CNN anchor Campbell Brown used a proponent’s own talking point about President Obama’s planned health care socialization as she pressed a doctor over his skepticism of the project during her program on Monday: “There’s plenty of evidence...that...two-thirds of all bankruptcies in this country [are] due to people’s medical bills. It’s clear the current system isn’t working, so why not be open to trying this?”
Brown hosted Dr. Jorge Rodriguez, a supporter of the president’s plan, and Dr. Eric Novack, a senior fellow for the conservative Americans for Prosperity, for her regular “Great Debate” segment. After an opening statement from the two doctors on the health care issue, the anchor asked Dr. Rodriguez, “What do you say to critics who charge what we’re talking about, what we’re debating is really socialized medicine- that people envision hours of waiting to get into- you know, to get to see a doctor, the rationing of our health care?”
When he replied, and following a back-and-forth between the two physicians, Brown turned to Dr. Novack and used a talking point Dr. Rodriguez had earlier used: “Doctor Novack- again, without getting into the specifics, which we don’t have all the details on- you heard what Dr. Rodriguez said about the number of bankruptcies- and there’s plenty of evidence to suggest this- that 53%, or two-thirds of all bankruptcies in this country [are] due to people’s medical bills....I mean, it’s clear the current system isn’t working....So why not be open to trying this?”
The conservative doctor took issue with the figure: “Well, first of all, Campbell, the study that showed- that claimed to demonstrate the number of medical bankruptcy- the number of bankruptcies due to medical conditions was actually done by people who are the most avowed people in favor of Canadian-style single-payer health care.” The CNN anchor interrupted with a follow-up: “So you think the current system is working?”
Dr. Novack acknowledged the “serious flaws” with the health care system today, but continued with further skepticism: “The question of what’s being discussed is the health care that you enjoy, your children enjoy, my children enjoy, is essentially at risk....So...what we’re saying is that we should throw all of this away because of a plan that might work? I think some evidence would be helpful.”
Dr. Rodriguez answered this with his own retort: “There are- you know, I think it’s very ironic that you say the health care that your children enjoy, the health care that I enjoy, but there are 47 million people and children that don’t enjoy any health care whatsoever....Now who’s going to protect them?”
The CNN anchor closed the segment with her usual question to her debate segment participants on whether the two could find “common ground” on the controversial issue. Despite her “socialized medicine” question to Dr. Rodriguez, Brown was more pressing with her line of questioning to her conservative guest.
—Matthew Balan is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Campbell, "so why not be open to trying this?”
June 23, 2009 - 16:28 ET by Gary HallThat's a good one.
Oh, all right.. when I was young and a bit wilder and woolier, I think that was one of my dating techniques. Hey! It worked sometimes, and didn't others.
For a cool $trillion, I bet that I would have got most all of them in bed - but the secret to true success still lies in being able to follow up.
And, on that account Campbell, the government has long convinced most of us (on both sides of the isle) that the govenment can't actually deliver on a promise. The govenement is mostly about red tape, fraud, corruption and waste.
(;~> gary
The Gary Hall pesky ...um..um...
June 23, 2009 - 16:35 ET by BlondeRead your penultimate sentence and tell me how that relates to, um, dating and open-mindedness, again.
:D
P.S. I'd rather have you betting a cool trillion on your sex life than Bamster betting a trillion on improving the economy...I'd bet on you there, fella.
I hope he fails, too.
Blonde..
June 23, 2009 - 16:59 ET by Gary Hall..getting pesky and frisky mixed up here, ya think? hee hee
(;~> gary
Well Gar.....
June 23, 2009 - 17:02 ET by BlondeSometimes from the female perspective....they're one in the same. Actually, just giving you a little tweak! :)
I hope he fails, too.
WHY NOT BE OPEN TO...
June 23, 2009 - 19:43 ET by reelman46Less gov-meant spending
Lowering taxes
Reforming-saving SS a few years ago
Sealing the border
Complete honesty about program costs
Honesty about near future tax plans
and so on and so on and so on...what nerve...take a hike, lying secular socialists!
Doug Schexnayder, Ph.D. (theconservativecrawfish)
Campbell, try this?
June 24, 2009 - 00:19 ET by m1xramThere's lots of things to try... like you could jam an ice pick through your foot. It just doesn't seem like a good idea though.
The Dating Analogy Holds...
June 24, 2009 - 10:31 ET by farstar99Because accepting government health care is like losing your virginity.
There is no going back.
Obama, the Democrats and the media flacks like Brown, know this perfectly well.
Why Not Try It?
June 23, 2009 - 16:33 ET by JDWWhat's the Main Cause of State Budget Shortfalls?
Which response to the poll won?
JDW
DAILY WAVE
When people fear their government there is tyranny.
When government fears the people there is liberty.
That "47 million people
June 23, 2009 - 16:42 ET by suzycreamcheeseThat "47 million people without health care" is bunk and it's been proven as bunk.
Plus, how do you "try" something like socialized helath care? Once given, it can never be taken away. Such a stupid statement.
I can't wait
June 23, 2009 - 16:57 ET by ahusserFor the largest boondoggle in the history of this country (maybe the world?). The imposition of forced health care in this country with the largest bureaucracy, which will be needed, in all history and of course the huge increase in taxation on those able to pay to pay for all the multi-millions of deadbeats who will be partaking of the "free" healthcare. Corruption, dislocation, confusion, bureaucracy gone wild. It will be quite a frustrating and hearbreaking show.
"Somehow, I told you so, just doesn't quite say it." Will Smith in 'I, Robot.'
Its 50 million
June 23, 2009 - 16:58 ET by allanfI just got a return email from my Senator, Bill Nelson. He quoted 50 million uninsured.
Aside from the faux statistic, community rating of policies, an assigned risk pool are all reasonable idea. Unfortunately, we all know that's just the beginining and there will be much more than what Senator Nelson wrote.
Bill Nelson is full of it
June 23, 2009 - 17:05 ET by BlondeAfter his third pro-stimulus reply, I have relegated his e-mails to my junk senders list.
He's one of the Senators who have to go. Useless as teats on a boar hog.
I hope he fails, too.
Hey Campbell!
June 23, 2009 - 16:57 ET by RousseHey Campbell! How about universal car insurance? Can't we just try it? I've got my eye on this red 2008 Shelby GT 500 ...
the 47 million BIG LIE
June 23, 2009 - 16:57 ET by political mavenHow many of the people who went bankrupt didn;t bother BUYING health insurance because they had bigger priorities like cable TV, movies, vacations, hobbies, ball games, another pair of shoes, etc, etc?
How many are illegals?
How many are under 30 and play the odds that they won;t get sick?
How about tort reform?? litigation is what drives costs more than anything!
Why is the Government responsible for taking care of people too stupid to make good choices??? ARGH!!!!!!
Did you hear about the dyslexic agnostic insomiac? He lays in bed all night contemplating the existence of Dog.
47 Million Uninsured
June 24, 2009 - 09:34 ET by allanfLiberals always declare a "crisis" and cite some unreferenced and unveriable statistic.
How many of the 47 million are veterans who use the VA Health Care system. How many are illegal aliens? How many are healthy young people who don't want the expense of a policy? Where was the "study" done, who did the study? Are there studies that came to different conclusions?
How many American's are denied life saving care because they are uninsured? How many American's end up with ruinous debt because of an unexpected illness?
Try it! The first one is free.
June 23, 2009 - 16:57 ET by ptg'Why Not Be Open to Trying' heroin?
53% is 53 percent, 66.6% is 2/3
June 23, 2009 - 17:01 ET by compguytracyI also bankrupted, and would love affordable health care, but not at the expence of freedom
"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?…
Ceteris paribus
Uh, maybe because once it
June 23, 2009 - 17:05 ET by Chris NormanUh, maybe because once it gets up and running, like a vampire, it will be next to impossible to kill.
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
Exactly how would we undo
June 23, 2009 - 17:23 ET by TigerExactly how would we undo the great big oops?
I agree with Campbell Brown
June 23, 2009 - 17:24 ET by acumenI'm open to trying ObamaCare.
As long as we try it on our elected government officials and other federal emplyees first before forcing the plan on the private sector. Currently, federal employees, retirees and their survivors enjoy the widest selection of health plans in the country.
If ObamCare is a better health care plan than presently offered to federal employees, I see no reason why members of Congress and the Administration should balk at replacing their current aristocratic tax subsidized health care plans for ObamaCare. Of course an extended period of testing would be desirable so the nation can better understand if ObamaCare is a viable substitue for the current system. Seven and a half years should be an appropriate amount of time for the study.
I'm even open to Pelosi attaching an amendment to ObamaCare protecting her current coverage of chronic plastic surgery condition.
acumen... WHAT! Congress
June 23, 2009 - 17:38 ET by bigtimeracumen...
WHAT!
Congress-critters abiding and living by their own laws, their own lovely plans we all must live by....says them.
Surely you jest!
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
Why not be open to trying suicide?
June 23, 2009 - 17:47 ET by pockets64First: 53% is closer to "half" than "two thirds." If you want two thirds, use a number like 63%.
Second: electric, gas, water, food bills are all expensive. The cheapest ways out of paying for any of these are prison and death. "So why not be open to trying this?"
BS Piled Deep
June 23, 2009 - 18:27 ET by slickwillie2001Re "two-thirds of all bankruptcies in this country [are] due to people’s medical bills", this is a hogwash figure from a BS study that has been debunked before, but it seems to live on just as the "90% of all guns used in Mexican crimes came from the USA" hogwash does. Once the liberals latch onto fake data that supports their program, they will not let it go.
The 50%, or 53%, or two-thirds number includes:
-people who are bankrupt and whose debts include only at least $1,000 in medical bills within a two year period before bankruptcy.
-people who are bankrupt for reasons including because they were incapable of work because of medical problems, and the unavailability has a minimum of only two weeks during the two years before the bankruptcy.
-people who are in bankruptcy because of reasons that include extremely loosely-defined medical problems including "birth/addition of new family member, death in family, alcohol or drug addiction, or uncontrolled gambling." (I'm surprised they missed an addiction to expensive hookers.)
According to the criteria of this report, a person with $1,000 of medical bills and a $50,000 tab at Hooters or Lord & Taylor or the Bada Bing that goes into bankruptcy, is 'bankrupt because of medical costs'. A person that misses work for two weeks because of illness and then declares bankruptcy for any reason within two years is declared 'bankrupt because of medical costs.' A woman that gets breast implants or a facelift and declares bankruptcy two years later is 'bankrupt because of medical costs', no matter what happened during those two years. All of the data in this 'report' are self-reported by the respondents.
You get the idea. This 'report' is such hogwash that it is simply garbage. Using such loose criteria I wonder why the authors didn't simply declare that all bankruptcies are related to medical costs. On how many bankruptcies are caused by medical costs, there is no reliable data.
Reference: (The original massively defective study): Illness and Injury as Contributors to Bankruptcy: http://content.healthaffairs.org
Reference: Health Problems and Bankruptcy: Are 50% of Bankruptcies Health-Related?: http://volokh.com/archives
Hammer That Nail!
June 23, 2009 - 18:52 ET by stratmanCampbell Brown is as dumb as a scud missle and about as accurate.
Slickwillie2001:
Did you read my post on this (seen here) or do great minds think alike?
Regardless, the 50% Bankruptcy figure is bullshite cooked up by activist physicians who appear to believe, like a woman politician who's name escapes me at the moment, that politicizing healthcare is not a principled fight.
These folks sold their souls (no wonder they are godless) and will lie, cheat and steal to get power and their way.
Re Hammer
June 23, 2009 - 19:18 ET by slickwillie2001Great thread and comment, from April. I didn't comment on it so maybe I was away that day. There were a few articles here where this garbage study has come up. Unfortunately the bad data fits the liberal narrative so it will be used forever. I probably picked up the seed from Volokh's blog, one of 50 or so blogs I read every night.
Your April comment includes a link to this article -Medical Bankruptcy, Myth vs Fact: http://content.healthaffairs.org
...the article is a study which is a direct refutation of the original study, a keeper. From the abstract: "A reexamination of their data suggests that medical bills are a contributing factor in just 17 percent of personal bankruptcies and that those affected tend to have incomes closer to poverty level than to middle class."
PS This is much like the garbage study done on the homeless, which counted someone as 'homeless' if they lived in a motel for example, or the study on hunger which counted someone as 'suffering from hunger' if they admitted to going to bed hungry at least three nights within the previous year, for example.
As I suspected... great
June 23, 2009 - 22:36 ET by stratmanAs I suspected... great minds do think alike. ;-)
I wrote up that post in refutation of the fallacious bankruptcy comment Jer made, though I don't think Jer was being malicious, he just didn't study the original article with enough detail.
My shock was finding a great profesional response article after all the time I spent examining the activist tripe. I decided to publish my thoughts as well as the professionally written article link and let the chips fall where they might. Unfortunately, Jer never got back to me on this topic.
Amazing how those on the Left will self-identify what they do as unprincipled yet maintain theirs is the moral high ground.
Another way to look at this is the Left will cheat, lie, and steal to gain power when they realize their ideas are meritouriously bankrupt.
I love a study that is intellectually bankrupt.
June 23, 2009 - 19:13 ET by acaiguanaSorry, I already knew the facts behind the study. It is junk.
I just could not help myself.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana notes from the Underground' (Soon to be at theaters near you)
ObamaCare will be the final nail in America's coffin
June 23, 2009 - 18:27 ET by R D HelmOnce we cross over our national Rubicon, there will be no coming back, and our health care system won't be the only casualty, either.
-Dave
Obama's health care "reform" plan is to blow up the building in order to fix a leak in the roof-Herman Cain
"why not be open to trying
June 23, 2009 - 19:07 ET by nolotrippen"why not be open to trying this"
She's the kind of person who would play Russian roulette with a shotgun.
"I assume you mean a single shot shotgun?", she said.
June 24, 2009 - 17:37 ET by acaiguanaOh yeah. all shotguns are single shot - shucks.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana notes from the Underground' (Soon to be at theaters near you)
I want one of these - AA-12
June 24, 2009 - 19:44 ET by stratmanI want one of these - AA-12 Combat Shotgun!
Here's an informal
June 23, 2009 - 19:26 ET by moderncommentaries83Here's an informal poll.
How many of you would
A) Prefer to pay for your own health insurance, knowing the bills for a catastrophic injury or serious illness might bankrupt you, but having the ability to receive some of the best medical care in the world
B) Prefer the government pays for your health insurance, believing it's "free", while some government actuary decides whether or not it's worth giving you the cancer meds or if the ER can handle your life-threatening injuries
Because the way I see it, bankruptcy sucks, but it's a temporary state of being. Dead is rather permanet. Especially when the government denies you care because you're too old, too fat, voted for McCain in 2008, are a Christian, etc.
Aut viam inveniam aut faciam
"Because the way I see it,
June 23, 2009 - 19:29 ET by nolotrippen"Because the way I see it, bankruptcy sucks, but it's a temporary state of being. Dead is rather permanet."
Now if you could just figure out a way to teach that basic logic to the gimmie masses.
"I mean, it’s clear the
June 23, 2009 - 22:10 ET by ckc1227"I mean, it’s clear the current system isn’t working....So why not be open to trying this?"
With so many people dying from cancer every year, it's clear that current treatments aren't working....So why not be open to trying injections of gasoline to cure people's cancer?
By the way, Campbell, we don't have to try it to see if it works. There are already plenty of examples we can look at from those who have tried it. What's next, are you going to recommend we be open to throwing pigs out of airplanes...you know, just to see if they can fly?
There were a little over a million personal bankruptcies in 2008....If the 2/3 claim is correct, that would be about 600,000 people a year.....out of 300 million. Yeah, let's ruin the best health care system in world for over 99% of the population because of the less than 1% who file bankruptcy, most likely because they chose not to buy health insurance, even though they could afford it.
iamtinman
June 24, 2009 - 01:31 ET by IamTinmanI don't care how many times I have to file bankruptcy. As long as I'm filling out the paperwork, I'm still breathing! That's much better than the alternative.
Well don't this jest prove it
June 24, 2009 - 00:59 ET by DelsaCampbell is dumber than a donut hole!
And look out, she may try the "ice pick in the foot".
Its a big lie to say that 47
June 24, 2009 - 01:19 ET by KevroyIts a big lie to say that 47 million dont have 'health care'. They might lack health INSURANCE but not health care.Any ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT can walk into an emergency room and they will not be turned away.
CNN Please find someone to replace that woman!
June 24, 2009 - 01:28 ET by IamTinmanEvery time Campbell opens her mouth, she provides further evidence that she is totally incompetent!
There are already numerous examples to prove that national health doesn't work. Those of us with canadian relatives know how badly it works for them and how many come here for care. My business partner is a Brit and he hears the same from his relatives in England.
Look closely at the fraud and abuse in any program run by this government. Then try to convince yourself that this program would be the one that actually work. Fat chance!!
Because, idiot::
June 24, 2009 - 02:34 ET by MeowMeowYou can't just "try" nationalizing health care, decide you don't like it, and then roll it back. It's forever. FDR's social programs, anyone?
Why is it they always tout
June 24, 2009 - 02:53 ET by JimmeWhy is it they always tout the so called "47 million" without health care but they never seem to discuss the 253 million who do have health care that they are so eager to throw under the bus for the sake of equal but inferior care?
Why does no one ever mention the fact that a much higher percentage of Americans with serious health conditions survive then do citizens from any other nation period!
And why didn't anyone point out the fact that even if the 53% figure was correct , which is obviously Bull, that would not equal "two thirds".
Lastly why is it no one highlights the fact that the biggest reason why health care is so expensive in the US is the ONE thing that Obamacare doesn't even want to touch, TORT REFORM!!!!!!!
47 million
June 24, 2009 - 03:48 ET by sudmufI see the media is still brow beating people with 47 million uninsured lie again. It's the typical marxist/socialist "big lie" technique. Tell a lie loud enough and long enough and people will believe it.
Fear
June 24, 2009 - 07:50 ET by sevenI suspect lying about who is not covered tells us what they will lie about for reimbursement. In Obamascare, they won't need to define coverage. They will do that by phone. You get a service and the tell the doc it wasn't covered. The cuts come from cheeting docs.
obamacare
June 24, 2009 - 10:40 ET by jessieHjessieH Why should WE try obamacare? good question. The govt. gives away all of OUR tax dollars, and now he wants to pass a healthcare bill? Why should WE even be listening to this guy. If WE need a healthcare plan, then he should have tried to get it passed BEFORE he gave the money away. Now WE can't afford it.
What's wrong with trying?!!
June 24, 2009 - 12:25 ET by twinpondWith the cost projections for this monster, trying Obama's health care system would be like buying a herd of cattle just to try a hamburger! Once you have it and find you don't like it, it's too flippin late! You're strapped with it!