Emac's Stock Watch | Fox Business
« The Fiscal Fed
What Ruth Madoff Didn't Say »

  • June 23, 2009 08:24 AM EDT by Elizabeth MacDonald

    Health-Care Myths

    The Obama administration is now attempting the biggest overhaul of healthcare since Lyndon B. Johnson pushed through Medicare and Medicaid in 1965.

    But the health care reform debate is riddled with misleading myths taken as fact, myths that are torquing the debate beyond recognition, from the U.S.'s supposedly poor infant mortality rates, who really gets medical care, the level of uninsureds, who really pays for insurance, who actually can afford insurance and wait times for surgeries.  

    Most everyone agrees that the U.S. health system is broken and that the uninsured must get coverage.

    But fixing the health system should be based on the facts, not on a statistical faith-based initiative mounted to ram through reform, where the data is either more nuanced on closer look or the statements made are simply not true.

    Worth keeping in mind, as the U.S. is already on track to compile total 10-year deficits that would surpass the annual GDP of Great Britain, Russia and Germany for one year-combined, and as the government is getting increasingly entangled in key industries, with higher taxes coming on incomes, on capital and on energy. Soliciting Lobbyists

    Meanwhile, the deficit spending figures do not include Medicare and Social Security costs, reforms which are so far on the backburner, they are off the stove. The following includes research from Fox News analyst James Farrell.

    Myth: "The U.S. has one of the highest infant mortality rates in the developed world."

    Talk about stretching a point until it snaps. This ranking is based on data mining.

    The U.S. ranks high on this list largely because this country numbers among those that actually measure neonatal deaths, notably in premature infant fatalities, unlike other countries that basically leave premature babies to die, notes health analyst Betsey McCaughey.

    Other statistical quirks push the U.S. unjustifiably higher in this ranking compared to other countries.

    The Center for Disease Control says the U.S. ranks 29th in the world for infant mortality rates, (according to the CDC), behind most other developed nations.

    The U.S. is supposedly worse than Singapore, Hong Kong, Greece, Northern Ireland, Cuba and Hungary. And the U.S. is supposedly on a par with Slovakia and Poland. CNN, the New York Times, numerous outlets across the country report the U.S. as abysmal in terms of infant mortality, without delving into what is behind this ranking.

    The Commonwealth Fund, a nonprofit research group, routinely flunks the U.S. health system using the infant mortality rate.

    "Infant mortality and our comparison with the rest of the world continue to be an embarrassment to the United States," Grace-Marie Turner, president of the Galen Institute, a research organization, has said.

    Start with the definition. The World Health Organization (WHO) defines a country's infant mortality rate as the number of infants who die between birth and age one, per 1,000 live births.

    WHO says a live birth is when a baby shows any signs of life, even if, say, a low birth weight baby takes one, single breath, or has one heartbeat. While the U.S. uses this definition, other countries don't and so don't count premature or severely ill babies as live births-or deaths.    

    The United States counts all births if they show any sign of life, regardless of prematurity or size or duration of life, notes Bernardine Healy, a former director of the National Institutes of Health and former president and chief executive of the American Red Cross (Healy noted this information in a column for U.S. News & World Report).

    And that includes stillbirths, which many other countries don't report.

    And what counts as a birth varies from country to country. In Austria and Germany, fetal weight must be at least 500 grams (1 pound) before these countries count these infants as live births, Healy notes.

    In other parts of Europe, such as Switzerland, the fetus must be at least 30 centimeters (12 inches) long, Healy notes. In Belgium and France, births at less than 26 weeks of pregnancy are registered as lifeless, and are not counted, Healy says. And some countries don't reliably register babies who die within the first 24 hours of birth, Healy notes.

    Norway, which has one of the lowest infant mortality rates, shows no better infant survival than the United States when you factor in Norway's underweight infants that are not now counted, Healy says, quoting Nicholas Eberstadt, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

    Moreover, the ranking doesn't take into account that the US has a diverse, heterogeneous population, Healy adds, unlike, say, in Iceland, which tracks all infant deaths regardless of factor, but has a population under 300,000 that is 94% homogenous.

    APTOPIX Obama WasteLikewise, Finland and Japan do not have the ethnic and cultural diversity of the U.S.'s 300 mn-plus citizens. 

    Plus, the U.S. has a high rate of teen pregnancies, teens who smoke, who take drugs, who are obese and uneducated, all factors which cause higher infant mortality rates.

    And the US has more mothers taking fertility treatments, which keeps the rate of pregnancy high due to multiple-birth pregnancies.

    Again, the U.S. counts all of these infants as births. Moreover, we're not losing healthy babies, as the scary stats imply. Most of the babies that die are either premature or born seriously ill, including those with congenital malformations.

    Even the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which collects the European numbers, cautions against using comparisons country-by-country.

    "Some of the international variation in infant and neonatal mortality rates may be due to variations among countries in registering practices of premature infants (whether they are reported as live births or not)," the OECD says.

    "In several countries, such as in the United States, Canada and the Nordic countries, very premature babies (with relatively low odds of survival) are registered as live births, which increases mortality rates compared with other countries that do not register them as live births." (Note: Emphasis EMac's).

    The U.S. ranks much better on a measure that the World Health Organization says is more accurate, the perinatal mortality rate, defined as death between 22 weeks' gestation and 7 days after birth. According to the WHO 2006 report on Neonatal and Perinatal Mortality, the U.S. comes in at 16th-and even higher if you knock out several tiny countries with tiny birthrates and populations, such as Martinique, Hong Kong, and San Marino.

    Myth: "About 46 mn Americans lack access to health insurance."

    There is a difference between health care and health insurance, as Fox Business anchor Brian Sullivan points out after researching reports on health care from the Congressional Budget Office, Blue Cross-Blue Shield and Georgetown University.

    Everyone has access to health care. They may not have health insurance, but the law mandates everyone who shows up at emergency rooms must be treated, insurance or not, he reports.

    About 14 mn of the uninsured were eligible for Medicaid and SCHIP 2003, a BlueCross-BlueShield Association study based on 2003 data estimated. These people would be signed up for government insurance if they ever made it to the emergency room, Sullivan says.

    A whopping 70% of uninsured children are eligible for Medicaid, SCHIP, or both programs, a 2008 study by the Georgetown University Health Policy Institute shows.

    Census figures also show that 18.3 mn of the uninsured were under 34 who may simply not think about the need for insurance, Sullivan reports.

    And of those 46 mn without insurance, an estimated 10 mn or so are non-U.S. citizens who may not be eligible, according to statistics from the Census Bureau), Sullivan reports.

    Myth: "The uninsured can't afford to buy coverage."

    Many may be able to afford health insurance, but for whatever reason choose to not buy it. In 2007, an estimated 17.6 mn of the uninsured made more than $50,000 per year, and 10 mn of those made more than $75,000 a year, says Sally Pipes, author of the book, The Top Ten Myths of American Health Care: A Citizen's Guide, a book that attempts to dig behind the numbers. According to author Pipes, 38% of the U.S. uninsured population earns more than $50,000 per year.

    That means 38% of the uninsured likely make enough to afford health insurance, but for undetermined reasons choose not to buy it.

    Myth: "Most of the uninsured do not have health insurance because they are not working and so don't have access to health benefits through an employer."

    Not so fast--the data is more nuanced and revealing upon closer look. baucus

    According to the CBO, about half of the uninsured in 2009 fall into one of the following three categories. Some people will be in more than one of those categories at the same time:

    *Nearly one out of three, 30%, will be offered, but will decline, coverage from an employer.

    *Nearly one out of five, 18%, will be eligible for, but not enrolled in Medicaid; and

    *More than one out of seven, 17%, will have family income above 300% of the poverty level (about $65,000 for a family of four);

    What is potentially the real number for the poor uninsured? According to a 2003 Blue Cross study, 8.2 mn Americans are actually without coverage for the long haul, because they are too poor to purchase health care, but earn too much to qualify for government assistance.

    [Source: CBO, "Key Issues in Analyzing Major Health Insurance Proposals," December 18, 2008, http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9924/12-18-KeyIssues.pdf]

    Myth: "The estimated 45 mn people without health insurance lacked health insurance for every day of the year."

    The CBO's 45 mn estimate reflects individuals "without health insurance at any given time during 2009."

    But that does not mean that all 45 mn people spend every day of 2009 without insurance. It is a point estimate - on any particular day, there will be 45 mn individuals without health insurance. 

    [Source: CBO, "Key Issues in Analyzing Major Health Insurance Proposals," December 18, 2008, http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9924/12-18-KeyIssues.pdf]

    Myth: "Government-run universal health care would increase the international competitiveness of U.S. companies."

    The Congressional Budget Office disagrees.

    "Replacing employment-based health care with a government-run system could reduce employers' payments for their workers' insurance, but the amount that they would have to pay in overall compensation would remain essentially unchanged," the CBO says. "Cash wages and other forms of compensation would have to rise by roughly the amount of the reduction in health benefits for firms to be able to attract the same number and types of workers."

    [Source: CBO, "Key Issues in Analyzing Major Health Insurance Proposals," December 18, 2008, http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9924/12-18-KeyIssues.pdf]

    Myth: "The cost of uncompensated care for the uninsured significantly increases hospital costs."

    Hospitals provided about $35 bn in uncompensated care in 2008, the CBO says. Uncompensated care represented only 5% of total hospital revenues. In addition, half of the $35 bn in uncompensated hospital costs were offset by Medicare and Medicaid.

    And the cost of uncompensated care for the uninsured is "unlikely to have a substantial effect on private payment rates," the CBO says, adding that shifting costs from uninsured to private insurance premiums is "likely to be relatively small."

    [source: CBO, "Key Issues in Analyzing Major Health Insurance Proposals," December 2008, http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9924/12-18-KeyIssues.pdf]

    Myth: "Nationalized health care would not impact patient waiting times."

    Waiting time for elective surgery is lower in the US than in countries with nationalized health care.

    In 2005, only 8% of U.S. patients reported waiting four months or more for elective surgery.

    Countries with nationalized health care had higher percentages with waiting times of four months or more, including Australia (19%); New Zealand (20%); Canada (33%); and the United Kingdom (41%). 

    [Source: Commonwealth Fund, "MIRROR, MIRROR ON THE WALL: AN INTERNATIONAL UPDATE ON THE COMPARATIVE PERFORMANCE OF AMERICAN HEALTH CARE," by Karen Davis, Cathy Schoen, Stephen C. Schoenbaum, Michelle M. Doty, Alyssa L. Holmgren, Jennifer L. Kriss, and Katherine K. Shea, May 2007, http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/Files/Publications/Fund%20Report/2007/May/Mirror%20%20Mirror%20on%20the%20Wall%20%20An%20International%20Update%20on%20the%20Comparative%20Performance%20of%20American%20Healt/1027_Davis_mirror_mirror_international_update_final%20pdf.pdf]

    Myth: "Insurers cover less today than they did in the past."

    No they're covering more costs. According to the CBO, consumers paid for 33 % of their total, personal health care expenditures in 1975. But by 2000, consumers' personal share had fallen to 17%, and it declined to 15% in 2006. 

    [Source: CBO, "Key Issues in Analyzing Major Health Insurance Proposals," December 18, 2008, http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9924/12-18-KeyIssues.pdf]

RSS Subscribe to Comments

aaron

as mentioned earlier, billing private insurance is a pain to say the least. On the other hand billing medicare/medicaid can be worse and many doctors do not like taking those patients into their practices. I should know, I am also an M.D. Watch who you call a fat cat, doctors incomes are also in the crosshairs.

June 23, 2009 at 2:00 pm

interested party

I watched the Senate Subcommitte on Health Care Reform last night on C-SPAN. The one and only doctor on the committee (Tom Coburn) asked to have several amendments made to the Title 2 (quality). One of those changes was that the Quality of Life Value metric not be used to deny procedures as it is in the UK. (Basically, this metric takes into consideration the person's age, the illness, and the probability of the treatment being successful and assigns a dollar value. If the treatment costs less than the value of the person's life -- as determined by a government agency -- NOT a doctor, then you might get the treatment. If the treatment costs more than this value of the person's life, then no treatment.) Coburn was unsuccessful in getting this amendment passed. So, as the Senate version of the Title 2 section stands, a government agency will be able to deny treatment to anyone whose "value" doesn't exceed this quality of Life Value. That, people, means the disabled & the elderly. Seriously. If you want true facts on the bill, go to C-SPAN. Then you can hear it from the Senators' mouths. And what you will hear will scare you. (And, as an FYI, I have experienced UK and Australian nationalized health care and was shocked at the filth in the doctors' offices, the lack of knowledge of name brand drugs -- as in they never heard of them, and the lower standard of care for those hospitalized.) Title 3 on prevention will be on C-SPAN today; it is re-run at night.

June 23, 2009 at 1:59 pm

gordyKROO

Should companies profit on our health???? I dont think so. In our pursuit of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, I think that our health is a fundemental right that should not be exploited to profit on. I think that this president is doing a fine job on the basics of our health problem PREVENTION. For all those to think that it is your personal freedom to smoke 2 packs a day and eat 16 cheeseburgers, get a reality check. INSANITY- Doing something over and over again knowing that the result will be negetive every single time. Common sense you spoiled americans. Sometimes it good to give up some of your freedoms because it just makes sense. ie seatbelt laws, helmet laws, speed limit laws. To protect not to supress and we all benefit.

June 23, 2009 at 1:58 pm

Carrie

I take offense to the comment about FOX viewers being elderly, poorly educated and scared. I or any of my family are NONE of the above. We are all college graduates from State University's, most are self-employed and know how expensive health care really is. We have only catastophic insurance with a high deductible. I don't believe that every time you go for health care you should have to pay only a nominal co-pay. All of us are reasonably healthy, take good care of ourselves and use health care to stay healthy, not pay for things we don't need. I have always wondered about these figures on uninsured Americans. I thought the article was well researched and thought out. Thank you. Carrie

June 23, 2009 at 1:58 pm

Bill

This is why FOX news dominates the news media. They tell the facts and let us decide. Good Work FOX!

June 23, 2009 at 1:57 pm

Eric

Great article. It is nice to see some actual facts for once. The other thing that should have been discussed is comprehensive vs. catastrophic coverage. Many healthy and young people don't need a full comprehensive plan. What hurts them is those broken bones from sports or auto accidents that cause huge bills. Catastrophic coverage would deal with that and cost a heck of a lot less.

June 23, 2009 at 1:56 pm

JMC

Not often you see a news story with citations. Nice work. We need more reporting like this. Keep the facts flowing. Much less opinion is required and that was your aim. If the media would spend more time researching and less time on the air, we the people would be better informed and more productive. There are plenty of great books on how to spin statistics. It is SO important to know the numbers behind the numbers. Thanks.

June 23, 2009 at 1:56 pm

JT

Great article. As a 20+ year veteran of the health insurance industry, another myth should be added....that is that much of the waste in the system is because of insurers. Patently false! Insurers and HMOs have the proper incentive and motivation to hold costs down, i.e duty to their shareholders, owners, etc. In fact, most insurers live within the profit range of 3-5%. Government has no such motivation and its control over the system will bankrupt the country and result in untold rationing of care where some hack in DC decides who gets expensive life-saving care and when that care is provided. Eventually it will hit home when you, your spouse, grandma, aunt or brother are told "sorry, but we don't enough have $$ for your treatment. Here, this pill will ease your pain." Sounds like 1984, huh?

June 23, 2009 at 1:55 pm

Rick

Dear John Edward - You are typical of the blinders-on Obama-loving liberals that are doing all that is possible to run this country down. Why in God's name would you characterize Fox viewers as such? So, the people who have viewed the Mainstream media's love affair with the Democrats and especially Obama, who have ONE refuge of sanity to run to are less bright, elderly and poorly educated? The people who think they are getting the full story from NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, etc. are the ones who are less bright. I thank God every day that we have Fox News, and hope Chairman MaoBama does not try to shut down FoxNews for opposing him, like other communist leaders have done. Nationalized healthcare would be the single biggest disaster that could ever come out of Washington. The 2nd biggest would be Cap and Trade. Amazing that Obumbler and his cronies are trying to ram both through at the same time! This country is going to be unrecognizable in the near future, and I fear for my kids and the lives they will have. At least I have been able to enjoy the fruits of capitalism and the rewards of my hard work. My oldest wants to be a doctor, but if this socialized health care happens, then I would not recommend it. I'm sure we will end up with doctor shortages like most of the other countries who were dumb enough to do such a thing.

June 23, 2009 at 1:54 pm

Craig1974USA

In the liberal mind, a country has great health care if everybody is covered. Cuba is considered a country with superior health care. Sure, Cuba's health care may consist only of their government sending everybody a toothbrush each year, and that is it. But EVERYONE has it. So to the liberal, Cuba has excellent health care! Sure, Cubans may be dying in the streets from all sorts of illnesses and diseases, but that is not the point. The point is 100% coverage. EQUALITY. So if we, in the United States, lower the quality of health care to Cuba's level and have 100% coverage, we too, can have superior health care. I'm sure there are at least 1,000 people in the United States who don't even own a toothbrush, so we would be doing them a favor, and everything would be equal. Power to the People!!!

June 23, 2009 at 1:54 pm

Reagan is My Hero

In Reply to John Edward; You are a Prime example of all of the Uninformed Americans which are Following the Socialist Piper off of the Cliff...We should be Worried, Fox is the only one telling the Truth.

June 23, 2009 at 1:54 pm

fed up with poor little me

I know plenty of waiters and others who make a very good living and bypass healthcare for other luxuries; as a midlle income worker with business offered health care this irks me. Everyone should have to pay something. nonething is free. I want a lamborghini but drive a ford ranger. I want eight kids like octomom (but i cannot afford it so I don't have them). I am tired of everyone expecting the govt to take care of them. poor little me.... Wake up America - i was a democratic (and I am gay too). No longer...

June 23, 2009 at 1:54 pm

Kevin

"38% of uninsured Americans make more than $50,000"... ummmm... It's fun when you just throw statistics out of nowhere that make zero sense. 38% of the 49 million Americans without health care make more than $50,000?!! I read the article you pulled this out of, and I stress "pulled out", as in pulled out of thin air.

June 23, 2009 at 1:53 pm
(2 Replies)

Dan T.

Awesome article. I wish you could play it during Obama's infomercial on ABC. I don't have health insurance and I absolutely don't want any.. I decline it from my employer every year and I can easily afford it. It's just not worth buying. Until I can buy a plan that only covers medical emergencies and doesn't cost over $150. What an absolute ripoff. Why don't Americans just pay for their doctors visits on their own? Same with prescriptions and just have insurance for emergencies? I mean, our car insurance doesn't cover oil changes and people aren't wrecking because of it. Government sucks.

June 23, 2009 at 1:53 pm

Vicki

Thank you for not only writing an easily read article but for giving us the sites to go and look at the infomation ourselves. As an RN, I can assure everyone that in my 29 years as a nurse, I have never seen a patient turned away from a hospital for non payment. It truly does not happen. I have seen people leave because they do not like the wait time or treatment plan.

June 23, 2009 at 1:52 pm

Renee B.

Great article! Spot on. You take the air right out of the ships' sails that are riding on waves of B.S. I especially appreciate your pointing out that many people CAN afford health insurance, but just decide not to buy it. I guess they'd rather spend their dollars on a vacation that those of us paying our insurance premiums can't afford, a Cadillac or a boat, or cigarettes and beer, so that they can then show up in the ER for a bladder infection they've had for two weeks that could've been knocked out with one trip to the doctor, and to bog down the system so that people with real emergencies like broken bones sit crying in chairs in pain, or finally wait so long they pass out. (I have seen this happen to a girl whose appendix finally ruptured while she was waiting). I bookmarked this for future use, and also sent it to everyone I know. Thanks again.

June 23, 2009 at 1:50 pm

Jeff

Forgive me if this has already been stated but regardless who administers healthcare I believe the real issue is the cost. Why does it cost exorbitant amounts of money for procedures, services and supplies? It seems 'psuedo' inflation is built into healthcare prices at every level. On a side note, while healthcare may be able to justify some cost increases due to broader and deeper service I still don't understand why higher education prices zoom to the moon.

June 23, 2009 at 1:49 pm

FormerLiberal

I've given up and am giving in. I won't register as a Republican but my days of supporting my Dem party are over. We wanted fairness, not force - as in forcing change down our throats. 1. Extend the drug manufacturer's patent rights = this will lower the cost of prescription drugs, removing the up front high prices that are charged by the drug companies to recoup their costs, knowing they will lose profit once the patent expires, and the generics take over. 2. TORT REFORM - will never happen, because lawyers run this government. But stop the lawsuits and let the doctors practice medicine. Everybody knows 'malpractice lawsuits' are nothing more then a huge money-grab for lawyers. 3. Make everybody pay. Don't tell me you are poor if you have a 50 inch television, XBOX 360 AND Playstation! Try this - get rid of cable and buy yourself some health insurance instead. 4. Only treat emergencies in the emergency room. Should someone show up wih a back ache or a headache, give them two tylenol, check their blood pressure, and refer them to a doctor. If they can't pay, it is up to the doctor to arrange some sort of payment plan.

June 23, 2009 at 1:48 pm

Credit

One thing that needs to be pointed out: Insurance companies are major sources of credit. What do you think happens to the money that insurance companies receive that is not used for expenses, commissions, or medical costs? All of that money is invested, and that amount of money is absolutely huge. Most likely, any loan that any one of you have outstanding right now is in some way financed by investments of insurance companies. So basically, you kill the insurance companies, you kill the public's access to capital. People in this country need to stop relying on other people to run their lives. Yes, there are people who do need help, and we should do everything in our power to help those people. But most people in this country these days rely too heavily on the gov which gives the gov more power and makes us more dependent on it. This country was intended to be a country where its citizens were able to live their lives without gov interference. We need a way to determine who actually needs help and tell all of the people who are able but are too stupid to figure it out for themselves to take the initiative and actually become capable to take care of themselves. This issue is about the Dems who want their lives ran for them, and the Republicans who want to succeed out of their own effort and hard work.

June 23, 2009 at 1:47 pm

Bob

"Most everyone agrees that the U.S. health system is broken and that the uninsured must get coverage." That a true statement, and the greedy profit driven insurance companies, HMO's and thier goverment lobbies have no interest in fixing it. The only alternative is a goverment run system were all the profits go into paying for doctors and health care and not lining the pockets of executives.

June 23, 2009 at 1:44 pm

David Reid

Here is a very important point missed by Elizabeth: Of the 47 million "uninsured" in America: - 75% become fully insured within 1 year of becoming uninsured. - 44% become fully insured within 4 months of being uninsured. This signifies the truth about the problem: there are 47 million uninsured in America at any given moment in time, but it is a rotating group of people: 75% get insured a short time later. While it's not ideal to go without health insurance for several months, it is by no means a huge problem that requires a drastic solution. In truth, there are only 11 million people in America who fall through the gap between our current government programs and the private system to become "permanently uninsured". That is 3.6% of the U.S. population. Let me reiterate, the problem is this: 3.6% of the U.S. population falls through the gap between private insurance and our existing government programs. Three-point-six percent. That's not even including the fraction that simply don't want health insurance. Do you think an appropriate solution to this problem would be the dismantling of our current system, which provides the highest-quality health care in the world to 96.4% of the American population, to replace it with a multi-trillion-dollar government-run program, and the other various ideas proposed by Obama and the Democrats? Or do you think that is overkill and totally off-target, like performing open-heart surgery to fix a broken leg?

June 23, 2009 at 1:43 pm

KP

Don't you just love it when a liberal points out the fact that only stupid, uneducated, trailer trash watches Fox? Wuldn't it be great if we were all rich elitist celebrities, or politicians,and we wouldn't have to listen to anything but liberal-speak? I can only hope that some distant generation will be rid of the dope smoking hippie genes from the 60's that are in the people that are running our country now. Now that they are in "power", the rest of us need to shut up and accept the new world they want for us. I thought this was America. Everything done in this country is based on some crazy poll, that asks a few hundred people what they think, and that is the direction we go. Does any one actually look at who is asked these questions? It's always registered voters, and a few dozen per state. So when we see that 75% of "Americans" want national health care, it could mean that out of 1000 registered voters polled, that 750 of them said they wanted it. That's only 15 people per state!!! And they were registered voters, which means that if you haven't registered to vote yet, you were never intended to be asked. Only registered voters seem to count as Americans these days.

June 23, 2009 at 1:43 pm

PG

I'm not an expert in health care, but here's a few things I know: Anything the governments runs is poorly managed at some level because there is never any real accountability in government. Obama frames everything he ever wants as a crisis that must be passed into law without proper debate and scrutiny. Tort reform is the best place to start to control healthcare. If my doctor doesn't have to pay a fortune to have insurance against frivolous lawsuits, we can start backing that savings into the system. This issue should not be rushed. A situation that has existed for many years is not an emergency or crisis just because Obama says it is.

June 23, 2009 at 1:43 pm

dmot712

Great article. Too bad people like John Edward, with their "elitist" mentality, continue to criticize Fox and put down anyone who watches or listens. It's probably just the opposite, in terms of the demographics of listeners, but the truth never applies to liberals. If the truth mattered, they'd never get any of their policies enacted. They must always use sleight of hand.

June 23, 2009 at 1:42 pm

Dean

To John Edwards: So you're saying that all the statistics presented by Fox are wrong but your crowing about the 75% of all Americans want national health care!! is accurate........... That "statistic" being presented by one newspaper the New York Times (or Post). I'm sure they were completely scrupulous about taking an unbiased poll............ It's true you can't confuse liberals with facts.

June 23, 2009 at 1:42 pm

about this blog

  • Elizabeth MacDonald is the stocks editor for Fox Business Network. She is recognized as one of the top prize-winning business journalists in the country, and has received 14 awards, including the top prize in business journalism, the Gerald Loeb Award for Distinguished Business Journalism, and the Newswomen's Club of New York Front Page Award for Excellence in Investigative Journalism.

browse posts

most popular posts