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.