Hey, Wall Street Journal Radio: Mind Your Business

[DToTheJ]

Anyone listen to the hourlong daily morning show "WSJ This Morning"? Remember when WSJ used to be only about business? Today, WSJ was on the health care reform case like ESPN is on Tim Tebow: over half of the show was devoted to discussion or news about the case. Or is it a "slow business day"?

 

[raccoonradio]

I'd imagine the health care reform affects businesses. Some may be for health care reform but may not think the new law is a good idea. Pro- or con-, it's a subject that probably should be discussed and since it's very newsworthy right now, hence the focus.

From a yr ago ( http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/business/s_728873.html )
>>The year-old health care overhaul could be disastrous for small businesses in 2014, forcing some to close their doors and others to lay off workers to avoid complying with costly regulations, business representatives said at a health care event on Wednesday.

(I'd say it's business related.)

 

[MC]

Wall Street Journal Newspaper always had a feature story and sports occasionally.

 

[desertv]

Remember who now owns the Journal...News corp

 

[DToTheJ]

@Raccoon: While your point is certainly valid, usually "Obamacare" is not the first thing people associate with business news. I understand that in 2012, a one-hour show parroting the Wall Street numbers would be a tune-out. I get that. I can see why they're loading up the show with items that are beyond the business realm. But if people wanted to hear discussions about health care reform, there's plenty of shows to tune into later in the day. That's my point.

 

[borderblaster]

Are you kidding me? Obamacare will affect EVERY business!

 

[NewsStud]

I'd imagine the health care reform affects businesses. Some may be for health care reform but may not think the new law is a good idea. Pro- or con-, it's a subject that probably should be discussed and since it's very newsworthy right now, hence the focus.

From a yr ago ( http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/business/s_728873.html )
>>The year-old health care overhaul could be disastrous for small businesses in 2014, forcing some to close their doors and others to lay off workers to avoid complying with costly regulations, business representatives said at a health care event on Wednesday.

(I'd say it's business related.)

The National Federation of Independent Business, a support network and lobbying force for small businesses (and small business owners), is a party to and a plaintiff in the original Florida, et. al v HHS case which was the primary case being argued before the Supreme Court this week.

Definitely in the WSJ's target audience.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

It would seem to me that the most valuable thing the WSJ could do for the NFIB crowd is to publish a series of articles with writers and commentators from both side of the health care debate asked to focus on what the new health care law would do FOR and TO small independent businesses.

The conventional view is that small start-up business can't afford to have an employee health insurance program. The counter view would be: Small start-up businesses can't attract the best employees because the best employees know they can go to larger employers and get health coverage. Small start-up business without health insurance have to settle for less than the best in talent.

 

[NewsStud]

It would seem to me that the most valuable thing the WSJ could do for the NFIB crowd is to publish a series of articles with writers and commentators from both side of the health care debate asked to focus on what the new health care law would do FOR and TO small independent businesses.

But how what that handled on the WSJ morning radio program? I'm guessing something like that must have been attempted to fill that broadcast...

 

[buster2]

Uh.... Health care IS a business. Obamacare essentially would subsidize major insurance companies and changes to the law would affected businesses like United Health Care, IASIS, Banner, Blue Cross, etc., etc.

Not to mention that every business in the nation is in some way affected by health care, if the WSJ didn't report on it, they would be ignoring one of the biggest stories of the year.

 

[listener-in]

It would seem to me that the most valuable thing the WSJ could do for the NFIB crowd is to publish a series of articles with writers and commentators from both side of the health care debate asked to focus on what the new health care law would do FOR and TO small independent businesses.

The conventional view is that small start-up business can't afford to have an employee health insurance program. The counter view would be: Small start-up businesses can't attract the best employees because the best employees know they can go to larger employers and get health coverage. Small start-up business without health insurance have to settle for less than the best in talent.

The media have actually done a lousy job covering health care issues. Fareed Zakaria was a shining exception on a CNN special a week or two ago, with a survey of how other advanced nations handle national health insurance. He looked at about half a dozen nations, with systems ranging from the government as owner of hospitals, employer of medical staff and insurer (UK), to private insurance that's stringently regulated and non-profit for a menu of services (Switzerland), and everything in between. All of the nations had two things in common: nobody is ever bankrupted by medical expenses, and health care doesn't come close to costing the 17% of the national economy that the US spends.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

The media have actually done a lousy job covering health care issues. Fareed Zakaria was a shining exception on a CNN special a week or two ago, with a survey of how other advanced nations handle national health insurance.

It is something of a national disgrace the way media let's "political persons" make claims about what healthcare is in other countries without challenging unfounded claims.

It is something of a national disgrace the way we, citizens who have some knowledge, and some citizens who have abundant knowledge, let the media get away with laziness and/or bias on the topic.

I missed the CNN special you are describing, but quietly along the edges there are a number of media excursions into the topic but they don't get the traction or fanfare they deserve.

No matter what the Supreme Court decides, and no matter which party comes out ahead in the next election, we as a nation, a civilization will still be facing a monster challenge in the coming years on how we will deal with this issue called Healthcare. Getting back to the premise that kicked off this thread: Yes, this topic absolutely belongs on the pages of the WSJ. I predict one of the suprises will be where corporate America eventually comes down on this struggle. For many year offering a substantial healthcare plan allowed corporations to get the cream of the crop in talent because they wanted the benefits corporations offer. But the cost and management of a healthcare plan has become an 800 pound gorilla with the companies. Employees expect the same gold plated benefits that the employees of the company get in California because of the generous plan requirements. How do you ever get an employee to transfer from one of the states with lavish insurance laws to some state where conservative thinking keeps such laws at bay. If the time comes that the current Federal plan, or some other future Federal plan begins writing the rules and letting states dictate what the health insurance will be in THAT state for ALL citizens, the big corporations can shut down their massive and expensive administrative functions in the HR department and tell their employees: enroll in your state plan. We are not your parents any more.

And then when state Industrial Development folks find out that corporations will not put HQs and research facilities in certain states because that kind of talent won't move to that starte, the ball game will change.

Sounds like this IS a topic that DOES belong on the pages of the WSJ.

 

[listener-in]

Getting back to the premise that kicked off this thread: Yes, this topic absolutely belongs on the pages of the WSJ. I predict one of the suprises will be where corporate America eventually comes down on this struggle.

You hit the nail on the head. Both businesses and workers would be huge beneficiaries of any national health insurance plan that completely divorces health insurance from employment. Business, especially small ones, would be freed from the burden of their own plans and would suddenly be freed to be able to change companies without health care being their first consideration. You rarely hear it in the media, but doesn't it ever occur to people who go on TV and bad-mouth the health care system of our socialist (!) northern neighbor that it may just have something to do with Canada weathering the recession far better than the US?

 

[TheBigA]

After dealing with the medical industrial complex myself for the past few months, I've come to notice a similarity between health care and broadcasting. Both are seen as public trusts and necessities. But both are run by profit-making companies. And as a result, both do things that are aimed to improve profits. So what happens to the public interest? Sure, you can do both, and many in both industries try to walk that line. But when hospitals do unnecessary tests, hold you in their hospitals or rehab centers longer than necessary, prescribe drugs that aren't necessary, or charge unreal prices for x-rays that your insurance company simply passes on to you, someone should be asking who is watching out for the consumer? Not the hospital, not the insurance company, and quite often not the doctor. It often comes down to the family. Period. So yes, covering health care is a business story that affects companies and consumers, and that intersection of interests makes for very interesting reporting.

 

[DToTheJ]

Okay - I see your points arguing how health care reform affects the spectrum of business.

Now then - consider these two segments from this morning's edition: an interview with a law expert on the Trayvon Martin case (btw, personal pet peeve... stop referring to it as such, it's not like Trayvon is the suspect) and another interview piece about CNN's Hilary Rosen calling out Mitt Romney's wife for not working. I can see how the latter affects business - for one thing, Mrs. Romney is not in the business force; and people advertise on CNN. But I'm trying to wrap my head around how the Trayvon thing influences business... and it can't be gun or "hoodie" sales... Look, it's clear WSJ is expanding into an entity that expands far beyond business, and that's fine - newspapers have to do what they can in this age to survive... But if that's the case, just change the name of your tabloid to something other than "Wall Street" in the title... I don't know, "The American Post" (they are a sister to "The New York Post")...

 

[NewsStud]

But I'm trying to wrap my head around how the Trayvon thing influences business... and it can't be gun or "hoodie" sales... Look, it's clear WSJ is expanding into an entity that expands far beyond business, and that's fine - newspapers have to do what they can in this age to survive... But if that's the case, just change the name of your tabloid to something other than "Wall Street" in the title... I don't know, "The American Post" (they are a sister to "The New York Post")...

When's the last time you read the Journal? They've been covering non-business major stories for decades. It's not a practice adopted since being taken over by News Corp. Perhaps they don't get involved in sensational stuff like the Casey Anthony trial... but they *do* cover non-business news of national and/or international importance. Poor Daniel Pearl lost his life covering a non-business story for WSJ.

As for naming it "The Trayvon Martin Case" - it is perfectly acceptable that we name it as such. We often name historically significant tragedies after the victims. The "Oklahoma City Bombing" isn't called the "The Timothy McVey Bombing." Nobody remembers the names of the cops who beat Rodney King, sodomized Abner Louima or shot Amadou Diallo.

 

[FLjack2]

WSJ This Morning is one of the BEST syndicated news programs on the air. The people are professionals, the stories are interesting without the stupid hype and, with any luck, if they keep on this track, you'll never hear the word "Kardashian" mentioned on it.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Okay - I see your points arguing how health care reform affects the spectrum of business.

..... But I'm trying to wrap my head around how the Trayvon thing influences business... and it can't be gun or "hoodie" sales...

This "Trayvon thing" has an "attachment" that is going to be front and center in the business world. You will notice there is another story that is current in which the organization "Color of Change" is pressuring businesses to withdraw their support of the organization "ALEC". Other people and other organized groups are likely to mount a groundswell of communications to America's corporations in which they protest the influence of ALEC. If this does happen, business people need an understanding of the various events that have "activated" the anti-ALEC segment of our populace. These business people are going to have to make some tough decisions as they get more and more protest messages about ALEC. To use a very abrasive phrase at this point... business people are going to have to decide whether they will stand their ground and continue to financially support ALEC, or will they drop ALEC like a hot potato?

Does that help you accept the idea that maybe WSJ should be reporting on this event?