CBS Disguises Single-Payer Group's 45,000 Deaths Claim as a 'Harvard' Study

Photo of Brent Baker.
  • Bookmark and Share

Trying to boost the rationale for ObamaCare, Thursday's CBS Evening News ran two stories from far-left sources, but the network disguised the agenda behind both. Katie Couric announced that “while the debate goes on over the cost of insuring everyone, a new study reveals the cost of not doing it. The Harvard study says nearly 45,000 American deaths every year are linked to a lack of insurance.” Neither she, nor reporter Jim Axelrod, noted that the report was really produced by Physicians for a National Health Program, “the only national physician organization in the United States dedicated exclusively to implementing a single-payer national health program.”

Next, Nancy Cordes touted “a rare sight – leaders from the nation's largest insurers sitting down to get grilled,” without pointing out it occurred at a hearing held by the Domestic Policy subcommittee of the House's Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, a subcommittee chaired by far-left former presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich.

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

Cordes began by showing Democratic Congressman Elijah Cummings demagogically demanding: “Which of you, if any, give bonuses for folks who deny coverage?” She followed with how “lawmakers accused the insurers of putting profits before customers, customers like two-year-old Sidney Gendernalik from Los Angeles who suffers from a rare syndrome known as infant spasms. From the moment Sidney was diagnosed at three months, her insurer, Riegle Medical Group, began denying treatments, tests, and drugs.”

In the first story, with the numbers on screen credited to “Harvard Medical School” and Dr. Steffie Woolhandler identified on screen as with “Harvard Medical School,” Axelrod reported Woolhandler “was part of a team that tracked more than 9,000 people for up to 13 years, comparing the health of those with insurance to those without. After factoring in education and income, smoking, drinking, obesity, researchers found the uninsured had about a 40 percent higher risk of death. In 1993, it was 25 percent.”

Woolhandler is one of five signers of an “Open Letter to President Obama to Support Single-Payer Health Care” and the CBSNews.com online version of Axelrod's story provides a link to a PDF of the “study” – as posted on the Physicians for a National Health Program's site.

Axelrod began his story with the plight of a man who “didn't go to the doctor until he could no longer eat” and then learned he had “stage four stomach cancer,” as if the lack of health insurance, which the man chose not to buy, prevented him from seeing a doctor and paying the full charge for a visit instead of just a co-pay amount.

[UPDATE: The New York Times also failed to note the advocacy group behind the study, Clay Waters documented on the MRC's TimesWatch site.]

The MRC's Brad Wilmouth corrected the closed-captioning against the video to provide these transcripts of the stories on the Thursday, September 17 CBS Evening News:

KATIE COURIC: Now, turning to health care reform, President Obama campaigned for student support at the University of Maryland today. Speaking to about 15,000 people, the President called health care reform a defining struggle of this generation. And while the debate goes on over the cost of insuring everyone, a new study reveals the cost of not doing it. The Harvard study says nearly 45,000 American deaths every year are linked to a lack of insurance. We have two reports on the health care crisis beginning with Jim Axelrod.

JIM AXELROD: A year and a half ago, Daniel Duarte started dropping a lot of weight. Was that concerning you as you went from 290 to 240 to, did you realize something was wrong?

DANIEL DUARTE: Yeah, definitely.

AXELROD: Having quit his full-time job at a dairy to freelance in the catering business, gambling he wouldn't need the insurance, Daniel didn't go to the doctor until he could no longer eat. The diagnosis, stage four stomach cancer. Medicaid paid for his surgery last April. Would you be in a different place if you had health insurance?

DUARTE: Totally. I would have been able to go to a doctor, like, maybe last year.

DR. STEFFIE WOOLHANDLER, HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL: We found that 45,000 Americans are dying annually due to lack of health insurance.

AXELROD: Dr. Steffie Woolhandler was part of a team that tracked more than 9,000 people for up to 13 years, comparing the health of those with insurance to those without. After factoring in education and income, smoking, drinking, obesity, researchers found the uninsured had about a 40 percent higher risk of death. In 1993, it was 25 percent.

WOOLHANDLER: We've got lots of good treatments for high blood pressure, diabetes, and high cholesterol. But we can't do anything for the patients if they can't afford to come to their offices.

JOHN GOODMAN, NATIONAL CENTER FOR POLICY ANALYSIS: Well, I think this study is not well done.

AXELROD: John Goodman of the National Center for Policy Analysis says the study results are exaggerated. Researchers don't know how the uninsured died or if they were uninsured the entire time they were being tracked. But even this critic agrees with the basic premise.

GOODMAN: I think you can't trust the results. Having said that, we ought to do something for the uninsured.

AXELROD: Of course, it's not getting any easier to provide health insurance. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, the average cost of a family health insurance policy is now more than $13,000, having more than doubled this decade. Jim Axelrod, CBS News, New York.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth-

NANCY CORDES: This is Nancy Cordes at the Capitol. It was a rare sight – leaders from the nation's largest insurers sitting down to get grilled.

REP. ELIJAH CUMMINGS (D-MD): Which of you, if any, give bonuses for folks who deny coverage?

UNIDENTIFIED MAN #1: I'm sorry, Congressman, without going back and doing research on that topic, I really could not give you a responsive answer to that question.

CUMMINGS: You don't know that? You don't know the answer to that question? Is that what you're telling me?

MAN #1: Yes, sir.

CORDES: Members of Congress pushed the top brass from Cigna, Humana, Aetna, and more to explain why premiums have shot up 131 percent in the past 10 years.

PATRICIA FARRELL, AETNA: For every dollar we take in we pay about, we make about five cents in profit, pay about 84 cents in medical claims.

CORDES: Lawmakers accused the insurers of putting profits before customers, customers like two-year-old Sidney Gendernalik from Los Angeles-

MARK GENDERNALIK, FATHER OF INFANT SPASMS SYNDROME PATIENT: That's one of her seizure events she's having right now.

CORDES: -who suffers from a rare syndrome known as infant spasms.

GENDERNALIK: She can have over 50 of these a day.

CORDES: From the moment Sidney was diagnosed at three months, her insurer, Riegle Medical Group, began denying treatments, tests, and drugs.

GENDERNALIK: There's a part of me that's lost an opportunity to be my daughter's father because I have to be out there spending time and effort battling one referral to the next, one authorization for a drug to the next. It's not, it's not right.

CORDES: The six executives insisted they support reform, to a point.

THOMAS RICHARDS, CIGNA HEALTHCARE: We believe if those reforms are enacted, then a government-run plan is not necessary.

BRIAN SASSI, WELLPOINT INC.: We would not have a level playing field since insurers are subject to taxes and other types of expenses.

CORDES: Even more notable than what the insurance companies said was the fact that they said it at all. Normally, they like to stay out of the spotlight and let their national lobby defend their practices.

—Brent Baker is Vice President for Research and Publications at the Media Research Center


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

katie

My oh my the representatives of the fawning white guilt media have now gone to mislabeling their source material, on CBS, nonehteless. You'd think Rathergate taught them something. It did. Do it, just don't get caught. Afterall, that's how we serve "the cause". Katie, better ask MoDo if you can share the corner/alleyway.

Media Deceit - Pelosi's worry about public discourse

Media Deceit is just one reason that the public discourse has become so contentious.  Nancy Pelosi tearfully expressed these concerns yesterday.  ( for more on why voters are so angry, you can visit:  http://www.conservat... )

Domestically, Obama has turned out to be the kind of bully that He
believed the US had become internationally.  ‘Calling out’ adversaries,
using SEIU thugs at town hall meetings to tamp down resistance from
ordinary Americans is proof.  This hasn’t escaped voter’s attention.  CBS has become a part of the bully's tool kit.

 

question for lefties here

How many people die because the government doesn't regulate food, water, electricity, and housing? Shouldn't we have a "moral obligation" to spread the wealth of evil greedy farmers? What good is the right to life and liberty if you're stuck in the streets??

Why does our moral obligation end with public healthcare?

And on the subject of that, why is my moral outrage over abortion considered pretentious, but your moral outrage over healthcare make you a crusader? Since when did we set government policy based on subjective moral judgements? When? Ever since about 20 minutes ago? That's pretty much how it looks to me.

 

How about facts.

2 million amish and Old mennonites that use healthcare but don't buy insurance.  They don't smoke, drink and have sex outside of marriage.  They double in population every 19 years.  They die.  They get killed.  They don't have insurance and don't stiff the hospital for a co-pay. 

45,000 died?

 

Easy to believe.

If their tax rate had been solely to cover legitimate, CONSTITUTIONALLY ENUMERATED POWERS, and none of the feel good 'entitlements', they probably could have afforded HEALTH INSURANCE.

Maybe.... JUST maybe, if the federal government had kept its filthy hands out of the healthcare industry, and NOT PASSED LAWS giving trial lawyers a protected feeding area to prey in, the health care costs would be AFFORDABLE.

But, I'm just a MOB member, educated, intelligent and can do my own thinking, so what the h-ll do I know.

Oh yeah, I VOTE TOO.

 

http://gjresult.com

 

good news?

at the rate of 45,000 per year how long do we have to stall before the problem vanishes?

It's not right

GENDERNALIK: There's a part of me that's lost an opportunity to be my
daughter's father because I have to be out there spending time and
effort battling one referral to the next, one authorization for a drug
to the next. It's not, it's not right.

So reach into your OWN pocket pay for the meds or treatments. Thats what responsable people do they pay their own way. If you really feel your insurance isn't paying what it should then you take them to court. Our insurance costs me 800 a month I'm glad we have it. Now I could save 800 a month or my wife and I could get new cars or upgrade our phone plans or phones buy new t.v.'s or appliances but we decieded that insurance was more important so we pay 800 a month.  

How can one be 40% more likely to die? Don't we all die?

I have a million problems with this survey and the CBS article, namely:

(1) The study did not confirm whether the surveyed persons' claims regarding their insurance status was true or not. So they just took everyone at their word with regards to their insurance status.

(2) The study assessed the individual's status as insured or uninsured BASED ON A SINGLE POINT IN TIME!! This means that if you were uninsured for for one year out of the 13 years you were followed, and that one year coincided with your initial interview, you were considered uninsured despite being insured 92% of the time. Of course, the converse of this is true as well.

(3) The study did not take into account how the deaths occurred. Read that sentence again. The. Study. Doesn't. Care. How. The. Participants. Died. So if you were shot in the head by a burgler, and happened to be uninsured, the study uses your situation to prove that those who are uninsured are more likely to die. This is absurd. A person who is shot in the head died because of a reason wholly unrelated to his status as an uninsured, while a person who died of some health issue that went untreated does matter to the debate. Yet, the study doesn't differentiate between the two situations.

(4) In the words of the article: "researchers found that the uninsured had about a 40 percent higher risk of death." Really? A 40% higher chance of death? OK. I'm insured right now and you know what chance I have of dying? 100%. You know what chance any random uninsured person I pull off the street has of dying? Also 100%. The findings of this study would be much more helpful if they determined the life expectancy of an uninsured person versus an insured one. Because we all die at some point.

We have so many people who can't see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion that the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one.

-Ronald Reagan

unitaryexecutive: Enjoyed

unitaryexecutive:

Enjoyed your post,  Unfortunately it gets worse.

Woodhandler and her cohort/husband? Himmelstien wrote "Illness And Injury As Contributors To Bankruptcy", a huge crap sandwhich which has become universal dogma despite flaws you could drive a Mack Truck through. 

I spent too much time and effort going over the bankruptcy article to feel compelled to go near another propaganda "study" of theirs.  You can peruse my attempt at analysis of the article over in Blonde's healthcare thread, "Health Care: To Reform a la Socialists, or WTH?" , or you could save time and read the actual economics and healthcare management professionals takedown -  Medical Bankruptcy: Myth Versus Fact.

My professional brethren and their misguided opinions.

This study shames the medical profession by poor construction, design and execution.  It violates the most fundamental rules of health research, namely: 1) "association" is NOT the same as "causality"; 2) poor statistical methdology; and 3) inherent researcher biases. To use the computer science term "GIGO" - garbage in, garbage out.

Anytime you start with an agenda, and conveniently ignore evidence to the contrary, you end up with faulty drivel like this study.

Don't take it with a grain of salt.  Take it with a pound.  

And under Obamacare if you

And under Obamacare if you are a republican you have a 40% higher chance of death.