There has been no shortage of digital ink on the despicable reporting on CNN by Susan Roesgen.  Here at RedState alone:

Objective CNN Reporter to Chicago Tea Party Attendee: “Why Are You Complaining? Don’t You Know Obama Gave Your State Billions in the Stimulus!?” - Jeff Emanuel

We Have a Winner! Absolutely, Positively WORST Tea Party Day Coverage in the Galaxy - Skanderbeg

Don’t Expect to See Jon Stewart Rail on Susan Roesgen Again - Moe Lane

A CNN Reporter’s Selective Outrage - Josh Painter

Avoiding Criticism: CNN Shuts Down Anti-Tea Party Reporter’s Email Address - Warner Todd Huston

And that is just on the front page.  There are dozens of other diaries along with hundreds of comments on this topic (including this diary that has video from the Founding Bloggers on what happend after CNN stopped rolling it’s cameras).

It’s important to keep in mind, that despite the networks slogan of being “The Most Trusted Name In News” (and who doesn’t love hearing Darth…er…James Earl Jones’s booming voice saying that?) they really have not earned that trust.

You see, back in the first Gulf War, CNN covered the “War in the Gulf” like no other network: They faked it.

That’s right.  That was actually aired on CNN.  {I know, I thought it was a spoof myself.}  That is none other than St. Louis’s own (KTVI Fox 2 and KTRS 550) hack Charles Jaco.  [Jaco has been a bit of hack on the Tea Parties himself: reporting the false narrative of astroturfing, calling us whiners on his radio show, and various other liberal talking points.]

So, when people start to wonder where CNN’s credibility has gone.  I wonder when they ever had it.

Imagine you are a Doctor.  You are fed up with the current situation in the health care market, so you decide to do something about it.  You see lots of people who lack health insurance.  Because of this they are forgoing needed trips to the doctor for regular check ups, ect.  You decide that you will set up a plan whereby uninsured patients pay you a monthly access fee and then a very low co-pay when they actually come in for a visit. [Astute observers will recognize that this is essentially concierge medicine.  This is likely to be one of the ways that a market based system will solve the problem of the uninsured.]  Your idea opened up a way for patients to get access to care that they did not have before.  This is an achievement to be celebrated.  Or not?

The state of New York has determined that this very practice runs afoul of their insurance regulation.   You see, in the state of New York only licensed insurance companies have the right to charge flat rates for unplanned medical expenses.  As a result, Dr John Muney has had to dramatically raise his rates that he charges for unplanned procedures and abandon the monthly access fee.

The result of these regulations is that hundreds (if not thousands) of people being served at Dr Muney’s clinics in New York now no longer have access to affordable health care.  Isn’t that what advocates of government control were fighting for?

This highlights something I have been saying for a while.  Our health care problem will not be solved by mandating health insurance (or replacing private insurance with government run insurance).  The same disincentives to create innovative ideas like Dr Muney’s will exist under either option.  That leaves us with the false choice of the current situation or the equally bad “universal” health care.  Dr Muney created an option that required no subsidization by government.  And he did it while still making money.  What was wrong with that?

Legislators in the state of Oregon have proposed a tax on the distribution of a life insurance policy’s death benefit.

Oregonians who purchase life insurance and annuity products to assure the financial security of themselves and their loved ones would be hit with a tax that undermines their carefully-made financial protection, long-term savings and retirement income. H.B. 2854 would impose a tax on the life insurance benefits received by Oregon families suffering the death of a loved one. It would also impose a new tax on savings through life insurance and annuities.

This strikes me as monumentally stupid.  I understand that Oregon (like many other states) is suffering a budget crunch, but this has to be one of the least sensitive decisions that has been (or yet to be) made.  Why would you, at a time of deep grieving, want to make the problem worse by telling the family of a deceased individual that the government has to take it’s cut of your forsight to plan for your loved one’s early demise.  This is yet another case of government punishing those who act responsibly.