that he has only four employees. Why the cutback on his workforce? "Well," he said, "I haven't been forced to do so, it's just that I've chosen to do so. I have to deal with increased costs." What costs? And how, I asked him, is any of it due to Obamacare? There was a long pause, after which he said he'd call me back. He never did.
There is only one Obamacare requirement that applies to a company of this size: workers must be notified of the existence of the "healthcare.gov" [removed the underline] website, the insurance exchange. That's all. [Salon, 10/18/13]
MYTH: ACA Caused Family's Premiums To Double. Hannity's October 11 show also featured Allison and Curt De Nijs, a couple who claimed their existing health care plan was being cancelled and their new health insurance policy would double:
ALLISON DE NIJS: Well, we became self-employed three years ago. And over the course of three years, our insurance has jumped 49 percent. We just got our letter from our insurance carrier that our policy is going to be terminated, and we're going to be transitioned to an ACA-compliant policy because it has to include essential health care benefits.
HANNITY: Right.
ALLISON DE NIJS: And we don't even have insurance for our daughter, who has a pre-existing condition. So we're looking at probably $20,000 in premiums next year.
HANNITY: Up from?
ALLISON DE NIJS: Up from -- well, originally, it started out at about $740 and going up to $1,105 next year.
HANNITY: Wow.
ALLISON DE NIJS: And plus our daughter's going to be about $600 a month.
HANNITY: So you're going to pay 13 -- 19,000 grand a year in health insurance, between you -- just you guys and your daughter, $19,000?
ALLISON DE NIJS: Yes.
HANNITY: Which is how much higher than what it was? Twice as high?
CURT DE NIJS: Twice as high. [Fox News, Hannity, 10/11/13]
REALITY: The Couple Had Not Compared ACA Plan Pricing And Would Likely Save Money On The Exchange. Salon's Stern also contacted Allison De Nijs, who admitted that she had not shopped on the exchange. After researching their situation, Stern found that the couple would save 60% on their health care costs:
I asked Allison if she'd shopped on the exchange, to see what a plan might cost under the new law. She said she hadn't done so because she'd heard the website was not working. Would she try it out when it's up and running? Perhaps, she said. She told me she has long opposed Obamacare, and that the president should have focused on tort reform as a solution to bringing down the price of healthcare.
I tried an experiment and shopped on the exchange for Allison and Kurt. Assuming they don't smoke and have a household income too high to be eligible for subsidies, I found that they would be able to get a plan for around $7,600, which would include coverage for their uninsured daughter. This would be about a 60 percent reduction from what they would have to pay on the pre-Obamacare market. [Salon, 10/18/13]
MYTH: ACA Caused Couple's Premiums To Increase By 50 To 72 Percent. Hannity also hosted Robbie and Tina Robinson, who claimed that their plan was being canceled and similar coverage would increase their policy's cost by 50 to 72 percent:
ROBBIE ROBINSON: Well, Sean, I've been -- I've been self-employed for 20 years and --
[...]
ROBBIE ROBINSON: But for about 20 years now. And recently, we heard from our insurance provider that our current policy will be canceled, no longer available when it ends. And our new policy that we can have won't have the same benefits to it. Anything similar, though, is going to rise between, like, 50 to 72 percent, and it'll have things in it that we have no choice. Like, we'll have to have maternity benefits. And we're not planning on having any more kids.
HANNITY: Yes.
ROBBIE ROBINSON: And we're going to have to have pediatric eye care and other things like that, and we -- our kids are all away from home.
HANNITY: Yes.
ROBBIE ROBINSON: So...
HANNITY: So it's not -- it's not -- it's not a plan that you need.
ROBBIE ROBINSON: Exactly. [Fox News, Hannity, 10/11/13]
REALITY: The Robinsons Could Access Coverage For 63 Percent Less Under ACA Exchanges. Stern contacted the Robinsons and found that they hadn't shopped for coverage on the exchanges, where they could have accessed a policy that would cost 63 percent less than their current plan:
When I spoke to Robbie, he said he and Tina have been paying a little over $800 a month for their plan, about $10,000 a year. And the ACA-compliant policy that will cost 50-75 percent more? They said this information was related to them by their insurance agent.
Had they shopped on the exchange yet, I asked? No, Tina said, nor would they. They oppose Obamacare and want nothing to do with it. Fair enough, but they should know that I found a plan for them for, at most, $3,700 a year, 63 percent less than their current bill. It might cover things that they don't need, but so does every insurance policy. [Salon, 10/18/13]
MYTH: ACA Would Have Replaced Woman's Adequate Coverage With A Much More Expensive Plan. CBS This Morning highlighted Dianne Barrette as an example of someone who is losing coverage because of the ACA:
In California, Kaiser Permanente terminated policies for 160,000 people. In Florida, at least 300,000 people are losing coverage.
That includes 56-year-old Dianne Barrette. Last month, she received a letter from Blue Cross Blue Shield informing her as of January 2014, she would lose her current plan. Barrette pays $54 a month. The new plan she's being offered would run $591 a month -- 10 times more than what she currently pays.
Barrette said, "What I have right now is what I am happy with and I just want to know why I can't keep what I have. Why do I have to be forced into something else?" [CBS, CBS This Morning, 10/28/13]
REALITY: Barrette's Plan Could Have Bankrupted Her With Any Hospitalization. On his Washington Post blog, Erik Wemple noted that Barrette's existing coverage would not have covered hospitalization and "could well have bankrupted" her:
More coverage may provide a deeper understanding of the ins and outs of Barrette's situation: Her current health insurance plan, she says, doesn't cover "extended hospital stays; it's not designed for that," says Barrette. Well, does it cover any hospitalization? "Outpatient only," responds Barrette. Nor does it cover ambulance service and some prenatal care. On the other hand, says Barrette, it does cover "most of my generic drugs that I need" and there's a $50 co-pay for doctors' appointments. "It's all I could afford right now," says Barrette.
In sum, it's a pray-that-you-don't-really-get-sick "plan." When asked if she ever required hospitalization, Barrette says she did. It happened when she was employed by Raytheon, which provided "excellent benefits." Ever since she left the company and started working as an independent contractor, "I haven't been hospitalized since then, thank God." Hospitalization is among the core requirements for health-care plans under Obamacare. [The Washington Post, Erik Wemple Blog, 10/28/13]
In yet another attempt to craft and promote victims of the Affordable
Care Act (ACA), Fox News piggybacked on NBC's misleading coverage of
two individuals whose current insurance plans are being cancelled.
However, Fox ignored that their alleged victims could spend less on
plans that dwarf their current coverage should they opt to use the state
exchanges.
The October 29 edition of Your World with Neil Cavuto featured
two "victims" of the ACA who had previously appeared in a misleading
NBC report on the sticker shock of the health care law. Host Neil Cavuto
spoke first with Deborah Cavallaro, a Los Angeles resident highlighted
repeatedly by NBC, who received a notice saying her current plan would
be replaced by a plan with higher premiums.
Like NBC, Fox failed to mention that Cavallaro's current plan "barely
deserved to be called insurance at all." Moreover, neither network
compared Cavallaro's current plan to those that she could get on the
California exchange, where a Bronze Plan would cost less and likely
offer more coverage than her current bare-bones plan. In a post for The American Prospect, Paul Waldman described the shortcomings of Cavallaro's current plan, and his search on the California exchange website using her information:
We learn in this story that her insurer is cancelling her current
plan, which costs $293 a month, because it doesn't comply with the new
law. They've offered her a new plan at $484 a month. That sounds like it
sucks! But here are some things the story never tells us.
First, what exactly was her old plan? Deborah looks to be around 45.
If she bought a plan on the individual market for $293 a month, I can
guarantee you it barely deserved to be called insurance at all (I've
bought insurance like this on the individual market). It probably had a
deductible in the thousands of dollars and had substantial cost-sharing
for any significant medical event. But the story doesn't tell us what
sort of insurance she has.
[...]
But wait. Maybe she's not a victim after all. How does the $484 plan
her current insurer is offering compare to the other ones she could get?
Did she or the reporter go to the California exchange and try to figure
that out? Apparently, they didn't. But I did.
It took less than 60 seconds. Let's assume that Deborah has a high
enough income that she isn't eligible for subsidies. I put in that I was
45 years old and got nine different choices for a Bronze plan, which in
all likelihood most closely resembles what Deborah has now. The average
monthly cost was $258, or $35 a month less than what Deborah's
paying now for her bare-bones plan. And that's for a plan that, while
it's the least expensive option, almost certainly involves less
cost-sharing that what Deborah has to deal with now. She can get a
Silver plan, with more generous coverage, for $316, only $23 more than
she's paying now. Congratulations, Deborah!
Cavuto also hosted Richard Helgren, a retiree from Lansing who, like
Cavallaro, was featured in the NBC report. Helgren said that his "plan
would no longer be available because of changes under the ACA," and that
his deductible would skyrocket under an alternative policy offered by
his insurance company. Although Helgren did not shop through the
exchanges, he ultimately used an insurance agent to find a good plan
with a lower premium, a fact noted by the NBC report but neglected on Fox:
The higher costs spooked him and his wife, who have painstakingly
planned for their retirement years. "Every dollar we didn't plan for
erodes our standard of living," Helgren said.
Ulltimately, though Helgren opted not to shop through the ACA
exchanges, he was able to apply for a good plan with a slightly lower
premium through an insurance agent.
Unlike NBC, Fox has shown no indication that it will rethink its
reliance on questionable anecdotal evidence, a tactic which the network has embracedin the past to smear the ACA. http://mm4a.org/HrgmNA
Fox News promoted a false attack on a federal program that
expands access to free school meals by dismissing child hunger
and claiming that the program will harm low-income families. But studies
have shown the school meals program helps alleviate the high levels of
hunger that exist among low-income children, improves their access to
key nutrients, and increases academic performance.
USDA Expands Access To Free Lunch Program
USDA Announced "Universal Free Meal Service Option Designed To Make It Easier For Low-Income Children To Receive Meals."
As the United States Department of Agriculture explained, the Healthy,
Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 established "community eligibility," which
allows schools in high-poverty areas to provide free breakfasts and
lunch to all students, and which will be an option available to all
states beginning in the 2014/2015 school year:
USDA announced today that ten states were selected as finalists to
participate in a pilot program for an innovative universal free meal
service option designed to make it easier for low-income children to
receive meals in the National School Lunch and School Breakfast
Programs. The Community Eligibility Option will allow schools in
high-poverty areas to provide free breakfasts and lunch to all students,
using preexisting data to determine the eligibility of kids to receive
free nutrition assistance. The determination is based on the percentage
of households in that community who are already participating in the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly known as Food Stamp
Program. By streamlining the eligibility and enrollment process, no
additional application is required to provide much need nutrition
assistance to children in need.
"Community eligibility offers innovative strategies to help ensure
that children in high-poverty areas have access to the nutrition they
need to learn and thrive," said Agriculture Under Secretary Kevin
Concannon. "We know that if our country is going to win the future, our
kids must be healthy and ready to learn so that they can reach their
full potential."
The Community Eligibility Option is among the early reforms enacted
as a result of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act, signed by President
Obama on December 13, 2010. The Act authorizes USDA to select up to
three states to test the option in School Year 2011-12. The option will
be offered to more states in successive years, and will be available to
all states beginning School Year 2014-15. [United States Department of
Agriculture, 3/24/11]
Fox Promotes False Attack On Program
Fox News' Elisabeth Hasselbeck Promotes Attack On Program Expanding Access To School Meals. On Fox & Friends,
co-host Elisabeth Hasselbeck provided a platform for guest Joy Pullman
of the Heartland Institute to attack the new school meal pilot program
in Florida. Pullman ignored the nutritional benefits the program brings
to areas of high poverty, instead falsely claiming that expanding access
to free meals in Florida will increase childhood obesity and harm
low-income families:
PULLMAN: The problem we have ... [with] poor children right now is
obesity, and not the fact that they're not getting enough calories. So
the federal school lunch program, the reason that it exists is actually a
collusion between big agribusiness and big government, and what it ends
up doing is raising food prices for the poor and middle class, it makes
kids more fat, and it also has the effect of making families --
depriving them of their ability and the privilege and joy of providing
for their own children.
[...]
What essentially this program is doing given the fiscal state of our
country is, maxing out our kids' credit cards in order to give them more
calories that they probably don't need and reduce their family's input
into the kind of meals that they're having. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 10/23/13]
School Meals Meet Nutritional Standards And Increase Positive Health Outcomes
USDA: School Meals "Must Meet Meal Pattern And Nutrition Standards." According
to United States Department of Agriculture's fact sheet on the National
School Lunch Program, all school meals must meet nutritional standards,
and current plans set specific calorie limits:
School lunchs [sic] must meet meal pattern and nutrition standards based on the latest Dietary Guidelines for Americans.
The current meal pattern increases the availability of fruits,
vegetables, and whole grains in the school menu. The meal pattern's
dietary specifications set specific calorie limits to ensure
age-appropriate meals for grades K-5, 6-8, and 9-12. Other meal
enhancements include gradual reductions in the sodium content of the
meals (sodium targets must be reached by SY 2014-15, SY 2017-18 and SY
2022-23). While school lunches must meet Federal meal requirements,
decisions about what specific foods to serve and how they are prepared
are made by local school food authorities. [United States Department of
Agriculture, September 2013]
CBPP: Research Shows "School Meal Programs Increase Children's Intake Of Key Nutrients."
According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP),
research shows that "school meals programs increase children's intake of
key nutrients," and one study revealed that girls from food-insecure
households "who participated in the school lunch program were 71 percent
less likely to be at risk of becoming overweight than girls who did not
participate in the program":
[S]chool meal programs increase children's intake of key nutrients. There
is considerable evidence that WIC and the school meals programs
increase children's intake of key nutrients and have other significant
benefits.
[...]
The research also indicates that children who participate in the
school lunch program consume more protein, vitamin B12, riboflavin,
calcium, magnesium, phosphorus, zinc, and fiber at lunch -- and less
added sugar -- than children who do not eat school lunches. Past studies
also found that lunches consumed by participants provided more fat and
saturated fat than other lunches. In response, USDA has implemented a
national initiative to improve the nutritional quality of school meals
to address this problem. More schools now offer meals that are lower in
fat and sodium while still offering recommended amounts of the key
nutrients.
[...]
One recent study found that among girls in "food-insecure" households, those
who participated in the school lunch program were 71 percent less
likely to be at risk of becoming overweight than girls who did not
participate in the program. [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 8/17/05, emphasis added]
Expanded School Meals Program Helps Families In High Poverty Areas
National Conference Of State Legislatures: Expanded School Meals Programs Targets "High Poverty Areas."
The National Conference of State Legislatures explained that community
eligibility in the School Lunch and Breakfast programs was achieved
through offering meals to all students "in high poverty areas that have
40 percent or more of students directly certified for free school
meals":
Community eligibility in the School Lunch and Breakfast programs is
accomplished through universal meal service in high poverty areas that
have 40 percent or more of students directly certified for free school
meals. Children in these schools do not need to complete paper
applications to participate in the School Lunch and Breakfast
Programs. Finally, the legislation instructs the Secretary of
Agriculture to establish performance benchmarks for direct
certification. P.L. 111-296 provides $4 million in bonuses per year for
states that show improvement based on the benchmarks set by the
Secretary. [National Conference of State Legislatures, 3/24/11]
CBPP: Community Eligibility Makes "It Easier For Low-Income Children In High-Poverty Schools To Get Free Meals."
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities noted that the program makes
it "easier for low-income children in high-poverty schools to get free
meals":
"Community eligibility" is a powerful new tool that's making it
easier for low-income children in high-poverty schools to get free
meals. Established in the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, the
option allows schools that predominantly serve low-income children to
offer nutritious meals to all students at no charge. Community
eligibility schools have less paperwork to complete, which frees up
resources to invest in improving meal quality and increases staff time
for other educational priorities.
Access to free, healthy meals
at school can reduce food insecurity for the nearly 16 million children
living in households that have trouble affording enough nutritious
food. In the first seven states that implemented community eligibility,
more than 2,200 schools chose the option, resulting in nearly 1 million
children attending a community eligibility school. Beginning with the
2014-2015 school year, all school districts nationwide that meet the
criteria will be able to participate.
Community eligibility is
making a profound difference for students and schools. In Illinois,
Kentucky, and Michigan, where school districts first implemented the
option for the 2011-2012 school year, there was a striking increase in
the number of students eating school breakfast and lunch. In schools
that have been participating in community eligibility for two years,
average daily lunch participation has risen by 13 percent. Average
daily breakfast participation has increased by 25 percent. [Center on
Budget and Policy Priorities, 10/1/13]
Food Insecurity Affects Millions Of Children
USDA: Children Were Food Insecure In 3.9 Million U.S. Households In 2012.
According to the most recent data from the USDA, "An estimated 14.5
percent of American households were food insecure at least some time
during the year in 2012, meaning they lacked access to enough food for
an active, healthy life for all household members." A report showed that
of households with children, 10 percent experienced food insecurity in
2012 alone:
Children were food insecure at times during the year in 10.0 percent
of households with children. These 3.9 million households were unable at
times during the year to provide adequate, nutritious food for their
children. [United States Department of Agriculture, 9/5/13]
Feeding America: In 2012, 15.9 Million Children Lived In Food Insecure Households.
According to Feeding America, a domestic hunger-relief charity,
"households with children reported food insecurity at a significantly
higher rate than those without children," and in 2012 15.9 million
children lived with food insecurity:
In 2012, 49.0 million Americans lived in food insecure households, 33.1 million adults and 15.9 million children.
[...]
In 2012, households with children reported food insecurity at a
significantly higher rate than those without children, 20.0 percent
compared to 11.9 percent.
In 2012, households that had higher rates of food insecurity than the
national average included households with children (20.0 percent),
especially households with children headed by single women (35.4
percent) or single men (23.6 percent), Black non-Hispanic households
(24.6 percent) and Hispanic households (23.3 percent) [Feeding America,
accessed 10/23/13]
U.S. Conference Of Mayors: Hunger Is On The Rise In Many U.S. Cities.
In December 2012, Reuters reported on a U.S. Conference of Mayors
report that found that "[a]cross the United States, the number of hungry
and homeless people is growing," with requests for emergency food
assistance rising "in 21 out of the 25 cities it surveyed in 2012."
Furthermore, among "those seeking emergency food, 51 percent were in
families and 37 percent were employed." [Reuters, 12/20/12]
Child Food Insecurity Harms Academic Achievement
Michigan State University: Research Shows Child Food Insecurity
Is "Associated With Significantly Poorer Cognitive Functioning ...
Diminished Academic Achievement." According to
research highlighted by Michigan State University, child food insecurity
is "associated with significantly poorer cognitive functioning,
decreased school attendance, or diminished academic
achievement." [Michigan State University, 2/23/13] National Education Association: Studies Show "Missing Meals And Experiencing Hunger Impair Children's Development And Achievement." The
National Education Association cited scientific studies which found
that hunger can have a negative effect on a child's academic
performance:
Missing meals and experiencing hunger impair children's development and achievement. Studies published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Pediatrics, and the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry document
the negative effects of hunger on children's academic performance and
behavior in school. Hungry children have lower math scores. They are
also are more likely to repeat a grade, come to school late, or miss it
entirely. [National Education Association, accessed 10/23/13]
On Wednesday morning, CBS This Morning opened its show with a claim
that’s quickly gaining steam among Obamacare critics: the administration
isn’t just pedaling furiously to fix the technical problems associated
with HealthCare.gov, it’s also misleading people about the true cost of
coverage.
The segment, from reporter Jan Crawford, claimed that “a new online
feature can dramatically underestimate the cost of insurance” and that
it’s “not giving consumers the real picture.” Crawford then showed
screen shots of the website’s new anonymous shopping tool, which allows
users to browse plan information based on geographic location and age
range without asking the user to enter specific income or age data.
Officials added the feature after discovering that the requirement to
establish an account created a traffic bottle neck at the site’s entry
point and caused massive delays and glitches.
Under the new tool, users log on to HealthCare.gov, and after being
told that “this isn’t the application for Marketplace coverage,” enter
the type of plan they’re interested in, select their state and county,
and one of two age ranges: “49 or under” and “50 or older.”
Following several more prompts about benefits, tax credit
eligibility, and the different bands of coverage, the tool throws out
what it calls an “estimated monthly premium” for the available health
care plans. A disclaimer reading, “IMPORTANT NOTE: The prices here don’t
reflect the lower costs you may qualify for based on household size and
income” is displayed on every page.
The CBS report sought to portray the tool as purposely deceitful or
an effort to mislead users by displaying the lowest possible premiums:
Prices for everyone in the 49 or under group are based on what a
27-year-old would pay. In the 50 or older group, prices are based on
what a 50-year-old would pay. We ran the numbers for a 48-year-old in
Charlotte, North Carolina, ineligible for subsidies. According
to HealthCare.gov, she would pay $230 a month but the actual plan on
BlueCross BlueShield of North Carolina’s website costs $360. More than a
50% increase. The difference, Blue Cross Blue Shield requests your
birth date before providing more accurate estimates. The
numbers for older Americans are even more striking. A 62-year-old in
Charlotte looking for the same basic plan would get a price estimate on
the government website of $394. The actual price is $634.
Watch it:
“It’s important that users have a proper, honest, trustworthy online
experience when they interact with HealthCare.gov and I think providing
accurate prices is an integral component of that,” Crawford quotes Chini
Krishnan, whose company designed California’s state-based exchange, as
saying, before adding, “industry executives we talked to literally could
not believe the government is providing these estimates which they said
were useless and could easily mislead consumers.” Incidentally,
Crawford’s own report is misleading, showing an image of the site that
reads “Your Monthly Cost,” even though the actual site says “Estimated
monthly premium.”
Of course, users can obtain exact costs — and discover if they’re
eligible for subsidies — if they apply online or by phone and provide
their age and income level (those buttons are displayed above the
anonymous browsing tool and are far more visible.) In an effort to
reduce confusion, the original design of the website required users to
enter personal information, though some conservatives argued that that too was a play to prevent users from discovering the unsubsidized cost of coverage.
And while one can argue that the anonymous shopping tool should
provide price ranges instead of relying on cost estimates derived from
the younger ends of both age brackets, it’s hard to believe that the
administration would purposely mislead users about the cost of insurance
by using a tool that does not take subsidies into account. Users will
also discover their actual premiums once they fill out a real
application, meaning that any con will be extremely short lived.
USA Today Op-Ed Accusing Media Matters Of 21st Century "Book Burning" Is Missing A Major Disclosure
by ERIC HANANOKI
USA Today published an op-ed from The Media Institute president Patrick Maines attacking Media Matters
for purportedly engaging "in the 21st century's version of book
burning" by "target[ing] advertisers on shows such as Rush Limbaugh and
Fox News." But the paper didn't disclose that Maines' group receives
financial support from the very media companies that have a business
interest in preventing such actions, including Fox News and Clear
Channel, which owns Rush Limbaugh syndicator Premiere Networks.
Maines' October 16 op-ed accused Media Matters of supporting "the suppression of speech" for having targeted advertisers. He added that Media Matters
"traffics in the 21st century's version of book burning" and "it's
something to ponder as the country celebrates Free Speech Week this
month."
Maines also criticized TruthRevolt for its boycott campaign of Al Sharpton's MSNBC program. TruthRevolt is a new organization headed by discredited activists Ben Shapiro and David Horowitz which aspires to be the conservative equivalent of Media Matters.
The op-ed simply identified Maines as: "Patrick Maines is president of The Media Institute."
The Media Institute has a financial interest in attacking Media Matters. The 501(c)(3) non-profit organization states that it "receives financial support from foundations, corporations, media companies, associations, and individuals."
The group's November 14, 2012, Friends & Benefactors Awards Banquet honored Clear Channel CEO Bob Pittman with its Freedom of Speech Award. Clear Channel was listed as a platinum sponsor, then-Fox News parent News Corporation (which later spit into 21st Century Fox and News Corp.) was listed as a gold sponsor, and Fox News Channel was listed as a silver sponsor.
The Media Institute's board of trustees includes Michael Regan, the executive vice president of Fox News-parent company 21st Century Fox., and Jessica A. Marventano, senior vice president for Clear Channel.
The board also includes Meredith A. Baker, the senior vice president
NBCUniversal, which produces Al Sharpton's program. Comcast/NBCUniversal
was a platinum sponsor of the 2012 banquet. USA Today owner Gannet Co. also has a seat on the board.
