Newspapers Fail to Recognize Liberal Leanings of Families USA

By Lyndsi Thomas | March 27, 2008 - 12:41 ET

From windy Washington, D.C., to sunny Palm Beach, Florida, the liberal print media are refusing to note the liberal bent of an interest group vocal in the health care debate.

The March 26 edition of the Palm Beach Post -- a broadsheet notorious to conservatives for its unbalanced treatment of Rush Limbaugh -- featured not one but two articles which pushed government-run universal health care. In both of them, the Post asserted that Floridians are dying daily due to a lack of health care coverage.

The source for the Post’s assertion was a recent study by the liberal group Families USA. Not surprisingly, the Post described the organization as simply a “nonpartisan” group that advocates for “comprehensive health care” while conveniently leaving out the group’s liberal tendencies, its support of socialist-style universal healthcare and that its political allies include liberal Democratic politicians such as Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and former Sen. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.)

Families USA was also responsible in 2007 for a TV ad called “Bush vs. Kids” which sought to expand the SCHIP program well beyond low-income families. The reauthorization bill of the SCHIP would have raised the general federal income eligibility threshold from 200 percent to 300 percent of the federal poverty level. What’s more, on its Web site, the group denounces conservative-friendly policies such as President Bush’s Healthcare Tax Deduction Proposal as well as Health Savings Accounts, both endorsed by President Bush.

Other Sunshine State papers have also recently published stories pushing Families USA’s agenda. The Orlando Sentinel and the St. Petersburg Times both picked up the same study as the Palm Beach Post and asserted that a number of Floridians die each day due to a lack of health insurance. Both of these papers, like the Post, failed to note Families USA’s liberal leanings. The Sentinel called the group a “national organization for health care consumer” and the Times referred to the organization as a “national advocacy group.” The Times, however, also failed to note the Democratic party affiliation of two U.S. Representatives from Florida who, as the Times reported, participated in a Families USA conference call regarding the study and said that reform is needed to make healthcare more available.

Outside of Florida, Michelle Singletary, the Washington Post’s personal finance columnist, wrote an article published on March 16 in which the columnist described Families USA as a “non profit, national organization that advocates for high quality, affordable healthcare for all Americans.” This description comes right from the “About Us” section of the organization’s website. Later in the article, Singletary attempts to guilt those with insurance into supporting the ideas of Families USA by explaining that those without insurance, particularly minorities, are “the workers and caregivers who provide needed services” as opposed to people who “just want a handout.” I wonder what she thinks of conservatives who don’t support socialized health care. Singletary usually advocates for personal responsibility for things such as not overusing credit cards and getting into debt. But apparently, personal responsibility doesn’t apply to healthcare. Why should it when the government can take care of it for you?

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.

I remember someone from Florida dying

because they took her health care away! All the libs were pushing to take Terri Schiavo off life support. I hope that's as close to universal health care we ever get.

 Scoreboard:
Universal health care - 1

Recipients - 0

fonzie... Perfect...just

fonzie...

Perfect...just perfect.

"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill

Thanks, bigtimer,

that was such a sad story, how her family fought and fought to save her, and the big machine had it's way with all of them. Tragic.

fonz... Yep...and the

fonz...

Yep...and the daily countdown in the msm was beyond sickeneing...the death watch, while they belittled some of the Senators on the right side of life.

I will never forget.

Premimum health care indeed...universal don't ya' know...just ask any leftist. 

"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill

It was almost like

they were looking forward to her dying. It was really disgusting, but maybe it can be used as a bad example for those who think they want the government controlling their health care. By controlling health care, they really would control our lives. And that my friend, is one of the scariest things I can think of.

fonz... I could not agree

fonz...

I could not agree more.

"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill

yep

I couldnt have stated that better myself.  Already in England, France and Canada they are dictating who recieves critical care.  If you are over a certain age (hello Logan's Run?) they won't bother trying to do the "more expensive" surgeries on you.

Is that REALLY what we want in America?  Decreased health, liberty and freedom?

I just wish we could have a true conservative who was truly strong on national D-fence (intentional), and wanted to stop at least 95% of the welfare programs we have... do people realize how free and powerful our economy would become if we went back to a 7% tax rate?  How much liberty and freedom we would gain back?

Is this group in any way

Is this group in any way associated with the "Divided we fall" campaign that AARP is prominately promoting? You know, the campaign and frequent commercials supporting universal health care? What a bunch of phooey propaganda. I always wonder how much money AARP has, given the amount of money they spend advocating socialist programs.

___________________________________ 

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber

BTW

The methodology of the "report" by Families USA was so poor and statistically flawed that they only released their summaries (i.e. press releases), but will not release the methodology. (It is not available on their website; and I have e-mailed them for it, but have received no response.)

Families USA is famous (or infamous) for their reports of poorly done and biased “studies” that end up as exaggerated press releases meant for suckers (i.e. Media, non-critical thinkers - most of Americans) whose findings are discarded when they are reviewed after the fact. I have no reason to believe that this is any different.

Remember this?

According to Families USA, 14.3 million U.S. residents spend more than 25% of their incomes on health care; this number grew by one-quarter between 2000 and 2004.

When analyzed, became this:

In 2004, it is estimated that about 4.9% of people in the U.S. were part of a family whose total healthcare utilization (by those under age 65) cost someone an amount equal to at least 25% of that family’s annual earnings; this number may have grown by 15% since 2000 from 4.1%.

Healthcare assumptions

The theory in both articles is that people without healthcare coverage wait too long to see a doctor, based on the fear that they won't be able to pay for the care. But since no hospital is allowed to turn away a patient, the question isn't the lack of healthcare. The healthcare is there. The problem is the cost. The logical calculus is that you have a choice between receiving care and having no money, versus postponing care and dying. (Like the old Jack Benny joke - "your money or your life? I'm thinking, I'm thinking!") Universal healthcare is a remedy that places the cost on society overall, not on any individual. But healthcare doesn't magically come free. We still have to pay for it.

Let's face it, universal healthcare is simply a method to lay off the cost for the uninsured onto society as a whole. We taxpayers agree to pick up the tab for those who can't afford it. Now to be clear, I don't really mind that so much. After all, since we mandate hospitals to treat people no matter their insurance status, we're theoretically doing it now anyway - only we should pick up much more of the tab. 

The problem is that "universal healthcare" isn't merely an adjustment to the system. It completely changes it. It removes healthcare from the restraint of the marketplace, and the costs will skyrocket. Right now, 40 million (?) can't afford it. But if we go universal, all 300 million of us won't be able to afford it either. Inevitably, the only remedy then will be to reduce care.

Healthcare costs

The single-payer model is indeed cheap
because of price controls and rationing of goods and services.
Americans won’t stand for this. U.S. health care is so expensive (apart
from the wealth of the country) for 2 major reasons: government (insane
overegulation) and demand.

Americans demand the best of the best (regardless of the marginal
benefit) because, for the most part, someone else is paying - either
government or employers. Likewise, we demand everything close-by and
fast despite the the fourth or fifth largest land mass with a
relatively low population density, which requires all available
services everywhere regardless of necessity - high marginal costs, low
marginal benefit.

The type of health care system has little to do with broad outcome
measures (i.e. life expectancy) since the majority of such measures
have more to do with lifestyle and genetics. The U.S. actually has the
highest “natural” life expectancy when controlled for accidents and
crime. Most of the other discrepancies in these broad outcome measures
we hear about (e.g. infant death rates, etc.) tend to be due to
measurement differences. In general, we have reached limits of current
technology and genetics, so slight increases in outcomes have an
increased marginal cost, which Americans demand because they are
removed from the economic consequences of such decisions.

Healthcare reform is more of a cultural and political problem than
medical or economic. I don’t have time to go into extreme detail.
Basically, Healthcare Coverage Initiative Advisory Group is
recommending the worst of the Mass. plan and Ken Blackwell’s proposal
because it is the easiest to institute politically.