Tweet
"Reform plans not expected to halt soaring premiums" headlines the 9/24/09 edition of the LA Times. The words "public option" are not mentioned until twenty inches into this long thirty-inch article, but then only briefly:
The House bill also features a new government insurance program — or "public option" — that advocates believe could offer consumers a lower-priced alternative to private plans and, in turn, pressure insurers to rein in premiums.
The Baucus proposal, which addresses widespread industry and business opposition to a new government plan, would instead set up a series of nonprofit health insurance cooperatives.
These may not offer much relief to consumers, however. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has concluded that the co-ops outlined by Baucus "seem unlikely to establish a significant market presence in many areas of the country."
That means that premium relief for consumers would depend on a series of indirect steps Baucus and other Democrats are pushing to nudge down medical costs and change the way insurers market their policies.
[...]
That’s it. There is no further mention of "public option."
IMHO, the LA Times editors deserve a lot of mail about this outrageous and deliberate under-reporting.
7 Comments
You are talking about the same newspaper that declined to cover Senator Feinstein’s race for reelection. I called them asking them to cover the race and her opponent from the Green Party.
Their response was to state the other candidate was not newsworthy since he had not been on TV. I told the reporter he had been on FOXN, but apparently that fact was immaterial to the newsroom editor. Dianne’s record was NOT going to be examined by the press. They were all very much in agreement on that issue.
What do they have to hide? Mmm, besides war crimes and using radioactive uranium armaments in a senseless holy war, torture and illegal spying?
Isn’t that enough?
I would say at this point it looks like the LA Times is fully corrupt and quite complicit in very serious war crimes, don’t expect any help from them.
Wigwam, look at what has occurred at the LATimes over the last 2-3 years and all will become clear.
legacy media buries po news/analysis and progressive blogs bury single payer news/analysis. pick your medicine.
Hmmmmm. I consider “medicare for all” to be a form of single payer, and I’ve read a fair amount of push for it here. What am I missing?
well, i wasn’t referring specifically about fdl, but since that was your question: there’s been a ton of single payer news (and analysis by single payer advocates) but i don’t remember any of it being covered by front pagers here (other than bt’s hilarious unintentional mistake on morning swim tues). advocacy as well as news/analysis is almost entirely in the comments and diaries (iow by readers/commenters), but pre-compromised, ignored and/or mocked most elsewhere. if you are interested… for a few examples see here, here, here, here and here. for a v little bit of background see my comments here. for more background, see sara robinson’s interview with ian masters — temporarily on the wbai archive page: tues sep 22 9am (relevant bit is short, starting at about 17 min in).
i’ve been thinking at some point i might write a diary (sorta like my fisa diaries w/ timelines and quotes) for the past year on single payer and progressive blogs. then a bit of sanity sets in and i realize if read it would probably just harden positions.
A-yep. And if you look in the Seminal sidebar, it’s all SP all the time.
excellent point PW. and yet, the so-called “health care news” links NEVER include any single payer related news or analysis.
thanks for helping me make the point.