Why Does CNBC Oppose Healthcare For All?

CNBC opposes healthcare coverage for all Americans. It's obvious.

It's an inhuman professional stance to take. How can America afford not to pay for healthcare coverage for all? Internationally, everyone knows that as far as healthcare is concerned, unless the Government steps in and takes action, America is going the way of Mexico where "everyone pays for everything"[according to NPR]. The future health and viability of the American economy are at stake. These CNBC anchors wouldn't be so worried if they knew that Britain, France and Canada faced and fixed what America is confronting now in the last hundred years, mostly since the Second World War.

Sue Herera and Michele Caruso-Cabrero on the Power Lunch set

Many older Americans move to Canada in retirement because of the perception that healthcare costs less there and because of the failure of business to rein in American healthcare costs in the last generation and century. It is outrageous that with one quarter of Americans or more without healthcare that any politician can make the false claim that we don't need healthcare because it might adversely affect small businesses.

CNBC anchors are interviewing the Republican extremist anti-healthcare operators, and ignoring the majority view of the Democrats, or at best giving them short shrift. That doesn't make any sense whatsoever when you think about it. If Americans can carry around their healthcare coverage from job to job, it will increase workplace efficiency. Employees will work where they want to, and create good jobs, rather than slave away and stay at jobs for "healthcare coverage" even if they would rather work somewhere else.

Government must step in to organize the costs that business has not been able to control. Business has focused on rewarding top officers in the last generation rather than raising minimum wages and controlling healthcare costs, among other lapses in progressive social policy. The outcome now is that Americans have a wasteful, overbuilt residential and commercial environment with rising foreclosures, rampant unemployment and skyrocketing emergency room healthcare visits. Schools and hospitals are closing, and many benchmarks of civilized societies (gun-control, too) are facing severe stress.

Michelle Caruso-Cabrera, CNBC

CNBC should seriously educate Michelle Caruso-Cabrera and Melissa Francis, Sue Herera, Maria Bartiromo and Dennis Kneale among other anchors about taking an obviously anti-healthcare stance. It is inhuman, unpopular and mistakenly anti-business. If they're lucky, they too will get old and need healthcare, and then will they ever be surprised how much it costs! If they could focus on finding companies and doctors with suggestions for reducing costs, I am sure the administration and businesses in the audience would be better served.

It really amazes me that television programs have so much power. Do you think CNBC is aware of it's anti-healthcare power? I suppose Becky Quick has more experience in her healthcare commentary, being a supporter of her wheelchair-bound brother.

Becky Quick, CNBC

These CNBC anchors tend to have more on-the-spot challenges than most of mainstream television, but they tend to be allowed more opinionated commentary than blander, less emotional Bloomberg. As unique, affluent, mostly single individuals (unlikely to be bankrupted by medical costs) their healthcare views oppose the vast mainstream majority of viewers. They do fine work, but perhaps they need to balance their pro-business stridency with humanity and compassionate healthcare experience. That could help one-quarter to one-half of Americans!