On the Wednesday, Jan 19th, broadcast of the
NewsHour PBS reached a level of disinformation equal to that of the Fox News Network.
Ifill was delivering a "report" on the Corporate Lobbyists effort to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act with the help of a so-called expert (another GOP toadie) named DAVID CHALIAN.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june11/healthcare_01-19.html IFill said: "Isn't it also confusing because it's hard to know what's true, whether it's a job-killing bill or a job-creating bill? You have Republicans and Democrats just toe-to-toe arguing the exact opposite thing.
DAVID CHALIAN: There's no doubt about that. And -- and the fact that there's no sort of arbiter right now works to both sides' advantages, right? They each get to make these points.
REALLY? "
SO HARD TO KNOW WHAT'S TRUE" , Ms. IFill???
and: "
..THERE'S NO ARBITER RIGHT NOW.." Mr. Chalian?? Well, I’ll be damned. And here I thought THERE WAS JUST SUCH AN ORGANIZATION KNOWN AS THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE ...WHICH, IN FACT,
IS THE OFFICIAL ARBITER OF WHAT THE COSTS AND TAX REVENUES WILL BE FROM SPECIFIC PIECES OF LEGISLATION??
This is about the most blatant example of disinformation and parroting of Republican Propaganda as I have ever seen on broadcast television. This actually is the same kind of lieing that Fox News Network is notorious for. But Fox News Network is a cable network. It only goes to viewers who have paid for it (who presumably want to be lied to). PBS is broadcasting on the public airwaves.
But perhaps Ifill and Chalian aren’t dissembling. Perhaps neither IFill nor Chalain has heard of the Congressional Budget Office. Perhaps they are not trying to pass off GOP propaganda - that the CBO doesn’t know what it’s doing when it comes to scoring a piece of legislation - as the truth. Maybe Ifill and Chalian do NOT know that the CBO stated that the HCR law will have minimal impact on jobs - some being "lost" as some people retire earlier (but then those jobs could very well be filled by younger people as the employers just may want to replace people who retired earlier than would statistically be expected).
In addition to believing that, we would have to believe that Ifill and her toadie friend aren't aware of private sector analysts who have said the impact on employment of the HCR law will be minimal. Like Rand Corp, The Linder Group and the New America Foundation. (NOTE that the figures stated below are for a period of ten years over which the Patient Protection Act would fully go into effect).
http://www.factcheck.org/2011/01/a-job-killing-law/">FactCheck.org
One leading health care expert, John Sheils of The Lewin Group, puts the loss at between 150,000 and 300,000 jobs, at or near the minimum wage. And Sheils says that relatively small loss would be partly offset by gains in the health care industry.
~~
~~
When we reported on this issue in November 2009, the House was debating a health care bill with tougher requirements and penalties for employers than the law now has. Even under that bill, Elizabeth McGlynn, associate director of the health unit at RAND Corp., told us the effect on jobs "is likely to be quite minimal." McGlynn said: "Most large businesses already offer health insurance. And most small businesses are excluded from the mandate. So it’s relatively few firms that will be affected."
..or The New America Foundation...
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/01/17/106950/is-health-care-law-really-a-job.html">Experts doubt GOP claim that health care law's a 'job killer’ - McClatchy
Republicans have titled their effort to overturn the law the "Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act," and that's their favorite talking point against it. The House of Representatives will start debate on repeal Tuesday and probably vote Wednesday.
Saying that the law is a job killer doesn't necessarily make it one, however, and independent experts say that such a conclusion is at least premature, if not unfounded.
"The claim has no justification," said Micah Weinberg, a senior research fellow at the centrist
http://health.newamerica.net/node/43100">New America Foundation's Health Policy Program
Since the law contains dual mandates that most individuals must obtain health insurance coverage and most employers must offer it by 2014,
"the effect on employment is probably zero or close to it," said Amitabh Chandra, a professor of public policy at Harvard University.
http://health.newamerica.net/node/43100">New America Foundation - Health Policy Program
Economic analysis, though, is an inherently flexible exercise and a great deal depends on one's assumptions. The claim that we can be certain that healthcare reform eliminates jobs, though, has no justification. It's not an irrational position, but
there is vastly stronger justification for the claim that it will create jobs than that it will eliminate them.
.. additionally, none of these studies considered the impact of better health care on employer losses due to workers taking days off for illness. This costs employers about
http://independentretailer.com/2010/08/01/illness-costs-employers/">8.7% of their total payroll costs (
Nationally, that comes to roughly $492 BILLION). Presumably the provision of better health care to an additional 30-34 million people will have a beneficial impact on their health. This should result in fewer sick days being taken (including by those employees who picked up illnesses from those employees who were sick but came to work anyway). IF the sick leave losses were reduced by 3% that would be a savings to employers of about $15 Billion per year. With that savings employers could hire about 360,000 additional workers.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(628 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
