Interesting little turn of events in the White House of late, and it may signal that the love affair that some in the media have with our President may be cooling some - the bloom is off of the rose, I suppose. The debacle with the health care debate has just gotten rather silly as a matter of fact. First off, people can't even say what they mean - Obama and the White House keep talking "Health Care Reform" when they really seem to mean "Health Insurance Reform". None of the proposals on the table are actually dealing with health care, they are all dealing with health insurance. Of course, a cynical person might say that people are too ignorant to tell the difference, while a more Machiavellian individual would say that the use of the words are calculated to inculcate the American people into a government run health care system.
I don't actually fall into either camp, though President Obama's tendencies in the past as a Senator make me believe that he ultimately would like a system in America that is similar to Canada or Great Britain, I do not hold stock in the Machiavellian notion I wrote of above. More likely, the distinction, while it is merited, is simply not a "sexy" enough topic. If you say "Health Care Reform", that can mean many things to many people. The Obama administration is not really going into much detail about their plans, simply because it is easier to drum up support for a program that is undefined and has a sexy catchphrase - it is done quite frequently on the left and the right; simply let your constituents interpret what you mean based on personal baggage and never define terms, then pass whatever the hell you feel like. This is a tad cynical, I'll admit, but I do not believe that people fall for it as much as the politicians would like. More it seems, simply do not feel like Federal legislation has much impact on their day-to-day lives, and thus ignore it. The few politically active people on either side get riled up, make phone calls, write letters, call talk shows, and try to sway their representatives. This has served the nation just fine for quite some time, as most legislation did not have huge impact with great immediacy. That is changing quite drastically right now, though it has been in the process of changing for a number of years (and, of course, this is just a repeat of earlier legislative trends, anyway).
But back to my main point. Last week Obama had a fluff piece on his health care reform initiatives aired, I believe, on ABC. Contrary viewpoints were given short shrift, and the few difficult questions that were asked were never answered (sorry about the passive voice). For example, a doctor asked, rather pointedly I might add, whether Obama would use the system or not. He basically dodged the question and did not answer - a very telling response in and of itself, and very characteristic of typically liberal elitist positions (it happens on the right as well, but I will detail that more later - that is usually dealing with sexuality rather than public policy). They say how great public education is, but God forbid they send their kids to a public school; they say how great the VA is for veteran medical needs but have never been in the system; and of course, any health care reform would not touch our darling senators and representatives very well-endowed health insurance plan. Imagine if George Bush had tried to ask for an slot of prime time on a major network to talk about his policies, and then avoided any controversial questions and did not allow for any democrat rebuttal - now tell me that there is no double standard in the media...
But here is where he really made a huge mistake. There are a lot of people in the media who voted for him, love him and love his policies. I have no problem with that; reporters and anchors are allowed to vote, and should be allowed their opinions; I would hope they also strive to maintain some journalistic integrity, but I do not believe that this is what most journalists want anymore - they graduate wanting to change and educate the world, wanting to help to educate the rest of the world with the wonderful ideas that they know are right from their college education, thus journalistic integrity has been on a downslide of late. But even people who are avowedly pro-Obama were shocked by the latest "Town-Hall meeting".
And let me say first, that I have never been a fan of this concept. It is far to easy to manipulate, to stack the deck, and to play to crowds. As a format, it favors quick-witted and manipulative people. I could take either side of many issues and probably win over many a crowd by artfully answering questions. All the format does is make people feel like they have been heard, whether they have or not. Bill Clinton and George W. Bush both used this type of meeting, and they both typically let in only supporters.Bush caught a lot of flack for this, Clinton less so, but both were called out by opponents on this tactic )though only Bush was labeled as a propagandist). Nonetheless, even this tactic did not always work, and both presidents were asked tough questions by supporters - that is why town halls can sometimes work - because even your ardent supporters will take you to task if they feel that you are not living up to their standards. Bush and Clinton both experienced this.
But Obama, who has an openly favorable press corps, as opposed to the openly hostile one Bush faced, or the sometimes hostile and sometimes helpful one that dogged Clinton, pushed this a step or five further. Clinton and Bush, on a manipulative scale for town halls were probably 7 and 6 respectively. Both stacked the deck, but Clinton was a better impromptu speaker, though Bush had more definite ideas (this could hurt or help, depending on the situation), but Obama just transcended the scale and pushed straight up to 11 (it's one louder than ten, innit?). He not only just let in supporters, but had scripted and rehearsed comments and questions for which he had prepped responses. And, boy, were some in the press corps everlovin' pissed when they found out. They grilled the hell out of the press secretary (can't remember his name right now) and he could not get out from under their fire, but repeatedly tried to change the subject.
Which then begs the question, "Why stack the deck so much in your own favor?" Is your plan so unsound that you cannot actually defend it? Why risk the favorable coverage you already get? I can only guess it was a combination of arrogance and ignorance that lead to this. Arrogance in feeling they could pull off whatever they wanted to (they have so far), and ignorance of the type of people that they may alienate, as well as of their own plan.
Because there was the most revealing thing about the ABC fluff piece. Obama continued to say that we have to pass the legislation now, but also admitted that they did not have an actual plan yet - in other words, vote for this sight unseen and once we have it we'll worry about the details of how to make it work - sorry but that is not the way legislation works.
And just one more little note - the private/public competition thing is a farce. It never has and never will work. Everyone knows that if there were actual competition the government would fail - how many people would be in social security right now if we had a private investment option? Right or wrong people opt out of government systems because they are generally rife with fraud and waste. IF the public plan is actually funded by premiums (which is doubtful - how could you insure the uninsured that way?), then it is just another HMO, and why would anyone choose it? If there are subsidies for the poor, and it is still all funded by premiums, who in their right mind would opt for this - your paid premium would have to cover you and someone (or ones) who could not afford it, and who wants to do that? This is not a question of greed, it is one of common sense.
If, on the other hand, the more likely government subsidizes this pseudo-private corporation, then the competition is inherently unfair to unsubsidized insurers, and they have to change their coverages to match the government's. On the face, this may sound appealing, however, it could only lead to bankrupting the private companies because they do not have the infinite power to raise revenue via taxation and then the government option becomes the main (or only) option, as the government steps in to rescue the situation once insurance agencies start failing. Think that this is ridiculous pessimism? Then just look back at the last pseudo-private corporation that was backed by the government and the weird types of competitions it generated in the private sector and the collapse that ensued afterward. That would be Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Oh yeah, I have great faith in the power of the government to establish legitimate private businesses (note heavy sarcasm). It was not under regulation that led to that collapse, rather it was other lenders struggling to keep up with the type of loans that Freddie and Fannie were doling out...
Do we really want a repeat of that mess in five or ten years and have the government take over health care completely? To some this might sound like a grand idea, but I have personal experience with family in the VA, and I can tell you that public health care ain't great and is rationed.
And besides, if we went to a socialized health care system, where would rich Canadians and Europeans go for their care? How would they afford their drugs without the American private system subsidizing the worldwide drug market.
Just a couple of facts before I go - Canada does not allow the prescription of the two most effective drugs for colon cancer because they are too expensive. The incidence of fatality from colon cancer is higher, and the rate of treatment is lower than in our private system. I could give many other examples. The bureaucracy that many decry in the HMO is only exacerbated by a government system - the things people complain most about in HMOs are also the exact same things that people complain about in socialized systems. Rather than tell patients that they need dialysis in Britain, there have been cases where people have simply been told that they have an "untreatable illness" and that there are no options for them - a much easier thing to tell a patient than "there isn't enough money allocated for dialysis". Lower incidence diseases will be less treated rather than better treated - just check Canada's drug uses - I would be terrified of this if I were an AIDS patient. They are a very small population with very expensive drugs; eventually a public system swallows a group like this and the best care is not provided - it is too expensive.
You want a bit of an example, think of the ending of THX1138, when they ran out of money allocated for him, he no longer existed - for him this was a blessing, it gave him his freedom, but for patients it condemns them to death that could otherwise be prevented.
Okay, time to get off the soapbox, but more at another time; I am sure that you are waiting with baited breath.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment