I give up. (Dem candidate for Markey's seat.)

[No Elephants]

A local Boston news station has a weekly show on politics. Each show begins with an interview with a Massachusetts-based politician, followed by discussion by the two hosts of the show and a local Democratic pundit plus a local Republican pundit. ('cause, you know, no other party exists in Massachusetts besides the 30 or so national parties.)

Today's show featured the state senator who won the Democratic primary for the special election to fill Markey's Congressional seat, Katherine M. Clark.

Her qualifications are impressive, I would even say her education could not be more impressive.

Education:

St. Lawrence University, BA

Cornell Law School, JD

Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University , MPA


She is a mother of two and an attorney.


Among her career highlights, she lists:



General Counsel for the Massachusetts Office of Child Care Services
Chief of the Policy Division for the Massachusetts Attorney General
Serves on the Center for Women in Politics and Public Policy Advisory Board at the University of Massachusetts Boston; Member of the Advisory Council for the Department of Early Education and Care
MMA Legislator of the Year, Mass. Association of School Committees Legislator of the Year, MSPCA Award of Recognition, Mass. Retirees Award of Recognition, Boston Area Rape Crisis Center Beacon Award

Impressive.


So, the first question is about THE signature legislation of the current Democratic President's administration (so far, anyway). And the issue that was the hottest in the news, up until the Iranian agreement this weekend.

And one of the first things out of Clark's mouth is wrong. She said that medical needs were the number one cause of bankruptcy, which is true, but then she added something like, "because people get sick and don't have health insurance," which is false. In the majority of bankruptcy cases resulting from medical expenses, both spouses did have health insurance. And that, IMO, is a critical fact.

Okay, so we're all human. However, neither of the two hosts of a political show--the ones who asked Clark about health insurance as their first question--corrected her. Neither of the pundits who bloviated about the interview later corrected the record, either.

How the hell do we expect Americans to know the facts when this is the quality being served up to them. And this is a station in a large city that prizes higher education, with a highly educated candidate. What the hell is going on in the greater Podunk area?

[No Elephants]

1. FWIW, cnn article from 2009 says 3/4 of medical bankrupts had health insurance

They concluded that 62.1 percent of the bankruptcies were medically related because the individuals either had more than $5,000 (or 10 percent of their pretax income) in medical bills, mortgaged their home to pay for medical bills, or lost significant income due to an illness. On average, medically bankrupt families had $17,943 in out-of-pocket expenses, including $26,971 for those who lacked insurance and $17,749 who had insurance at some point.

Overall, three-quarters of the people with a medically-related bankruptcy had health insurance, they say.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/06/05/bankruptcy.medical.bills/

(Forgive the bad term "medical bankrupts" instead of "those filing for bankruptcy because of medical expenses." I wanted it all to fit in the subject line.)

[Enthusiast]

2. "They" don't want Americans to know the facts.

And that is a FACT that you can take to the bank.

But I agree. It is telling that Clark wouldn't recognize that having insurance doesn't prevent medical bankruptcy. And equally that the corporate mouth pieces wouldn't correct her. But not at all surprising because the last thing the insurance industry wants is for the American people to recognize that the insurance industry isn't playing fair.

[No Elephants]

3. I am much more cynical that I was in 2008. However, I honestly believe none of them knew the

reality, except maybe the local Dem pundit, who is pretty sharp. I could be wrong, but that was my sense. (the local Dem pundit has less than zero incentive to point out that Clark made a mistake, or that Obamacare will not necessarily solve the bankruptcy problem, unless costs can be controlled.)

The lack of knowledge is almost as pervasive as the greed and deception. I can think of no reason, other than ignorance, that made the MSNBC hosts blab about the framers and the constitution when discussing the filibuster/cloture rule. It would have been in their personal/network interest to support Reid in getting Obama's nominees approved. So, I think they were just clueless.

As you know, it bothers me when people who get paid very well to bloviate about politics misinform the public because they don't bother to do even minimal research. They don't earn their money. Usually, that would be between them and their employers. However, when you are misinforming America because you are lazy, that bothers me.