Media Bias or Media Stupidity?

You might have heard or seen footage of a man carrying an AR-15 at a health care protest during President Obama's visit to Arizona on Monday. Arizona has an open carry policy, so the man wasn't breaking the law by carrying the rifle throughout the protest. Nevertheless, many people chose to complain. Now, let me first say that it is completely unnecessary for this guy to be carrying an assault rifle at this event. I believe that by doing it he loses quite a bit of credibility with any audience who might oppose him on any issue whether it be health care or the Second Amendment. Regardless, it is his right, and he can do what he wants.

Here's the kicker though. MSNBC picked up the story and added a little something to it.... the race card. In the video below you will see the news anchor raise "questions about whether this has a racial overtones" (no I did not make a mistake in my quote, she made a mistake in her grammar).

She speaks of "a man of color in the presidency and white people showing up with guns strapped to their waists." That is a very interesting statement, because the guy that MSNBC shows in the news clip is black! See the video below:

You wouldn't know it from the MSNBC clip, because they only show a cropped view of the man carrying the rifle, and you cannot see his face or his hands. The second video, however, shows that he is most definitely black. There's really no debating it. This begs the question, is the mainstream media really that biased or are they so stupid that they cannot even get a simple fact, such as a person's race, correct? If I were a betting man (and I had better be 'cause I'm headed to Vegas next week!) then I would put my money on the production team at MSNBC purposely cropping the video so that we cannot see the man, only his gun. It's a fine attempt at fooling everyone, but they got caught in the lie.

******

For those of you who might comment on this with the fact that the man with the gun had a staged interview with a libertarian reporter at the rally, just save it. I am aware of it, and it's completely irrelevant to the point I am making.

Health Insurance Profits

One point that the government health care supporters have attempted to make over and over again is that the insurance companies are making obscenely large profits when they should be focused on giving that money to customers for health care needs. President Obama has recently spoken of health insurance firms "reap[ing] windfall profits" in this speech and many others. If these claims were true then I would most definitely agree. The facts, however, get in the way of their assertions about the profits of health insurance firms.

First it is important to understand the difference between profit and profit margin. Profit is what's left over after all of your costs and taxes are covered. Profit margin is the percentage of revenue that is left over after all costs and taxes are covered. For example, if the amount of money you take in from sales is $1,000 and you have $150 left over after all of your costs and taxes are covered then your profit margin is 15%. Ask yourself real quick, what do you think is an acceptable profit margin for a business to sustain? 10%? 20%? 30%? My guess is that most people would say that it is acceptable for a business to make $1 or $2 for every $10 they receive, putting their profit margin somewhere between 10% and 20%.

Keep in mind the profit margin you think is acceptable for a business to sustain. Do you know what the profit margins are for some of the biggest health insurers in the U.S.? Inspired by a Wall Street Journal article yesterday, I did some research and found that the average profit margin in 2008 for four of the big guys, UnitedHealth Group, Aetna, Humana and WellPoint, was 3.6%. Yes, you read that correctly. For every $100 that one of these companies takes in they keep $3.60. Some people might say "well, the economy was a bad in 2008. They probably made 10+% the year before." Nope. We would all agree that 2006 and 2007 were phenomenal years for the economy, and the average for the four companies was just over 5%.


In contrast, Coca-Cola's average three year profit margin for the same years was over 20%, and Apple, the company that makes your iPod, had a profit margin of 13.3%. Yes, these are companies that make discretionary items, but food isn't. General Mills, the company that makes a lot of the cereals and other foods that you eat every day, had a profit margin almost twice as high as that of the insurance companies, 9.3%, over the same period. We need both health care and food to live, so why are we letting the company that makes Cheerios make profits twice as high as the "windfall[s]" of the health care companies?

The truth is that the health insurance companies are not making outsized profits. Compared with many other companies their profit margins are very small. We have heard members of Congress, Obama and others say that we need a public "option" to compete with the private insurers. The private firms already compete with each other. If Aetna wants to expand into another state they must lease office space, hire employees and spend money complying with the individual state insurance mandates. If they take in $100 for a premium and pay out $100 for benefits, as Obama and many Democrats wish, then where do they get the money to do this? In order to fund expansion and compete the companies need profits. Profits are an essential element of competition. If the insurance companies did not make profits then you might be stuck with one insurance company in your state, but due to open markets (somewhat) and profits we have a range of companies to choose from. Regardless of this fact we still have people telling us that the insurance companies do not need to make profits and do not have enough competition. It just doesn't make sense. Facts are pesky little things for the people attempting to lie to us, aren't they?

The White House Wants Health Care "Disinformation"

So let's give them what they are asking for! Below I have crafted a letter that you can simply cut and paste into an email and send it off. In the interest of brevity I only included 5 points, but we all know I could have gone much further. Feel free to personalize it a bit. Send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.

*** Update 8/13/2009 ***

It seems as if some of the videos I originally posted below have mysteriously been taken down. I have been censored!!! I'm not really surprised, and it's certainly not going to keep me from putting the facts in your hands. I'm leaving the original links up, but I have updated the post and linked to the transcripts just below them.

2:11 PM: Okay, I can't quite figure out what is going on. My links were previously working, and today many of them went bust. I don't know if it was my error or something "fishy", but I've got them all fixed. Since I like to be 100% sure of things before I run with something I'm going to just let this pass, because I cannot prove anything. Admittedly, I may have been a bit quick to jump the gun on the whole censorship thing, but it all still seems a bit odd since everything was working previously.

*** End Update ***


To Whom it May Concern:

I recently came across your request on The White House Blog to send in anything “about health insurance reform that seems fishy.” There is certainly quite a bit of disinformation being circulated about the government’s plan to reform the health care industry. As a concerned citizen I felt responsible for complying with your request. Below I have listed a large sample of the disinformation that I have come across. Please note that there exists much more than what I have listed, and I would be happy to share as much as possible with you.

Disinformation #1
In the video cited below, President Obama states that we will “have a system the same way that Federal employees do.”

The Facts: The public system will not be the same as the one that Federal employees have. The Federal employees’ system lets them choose from over 200 private plans. The government system will be 100% government operated. If it is the same then why did the House Ways and Means Committee vote down an amendment that would require all members of Congress to enroll in the public plan? The reality is that the public plan is not the same; otherwise Congress would have no reason to refuse enrollment.
Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0XCl6OHgiM&feature=player_embedded
Transcript: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Press-Conference-by-the-President-6-23-09/
Amendment: http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/heller-2.pdf
Voted Down: http://heller.house.gov/apps/list/press/nv02_heller/Publicplan.shtml

Disinformation #2
In the video cited below, President Obama states “if you have insurance that you like then you will be able to keep that insurance. Nobody is trying to change what works.”

The Facts: The public plan that the Administration is pushing will fundamentally change all insurance plans across the nation. HR 3200, on page 16, ends enrollment in individual insurance plans. If anyone switches jobs, as most people will at some point, they must enroll in a government regulated insurance pool rather than searching for a plan similar to their previous one. Page 15 of the bill states that all insurance plans offered by private companies must meet certain requirements or else they will be illegal. The President’s claim from the previous video that no one will “mess with” you insurance plan is false. Page 15 of the bill proves it by laying the groundwork for a plethora of mandates that must be included in insurance plans.
Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1wttp6VCqU&feature=player_embedded
Transcript: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/28/AR2009072801444.html
HR 3200: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-3200

Disinformation #3
In President Obama’s press conference on health care on July 22nd he stated that his plan “will keep government out of health care decisions.” He also states “that health insurance reform will not add to our deficit over the next decade.”

The Facts: Page 423 of the House bill establishes a ”Center For Comparative Effectiveness Research, ” a government arm that will exist solely for the purpose of interfering in the health care decisions of the American people by regulating which types of care and medicine we can receive and which ones we cannot.
On the issue of the deficit, Congressional Budget Director, Douglas Elmendorf, has stated in a letter to Representative Dave Camp that “the proposal as a whole would increase federal deficits by $239 billion over the 2010–2019 period.”
Press Conference transcript: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/07/23/politics/main5182101.shtml
CBO Letter: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/104xx/doc10400/07-26-InfoOnTriCommProposal.pdf
House Bill: http://waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/111/hrdraft.pdf

Disinformation #4
President Obama stated in a press conference on June 23rd that the government “will also ensure that the reform we pass brings down the crushing cost of health care.”

The Facts: The CBO Director stated in his testimony before Congress that “the coverage proposals in this legislation would expand federal spending on health care to a significant degree.”
Press Conference Transcript: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/23/politics/main5107407.shtml
CBO Director: http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE56F6GT20090716

Disinformation #5
Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said that we need a public option “to encourage competition [and] to provide better care at a lower cost.”

The Facts: We already have government run health care systems with Medicare and Medicaid, and they are failing on multiple levels, namely quality and economic sustainability. MedPac, the very agency responsible for oversight of Medicare and Medicaid, has recently reported on "serious shortcomings in quality as well as the absence of real progress toward restructuring health care systems to address both quality and cost concerns."

Addressing her claim on “competition,” the public option will only lead to a complete exit of private insurance companies from the market and be left with a single payer system. If you are unfamiliar with a single payer system it is nothing more than a 100% government controlled health care system. This happened in Florida with property insurance, and it will surely happen with health care.
Video of Pelosi’s statement: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rypSHsn9Ah4
Transcript: http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument&orgId=574&topicId=100007424&docId=l:1015642727&start=6
MedPac Statement: http://www.medpac.gov/documents/20080916_Sen%20Fin_testimony%20final.pdf
WSJ article on FL property insurance: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124623134986666161.html

As I said before, there is plenty more disinformation being circulated, but I do not have time to gather all of it. I would appreciate you following up with the President and various members of Congress so that they may have the facts and stop the spread of this disinformation. Thank you for your help.


Sincerely,

(Your Name Here)

1984?

This story started circulating earlier today via a variety of sources, but the first place I saw it was here. The White House has put up a request on its website asking for help in keeping track of "disinformation about health insurance reform."

It reads as follows:

There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.

Does this scream censorship or 1984 to anyone else? I try to stay away from the alarmist rhetoric, emails and such that so often get circulated by die-hard Republicans or conservatives, but I believe this to be different. I like to think that I have proven myself to be a level headed mind when it comes to researching and presenting the facts. I never post or send something out without first verifying it. The fact here, however, is that to my knowledge we have never had an official public push by the government to keep tabs on opposition to policies. If you think that this is an effort to simply educate people then I must say that you are mistaken. This administration has demonstrated time and again that they are more than willing to intimidate and strong arm anyone who opposes its policies.

I'm really curious to know what they are going to do with the information that they receive. Are they really attempting to monitor "casual conversation?" Are they going to call all of these folks individually to give them their version of the facts? I can see some legitimate uses for the information such as the White House using it to get a feel for what is being said about its health reform initiatives and then crafting rhetoric around it to make it sound better. There are much better ways to do that though, ways that don't appear to be nearly as invasive or creepy. I imagine, however, that the Administration is really trying to keep tabs on people and see what opposition is out there.

How about this? Why don't we all save a copy of one of the health care bills and email it to the address that the White House lists (flag@whitehouse.gov). The bill definitely qualifies as "fishy." Also send them links to a transcript or two of President Obama's press conferences on health care. Most of what he says also qualifies as "fishy." Finally, send them the Fact Pack to prove that the Administration is feeding us the very "disinformation" that they are asking us to send to them. While you are busy doing that I am going to review my taxes, because I fully expect to get audited by the IRS next year.

Stimulus Bill Waste

I know some people might consider the title of this post to be a bit redundant, but check this out anyway. I was driving home from a mountain weekend in Tennessee yesterday and I saw a sign that looked like this:


It's basically saying that the highway project that you're entering is funded by the stimulus bill. According to the Chicago Tribune there were "4,840 highway projects funded through the Recovery Act nationwide as of June 22." They also called around to find out the cost of one of the signs pictured above. They received estimates ranging from $400-1,200. Split the difference of the estimates and you have $800 per sign. $800 x 4840 = $3,872,000. Almost $3.9 million just for useless road signs that the government is using to try to fool us into thinking that the stimulus bill is actually working! The stimulus bill is what it is. It's now a moot point (or as Joey from Friends would say... "it's moo."), but rather than wasting $3.9 million on useless road signs why don't we at least fix another road?

Maternity Care for Men

There has been a lot of outcry from a few of my female readers over my stance that single males should not have to pay for maternity coverage in their insurance premiums. Some of the comments that I have received include the following:

• Some claim that expectant mothers will not be taken care of if the mandates are eliminated, because the insurance concept of "pooled risk" goes away.
• Accusations that I am actively attempting to keep mothers from receiving care.
• One reader asked me if I "really think that it's not in the best interest of the whole country to take care of expecting mothers."
• The same reader from the previous point also stated that "sex discrimination should not have a place in health care."
• Almost all have noted that women pay for things like prostate treatment even though they don't have prostates, so why is it a big deal if men pay for maternity care?

Let me first explain my reasoning behind my stance. I will start with saying that my goal, as I have said before, is quality health insurance for every United States citizen. I am not attempting to prevent anyone from getting health insurance. I am simply trying to do it in a way that actually works. In the spirit of helping everyone obtain health insurance, if states did not mandate that single men must be covered for maternity care then an insurance company could lower its prices for certain plans. I honestly don't know if women's plans cover prostate exams, but the same goes for them. Lower prices equals more affordability. More affordability means more people can get health insurance. Once that single man gets married then he can add in maternity care for his wife if she goes on his insurance plan, because he then needs it. I think I can clarify many things by taking the above objections and comments one by one:

1. Expectant mothers will not be taken care of if the maternity mandate goes away.

Absolutely not. If you are a woman trying to have a child or a married man whose wife is included in your insurance plan then you simply add that coverage to your insurance plan and start paying for it. This will not undermine the insurance concept of "pooled risk," as some readers have claimed, because insurance companies factor all of the risks in when calculating individual premiums. If single men are needed to pay higher prices into the "pool" for maternity coverage then why aren't younger people required to pay higher premiums for the care of the elderly, even though younger people don't use most of the same services? Why don't we all just pay the exact same premiums? The reason is that we do not all share the same risks. There is zero chance that an insurance company will have to pay money to cover a man having a child and zero chance that a woman needs a prostate exam. Neither should have to pay for them.

2. Accusations that I am actively attempting to keep mothers from receiving care.

This is simply false. I already stated that my goal is for everyone to have health insurance. I also believe that individuals should be responsible for their own health care. If you think that health care is a right then I must ask you the following question. Is eating a right? I have heard people who believe health care is a right say that every person has the right to be alive and healthy and therefore has a right to health care. Then why isn't eating a right? We need food to live and be healthy, so why does the government not provide food for all of us? What about water as well? We need that too. The bottom line is that I want everyone to have care, but a woman or couple trying to have a child should pay for their maternity coverage in their premiums. If you cannot afford that then what makes you think you can afford to feed, clothe and care for a child?

3. Do I "really think that it's not in the best interest of the whole country to take care of expecting mothers."

Everyone knows that you should not smoke or drink while you are pregnant, right? If it is in the best interest of the whole country to take care of expectant mothers then all women should be required to take a pregnancy test when they try to buy alcohol or cigarettes or other things that are potentially harmful to pregnant women. Consuming any of them could harm both mother and child and therefore not be in the best interest of the whole country, correct? Many women don't find out that they are pregnant until a month or two after conception, so we must protect them. After all, it is in the best interest of the whole country to take care of expectant mothers, right?

I think many women would be outraged at the prospect of having to take a pregnancy test before buying cigarettes, alcohol or other products. They would feel that their liberty is being infringed upon. Liberty is a principle with broad reach, and it is not a fluid concept. One cannot change the definition of liberty based on the situation. Liberty means that Americans should be free to do most things that do not infringe upon the lives of others. This includes the freedom to succeed and the freedom to fail. It is in the best interest of expectant mothers to care for their own children. The government has no responsibility to care for your child and neither do I. You have a responsibility to care for it. If you cannot care for it then do not have one.

3. "Sex discrimination should not have a place in health care."

Okay, then I want to see a gynecologist right now, because my health insurance covers it! I also want a mammogram, and I want a pregnancy consultation. If sex discrimination does not have a place in health care then no one can tell me that I cannot have these things. Ladies, let's say you find a lump in your breast. You go to the doctor for a mammogram and you find a bunch of men in the waiting room. Each one of them, one by one, is called by the nurse and heads into the screening room. You are worried sick that you may have breast cancer, and here are a bunch of men getting mammograms before you, because "sex discrimination should not have a place in health care." The fact is that sex discrimination does not take place in health care in the sense that the commenter asserts. Health care is based on need. I don't need maternity coverage any more than a woman needs a prostate exam. Neither party should have to pay for these respective procedures.

I think I've already covered women paying for prostate exams, so there's no need to elaborate much. With this whole issue of maternity care people don't seem to realize that I was using that one example to illustrate a larger point. The simple fact is that women should not pay for prostate exams either. Men should pay for them. If we eliminated many of the burdensome insurance mandates that states impose then we could make health insurance and health care more affordable.