Health Care video

http://youtube.com/watch?v=gdNS2l63Mz8

Health Care video

http://youtube.com/watch?v=gdNS2l63Mz8

Colbert health care story

I went back to The Colbert Report website to see if there had been any health care stories in the past couple of weeks, and there was one from April 1 (the only health care policy story on The Colbert Report that I've found since we started this blog).

Colbert made a joke about the difference in Clinton and Obama's health plans, saying that "Hillary mandates insurance for all Americans, while Barack has an angry black preacher," referencing the large amount of media coverage that the Reverend Wright comments received. Then he discussed Oregon's new health care system that uses a lottery system to decide who is covered. His very sarcastic tone makes the viewer realize that he thinks that a lottery is a very bad idea for making decision about health care. This piece is funny and interesting. It is relevant because it is a new idea (although in Colbert's opinion, a bad one) for a health care system that is broken throughout the country.

McCain Health Care

On April 29th, 2008, NPR's "All Things Considered" discusses John McCain's health care plan. 

The 5 min. segment begins with Scott Horsley stating the facts that McCain and the Democrats agree on which is the state of rising health care costs and the urgency of a new health care plan. He then begins anaylizing McCain's plan with quick clips of McCain describing his plan.  He compares his plan to those of Clinton and Obama.  Horsley then interviews a Harvard Business School Professor and her agreement with McCain's plan.  She describes it as a great consumer driven health care movement.  Then Horsely interviews an MIT economist who states the plan is not good for older, poorer and sicker people.  I enjoyed how this segment ended by comparing health care to cancer.  "There are a few breakthroughs in cancer research, just a lot of hard work.  The same apparently goes for fixing the nations health care system."  

I thought this segment did a great job of trying to fit as much information as possible in a short amount of time.  It covered as much as it could about McCain's new plan although most of it did tilt to a disagreement with it.  The two experts in the segment did a great analysis of the plans and it was very balanced from my perspective.  I feel that NPR remains very balanced on presenting their issues.  They did not side with a particular candidate but rather determined that even with all the options of the candidates plans, improving the health care system is a large task to take on.  This is a different perspective than the usual "horserace" that is portrayed in the media with health care.  

Link: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90041706

Krugman Op-Ed Piece Highlights Healthcare Again

Paul Krugman’s New York Times op-ed piece for April 4 focused on Elizabeth Edwards attack on John McCain’s health care proposal. He presents the basics of Edwards’ appearance, but intertwines her statements with policy details and an overall explanation of the healthcare system in the United States. He finishes by giving a similar evaluation to Obama and Clinton’s plans, and expressing the hope that healthcare would receive more attention once the basketball has finished.

The piece is an excellent example of the differences between a traditional newspaper article and an op-ed piece. While the newspaper article on Edwards’ appearances stated the facts objectively, Krugman clearly attacks McCain’s proposal, and cites the advantages of Clinton’s plan over Obama’s. Since it is a New York Times op-ed piece and not a random blog, Krugman is careful to use specific policy details and economics in his attacks on the candidates, but the impression a reader of Krugman’s piece would get is a very different one than the reader of the above article would take away.

New York Times Covers Elizabeth Edwards Appearances

On April 10, 2008, the New York Times published an interview with Elizabeth Edwards in which she discusses her reasons for not endorsing a candidate as well as her recent statements on the three remaining candidates’ health care proposals. She has received attention in the last week for attacking John McCain’s proposal, but has also come out in support of Clinton’s plan, which mandates health care for all citizens, over Obama’s, which only requires children to be covered.

Another example of objective coverage of healthcare in the 2008 election by traditional media. The piece is an interview, so does not contain the opposing arguments to Edwards’ statements, but otherwise remains neutral. It includes a basic report on the interview without getting into anything other than elementary policy details.

NPR's On Point: Hillary's second time around for Health Care reform

On September 18, 2007, Tom Ashbrook spoke about Hillary Clinton and her new health care reform during the campaign.  He discusses how Hillary cam across many obstacles 14 years earlier and how she is back now with a "gentler" and "kinder" reform that focuses on choice.  He begins the interview with an interview with Susana Meadows, a senior writer for Newsweek discussing her article, "How Hillary won the health care industry" and then continues the segment with interviews with Dr. Atul Gawande, a former health advisor to Bill Clinton, Stuart Altman the current health care advisor for Barak Obama and Scott Atlas, the senior health care advisor to Rudy Giuliani.  During the interviews, Ashbrook took phone calls from citizens throughout the country from Iowa to New York voicing their opinions about Hillary's health care reform. 

NPR provided a very balanced frame for this news piece with experts ranging from supporting Hillary, to Barak to the then potential republican candidate, Giuliani.  Having the people's concerns being called in added to the balance.  However, after reading the readings about gender, this is a prime example of how a woman only represents 1/4 of the people interviewed.  They also described Hillary's new health care plan as more womanly by using the adjectives, "Kinder" and "Gentler". It appears that Hillary didn't have success with her "manly" approach 14 years ago so she made it more feminine in hopes to have better results.  Did she have to feminize the health care issue because it is usually an issue for women?

NYT Examines Effects of MA's Universal Health Care

An article in the New York Times looks at the strain Massachusetts' universal health care law has caused on health care in the state. Primary care physicians are in high demand and many have backlogs of patients waiting to get physical exams as people who did not have insurance before the law now have insurance (since it is required by MA law) and can now receive primary care.

This article provided an interesting perspective because most articles on the candidates' health care policies simply outline their plans while this article examines the possible effects of a universal health care system, which is supported by Clinton and Obama. This article that deals with the consequences of a universal health care system is, I think, very helpful for readers, especially if they support universal health care, to know what problems that type of system will face.

WaPo Article Cited by Numerous Blogs

The Washing Post article noted below on rising health care costs and wage workers was linked to by numerous blogs, such as the independent, nonprofit MotherJones Blog. The post quoted a paragraph of the original article which discussed the percentage increase (27.4 to 30.2) in benefit costs of a worker’s wage. The post doesn’t include a ton of commentary, but commends WaPo on the article and includes many comments. Though one might expect the comments to be for the Democratic universal health care proposals, and many are, some posts declare that health insurance is not a right and needs to be worked for. A good example of how blogs shorten news reports, (the original article was on two internet pages), and how interactive they are, as the comments appear as almost part of the post.

Washington Post Documents Covers Rising Health Costs

On March 24^th the Washington Post published an article documenting the impact of rising health care costs on workers paid by wages. Total benefits, which include health care, have increased from 27.4% of worker costs in 2000 to 30.2% in 2008. The article quotes many sources, all discussing the difficulty people are having paying for health care, while addressing candidate proposals for health care changes.

This is a good example of an article from traditional media covering health care, though it does a better job of addressing policy details than most. The article remains almost totally neutral and is very balanced, quoting employers with different strategies for dealing with health care costs. The journalist subtly appears to side with employers doing more to cover workers themselves, rather than leaving coverage to workers, as he quotes a worker who completely rejects her employers insurance, which only offers a health savings account combined with deductibles, while all other workers are content with their employers’ efforts.

Update to Wal-Mart Story

According to AOL News, Wal-Mart has given up its fight against Deborah Shank. It will not take the money that Shank was awarded in the suit against the trucking company. Apparently after NBC news and CNN reported the story, Wal-Mart had a change-of-heart. I suppose the hope that Wal-Mart would change its mind in light of the probable negative public opinion of it generated by news stories about its fight with Shank, was the reason that this story was probably reported.

Podcast #3 Health Care in Mind

The podcast, “Prospects for Health Care Reform in the US” aired on April 17^th 2007, interviews Dr. Ted Marmor, Professor of Public Policy and Management and Professor of Political Science at Yale School of Management about America’s dissatisfaction with  health care and the steps that can be taken to change it.  He discusses the history of health care, the pro’s and con’s of Massachusett’s new health care reform and how to reinvent a new model for national health care. 

This 30 minute podcast was very thorough in facts and Dr. Ted Marmor offered detailed information on many aspects of health care and why some attempts to change health care have failed and what can be done to change that trend.  This interview not only described the problems but also how the listeners could become more proactive to make such a transformation.  This podcast was a lot more informative and beneficial to the audience than the other health care podcast, Health Politics.  

Podcast #2 Bright Ideas about Health Care

This is the same podcast from Health Politics, aired June 6^th, 2007.  In this podcast, Dr. Magee discusses how the topic of health care is built up pre-election and disappears post-election yet offers hope to how that can change.  He states that new technology offers more options and networks for people to make that transformation.  Once again, he makes this comparison to the light bulb and how through technology, leadership, and amplification Edison’s light bulb became inefficient to newer bulbs.  Through this analogy, Dr. Magee attempts to predict how the current health care system will become obsolete with newer systems. 

While this comparison offers new insight to the listeners of how to view the health care system, it is a very optimistic approach and doesn’t give the audience enough background on the subject.  While it is refreshing to listen to some optimism on a topic that is ridden with I wouldn’t consider this podcast a reliable source of information but rather a podcast that is directed towards children given the subject of the comparison.  Another aspect of the podcast I found very interesting is that the main speaker is referred to as a Doctor in order to give the listeners more comfort that they are listening to a qualified and well-informed speaker, when in actuality the podcast doesn’t exude those qualities.  

Podcast #1 Transforming the Health Care System

This podcast from the program Health Politics, aired on June 13, 2007, discusses the industry of health care and how one can attempt to change this unequal business.  The speaker, Dr. Mike Magee argues that the health care industry not only affects the patients but also physicians, hospital administrations and nurses.  In order to describe how politicians and citizens should deal with transforming this system, the speaker gives a comparison to the issue of Mexican Coca Cola in the United States.  He states that comparisons work because health care is an industry and all industries deal with many outside forces.  In the comparison, Dr. Magee concludes that if one is hitting a brick wall, don’t keep hitting it and instead try a new tactic.  Through this analogy, Dr. Magee explains that politicians need to try new tactics and think outside the box in order to improve the health care system.

Through this new medium of podcasts, the listener is able to understand how to approach the transformation of the health care system through the comparison of the case study of Mexican Coca Cola.  This makes it easier for the listener to understand this complex topic.  While the comparison breaks down the problem of health care, a lot of information about what type of “walls” have been put up by health care are omitted.  While the audience is able to understand more are they also getting the most informed perspective?

Wal-Mart Wants to Be Paid Back for Healthcare Expenses

On NBC Nightly News:

Deborah Shank, a former Wal-Mart employee, suffered significant physical and mental disabilities after her car was hit by a truck. Her husband sued the trucking company of the truck that hit her and was awarded damages to pay for Deborah's care. Wal-Mart now says that its health plan is entitled to all the money that Shank won so that it can recover what it paid for Deborah's medical expenses. The courts agreed with Wal-Mart because Wal-Mart's health plan states that if a worker receives a financial settlement related to an accident, the company can recover all medical benefits paid. Experts say that most companies' health care plans have these provisions. Deborah's husband hoped that Wal-Mart would show some compassion, and Wal-Mart says that it is being compassionate by settling for less money than it is actually owed.

This story was reported by a senior investigative correspondent. It mentioned both the Shanks' and Wal-Mart's positions on the issue of whether it can recover healthcare related expenses. The framing of the story was of the giant corporation versus an injured individual and her husband (which is obviously the situation), but Wal-Mart was legally well within its rights to collect the money, which Shank's husband acknowledged, so it seems to me that this story was over-dramatized. The fact that it was reported by a "senior investigative correspondent" in my opinion gave it that overly dramatic air. And it's unclear what exactly the report was trying to accomplish. It made people aware that many health plans have a provision like Wal-Mart's, but other than that, it just told a sad story.

Video is here

Clinton Announces Healthcare Proposal Details

The New York Times published an article on March 28, reporting an interview given by Senator Clinton in which she attempted to fill what opponents have called gaps in her proposal, from the cost cap to the functioning of mandates. The most important detail announced was Senator Clinton’s goal of placing a cap on the cost of health insurance at 5%-10% of a citizen’s income. The article finished with a brief assessment of the plan by Jonathon Gruber, an MIT health economist.

This article was an impressive example of policy information. It included the most amount of detail I have seen in an article on healthcare, and even avoided depicting the policy debate as a game. The article presented many sides of the story, (Clinton’s, McCain’s, and an “expert’s”), and maintained objective throughout. Though I commend the journalist on the manner in which he presented Clinton’s announcement, I wonder how many people fully read and understood the article. It was filled with numbers and statistics. Though I consider myself relatively educated on the subject and actually interested in the debate I found the article somewhat boring and difficult to read.

Wonkette’s Snarky Attack on the Healthcare System

Wonkette.com made a post
on November 20, 2007, which attacked first the current healthcare system, then Republican candidate proposals. The first paragraph describes the small and complicated market for those who do not receive healthcare from their employer, attributing these complications to the 47 million uninsured in America. The post then aggressively attacks the Republican proposal which assumes that by giving people tax breaks they will be able to self-insure, noting that this doesn’t ensure coverage especially for those with pre-existing conditions.

Since this information was conveyed by a blog it differed from traditional media in two essential ways. First it explicitly stated an opinion, presenting the information through the bias that our healthcare system is broken. Secondly, because op-ed pieces also state opinions, the post is written in an extremely snarky tone. This could convey the policy information to readers more easily, or could simply distract them from the actual issues.

Health Care as a Women’s Issue

On February 1, 2007, weeks after Clinton entered the campaign, the Christian Science Monitor published an article on what her focus would be. The article highlighted health care, saying “her campaign plans appeals aimed directly at [women’s] concerns – including health care.” It also noted that 67% of potential voters believed that among Democratic candidates she would do the best job, implying that this was due to her appeal among women.

While health care has been found to be one of the most important issues to all voters in 2008, the article and Clinton assume it is primarily a concern of women. This is in line with what Lisa Stone discussed in class today regarding candidate pandering to women when discussing health care. Regardless of medium, issue knowledge gains from this article would likely only be about the election, and not at all about any policy proposals of the candidates.

The Election, Women and Health Care

Blogher.com, “the community for women who blog,” posted a detailed, analytic summary of the remaining candidates’ health care proposals on February 25, 2008. The post first contrasts the Democratic candidates’ plans, identifying the main difference as the presence or lack of mandates. McCain’s plan is boiled down to “quit eating crap” by one commenter. The post ends with an extensive table comparing the proposals.

The post makes a better attempt at explaining the subtleties of the proposals than any mainstream newspaper that I’ve seen. While you might have expected it to pander to women in its explanation, as most mainstream press does, by focusing only on family issues rather than the proposals as policy, the article does the opposite. I wondered after reading Common Knowledge what issue knowledge gains were like from blogs. While this is clearly not representative of the entire blogosphere, which I suspect leads to lower issue knowledge gains, reading this post would most likely lead to huge knowledge gains.

CBS News

On CBS News on March 17, 2008
Pa. Governor Ed Rendell spoke about the state's Medicaid program, which refuses to pay hospitals for medical errors. Rendell's plan is to incentivize the system to improve medical care because “nowhere else in the economy do you get paid when you deliver a product that doesn’t work” (as in the case of medical errors). Wyatt Andrews, who conducted the interview, asked few questions, and most of those that he asked were for clarification. Andrews asked only one critical question during the interview. Video is here

Tom Daschle on The Daily Show

On The Daily Show on March 6, 2008:
Senator Tom Daschle talked about his new book on healthcare called Critical. Daschle’s healthcare plan is to create a “Federal Reserve Board” for health because, according to him, Congress isn’t good at making healthcare decisions. This piece did not go into any depth about Daschle's plan. John Stewart asked him one critical question about his plan, and then made some jokes about an aspect of the healthcare system. Video is here

Healthcare Podcast

Americans for Health Care, the largest grassroots health care reform organization in the country, uploaded a podcast from American Health Consultants briefing on December 8, 2005.  In this podcast, two ladies speak about the need to have affordable quality healthcare as an issue for the upcoming election for the Senate.  The first woman discusses how independent women have a major impact on election as the swing voters.  They determine that health care is an issue of family and moral values and they want to push this perspective on the voters.  The mentioned a poll taken and they determined that most of the public are worried that the government is not taking enough action about this problem and they have the responsibility to do so.  

This demonstrates how the grassroots organization is keeping up with the new media to get across their message.  They are broadcasting their message through podcasts so it can be available to anyone at any time.  It appears to be a new type of blog almost.  This podcast is clearly biased towards electing officials that will help their constituents be able to afford quality health care.  How do you think having podcasts to project their message helped their cause?  Will expanding to other types of new media help with their objective?

Blogs and the SCHIP Attack on Clinton

The Boston Globe article questioning Senator Clinton’s role in the passing of SCHIP was posted by several blogs, including the Huffington Post and Health Care BS. Most posted large sections of the article, summarized below, if not the entire thing. On the Huffington Post the only difference in presentation was the large comment section below, aggressively attacking either Clinton or her detractors. Health Care BS simply extracts the portions of the article which call Clinton a liar, calling her campaign “home of the whopper.”

How will the role of blogs, with no attempt at objectivity, be different in the 2008 election than the role of more traditional media? Will they be able to influence voters, or will people simply read blogs fitting into their political beliefs, further dividing voters this year?

An Attack on Senator Clinton from the Mainstream Media?

On Friday, March 14, the Boston Globe published an article questioning Senator Clinton’s claim that she “helped to start” the State Children’s Health Insurance Plan in 1996. The article cites numerous sources, including Senator Orrin Hatch, who say that while Clinton may have lobbied for the bill behind the scenes, ultimately it was Senator Hatch and Senator Edward Kennedy who deserve credit for the passing of the bill.

This article is an excellent example of the role of the media in an election. The Globe presents both sides of the argument without choosing a side. However, is this an example of the press unfairly attacking Hillary Clinton, or is this an example of the press actually fulfilling its role as fact checker? While it is important for the press to identify falsehoods put forward by the candidates, this needs to be balanced with articles examining the other candidates. As our discussion in class last week showed, this is not happening and could be a significant factor in Clinton’s swing from front runner to second place.

Senate President Murray about MA health costs

On March 4th, 2008 WBUR reported on a new health bill presented by Senate President Therese Murray for Massachusetts.  Massachusetts enacted a universal health care system for the state which has increased costs for the state since they must cover uninsured residents.  She has outlined a plan that will lessen the cost and improve health care.  Martha Bebinger reported this news story by giving background to the new bill and played a short clip outlining her plan.  Bebinger then began to analyze the details of the bill but cited some popular problems with the plan as well, playing clips by experts from Massachusetts Medical Society, Tufts Health Plan and Health Connector.  Each of these experts were given a lot more time to explain their disagreements with the bill.  Bebinger played clips from people who supported the plan such as Gov. Deval Patrick, but their agreements were very short and that "there were a lot of good ideas" in the bill. 

When I first listened to this health care segment I was surprised of how subjective WBUR was of this plan and how many people they had on the show to disagree with the new bill.  However, WBUR did add at the end that all in all, this bill is getting better support than most bills get when they are first introduced. 

Site: http://www.wbur.org/news/2008/75409_20080304.asp

Senate President Murray about MA health costs

Market Forces and Blogs

The same day as the Star Tribune addressed CMS’ health care cost projections, Medicare Update, a blog written by attorney Michael Apolskis focusing on pressing Medicare information, wrote a post on the news as well. The post quickly summarizes the projected increases in health care costs, without presenting the political aspect of the news.

This is the first blog discussed here to include advertisements; it is also the first blog here to remain objective in its discussion of an issue. Perhaps this is an example of market forces affecting the content of a blog, which we expect to be outside traditional market forces.

Local Newspapers and Health Care Cost Projections

On February 26, 2008 the Minneapolis Star Tribune published an article on the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid’s health care cost projections as the baby boomer generation ages. By 2017 health care costs are expected to reach $4 trillions dollars a year, with the annual rate of increase nearly tripling that of inflation at 6.7%. Bush has proposed cuts in Medicare and Medicaid by slowing yearly growth from seven to five percent, while Democrats propose cutting payments to the private insurers who oversee the care of some Medicare recipients.

While the article acknowledges that the country’s health care system is in need of reform, it continues the trend of traditional media’s objective coverage of the debate, neutrally giving equal time to both sides of the argument.

NBC Report; Update on lack of reports from other sources

2-26-08 NBC Nightly News
Dr. Nancy Snyderman (Chief Medical Editor) compares Clinton, Obama, McCain, and Huckabee's plans for healthcare and then consults health economist Len Nicholas who says that this campaign is historic because it's the only one in recent years in which Democratic and Republican candidates are proposing coverage for many more Americans and being serious about making the system more efficient and sustainable. Video is here
Coverage of candidates is balanced - each candidate's plan is summarized. Consulting Nicholas (an expert) gives this report further credibility.

ABC News hasn't had a healthcare story since at least 2-18-08. CBS News has also not done a healthcare story (at least that I could find on the website) in the past week.

Neither The Daily Show nor the Colbert Report have have done healthcare stories in the past week.

Attack on Schwarzenegger’s Failed Healthcare Reform

The Foundry (Blog), from the conservative Heritage Foundation, attacked Governor Schwarzenegger’s failed healthcare reform January 31^st for not attempting actual reform, only adding mandates to force involvement in what the blogger calls “today’s flawed system.” The blogger then emphasizes that actual reform should be done at the state level, and place the power of choice entirely with individuals and families.

This blog, from a major conservative think tank, is much more formal than the others. The post resembles an op-ed piece more than a blog post. Most importantly, it gives specific policy proposals. How does the entrance of larger organizations, both non-profits and business, into the blogosphere change the effect a blog has?

Decreasing Fear of "Socialized Medicine"

The February 25^th LA Times included an article on American’s reactions to the term “socialized medicine.” The article quickly summarizes the results, which show that while democrats would prefer socialized medicine, republicans still reject the concept completely, and gives a brief history of the term. Ultimately the study concludes that fear of the term “socialized medicine,” and the policy changes that it would mean, are decreasing.

Compared to what I have seen in blogs, the LA Times remains relatively objective, refusing to take a side in the debate over socialized medicine. The article ran in the paper’s Health section, which is not surprising as the video we saw on the LA Times emphasized the market forces driving the newspaper. The article is neither shocking nor immediate, and so was probably read by few people.

Obama and Hillary discuss Healthcare during debates in Texas

On February 22, Melissa Rock discussed the differences between Obama and Hillary's Healthcare plans with the advice of Julie Rovner on NPR.  The piece was about four minutes long but highlighted the main differences with excerpts from the debate.  Rock would introduced the topic by stating that Obama's plan is different from Hillary's because of the required mandates.  After listening to Obama speak, Rovner discusses the issue further and then introduces Hillary's opinion.  Hillary states that if there wasn't a mandate then over 15 million people would not have health insurance.  Rovner verifies that this number is accurate and then demonstrates why mandates would be a problem as well.  Obama discusses the fact that to have universal healthcare, the penalty must be harsh, such as going after the public's wages.  Rovner agrees with this statement but also adds that Obama might have to require mandates as well for children with health care.

This segment was very short but it highlighted the main points of the argument and kept a very balanced position between the candidates views about health care.  I didn't think any of the excerpts were taken out of context and NPR portrayed the differences very clearly to the audience. 

Insurance Company Must Pay for Dropping Sick Customer

On NBC Nightly News from 2/23/08

Health Net, a health insurance company dropped Patsy Bates from coverage when she was diagnosed with breast cancer.  The company refused to pay her medical bills, forcing her to stop receiving chemotherapy treatments for months.

An arbitration court ruled that Health Net was primarily concerned with its own financial interests and gave little to no concern to the insured.  (The company even gave bonuses to employees who cancelled customers' policies retroactively.)  The judge awarded Bates more than $9 million, most of which is in punitive damages.  Bates' attorney thinks that the award is "precedent-setting for the nation because it will stop this shameful practice" of insurance companies dropping sick people from coverage.

Video is here

This piece was reported in a straightforward manner, and the information is relevant and important for news viewers because these health insurance practices affect everyone.  

The Relationship between Insurance and Patient Care

http://www.thehealthcareblog.com/the_health_care_blog/2008/02/policy-the-fina.html

The Health Care Blog noted on February 20, 2008 that while the economy has been expanding health insurance coverage has been declining. They give the example of a middle aged man who will soon not be able to receive chemotherapy as their benefits are running out, and wonder what coverage will be like during the recession.

Unlike the objective article of the New York Times on a similar subject, the Health Care Blog makes no attempt at objectivity, saying things like “there is no excuse” and reminding the reader of the system’s “perversity.” The post includes facts, but at the same time places a strong critical spin on them.

Cancer Diagnosis and Health Insurance

On February 15, 2008 the New York Times published an article on a new study examining the factors which affect cancer diagnosis. The results of the study suggested that cancer patients who are uninsured, insured by Medicaid or are African American (even when taking into account higher rates of uninsured African Americans) are likely to be diagnosed at a later stage than other cancer patients.

Though the article presents a study which clearly suggests that better insuring the American people would lower cancer rates, the author remains objective throughout the article, reporting only the facts of the study. This is an example of how old media, as Baym argues, are required to report only the he said-she said of an issue without appearing critical or losing objectivity.

The Daily Show on Healthcare

I had to go back pretty far in the archives to find healthcare videos from The Daily Show, but below are descriptions of two:

On 6-27-07, Michael Moore was a guest on The Daily Show. He talked about his movie Sicko that was coming out. Moore mentioned that the doctors and employees at insurance companies deny people’s claims for treatment. He said that the healthcare system in the US is designed to not pay for your treatment because health insurance is profit-driven. Moore said that Canada is the solution to the US's healthcare problems.
Video is here

On 9/19/07, John Stewart talked about Hillary’s healthcare plan which Newt Gingrich (on Hannity & Colmes) said is a return to her failed 1994 plan. Stewart showed many clips of pundits insulting Hillary's healthcare plan and calling it “Hillarycare." CNN even commented, “Why is she trying again?”
Video is here

Bob Laszewski, a healthcare policy consultant, made a post to his blog called Healthcare Policy and the Marketplace on February 4^th declaring there to be no difference within the parties on healthcare policy and advising voters and those caucusing not to cast their votes based on healthcare proposals alone. He briefly explains what the differences are between Republican and Democratic proposals, what he calls an “open market” versus “shared responsibility.”

As a blog such as this, set up on Blogger and without advertising, is not aiming to make a profit, it should not be affected by market forces. However the post is still aimed to capture those with short attention spans, with key phrases in bold. The tone of the blog, both authoritative and casual, highlights the difference between conveying news through a new medium, such as a blog, and an old medium, such as a newspaper.

Krugman's Analysis of the Democratic Proposals

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/opinion/04krugman.html

Paul Krugman, editorialist for the New York Times, published a column on February 4^th comparing the Healthcare proposals of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. He argues that, while many say the two proposals are essentially the same and both will provide drastically lowered costs to low income families, the lack of mandates in Obama’s plan will leave less people insured and be more costly per person insured. Krugman concludes by contending that, while it would be difficult for either candidate to get these proposals past the house, Clinton’s is the only proposal with the hope of achieving universal healthcare.

Krugman’s article does not seem to be constrained by the same market forces which we discussed identified as affecting commercial network news broadcasts. The editorial is detailed, without filler, and full of analysis. This could stem from a variety of causes, such as the prestige and intellectual standards of the New York Times, which lead to a reader more interested in details. It could also potentially be a difference between an editorial and an article. Perhaps the articles and overall reporting are constrained by these market forces, leading to more soft news, less development of stories and relying on immediacy, while the editorials are a space to expand upon these stories by analyzing the issues.