Propaganda Analysis

There are two parts to this story. The first part is a compelling tale of a small surgery center that found a way to drastically cut costs by avoiding insurance company price gouging and bureaucracy. This part of the story is great. These Oklahoma doctors have come up with a seemingly great model.

The second part of the story is The Reason Foundation's editorial opinion that Obamacare is to blame for all of this, and that if only it would be repealed, people and business owners would make rational health care decisions that would save us all lots of money.

The problem is that the Koch’s are trying to give the impression that the doctors in the first part of the story are making the editorial points of the second. The Koch's are basically using these doctors as ventriloquist dummies. At no point do any of these doctors single out or even mention Obamacare as the source of these problems. The title should be "Koch Bros. vs. Obamacare", or at least "The Reason Foundation vs. Obamacare."

Obamacare did not create insurance industry price gouging, nor was it intended to be an insurance industry reform bill. The purpose of Obamacare is to provide universal healthcare. Insurance industry price gouging has existed since the dawn of the insurance industry and will likely die with it.

As further evidence that the folks at Reason are shameless, opportunistic hypocrites, check out this story on Reason.com in which they make a complete 180 and ACTUALLY DEFEND PRICE GOUGING in the wake of Hurricane Sandy. Notice how they use the same ventriloquist dummy technique of trying to force their editorial position on a regular work-a-day cab driver. Ridiculously, the cab driver who ‘Makes a Case for Price Gouging’ in the title of this piece is actually quoted as saying, “No, there should be a law to prevent that (price gouging)” in the actual story. Journalism doesn’t get much more dishonest than that.

Take out the ventriloquist dummy editorializing and this could be a great piece in favor of insurance reform, or adding cost saving safeguards to Obamacare. But it isn’t.

This brand of faux populist, faux leftist propaganda is what the Reason Foundation specializes in, and considering the implications of the recent election, I expect more right wing media outlets to adopt the this approach.

The Koch Brothers are a pair of uber rich oil magnates that fund far right think tanks like the Reason Institute (which produced this video), the Cato Institute, the Heritage foundation. They also fund far right front groups/astroturf outfits like Citizens for a Sound Economy, Freedomworks and the tea party. They also fund far right candidates like Mitt Romney, Scott Walker and many of the 'tea party' candidates. >> ^CrushBug:

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Nice try Koch brothers [snip]
Sorry pumpkin, but I am obligated to downvote this disingenuous Koch-media propaganda.

Sorry, what is a "Koch brother"? In my city, it is the name of a Ford dealership and I am pretty sure that is not what we are talking about.

the Koch brothers are rich old assholes

preventative healthy lifestyle changes are boring so we depend on urgent care... that should change

insurance companies are between you and your doctor, not obama.

people use cannabis, so get the revenue instead of supporting gang wars.

these things are all common sense and knowledge yet here we are.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Nice try Koch brothers [snip]
Sorry pumpkin, but I am obligated to downvote this disingenuous Koch-media propaganda.


Sorry, what is a "Koch brother"? In my city, it is the name of a Ford dealership and I am pretty sure that is not what we are talking about.

Nice try Koch brothers, but most uninsured people with major medical problems go to the emergency room for care, which is about as far from 'seeking out value' as it gets. Instead of fighting to keep the poors from getting healthcare, why not fight to regulate insurance industry price gouging?

A single payer healthcare system would be extremely cheap, but I don't imagine the Koch's will be endorsing this idea any time soon.

Sorry pumpkin, but I am obligated to downvote this disingenuous Koch-media propaganda.

I am surrounded by them too and I agree. They seem to be doubling down. Despite the fact that the Republicans run against everything that Jesus taught, since Fox and their churches say to vote Republican they vote that way, and are convinced they are voting Christian values, and they see this (Obama's win, gay marriage and all that) as an attack against Christian values, and the country is suffering for turning its back on God by kicking him out of schools in the 50s (never mind that we added him to the pledge and our money and are still one of the most overtly open politically Christian nations in the world). I think we'll see them get more and more crazy, and if the Republican party were smart they would kick the Tea Party out, they'll lose Fox, Rush and the Koch brothers money, but they gain more credibility and be able to win again, and the Tea Party becomes, sadly for most Americans, the first 3rd party that might get enough votes to get the much sought matching funds... because when the government gives money to you it is good, but when they give it to the working poor that is bad...

>> ^Boise_Lib:

As someone who is surrounded by this everyday I have to say the madness will not stop.
Baggers are too entrenched for reality to have any effect at all.

This is an excellent analysis of the sham that the capitalist market economy really is. It does indeed get the west the cheapest products and services. But the purse strings are being pulled by the banks, to whom we are all indebted in one way or another (through a mortgage, second mortgage, car financing, credit card(s), student loans.)

I feel like the system is crumbling, we're all going the way of Greece. Does anyone think the USA can pay its debt any better than the struggling Euro zone countries? If it does happen, who stands to lose out the most? The middle class, of course. The Romney's and Koch's of the world will come out of the collapse more powerful than ever.

Well, the Koch Brothers have been very busy spending money. That is all. It's funny that people are so fucking stupid that they buy into the propaganda just because they saw an ad on TV. Monkeys I tell ya, the lot of em.

Yes. Right wing American capitalist fundamentalists (The Koch Brothers, Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard) redefined the term in the 1970s to reflect both corporatist and neo-confederate values respectively.

The so-called "libertarians" of today want to reset the clock on civil rights, labor rights, social welfare and democracy, favoring instead a complete removal of all barriers to corporate power. They may or may not be well intended, but their deceptively authoritarian movement is an affront to liberty all the same, and should be treated as such. >> ^grinter:

"Liberty slows down"?
..did someone redefine "liberty" when I wasn't looking?

"Mitt never let our national security get so lax the red chinese swooped in and stole our missile guidance tech." Nixon (R - crook) opened China.

Isn't that what liberals want--"dialogue" with our enemies? Nixon also created the EPA. Pobody's nerfect. The 'crook' who had no knowledge of Watergate and never ordered it, but still stepped down, unlike Slick Willie the convicted felon. Nixon is a statesman by comparison to both Bubba AND Obozo.

"Mitt didn't built bureaucratic walls between law enforcement agencies to hide his own crimes." Bush II (R - derp) built the Homeland Security Department which helped the CIA cover up crimes of torture.

You mean the guy with higher test scores than Kerry? By international law tis only a crime to torture recognized enemy soldiers of an actual nation, not IED-laying sh1tbag terrorists. If it saves American lives, I'm for torturing every last one of them.

"Mitt didn't tell subordinate women, 'Suck this or lose your job'" Clarence Thomas (R- Koch Ind.) did.

Hearsay and bullshit, rebuked testimony, no charges filed. Nice try, though! Nothing brings out the racist in a liberal like a Black conservative, who by the way, is an intellectual giant compared to Obozo's recent affirmative action twins. Oh, and Thomas was never accused of rape like bubba.

I know pointing out facts won't deter qm, it's just fun to show him up as an ill informed redneck.

Facts? Where? Oh, was that your version of facts? You've failed in your mission. Utterly. I expected less--much less--from a liberal. And you delivered. Let me know when you want another keyboard beating.










>> ^Boise_Lib:

>> ^quantumushroom:
Mitt never let our national security get so lax the red chinese swooped in and stole our missile guidance tech. Mitt didn't built bureaucratic walls between law enforcement agencies to hide his own crimes. Mitt didn't lie under oath, which for you and me would mean serious prison time. Mitt never cheated on his wife. Mitt was never disbarred and disgraced. Mitt didn't tell subordinate women, "Suck this or lose your job", and if Mitt did any of these things, he sure wouldn't have in-the-tank, subservient media shills covering his ass like they did this clown.

"Mitt never let our national security get so lax the red chinese swooped in and stole our missile guidance tech." Nixon (R - crook) opened China.

"Mitt didn't built bureaucratic walls between law enforcement agencies to hide his own crimes." Bush II (R - derp) built the Homeland Security Department which helped the CIA cover up crimes of torture.
"Mitt didn't tell subordinate women, 'Suck this or lose your job'" Clarence Thomas (R- Koch Ind.) did.
I know pointing out facts won't deter qm, it's just fun to show him up as an ill informed redneck.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Mitt never let our national security get so lax the red chinese swooped in and stole our missile guidance tech. Mitt didn't built bureaucratic walls between law enforcement agencies to hide his own crimes. Mitt didn't lie under oath, which for you and me would mean serious prison time. Mitt never cheated on his wife. Mitt was never disbarred and disgraced. Mitt didn't tell subordinate women, "Suck this or lose your job", and if Mitt did any of these things, he sure wouldn't have in-the-tank, subservient media shills covering his ass like they did this clown.

"Mitt never let our national security get so lax the red chinese swooped in and stole our missile guidance tech." Nixon (R - crook) opened China.


"Mitt didn't built bureaucratic walls between law enforcement agencies to hide his own crimes." Bush II (R - derp) built the Homeland Security Department which helped the CIA cover up crimes of torture.

"Mitt didn't tell subordinate women, 'Suck this or lose your job'" Clarence Thomas (R- Koch Ind.) did.

I know pointing out facts won't deter qm, it's just fun to show him up as an ill informed redneck.

An interesting discussion on both sides. I am in no way an Obama apologist [dft is not either], but I have to take exception to one statement.

@NobleOne: "I don't vote for the lesser evil."
Does that mean that you are okay with the Greater evil winning?

We already know that the GOP is using every dirty trick in the book; voter suppression, voter disenfranchisement, voter registration fraud, and downright voter fraud. If the election is even close they will take it to the United States Supreme Court (brought to you by Koch Ind.). The only way we can avoid this type of crap winning is if Obama wins by a very substantial margin.

If Obama wins--and you didn't vote for him--you can say, "I didn't vote for him--I stayed idealogically pure." What will you say--if Romney wins--as we watch him dismantle SS and Medicare, women are forced into back-alley, coathanger abortions, the disparity between rich and poor is more firmly entrenched and codified, the SCOTUS is even more packed with justices bought and payed for by big money, equal rights for LBGT and minorities are rescinded, and another war of distraction is waged?

A vote for Obama means that we may be able to force him into better positions and acts. Not voting means you are fine with the GOP stealing elections and running this country into the hell of a right-wing, Christianist theocracy.

This is all good fodder for discussion, but it is clear from the dishonest way in which this video was put together that the Kochs are more interested in creating a political hit piece than fostering any kind of discussion.

They claim Obama signed an executive order to kill American citizens, but they provide no context and erroneously use the plural (citizens) when in actuality it's just one guy. I'm not sure if it could have been avoided. I'm not sure how many lives it saved, if any. I'm not sure if it was a good thing or a bad thing. In context, it exists in a very debatable grey area. But we see no attempt to understand any of this in this sanctimonious sermon.

As far as NDAA, it was not a bill designed to indefinitely detain prisoners, it was, (is) an annual military budget bill. John McCain attached a rider to the 2012 NDAA that allows for indefinite detention, for reasons I don't understand, because indefinite detention was already permissible under other existing clauses. Obama asked for it to be removed, but no action was taken, and it was voted in with a veto proof majority.

As to why the court case was appealed, I don't know. It might have something to do with Obama's executive order to shut down Guantanemo and provide trials for the prisoners. Congress vetoed the order by prohibiting funds to try the prisoners, leaving them in a kind of limbo. Does this clause give him more time to shut down Gitmo and give trials to the prisoners under a new and improved congress? I don't know. The point is that while it might be fun for the Koch's to drop some provocative soundbites, they do it in a superficial way that does little to further the conversation. If you want depth, read Chris Hedges, who has written some great stuff on the subject.

You could say that Reason is being superficial on purpose to mirror the Jackson video, but none of the videos they produce ever approach any level of depth.

Beyond all that, right wing libertarianism is not a viable alternative to a consensus guy like Obama or even a complete disaster like Romney. They are at the bottom of the barrel as far as our choices go. Their backwards and luddite view of economics disqualifies them from serious consideration from anyone with even a cursory understanding of economics.

Obama has kept his promises of ending combat in Iraq, getting us a healthcare system and signing an executive order to shut down gitmo (even if congress stopped him from doing it). I'd love to elect Noam Chomsky as President, but that's not going to happen, and he probably wouldn't get much done if somehow he were miraculously elected. There are many factions in this country pushing and pulling, and frankly, I can't remember a time when regular citizens had more pull. Change is slow in a democracy.

I am not an advocate of Koch brothers or Mittens. Though I think using Sam Jackson to spur your re-election campaign with his classic meme is downright superficial and dishonest. How do we know it wasn't feasible to take him alive? What about NDAA? especially when it was ruled unconstitutional.

http://dailylounge.com/the-daily/entry/indefinite-detention-clause-upheld-in-court

In case anyone is curious, here is an article on Anwar al-Awlaki, the American born Al Qaeda leader Obama allowed to be killed in Yemen, on the condition that it were not feasible to take him alive.

I get the feeling that the Koch Brothers like to keep their videos as vague as possible, to keep actual reason from clouding the corporate agenda of The Reason Foundation.