<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>FAIR Blog &#187; gang of six</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.fair.org/blog/tag/gang-of-six/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.fair.org/blog</link>
	<description>The national media watch group</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 21:42:42 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.2</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Baucus Plan: No One Likes It, So It Must Be Good</title>
		<link>http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/09/17/baucus-plan-no-one-likes-it-so-it-must-be-good/</link>
		<comments>http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/09/17/baucus-plan-no-one-likes-it-so-it-must-be-good/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Sep 2009 15:23:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Peter Hart</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Healthcare]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ceci Connolly]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gang of six]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Max Baucus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Olympia Snowe]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[USA Today]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Washington Post]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fair.org/blog/?p=12943</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Conservative Democratic Sen. Max Baucus of Montana unveiled his long-awaited health reform proposal yesterday, the results of weeks of negotiations among the Senate Finance Committee's so-called "Gang of Six"--three Democrats from the right-wing of their party and three moderate-to-conservative Republicans. The bill (unsurprisingly) does not include a public option and could end up leaving middle-income Americans paying too [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Conservative Democratic Sen. Max Baucus of Montana unveiled his long-awaited health reform proposal yesterday, the results of weeks of negotiations among the Senate Finance Committee's so-called "Gang of Six"--three Democrats from the right-wing of their party and three moderate-to-conservative Republicans. The bill (unsurprisingly) does not include a public option and could end up leaving middle-income Americans paying too much for health insurance (<strong>Think Progress</strong>, <a title="Think Progress: Health Insurance Insider Slams Baucus Bill" href="http://thinkprogress.org/2009/09/15/potter-baucus/" target="_blank">9/15/09</a>). At the same time, no Republican--including those in the Baucus' Gang--has indicated that they intend to vote for this bill.</p>
<p>But some of the early media coverage seems to find it encouraging that the Baucus bill pleases almost no one. The <strong>Washington Post</strong>'s Ceci Connolly presents that view today ("<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/16/AR2009091603518_pf.html">From Finance Chief, a Bill That May Weather the Blows</a>"), with the lead: "On the surface, it appears that no one is happy with Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.)--and that may be the best news President Obama has had in months."</p>
<p>What exactly is the good news? Connolly explains that liberals unions "fumed," but more importantly, "the fragile coalition of major industry leaders and interest groups central to refashioning the nation's $2.5 trillion health-care system remains intact." These "influential players" have not found "reasons to kill the effort." Quite the opposite: "Most enticing was the prospect of 30 million new customers." Well, that <em>is</em> good news--if you happen to believe that pleasing health insurance companies is the key to passing meaningful reform of that industry. Here you see the <a title="FAIR Blog: Too Much Truth in Advertising at the WaPo?" href="http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/07/02/too-much-truth-in-advertising-at-the-wapo/" target="_self">worldview of the <strong>Washington Post</strong></a> in action.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, <strong>USA Today</strong>'s front page headline in the print edition (9/17/09) is "Bill Seen as Step in the 'Right Direction.'" This is a strange conclusion to reach about a bill that no one seems to like. The "right direction" comment was made by Maine Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe, a Maine Republican included in Baucus' Gang of Six, who the paper tells us isn't even sure she'll support the Baucus plan anyway. On their website <strong>USA Today</strong> has changed the headline to read, "<a href="http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20090917/1ahealthplan17_st.art.htm">Bill Elates Few but Seen as Progress</a>"-- an improvement, but still a strange way to describe the state of the debate. Unless, of course, one sees Max Baucus, Olympia Snowe or the insurance industry as the most important voices in that debate.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/09/17/baucus-plan-no-one-likes-it-so-it-must-be-good/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>NPR Boosts &#039;Dominance of Private Health Insurance&#039;</title>
		<link>http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/09/01/npr-boosts-dominance-of-private-health-insurance/</link>
		<comments>http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/09/01/npr-boosts-dominance-of-private-health-insurance/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Sep 2009 18:48:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Gabriel Voiles</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Healthcare]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Things Considered]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Andrea Seabrook]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gang of six]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[health insurance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Kent Conrad]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mytwords]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NPR]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NPR Check]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fair.org/blog/?p=12575</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Analyzing "The Art of Framing at NPR" on his NPR Check blog, Mytwords (8/29/09) thinks that "there are many ways you could frame the role of Sen. Kent Conrad, one of the gang of six senators who are working very hard to preserve the profitable dominance of private health insurance in the U.S.--such as "marvel[ing] [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Analyzing "The Art of Framing at <strong>NPR</strong>" on his <strong>NPR Check</strong> blog, Mytwords (<a href="http://nprcheck.blogspot.com/2009/08/art-of-framing-at-npr.html" target="_blank">8/29/09</a>) thinks that "there are many ways you could frame the role of Sen. Kent Conrad, one of the gang of six senators who are working very hard to preserve the profitable dominance of private health insurance in the U.S.--such as "marvel[ing] at why <a href="http://washingtonindependent.com/53115/gang-of-six-not-quite-the-voice-of-the-nation" target="_blank">six senators</a> representing less than 3 percent of the U.S. population are <a title="ad-viewing required" href="http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/08/23/gang_of_six/index.html" target="_blank">controlling</a> the fate of health insurance reform," or possibly by taking a serious "look at the <a href="http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/eades/2009/07/gang-of-sickos-six-us-senators.php" target="_blank">obscene amounts</a> of campaign cash flowing into these senators' <a href="http://boldprogressives.org/PublicOption/factsheet.html" target="_blank">coffers</a> from the for-profit health insurance industry and its allies."</p>
<p>"Ah, but not on <strong>NPR</strong>," writes Mytwords, when citing how <strong>All Things Considered</strong>'s Andrea Seabrook "<a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112345146" target="_blank">explains</a> Kent Conrad's opposition to the pubic option and offer of health insurance co-ops as the result of his expertise on fighting government deficits and his commitment to centrism and bipartisanship."<br />
<!--preview-break--><br />
Mytwords' response:</p>
<blockquote><p>There's just one little, tiny problem with all this emphasis on expertise, budget deficits and BIG, NEW PROBLEMS, great co-ops, and winning Republican votes: It doesn't wash. First, there is <a href="http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2009/08/dont-succumb-to-deficit-hysteria.html" target="_blank">no consensus</a> that deficit spending is a bad thing. As far as the danger of a BIG, NEW GOVERNMENT PROGRAM costing sooooo much more money than what we've got--that's a <a href="http://www.correntewire.com/upping_ante_how_much_money_medicare_all_would_save_more_500_billion_way_more" target="_blank">factually challenged</a> assertion, too. But <a href="http://pnhp.org/blog/2009/08/17/exchanges-co-ops-and-cop-outs-on-health-care-reform/" target="_blank">Health Insurance Co-ops</a> are a good thing, like Credit Unions, right? <a href="http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/142049/the_co-op_model_would_mostly_suceed_in_protecting_the_insurance_industry/" target="_blank">Wrong</a>, they are a <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/21/opinion/21krugman.html?_r=1" target="_blank">sham</a>.</p></blockquote>
<p>Tempted to throw the public broadcaster a bone by considering that, "Well, at least the bit about getting Republicans on board makes sense"? Mytwords points out how that is just "<a href="http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/142041/surprise,_surprise_--_republicans_even_opposed_to_watered_down_health_reform/?comments=view&amp;cID=1296463&amp;pID=1296263" target="_blank">Wrong again</a>." Listen to the FAIR radio program <strong>CounterSpin:</strong> "Trudy Lieberman on Healthcare Reform" (<a href="http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3858">8/14/09</a>).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/09/01/npr-boosts-dominance-of-private-health-insurance/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

