Is It Dangerous to Eat Meat Before Age 65?

Meat the American way. Not in the picture: the drink.

Is it dangerous to eat meat if you’re between 55 and 65? Will eating lots of meat then suddenly become healthful after you turn 65?

This is the somewhat confusing conclusion that some researchers drew from a new American questionnaire study:

As usual, we have to take sensational headlines with a substantial pinch of salt. This was just a food questionnaire that was sent to some thousand Americans, and the researchers then looked at statistical associations with diseases.

As regular readers know, one can’t prove causation by correlating statistics from questionnaire studies. Only ignorant or sensationalism-driven journalists believe so. Unfortunately these two groups seem to constitute the vast majority of all journalists.

On subsequent examination, it turns out that at least 80% of similar findings in uncertain questionnaires are incorrect – see table 4 in the excellent review Why Most Published Research Findings are False.

So a more scientifically correct headline would be “There is a 20 percent chance that meat quadruples the risk of cancer for people under the age of 65 and reduces the risk for older people.” Not as enticing.

The statistical correlation between meat-eating and disease in people under 65 in the U.S. may just as well be due to the fact that meat consumption there is associated with eating junk food, smoking, lack of exercise, less vegetables and in principal any unhealthful lifestyle you can think of.

What, in all of these unhealthful lifestyles, is the cause of disease ? Statistics cannot prove this.

Therefore, there are good reasons to ignore the study. But I guess that there’s still some truth behind it. Scientists report that protein (high-quality animal protein in particular) may raise levels of the hormone IGF-1, which stimulates cell division. High levels of IGF-1 may in the long run increase the risk of cancer.

What they don’t mention is that carbohydrates also increase levels of IGF-1, at least as much. Particularly bad carbohydrates in greater quantities radically raise IGF-1 levels. The only thing you can eat that doesn’t significantly increase levels of IGF-1 is fat.

The logical conclusion is that any variation of a low-carbohydrate diet with moderate amounts of protein (and enough fat) is the healthiest in the long run – at least to keep IGF-1 low while still feeling great. How much protein? The amount you need to feel good, feel full and stay strong and healthy. What is this concept called? LCHF.

The really ambitious may add intermittent fasting for maximum effect.

Do Unhealthy Meat Eaters Live Shorter Lives?

Low Carb Wins Yet Another Study

Swedish Tabloid Warns of “Low-Carb Cancer”

View the original article here

The Ukraine: What Ukranians Have to Say

The situation in the Ukraine is far more complicated than many realize.

Think Progress just published an excellent piece titled “Why Much of What You’ve Read About Ukraine isn’t Quite Right, As Explained by Ukranians.”

“Though protests had been raging in the capital city of Kyiv and cities across Ukraine since November, the eyes of the world turned sharply toward the former Soviet republic at the end of February when then-president Viktor Yanukovych fled to Russia and Russian president Vladimir Putin decided to directly insert himself in his neighbor’s internal turmoil. Citing an imminent danger to Russians living in the southern Ukrainian region of Crimea, Putin sought permission from Russia’s parliament to send military forces into Ukraine. As of Monday, Ukrainian officials said 16,000 Russian troops were in Ukraine and in a Tuesday press conference from his Moscow home, Putin said they “reserve the right to use all means to protect” Russian citizens in Ukraine, but denied having sent Russian forces there.

With all of the speculation regarding Russia’s motives and endless posturing over what’s in Ukraine’s best interest, the perspectives of those that matter most, actual Ukrainians, seem to get lost along the way. “The radical voices are always the loudest,” said Olga, a native of Sevastopol, Crimea who moved to the U.S. in 2007. “I wish there were some moderate voices in between that would be heard.”

When I was at Barron’s, I wrote about Russia and went there twice. I also have a friend who recently immigrated to the U.S. from the Ukraine. What I read in this post rings true.

You will find the rest of the post here: http://thinkprogress.org/world/2014/03/04/3356621/ukraine-russia-invasion/

View the original article here

Did the Administration Conceal the Fact That Millions Would Have to Replace Their Insurance With A New Policy?

At the end of October NBC’s Lisa Myers and Hannah Rappleye broke the story: “millions of Americans are getting or are about to get cancellation letters for their health insurance under Obamacare, say experts, and the Obama administration has known that for at least three years. Four sources deeply involved in the Affordable Care Act tell NBC News that 50 to 75 percent of the 14 million consumers who buy their insurance individually can expect to receive a ‘cancellation’” letter or the equivalent over the next year because their existing policies don’t meet the standards mandated by the new health care law. One expert predicts that number could reach as high as 80 percent. And all say that many of those forced to buy pricier new policies will experience ‘sticker shock.’

“Buried in Obamacare regulations from July 2010,” Myers and Rappleye reported, “is an estimate that because of normal turnover in the individual insurance market, “40 to 67 percent” of customers will not be able to keep their policy. That means the administration knew that more than 40 to 67 percent of those in the individual market would not be able to keep their plans, even if they liked them.”

In fact, NBC’s investigative team did not t need four unnamed sources “deeply involvthe ACA” to tip them off that millions of customers would be receiving these notices.

Three years earlier Health & Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius had called a press conference to announce that under the ACA, 43 million Americans working for small companies” would be moving to new plans.   Labor Secretary Hilda Solis joined her to explain that the new plans would give workers “all of the protections of Obamacare.” 

In a press release HHS spelled out the numbers: “roughly 42 million people insured through small businesses will likely transition from their current plan to one with the new Affordable Care Act protections over the next few years,” along with “17 million who are covered in the individual health insurance market.”  .

What about President Obama’s promise that “If you like your plan you can keep it”?  As I explain it the post above, when he first made this pledge, he was addressing “the majority” of insured Americans who worked for a large companies where they received generous benefits. These were the folks who “liked their plans,” and in a debate with Senator McCain, he was reassuring them that health reform would not mean dismantling employer-based insurance and moving to a single-payer system. But over time, candidate Obama made the mistake of letting his pledge turn into a sound bite. At that point, it became easy for his opponents rip that line out of its original context, and brand him a liar.

In 2013, when reporters claimed that people who received the “cancellation letters” were blind-sided, they ignored the fact people in the individual market often lost their policies. As HHS observed in its 2010 press release: “roughly 40% to two-thirds of people in the individual market normally change plans within a year,”  in part because carriers in that market routinely discontinued  policies.  Inevitably, the replacements they offered costs more and/or covered less. As a result,  Americans who purchased their own insurance were accustomed to scrambling, year after year, to find new coverage.  In the fall of 2013, neither they, nor reporters who knew anything about the individual market, should have been shocked when so many policy-holders discovered that they would not be able to renew their plans..

Was the News “Buried” In Obscure Obamacare Regulations?

Hardly. The New York Times covered the press conference in its A1 section, noting that, “the rules appear to fall short of the sweeping commitments President Obama made while trying to reassure the public” that they “could keep their current coverage if they like it.”  But, as the Times reported, the administration explained that  ”this was just one goal of the legislation.” Another goal was to make sure, as Labor Secretary Hilda Solis put it when responding to a question “that insurers don’t take advantage of their customers.” 

Originally, the Affordable Care Act had stipulated that if an insurer sold a plan before March 2010, when the ACA passed, the carrier could continue to renew that plan—even if it didn’t meet the ACA’s standards. But reformers did not want to give carriers carte blanche. As Sebelius explained at the press conference: If, after 2010, insurers (or employers) made dramatic changes to a plan, hiking deductibles or reducing benefits (“for instance, deciding to stop covering  treatments for say, HIV/AIDS or cystic fibrosis,”)  it would be considered a new plan.  At that point, the insurer would no longer be able to renew the policy and would have offer a replacement that met the ACA’s requirements for consumer protection.

Back in June 2010 the New York Times was not the only major media outlet that publicizing the rules: Fox News issued a “Special Report,” which claimed that “up to 80 percent of small businesses and 64 percent of large businesses may have to give up the plans they had today within three years,” The Report even included a video of Sebelius making the announcement.

Yet in October of 2013 Fox would claim that the press conference never happened.  On Fox & Friends, co-host Steve Doocy charged that the administration hid the facts.  “Back in 2010, they knew millions would lose [their coverage], and they didn’t say a word!”

Okay, I understand that most folks at Fox don’t start their day by skimming the New York Times. But don’t they watch Fox News?

Fox & NBC were not alone. Most media pundits feigned surprise and shock when small companies and individuals learned that . (Or perhaps they weren’t feigning.  I’m beginning to realize that many reporters don’t follow the news about health care policy. Often they are more interested in the politics, and the polls,  than in the substance of the law.

–  NBC’s Lisa Myers and Hannah Rappleye misleadingly reported that Obama did not previously disclose his knowledge that many consumers might not be able to keep their original health insurance plans, ignoring the fact that this was announced by his administration in 2010. 

–  “An October 29 USA Today article hyped the misleading NBC report, claiming that the White House knew insurance plans would be canceled under the ACA, but does not include the important fact that this information was made public in 2010: 

–  “CNN’s Ashleigh Banfield Claims “The Administration ‘Didn’t Saying Anything’ About Some Policies Changing.” To his great credit credit, CNN correspondent Joe Johns corrected her, explaining that “in truth,this story’s been around a long time.  But Banfield shouted him down.

– “CBS News reported that the fact some individuals would have policies change under the law was “an unexpected reality of Obamacare”:

–  Wash. Times: White House “Acknowledged For the First Time Monday” That Some Consumers Will Need To Switch Plans.

–  “Fox News’ Steve Doocy: Back In 2010, They Knew Millions Would Lose”  [their coverage] And They Didn’t Say A Word’.”

Who “lied”—Fox News or President Obama?

View the original article here

Friends don’t let friends…

Alan Robock at the podium in Nayarit, describes climate impact of a nuclear war.

The head of the Civilian Protection division of Mexico’s Ministry of the Interior destroyed Mexico City after lunch yesterday. Which is to say, he conducted a classic IPPNW “bombing run,” showing the overwhelming casualties, physical destruction, and radiation effects of a nuclear detonation over this country’s capital. And if anyone didn’t draw this conclusion for themselves, he confirmed that neither his agency nor anyone else would have the resources to help the surviving victims of such a catastrophe.

Alan Robock, IPPNW’s principal science adviser on the climate effects of nuclear war, used his brilliant animations to show how the smoke and soot from less than one percent of existing arsenals would block sunlight from the Earth and disrupt agricultural production for a decade, and how a major war using the still-enormous arsenals held by the US and Russia would be…well…the end of the world.

Alan also reminded the conference, however, that Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev both credited the scientists who first studied nuclear winter for influencing their decisions to drastically cut the US and Soviet arsenals during the Cold War, and he expressed the hope that politicians would pay attention to this new science and make even better policy decisions.

Masao Tomonaga

Ira Helfand

IPPNW had a very big footprint on the first day in Nayarit. Masao Tomanaga presented a new study comparing the consequences of the 1945 Hiroshima bombing with what would happen should one of today’s weapons be used against this largely recovered and thriving city. It was a sobering reminder of what is sure to happen to some city, somewhere, if we don’t finish this job.

Which led to Ira Helfand, who closed the presentations for the day in powerful form. Ira’s slides didn’t work, which turned to his favor, because everyone in the room was riveted by his words rather than trying to make sense out of dots and circles and data on charts, which will all be uploaded to the conference website anyway.

The video is on our YouTube channel, and you should watch it. Here’s the spoiler: in his conclusion, Ira likened the nuclear-armed states to the drunk drivers who show up badly injured in his hospital, and who had been in total denial, convinced that they were in control and that nothing like this could ever happen. “Friends don’t let friends drive drunk is the saying, and maybe friends don’t let friends have nuclear weapons. Go talk to your friends.” (That’s a paraphrase—watch the video.)

IPPNW Co-president and ICAN Co-chair Tilman Ruff asks the panelists a question at the close of a working session.

Liv Torres of ICAN partner Norwegian People’s Aid asked the question of the day. During a civil society comment at the close of the evening, she observed that the facts about the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons were compelling, and asked the assembled delegations: “What are you going to do about it?” Perhaps we’ll start to hear some answers today.

View the original article here

Single-Payer Health Care: Is That What Makes France So Different? (The French Way of Cancer Care – Part 2)

In “The French Way of Cancer Treatment,”  Anya Schiffrin writes eloquently about the care that her father, Andre Schiffrin, received when he was diagnosed with stage-four-pancreatic cancer, and decided that he wanted to go to France, his birthplace, for treatment. Schiffrin had been undergoing chemotherapy at New York City’s Memorial Sloane Kettering, and his family was concerned: how could a public hospital in Paris compete with a world-class cancer center?

To their amazement, they discovered that “the French way” of caring for a cancer patient was much better suited to Schiffrin’s wants and needs—and this was not because he had been born in France.

At the end of her essay, Schiffrin suggests that “the simplicity of the French system meant that all our energy could be spent on one thing: caring for my father.”  Back in New York, she confides, “every time I sit on hold now with the billing department of my New York doctors and insurance company, I think [of] all the things French healthcare got right.”

 Many readers might assume this means France has a single-payer system, and that is the key to its simplicity and success. But in fact, France relies on a hybrid system that is not unlike Obamacare. The government picks up the tab for only about three-quarters of the nation’s healthcare bill.

(In 2013 the U.S. government paid for roughly 48% of medical care, though, this year, with the expansion of Medicaid, and millions of uninsured and under-insured Americans joining the Exchanges where the majority will receive government subsidies, Washington will cover more of the bill.  And in the years ahead, as baby- boomers age into Medicare,  government’s share will grow.

In France, “everyone is covered to a certain extent by the government’s Assurance Maladie,” explains Claire Lundberg, a New Yorker now living in Paris where she recently had a baby. “But most people also have private insurance, called a mutuelle that is either offered through their employer or bought on the private market. There’s a thriving private insurance market in France. . .  Private medical insurance is advertised on the sides of buses and alongside movie previews in theaters.”

Ninety-two percent of the French have supplemental private insurance. Many are insured through their employers, as they are here.  Patients pay 7 percent of all health care costs out of pocket.

In France payroll taxes, paid by both the employer and the employee, along with income taxes help finance the 73% of the  bill that the government covers. All told, French workers contribute around 13% of what they earn to the public sector healthcare fund.

 While the French government does not pay all healthcare bills, it does regulate prices. Because it sets fees for medical services, pricing is transparent

This is why, in France, Schiffrin didn’t have to spend hours on the phone talking to her doctors’ and insurers’ billing departments. There was no uncertainty as to what doctors and hospitals would or should be paid.

Government regulation is a major reason why the French  pay far less for medical services and products. Healthcare providers, drug-makers and others are not allowed to gouge patients or use their brand name to demand exorbitant fees and prices from  private insurers. Fixed pricing also leaves less wiggle room for defrauding the government.

While the U.S. lays out 17.6% of GDP for healthcare, France spends only 11.6% of the nation’s total output, just a hair more than Canada—which has a single-payer system. (This suggests that a hybrid public/private system does not have to be more costly than a single-payer scheme. As for quality, Canadians report less access to care, more errors, and a smaller percentage of the public say that the system “works well.”)

Transparent pricing surprised Lundberg.  After moving to Paris it took her a while to “adjust to the outlandish notion that I would know the exact cost of my health care services before buying them.

“In the U.S, it’s often impossible to get a price for a delivery out of a hospital,” she notes. “Estimates vary by orders of magnitude: One California study of 100,000 complication-free deliveries showed that new mothers were charged anywhere from $3,296 to $37,227, with no clear medical reason for the massive discrepancy.

She explains how price regulation in France works: “The government sets what it considers fair prices for all appointments and procedures, and then reimburses these for everyone at 70 percent.”  The patient pays the remaining 30% out of pocket and/or has it covered by private insurance (the mutuelle.) l

Some French physicians charge more than the government’s recommended price—but not much more. “These overages, called dépassements, don’t come anywhere near what an American specialist might charge,” Lundberg writes. “In fact, under French law, a doctor must issue a receipt explaining any dépassement above 70 euros (roughly $93) before beginning the test or appointment.” (This gives the patient an opportunity to say “No, thank you.  Au revoir!”)

Doctors who bill above the recommended price are labeled “sector two” physicians and must purchase their own pension and insurance coverage. Only about 15 percent of general practitioners practice in sector two; specialists, such as orthopedic surgeons, are more like to choose sector two.

French physicians accept these limits on their incomes. They simply do not except to earn as much as providers.  (Money is always relative: if none of your colleagues earn $400,000, you don’t feel underpaid if you bring home $100,000 or $150,000.)

A 2011 study published in Health Affairs comparing physicians’ pre-tax incomes in six developed countries reveals that, after practice expenses, primary care physicians in the U.S. average $186, 582k while their peers in France earn $95,585. In the U.S., after paying his overhead, the typical orthopedic surgeon nets $442,450 while an orthopedic surgeon in France earns $154,380.  (These numbers are adjusted for differences in cost of living.)

Of course doctors’ incomes account for only a slice of the difference in total health care costs. Americans also pay far more for drugs and medical devices. As for hospitals, you can stay in a hospital in France for $483 a night—versus an average of $4,287 in the U.S.

In France the ministry of health allocates funding to hospitals on an annual basis, putting hospitals on a budget based on the needs of the population they serve. The government also determines the amount of equipment, including expensive medical technologies that hospitals require. Medical Centers are not allowed to engage in “medical arms races” with every hospital scrambling to buy the newest, most expensive equipment as it competes with the hospital down the block. (If the U.S. had a more rational system,  urban hospitals would share patients and equipment. For an MRI, a patient  might go to the outpatient clinic at hospital X. A patient who needed a  CAT-scan he might go to the outpatient clinic at hospital Y, four blocks away.

Of course, there are trade-offs.  Because French hospitals operate on a budget, patients are less likely to have a private room.  As Schiffrin noted, at the hospital where her father received his chemo, “the room was a little worn and there was often someone else in the next bed,” but “what was most important is that there was no waiting.”

Lundberg agrees about the trade-offs: “If you have a baby in France, expect to bring your own towels to the hospital. While there are no $10 aspirins, there’s not much in the way of other amenities, either. But for great, affordable health care, I’m just fine with bringing my own shampoo.”

In the U.S., some medical centers have the market clout to demand three times what competitors charge for the same service. This includes uncomplicated procedures. On average, a night in a U.S. hospital runs $483 but those with a marquee reputation can demand that insurers fork over $12,500 per diem.

In France that cannot happen. Thus, payers do not have to narrow their networks to exclude providers who would make premiums unaffordable. This is good news for patients: they can choose whichever doctor or hospital they prefer.

For this to work in the U.S., Congress would have to pass legislation that forced hospitals and specialists to accept discounts. Maryland is actually experimenting with a plan that would rein in hospital costs. In January the Obama administration announced that Maryland will begin capping hospital spending and setting prices; the administration expects the state will save $330 million in federal spending.

Meanwhile Massachusetts has passed legislation stipulating that insurers must tell their customers how much an MRI of the knee costs at an individual hospital, imaging center, or doctor’s office. The quote will include how much of the total price members would pay based on their deductibles and co-payments. As of January,  hospitals and doctors will be required to provide their own cost estimates to patients. Legislators hope that patients will use those numbers to comparison shop, and that his might put downward pressure on prices.

But I don’t expect to see many other states attempting to either regulate or lower hospital prices, or physicians’ fees —and not just because the lobbyists representing hospitals and specialists are so strong. American patients would be up in arms. The majority truly believe that if they (or the government, or an insurer) is paying more, they must be getting superlative care. (It will be interesting to see how many patients in Massachusetts will actually use the new information to choose a hospital or a doctor.)

In Manhattan people brag about how much their doctor charges, much the way a person might boast about how much he paid for a car.  In other words, in this city, your cardiologist can be a status symbol, just like a house, an automobile, or a spouse.

The deeply ingrained belief that costlier is always better explains why some patients are so upset that in recent years, more and more insurers have been tightening their provider networks. Particularly in  the exchanges, carriers are forced to compete on price and in an effort to keep their premiums competitive, many are not agreeing to the steep prices that  “premiere” institutions like Memorial Sloane Kettering demand. 

Obamacare’s critics complain that “top” hospitals are being excluded, but the truth is that Sloane Kettering itself initially refused to accept any Exchange insurance, because carriers were not agreeing to its sky-high charges.

Ultimately, after some hard negotiations, Sloane Kettering agreed to accept at least two Exchange plans. (Other renowned New York City academic medical centers were more flexible: NYU Langone Medical Center has signed agreements with four of the 19 insurers doing business on the New York Exchange, and NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital, which oversees the city’s biggest hospital system, has signed agreements with six insurers.)

Under reform, as patients become accustomed to narrow networks, many may well  find that out-of-network providers can be just as good—if not better—than those that top  the of U.S. News & World Reports  list of “Best Hospitals.” (Knowledgeable observers such as Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, chairman of the Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy at the University of Pennsylvania, view the magazine’s methodology as “flawed to the point of being nearly useless,” adding that “the so-called quality criteria U.S. News cites can encourage investments in higher-cost and lower-quality care.)

It’s worth keeping in mind that ultimately, the Schiffrin’s decided that Memorial Sloane Kettering (MSKCC) does not offer the “best cancer care anywhere.”

They are not alone. See patient reviews of Sloane Kettering on this website.  Given Sloane Kettering’s reputation, I am surprised by just how mixed the comments are, with many families and patient echoing the Schiffrin’s complaints.

Let me be clear: there is no way to fact-check these comments. And my guess is that angry relatives and patients are more likely to comment on websites like these than those who went home grateful that a mother’s life was saved. Moreover, when a loved one disappears from this planet grieving families may search for someone or something to blame, even if the life could not have been saved.

But very few of these comments are charging Sloane Kettering with misdiagnosis, preventable medical errors, or some other form of malpractice. Rather, they complain about a lack of “respect” for patients—“arrogance,” too little caring, and too little empathy. This is what I find disturbing.

As one person put it: “The administration of this hospital must be asleep at the wheel. The docs are doing leading edge work and the patient experience is dreadful.”

Another patient offers what seems to me a fair summary of what goes on at many of our top academic medical centers: “Sloane Kettering is a great research institution and offers a lot to those with critical or unusual cancer cases. (Mine was caught early and treatment is routine). That being said, I feel I should be treated with courtesy and respect.”

Instead, she reports, her doctor “lashed out” at her on more than one occasion.  “When I inquired about seeing a neurologist about issues from a pinched nerve that I developed during chemo she basically told me, ‘you’ve been diagnosed and you’ll have to learn to live with it.’   Very unsympathetic.”

This patient adds: “MSKCC is running commercials now on the radio selling compassionate care and a team of doctors. That sounds great and I keep wondering how I get that! I’m not now and wouldn’t return if I had to do it all over again (which hopefully I won’t!).”

The Schiffrins were delighted with the care Andre received in Paris because the hospital provided what Dr. Donald Berwick has called “patient-centered” medicine—treatment that is designed around “the wants and needs of the patient. When talking about her father’s treatment, Anya Schiffrin uses the word “humane.”

Too often, at our busy brand-name academic medical centers, care is “provider-centered.” Treatment  is orchestrated (if it is “orchestrated at all) in ways that the administration believes will be most convenient for the hospital and its clinicians.

In part 3 of this post, I will explore the importance of collaborative, patient-centered care, what we know about the relationship between the cost and quality of healthcare in the U.S. ,and what we might learn from the Schiffrin’s experience in France.

View the original article here

Why Are So Many Americans Confused About Obamacare? How a Video Produced by CBS’ Washington Bureau Misled Millions –Part 1

For nearly four years, poll after poll has shown that the majority of Americans remain flummoxed by Obamacare.  Many are confused; some are afraid. They don’t know what the Affordable Care Act (ACA) says, and they don’t know how it will affect their lives

From the beginning, many in the media have blamed the White House.

Early in 2011, when a CBS poll showed that only 56% of Americans said the bill’s impact had not been explained well—or even “somewhat well”– CBS senior producer Ward Sloane summed up the prevailing view: “To me, that is a Monumental Failure by the Obama Administration. . . . [my emphasis]  And it opens up a big hole for the Republicans which they have driven through with, you know, several tanks.”

Because Democrats had botched explaining the legislation, Sloane argued, Republicans “can say whatever they want about the healthcare bill … whether it’s true or not, and  . . . it will resonate . . .  People are afraid. People are afraid of things that they don’t understand and they don’t know. . . The Republicans are playing to this fear and they’re doing a masterful job.”

Sloane slid over the role that reporters might play in helping the public understand an enormous—and enormously important– piece of legislation.  If Republicans were spreading disinformation, shouldn’t news organizations like CBS try to separate fact from fiction?

Network and cable news shows are in our living rooms every evening. President Barack Obama and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius are not. In speeches and in press conferences Obama and Sebelius can address a handful of questions, but they cannot explain the hundreds of interlocking details that will benefit millions of Americans. The public needs an independent, informed press that will dig into the major provisions of Obamacare and explain them, not once, but again and again.

There was just one problem: As Sloane suggested, the Republicans were doing “a masterful job” of misleading the public. What he didn’t take into account is that journalists are part of “the public.”

Fast forward two years to the fall of 2013.

Little has changed; most Americans still don’t understand the Affordable Care Act, and many are convinced that they have been betrayed by the president they elected.

Millions are now receiving letters from their insurers, telling them that they cannot renew their policies. The media blames the White House. According to NBC, CNN, CBS and Fox News, not only did the administration fail to warn the public that under Obamacare, some  insurance that didn’t meet the ACA’s standards would have to be replaced,  it  deliberately concealed this fact. http://mediamatters.org/research/2013/10/29/media-surprised-by-obamacares-effect-on-insuran/196652

NBC broke the story: “The administration knew that more than 40 to 67 percent of those in the individual market would not be able to keep their plans,”  yet Fox hissed, “they didn’t say a word.

This is simply not true. Back in June of 2010, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius held a press conference to announce that, under Obamacare, millions would be moving to new plans. As I point out in this post, a HHS press release spelled out the numbers: “roughly 42 million people insured through small businesses  . . . along with “17 million who are covered in the individual health insurance market.”

Even Fox covered the press conference, complete with a video of Sebelius’ speech. But somehow, by 2013, amnesia had set in.

But what about the president’s promise that “if you like your plan, you can keep it”?  Wasn’t this proof that Obama had tried to hide the fact that millions of Americans would lose their insurance?

Obama first made that pledge in 2008, while debating John McCain. The context is crucial:  Obama was addressing “the majority” of Americans  (roughly 66% ) who worked for large companies  that paid 75% to 80% of their premiums –not the minority who purchased their own insurance in the individual marketplace (5%), nor the 17% who  were insured by small business owners.

As I have explained, at the time, Obama was trying to reassure Americans who worked for large corporations that they would be able to keep the generous benefits they enjoyed. Reform would not mean dismantling employer-based insurance, and moving everyone into a single-pay system.  But over time, Obama made a critical error; he let his pledge become a one-liner, making it easy for his opponents to rip that line out of context.

Meanwhile, few in the media seemed to feel that it was their job to put the president’s words in context, or to help clarify why certain policies could not be renewed.

“Explaining”–that was the administration’s job. The media’s job was to stir emotions and assign blame. Or, at least, that’s what many journalists seemed to think.

Before long, the news about “policies cancelled” inspired portraits of  “Obamacare’s victims,” people like  Debra Fishericks, a Virginia Beach grandmother  who was losing her insurance.

After a CBS reporter interviewed Fishericks, the network’s Washington Bureau put together a video, headlined  “Woman Battling Kidney Cancer Losing Company Health Plan Due To Obamacare.”   The Bureau then sent it to CBS affiliates nationwide.

WDBJ7, a CBS station in Roanoke, Virginia was among the first to run the video on November 24, 2013.

“We’ve heard about the computer glitches associated with the Affordable Care Act website.” observed WDBJ anchor Susan Bahorich. “Now, some are saying, you can add broken promises to the list of problems.

“CBS reporter Susan McGinnis visited a Virginia Beach woman who says her work insurance was fine –until ACA came along.”

McGinnis, a CBS Washington Bureau correspondent, narrates the tale:

“At her office in Virginia Beach, Debra Fishericks often sneaks a peek at her 3 year old grandson.”

“That’s my guy,” says Fishericks.

McGinnis sets up the story: “Debra is battling kidney cancer. During the 10 years she’s worked at Atkinson Realty, the company has provided group health insurance with manageable premiums.”

Betsy Atkinson, the owner of the real estate business, appears on the screen:  “We had great insurance. We had continuing care for our employees.”

“’Great’” McGinnis adds, “until owner Betsy Atkinson learned the policy would be terminated because it doesn’t meet the requirements of the Affordable Care Act.”

“On June 30, 2014, I will probably not be offering company insurance to my employees. I just can’t afford it’.

“Debra has scoured the website looking for a new policy,” McGinnis reports, referring to Healthcare.gov.  “So far,” she adds, “she cannot afford the premiums. “They just keep going up higher and higher when there is a pre-existing condition,” Fishericks explains

McGinnis wraps up the piece: “Debra hopes that eventually she will find a plan that fits her budget so that she can still makes trips to Indiana –to visit her grandson.”

“If I can’t go to see him—that’s the worst,” says Fishericks.

She begins to cry.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Watching the video, I thought: “Oh no, not again.”

A month ago I wrote about Whitney Johnson,   a  26-year old suffering from MS who claimed that under Obamacare, she would have to pay $1,000 a month—or more—for insurance.  http://www.cwalac.org/cwblog/

When I read her story in the Ft. Worth Star-Telegram, I knew it couldn’t be true. Under the Affordable Care Act) insurers can no longer charge more because a customer suffers from a chronic disease. I had thought that this was one part of the ACA that everyone understood.

Apparently not.  In Fishericks’ video, the CBS correspondent tells viewers that a cancer patient who “has scoured the website . . . cannot afford the premiums” because, as the patient explains, “they just keep going up higher and higher when there is a pre-existing condition.”

I was stunned.  The reporter, Susan McGinnis, who later told me that she oversaw the piece, has been a Washington Correspondent at CBS News for three years–following an eight-year stint as an anchor on CBS Morning News. She is a seasoned journalist; yet she didn’t flag the fact that what Fishericks said couldn’t possibly be true.

Granted, McGinnis didn’t actually interview Fishericks; she just did the “stand up” narration in D.C. Another CBS reporter from the Washington Bureau went down to Virginia Beach. And apparently that reporter didn’t realize that under the ACA, insurers cannot jack up premiums because the customer has been diagnosed the cancer.

Finally, someone at CBS’ Washington Bureau must have edited the video.

I can understand why any one person might not have spotted the problem. We all make mistakes. But no one?

Let me be clear:  Fishericks had shopped the Exchange and honestly believed what she was saying. The problem is that no one at CBS corrected her.

Perhaps this was because after four years, the debate over health care reform had dissolved into sound bites, creating what Nancy Pelosi rightly called a “fog of controversy,” obscuring the facts about health care reform. Reporters were printing and parroting the fictions and half-truths that conservatives fed to the media. And in an era of cut-and-paste journalism, the myths became memes, iterated over and over again. Little wonder that many people—including journalists—didn’t know what to believe. This, I think, is one reason why no one at CBS caught the glaring error in Fisherwicks’s story.

Thus the network left viewers with the false impression that under the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” a cancer patient may not be able to afford care.

In late November, 50 CBS stations aired Fishericks story.  (Hat tip to the Franklin Forum  for this information) Within 48 hours, it began showing up in newspapers like Investors’ Business Daily  and The Weekly Standard .

Fishericks’ tale then was picked up by thousands of blogs. “Living Under Obamacare” (paid for by the National Republican Congressional Committee) and “republicansenate.gov” both featured it.

Google “Debra Fishericks,” and you will get over 13,000 results. In other words, the story got around.

Trouble is,  it wasn’t true. As Fishericks herself would tell me: “they got the whole story wrong.”

When I began fact-checking this story, I wanted to talk to the CBS reporter who went down to Virginia Beach and interviewed Fishericks.  Only she would know what questions she asked, and exactly what her source said.  I phoned McGinnis and asked for the name and phone number of the reporter who actually interviewed

McGinnis explained that while several reporters were involved in the project, she had been in charge. She wanted to take a look at the transcript, “talk to my bosses,” and look into the problem herself.

I asked if I could see the transcript of the full interview.

No, that wouldn’t be possible.

McGinnis and I then exchanged e-mails, and I spelled out what I found misleading:

McGinnis’ reply was cordial:

“I understand your point regarding the ACA and pre-existing conditions.”

“Our piece was aimed at illustrating a small business’ experience with the law . . . We were trying to illustrate what Debra was going through, what she understood, and how she felt. She was having trouble with the website, was getting no help, and her impression was that having a pre-existing condition could make insurance more costly for her.   

“Nowhere did we report that she would be denied coverage for a pre-existing condition, she was only worried about it. [my emphasis]

McGinnis was right– CBS didn’t say that Fishericks was denied coverage.  But that was not my complaint.

Fishericks had suggested that, in the Exchange, she would have to pay far more than she could afford because she was a cancer patient.

McGinnis still didn’t seem to understand that by leaving Fisherwick’s comment in the piece CBS was misleading its audience. Viewers would believe that, under Obamacare, if you’re sick, insurers  can gouge you.

In her e-mail McGinnis also insisted that reporters still have time to fact-check. Yet no one checked this piece. If they had, someone would have discovered another error: Fishericks was not “battling”cancer.

But I wouldn’t find that out until I talked to Fishericks for a third time at the end of the week.

On January 8 I received a final email from McGinnis, conceding that: “the Affordable Care Act does indeed specify, in Section 1201, that . . .   a health plan cannot deny enrollment, or the plan’s benefits, to someone based on that person’s preexisting condition.

“However,” McGinnis  argued, “that certainly does not mean a plan has to include coverage for ongoing treatment that a patient started before obtaining coverage in an exchange plan on January 1, 2014.”

“Key to understanding this distinction” she added, “is that having ‘health coverage’ is not the same as actually obtaining ‘health care.’ The insurance plan has to take anyone who wants to enroll, regardless of their health status or health history – but they don’t have to provide the same treatments, the same doctors, or the same medications that a patient has been receiving.”

McGinnis seemed to have swallowed a rumor spread by so many “concerned trolls”:  Just because a carrier sells insurance to someone who is sick, that doesn’t mean that the insurer must continue the treatment the patient needs.

I understand that few reporters had time to actually read the 2000-page law. But ideally, reporters would have dug into the in-depth briefs published by groups such as the Kaiser Family Foundation, the Commonwealth Fund, or the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Concise and well-researched, these briefs corrected most of the misinformation about Obamacare floating around in what had become an increasingly toxic atmosphere.

But rather than concentrating on the policy, reporters tended to focus on the politics of health care reform.

I responded to McGinnis with the facts:

The ACA stipulates that insures must cover all “essential benefits.” As the American Cancer Society (ACS) explains, this includes “cancer treatment and follow-up.”  The ACS also points out that the law bans “dollar limits on how much the insurer will pay out for care,” and “gives patients “new rights to appeal claims that are denied by the insurer.”

That last point is important.

While the law does not guarantee that a patient can continue to see the same provider, if a patient or her doctor believe that only a particular hospital or specialist can provide the needed care, Obamacare strengthens the patient’s right to appeal.  

Under the ACA, if the case is urgent, the insurer must respond to the appeal within 72 hours.  If the carrier says “No,” the patient then has a right to an “external review” by an independent reviewer, and once again, the law calls for a speedy decision.

Similar regulations apply if an insurer doesn’t cover a needed medication..

How likely is it that a patient will win an appeal? A 2011 GAO study shows that even before Obamacare “between 39 and 59 percent of denials were reversed on internal appeal and an additional 23 to 54 percent were reversed or revised on external appeal.”  Today, a patient’s odds are significantly better. ht

McGinnis probably wasn’t aware of the new rules and, even if she has heard about them, she may have had doubts as to whether they would be effective. Fear-mongers on both the left and the right had planted seeds of suspicion, and by the fall of 2013, mainstream journalists were increasingly skeptical as to whether Obamacare would force insurers to do the right thing.

After swapping e-mails with McGinnnis I wanted to talk to Fishericks; I called her at the Atkinson Real Estate Agency where she works as a receptionist.

No surprise, she wasn’t terribly enthusiastic about talking to me. She was at work, she explained, covering seven phone lines. But in a brief conversation she did convey a critical piece of information: the story that CBS aired was wrong—form beginning to end.

“I wrote them a letter” Fishericks told me. “And do you know what I got in return? Two words:  ‘Thank you.’”

Clearly she was angry.

But I could tell she didn’t want to continue the conversation. And I didn’t want to press my luck. I thanked her, and hung up.

I planned to call her again—when I had more information.

In part 2 of this post, I will discuss how and why the media wasn’t able to do a better job of lifting “the fog” of disinformation.

For one, our sound-bite culture makes it difficult to explain something as complicated  as the ACA to the public. As one observer notes: “Americans aren’t into nuance.”,

In the second part of this post, I’ll also report what CBS’ producers (including Ward Sloane, who now is Deputy Director of CBS’s Washington Bureau) had to say about  Fishericks’ story, why the Bureau ultimately removed the video from its server, and most importantly, what Debra Fishericks revealed in our final interview.

View the original article here

How A CBS Video About An Obamacare Victim Misled Millions- Part 2 (What the “Victim” Revealed in Our Final Interview)

“Woman Battling Kidney Cancer Losing Company Health Plan Due To Obamacare.”

That was the headline on a story that CBS’ Washington Bureau sent to its affiliates last fall.

CBS correspondent Susan McGinnis narrates the piece: “During the 10 years that Debra Fishericks has worked at Atkinson Realty, the company has provided group health insurance with manageable premiums,” McGinnis explains –“until owner Betsy Atkinson learned the policy would be terminated because it doesn’t meet the requirements of the Affordable Care Act.

“Debra has scoured the website looking for a new policy,” McGinnis adds, referring to healthcare.gov, but “so far, she cannot afford the premiums.”

“They just keep going up higher and higher when there is a pre-existing condition,” says Fishericks.

McGinnis wraps up the story: “Debra hopes that eventually she will find a plan that fits her budget so that she can still makes trips to Indiana –to visit her grandson.”

The camera then turns to Fishericks, sitting at her desk, looking at a photo of her grandson.  “If I can’t go to see him—that’s the worst,” she says.  And she begins to cry.

I was astonished: I thought most people understood that, under the Affordable Care Act, insurers can no longer charge a customer more because she suffers from a pre-existing condition.

Later, when I interviewed Fishericks, I realized that she honestly believed she was going to have to pay more for coverage because she had been diagnosed with cancer. Like a great many Americans, she didn’t understand how the ACA would protect her. Given how hard Obamacare’s opponents have worked to obscure the law’s benefits, I probably shouldn’t have been surprised.

But what shocked me is that no one at CBS’s Washington Bureau seemed to realize that what Fishericks had said just wasn’t true: not the correspondent who narrated the story, not the reporter who went down to Virginia Beach and interviewed Fishericks, not the person who edited the video.

Fifty-eight CBS stations aired the piece. Newspapers and bloggers ran with it. Nationwide, millions of Americans were left with the impression that under Obamacare, cancer patients may not be able to afford insurance.

How had this happened?

As I explained in the first part of this post, I began by calling the CBS correspondent, Susan McGinnis, and we exchanged emails. In the end, she conceded that: “the Affordable Care Act does indeed specify, in Section 1201, that . . .   a health plan cannot deny enrollment, or the plan’s benefits, to someone based on that person’s preexisting condition.”

I appreciated the fact that she had looked at the law, but I could not help but wonder: Was this the first time she had heard of this provision?

Meanwhile, she still seemed skeptical as to whether a patient like Fishericks would receive the care she needs. After agreeing that an insurer would have to sell her a policy without jacking up the premium, McGinnis’ e-mail continued:

“However that certainly does not mean a plan has to include coverage for ongoing treatment that a patient started before obtaining coverage in an exchange plan on January 1, 2014.

“Key to understanding this distinction” she added, “is that having ‘health coverage’ is not the same as actually obtaining ‘health care.’”

 If the line sounds familiar it may be because it’s a favorite among the ACA’s ace  fear-mongers. Back in 2012, Romney healthcare adviser Avik Roy headlined a Forbes column: “Why health insurance is not the same as health care.”

In fact, as I explained to McGinnis, under Obamacare cancer treatments and follow-up are an “essential benefit” that insurer’s must cover. In the event that an insurer refused to continue a particular medication or procedure, the ACA strengthens a patient’s right to appeal—and requires a speedy answer, both from the carrier and from an external appeals board. 

That McGinnis had swallowed a conservative talking point surprised me. Had everyone at the Washington Bureau drunk the Republican Kool-Aid? I wanted to talk to more people at CBS.

The first person I reached was a producer at the Washington Bureau who was familiar with the video. But when I brought up the misleading sound bite, the producer, who identified herself as “Heather” was adamant: “She never said that!”

“But it’s there, in the transcript, and I heard it in the video,” I insisted. “How can you deny it?’

(Later, I would find out that when Heather  said “She never said that!” she thought I was claiming that McGinnis, not Fisherwicks, suggested that insurers could charge a customer more if she suffered from a pre-existing condition.)

Before I had a chance to ask any more questions, she announced in a slightly mocking, sing-song voice:  “I’m- Hanging -Up -Now. Good-Bye.”

Frustrated, I decided to call the Washington Bureau Chief. His assistant was friendly, and took a long message.

Less than an hour later, I received a call from the bureau’s Deputy Chief—Ward Sloane.

He did not sound happy.

I explained my concerns about the story. He listened.

When I finished, he replied: “Or so YOU Say.” His tone was caustic.

“Hold on,” I replied. “Can’t we at least agree that under the Affordable Care Act, insurers cannot charge a customer more because he suffers from a pre-existing condition?”

“Is that the way it’s supposed to work?” he asked. “We really don’t know. . .”

He seemed to be saying that we don’t know how Obamacare will play out. (As I will explain in part 3, this has become a common theme in the mainstream media: “Nobody knows. . .” )

“Are you saying that we don’t know what is in the bill?” I asked, “Or that there is no provision which prohibits insurers from jacking up premiums if someone has cancer?  Let me write that down.”

“No you won’t!” Now he was shouting.  “I’m Done!”  He slammed down the phone.

I wanted to know more about Sloane. When I Googled  his name.” I discovered a  2011 “Political Roundtable” where Sloane blames the White House for failing to spell out how the Affordable Care Act would affect the average person.

“To me this is a monumental failure by the Obama administration,”  Sloane declared. “Republicans can say whatever they want about the healthcare bill, whether it’s true or not, and  . . . it will resonate . . .  People are afraid of things that they don’t understand and they don’t know. . . The Republicans are playing to this fear, and they’re doing a masterful job.”

On another occasion, Sloane groused that President Obama is “great at soaring rhetoric, but when it comes down to explaining to the American public why this matters to them . . . .” The CBS producer made it clear that the president has fallen short.

Up to a point, I agree with Sloane: Bill Clinton is far better at explaining wonky detail to the public (see this post  and scroll down to this sub-head: “What the President Should Have Said”. )  And  there is no question: Conservatives have done a “masterful job” of taking advantage of the uncertainty about Obamacare. As Nancy Pelosi  suggested shortly before the legislation passed Congress, “the fog of controversy” has left many Americans befuddled as to what reform will mean for them.

But here is my question: why haven’t journalists done a better job of lifting the fog?Perhaps because they, too, have been confused by a blizzard of conservative sound bites designed to foster cynicism, doubt and suspicion

After Sloane hung up on me, I waited ten minutes, then called the D.C. bureau again.

This time, Heather, the producer who had hung up on me an hour earlier,  answered the phone. To my surprise, she was much friendlier.

She confided that she had just been talking to Ward Sloane, and that CBS would be pulling the story from their website and taking it down from the server that goes to their affiliates.

But the story had aired in November—and then went viral. CBS was closing the barn door.

Heather agreed: ideally that sound-bite would have been eliminated when the story was edited.  “The problem is with the Internet,” she added, “once something gets out there, it is impossible to reel it back in.” But isn’t this all the more reason why journalists should be very careful to check their facts?

She also explained that originally, she thought I said that McGinnis, the CBS correspondent, had made the misleading remark about pre-conditions. “I knew she wouldn’t say that!”

Later, I asked whether CBS was thinking about running a retraction.

“There is no really efficient way to get it out there” she replied. “And the problem is not what Susan (McGinnis) said. It was this other woman’s mis-characterization.”

CBS was still hung up on the notion that their correspondent hadn’t made a mistake. But “this other woman” was their source, and the heroine of their story.

I decided to phone Fishericks one more time. I suspected she would be pleased that CBS was taking the story down. And I had two or three more questions that I wanted to ask her . . .

She was, indeed, glad to hear the news.

But she was still furious with CBS.

“They told me that they would send me a release, and that they would let me know when the story was going to air. They never did.”

I wanted to give CBS a chance to respond, so I emailed McGinnis, who had told me that she was in charge of the project. .

She replied: “I know of no release.  Our story was honestly found, honestly reported, and honestly aired.”

Debra was not impressed: “CBS is not looking very good right now. But,” she added,  ”There is accountability.  Thank you for being steadfast.”

I thanked her–and thanked her  for taking my calls.

I also explained that I had finally reached her boss, Betsy Atkinson, and she had said that she thought Debra had finally found coverage. Was this true?

“I will be buying a new policy, early this year, before our insurance runs out,” Fishericks replied, “but I won’t be buying Obamacare.”

“Are you aware that you might get a generous tax credit from the government if you purchase a policy on the Exchange?” I asked.  (Her boss had told me that Fishericks earned less than $45,000, and so I assumed that she would qualify.

“Not interested,” she replied smoothly, adding that she didn’t want to deal with “the red tape.”

I wanted to help. “But most people who earn under $45,000 are very happy to have the government’s help. Are you sure you can afford the premium?”

“I can manage it. I may go on my husband’s plan. Though there is also an Anthem plan that I like and can afford.”

This was the first I had heard for a husband who had health benefits at work. Had that come up in her CBS interview?  If so, why did CBS portray her as someone who couldn’t afford insurance?

At this point I also realized that their combined salaries might well mean that she would not be eligible for a government subsidy after all.

What was clear was that she wasn’t worried about the cost.  So much for that heart-wrenching moment at the end of the video when the CBS narrator suggests that unless she finds a plan that “fits her budget,” in the future Debra might  not be able to afford a trip to visit her grandson.

Now, I asked her a question that I had been waiting to ask: “Debra, is your cancer in remission?”

I had been reluctant to ask this. For cancer patients, the whole issue of remission and recurrence is terrifying.

But both in the video and on the phone, Debra did not look or sound like someone fighting kidney cancer. And I knew that she was working full-time . . .

Still, I wasn’t ready for her reply:

“I don’t have cancer. I had a cancerous mass in my right kidney, but it was removed.”

“When?” I asked.

“In 2009.”

The CBS headline, “Woman Battling Kidney Cancer Losing Company Health Plan Due To Obamacare” didn’t  just exaggerate her plight. It was flat-out wrong.

This is what she meant, in our first interview, when she said they had “gotten the story all wrong.”

Presumably, CBS was looking for a poster child for Obamacare
“horror stories.”

But when a reporter went down to Virginia Beach to interview Debra couldn’t she see that Fishericks really didn’t look or act like someone struggling to stay alive? (Symptoms of kidney cancer include: pain in the side that won’t go away, weight loss, fever, and exhaustion.)

Should the reporter have known the signs of kidney cancer? No, absolutely not. But she might have asked Debra how she was doing. (Perhaps she did; I don’t know. CBS wouldn’t give me her name.)

Debra was still angry: “They wanted to “glorify’ the cancer angle—I don’t know why.  I would Never play the cancer sympathy card.

She sounded so adamant, I asked: Why?

Again, I wasn’t ready for her answer.

Her three-year-old grandson has a malignant brain tumor.

“That’s why I was crying at the end of the video,” Debra confided.  She spoke softly: “I was looking at his picture and thinking—not about me, but about him.”

No wonder she was so furious: She felt used.

CBS had used her and abused in a way that no professional journalist should ever treat a source.  And in the end they blamed her for the error in their video.

Debra has not pretended to be a healthcare expert. She simply told the reporter what she thought to be true.  And they ran with it.

But the problem is not confined to CBS.

 In part 3 of this post I will ask: “Why Do So Many Reporters know so little about the Affordable Care Act?”

Is not just that they haven’t read the 2,000-plus pages of legislation—that I understand. Most journalists don’t have time to wade through the bill.

But when one of Obamacare’s detractors makes a statement about the Affordable Care Act, few reporters fact-check it.

For example:  No doubt you have heard the charge that Obamcare will turn us into a nation of part-timers:  The ACA’s opponents point out that the law  insists that small businesses with 50 to 99 full-time employees (averaging 30 hours a week) must start insuring workers by 2016. Those with 100 or more are required to begin offering insurance in 2015.

Small businesses are the engine of job growth, conservatives argue. Thanks to the Affordable Care Act they will hire fewer full-time workers. Even worse, many will cut current employees hours to 29 or less.

True or False?

“Google” makes it easy to check.  Type in “Obamacare” and “small business” and “full-time” and Google  will take you to “Obamacarefacts.com.” There, you will discover that “Small businesses with 50-99 full-time equivalent employees will need to start insuring workers by 2016. Those with a 100 or more will need to start providing health benefits in 2015.” http://obamacarefacts.com/obamacare-employer-mandate.php

Any reporter who possesses just a smidgen of curiosity is bound to wonder: “What are full-time equivalent employees?”

The Fact Sheer explains: “In simple terms FTE or “full-time equivalent” equals (the total number of full-time employees) plus (the combined number of Part-time employee hours divided by 30).

In other words, when the government count “full-time employees,” it doesn’t just count heads, it counts hours. If a business has 50 full-time employees working 30 hours a week, and cuts 10 back to 15 hours, it will have only 40 full-time employees. But it will have to hire more part-timers

Let’s say a small company hires 20 new part-time workers, each putting in 15 hours a week. Combined, they will be working 300 hours. Divide 300 by 30 and you have 10 “full time equivalents.” Add 10 to the  40 remaining full-time workers and the company  now has 50 “full-time or full-time equivalent employees.”

The business won’t have to insure the 20 part-timers, but it will have to insure the 40 who work full-time, or pay the penalty. And it will have to train 20 new employees. Hardly a brilliant business plan.

A reporter who knows how to Goggle could figure this out in less than 10 minutes.But too many journalists just focus on “the news”—what a conservative said today, what the White House Press Secretary said in reply—without comparing the pols’ and pundits’ claims to the legislation passed in 2010. It’s there in black & white, waiting for fact-checkers.

In final section of this post, I’ll discuss other reasons why so many news outlets wind up spreading misinformation, and what “knowledge-based journalism” would mean.

View the original article here