By David Edwards/Raw Story Fox News host Andrea Tantaros wants to know why MSNBC is “prioritizing” sexual assaults in the military over a scandal at the Internal Revenue Service.
As competing hearings in the Senate Armed Services Committee and the House Appropriations Committee were underway on Tuesday, Tantaros said on her radio show that she couldn’t understand why MSNBC wasn’t devoting more time to the House Republicans’ fourth IRS hearing.
“What are they the place for breaking? Breaking wind? Breaking what? I mean, what are they doing over there?” she asked. “Sex crimes in the military, they are a real issue. There’s no doubt about that. I’m not going to just poo-poo it. What baffles me, though, is the way they prioritize these issues, the timing and tone of this.”
“Why is MSNBC devoting time to this issue?” Tantaros, who also hosts Fox News’ The Five, wondered. “There are so many other issues to deal with.”
“And MSNBC has been on this sexual assaults in the military, like, basically all afternoon, every day for weeks,” Tantaros’ co-host added. “They’re devoting, like, and inordinate amount of time to this. They’re obsessed with it, because that’s what they see when they look at the military.”
“Yeah, you’re right,” Tantaros agreed. “I mean, it’s the way that they prioritize these things. It’s unbelievable what they consider to be priorities. And by ‘them,’ I mean the administration and MSNBC because they are the same thing. MSNBC is an arm of the administration.”
A Media Matters analysis of Tuesday’s cable news coverage found that MSNBC devoted 1 hour and 21 minutes to sexual assaults in the military, while spending 1 hour and 13 minutes on the IRS hearings. Fox News spent almost 4 hours on the IRS hearing and less than 14 minutes on sexual assaults in the military.
Last month, Tantaros instructed her radio listeners to find anyone who voted for President Barack Obama and “punch them in the face.”
Listen to the audio below from The Andrea Tantaros Show, broadcast June 4, 2013.
Fox News' Andrea Tantaros has been very vocal in blasting the Obama administration for its decision to require all health insurers, including church-affiliated organizations, to provide plans that cover contraception. In her haste to criticize the administration tonight, she distorted comments by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to make the point that the administration's mandate "has nothing to do with women's health," but is more about "population control."
In fact, the requirement has everything to do with women's health.
When political commentator Jehmu Greene pointed out that contraception is also used to treat other health issues, including ovarian cancer, Tantaros dismissed the argument:
According to a study by the Kaiser Family Foundation, "[e]mployer-based coverage is the primary form of health insurance for 64% of women of reproductive age, but a sizable minority of women lack coverage for contraceptives." Notably, poorer and college-aged women are the ones who struggle the most with the cost of prescription birth control.
And those struggles have real consequences for women's health. Contraceptives are indeed used totreat a wide array of medical conditions, including reducing the risk of ovarian cancer. USA Todayrecently reported that "[o]varian cancer is the deadliest of cancers that affect the female reproductive system, with about 22,000 women diagnosed each year and, in 2011, approximately 15,460 deaths." According Dr. Hyun J. Bang, a radiologist quoted by USA Today, "this cancer produces few, if any, symptoms in early stages. ... This is why 75 percent of all women present with advanced disease which has already begun to spread to other areas of the body."
Studies done on birth control pills have consistently shown that they can significantly reduce the risk of ovarian cancer. From ABC News:
Early detection of ovarian cancer remains elusive but, in the meantime, women can significantly reduce their risk of this feared malignancy by using birth control pills and having babies.
Women who take the pill for 10 years nearly halve their risk of developing ovarian cancer, according to a large study that followed about 300,000 European women for an average of nine years.
The study, published this week in the British Journal of Cancer, confirmed findings of previous studies, including a large review in 2008, which reported that so-called "ever use" of the pill is protective. Authors of the latest study said ever-users of oral contraceptives had a 15 percent lower risk of ovarian cancer than never-users, but women who took the pill for a decade or more slashed their risk 45 percent.
Put another way, the researchers found about 15 ovarian cancer cases for every 100,000 women who took the pill for at least a decade, compared with about 28 ovarian cancer cases for every 100,000 women on the pill a year or less.
[...]
"Ovarian cancer is difficult to detect and so prevention is key to saving women suffering from this disease," said study co-author Naomi Allen, a Cancer Research UK epidemiologist at the University of Oxford. "These results are important because most women don't know that taking the pill or getting pregnant can help reduce their risk of ovarian cancer later in life."
This year, nearly 22,000 U.S. women will be diagnosed with ovarian cancer and 15,460 women will die from it, according to the National Cancer Institute. Among women whose ovarian cancer is detected before it spreads beyond the ovary, 93 percent are still alive after five years, the American Cancer Society says. But the disease is more often detected in advanced stages, when survival rates are far lower.
Discussing a comprehensive study published in The Lancet that found that the "longer women used the pill, the lower their ovarian cancer risk," the American Cancer Society wrote:
Ovarian cancer typically strikes late in life (half of all ovarian cancer cases are found in women over 63), and prognosis is often poor, largely because the disease is usually caught in its later stages. Ovarian cancer symptoms, which include abdominal swelling and digestive problems, are easily confused with other disorders, and there is currently no good screening test available to women.
According to the study, if the current level of oral contraceptive use remains steady, 30,000 cases of ovarian cancer worldwide could be prevented each year. Even better, the protection that comes with the pill seems to start within a year of taking it and increase over time.
Throughout the debate about the administration's contraception requirement, Fox News has focused its attention on trying to create the perception that this decision solidifies Obama as anti-Catholic. Tantaros herself has said that the mandate is further proof of the administration's continued push to "beat up on Catholics." But most Americans -- indeed, most Catholics -- support employer-provided coverage for contraception.
Doctors also agree. Six hundred physicians -- including 70 Catholics -- have signed a letter supporting the administration's requirement that employers provide contraception coverage in their health plans, calling it a health care requirement:
"As a doctor or medical student, I support the decision by HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to ensure that women have access to cost-free contraception regardless of who their employers are (with exceptions for houses of worship). The religious beliefs of an employer should not be a barrier to women receiving the care they need."
Faced with that reality, Tantaros ignored the health issues and asked: "Really? Is it stimulative?" Tantaros was referring to a 2009 ABC News interview during which then-House Speaker Pelosi noted that "family planning services reduce costs," arguing for why millions of dollars had been added to the stimulus package to expand family planning services. Pelosi further stated:
The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children's health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those -- one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.
As it turns out, Pelosi was right. Unintended pregnancies can result in public costs of more than $11 billion a year.
All of which perhaps explains why Fox News has continued to insist on discussing a phony "war on Catholics" and not the fight for women's health care.
Since sexual harassment allegations against GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain emerged, Fox News contributor Andrea Tantaros has been one of Cain's most vocal defenders. Tantaros has a background in crisis communications, and as recently as May 2011, she was vice president at Sloane & Co., which specializes in "crisis and litigation support."
Tantaros Has Vociferously Defended Cain And Dismissed And Mocked His Accusers
Tantaros: "Bob Threw A Candy Corn Down My Dress Yesterday, And I Didn't Sue." On Fox News'America's Newsroom, Tantaros laughed off the accusations against Cain, saying that her co-host Bob Beckel on Fox News' The Five "threw a candy corn" down her dress, and she "didn't sue." From Talking Points Memo:
"But if you believe Herman Cain, the story that he told Greta last night, it was such a small deal, it wasn't anything that was sexual harassment at all. So he's right on that. I mean Bob [Beckel] threw a candy corn down my dress yesterday, and I didn't sue." [Fox News,America's Newsroom,11/1/11, via Talking Points Memo]
Tantaros On Cain's Response To Accusations: "Job Well Done. A-Plus" Following Cain's November 8 press conference, at which Cain denied the sexual harassment claims, Tantaros graded Cain's performance "A-plus" during the November 8 broadcast of The Five. From the show:
TANTAROS: Yeah, I would call this an extremely fierce counterpunch. It's something he should have done a while ago but nevertheless, this was the move he needed to make. I think he answered a lot of questions. He stayed with us for a very long time. I think that he hit back really hard.
And, you know, he kept repeating -- these are baseless allegations. He also stayed true to himself, that this is the Herman Cain brand. I'm coming directly to the people. And I thought the ending was one of the best parts, where he says, we have big major issues in this country, let's get back to them.
So, a job well done. A-plus. [Fox News, The Five, 11/8/11, via Media Matters]
Tantaros On Alleged Victim: "Two Words: Scam Artist." After one of Cain's media addresses about the allegations, Tantaros attacked one of his accusers as a "scam artist" with an "illegitimate child":
TANTAROS: I agree with Bob specifically to come out and name the Democratic Party, like naming Rick Perry, without any proof is not a wise move.
However, the way that the mainstream, left-leaning media has gone off with the same kind of - they're doing the same thing -- baseless accusations, that they have nothing to back up. Again, he's been shadowboxing from day one. Now, you have a woman, who if you look at her rap sheet, 14 years later, she all of a sudden cares about the country? Double bankruptcy, legal troubles --
KIMBERLY GUILFOYLE (co-host): This is Sharon Bialek.
TANTAROS: Yes. And illegitimate child. You know what that says to me? Two words: scam artist. [Fox News, The Five, 11/8/11, via Media Matters]
Tantaros: "At What Point Do Women Need To Take Some Responsibility? ... Why Have Dinner And Drinks With A Married Man In The First Place?" In her November 10 New York Daily Newscolumn, Tantaros wrote:
There are three sides to every story: his, hers and the truth. In the case of Herman Cain and the women making accusations against him, it's time we had an honest conversation about what constitutes harassment.
Let me be clear: I'm not saying that Cain isn't guilty of sexual misconduct that took place when he was the head of the National Restaurant Association in the late 1990s. But this scandal should have every woman asking: At what point do women need to take some responsibility?
[...]
One accuser, Sharon Bialek, said Cain allegedly groped her after she came to him for job advice 14 years ago. At a press conference with famed attorney Gloria Allred, who has made a career out of victimized women, Bialek claims she met Cain for dinner and drinks for career counseling. Then she allegedly rode with him in a car, where he tried to put his hand up her skirt, then moved her head toward his groin.
If it's true, it's horrible. And while the timing of her decision to go public does raise questions about her motivation, the real question is: Why have dinner and drinks with a married man in the first place? Why not meet him in his office if your purpose is strictly professional? [New York Daily News, 11/10/11]
Tantaros Is A Crisis Communications Expert
Tantaros Was Vice President At PR Firm Sloane & Co., Where She Specialized In "Crisis Communications." According to her FoxNews.com profile, Tantaros serves as vice president with Sloane & Co., where she specializes in "crisis communications, healthcare, and public affairs clients." Sloane & Co. describes itself as "an industry-leading strategic communications firm specializing in corporate and financial public relations" and "crisis and litigation support." A Nexis biographical search shows that Tantaros was listed as vice president at Sloane as recently as May 2011. [FoxNews.com, accessed 11/11/11; Sloane & Co., accessed 11/11/11; LexisNexis, accessed 11/11/11]
Tantaros Founded Media Company That "Provided Crisis Management And Media Strategy" To "Fortune 500 Companies And Political Campaigns." According to her bio on FoxNews.com, previous to working at Sloane, Tantaros "started Andrea Tantaros Media which provided crisis management and media strategy consulting Fortune 500 companies and political campaigns." [FoxNews.com, accessed 11/11/11]
Tantaros Previously Failed To Disclose Sloane & Co. Ties When Attacking Health Care Reform.In 2009, Tantaros repeatedly attacked the health care reform bill on Fox News, but failed to disclose her position at Sloane & Co., which listed Pfizer and Take Care Health Systems clinic among its clients at the time. [Media Matters, 2/3/10]
Fox News contributor Andrea Tantaros recently claimed that Rep. Paul Ryan's (R-WI) budget proposal would not "drive up the costs" of Medicare because "[Ryan is] bringing it to the private market." In fact, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that under Ryan's plan, seniors' out-of-pocket health care costs would more than double.
EMBED
Tantaros Falsely Claims Ryan's Plan "Doesn't Drive Up The Costs" Of Seniors' Health Care
Tantaros: Ryan's Plan "Doesn't Drive Up The Costs" Of Seniors' Health Care Because It "Bring[s] It To The Private Market." On the May 26 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, during an exchange with Fox News contributor Juan Williams, Fox News contributor Andrea Tantaros claimed that Ryan's budget plan "doesn't drive up the costs" of health care for seniors because "[h]e's actually bringing it to the private market. That incentivizes insurers." From the broadcast:
WILLIAMS: Now we have a proposition here from Paul Ryan, who I acknowledge has taken a necessary first step because we've got to deal with entitlements if we want to get the deficit under control, but it is a plan that's going to have an adverse effect in terms of the cost of health care for seniors, just as President Clinton described. Health care costs are not static. They keep rising.
[...]
TANTAROS: Well, you talk about costs going up under the Ryan plan. How? He's actually bringing it to the private market. That incentivizes insurers --
WILLIAMS: No, I said --
TANTAROS: Hold on a minute -- incentivizes insurers --
WILLIAMS: No, no, but I'm saying, it drives up the costs --
TANTAROS: No, it doesn't drive up the costs. And I'll tell you why.
WILLIAMS: No, no, hold on -- health care costs, independent of Paul Ryan's plan --
TANTAROS: I will tell you --
WILLIAMS: -- are going up -- higher than the rate of inflation.
TANTAROS: First of all, Juan, health care costs have spiked since Obamacare was passed. Premiums have gone through the roof.
WILLIAMS: They have not spiked, come on!
TANTAROS: What Ryan's plan does is he puts it in the hands of insurers, and he says compete against each other. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 5/26/11]
But CBO Projects Ryan's Plan Would Increase Total Cost Of Seniors' Health Care...
CBO Report: "A Private Health Insurance Plan Covering The Standardized Benefit Would ... Be More Expensive Currently Than Traditional Medicare." On April 5, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a report analyzing Ryan's budget proposal. The CBO noted that Ryan's plan would privatize Medicare, stating it "would convert the current Medicare program to a system under which beneficiaries received premium support payments--payments that would be used to help pay the premiums for a private health insurance policy and would grow over time with overall consumer prices." In its analysis, it determined that such private health care plans would "be more expensive currently than traditional Medicare" because "[b]oth administrative costs (including profits) and payment rates to providers are higher for private plans than for Medicare." From the report:
Chairman Ryan's proposal would affect not only federal spending for Medicare but also Medicare beneficiaries' spending for their health care. To quantify the impact of the proposal on beneficiaries' spending, CBO followed these steps: First, the agency estimated what total health care spending (including the costs paid by health insurers and out-of-pocket expenses for covered services) would be in 2011 for a typical 65-year-old who had a private health insurance plan with a benefit package comparable to the services covered by the Medicare program. That package is dubbed the "standardized benefit," and CBO used the total health care spending for a typical 65-year-old with a standardized benefit in a private plan as a benchmark for this analysis.
[...]
A private health insurance plan covering the standardized benefit would, CBO estimates, be more expensive currently than traditional Medicare. Both administrative costs (including profits) and payment rates to providers are higher for private plans than for Medicare. Those higher costs would be offset partly but not fully by savings from lower utilization stemming from two sources. First, private health insurers would probably impose greater utilization management than occurs in Medicare. Second, private plans might restrict enrollees' ability to purchase supplemental insurance plans; enrollees would thus face higher out-of-pocket costs than they do in Medicare, and that increased cost sharing would encourage lower utilization. On net, for a typical 65-year-old in 2011, CBO estimates that average spending in traditional Medicare will be 89 percent of (that is, 11 percent less than) the spending that would occur if that same package of benefits was purchased from a private insurer (see Figure 1).
Moreover, CBO projects that total health care spending for a typical beneficiary covered by the standardized benefit under the proposal would grow faster than such spending for the same beneficiary in traditional Medicare under either of CBO's longterm scenarios. For the period before 2030, the difference in projected growth rates occurs primarily because CBO expects that the payments to providers in Medicare will grow more slowly (especially under the extended-baseline scenario) than those in the private market.
As a result, total health care spending for a typical 65-year-old in Medicare under the extended-baseline scenario in 2022 would be 66 percent of total spending with a private plan with the standardized benefit; in 2030, the figure would be 60 percent of that benchmark. Total health care spending in Medicare under the alternative fiscal scenario would be a larger share of total spending with a private plan--72 percent in 2022 and 71 percent in 2030--because payments to providers in Medicare are assumed to grow at a faster rate than under the extended-baseline scenario. ["Long-Term Analysis of a Budget Proposal by Chairman Ryan," CBO, 4/5/11, emphasis added]
CBPP: "In 2022 ... CBO Estimates That Total Health Care Expenditures For A Typical 65-Year-Old Would Be Almost 40 Percent Higher With Private Coverage Under The Ryan Plan." From an April 7 report on Ryan's plan by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP):
Moreover, CBO estimates that the total health care costs attributable to Medicare beneficiaries would be considerably higher under the private insurance plans they would purchase under the Ryan plan than under a continuation of traditional Medicare, because private plans have higher administrative expenses and higher payment rates for providers.
[...]
In 2022, the first year the voucher would apply, CBO estimates that total health care expenditures for a typical 65-year-old would be almost 40 percent higher with private coverage under the Ryan plan than they would be with a continuation of traditional Medicare. [CBPP, 4/7/11, emphasis in the original]
...And Would Double Seniors' Out-Of-Pocket Health Care Costs
AP: "CBO: Big Health Cost Shift To Elderly In GOP Plan." From an April 6 Associated Press article:
Most future retirees would pay considerably more for health care under the new budget proposed by House Republicans, according to an analysis by nonpartisan experts for Congress that signals problems ahead for the plan.
The fiscal blueprint would put people now 54 and younger in a different kind of health care program when they retire, unlike the Medicare that their parents and grandparents have known. Instead of coverage for a set of benefits prescribed from Washington, they'd get a federal payment to buy private insurance from a choice of government-regulated plans.
"A typical beneficiary would spend more for health care under the proposal," the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated in an analysis released late Tuesday.
The CBO said over time future retirees would pay much more, partly because the Medicare benefits package would be more expensive to deliver through private insurers. By 2030, the government payment would cover only about one-third of the typical retiree's total health care costs, the budget office said.
The sweeping fiscal plan by House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., would reduce total federal spending, deficits and debt, saving money for federal taxpayers. But it would be tempered by a cost shift to future retirees. [Associated Press, 4/6/11]
CBO: "A Typical 65-Year-Old Would Pay 61 Percent Of The Benchmark In 2022 Under the Proposal" As Compared To 27 Or 30 Percent Under Alternative Scenarios. From the April CBO report about Ryan's budget proposal:
Under the proposal, most beneficiaries who receive premium support payments would pay more for their health care than if they participated in traditional Medicare under either of CBO's long-term scenarios. CBO estimated that, in 2030, a typical 65-year-old would pay 68 percent of the benchmark under the proposal, compared with 25 percent under the extended-baseline scenario and 30 percent under the alternative fiscal scenario.
[...]
After assessing the total costs that would be incurred for a typical 65-year-old, CBO estimated the government's share and the beneficiary's share of those costs under the proposal and under CBO's long-term scenarios. The proposal would set the premium support payment for a typical 65-year-old at $8,000 in 2022, approximately equal to government spending on the average 65-year-old beneficiary in Medicare under the extended-baseline scenario in that year. In other words, the government contribution to that beneficiary's health care costs under the proposal would be approximately equal to the government's contribution to the beneficiary's costs through Medicare under current law. Hence, measured relative to the benchmark, the government's contribution in 2022 would be similar under the proposal (at 39 percent), the extended-baseline scenario (39 percent), and the alternative fiscal scenario (42 percent).
However, because the benchmark would be greater than that with traditional Medicare, a typical beneficiary's spending--the sum of premiums and out-of-pocket spending--would be greater under the proposal than under traditional Medicare.Specifically, CBO estimated that a typical 65-year-old would pay 61 percent of the benchmark in 2022 under the proposal. In comparison, under the extended-baseline scenario, the typical 65-year-old would pay 27 percent of the benchmark, while under the alternative fiscal scenario, that figure would be 30 percent. ["Long-Term Analysis of a Budget Proposal by Chairman Ryan," CBO, 4/5/11, emphasis added]
CBPP: CBO Found That Typical Medicare Beneficiary's "Annual Out-Of-Pocket Costs Would More Than Double." From the CBPP report:
Since the Ryan proposal would reduce the federal government's contribution for beneficiaries' health care costs even as it caused total costs to increase, beneficiaries' out-of-pocket spending would rise dramatically.
[...]
CBO also finds that this beneficiary's annual out-of-pocket costs would more than double -- from $6,150 to $12,500. In later years, as the value of the voucher eroded, the increase in out-of-pocket costs would be even greater.
The report included this graph showing the projected increase in seniors' health care costs under Ryan's plan:
Motor City Liberal Comment:Andrea Tantaros told a lie I'm shocked her track record for telling the truth is.... O%
Fox News has repeatedly allowed "Fox contributor" Andrea Tantaros to attack health care reform without disclosing that she is a "Vice President with Sloane and Company where she specializes in crisis communications, healthcare, and public affairs clients."
The firm does not specifically state who Tantaros works with, or what her work entails. Sloane & Company describes itself as "an industry-leading strategic communications firm specializing in corporate and financial public relations" and implements "programs that move beyond ideas into action and generate meaningful results for clients of all sizes." The firm lists Pfizer and Take Care Health Systems clinic as among its clients.
Sloane & Company touts Tantaros' Fox News connections in her corporate biography, stating that she "is a regular political analyst and media commentator on Fox News Channel, Fox Business Channel, CNN, CNBC, MSNBC and guest co-host on Fox News Radio."
As a Fox News contributor, Tantaros regularly discusses health care issues without any disclosure or mention of her self-described work with health care clients.
On the December 21, 2009, broadcast of Fox News' America's Newsroom, Tantaros attacked the Democrats' health care reform bill as "a stinker of a bill" and claimed that the White House has "a gun in the mouths of the U.S. Senate right now." Tantaros was identified as a Fox contributor and "media strategy advisor," but her health care ties were not mentioned.
Tantaros has similarly appeared on shows such as Fox News Watch, The O'Reilly Factor (August 27, 2009) and Fox & Friends (December 21) to discuss health care reform. Her work consulting with health care clients was not disclosed.
Tantaros also writes a column for FoxNews.com, wheresheregularlybashes health care reform. Tantaros is identified as a "conservative columnist and FoxNews.com contributor," or a former aide to Republicans.
