Liberals liberals liberal Liberals

July 31 Editorials

In a piece Today entitled "Jim bags: Inhofe statements drive some to shame" tells us that Jim Inhofe does some wacky things sometimes. This is ok, the writers rationalize, because we voted for him. In making their case, the words "liberal" or "liberals" appear 1.6% of the time amongst their 252 word essay. This is something Ann Coulter likes to do to fill space and rile-up her reader-folk.

This might not seem like a lot, until you read another one of Today's essays, once again the staff is ranting and raving about a new form of "socialized medicine" (note the current one socializes much of the research in State-Funded Universities and in foundations, and then hands the findings to big business who generates dazzling profits off of this research...a scenario where people should benefit from their tax-money, and not just big-business, is far too frightening.)

In this rant, they state "...While concessions announced this week are a step in the right direction, the overall bill is still an invitation to major deficit spending and a larger health care role for government. Trimming $100 billion from a $1.3 trillion proposal isn’t much of a haircut." But as Dean Baker recently noted (hey Oklahoman Editorial Staff, see how easy it is to say who said what!) the "huge" trillion-dollar price tag is equal to about 0.5% of projected GDP over the next decade. The Iraq War (which The Oklahoman overwhelmingly supported) at its peak cost more than 1% of GDP.

So, note that the HUGE figure to fix our disgraceful, embarrasing health care system is only one-third in size the number GDP-wise (over a decade) as is the percentage of times the Editorial staff said "liberal" or "liberals" in their piece explaining that Inhofe says funny things but we voted for him.

Yes, I know this is apples and roti, but what do we get from being told Inhofe can do as he pleases, and it is ok because we voted for him? What sense does that make? Isn't this the newspaper that constantly rants and raves about us being a Republic, not a Democracy? And therefore, shouldn't the fact that we voted for this man, and he is doing these zany things be something that should cause at least some alarm?

That is far too much to ask if first we can not even think to contemplate the massive costs of war compared to fixing our health care system.

Editorial Staff uses SOME Kaiser Foundation Research Again

May 19 Editorial

In today's editorial, "Washington should take time on health care reform" more Frank Luntz and big business health-care talking points with no documentation on their statements are made. It is essentially the same piece that was written last Monday, which I broke down as not just straight propaganda, but plagiarized straight propaganda.

The only difference this go 'round, is that the paper is saying Congress should take extra time to figure things out regarding this issue. Now, I am no apologist for Bill Clinton that is for sure, but this certainly brings to mind this editorial written a little more than eleven years ago:

There are numerous examples (the war on Iraq is a fine example). Many more recent ones where the fine writers at The Oklahoman show incredible bias on issues regarding whether we should act right away, or take time to figure things out (or stall) but I thought this example was kind of funny. Especially when you recall that the lying under oath incident didn't occur until four days after this was written!

But back to the issue at hand, The Oklahoma ONCE AGAIN quotes The Kaiser Family Foundation study that stated "...about 80 percent of insured Americans say is excellent or good, according to a study last year" but ONCE AGAIN leave out The Kaiser Family Foundation study that stated:

" ....poll says 80 percent are dissatisfied with the cost of health care."

And once again, they leave out a study done with residents of 30 rich countries polled by Gallup. Americans came in 18th in terms of satisfaction with their care, despite the fact that we out-spend everyone else on the list by an incredibly significant amount. Ireland, Switzerland, and Belgium topped the list.

Another statement in the article was interesting. "...'Our goal is to have a healthier America,' Pelosi said last week after a meeting with President Barack Obama. No House Republicans were present." While this apparently is true, what is more important to note are things like zero representation in any important discussions with the Obama-Pelosi crew with single-payer advocates. This is worth noting because this is the main thing The Oklahoman is ranting and raving about! Note this excerpt from a recent column by Amy Goodman:

"Barack Obama appeared this week with health-industry bigwigs, proclaiming light at the end of the health-care tunnel. Among those gathered were executives from HMO giants Kaiser Foundation Health Plan and Health Net Inc., and the health-insurance lobbying group America’s Health Insurance Plans; from the American Hospital Association and the American Medical Association; from medical-device companies; and from the pharmaceutical industry, including the president and CEO of Merck and former Rep. Billy Tauzin, now president and CEO of PhRMA....Still absent from the debate are advocates for single-payer, often referred to as the “Canadian-style” health care. Single-payer health care is not “socialized medicine.” According to Physicians for a National Health Program, single-payer means “the government pays for care that is delivered in the private (mostly not-for-profit) sector.” read the rest of the column here.

The Oklahoman continues to be nothing short of a complete disgrace.

Never Mind What People Want

May 10 Editorial

Sunday's editorial "Government programs can’t trump bad behavior" was not about millions given to Bass Pro, "Quality Jobs Act" adjustments made specifically for Billionaire basketball team owners, funds abused by TIFF district folks, rather it was about (brace yourself!) health care reform.

The editorial which references HB 2026 (.rtf file - not an exciting read, save for a part of the bill that gives a better deal to 501(c)(3) groups, which suggests that the bill was probably written by one) basically suggests that people should just do the right thing and keep things as they are with minimal changes, all the while pulling themselves up by their boot-straps and all of that typical business.

But wait, hold the presses! Earlier last week, Bernie Horn wrote a piece entitled "The Secret Right-Wing Strategy on Health Care—Exposed!". In the article, he details a memo put together by the famous pollster Frank Luntz (the man who helped Gingrich piece together the Republican Contract with America in 1994), aimed at defeating Obama's coming health care reform proposals. It is apparent that the memo was so appalling, that a high-ranking Republican that received the memo leaked it to the press.

I can not recommend that you read Horn's article enough, and if you have time look at Luntz's leaked memo here. After doing so, it is worth going back and reading what the editorial staff has written, and deciding for yourself what is going on here.