The US debate on health care reform is fascinating. The town halls are bringing out the best and worst of American democracy. Citizens are involved, elected officials are forced to face their constituents and hear their concerns. The media is all over this, and the polarization of American society despite this new age of bringing everyone together is obvious for everyone to witness.
The rhetoric is heated. Much has been made of the "death panel" charges. But lest it be thought that extremist talk is only on one side of this issue, let's not forget liberal talk show host Ed Schultz's wild accusation that Conservative commentators actually want President Obama to be shot. Wow! Talk about a guilt trip.
Then there's been a lot of fudging of the facts. Some of it comes from President Obama. In the President's New Hampshire Town Hall on health care, the President stated that it was far more lucrative for doctors to amputate a diabetic's leg, then to properly treat him in the first place. The President stated that the surgeon would be reimbursed $30,000, $40,000 or even $50,000 for the amputation. Wrong says the AMA in their August 12 Health Care Bulletin. In actual fact, the surgeon would receive between $541.72 to $708.71 for the amputation. The AMA and others also take umbrage with the suggestion that doctors would thus prefer to amputate then to treat, but in all fairness I do not think that that is what the President implied. This mis-statement however follows upon earlier statements by Obama that doctors perform needless tonsillectomies for the money, and that the AARP endorsed the President's health care proposals, which the AARP quickly denied.
And so it goes. It seems that the only thing all sides can agree upon is that they do not want Canada's health care model. We have been all over the news as the model to avoid. Great! Now we can add that to the other things Americans know about us, such as cold weather and hockey.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"Much has been made of the death panel charges"???
ReplyDeleteLewis, if you want your blog to be fairly balanced, shouldn't you acknowledge that Sarah Palin, the former Republican VP candidate whom you have praised, was the one who made those hysterical, hyperbolic and irresponsible statements -- rather than glossing over them to (appropriately) critique a talk-show host?
Hi Ron:
ReplyDeleteSince the "death panel" discussion has been widely reported, I did not feel it necessary to further elaborate on it. Yes, it was Ms. Palin who used that term, which was inflammatory and hyperbolic. It did however force Americans and politicians to consider the issue of whether vulnerable persons might be denied treatment due to costs, in an environment where there are scarce resources. This was a necessary debate and I believe has resulted in changes to the proposals.
As far as balance is concerned, sometimes one has to focus on one side of a debate, which frequently gets ignored by a biased media and commentators to achieve balance. For example, was Ed Schultz's totally irresponsible and slanderous charge, widely reported? Did you for example know about it? Did you know that the AMA has been critical of the President for his misinformation and his allegations that doctors are not interested in the well being of their patients? Did you know that Obama misinformed the public about the AARP endorsing his proposal and then had to retract that statement? Or, to go back to an earlier era in American politics, when liberals accused Bush of being like Hitler, were they condemned for it by a balanced media or by you?
Balance, yes. That is what we need more of. Reputable studies on the coverage of the election, and the treatment by the media of the McCain/Palin ticket, show that there was no balance. Even the President openly jokes about members of the media being in bed with him.
Now that the heat is on and the poll numbers are slipping, the White House is asking for balance from the media in the coverage of the health care debate. My, how we see things differently when we have to face what McCain/Palin faced for months and months.
Lewis,
ReplyDeleteNo, I was not aware of Ed Schultz's comment. In fact, I'd never heard of Ed Schultz. Is he highly influential?
Could you please cite those studies of media bias? Again, I'm unaware of them, but interested.
Ron
The fact that you have not heard of Ed Schultz makes my point about who and what the main stream media criticize. You have heard about conservative "extremist" hosts like Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, Bill O'Reilly, right? Even the White House goes out of its way to denigrate them. But not Ed Schultz. Ed Schultz is a well known liberal talk show host, a strong supporter of Obama, and a frequent guest on CNN ("the best political team" on television.) Is he influential? Probably among his crowd as much as other well known talk show hosts.
ReplyDeleteMore to the point. You termed Ms Palin's remarks as "hysterical, hyperbolic and irresponsible". Yet you "glossed over" Schultz's. Do you agree that conservative commentators want Obama to be shot, as Schulz states? If I criticize the President (as I do), do I want him to be shot? Will I be responsible if he is? (silly question I know - I don't have that many readers).
On the studies about media bias. See for example ABC's Michael Malone's story on the Presidential election and its "slanted election coverage". Or look at Deborah Howell's surveys reported in the Washington Post. Or better yet look at the Pew Research Center's Project For Excellence in Journalism. It found that coverage of McCain was "heavily unfavourable" compared to coverage of Obama (Oct 22, 2008).
Studies aside, anyone who watched the American coverage was well aware of their biases and preferences, and the studies support this.
Hi Professor Klar,
ReplyDeleteYou and I do not see eye to eye on the coverage of events like this. I think that citing the doddering Ed Schultz as a counterpoint to Glenn Beck, Charlie Savage, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, &c is a bit facetious. For one thing, those commentators are extremists, and Schultz isn't. (If you don't agree that they are extremists, then who is?) They also dominate talk radio and, increasingly, cable news.
And many of the "ordinary citizens" given a voice in this stupid debate a nutjobs. I'm with Rick Perlstein on this one: giving wackos a pedestal isn't balance, particularly when they are being culled from insane astroturf protests stirred up by anti-health reform corporate interests. These are the same people who went to Fox News' Teabag Rallies. The same people who think the President's birth certificate is a forgery.
As for the real issues behind the bills, there are lots. I would again recommend Atul Gawande's New Yorker piece on health care cost savings and doctor overbilling. It's an essential read for the debate-- President Obama has reportedly made it mandatory reading for the Cabinet.
Talking about press reporting of McCain is crying over spilt milk. It's over. There was fawning coverage on both sides-- and unfair coverage, too. But as long as we're at it, I do not accept your premise that the press was tougher on McCain-- an ABC op-ed is pretty thin, and I'm suspicious of a Pew report that came two weeks *before* the election. Perhaps Pew forgot to include the right's racist smearing of Obama as a foreign-born Muslim in their sample.
Even if you're right, McCain made his own bed: the vast majority of negative coverage about him post-Convention was related to his inept choice of a running mate. And much of the negative coverage before that was about the huge gulf between his old principles and those he displayed in the campaign. (As for the current coverage of the President, I agree that it has been terrible. Though not because it is fawning (it is): because it is focussed on process, not issues. Whether he is "winning", not the merits of policies)
Back to the issues. What kind of health reform would you like to see? Forget about the process stories. Do you think the current system is viable? What do you think of the common political practice of demonizing "tort lawyers", especially in the context of health costs?
See you in a couple of weeks,
Scott
Lewis,
ReplyDeleteEd Schultz's comment was abhorrent, and perhaps I should have acknowledged that. But I think you're being a bit aggressive to ask whether I agree with it, as the question implies that I might.
Ron