Dr. Angell is former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine.

The Senate Finance Committee's hearings on health reform earlier this month did not include testimony from any advocate for single-payer insurance. Physicians for a National Health Program, which represents 16,000 doctors, asked the committee to invite me to testify, but it chose not to. If I had been invited, this is what I would have said:

The reason our health system is in such trouble is that it is set up to generate profits, not to provide care. We rely on hundreds of investor-owned insurance companies that profit by refusing coverage to high-risk patients and limiting services to others. They also cream off about 20 percent of the premiums for profits and overhead.

In addition, we provide much of our medical care in investor-owned health facilities that profit by providing too many services for the well-insured and too few for those who cannot pay. Most physicians are paid fee-for-service, which gives them a similar incentive, particularly specialists who receive very high fees for performing expensive tests and procedures. Nonprofits behave much like for-profits, because they must compete with them. In sum, healthcare is directed toward maximizing income, not maximizing health. In economic terms, it's a highly successful industry, but it's a massive drain on the rest of the economy.

The reform proposals advocated by President Obama are meant to increase coverage for the uninsured. That is certainly a worthwhile goal, but the problem is that they leave the present profit-driven and highly inflationary system essentially unchanged, and simply pour more money into it - an unsustainable situation.

....

A single-payer system is ignored by lawmakers because of the influence of the health industry lobbies. They raise the specter of rationing and long waits for care. There are indeed waits for some elective procedures in some countries with national health systems, such as the United Kingdom. But that's because they spend far less on healthcare than we do. For them, the problem is not the system; it's inadequate funding. For us, it's not the funding; it's the system. We spend more than enough.

I urge you to consider a nonprofit single-payer system. The economic interests of the health industry should not be permitted to hold the rest of the economy hostage and threaten the health and well-being of the public.

Private is efficient!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vHAgjqnM68&

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgNkdATthKQ

"Time is important"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOZmvaFfjtk

But in the USA...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ho-hnZcEs6g

Stockholders come first above the sick!!

Wonderful Christible attitude, just ignore Jesus in favour of ideology!!

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/02/how-many-people-die-from-lack-of-health-insurance/35820/

"The most recent available study, which also had the largest sample and controlled for the most variables, found no effect at all--a result which surprised the hell out of its author, a former Clinton advisor. Other studies say the number is in the tens of thousands. "

...

"The Atlantic Home
Monday, April 9, 2012


Follow the Atlantic »
Twitter Facebook RSS iPhone

Politics
Business
Entertainment
International
Technology
National
Health
Magazine
video

Megan McArdle

Megan McArdle - Megan McArdle is a senior editor for The Atlantic who writes about business and economics. She has worked at three start-ups, a consulting firm, an investment bank, a disaster recovery firm at Ground Zero, and The Economist. She is currently on leave.
More

All Posts
RSS feed

Share Share « Previous McArdle | Next McArdle » Email Email Print Print
How Many People Die From Lack of Health Insurance?
By Megan McArdle

Feb 11 2010, 3:20 PM ET 132

It's a contentious question, but curiously, one that doesn't get debated nearly as fiercely as things like "how many uninsured people are there?" I find that surprising, because after all, we don't necessarily care whether people are marked by some survey as "insured" or "uninsured"; we care whether there is preventable suffering in the world.

But it turns out to be really hard to determine how many people die without insurance, which is the subject of this month's column. The most recent available study, which also had the largest sample and controlled for the most variables, found no effect at all--a result which surprised the hell out of its author, a former Clinton advisor. Other studies say the number is in the tens of thousands.

The left is predictably fond of the study which got the largest number, 45,000 a year. Unfortunately, its authors are political advocates for a single-payer system, who also helped author the notorious studies on medical bankruptcies. Those studies are very shoddily done, with parameters that somehow always conspire to produce the maximum possible number. In the first study, they set an absurdly low threshhold for what constituted a "medical bankruptcy". In the second, they chose 2006, the year after the 2005 bankruptcy reform act had driven an unprecedented spike in filings."

--and so much more --

ya been schooled

(V): Looks like you've had a bit more bad luck when it comes to thinking.

That the famous study by the Harvard Medical School and Cambridge Health Alliance has been a reliable Democrat talking point for months. But its estimate that 44,789 "excess deaths" are associated with lack of health insurance annually is rarely questioned by the media. They should be.

"The findings in this research are based on faulty methodology and the death risk is significantly overstated," National Center for Policy Analysis president John C. Goodman has explained. "The subjects were interviewed only once and the study tries to link their insurance status at that time to mortality a decade later. Yet over the period, the authors have no idea whether subjects were insured or uninsured, what kind of medical care they received, or even cause of death."

Researchers of the Harvard based their conclusion upon national surveys participants filled from 1986-1994. After checking how many of the adults died by the year 2000, researchers proceeded to make the unbelievable leap in assumption and faith that the uninsured stayed uninsured for all those years - and died as a result.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/anthony-kang/2010/03/19/you-lie-msnbc-lets-dems-false-45-000-uninsurance-deaths-go-unchallenge#ixzz1rbHUJBFY


opps.......

But it does make for good press eh Jules?

“An estimated 17,000 children in the United States might have died unnecessarily over nearly two decades because they didn’t have health insurance,” said U.S. News and World Report. “The authors estimated that at least 1,000 hospitalized children died each year simply because they lacked insurance,” said The New York Times.

They’re talking about a Johns Hopkins Children’s Center study [gated, but with abstract]. But between the media hype and the actual study is an enormous chasm that separates fact from fiction. In truth, the authors of the study did not establish that anybody, anywhere, died of any cause whatsoever because of a lack of health insurance.

This is only the latest in a series of ridiculous claims that have been injected into the health insurance debate. What follows is a brief review, some of which has appeared earlier at the Health Affairs blog.

...................

Also, before you go into mourning too quickly, be aware that when former Director of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) June O’Neill and her husband Dave used a similar approach they found that the involuntarily uninsured (low-income people) were only 3% more likely to die over a 14-year period than those with health insurance. There was no statistically significant effect on the “voluntarily uninsured” (higher-income people).

That’s not too surprising in light of a RAND study finding. People are receiving appropriate care a little better than half the time when they see doctors. According to RAND, the care patients receive is not affected by whether they are insured or uninsured or by the type of insurance they have. People who are uninsured, of course, may delay seeing a doctor in the first place — because of their lack of insurance. But this problem is unlikely to be solved by enrolling them in Medicaid programs that routinely ration by waiting.

http://healthblog.ncpa.org/does-lack-of-insurance-cause-premature-death-probably-not/

Artful Dodger: OMG..that is awful - that is the opposite end of the scale to abortion.....

Bernice: The cost of Obama Care is already double and there will be "panels" that make policy and deny people certain procedures.

There are those in the liberal party that complained that VP Cheney received a heart transplant. Too old they said. They would have let him die if they had their way. That's a death panel and it's coming our way.

Artful Dodger: horror stories are not only Britain and Canada....try Aus as well...especially the town I live in...absobloodylutely shocking reputation Qld Health has :(

Bernice: There are many horror stories from Britain and Canada where people who needed urgent care were ignored (due to the waiting period and determinations that their problems weren't "urgent") and died.

If I'm selling a product (insurance) don't I have the right to offer this, this, and this as covered but not that? Why must the government determine what a company is to carry? If someone on my policy needs hearing aids, there is NO COVERAGE for the 4500$ cost. Why no coverage? Because it's not cost effective to offer the coverage. I'd pay a few hundred dollars a year and some devices are in excess of 5 thousand dollars. It adds up when one considers that it's normal for older people to lose certain portions of their hearing. Most old farts could use hearing aids.

As for death panels, I think they will exist. There is a determination of what procedure is worth the cost and what isn't. Watch and see. If this health care bill survives, we will see some procedure where some "wanted" procedures will be denied (such as a heart transplant for people over 70). Mike Wallace just died at 93. A heart transplant extends one's life for up to 15 more years. Yeah, I want that!!!

(V): your sentences don't make sense...use full stops.

INTERESTING:
I find it interesting that so many protesters spoke about the so called death panels if the presidents healthcare bill got passed,,What I really see is that the death panels have been in place for a long time when insurance companies refuse you coverage,or in some cases drop you and even out right refuse to cover many cancer treatments that they say is to costly,,or when the hospital refuses you treatment for lack of health care insurance,,Even cases where people are constantly denied medicaid 3 or 4 times with appeals after appeals in which I see that time does not give anyone a good mental outlook of a chance at improving there lives with this illness,,For the first time, Here we have a president who is looking out for the health of this country,and I have seen nothing but hatred,anger,bitterness from the opposition,,But that same opposition will take up the cause and beat the drums of war,and in the same breath claim to be pro-life..Interesting (Hummm)

Right now, under the private health care system, we have delays in treatment, threats to our health and even worse (corporate death panels).

There has been a tremendous consolidation in the health insurance industry over the past fifteen years. A cartel of very large for-profit insurance companies dominates the industry. One out of every three Americans is enrolled in some kind of plan offered by just seven of those large companies.

America has granted insurance companies the right to create bottlenecks in the financing of health care in order to extract profits out of the suffering of ordinary people, without providing any actual health care whatsoever.

The lure of economic incentives to provide unnecessary or unproven care, or even that known to be ineffective, drives many physicians to make the lucrative choice. Hospitals and especially academic medical centers are also motivated to profit from many expensive procedures.


The truth??

The Economist said the phrase was used as an "outrageous allegation" to confront politicians at town hall meetings during the August 2009 congressional recess.[54] The New York Times said the term became a standard slogan among many conservatives opposed to the Obama administration’s health care overhaul.[22] Former Newsweek editor Jon Meacham said it was "a lie crafted to foment opposition to the president's push for reform"[55] and Fox News analyst Juan Williams said "of course there is no such thing as any death panel."[56] The Christian Science Monitor reported that some Republicans used the term as a "jumping-off point" to discuss government rationing of health care services, while some liberal groups applied the term to private health insurance companies.[57] Journalist Paul Waldman of The American Prospect called the "death panel" charge a consequential policy lie, a falsehood about a policy that had definite effects on the policy, a type of lie that is not as condemned in the media as personal lies.[58]

The right-leaning British paper, The Daily Telegraph noted that some critics of the U.S. reform used the United Kingdom's National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE)—"as an example of [doing] the sort of drug rationing that amounted to a 'death panel'". NICE, as one of its functions, uses cost-effectiveness analysis to determine whether new treatments and drugs should be available to those covered by Britain's National Health Service [59] The Sunday Times, a British paper owned by Rupert Murdoch, wrote that Sarah Palin's use of the "death panels" term was a reference to NICE.




Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) stated that "death panels" were a baseless charge that unnecessarily incited fear and detracted from real problems in the proposed legislation.[67] She said the proposed legislation was "bad enough that we don't need to be making things up". Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-GA), thought there was illogical confusion over "death panels"; he said advance directives put "authority in the individual rather than the government."[68] In July 2010 Rep. Bob Inglis, (R-SC) said that he thought it was counterproductive for the conservative movement for some to promote misinformation about death panels when they do not exist.[69] Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) endorsed Rep. Charles Boustany's statement that "medical panels of people who care about what's best for their patients ... is good science and good medicine."[70] Speaking for himself, Issa said "Republicans have to step back from the words 'death panels'."[70] Michael F. Cannon, a former domestic policy analyst for the U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee and a member of the Cato Institute, wrote that "[p]aying doctors to help seniors sort out their preferences for end-of-life care is consumer-directed rationing, not bureaucratic rationing."

The Nazis did say they learnt how to make a big lie from American politicians

Carbonite lost 12% of their stock value after pulling from Rush

Alcohol abuse kills some 75,000 Americans each year and shortens the lives of these people by an average of 30 years, a U.S. government study suggested Thursday.


How many of these loons don't have health care coverage?

Hmmmm, maybe the government should regulate who gets to drink?

(V): That report is seriously flawed. Do you know how many factors lead to death? It cannot be attributed to lack of health care. Many die with health care! Some die because of bad choices like eating unhealthy foods and getting fat.

Either way Jules (who is addressing me without addressing me, classic Middle School!) it's not up to the govt to force me to pay more just so people without can have. And seriously, what has the government ever undertaken that turned out well? Only private industry can effectively run anything! The government mucks everything up. And we're gonna trust them running a national health care system?

Here come the death panels.

Some Americans do not qualify for government-provided health insurance, are not provided health insurance by an employer, and are unable to afford, cannot qualify for, or choose not to purchase, private health insurance. When charity or "uncompensated" care is not available, they sometimes simply go without needed medical treatment. This problem has become a source of considerable political controversy on a national level.

A report from the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies states: "Lack of health insurance causes roughly 18,000 unnecessary deaths every year in the United States." [27] A 2009 Harvard study published in the American Journal of Public Health found more than 44,800 excess deaths annually in the United States associated with uninsurance.[28][29] Johns Hopkins University professor Vicente Navarro stated, more broadly, in 2003, "the problem does not end here, with the uninsured. An even larger problem is the underinsured" and "The most credible estimate of the number of people in the United States who have died because of lack of medical care was provided by a study carried out by Harvard Medical School Professors David Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler (New England Journal of Medicine 336, no. 11 [1997]). They concluded that almost 100,000 people died in the United States each year because of lack of needed care—three times the number of people who died of AIDS."[30]

A study published in the American Journal of Public Health in 2009 found that "[u]ninsurance is associated with mortality. The strength of that association appears similar to that from a study that evaluated data from the mid-1980s, despite changes in medical therapeutics and the demography of the uninsured since that time."[46] The study estimated that lack of insurance is associated with 45,000 deaths annually.[46] This is two and a half times higher than an estimate produced by the Institute of Medicine in 2002.[47] One of the authors characterized the results as "now one dies every 12 minutes."

(V): And Jules, it's not up to the government to " Christianize" policies. What were you thinking? Oh yeah, you weren't.

(V): What? Nothing about me proving you wrong?

Those who can't pay don't. No one in USA is denied health care. There are many safeguards.

So.... the government picks up the tab YET AGAIN and yet can only cover 75% of the uninsured.

Golly!! Our system can handle 100%

And yet there are those in the USA who want this program stopped as it offends their Christible values.

Nice.

(V): propaganda nonsense infused with the usual disingenuous rhetoric (lies)

http://www.hhs.gov/opa/title-x-family-planning/

Don't get me wrong here Jules. I'm not saying you're stupid. I'm just saying you've got bad luck when it comes to thinking.

(V):you cannot buy the pill over the counter in Australia, and as far as I know you can't buy it over the counter in NZ either. , and it cost a lot more than $9

Interesting that some people don't seem to care about the health of women. After all... the 'pill' although being only $9 over the counter, means the women using this option has to miss out on making sure that it is medically safe for her to take it. While a doctor can check for risks that can be avoided by a simple 10 minute appointment.

Clots can be fatal, as be many of the other serious side effects. And through studies the percentage of actual cases of serious problems is less in those who see a doc.

I wonder how the matter of the parable of the good Samaritan escapes so many Conservative Christibles? I wonder why so many of them seem to hate women enough to say they should live in greater risk of dying over a few dollars?

it's worth noting that Rush has picked up 7 new sponsors.

While more than 100 advertisers told Premiere that they didn’t want to be associated with “controversial” radio programs of any kind in the wake of the flap, some of these companies weren’t regular Limbaugh sponsors in the first place.

Carusone said most of the advertiser exodus over the past month appeared to be among companies whose ads aired only in regional or local markets, he said.

“Contrary to the wishful thinking of the professional special interest groups, reports of sponsors fleeing the ‘Rush Limbaugh Show’ are grossly exaggerated. In fact, the program retains virtually of all its long-term sponsors who continue to have great success” with the show, said Rachel Nelson, spokeswoman for Premiere.

…In all, “the temperature of this controversy has finally fallen below the boiling point,” said Tom Taylor, news editor of Radio-Info.com, which covers the industry. He added, “I think the advertiser base is coming back.”

"So no mention of the fact that Invisible Children share ties with the same fundamentalists who helped draw up Uganda's notorious "Kill the Gays" bill."

"Anyone donating to Invisible Children is funding a very dodgy organisation with it's own "Christian" agenda. Anti gay, pro the elite in Uganda and money grabbing. This is NOT a charity."

"Relative to some corrupt regimes in Africa, Kony is an easy target for this charity and politicos to flex. Let's forget Ugandan president Yoweri Museveni barring refugees from returning to their own settlements in the now peaceful north and remain in IDP camps. Ironically, Uganda's goverment is killing more people than Kony ever did by forcing northern Ugandans to remain in such death camps."

..........comments made regarding the release of a new Kony 2012 video.

You know, the one in which NBC doctored tapes of George Zimmerman to make him look like a racist? Yeah, they said they goofed. What a load of crap. They mean they got caught. http://www.mrc.org/press-releases/mrc-ups-pressure-comcast-demands-internal-nbc-investigation

Oh yeah and what about Anderson Cooper, you know, the one that JULES claims is "less biased?" Well, Anderson Cooper of CNN ran a story (with CNN's backing) that claimed that maybe, just maybe, Zimmerman called Treyvon Marton a "f*ing coon"

Then CNN played the tape over and over even isolating the "alleged" use of the word, "coon." But even their audio expert, who was interviewed, couldn't say for sure what Zimmerman said. A firestorm followed that report.

And BEHOLD, the very next day, CNN, via Wolf Blitzer, does another story where the CNN audio experts cleaned up the 911 recording, removing most of the white noise and getting a nearly perfect recording. And what did this "f*ing COON" racial remark actually turn out to be?

"F*ing COLD" !!! This time CNN played it over and over and it CLEARLY SAID "COLD!"

Then the CNN audio expert (this time a different CNN expert) said that Zimmerman clearly said "cold."

hmmmm And it just so happens that it was unseasonably cold that night AND raining!

So far, ABC and NBC and now CNN have all made accusations against Zimmerman BEFORE ALL THE EVIDENCE HAS BEEN HEARD.

But Fox remains faithful to the story and ONLY reports the facts of the case. They haven't tried the case in the media as have the others.

Meanwhile, democratic members of congress have said such vile things as Zimmerman hunted Treyvon down "like a dog" and one NY Times OpEd opined that it was "cold-blooded murder."

Once again, the left gives itself a pass for these serious violations. Scum that they are.

Last weeks panic fuel buying caused by Conservative cabinet minister Francis Maude is over. That the Conservative MP decided to state that everyone needed to fill up and have some jerry cans stashed in the garage was totally false.

Why? .... The tanker drivers and companies are both looking to negotiate as is now happening through ACAS. The unions, if they through balloting their members found they wanted a strike, were required by law to give a minimum of seven days notice of the intent.

Calls have been made for the scare monger to resign, especially after one woman has suffered burns through following his advice, and the AA have seen people through panic even filling up jam jars with petrol.

It is likely that the ACAS talks will work, but if not the drivers will exercise their constitutional right to strike. Civil rights some Conservatives would like to see gone, but such a change to the rights of UK workers would never happen and would never be supported by the UK people.

... Luckily the masters haven't managed to brainwash the UK people through BIG lies.

(V): That's a small complaint. YOu sure do like to keep this story alive. A bit obsessed with Murdock are we?

Sky News has said it illegally hacked emails belonging to members of the public on two separate occasions.

The broadcaster said it hacked emails belonging to John Darwin - who faked his own death in a canoe - and his wife Anne. It also revealed it accessed the email accounts of a suspected paedophile and his wife.

Sky News said the action was in the public interest and amounted to "responsible journalism".

It released a statement which said: "Sky News is committed to the highest editorial standards.

"Like other news organisations, we are acutely aware of the tensions that can arise between the law and responsible investigative journalism. We stand by these actions as editorially justified and in the public interest."


......A Cleveland Police spokeswoman said: "Cleveland Police has conducted an initial review into these matters and can confirm that enquiries are ongoing into how the emails were obtained."

It is illegal to hack into emails under the Computer Misuse Act.

Tom Watson MP, a vocal critic of Rupert Murdoch journalists during the phone hacking scandal, said of the latest development: "There are many questions that need answering.

"The chair of BSkyB needs to say something on this and reassure viewers this has not been going on more widely."

http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2012/03/60_minutes_looks_at_case_of_te.html

Sad that this man served 25 years in prison for a murder he didn't commit. Sadder still that the prosecutor hid evidence and yet, is now serving as a judge.

There are those crying out for Zimmerman's arrest and if pressed, they can't even articulate the important facts involved in the case. Yet some are even advocating violence and the left seems perfectly fine with this type of thinking. Claims of racism and profiling without irrefutable evidence shows a crass disregard for the truth. There are always two sides to every story and then a third in the middle (usually the actual known facts) and one ought to keep this in mind before deciding they "know" what actually happened.

No matter what course were studied in college.

Trayvon Martin case: Conflicting evidence emerges

There's been more detailed evidence about the night when George Zimmerman killed teen Trayvon Martin. But regarding the two major scenarios – that Zimmerman acted in self-defense or that Martin was the deadly victim of racial profiling – the picture remains as murky as ever.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2012/0401/Trayvon-Martin-case-Conflicting-evidence-emerges

An expert in forensic voice identification analyzing the 911 recordings in the Trayvon Martin case for the Orlando Sentinel tells the paper that it is likely not Martin’s shooter, George Zimmerman, heard calling for help.

Tom Owen used voice identification software to rule out Zimmerman, according to the paper. Another expert contacted by the Sentinel, utilizing different techniques, came to the same conclusion.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/04/01/voice-heard-screaming-on-11-tape-is-not-trayvon-martin-shooter-george-zimmerman/?test=latestnews#ixzz1qpRJeoue

I'm not saying Zimmerman is innocent. I'm saying we don't know all the facts yet. I don't know what happend. I don't know Zimmerman's motives and I certainly don't know if Treyvon was fully innocent or what. I have my guesses but it's irresponsible to put out a guess when what really matters is the truth.

1st question: ".....what goes through your mind?"

Not a leading question. Good on Cooper.

2nd: Cooper asks if the father is sure it's Trayvon's voice crying for help. That question is fine too.

3rd: Cooper askes what the police have told the father about the blood found on Zimmerman. Another legitimate question.

4th: Now Cooper strays. He states that Zimmerman was told not to follow Trayvon "We don't need you to do that." and then that's it. But Zimmerman responded, "OKAY." And at this moment in the 911 call, Trayvon was walking towards Zimmerman. Irresponsible not to point that out.

5th: Cooper asks the lawyer a question regarding the police handling of the case so far. Good question.

6th: Then Cooper takes the bait and plays the race card along with the lawyer. I believe this is where Anderson was going all along. He suggests, after the lawyer implies it, that had Trayvon been the shooter, Trayvon would be sitting in jail (because he's black.) Maybe true by it's speculation and Copper shouldn't speculate if he's just "presenting the facts."

7th: Then Cooper asks a leading question and actually quotes Zimmerman out of context. Cooper's point is that Zimmerman profiled Treyvon and that the fact that Treyvon was black was the real reason Zimmerman was suspicious of him. Cooper leads the lawyer into discussion how MANY people wear sneakers, jeans, and a hoodie. (Even Cooper admitted he dresses like that - so what. That's irrelevant)

8th: "......is that just a matter of race?" Cooper follows up with another leading question -- again going into the "racial" aspect of the case.

Throughout the video, CNN runs cute little pictures of Treyvon but avoids using his current "ganstar" pics. Wonder why? And why do they use an old photo of Zimmerman that makes him look like a thug when his most current picture would be more accurate for today?

http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/usa/images-8/george-zimmerman-trayvon-martin.jpg

bias all over this interview

Anderson Cooper starts out by giving some of the facts of the case as he knows it. But it's not just what he says that's the problem, it's what he doesn't say. Trayvon was carrying Skittles (a type of candy). How is that relevant? It's not. What Cooper fails to mention that there was no way for Zimmerman to know whether Trayvon was armed or not. That wasn't the point. Trayvon looked suspicious and was not a resident of the area. Zimmerman knew this. So the fact that Zimmerman would wonder why Trayvon was in the neighborhood isn't a mystery. The point is that Cooper is trying to paint a picture here of Trayvon being just a normal innocent teen doing nothing wrong. That may be true but it's not up to Cooper to decide that for us.

Zimmerman is talking to 911 and asking to get an officer "over here." Meanwhile, Trayvon is making his way toward Zimmerman. Some of the 911 dialogue with Zimmerman has been edited but you can't tell from the editing............you need to use ellipseswhen doing that.......

Cooper uses the word "pursued" rather than the more correct "following." Why that choice of words? Because it paints a picture of Zimmerman as an aggressor. Then Cooper plays the 911 tape where the dispatcher asks, "Are you following him?" to which Zimmerman responds, "yes." To pursue someone is to chase after them. To follow someone is quite different. Pursued is hardly the word choice of an unbiased reporter.

Next Cooper offers more facts and then interprets those facts for us with his "apparently......" then he explains to us what apparently happened. Apparently? That's like saying, "Here's my best guess of what might have occurred next."

How does Cooper know that Zimmerman "confronted" Trayvor? Clearly from the 911 tape Trayvon was "coming this way..."

Next we'll look at the interview with the father of Trayvon and show why that interview as laced with bias.

March 31, 2012
7 Teens Charged With Hate Crimes After Beating A 15-Year-Old Boy

Did I mention the 7 teens are black and the victim is Hispanic? (The media hasn't mentioned if the victim was a "white" Hispanic.)

From KATU.com:

The March 14 beating in Palmdale was captured on video and posted on YouTube, but has since been removed from the site. The seven boys, ages 13 to 16, were arrested Wednesday for investigation of assault and committing a hate crime, Lt. Don Ford said. [...]

During the beating, the teens made racially derogatory statements that were captured on the video, Ford said.

After the victim fell to the ground, the assailants kicked him multiple times in the head, knocked out several teeth and left shoe impressions on his skin, Ford said.

Would the authorities tell us if this senseless beating was in response to the Trayvon Martin case? Al Sharpton did call on his supporters to 'escalate' civil disobedience if George Zimmerman wasn't arrested.

No word, yet, if the victim looks like Obama's son would look if he had a son...

(V): Less bias than what?

Cooper asked several leading questions rather than let the father speak for himself. Cooper led him down a path that was DESIGNED to make Zimmerman look bad.

Zimmerman may be guilty of murder, I don't know. Maybe under the law it will be only manslaughter. But you don't either and neither does anyone at this point (including the Father). The Father doesn't possess all the facts and neither does the lawyer. People ought to wait until all the facts are known before making judgments.

Next we'll look at Cooper's interview. Still want an answer on "less biased" ....than what?? Examples please. Or are you just here to quibble?

(V):" The case is that Zimmerman claims he shot in self defence. To which ... he gets a keep out of jail 'free' card."

Wrong: The evidence at the scene didn't give the police proper probable cause for an arrest. It wasn't Zimerman's claim alone that mattered. The evidence at the scene mattered. The police had some eye witness testimony that supported Zimmerman's story.

"Zimmerman phones up 911 claiming he's following a suspicious guy who is 'black', therefore using racial stereotyping. He then claims he shot the guy in self defence."

Again you are wrong: Zimmerman identified Martin's race only after he was asked by a dispatcher. One can only assume that racial profiling was a factor. That is unless you also studied mind reading in college.

"Yet other calls,as there is more than just one (but keeping all the talk to just 'one' is pettifogging) .. show that at the time of the shooting Trayvon Martin was indeed calling for help a few times and was indeed trying to get away from this strange dude following him."

There is no claim to only one call. And it's not yet determined whose voice is on the tape recording. He said/she said only.

"Self defence or trigger happy nut job?"

Well that's the question now isn't it? How marvelous you and others can make such positive determinations regarding the facts of this case even BEFORE all the facts are known. Simply amazing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ju3XIpipHBU&feature=related

Less bias and more facts.

The case is that Zimmerman claims he shot in self defence. To which ... he gets a keep out of jail 'free' card.

Zimmerman phones up 911 claiming he's following a suspicious guy who is 'black', therefore using racial stereotyping. He then claims he shot the guy in self defence.

Yet other calls,as there is more than just one (but keeping all the talk to just 'one' is pettifogging) .. show that at the time of the shooting Trayvon Martin was indeed calling for help a few times and was indeed trying to get away from this strange dude following him.

Then there was a gunshot.

Self defence or trigger happy nut job?

rod03801: He definately leans to the Right but there's no secret there. Without Fox leading the way, many of these left wing (NBC) programs would get away with their lies and deceit.

Artful Dodger: I adore sean hannity