As heard on Fox: Eric Stern debunks Hannity show!

MONDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2013

Silence from the Times: According to Eric Stern, he watched the Hannity program on Fox on Friday evening, October 11.

Stern has a large advantage on most cable viewers; he understands the basic workings of the Affordable Care Act. In a subsequent piece at Salon, Stern says he worked as a senior adviser to Montana governor Brian Schweitzer. He says he helped Schweitzer deal with the new federal rules in the ACA.

We watched Hannity’s program that evening too. We saw and heard the same things Stern did.

Being less knowledgeable than Stern, we didn’t know what to think about various things which were said that night. And we didn’t proceed as Stern did.

Good for Stern! He didn’t believe what he heard that night. But he didn’t just sit there and take it.

Here’s the start of Stern’s account of what he did next:
STERN (10/18/13): I happened to turn on the Hannity show on Fox News last Friday evening [October 11]. “Average Americans are feeling the pain of Obamacare and the healthcare overhaul train wreck,” Hannity announced, “and six of them are here tonight to tell us their stories.” Three married couples were neatly arranged in his studio, the wives seated and the men standing behind them, like game show contestants.

As Hannity called on each of them, the guests recounted their “Obamacare” horror stories: canceled policies, premium hikes, restrictions on the freedom to see a doctor of their choice, financial burdens upon their small businesses and so on.

“These are the stories that the media refuses to cover,” Hannity interjected.

But none of it smelled right to me. Nothing these folks were saying jibed with the basic facts of the Affordable Care Act as I understand them. I understand them fairly well; I have worked as a senior adviser to a governor and helped him deal with the new federal rules.

I decided to hit the pavement. I tracked down Hannity’s guests, one by one, and did my own telephone interviews with them.
Being a Democrat, Stern can’t help snarking about those regular people, who were “neatly arranged...like game show contestants.” But good for Stern!

Thanks to his knowledge and experience, Stern felt their horror stories about the ACA didn’t make sense. And so, he did what the New York Times has refused to do for the past several decades. He telephoned those regular people, then reported the bullshit Hannity sold to millions of viewers that night.

Stern’s report appeared at Salon last Friday. This is his account of his first phone call to Hannity’s guests:
STERN: First I spoke with Paul Cox of Leicester, N.C. He and his wife Michelle had lamented to Hannity that because of Obamacare, they can’t grow their construction business and they have kept their employees below a certain number of hours, so that they are part-timers.

Obamacare has no effect on businesses with 49 employees or less. But in our brief conversation on the phone, Paul revealed that he has only four employees. Why the cutback on his workforce? “Well,” he said, “I haven’t been forced to do so, it’s just that I’ve chosen to do so. I have to deal with increased costs.” What costs? And how, I asked him, is any of it due to Obamacare? There was a long pause, after which he said he’d call me back. He never did.

There is only one Obamacare requirement that applies to a company of this size: workers must be notified of the existence of the “healthcare.gov” website, the insurance exchange. That’s all.
According to Stern, Cox had made a bogus claim about Obamacare’s effect on his business.

The situations of the other two families were a bit more complex. But in each case, they hadn’t attempted to find out what they would have to pay for insurance under Obamacare. In each case, Stern said he found a plan for which they qualified which undercut the “horror stories” they had told Hannity’s viewers.

Assuming Stern’s information is accurate, why did these three couples offer these bogus accounts? We think Stern showed excellent judgment in this rumination as he finished his piece:
STERN: I don’t doubt that these six individuals believe that Obamacare is a disaster; but none of them had even visited the insurance exchange. And some of them appear to have taken actions (Paul Cox, for example) based on a general pessimistic belief about Obamacare. He’s certainly entitled to do so, but Hannity is not entitled to point to Paul’s behavior as an “Obamacare train wreck story” and maintain any credibility that he might have as a journalist.

Strangely, the recent shutdown was based almost entirely on a small percentage of Congress’s belief that Obamacare, as Ted Cruz puts it, “is destroying America.” Cruz has rarely given us an example of what he’s talking about. That’s because the best he can do is what Hannity did—exploit people’s ignorance and falsely point to imaginary boogeymen.
Showing good judgment, Stern didn’t try to plumb the motives of Hannity’s guests. Instead, he rebuked Hannity, the multimillionaire professional broadcaster, who exploited his viewers' ignorance when he broadcast these bogus tales.

Hannity isn’t entitled to broadcast such stories without checking them out, Stern said. Quite correctly, he assailed Hannity for misinforming the 1.45 million people who watched his first airing that night.

(We have no numbers for the program’s re-airings.)

Assuming Stern’s accounts are accurate, he has provided a valuable service. Now we have a question:

Why did this piece appear at Salon? Why hadn’t the New York Times already reported this matter as news, right out on its front page?

For the past fifteen years, we have screamed, yelled, hollered and screeched about a bone-simple point: when broadcasters disinform millions of people, that act qualifies as news. Such incidents should be reported as news on the front page of major newspapers.

For ourselves, we can’t vouch for the accuracy of Stern’s report. But total bullroar is constantly broadcast on Hannity’s program. It ought to qualify as news when voters get disinformed in such ways.

In recent decades, newspapers like the New York Times have agreed to look away from this ongoing train wreck. Liberal journalists have agreed to accept this timorous conduct from the cowardly Times.

All week, we’ll consider manifestations of this ongoing problem. Under present circumstances, Hannity can disinform viewers as much as he likes.

Timorous, trembling, knock-kneed, afraid, the New York Times doesn’t care.

87 comments:

  1. Only those who choose to be willfully ignorant can claim that "newspapers like the New York Times" (whatever that means) have failed to explain how the insurance exchanges work.

    But I am happy to see that you have finally realized that "total bullroar is constantly broadcast on Hannity's program."

    But rather than blame the New York Times for that, why not blame Rupert Murdoch? After all, he founded the network back in 90s and gave Hannity and his ilk featured platforms for the express purpose of broadcasting "total bullroar."

    I also take exception to your East Coast elitism that says if a story isn't in the New York Times, then it apparently doesn't really count.

    Bob, I've tried to tell you this before, but we are living in the 21st Century. There is great reporting going on all over the United States, both in newspapers and in a whole variety of media that didn't even exist 20 years ago.

    "I didn't know" is both a lazy and feeble excuse.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sometimes, the New York Times attempts to engage in reporting.
      Sometimes, these attempts at reporting appear on the paper’s front page.

      Delete
    2. Hannity's viewers will never see a "correction" if it appears in Salon. They might if it appears in the NYTimes. I wonder if the NY Times sees reporting on the errors on Fox as a partisan activity and doesn't want to be seen to take political sides?

      Delete
    3. I see. If Hannity's viewers see his stuff "corrected" in the New York Times, of course, they will believe the Times over Hannity.

      I kinda go along with what others have said in that the Times and other serious newspapers should have better things to do than monitor Sean Hannity.

      Delete
    4. Wow! It's a good thing that Bob has such a reader as Anon @ 1:24 to educate him as to what good journalism is out there.
      I think, however, that some of your assumptions are in error. I am sure that Bob is aware of other outlets available that provide more accurate information. I am sure that Bob has not just had a revelation and "finally realized that 'total bullroar is constantly broadcast on Hannity's program.'"
      I also take exception to your reference to East Coast elitism and what gets published in the NY Times. Bob's point has been that the New York Times, being regarded as the "newspaper of record," and being a major "journalistic" entity, has failed in its responsibility to its readers to provide information.
      You, however, in your elitist way think that Bob needs you to educate him in the way of the world in the 21st century. What arrogance. What ignorance. For a regular reader you seem to be clueless as to what Bob is saying.

      Delete
    5. Yes, Horace. Thank God we have a blogger like Bob reminding us that the New York Times doesn't fact-check Sean Hannity.

      And yes, Horace. We all need to know what the Times doesn't do, especially on its Op-Ed page which seems to be quite often the only page Bob ever reads, especially on those days when Collins and Dowd are in print.

      It is much easier for Bob to tell us what to think than to actually pick up a copy of the NYT on any given day and find out what the DO cover.

      But of course, an obedient tribe member such as yourself would do no such thing. You might realize that Bob is full of excrement when he lectures the Times on what it should be doing.

      Like spending hours combing cable TV for stories to debunk on its front page.

      Delete
    6. "Bob's point has been that the New York Times, being regarded as the "newspaper of record," and being a major "journalistic" entity, has failed in its responsibility to its readers to provide information."

      Do you really believe this, Horace? Do you actually believe that there is no information in the NYT?

      Delete
    7. They fail to cover some news, that's for sure.

      Among the things the NYT fails to cover:

      It's *news* when popular media spread falsehoods.

      The NYT doesn't cover that news. And by failing to cover it, they give cover to it.

      Delete
    8. "It's *news* when popular media spread falsehoods."

      I saw in a rather popular media at my supermarket checkout stand that aliens had abducted Justin Bieber.

      Is that news?

      Delete
  2. Those mopes who went on Fox are tools, and I'll bet they were paid to appear and tell their little stories, too.
    If I am showing liberal contempt for honest working folks, so be it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Useful idiots" is the term, I think. The primary blame, however, falls on Hannity and Faux for intentionally misleading their viewers.

      Delete
    2. Stern to his credit focused like a laser beam on what they said, not who they were. And that was devastating.

      But . . . it would be interesting to know who these "normal" people are and how they got discovered and chosen to be on Hannity's show.

      Delete
    3. Personally, I'm wondering how many emails that conservative Senators and House members read on the floors of their respective chambers had any relation to the truth.

      Delete
  3. Well said, where is the times and other media with stories like this?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. These days, they are in places like Salon. So what?

      Delete
    2. Rather plainly, Salon is now inventing a culture in which liberal politics consists almost solely in dropping R-, B-, S-, M- and H-bombs. In these ways, We The Good People fluff ourselves as we take The Bad People down.

      Delete
    3. That was yesterday's Bob narrative. Today's Bob narrative is that Salon is doing the work that the New York Times should be doing.

      Delete
    4. The new Salon routinely engages in the ugly, money-making practice of teaching liberal readers to thrillingly hate.

      Delete
    5. Agree with Mr. Snipes. It's important our so-called "objective" establishment media flesh this stuff out and.get beyond the lazy "he said/she said" coverage they are known for. The NYT led the way in promoting a bogus case for war in Iraq. They were clueless regarding the lead up to the '08 financial crash. Let's face it, they're not very good at their job. The Boutique Liberal doesn't seem to mind much provided they have a delightful Sunday morning read while sipping their lattes.

      Delete
    6. I can't believe we have allowed the Boutique wing, with its petty latte sipping insouciance, to allow the kind of coverage we get from our so-called objective establishment media through their don't-give-a-shittism. We need give the activism of the old General Store Liberalism.

      Delete
    7. Far be it from me to claim Salon does not often suck big time. Yet they have had a series of articles this week on the GOP's attempt to ruin our country that were pretty good; and Bob failed to take them on. Not hard to imagine why he sticks to the low hanging fruit like Walsh and Dowd.

      Delete
    8. Bob was too busy with his brilliant expose of Amanda Ripley to bother with the government shutdown and the default crisis.

      Delete
  4. So why not just acknowledge the good job Stern did? Why does it have to become another occasion to bash the horrible, awful New York Times?

    Too stuck in your own narrative, Bob?

    And lest I reminisce too much about the "good ol' days," there was, once upon a time, the occasion when Somerby did exactly the kind of work he lauds Stern for -- actually doing some research on such "bullroar" claims and exposing them as baseless partisan rhetoric.

    But I guess that took too much work.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The new Salon is devoted to war. People like Walsh will crawl right up your ascot hoping to get you to love it.

      Delete
  5. Where did we see this Salon piece linked before?

    ReplyDelete
  6. If Mr. Stern was really honest, would he not admit that he does not know how the ACA/Obamacare will work out? Its a pig in a poke; we don't know if 5 years from now they won't cover stem cell transplants but they'll cover in vitro fertilization. I remember when Hillary Clinton was involved with health insurance in the early 90s there was an article about the lobbying going on, chiropractors and podiatrists hiring expensive lawyer lobbyists to be included.

    If these folks that Hannity talked to are good with their current health insurance, and if they feel that its possible there will be a negative consequence, intentional or not, from Obamacare, well, I can see where they might be very frustrated that they have no voice or that they are - as usual - put in the position where someone belittles their concerns or makes them out to be bad guys or hateful or stingy. If they think they are the ones who will end up paying for the subsidies, they have a legitimate right to complain.

    Eisenhower had 700 "advisors" in Vietnam when he left office. Not 10 years later, there were hundreds of thousands of American troups in Vietnam.

    I have no way of knowing what Obamacare/ACA will do to medical care or health insurance and neither does anyone else.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 543,000 American troops in Vietnam in 1968. No one could have predicted it in 1960, only 8 years earlier.

      Government involvement in healthcare/insurance will spend huge amounts on what the media hypes and it may not be the best use or it may be wasteful or it may be of no use at all. Who thinks there won't be every possible, imaginable breast cancer idea financed under ACA? Its a very heavily promoted issue.

      Delete
    2. On Dec. 8, 1941, nobody could have predicted the outcome of World War II. Guess we shouldn't have gotten involved in that, either.

      Delete
    3. This argument that no one can foretell the future can be said about anything. If taken to heart, it is immobilizing and would prevent action of any kind.

      If someone already has insurance, they are unaffected by ACA. ACA is for people without coverage.

      Delete
    4. Lionel, these were NOT innocent people expressing doubts, reasonable or not, about the future, they were PAID FUCKING LIARS PIMPED BY SEAN HANNITY.

      I'm not sure what you are.

      Delete
  7. News media, apart from obviously biased organizations like Media Matters (which basically exists to counter Fox and doesn't try to actually report News) are not going to fact-check each other. This could lead to huge volumes of trival gotchas and reporters spending their time reading each others' stuff - is that what we want?

    The Times and WaPo are actually making an effort to get objective information about the ACA, as they should be. Just read the Times stories and forget about Fox - leave them up to Media Matters (and Salon).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If the Times got off its big fat asparagus aspic and did some reporting about public schools, what would that reporting look like?

      Delete
    2. I see you are swallowing Bob's line that the Times does no reporting on public schools at all.

      Delete
    3. "This could lead to huge volumes of trival gotchas and reporters spending their time reading each others' stuff - is that what we want?"

      An excellent point that I fear will be lost in these quarters.

      Delete
    4. It’s very hard for people to see the intellectual paralysis which surrounds us. The New York Times spends millions of dollars each year to make us think that its work is high-minded and smart.

      Grasping climbers work quite hard to advance these general misperceptions. Others refuse to tell the truth about the dead-in-life New York Times and the rest of the dead-in-life press corps.

      Delete
    5. "This could lead to huge volumes of trival gotchas and reporters spending their time reading each others' stuff - is that what we want?"

      Just as there are big stories, and little stories, there are big gotchas, and little gotchas. Any news outlet that spent much time pointing out a misspelling or a grammatical error would lose as much business as if they covered a single pickpocketing in a major city.

      And, if you don't think they have someone on staff ALREADY reading each other's stuff, your ignorance matches your poor guesswork.

      Delete
    6. Actually, while Media Matters is obviously biased, it's important to note that they don't print lies, as Fox News does. They're biggest sins generally amount to making a mountain out a molehill, but I can't remember a deliberate falsehood, which is what Fox traffics in.

      Delete
    7. So how many hours of programming does Fox, MSNBC and CNN put on daily? Because to monitor them for "gotchas" you got to watch all of it.

      While you're at it, you'd also have to listen to the radio babbleheads as well. Lots of material there. Not to mention Web sites, both left and right.

      So tell us poor ignorant slobs, JoshSN who is so all-knowing. Exactly how many reporters should the NYT assign to this project?



      Delete
  8. The Times doesn't fact-check Bigfoot sighting in the tabloids. It shouldn't have to ride herd on Fox either.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Salon is just selling you shit, the practice in which it is now engaged pretty much all round the clock.

      Delete
  9. Being a Democrat, Stern can’t help snarking about those regular people, who were “neatly arranged...like game show contestants.”

    First of all, he wasn't snarking about the people, but how Hannity had arranged them. Secondly, they were not really regular people.

    On the larger issue, I don't know if the TImes needs to be engaged in fact-checking FOX News. The Times did do a write up on the ACA where it looked at several representative groups that would be affected by the law. It was not bad.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You'll have to forgive Pastor Bob there; he can't go very long being negative about Fox without reminding us that their sins are our sins.

      Delete
  10. Wolf in sheep's clothing!
    FOX on the sly!

    Murdoch, GE and their (very well paid) whores can lie at their leisure; to their hearts content.
    Why won't the NYTimes tell me that they lied?
    My feelings are hurt

    Naivete is not a good thing Bob.

    The Times editorial board ARE predictably liberal. The reporters and editors are still seeking the large dollars. From the Koch (Cock?) Brothers & Co.

    M-O-N-E-Y.

    News readers make 5-10-15 million dollars per year (and wear nice ties).

    Naivete is not a good thing.

    LG

    ReplyDelete
  11. OMB (Your Majesty Keeps Getting Results)

    STERN(10/18/13): I happened to turn on the Hannity show on Fox News last Friday evening [October 11].

    KZ (10/19/13) While BOB is mourning, the Stalinist's over at Salon were busy spreading hate. You won't imagine how badly the elitists treat three ordinary American couples they obviously look down upon:

    http://www.salon.com/2013/10/18/inside_the_fox_news_lie_machine_i_fact_checked_sean_hannity_on_obamacare/

    BOB (10/21/13): We watched Hannity’s program that evening too. We saw and heard the same things Stern did....

    For the past fifteen years, we have screamed, yelled, hollered and screeched about a bone-simple point: when broadcasters disinform millions of people, that act qualifies as news. Such incidents should be reported as news on the front page of major newspapers.

    KZ (Now, this minute, this comment): Between October 11, the day the Hannity Show aired, and October 19, the day your humble commentator called attention to the Salon piece on BOB's blog, your HOWLER featured four posts attacking MSNBC for shows which aired after Hannity's. Apparently BOB thinks it is worse that a smaller audience of liberal viewers get heavy doses of video of Klayman and Confederate flagboy than millions get misled by Hannity. In between BOB did have a post that was partially on Bill O'Reilly. In that post he managed to squeeze in a shot at the NY Times and their excellent health care cost series by Ms. Rosenthal and a shot at MSNBC for not covering Rosenthal. Not a peep about Hannity, however.

    BTW, not to brag, but Your Majesty also called attention to the MSNBC series on Klayman and Confederate Flagboy before BOB covered it. Your Majesty always gets results!

    KZ (From Doom, where, Like the Land o' Cotton, Old Comments There are Not Forgotten)


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear narcissistic asshole:

      Krugman referred to and linked to that Salon article in his column this morning -- a column which Bob wrote about in his earlier post today.

      "Apparently BOB thinks it is worse that a smaller audience of liberal viewers get heavy doses of video of Klayman and Confederate flagboy than millions get misled by Hannity."

      Nice mind-reading attempt. Mind if I try? Bob might not think it's necessary to duplicate the efforts of liberal watchdog groups like Media Matters. He might think his time is better spent being a rare voice within his own "tribe" willing to consistently speak out against his tribe's misleading of viewers/listeners/readers.


      Delete
    2. Dear non responsive name caller:

      I am glad Krugman saw my comment here at BOBworld two days ago and included a reference to the Salon piece. I know he is a big BOBfan too, so he probably picked it up from my comment since he wouldn't go to that sewer of liberal hate that is Salon on his own. You are probably right that BOB got it from Krugman since we all know BOB does not read comments here. Nonetheless we are proud your HOWLER and your majesty combined to get results!

      You are right in your criticism of my mind reading. I should have said "Based on this display of priorities, we should praise BOB for lambasting Liberalworld and its well paid cable talkers rather than take on Hannity who is amply covered elsewhere." Of course in doing so I would have overlooked BOB's claim to have screeched, hollered, yelled and screamed for fifteen years about this sort of bone simple thing. Gee. Fifteen years? That long?? I guess unlike your majesty, the HOWLER really doesn't get results. Damn.

      KZ

      Delete
    3. "Bob might not think it's necessary to duplicate the efforts of liberal watchdog groups like Media Matters."

      Oh I get it. It's not necessary for Bob to duplicate these efforts, but it is necessary for the New York Times, which, we learn today, has given the nation absolutely zero information about the ACA.

      Delete
    4. "Oh I get it. It's not necessary for Bob to duplicate these efforts, but it is necessary for the New York Times." That's right. This blog has zero chance of having any more impact than does Media Matters, F.A.I.R, CJR, etc., on the misconceptions of conservatives. But if the biggest, most influential newspaper in the country goes after right-wing falsehoods, it very well might have an impact -- if not directly, then indirectly.

      Delete
    5. Here's a thought. In this Information Age, how about using your own experience, your own intelligence, and your own curiosity to ferret out the bullroar instead of complaining that the New York Times doesn't do the heavy lifting for you.

      And what makes you think that confronted with the truth in the New York Times that the devoted watchers of Sean Hannity will suddenly have their eyes opened?

      Delete
    6. Because that's what large news organizations for. And because it's not going to have any impact on millions of voters' misconceptions for one person like Somerby to do what you're suggesting for himself.

      "And what makes you think that confronted with the truth in the New York Times that the devoted watchers of Sean Hannity will suddenly have their eyes opened?" You're an idiot. You can't think through this yourself? Or are did you just get your panties in a wad and don't want to admit you're wrong?

      Delete
  12. This is an interesting site. I think that Mr. Somerby writes some of the most insightful and important material on the Internet. But the comments section is almost unreadable. There's almost never a comment worth reading. I don't understand that dynamic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have followed this site for many years. Maybe a decade now.

      I actually donated some time to the technical maintenance of the old website, because I appreciated the work so much.

      I wouldn't mind if the comments got shut off.

      Delete
    2. Easy solution. Don't read the comments.

      Delete
    3. I found Jonny Scrum-half's offering to be a valuable addition
      to the praise that comes from infrequent, new, and often Anonymous commenters. Many simply say their piece praising Somerby and move on. Jonny, however, both applauds Somerby and attacks his readers. I'm sure people like Cecelia, David in Cal, Lionel, KZ, Deadrat, and others feel properly humiliated by Jonny's detached, unibiased insight.

      Delete
    4. Jonny. Since you think Somerby writes "some" of the most insightful and important material on the Internet, who would you recommend for those of us looking for the remainder?

      Delete
    5. Hey, Anonymous Coward @9:59pm, the only readers being attacked are the fucking nitwits who are constantly accusing Mr. Somerby of racism and Hannity pandering.

      Delete
    6. Josh, don't you have to take a separate action to get to the comments to read them? I know I have to click on them, after I read the brilliance that is Somerby railing about the latest outrage on MSNBC, or what some female, especially the younger ones, just wrote in the New York Times.

      So here is a piece of unsolicited advice. Unless you are looking for a reason to go into cursing rants, do your blood pressure a favor and don't double-click the "comments" link.

      Oh, and FYI. I can speak only for myself, but I have never accused "Mr. Somerby" of racism. I have commented before, however, that "Mr. Somerby" is so caught up in his own script and narrative that the country gets closer to hell in a handbasket every time anyone on MSNBC points out racism that he can't give it any credibility whatsoever.

      It is getting to the point that if a cross was burned on the White House lawn, Somerby would remind us of all the mean things said about Clinton while castigating "liberals" for throwing around the R word again.

      Delete
    7. Anonymous @12:00 -- I like Kevin Drum for what I consider to be an unbiased viewpoint (despite his liberal leanings). I also read Volokh Conspiracy, Balloon Juice and the American Conservative. Although I don't agree with everything on those sites, they usually offer some interesting points of view.

      Delete
    8. Jonny thanks for taking the time to revisit this almost unreadable comment thread and for finding my response with its inquiry worthy of both reading and a response. You instill me with confidence that makes it possible to learn.

      Delete
    9. Josh I apologize for not including you in the list of possible people who write comments unworthy of reading according to Jonny. He obviously does not include me in that category, but perhaps he did mean you.

      Delete
  13. I don't doubt that Hannity's guests were exaggerating the bad effects of ACA on them. Earlier today, the President presented some guests who exaggerated the good effects of ACA on them. (See http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304402104579149643667592428 )

    I don't listen to either of these hucksters.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What are the odds that Mr Stern fact checks President Obama's presentation of the 13 people as "benefiting" from from the ACA?

      Delete
    2. We'll know in a week. Wanna bet Michelle Malkin weighs in before then with commentary on the tile lay out in their kitchens?

      KZ

      Delete
    3. False equivalencies suck.

      Sterns article does a much better job at showing Hannity as a huckster than the WSJ article you linked to does showing Obama as a comparable huckster.

      Delete
    4. Some more anecdotal evidence, of course, but both my children are now covered under my health insurance through grad school.

      My wife's prescripton drug benefits -- she takes $1,100 a month worth of prescriptions -- is no longer capped at $3,500 annually.

      Delete
    5. I'm sure Obama highlighted the "pre existing condition" aspect. This ACA/Obamacare bill was not the only way to deal with that. The federal government insures mansions in flood zones and insures crops for farmers who file claims every year.

      Everyone knows that a lot of people will pay the tax rather than buy insurance but no one knows how many people will do that. Obviously, that will affect the cost of the premiums. Its very weird that everyone takes for granted that the system will have the benefit of large numbers of young healthy people who are not really going to sign up.

      Its the dog that didn't bark: where are the expert analyses of what could go wrong in a few years? What was Baucus talking about when he called it a "train wreck?"

      Saying doesn't make it so.

      Delete
    6. irishguy,
      I am glad that your family will have that benefit. Those drugs are very expensive but I know that they are miracles, too.

      Delete
    7. "This ACA/Obamacare bill was not the only way to deal with that. The federal government insures mansions in flood zones and insures crops for farmers who file claims every year."

      I hope you are sitting down because this will come as quite a shock. What you just described is the "public option" that Obama couldn't even get conservative Democratic members of the Senate to buy into.

      As for my wife's prescription drug cap, that was the product of the free market system and employer-based health insurance coverage.

      You see, some actuary sitting in some insurance office figured out that the vast majority of people will do just fine on a $3,500 prescription drug cap, and to increase it would cost a major leap in premium costs for everybody in our group.

      And of course, I had no option but to accept it, or opt out and try to find health insurance with better prescription drug coverage on my own, with my wife's pre-existing condition.


      Delete
  14. I see Chris Hayes covered this story and had Mr. Stern on as his guest.
    Those tuning in looking for an R-bomb or two I am sure were disappointed.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Re no one foretelling the future --- so actions should be smaller, incremental, and not put people in the position where something important might be in jeopardy.

    As in all things health insurance, if you have no loved one with health problems and you don't have health problems yourself, its so easy and cavalier to dismiss people who think this might turn out to be a negative. Its the "Whats it to you?" argument. And then no one is accountable when things go wrong, even very wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "We watched Hannity’s program that evening too. We saw and heard the same things Stern did. Being less knowledgeable than Stern, we didn’t know what to think about various things which were said that night. And we didn’t proceed as Stern did."

    Right. It's always difficult to tell if we're getting bullroar when Hannity brings on "average Americans" to testify about their experience with Obamacare.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are being unfair, Anon. @10:01. Somerby has never written about health care costs or the health care system. He only knows the New York Times has not, except for the Pulitzer prize series by the dead lady they have on staff.

      Delete
  17. nike shoes, Cheap Jordans,Cheap Jordan Shoes,Cheap Air Max,Cheap Free Run Shoes,nike shoes,nike outlet,nike factory,nike store,nike factory outlet,nike outlet store,cheap nike shoes,nike sneakers, toms outlet, toms outlet,tom shoes,toms shoes outlet,tom shoes,toms wedges,cheap toms,toms.com, air jordan, air jordan,jordan shoes,cheap jordans,air jordans,jordan retro,air jordan shoes,jordans,jordan 11,jordan xx9,jordan 6,new jordans,retro jordans,jordan retro 11,jordan 5,air jordan 11,jordans for sale,jordan 4,jordan 1,jordan future,jordan 3,jordan 12,michael jordan shoes,air jordan retro, cheap jordans, cheap jordans,cheap jordan shoes,cheap jordan,cheap jordans for sale,jordans for cheap,jordan shoes,jordans,air jordan,jordan retro,jordan 11,jordan xx9,jordan 6,new jordans,air jordans,retro jordans,jordan retro 11,jordan 5,air jordan 11,jordans for sale,jordan 4,jordan 1,jordan future,jordan 3,jordan 12,michael jordan shoes,air jordan shoes,air jordan retro, jordan retro, jordan retro,jordan shoes,air jordan,air jordans,retro jordans,air jordan retro,jordans,jordan 11,jordan xx9,jordan 6,new jordans,cheap jordans,jordan retro 11,jordan 5,air jordan 11,jordans for sale,jordan 4,jordan 1,jordan future,jordan 3,jordan 12,michael jordan shoes,air jordan shoes, air max 90, air max 90,nike air max 90,air max 95,air max 2014,air max 2013,air max 1,nike air max,air max,nike air max 2014,airmax,nike air max 2013, air max 95, air max 95,nike air max 95,air max 90,nike air max 90,air max 2013,nike air max,air max,air max 2014,nike air max 2014,airmax,nike air max 2013, nike free 5.0, nike free 5.0, nike free trainer 5.0,nike free run 5.0,free running 2,nike free run,nike free,free running,nike running shoes,nike free trainer,free runs,free run 5.0, omega watches, omega watches,omega watch,replica watches,rolex watches,replica omega watches,rolex,watches for men,watches for women,rolex watches for sale,rolex replica,rolex watch,cartier watches,rolex submariner,fake rolex,rolex replica watches,replica rolex, ralph lauren outlet

    ReplyDelete
  18. ralph lauren outlet,ralph lauren outlet online,polo ralph lauren outlet,polo ralph lauren outlet online,polo ralph lauren,ralph lauren,polo ralph,polo shirts,ralphlauren.com,polo outlet,ralph lauren polo, oakley sunglass, oakley sunglasses,cheap oakley,cheap oakley sunglasses,oakley sunglasses cheap,oakley outlet,oakley sunglasses outlet,oakley vault,oakleys,oakley.com,sunglasses outlet,cheap sunglasses,oakley prescription glasses,fake oakleys,oakley glasses,oakley store,fake oakley,oakley sale,cheap oakleys,discount oakley sunglasses, ray ban sunglasses, Ray Ban Sunglasses,Ray Ban Outlet,Ray Ban Sale,Cheap Ray Bans,Cheap Ray Ban Sunglasses,ray ban sunglasses outlet,ray ban,rayban,ray bans,ray-ban,raybans,ray ban wayfarer,ray-ban sunglasses,raybans.com,rayban sunglasses,cheap ray ban, burberry, burberry,burberry outlet,burberry outlet online,burberry factory outlet,burberry sale,burberry handbags, chanel bags, chanel bags,chanel handbags,chanel sunglasses,chanel outlet,chanel purses,chanel handbags official site, coach outlet store, coach outlet,coach outlet store,coach outlet store online,coach outlet stores,coach factory outlet,coach factory,coach factory online,coach factory outlet online,coach outlet online, chaussures louboutin, louboutin,louboutin pas cher,christian louboutin,louboutin chaussures,louboutin soldes,chaussure louboutin,chaussures louboutin,chaussure louboutin pas cher,louboutin france, sac michael kors, michael kors,sac michael kors,michael kors sac,michael kors pas cher,sac michael kors pas cher,michael kors france, north face outlet, north face outlet,the north face,north face,the north face outlet,north face jackets,north face jackets clearance,northface, yoga pants, yoga pants,lululemon,lululemon outlet,lululemon athletica,lululemon addict,lulu lemon,lulu.com,lululemon.com, beats by dre

    ReplyDelete
  19. nike shoes, Cheap Jordans,Cheap Jordan Shoes,Cheap Air Max,Cheap Free Run Shoes,nike shoes,nike outlet,nike factory,nike store,nike factory outlet,nike outlet store,cheap nike shoes,nike sneakers, toms outlet, toms outlet,tom shoes,toms shoes outlet,tom shoes,toms wedges,cheap toms,toms.com, air jordan, air jordan,jordan shoes,cheap jordans,air jordans,jordan retro,air jordan shoes,jordans,jordan 11,jordan xx9,jordan 6,new jordans,retro jordans,jordan retro 11,jordan 5,air jordan 11,jordans for sale,jordan 4,jordan 1,jordan future,jordan 3,jordan 12,michael jordan shoes,air jordan retro, cheap jordans, cheap jordans,cheap jordan shoes,cheap jordan,cheap jordans for sale,jordans for cheap,jordan shoes,jordans,air jordan,jordan retro,jordan 11,jordan xx9,jordan 6,new jordans,air jordans,retro jordans,jordan retro 11,jordan 5,air jordan 11,jordans for sale,jordan 4,jordan 1,jordan future,jordan 3,jordan 12,michael jordan shoes,air jordan shoes,air jordan retro, jordan retro, jordan retro,jordan shoes,air jordan,air jordans,retro jordans,air jordan retro,jordans,jordan 11,jordan xx9,jordan 6,new jordans,cheap jordans,jordan retro 11,jordan 5,air jordan 11,jordans for sale,jordan 4,jordan 1,jordan future,jordan 3,jordan 12,michael jordan shoes,air jordan shoes, air max 90, air max 90,nike air max 90,air max 95,air max 2014,air max 2013,air max 1,nike air max,air max,nike air max 2014,airmax,nike air max 2013, air max 95, air max 95,nike air max 95,air max 90,nike air max 90,air max 2013,nike air max,air max,air max 2014,nike air max 2014,airmax,nike air max 2013, nike free 5.0, nike free 5.0, nike free trainer 5.0,nike free run 5.0,free running 2,nike free run,nike free,free running,nike running shoes,nike free trainer,free runs,free run 5.0, omega watches, omega watches,omega watch,replica watches,rolex watches,replica omega watches,rolex,watches for men,watches for women,rolex watches for sale,rolex replica,rolex watch,cartier watches,rolex submariner,fake rolex,rolex replica watches,replica rolex, ralph lauren outlet, ralph lauren outlet,ralph lauren outlet online,polo ralph lauren outlet,polo ralph lauren outlet online,polo ralph lauren,ralph lauren,polo ralph,polo shirts,ralphlauren.com,polo outlet,ralph lauren polo, oakley sunglass, thomas sabo

    ReplyDelete
  20. oakley sunglasses,cheap oakley,cheap oakley sunglasses,oakley sunglasses cheap,oakley outlet,oakley sunglasses outlet,oakley vault,oakleys,oakley.com,sunglasses outlet,cheap sunglasses,oakley prescription glasses,fake oakleys,oakley glasses,oakley store,fake oakley,oakley sale,cheap oakleys,discount oakley sunglasses, ray ban sunglasses, Ray Ban Sunglasses,Ray Ban Outlet,Ray Ban Sale,Cheap Ray Bans,Cheap Ray Ban Sunglasses,ray ban sunglasses outlet,ray ban,rayban,ray bans,ray-ban,raybans,ray ban wayfarer,ray-ban sunglasses,raybans.com,rayban sunglasses,cheap ray ban, burberry, burberry,burberry outlet,burberry outlet online,burberry factory outlet,burberry sale,burberry handbags, chanel bags, chanel bags,chanel handbags,chanel sunglasses,chanel outlet,chanel purses,chanel handbags official site, coach outlet store, coach outlet,coach outlet store,coach outlet store online,coach outlet stores,coach factory outlet,coach factory,coach factory online,coach factory outlet online,coach outlet online, chaussures louboutin, louboutin,louboutin pas cher,christian louboutin,louboutin chaussures,louboutin soldes,chaussure louboutin,chaussures louboutin,chaussure louboutin pas cher,louboutin france, sac michael kors, michael kors,sac michael kors,michael kors sac,michael kors pas cher,sac michael kors pas cher,michael kors france, north face outlet, north face outlet,the north face,north face,the north face outlet,north face jackets,north face jackets clearance,northface, yoga pants, yoga pants,lululemon,lululemon outlet,lululemon athletica,lululemon addict,lulu lemon,lulu.com,lululemon.com, beats by dre, beats by dre,beats headphones,beats audio,beats by dr dre,beats by dre headphones,dr dre,dre beats,beats by dr,dr dre beats,dre headphones,beats by dr. dre,cheap beats, ferragamo, ferragamo,salvatore ferragamo,ferragamo shoes,ferragamo outlet,salvatore ferragamo outlet,ferragamo belts,ferragamo belt,ferragamo outlet, nike blazer, nike blazer,blazer nike,nike blazer pas cher,Chaussures Nike Blazer,Nike Blazer Femme, nike air force, swarovski crystal, swarovski

    ReplyDelete