This was a great interview with the CEO of Aetna health insurance.
Sounds like Mr. Bertolini has been on both sides of the issue.
Great read.
Friday, April 8, 2011
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Regional Disparities in Health Spending...
Jason Shafrin, over at the Healthcare Economist, brings up an interesting paper examining the data from the Dartmouth Atlas.
For those that are unfamiliar, the Dartmouth Atlas is a compendium of data examining Medicare spending per beneficiary, and then comparing that spending by geographic region.
The differences are stark. I know. I use the Dartmouth Atlas data in my health policy talks all the time. The data was highlighted in an Atul Gawande article in 2009 on McAllen, Texas.
Jason points us to an article from the New England Journal by Zuckerman...
“Unadjusted Medicare spending per beneficiary was 52% higher in geographic regions in the highest spending quintile than in regions in the lowest quintile. After adjustment for demographic and baseline health characteristics and changes in health status, the difference in spending between the highest and lowest quintiles was reduced to 33%. Health status accounted for 29% of the unadjusted geographic difference in per-beneficiary spending; additional adjustment for area-level dif ferences in the supply of medical resources did not further reduce the observed differences between the top and bottom quintiles.”
Now, sure, health status may reduce the difference in spending, but it doesn't completely eliminate it. In fact, I would argue that 33% is still a large difference, and one that still needs to be addressed. Comparing the spending in Florida to Minnesota PER beneficiary is quite startling indeed.
For those that are unfamiliar, the Dartmouth Atlas is a compendium of data examining Medicare spending per beneficiary, and then comparing that spending by geographic region.
The differences are stark. I know. I use the Dartmouth Atlas data in my health policy talks all the time. The data was highlighted in an Atul Gawande article in 2009 on McAllen, Texas.
Jason points us to an article from the New England Journal by Zuckerman...
“Unadjusted Medicare spending per beneficiary was 52% higher in geographic regions in the highest spending quintile than in regions in the lowest quintile. After adjustment for demographic and baseline health characteristics and changes in health status, the difference in spending between the highest and lowest quintiles was reduced to 33%. Health status accounted for 29% of the unadjusted geographic difference in per-beneficiary spending; additional adjustment for area-level dif ferences in the supply of medical resources did not further reduce the observed differences between the top and bottom quintiles.”
Now, sure, health status may reduce the difference in spending, but it doesn't completely eliminate it. In fact, I would argue that 33% is still a large difference, and one that still needs to be addressed. Comparing the spending in Florida to Minnesota PER beneficiary is quite startling indeed.
Minnesota getting money back...
This has been an interesting story that I have been following lately.
Essentially, health care insurance HMO's that contracted with Minnesota for coverage of subsidized patients (500,000), netted profits of 3.8% in 2010, which was up from 2.6% in 2009.
This resulted in millions in addtional profit. UCare already gave back 30 million last month to the state. It is estimated that if profit caps were in place, the state could have netted 85 million last month alone.
Facing a 5 billion dollar deficit, this comes as good news to the State. Insurers are worried, as profits have varied considerably over the years, although, after being confronted, they finally admitted that perhaps they were making too much in the way of profits, and agreed to a 1% limit on profits for 2011.
Public relations being what it is........LOL.
Essentially, health care insurance HMO's that contracted with Minnesota for coverage of subsidized patients (500,000), netted profits of 3.8% in 2010, which was up from 2.6% in 2009.
This resulted in millions in addtional profit. UCare already gave back 30 million last month to the state. It is estimated that if profit caps were in place, the state could have netted 85 million last month alone.
Facing a 5 billion dollar deficit, this comes as good news to the State. Insurers are worried, as profits have varied considerably over the years, although, after being confronted, they finally admitted that perhaps they were making too much in the way of profits, and agreed to a 1% limit on profits for 2011.
Public relations being what it is........LOL.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Antitrust and the Department of Justice...
Color me a little surprised, the DOJ is getting serious about addressing some of the gross misconduct by some health organizations.
In this article, there is some discussion about the various efforts of the DOJ to address bad, or anti competitive business practices in the medical arena. One such example is the Texas case listed below.
The Texas case revolved around contracts United Regional offered to insurers starting in 1998, according to the complaint and settlement agreement filed in U.S. District Court on Feb. 25 by the Justice Department and Texas attorney general’s office. The contracts offered insurers steep discounts, but only if they agreed not to contract with other hospitals or outpatient facilities in the area.
At the time, 369-bed United Regional was the only hospital in Wichita Falls, population 100,000. But a group of doctors was working to build a far smaller rival facility, said surgeon Jerry Myers, who led the effort and is now chief executive of the 41-bed Kell West Regional Hospital.
If insurers signed with a rival medical center, the discounts would be dropped and they would have to pay close to full charges.
Such pricing practices aren’t “just about charging higher prices generally, it’s strategically charging prices in a way specifically designed to keep out competition,” said Tim L. Greaney, an antitrust expert and director of the Center for Health Law Studies at St. Louis University.
Within three months of Kell’s opening, United Regional had signed the now-disputed contracts with five health insurers and by 2010 had eight insurers, according to the federal lawsuit. The only insurer in the region that didn’t sign was the largest, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas.
Even with the discounts offered to insurers, United Regional became expensive, the complaint alleges. An analysis by a major insurer cited in court documents concluded that payments from insurers for hospital care at United Regional were at least 50 percent higher than average amounts paid in seven other comparable Texas cities. For services offered at both United and Kell, the big hospital’s average per-day rate for care was 70 percent higher.
The hospital disagrees with the way the Justice Department applied the law. “We believe then and now that these contracts were appropriate and legal,” United Regional chief executive Phyllis Cowling said.
Cowling also disputes the department’s cost findings. “We are paid a little bit more by insurers, but I know it’s not 70 percent,” she said. “It’s probably some 10 percent or 15 percent more, based on our numbers.”
The hospital is under orders to remove the exclusionary contract provisions. It will continue to honor the deeper discounts offered to its insurers, even if they sign deals with Kell, Cowling said.
Now, what will be really interesting is to see how the DOJ adapts when the newer ACO constructs begin to become operational. One quite serious concern among many healthcare executives centers around the joining of practices into giant ACO organizations, and whether or not this will be considered anti-competitive practice. The DOJ is apparently under instructions to be more lenient with ACO's, but how lenient may remain a mystery at the moment.
In this article, there is some discussion about the various efforts of the DOJ to address bad, or anti competitive business practices in the medical arena. One such example is the Texas case listed below.
The Texas case revolved around contracts United Regional offered to insurers starting in 1998, according to the complaint and settlement agreement filed in U.S. District Court on Feb. 25 by the Justice Department and Texas attorney general’s office. The contracts offered insurers steep discounts, but only if they agreed not to contract with other hospitals or outpatient facilities in the area.
At the time, 369-bed United Regional was the only hospital in Wichita Falls, population 100,000. But a group of doctors was working to build a far smaller rival facility, said surgeon Jerry Myers, who led the effort and is now chief executive of the 41-bed Kell West Regional Hospital.
If insurers signed with a rival medical center, the discounts would be dropped and they would have to pay close to full charges.
Such pricing practices aren’t “just about charging higher prices generally, it’s strategically charging prices in a way specifically designed to keep out competition,” said Tim L. Greaney, an antitrust expert and director of the Center for Health Law Studies at St. Louis University.
Within three months of Kell’s opening, United Regional had signed the now-disputed contracts with five health insurers and by 2010 had eight insurers, according to the federal lawsuit. The only insurer in the region that didn’t sign was the largest, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas.
Even with the discounts offered to insurers, United Regional became expensive, the complaint alleges. An analysis by a major insurer cited in court documents concluded that payments from insurers for hospital care at United Regional were at least 50 percent higher than average amounts paid in seven other comparable Texas cities. For services offered at both United and Kell, the big hospital’s average per-day rate for care was 70 percent higher.
The hospital disagrees with the way the Justice Department applied the law. “We believe then and now that these contracts were appropriate and legal,” United Regional chief executive Phyllis Cowling said.
Cowling also disputes the department’s cost findings. “We are paid a little bit more by insurers, but I know it’s not 70 percent,” she said. “It’s probably some 10 percent or 15 percent more, based on our numbers.”
The hospital is under orders to remove the exclusionary contract provisions. It will continue to honor the deeper discounts offered to its insurers, even if they sign deals with Kell, Cowling said.
Now, what will be really interesting is to see how the DOJ adapts when the newer ACO constructs begin to become operational. One quite serious concern among many healthcare executives centers around the joining of practices into giant ACO organizations, and whether or not this will be considered anti-competitive practice. The DOJ is apparently under instructions to be more lenient with ACO's, but how lenient may remain a mystery at the moment.
GOP went and did it...
Yep, they did. As Kash is reporting over at Angry Bear..The GOP did it
6.2 trillion in cuts....and none of it addresses health care spending. Not one shred. As I noted yesterday in my rebuke of Michael Cannon's column, this is not cost savings. This does not "save" money at all. This is cost shifting.
Also, what is even more baffling, as Kash notes, is that competition DOES NOT lower premiums in healthcare. I know, I know....this is sometimes hard for our hard core free market types to fathom, but the evidence, as I suggested in my note on Interstate Health Insurance sales, decreased leverage results in higher charges among providers and hospitals.
I will expanding more on this in the coming days. I am currently writing a post for Angry Bear that will be cross posted here that essentially will break down WHY free market mechanisms fail in healthcare. Stay tuned.
6.2 trillion in cuts....and none of it addresses health care spending. Not one shred. As I noted yesterday in my rebuke of Michael Cannon's column, this is not cost savings. This does not "save" money at all. This is cost shifting.
Also, what is even more baffling, as Kash notes, is that competition DOES NOT lower premiums in healthcare. I know, I know....this is sometimes hard for our hard core free market types to fathom, but the evidence, as I suggested in my note on Interstate Health Insurance sales, decreased leverage results in higher charges among providers and hospitals.
I will expanding more on this in the coming days. I am currently writing a post for Angry Bear that will be cross posted here that essentially will break down WHY free market mechanisms fail in healthcare. Stay tuned.
Monday, April 4, 2011
Latest from CATO.....
And, Michael Cannon is well wrong.
First, he begins by advocating for repeal by comparing the roughly 500 billion in cost of the program to the overall debt and deficit, never mentioning that the 500 billion is actually over 10 years.
Next he proceeds to Medicare savings, and concludes that there were no mechanisms to constrain Medicare savings...and he's right here. However, then he states: Even if they were, ObamaCare just spends the presumed savings elsewhere. Which comes across snippy, and a little arrogant.
Then he talks about vouchers, and the proposal by Congressman Paul Ryan. Here's what he says:
Second, the budget should restrain Medicare spending by giving enrollees fixed vouchers they can use to purchase any private health plan of their choice. Poor and sick enrollees should get larger vouchers, but the average voucher amount should grow only at the overall rate of inflation.
Because vouchers enable seniors to keep the savings, they will do what ObamaCare won't: reduce the wasteful spending that permeates Medicare. Seniors will choose more economical health plans and put downward pressure on prices across the board. Indeed, vouchers are the only way to contain Medicare spending while protecting seniors from government rationing.
Skeptics worry that seniors will make bad decisions with their vouchers. They should keep in mind that, according to Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, "nearly 30 percent of Medicare's costs could be saved without adverse health consequences." In other words, vouchers come with a huge built-in margin of safety: seniors could consume one-third less care without harming their health.
There are some big problems with this, which Mr. Cannon never addresses, or even acknowledges. To start with, many seniors are living on constricted, fixed incomes. Even with "larger" vouchers, as he suggests, keeping them tied to inflation without addressing the reason for healthcare cost escalation is the same as cutting them out of healthcare altogether...at least the effect will be the same over time. Healthcare has grown at a rate far above inflation for years (6.2% average over the past 10 years). What this will do, is force low income seniors to skip medications, avoid physician visits, and avoid preventative care. This will end up being more costly down the road. The second problem, is that Mr. Cannon is misrepresenting what the Council of Economic Advisors said about Medicare spending. That 30% represents waste within the system, not necessarily (although likely a small percentage is) over treatment of Medicare patients. It's a dangerous statement to make.
Finally, the block grant idea has some merit, but let's be honest, BOTH of these ideas do not fundamentally change the rapid rise in healthcare costs. They're not cost savings.....they're cost shifting. By removing a percentage of federal funding for this patient population, you are forcing the state to pay for it, which is a problem for many cash strapped states already.
Mr. Cannon knows all of this, however, he is trying to put a rosy face on an ugly dog.
First, he begins by advocating for repeal by comparing the roughly 500 billion in cost of the program to the overall debt and deficit, never mentioning that the 500 billion is actually over 10 years.
Next he proceeds to Medicare savings, and concludes that there were no mechanisms to constrain Medicare savings...and he's right here. However, then he states: Even if they were, ObamaCare just spends the presumed savings elsewhere. Which comes across snippy, and a little arrogant.
Then he talks about vouchers, and the proposal by Congressman Paul Ryan. Here's what he says:
Second, the budget should restrain Medicare spending by giving enrollees fixed vouchers they can use to purchase any private health plan of their choice. Poor and sick enrollees should get larger vouchers, but the average voucher amount should grow only at the overall rate of inflation.
Because vouchers enable seniors to keep the savings, they will do what ObamaCare won't: reduce the wasteful spending that permeates Medicare. Seniors will choose more economical health plans and put downward pressure on prices across the board. Indeed, vouchers are the only way to contain Medicare spending while protecting seniors from government rationing.
Skeptics worry that seniors will make bad decisions with their vouchers. They should keep in mind that, according to Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, "nearly 30 percent of Medicare's costs could be saved without adverse health consequences." In other words, vouchers come with a huge built-in margin of safety: seniors could consume one-third less care without harming their health.
There are some big problems with this, which Mr. Cannon never addresses, or even acknowledges. To start with, many seniors are living on constricted, fixed incomes. Even with "larger" vouchers, as he suggests, keeping them tied to inflation without addressing the reason for healthcare cost escalation is the same as cutting them out of healthcare altogether...at least the effect will be the same over time. Healthcare has grown at a rate far above inflation for years (6.2% average over the past 10 years). What this will do, is force low income seniors to skip medications, avoid physician visits, and avoid preventative care. This will end up being more costly down the road. The second problem, is that Mr. Cannon is misrepresenting what the Council of Economic Advisors said about Medicare spending. That 30% represents waste within the system, not necessarily (although likely a small percentage is) over treatment of Medicare patients. It's a dangerous statement to make.
Finally, the block grant idea has some merit, but let's be honest, BOTH of these ideas do not fundamentally change the rapid rise in healthcare costs. They're not cost savings.....they're cost shifting. By removing a percentage of federal funding for this patient population, you are forcing the state to pay for it, which is a problem for many cash strapped states already.
Mr. Cannon knows all of this, however, he is trying to put a rosy face on an ugly dog.
Sunday, April 3, 2011
ACO regulations....
Well, the HHS finally released the new ACO regulations. CEO's and CFO's at numerous hospitals, health care systems, centers, and even large and small group practices finally have some information.
To be honest, the entire ACO concept has been scaring pretty much every health administrator in the country since the PPACA was passed last year.
The reason lies in Section 3022 of the bill, which outlines the ACO concept, and was originally intended for all practices caring for at least 5,000 patients. PA's were included in the original language.
The original provisions called for a formal legal structure that would allow the organization to receive and distribute payments for shared savings to participating providers of services and suppliers.
Enough primary-care providers to handle at least 5,000 patients.
A way of implementing "quality and other reporting requirements".
A leadership and management structure that includes clinical and administrative systems.
Processes to promote evidence-based medicine and patient engagement, report on quality and cost measures, and coordinate care, such as through the use of telehealth, remote patient monitoring, and other such enabling technologies.
Sounds simple right?
Well, it scared everyone because of the history of ACO's. To be honest, we haven't seen an "actual" ACO in existence, but in 2005 CMS sponsored a 10 site pilot project called the "Medicare Physician Group Practice Demonstration", this was the forerunner to the current ACO.
8 of the 10 saw no savings in the first year. This was complicated by high initial start up fees, with 1.65 million needed for the first years costs, and average up front costs of 489,000.
This, while expected, as the real savings inherent in the ACO construct are only realized after several years, obviously scared the living daylights out of almost every hospital or group administrator.
Under the regulations just released (429 pages), those organizations which join or become ACO's and are caring for up to 5,000 patients will still be reimbursed on a fee for service scale, for now at least. There will subsequently be two paths for these organizations to take.
Larger organizations with more tolerance for risk, such as CCF, Mayo, Intermountain Health, etc., can see a bonus of up to 60% of any savings generated through the new model. They can also have to repay CMS for any cost overruns, for starters, up to 10% of what Medicare would have spent on those patients in a NON ACO setting.
Smaller organizations can still participate, though with less risk exposure, and can see a bonus of up to 50% of any savings generated. They can also have to repay amounts up to 7.5% in the form of penalties in the third year.
CMS estimates that organizations could earn bonuses of up to 800 million dollars over the next three years, while spending less per Medicare enrollee, and meeting quality objectives. Conversely, they estimate payments in the form of penalties of close to 40 million over the same time period by organizations that are not able to keep cost overruns under control.
I don't think this will quell many nerves....
To be honest, the entire ACO concept has been scaring pretty much every health administrator in the country since the PPACA was passed last year.
The reason lies in Section 3022 of the bill, which outlines the ACO concept, and was originally intended for all practices caring for at least 5,000 patients. PA's were included in the original language.
The original provisions called for a formal legal structure that would allow the organization to receive and distribute payments for shared savings to participating providers of services and suppliers.
Enough primary-care providers to handle at least 5,000 patients.
A way of implementing "quality and other reporting requirements".
A leadership and management structure that includes clinical and administrative systems.
Processes to promote evidence-based medicine and patient engagement, report on quality and cost measures, and coordinate care, such as through the use of telehealth, remote patient monitoring, and other such enabling technologies.
Sounds simple right?
Well, it scared everyone because of the history of ACO's. To be honest, we haven't seen an "actual" ACO in existence, but in 2005 CMS sponsored a 10 site pilot project called the "Medicare Physician Group Practice Demonstration", this was the forerunner to the current ACO.
8 of the 10 saw no savings in the first year. This was complicated by high initial start up fees, with 1.65 million needed for the first years costs, and average up front costs of 489,000.
This, while expected, as the real savings inherent in the ACO construct are only realized after several years, obviously scared the living daylights out of almost every hospital or group administrator.
Under the regulations just released (429 pages), those organizations which join or become ACO's and are caring for up to 5,000 patients will still be reimbursed on a fee for service scale, for now at least. There will subsequently be two paths for these organizations to take.
Larger organizations with more tolerance for risk, such as CCF, Mayo, Intermountain Health, etc., can see a bonus of up to 60% of any savings generated through the new model. They can also have to repay CMS for any cost overruns, for starters, up to 10% of what Medicare would have spent on those patients in a NON ACO setting.
Smaller organizations can still participate, though with less risk exposure, and can see a bonus of up to 50% of any savings generated. They can also have to repay amounts up to 7.5% in the form of penalties in the third year.
CMS estimates that organizations could earn bonuses of up to 800 million dollars over the next three years, while spending less per Medicare enrollee, and meeting quality objectives. Conversely, they estimate payments in the form of penalties of close to 40 million over the same time period by organizations that are not able to keep cost overruns under control.
I don't think this will quell many nerves....
Interstate Health Insurance Sales....
This will be cross posted at Angry Bear...
One of the more common ideas often thrown around in health policy is the idea of allowing patients to purchase health insurance across state lines. The idea of course, is to allow patients access to potentially cheaper policies, and that by increasing competition, lower rates will ensue.
While this does not sound like the worst idea, there are several problems with this concept, the first, and most obvious, being regulatory. Insurance plans are regulated by each state, and each state has a mandatory minimum coverage. State regulators have legal authority to oversee all insurance matters within their state boundaries, but do not have the authority to oversee out of state plans. If a patient were to purchase insurance in a neighboring state, and then have a grievance or complaint against that company, the patients legal recourse might be very limited. Additionally, if they buy plans that do not meet the minimum coverage requirements of their own state, are there potential legal problems?
The second issue with this, is that it will create an adverse risk pooling. Out of state insurers will almost certainly offer plans to healthy, young individuals. This will leave in state insurers with a potentially sicker risk pool. What this will do is lower premiums potentially for one group of patients, but concurrently raise rates for a sicker group. Risk pooling, and spreading the risk through a group of patients is the backbone of health insurance, this could possibly interfere with this.
The final issue is fragmentation. In a system that is already badly fragmented, increased fragmentation reduces the leverage of insurers. In a BNET article in 2009, it was noted that the city of Milwaukee, with multiple insurers, and no dominant health insurer on the landscape, demonstrated that on average, providers would not accept less than 200% of Medicare as their reimbursement. Nearby Chicago however, with a dominant BC/BS insurance market demonstrates that on average, providers accepted 112% of Medicare as their reimbursement. The reason is simple. Leverage. Who has it? The insurers? Or, the providers?
Finally, perhaps the biggest issue with Interstate Health Insurance sales is that it fails to address rising costs. It will create a cost shifting onto sicker patients, and lower premiums for younger, healthier patients….but only temporarily. It will not address the continued, unsustainable rise in healthcare costs, and could create a regulatory nightmare.
One of the more common ideas often thrown around in health policy is the idea of allowing patients to purchase health insurance across state lines. The idea of course, is to allow patients access to potentially cheaper policies, and that by increasing competition, lower rates will ensue.
While this does not sound like the worst idea, there are several problems with this concept, the first, and most obvious, being regulatory. Insurance plans are regulated by each state, and each state has a mandatory minimum coverage. State regulators have legal authority to oversee all insurance matters within their state boundaries, but do not have the authority to oversee out of state plans. If a patient were to purchase insurance in a neighboring state, and then have a grievance or complaint against that company, the patients legal recourse might be very limited. Additionally, if they buy plans that do not meet the minimum coverage requirements of their own state, are there potential legal problems?
The second issue with this, is that it will create an adverse risk pooling. Out of state insurers will almost certainly offer plans to healthy, young individuals. This will leave in state insurers with a potentially sicker risk pool. What this will do is lower premiums potentially for one group of patients, but concurrently raise rates for a sicker group. Risk pooling, and spreading the risk through a group of patients is the backbone of health insurance, this could possibly interfere with this.
The final issue is fragmentation. In a system that is already badly fragmented, increased fragmentation reduces the leverage of insurers. In a BNET article in 2009, it was noted that the city of Milwaukee, with multiple insurers, and no dominant health insurer on the landscape, demonstrated that on average, providers would not accept less than 200% of Medicare as their reimbursement. Nearby Chicago however, with a dominant BC/BS insurance market demonstrates that on average, providers accepted 112% of Medicare as their reimbursement. The reason is simple. Leverage. Who has it? The insurers? Or, the providers?
Finally, perhaps the biggest issue with Interstate Health Insurance sales is that it fails to address rising costs. It will create a cost shifting onto sicker patients, and lower premiums for younger, healthier patients….but only temporarily. It will not address the continued, unsustainable rise in healthcare costs, and could create a regulatory nightmare.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Physician Assistant Issues
I do also want to assure my followers, and particularly those who are PA's or PA students that I will still be blogging about practicing as a PA, as well as about legislative and practice issues that are affecting PA's. I have changed the title of the blog only because, as my career has progressed, it has become far more focused on health policy issues. There was no other reason....
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Fox News and Socialism
Thanks to my friend Bruce Bartlett for pointing this out....
Fox News....Fair and Balanced?????
Start HERE:
In the final stretch of the 2008 campaign, a Fox News executive repeatedly questioned on the air whether Barack Obama believed in socialism.
Bill Sammon, now the network’s vice president and Washington managing editor, acknowledged the following year that he was just engaging in “mischievous speculation” in raising the charge. In fact, Sammon said he “privately” believed that the socialism allegation was “rather far-fetched.”
These remarks, unearthed by the liberal advocacy group Media Matters, raise the question of whether Sammon, who oversees Washington news coverage for Fox News, was deliberately trying to sabotage the Democratic presidential candidate. He has come under fire before for memos he sent to the network’s staff that have seemed less than fair and balanced.
Sammon’s admission came on a 2009 Mediterranean cruise—cabin rates ranged as high as $37,600 per couple—sponsored by conservative Hillsdale College. Here is what he said, according to an audio recording:
MORE at the link...
And, to furthermore make any thinking person trying to simply contemplate the insanity of this feel like it isn't possible, here is some more....
Next Article HERE:
Howard Kurtz contacted Sammon for comment, and here’s how Sammon defended himself:
In an interview, Sammon says his reference to “mischevious speculation” was “my probably inartful way of saying, ‘Can you believe how far this thing has come?’” The socialism question indeed “struck me as a far-fetched idea” in 2008. “I considered it kind of a remarkable notion that we would even be having the conversation.”
He doesn’t regret repeatedly raising it on the air because, Sammon says, “it was a main point of discussion on all the channels, in all the media” — and by 2009 he was “astonished by how the needle had moved.”
That’s pretty remarkable. Sammon is conceding that the idea did indeed strike him as far fetched in 2008, even though he and his network aggressively promoted it day in and day out throughout the campaign. And he’s defending this by pointing out that the idea ended up gaining traction, as if this somehow justifies the original act of dishonesty!
Now, Sammon is also claiming here that Obama’s behavior in office ultimately persuaded him that the original diagnosis of Obama as a socialist turned out to be correct after all. That in itself, of course, is also a ridiculous falsehood. But that aside, the bottom line here is that he doesn’t regret having spread an idea he personally found far-fetched, because so doing helped ensure that the far-fetched idea ultimately gained widespread acceptance. That’s a peculiar attitude for a “news” executive, isn’t it?
So, because you spread a rumor that you didn't believe initially, and people bought into it because you were a "news" reporter, somehow it becomes factual....simply mindboggling.
Fox News....Fair and Balanced?????
Start HERE:
In the final stretch of the 2008 campaign, a Fox News executive repeatedly questioned on the air whether Barack Obama believed in socialism.
Bill Sammon, now the network’s vice president and Washington managing editor, acknowledged the following year that he was just engaging in “mischievous speculation” in raising the charge. In fact, Sammon said he “privately” believed that the socialism allegation was “rather far-fetched.”
These remarks, unearthed by the liberal advocacy group Media Matters, raise the question of whether Sammon, who oversees Washington news coverage for Fox News, was deliberately trying to sabotage the Democratic presidential candidate. He has come under fire before for memos he sent to the network’s staff that have seemed less than fair and balanced.
Sammon’s admission came on a 2009 Mediterranean cruise—cabin rates ranged as high as $37,600 per couple—sponsored by conservative Hillsdale College. Here is what he said, according to an audio recording:
MORE at the link...
And, to furthermore make any thinking person trying to simply contemplate the insanity of this feel like it isn't possible, here is some more....
Next Article HERE:
Howard Kurtz contacted Sammon for comment, and here’s how Sammon defended himself:
In an interview, Sammon says his reference to “mischevious speculation” was “my probably inartful way of saying, ‘Can you believe how far this thing has come?’” The socialism question indeed “struck me as a far-fetched idea” in 2008. “I considered it kind of a remarkable notion that we would even be having the conversation.”
He doesn’t regret repeatedly raising it on the air because, Sammon says, “it was a main point of discussion on all the channels, in all the media” — and by 2009 he was “astonished by how the needle had moved.”
That’s pretty remarkable. Sammon is conceding that the idea did indeed strike him as far fetched in 2008, even though he and his network aggressively promoted it day in and day out throughout the campaign. And he’s defending this by pointing out that the idea ended up gaining traction, as if this somehow justifies the original act of dishonesty!
Now, Sammon is also claiming here that Obama’s behavior in office ultimately persuaded him that the original diagnosis of Obama as a socialist turned out to be correct after all. That in itself, of course, is also a ridiculous falsehood. But that aside, the bottom line here is that he doesn’t regret having spread an idea he personally found far-fetched, because so doing helped ensure that the far-fetched idea ultimately gained widespread acceptance. That’s a peculiar attitude for a “news” executive, isn’t it?
So, because you spread a rumor that you didn't believe initially, and people bought into it because you were a "news" reporter, somehow it becomes factual....simply mindboggling.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)