NPR legal reporter Nina Totenberg criticized conservative opposition to socialized medicine on Friday’s edition of the talk-show Inside Washington, distributed to PBS stations. She suggested that Republican delays are "mischief-making," proclaimed "the misinformation on what’s in the bill is astonishing," and even suggested she was about to use a crude metaphor for the overwhelming power of insurers: "The insurance companies have – unless there’s a very aggressive regulator, they have – I was about to use an expression one shouldn’t use on television."
First, she complained that Republican leaders are obstructing progress on health care:
And the reason that the Gang of Six, so-called, in the Senate Finance Committee didn’t produce something is that the Republican leadership intervened and said ‘Don’t do this. Leave us August to do what we can do.’ You can call it mischief-making, you can call it obstructionism, you can call it constructive criticism, but that’s what happened.
From there, the longtime NPR star went on the attack against the overwhelming power of insurers. I’d guess she was going to say insurers have Americans by the family jewels:
TOTENBERG: One thing that nobody mentions is the insurance companies have an antitrust exemption. And if – you can’t talk to a doctor or a small business insurer who isn’t sort of presented with the rates they’re going to pay. Where it’s the doctor and liability, or the small business insurer wants to buy for their employees. The insurance companies have – unless there’s a very aggressive regulator, they have – I was about to use an expression one shouldn’t use on television.
GORDON PETERSON, host: Let’s try to stay on the air.
Just like the PBS show Washington Week in the half-hour preceding it on Washington PBS station WETA, Inside Washington talked about Speaker Nancy Pelosi telling Judy Woodruff on the NewsHour that the insurance companies made "immoral profits," and Rep. Virginia Foxx suggesting the new talk from Team Obama about Medicare sending "end-of-life" specialists to discuss medical wishes with the elderly is akin to execution:
PETERSON: Republican Congressman [sic] Virginia Foxx of North Carolina, she said on the House floor that the Republican plan would not put seniors in the position of being put to death by their government. I just wanna say, as someone in that age group, I support that. (Laughter.)
TOTENBERG: The misinformation about what’s in the bill is astonishing. The misinformation – some of it, you know, by error, and some of it, a great deal of it by deliberation -- is really astonishing.
Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer replied to Totenberg that in single-payer health systems like Britain's, the elderly are not granted organ transplants or other life-extending therapies, and they die because of a government decision.
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center.




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Insurance Companies.....
August 1, 2009 - 07:13 ET by Gecks....are not in the business of losing money. Nobody is in the business of losing money.
Insurance companies have stockholders to answer to, and if they didn't pay dividends, nobody would invest in the company. If they need money, they raise rqtes.
The Obama Government, on the other hand, continue to squander our money, should have to answer to the taxpayers (but don't) and if they need more money, they raise taxes.
And the difference is????????
I'm just sayin...
Gecks
"Your right to Life, Liberty, and the Persuit of Happiness ends at my front door, and my wallet!"-Me!
Rahm's influence rears it's ugly head...
August 1, 2009 - 07:30 ET by BKeyserA slightly revised way of saying the exact same thing would be:
"And the reason that the Gang of Six, so-called, in the Senate Finance
Committee didn’t produce something is that the Republican leadership
intervened and said ‘Don’t do this. Leave us August to do what we can
do.’ You can call it mischief-making, you can call it obstructionism,
you can call it good for the country, but that’s what happened."
For years, Libs complained that the poor needed health insurance
August 1, 2009 - 08:26 ET by ekslibI guess they used to think health insurance was just fine.
NPR legal reporter
August 1, 2009 - 08:59 ET by MidAmericaNPR legal reporter Nina Totenberg criticized conservative opposition to socialized medicine on Friday’s edition....
I don't believe calling her a 'reporter' is accurate in this instance. Here, she is an advocate. And since she has chosen sides in this debate she can no longer 'report' on this issue.
Liberal Calculus
August 1, 2009 - 09:13 ET by allanfBad:
Good:
I bet some of the people in "Bad" category are begnining to regret the voted for Obama.
Dianne Feinstein might
August 1, 2009 - 09:26 ET by BKeyserDianne Feinstein might disagree with you on number 4 under the "Good" heading.
Additional
August 1, 2009 - 09:38 ET by ThisnThatAdditional Bad:
Good:
___________________________________
Maybe this isn't going to help. Maybe you're better off not having this surgery but taking the painkiller - Obamacare
Age-inappropriate Sex Education
August 1, 2009 - 13:14 ET by allanfI call it age inappropriate sex education. I don't think schools should be involved in the sex lives of children.
The fascinating thing here
August 1, 2009 - 09:20 ET by celatorThe fascinating thing here is how in lockstep the radical democrats carry the same message at the same time. This week the message is all about the big, bad insurance companies.
First Pelosi begins braying like a donkey about them, then government sponsored Totenberg carries the designated water pail. We can expect Newsweek to do an expose on insurance companies real soon.
Something stupid about insurance companies will be said by The View animals, Olberdoofus, Matthews, Maddow, etc in the few days.
These "this is what we will say" message cycles seem to last about a week, then some other villain is chosen.
Someone, somewhere is pushing these messages. Could it be Axelpod? Raum "tutu" Emmanuel? Robert Fibbs?
Interesting (and easy) to observe. But talk about a bunch of trained seals.
No citizen's right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, or property is safe as long as Obama is President of the United States.
Another Message
August 1, 2009 - 11:45 ET by allanfNo matter what the message cycle says, elderlly people don't want their medicare benefits tampered with.
(Actually I have met a few here in Florida who are such Obama fans, they agreeed it was better not to give his mother a hip replacement when I explained it to them. But such unyielding old socialists are the exception).
Actually, I question the hip for a terminal person, too
August 1, 2009 - 12:06 ET by StarAZI question whether someone so sick should have such a big surgery--but MY point it that people decide these things within their families or on their own. Self-rationing, kind of, based on personal taste and common sense. These decisions get made. Doctors don't kidnap you and operate just for the money.
everyone has a different line
August 1, 2009 - 12:16 ET by candanceSome folks out there, if money gets too tight, would say prosthetic limbs are a luxury, or that diabetics can get by with inconvenient devices. The beauty of our current system is that families are allowed to make whatever decision they want.
Horse Hockey
August 1, 2009 - 09:22 ET by slickwillie2001This is nonsense. Even if you accept the premise that the many competitive insurance companies we have to choose from have us trapped, that's still an infinitely better position to be in than to have an overbearing, corrupt and incompetent federal government trap us, after they have eliminated all the competition.
Second, if you don't like the insurance companies, you always have a last resort, pull out your credit card and do business in cash. Under Obamacare, I am convinced that that option has to be eliminated as well because it will present competition to Obamacare which the democratics will not tolerate.
>>>Slick
August 1, 2009 - 09:29 ET by BKeyserI believe you're correct: that option will be eliminated in the form of legal action against anyone not covered. This will come in the form of additional tax assessments or fines totaling more than the cost of the private insurance.
Someone needs to ask Nina
August 1, 2009 - 09:52 ET by CaringwhiteguyWhen the Government is running health care, who will have us all by the ****s?
The only problem with her response is that if she says "Why the Government, of course", that means she will be happy.
Let's see.
August 1, 2009 - 10:42 ET by StarAZWe have good insurance now, but our company says why bother and starts screwing with it, so it becomes "changed" and then we can't stay on it or be rewitten, so we get Public Doodad. Then we pay the IRS our premiums--or they scoop them out of our accounts. We also must keep up wqith our doctor panel to be sure needed tests or treatments are allowed or we haven't exceeded our MRI quota or sone study does not show we don't need a certain drug, etc. We also may be treated to home visits by parenting teachers to make sure we are up to snuff there. And don't forget our death meets--where the feds ask about our plans for future survival. But yeah, Tina--you better hope you keep NPR--they are laying off. Oh, that's right, you will keep what you have. Well, enjoy it.
"Under Obamacare, I am
August 1, 2009 - 17:01 ET by ckc1227"Under Obamacare, I am convinced that that option has to be eliminated
as well because it will present competition to Obamacare which the
democratics will not tolerate."
Plus it's not fair that you can use a credit card to buy more health care than the poor guy who doesn't have that option.
She claims there is rampant
August 1, 2009 - 10:02 ET by snaggletoothieShe claims there is rampant misrepresentation of the bill. Yes, there is so much of it that she can come up with one instance from one person. Now, really, who is demonstrabily FOS?
Actualy she is right
August 1, 2009 - 10:20 ET by general companyAnd the misrepresentation is from the left
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
In an odd way, I'm grateful to Nina Totenberg
August 1, 2009 - 10:31 ET by ekslibHer slanted coverage of the hearings for Justice Thomas helped convince me that I needed to bolt from the Liberal Party. (I had occasionally voted for socialist candidates.)
As I watched the televised hearings, I realized that the movers and shakers of my party were willing to shred the reputation of a fellow citizen, in order to keep him off the court. Totenberg helped me realize that the Democratic party stank like the carcass of a dead mule.
I didn't care for George HW Bush, but it seemed to me that Clarence Thomas was being attacked mostly because he might endanger Roe v Wade. And I had a feeling that the Democrats didn't want a Republican president to be given credit for placing a black American on the Supreme court.
Even though I didn't become a conservative until several years later, I was repelled enough by the Democrats' treatment of Thomas to flee from them like the plague.