Corporations should have to reveal themselves when making advertisements

[W.E.B. Du Bois]

Most Americans are poorly informed about political issues. Therefore, they are easily manipulated by a flood of ads on TV telling lies about issues that matter to them. With income inequality growing, this becomes more and more easy to do. Rather than banning corporations ability to speak, we should simply require that they take off their masks when they do.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-17/insurers-gave-u-s-chamber-86-million-used-to-oppose-obama-s-health-law.html


"The Chamber of Commerce received the money from the Washington-based America's Health Insurance Plans when the industry was urging Congress to drop a plan to create a competing public insurance option. The spending exceeded the insurer group's entire budget from a year earlier and accounted for 40 percent of the Chamber's $214.6 million in 2009 spending."

[Wingnut]

It's a mistake to believe that the Nov. 2 election results happened because Americans were somehow ignorant or ill informed or that it was just a matter of advertising. The problem for the Democrats is not that Americans didn't understand the Democratic/Obama agenda, but that we did. It wasn't about marketing. As far as disclosing ads paid for by corporations, I see no problem with that, but I think the same should be true for unions.

[Mike]

It's a mistake to believe that the Nov. 2 election results happened because Americans were somehow ignorant or ill informed or that it was just a matter of advertising. The problem for the Democrats is not that Americans didn't understand the Democratic/Obama agenda, but that we did. It wasn't about marketing. As far as disclosing ads paid for by corporations, I see no problem with that, but I think the same should be true for unions.Yes, I agree with full disclosure, too--I wish our Congress and our Supreme Court felt the same way. I disagree, however, that the election results were made by a fully informed electorate. Some are very well-informed--but more are not. We have NEVER had a fully informed electorate. I dare say that all three of US are less than well-informed in some areas and better informed in others.

[Wingnut]

Well, nobody can know everything but I remember over the summer that people had actually read the health care bill and knew what it had in it better than the politicians did. Voters will educate and involve themselves when they have the right motivation. That's what happened leading up to Nov. 2.

[Mike]

Well, nobody can know everything but I remember over the summer that people had actually read the health care bill and knew what it had in it better than the politicians did. Voters will educate and involve themselves when they have the right motivation. That's what happened leading up to Nov. 2. I would argue that some people actually read the bill and some of them knew it's contents better than some politicians. But some is a small relative percentage. I perceive that the larger number of voters were motivated by scary stories about death panels, socialism, and other disinformation from special interests. The bad press about the bill was very analogous to the bad press prior to passage of Medicare decades ago.


It's a mistake to believe that ...Americans were somehow ignorant or ill informed or that it was just a matter of advertising. My remark (subsequent to your quote above) about an invormed vs. uninformed electorate probably didn't reveal it, but in my mind it had more to do with the impact of influence of special interests and wealthy, powerful sources of disinformation--advertising. Even in the beginning of our nation's electoral process the impact of newspaper editors' or magistrates' opinions (which they were able to advertise) was a greater influence of voters' perception than was mere truth. If you really doubt the power of advertising to sway public opinion, then let's talk about why advertising agencies spend billions of dollars to induce you to buy brand X, and why corporations with billions of dollars are anxious to spend to induce you to vote a certain way. Tell me it's because they value freedom of speech, hahahaha.

[Wingnut]

Hummmmmm, I have a feeling you and I would disagree on what is and is not "disinformation" and where it came from.

[Mike]

I have a feeling you're right on some examples, but possibly not on all examples. Let's try each other. I think the claim that the health care bill involved "death panels" is disinformation. Do you perceive it as valid information? How do you think it originated? What interests does it serve (I mean beside the obvious interest of convincing people to reject the bill?)

[Wingnut]

Yes, I think the practical effect of putting everyone on the same insurance will require, in some cases, a cost benefit analysis conducted by whomever. Obama, himself, as much as said so when he was asked about giving an elderly woman a transplant. He said it might be better to take the pain pill instead. I'm paraphrasing somewhat because it's been awhile since I've seen the video but I bet I can still find it if you're not familiar w/ Obama's quote.

Your turn. Do you believe Obama, if he could get it passed, would transform our health care system to a single payor system? I do.

[Mike]

Yes, I think the practical effect of putting everyone on the same insurance will require, in some cases, a cost benefit analysis conducted by whomever. Obama, himself, as much as said so when he was asked about giving an elderly woman a transplant. He said it might be better to take the pain pill instead. I'm paraphrasing somewhat because it's been awhile since I've seen the video but I bet I can still find it if you're not familiar w/ Obama's quote.Yeah, you're going to have to provide evidence in order for us evaluate things evenhandedly.


Your turn. Do you believe Obama, if he could get it passed, would transform our health care system to a single payor system? I doWhat's happening right now in this thread is the branching out of the discussion. Let's limit it to just these two point for now, if that's alright with you, in order to do them justice. I can't answer your question yes or no at the moment, because it's a purely speculative question. Shall we discuss what we both mean by a single payer system? I mean currently Medicare is a single payer system, is it not? Most seniors certainly don't want to give up Medicare. In fact, the fear of losing Medicare was just one scare factor injected into the debate over the last two years. So, doesn't it seem kind of strange to reject an enhancement that in some ways resembles something we already have and don't wish to lose?

[Wingnut]

Yeah, you're going to have to provide evidence in order for us evaluate things evenhandedly.

What's happening right now in this thread is the branching out of the discussion. Let's limit it to just these two point for now, if that's alright with you, in order to do them justice. I can't answer your question yes or no at the moment, because it's a purely speculative question. Shall we discuss what we both mean by a single payer system? I mean currently Medicare is a single payer system, is it not? Most seniors certainly don't want to give up Medicare. In fact, the fear of losing Medicare was just one scare factor injected into the debate over the last two years. So, doesn't it seem kind of strange to reject an enhancement that in some ways resembles something we already have and don't wish to lose?
Ok, Mike. Here's the quote from Obama I was referring to.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJYvaLS-xOw&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Now, can you see where that video doesn't exactly inspire confidence?

This one sums up my basis for the single payer question, and before you very fairly point out that it's been edited to advance a certain point of view, that does not change the quotes within it. By single payer I mean nationalized health care.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-bY92mcOdk&feature=youtube_gdata_player

So glad you brought up Medicare;

According to the American Medical Association’s 2008 Health Insurance Report Card , the health insurer that denies the most claims is Medicare. *This is compared to Aetna, Anthem, Cigna, Coventry, Health Net, Humana, and United Health care. *21% of Medicare’s claim denials had the following “reason code description”: “These are non-covered services because this is not deemed a ‘medical necessity’ by the payer.” It was the 2nd most common reason.

http://www.patientpowernow.org/2009/10/medicare-denies-most-claims/

[Mike]

Ok, Mike. Here's the quote from Obama I was referring to.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJYvaLS-xOw&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Now, can you see where that video doesn't exactly inspire confidence?Yes, I can see where that VIDEO doesn't exactly inspire confidence--that is if you wanted President Obama to tell the lady not to worry, the plan would take care of everything. That isn't the case today with any private insurance company, and it is especially NOT the case for people who can't afford any insurance in the first place. I listened to the video carefully for any remark that smacks of death panels. There was none. How do you go from decisions that must be made through planning for the future and between doctor and patient to death panels? The President refuted the oft-used argument that the plan would take away those choices.

[Mike]

This one sums up my basis for the single payer question, and before you very fairly point out that it's been edited to advance a certain point of view, that does not change the quotes within it. By single payer I mean nationalized health care. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-bY92mcOdk&feature=youtube_gdata_player So glad you brought up Medicare;
http://www.patientpowernow.org/2009/10/medicare-denies-most-claims/ What? Of course the editing changes the quotes. At one point in the video a question was raised about whether single payer equated to socialized medicine and the President's response wasn't even included! As for your statistics, please. Your numbers don't indicate which procedures were denied, it only compares overall denials. That's hardly an accurate picture. What if the denials made by Medicare were legitimate denials for procedures that weren't even necessary? A major complain from both insurance companies and patients over the decades has been the practitioners often recommend procedures that are unnecessary (as judged by panels of other doctors) and even bill Medicare for procedures at higher rates than they would bill a private insurer, or even bill for procedures that weren't really done in the first place. So, I'm sorry but those numbers don't prove anything--they only appeal to those who want to see some numbers they feel will justify their preconceptions.

[Wingnut]

All I can do is give you the information. It's up to you how you want to interpret (or dismiss) it.

[Mike]

All I can do is give you the information. It's up to you how you want to interpret (or dismiss) it.Wow, I have to admit to you then that I'm disappointed. To say that all one can do is give the information and leave it to interpretation seems to me to pretty much defeat the whole purpose of discussion. We might as well just say I like this, you like that, and it's just a matter of opinion. There has to be some point at which somebody convinces one to have a given opinion. I don't consider myself to be the final word on any topic, nor do I consider my opinions to be correct all the time. I really am open to consider and re-consider. I hope for the same from my interlocutors. But I'll respect your interpretation, your opinion and leave it at that, as you wish. Cheers :)

[Wingnut]

Sorry to disappoint, Mike, but you had made the decision that the quote I posted about Medicare meant nothing. Are you really suggesting that every Medicare denial is valid yet no private insurer decision ever is? One of the main things I heard from proponents of health "reform" was to claim that private insurers literally left patients dying on a gurney rather than actually pay for anything. Talk about "scare tactics". For the life of me, I cannot figure out why looking critically at the way Medicare is managed is not a valid thing to do when it comes to concerns about Obamacare. I also cannot figure out how Obama saying in 2003 that he was committed to a single payer system doesn't prove that Obama supports a single payer system. If simple stats and Obama's own words "don't prove anything" maybe you could tell me what would.

[Mike]

Sorry to disappoint, Mike, but you had made the decision that the quote I posted about Medicare meant nothing. Are you really suggesting that every Medicare denial is valid yet no private insurer decision ever is? One of the main things I heard from proponents of health "reform" was to claim that private insurers literally left patients dying on a gurney rather than actually pay for anything. Talk about "scare tactics". For the life of me, I cannot figure out why looking critically at the way Medicare is managed is not a valid thing to do when it comes to concerns about Obamacare. I also cannot figure out how Obama saying in 2003 that he was committed to a single payer system doesn't prove that Obama supports a single payer system. If simple stats and Obama's own words "don't prove anything" maybe you could tell me what would.Perhaps I can clarify my comments. Your Medicare quote was NOT meaningless. And, no, I don't mean to suggest that every Medicare denial is valid while no private insurer decision is invalid. I fear we're allowing the discussion to resort to dichotomies and red-herrings. Statistics are useful, but the statistics you cited didn't do the job--they were vague and didn't compare apples to apples.

As for Obama saying in 2003 that he was committed to a single payer system, that's OK. Medicare is a single payer system by most everyone's account. We've had it for decades and until recently nobody seemed to argue that in itself was a reason to scrap Medicare. But you seem to equate single payer system with socialism--I do not. That in itself is something to argue about because by definition they're not necessarily the same thing. Therefore, the issue of whether President Obama is committed to a single payer system has been a non-issue so far--to me.

[Mike]

So glad you brought up Medicare;

According to the American Medical Association’s 2008 Health Insurance Report Card , the health insurer that denies the most claims is Medicare. *This is compared to Aetna, Anthem, Cigna, Coventry, Health Net, Humana, and United Health care. *21% of Medicare’s claim denials had the following “reason code description”: “These are non-covered services because this is not deemed a ‘medical necessity’ by the payer.” It was the 2nd most common reason.
http://www.patientpowernow.org/2009/...s-most-claims/ Let me draw your attention in another way to the reason I have a problem with these numbers. I investigated the source a little bit further and saw that the numbers are associated with a variety of sites that include variations on the following table. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2009/10/06/deny-guess-who-has-highest-medical-claim-rejection-rate (see Metric 12 Denials) Notice how the author cynically remarks, "well, well" and follows up with a little "weighted average" to knock it out of the ballpark, so to speak. I suspect (as evidenced by your quote bubble) that most readers focus on Medicare having the highest percentage along with that large number (compared to the privates) of denials. But look at the other column that shows the numbers of records on which the percentages are computed.

To illustrate my contention let's imagine that these were stats on NBA players' shots missed (think proportionally, hahaha.) If one player had a percentage of 6.85% shots missed compared to the lowest percentage of 2.68% someone who doesn't follow basketball might think, gee this guy with the 6.85% should be sacked. But when we consider the huge number of shots taken (and subsequently made) it's obvious that such a conclusion is erroneous.

Narrow our examination to just Medicare and Aetna. Is Aetna a better insurer than Medicare? Maybe, maybe not. With only a .05% difference we just don't know because the numbers provided in your quote above or even by the percentages alone don't give us enough information. But when we consider that Medicare processed over 6.9 million records compared to Aetna's .6 million the added information is significant.

Look at those denials themselves in still another way. Consider that the different denial rates might stem from the demographics of Medicare compared with commercial insurance enrollees. Almost all Medicare enrollees are over 65, while commercial insurers have enrollees of varying ages. Since the elderly are more likely to demand high cost medical procedures, and high cost medical procedures are the ones that are more likely to be denied, then Medicare’s higher denial rate may simply be due to the composition of its enrollees. The picture would be very different in a "medicare" that covered everyone from age 1-day old and on up.

Can you see that my contentions are not merely that I like my opinion or something as I think you alluded earlier?

[Wingnut]

I guess the whole point I was trying to make is that it makes no sense to base an entire argument in favor of a health care overhaul (that the majority didn't want) on the villification of private insurers for not paying some claims when a public insurer (if you will) has done the same and on a greater scale. Actually, if you're going to argue that Medicare's decisions are valid (and I'm not arguing that point, let's assume they're all valid) for whatever reason then you're basically conceding that there are valid reasons for denying claims and coverage. Once you concede that, what was the whole point of doing the overhaul in the first place?

[Mike]

I guess the whole point I was trying to make is that it makes no sense to base an entire argument in favor of a health care overhaul (that the majority didn't want) on the villification of private insurers for not paying some claims when a public insurer (if you will) has done the same and on a greater scale. Actually, if you're going to argue that Medicare's decisions are valid (and I'm not arguing that point, let's assume they're all valid) for whatever reason then you're basically conceding that there are valid reasons for denying claims and coverage. Once you concede that, what was the whole point of doing the overhaul in the first place?Really? That was the point you were trying to make? Your earlier remarks said otherwise: that Medicare serves as evidence of why the health care bill is a bad thing. And you tried to back that up by asserting that that Medicare denies more claims than those other insurance companies. You were the one who brought it up.
Contrary to what you said just now, so-called vilification of private insurers for not paying some claims was not/is not the basis for health care overhaul. Private insurers not paying claims is only one component of the larger overall issues that have been at the heart of health care overhaul efforts for decades. And your parenthetical (that the majority don't want) is not very accurate considering that health care overhaul was one of Candidate Obama's major campaign pledges--and of course we all know that he was elected by a majority.
When you say that Medicare "has done the same and on a greater scale" I have to conclude that you didn't read my last remarks very carefully. I showed you how the COMPLETE set of numbers upon which YOUR earlier bubble quote was based actually show just the opposite in terms of "scale".
Moreover, I'm confident that re-reading my remarks would reveal to you that I didn't argue that Medicare's decisions are (all) valid. I'm countered that your bubble quote was misleading because it was incomplete--thereby not warranting your use of it as evidence. So, your premise (what I think of Medicare) is invalid. And if your premise is invalid then logically your conclusion is, too. But I'll save you some effort--no concessions are even necessary. You see, as a former insurance benefits administrator in more than one company, I have observed that both Medicare and private insurers make many valid denial decisions. I've also observed that both Medicare and private insurers make denial decisions that are contestable--in many cases contestation leads to reversals of the denial decisions. You can find supporters (including President Obama) of the health care bill who mention excessive denials as one of many reasons--but not the basis. Which brings me back to refuting your first statement above, i.e. the "whole point (you were) trying to make" was based on a false premise. Methinks your "whole point" was merely setting up a straw man that you thought easy to tear down.

[Mike]

Methinks your "whole point" was merely setting up a straw man that you thought easy to tear down. I retract this remark. It was inappropriate on my part, and I hope you'll accept my apology. I definitely do NOT want to stop a discussion with someone who sees things differently than I see things--since disagreement is what actually gives us something to talk ABOUT. :)