Skip to main content

View Diary: NPR Hatchet Job at Trying to Discredit Medicaid and Obamacare: Prime Example of a Corporate Shill (183 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I just went and read the story online (8+ / 0-)

    I think you are way over reacting .
    I suggest that anyone who cares should read the story for themselves .

    http://www.npr.org/...

    Drop the name-calling MB 2/4/11 + Please try to use ratings properly! Kos 9/9/11 + Trusted Users have a responsibility to police the general tenor... Hunter 5/26/06

    by indycam on Wed May 01, 2013 at 08:46:32 PM PDT

    •  Well, yes (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      montanamarine, nickrud

      Overreaction is not uncommon with NPR in these parts.  I guess some find that reporting that doesn't toe their line must be a corporate shill or something.   I'm sorry to be harsh but I find Ray the master of both brilliance and overreaction, so you never quite know which shows up on a given day.  I've never understood he NPR bashing which frequently simply doesn't hold water.

      Touch all that arises with a spirit of compassion

      by Mindful Nature on Wed May 01, 2013 at 08:50:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  NPR is Faux Radio- Turn it OFF n/t (4+ / 0-)

      Evidence that contradicts the ruling belief system is held to extraordinary standards, while evidence that entrenches it is uncritically accepted. -Carl Sagan

      by RF on Thu May 02, 2013 at 04:45:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  that's where you jump the track, (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        New Rule, anonymous volanakis, RF

        especially in the hinterlands,small public radio stations are indispensable sources of information and provide a multitude of services that bind communities together in positive ways.NPR exposed ME many years ago to Democracy Now which was largely responsible for my political activism rebirth,and our local station (KVNF) has hosted 2 events in a town of less than 2,000 population that gave me the opportunity to speak with Amy Goodman personally.The commercial airwaves here are dominated by AM talk (hate) radio and top 40 clear channel country and the majority of commercial outlets that have a TV on are watching FOX noise.I cannot imagine this area without the alternative information provided by our NPR station and the services it provides (avalanche warnings,alternative routes when a coal train derailment closes the main roads,notices for anti-fracking organization meetings,etc.) that make our community so much better.People have to be discerning consumers of information whatever the source,and I agree,much of the national feed is biased to the corporate and Foundations that provide the bulk of public broadcasting funding these days,but turn it off?Not where I live.
        'The tyranny of the ignoramuses is absolute and inescapable'A.Einstein

        •  Democracy Now! is a great news show. The real (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          unfangus, RF

          thing.

        •  Okay (0+ / 0-)

          NPR-DC is Faux Radio- Turn it OFF

          Evidence that contradicts the ruling belief system is held to extraordinary standards, while evidence that entrenches it is uncritically accepted. -Carl Sagan

          by RF on Thu May 02, 2013 at 01:24:37 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  yeah, (0+ / 0-)

            I can't think of very much good media at all coming from DC-Thom Hartman and.....they're so interdependent and too socially connected to veer far from the turd herd.

            'the tyranny of the ignoramuses is absolute and inescapable'  A.Einstein

            •  I made another comment post in this thread (0+ / 0-)

              where I failed to explicitly state NPR-DC type programming...

              I even gave backhanded kudos to our local VPR all the while damning them, when possibly it was not their fault-

              Point is you brought some light that local public radio is a lifeline for folks in areas dominated by worse-than NPR-DC prop that can literally kill folks will, and for that I am grateful to you...

              Evidence that contradicts the ruling belief system is held to extraordinary standards, while evidence that entrenches it is uncritically accepted. -Carl Sagan

              by RF on Thu May 02, 2013 at 02:39:37 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  "Thread" should be "diary"... n/t (0+ / 0-)

                Evidence that contradicts the ruling belief system is held to extraordinary standards, while evidence that entrenches it is uncritically accepted. -Carl Sagan

                by RF on Thu May 02, 2013 at 02:40:16 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  Even better, read the New England Journal (5+ / 0-)

      of Medicine article. The diarist's overreaction is not consistent with what the study actually said.

    •  From the medical study (9+ / 0-)

      I followed the offered link and read the abstract summarizing the follow-up medical study on Medicaid outcomes published in NEJM.

      Here is how the authors of the study summarized their results and conclusions:

      Results
      We found no significant effect of Medicaid coverage on the prevalence or diagnosis of hypertension or high cholesterol levels or on the use of medication for these conditions. Medicaid coverage significantly increased the probability of a diagnosis of diabetes and the use of diabetes medication, but we observed no significant effect on average glycated hemoglobin levels or on the percentage of participants with levels of 6.5% or higher. Medicaid coverage decreased the probability of a positive screening for depression, increased the use of many preventive services, and nearly eliminated catastrophic out-of-pocket medical expenditures.

      Conclusions
      This randomized, controlled study showed that Medicaid coverage generated no significant improvements in measured physical health outcomes in the first 2 years, but it did increase use of health care services, raise rates of diabetes detection and management, lower rates of depression, and reduce financial strain.

      So the study authors do NOT say
      But the results there weren't so positive. There was no statistically significant difference between the Medicaid group and the control group in those measures.
      That conclusions comes from some one else - not the researchers themselves.

      Indeed, the study authors believe their results show that Medicaid coverage does indeed have a variety of positive benefits.

      "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

      by Hugh Jim Bissell on Thu May 02, 2013 at 06:34:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  the comparison (0+ / 0-)

        is to her own earlier reporting on a different study. She's not quoting someone, she's simply stating that the 2 year old study had limited data and made some conclusions, which she reported. 2 years later another study is done, has much more data, and made it's own conclusions. The second study isn't so positive. Straight reporting.

        Ray, who I make a point of reading because there's a fair amount of meat mixed in with his chaff is a bit chaffy today.

        47 is the new 51!

        by nickrud on Thu May 02, 2013 at 08:20:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  need to separate critique of the radio piece (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Mindful Nature

        from that of the study in the NEJM, which on first skim looks pretty solid.

        Increased use of services is actually a pretty important endpoint for this short term study. I'd guess you'd see a payoff in improved health measures with more like a ten year follow up.

        Note also that as is customary, the paper discloses the funding sources and authors' conflict of interest:

        Supported by grants from the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, Department of Health and Human Services; the California HealthCare Foundation; the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation; the National Institute on Aging (P30AG012810, RC2AGO36631, and R01AG0345151); the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation; the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation; the Smith Richardson Foundation; and the Social Security Administration (5 RRC 08098400-03-00, to the National Bureau of Economic Research as part of the Retirement Research Consortium of the Social Security Administration); and by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
        The diarist is not justified in insinuating that the researchers are bought and paid for.

        What laws can the senators make now? Once the barbarians are here, they'll do the legislating. C.P. Cavafy

        by anonymous volanakis on Thu May 02, 2013 at 08:43:40 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  um (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        anonymous volanakis

        yes it does say that.  COmpare

        We found no significant effect of Medicaid coverage on the prevalence or diagnosis of hypertension or high cholesterol levels or on the use of medication for these conditions
        we observed no significant effect on average glycated hemoglobin levels or on the percentage of participants with levels of 6.5% or higher.
        with this summary
        There was no statistically significant difference between the Medicaid group and the control group in those measures.
        Frankly, those two are virtually indistinguishable.  THis is what people are worked up about?  Astonishing

        Touch all that arises with a spirit of compassion

        by Mindful Nature on Thu May 02, 2013 at 08:53:26 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Also check out Slate Online (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TiaRachel, Ray Pensador

      Here's what the study seems to boil down to:

      As the study’s other principal investigator, Katherine Baicker of the Harvard School of Public Health, puts it, the findings are like a health insurance ink blot—people see in it whatever they need to validate their existing position on Obamacare and universal coverage for the poor more generally. Those opposed to government care point to the lack of any measurable effect on health outcomes. Insurance advocates naturally highlight the importance of Medicare in reducing stress and its value as a financial cushion. Medicare is in large part health insurance that is meant to shield those covered from the ruinous effects of a health disaster. OHP seems to have been extremely effective in eliminating such catastrophic financial outcomes. And maybe two years isn’t enough time for researchers to see improvements in health, which may accrue over the longer term (though the researchers have focused on health outcomes where improvements should be seen within a two-year time frame).

      Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad.

      by Citizen Earth on Thu May 02, 2013 at 10:44:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  If that quote is real, I find it suspect as well. (0+ / 0-)
        Those opposed to government care point to the lack of any measurable effect on health outcomes. Insurance advocates naturally highlight the importance of Medicare in reducing stress and its value as a financial cushion. Medicare is in large part health insurance that is meant to shield those covered from the ruinous effects of a health disaster.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site