How the Media Has Failed America on Healthcare Reform–Part II
by Morgen RichmondIn part I of this article, I provided a little background on the history of the public option, including how John Edwards was actually the first to propose it during the Democratic primary campaign. I also demonstrated how the media has largely ignored the glaring inconsistencies between Edwards’ characterization of the public option during the campaign, and how Obama has promoted it to the public this year. Edwards quite openly acknowledged that a public option could result in the entire health system gravitating towards a government-run, single payer system. Obama, on the other hand, has flatly denied this is the case saying it’s all about “choice and competition”.
I also singled out Julie Rovner from NPR as an example of a media health policy expert who has failed to fully (and fairly) report on the public option. Including the fact that many of its original (and current) proponents believe it could ultimately lead to a single payer system. Instead, Rovner has been a consistent voice of support for the Administration’s assertion that this is only a “myth”. I asked Rovner to comment on this prior to publishing part I. Here is the relevant excerpt from her response (emphasis mine):
I think what’s been missed in much of the debate is that the public option construct envisioned by the Democratic candidates during the primaries is fundamentally DIFFERENT from the one that’s on the table now…
Edwards’ plan would have opened his “exchanges” to basically any business that wanted to join, hence giving the public plan very wide availability. That’s what led him to say that over time, if it proved popular enough, the public plan could have morphed into a single-payer system.
But that is NOT the case with the current plans now under consideration. They all have very strict “firewalls” that limit availability to the new marketplaces that will include a public option (or not) to those in the individual market and small businesses (the size varies by each bill). That’s why the CBO estimates that only a few million people would end up in the public plan. And that’s been my (and most other reporters’) justification for reporting that these plans wouldn’t represent a government takeover of the health care system. In their current form, they couldn’t, at least not without a change in the law to open them up to the larger population.
What Rovner says is basically true: the public option outlined by Edwards was different in design than what is being considered in Congress now. But so was the public option outlined by the President during the campaign. In the run-up to the election, Obama repeatedly said of his health plan not only that “if you like the plan you have you can keep it”, but also that “if you don’t like the plan you have” he was going to provide a set of options, including a public plan. In other words, Obama also envisioned an insurance exchange open to everyone.
The so-called “firewall” that Rovner refers to was only crafted in the Spring after early estimates showed that in excess of 100 million people would transition into the public plan within the first 10 years. In other words, it was a little too obvious that the public option would quickly lead to a single payer system. So this relatively simple design change was made.
But guess what? There are many Democrats in Congress – and even some Republicans – who are pushing to expand the initial eligibility for the exchanges. Even if they are unsuccessful, under the House bill expanding the exchanges is under the discretion of the Secretary of Health. This means that no further change to the law would even be necessary, contrary to what was asserted by Rovner in her statement above. The “firewall” was put up overnight and it can be torn down just as quickly. And there will be a lot of public and congressional pressure to do so.
So Rovner’s statement is completely reasonable – but only as an excuse for her selective coverage on this issue. But the job of the media is not to provide selective coverage, especially when from all appearances it’s being done in support of a partisan agenda.
The fact that the public option became the center of the health care debate all but obligated the media to provide a fuller history of it’s inception, and to cover the full range of possible policy ramifications. Especially in light of the fact that so many people – both opponents AND proponents of reform – have claimed that the public option could ultimately lead to a single payer system.
And I’m not just referring to John Edwards, but a whole host of proponents of reform, as outlined in an earlier article on this topic at BigGoverment.com. Notably Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI), Paul Krugman from the NY Times, and Ezra Klein from the Washington Post. The corroborating statements from any one of these individuals were newsworthy enough to warrant coverage by Rovner and others in the media. Is there any doubt that if a Republican President had been implicated in misleading the public over major legislation that this would have been major, tier one news? (It probably would have been treated like Watergate.)
So I don’t accept Rovner’s rationalization of this, for her or anyone else in the media. And let’s not forget that NPR is publicly-funded, which only increases Rovner’s obligation to provide fair and non-partisan coverage.
Unfortunately, it’s the American people that stand to pay the price for the media’s failure to provide comprehensive coverage of the public option. Is there any doubt that if the broader media had highlighted the ulterior motives behind the public option that it would have been killed off in Congress long ago? As it is, it’s only barely survived to this point. And yet even now, the Democratic leadership is doing everything they can to cram it into the final bill.
While I am wholeheartedly opposed to the public option, and believe it will ultimately create a crushing burden of debt, this is not even the biggest travesty of the whole affair. The media has failed America not because health reform legislation is on the verge of passing, but because the wrong reform is on the verge of passing. By employing a disingenuous strategy to force through the public option, the Administration and Democratic leadership have missed a real opportunity to implement much-needed insurance reforms on a truly bi-partisan basis. Reforms which would have had a much better chance of actually lowering the growth rate in healthcare spending, as opposed to the Democrats’ legislation which is primarily focused on expanding coverage.
One such example is the long-term decoupling of health insurance from employment. An idea which had significant bi-partisan support under Sen. Ron Wyden’s (D-OR) proposed bill, and which could have dramatically altered the market dynamics causing healthcare costs to skyrocket. This was also a key component of Senator McCain’s plan during the election, so there is no question there would have been significant Republican support for this idea.
But this idea was never even seriously considered, primarily because of the President’s simplistic campaign promise that “if you like what you have you can keep it”. Which we now know was really just a cover for the hidden agenda of the public option. Fair and balanced reporting on this would have quickly cut through this spin, and America would have been better off for it.
And what happened to the idea of promoting greater portability of insurance? Those “firewalls” that Rovner referred to will result in utter chaos when it comes to changing employers. Sure, the uninsured, unemployed and those working for very small businesses will enjoy the convenience of having continuous insurance through the exchanges. But anyone else who changes jobs regularly, especially the 50+ million temporary workers in America, will be required to bounce from within and out of the exchanges frequently based on their employment status. And remember that these firewalls were only necessary to limit the initial growth projections in the public option. (And also to limit the government subsidies paid to participants in the exchanges.)
A system of health insurance exchanges (or one national exchange) open to everyone, without a public option, would have had bipartisan support, and would have solved once and for all the portability issue. Combined with some or all of Senator Wyden’s ideas, it also could have dramatically lowered healthcare costs in the long run. But by continuing to promote the public option, the Administration drove a wedge right through the possibility of bi-partisan reform. While some of the media has stood on the sidelines and watched, many of its most prominent personalities have marched in lockstep behind the Administration’s flawed agenda.
Without a doubt the media has failed in their basic responsibility to inform the American public on this issue (with some notable exceptions). And considering the amount of media time and access the Administration has been granted, there is just no excuse for this. Of course the blame extends far beyond just NPR and Julie Rovner. Rovner is an extremely thorough and well-intentioned reporter, and there is no one else in the media more knowledgeable on health policy issues. But perhaps it’s time for Rovner and others in the “non-partisan” media to reflect more closely on their reporting, and to ask themselves whether they have let their desire for this Administration to succeed influence their coverage on this and other issues. Most of them would still passionately defend their record, no doubt. And this is their right.
But whether they recognize it or not, most of America has long since judged their coverage to be biased and unfair. This judgement will only become more pronounced in the years ahead as the hidden consequences and unexplained trade-offs of healthcare reform become increasingly evident. Unfortunately by then it may be too late for them to rescue their credibility. Perhaps it already is.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
23 Comments
To sell this Health Care Plan, it begins with marketing and packaging, and that begins on Madison Avenue. The first question always is: "How are we (CON-gress) going to sell this to the American people?" Rather than do their job, to Preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States,, instead they set about to sell US a bill of goods we don't want. Want health care? Get off your ass and get a job and pay for it.
The media? They have not only failed America on Health Care, they are complicit in perpetrating this fraud. They have conspired and colluded with the Administration. They have sold US out, one more time.
MR, nice roundup on the lack of reporting on this issue. I no longer give any reporters, any credibility, unfortunately! I have no respect for our Government nor the incompetent & evil press. It is much too late for them to rescue their credibility….I would not walk across the street to assist a journalist!
The idea that the Democratic leadership wants "reform" of the health care industry is ludicrous. Their sole drive is to nationalize health care, public opinion be damned. It doesn't matter what form it takes, as long it achieves their real goal. The implementation of government control of your life and liberty. You may not know it, but you are considered too stupid to manage your own life.
This is a time in history when only good and honest reporting is going to count. The American people are depending on reporters to help sort through the health care rhetoric.
Journalists need to wake up and smell the coffee! We the informed people don't just sit around waiting for their spin anymore. We search for the truth until we find it. Thank God there is some truth to be found, so I have not completely soured on all journalists yet.
Read today's WSJ editorial…
"The WellPoint Revelation: Private insurance premiums could triple under ObamaCare."
"… At the request of Congressional delegations worried about their constituents—call it a public service—WellPoint mined its own actuarial data to model ObamaCare in the 14 states where it runs Blue Cross plans."
"In all of the 14 states WellPoint scrutinized, ObamaCare would drive up premiums for the small businesses and individuals who are most of WellPoint's customers."
"Not even two hours after Wellpoint had presented its materials on the Hill, Democrats were already trashing it—which, considering that it runs to some 238 pages and took weeks to prepare, must have required remarkable powers of digestion and analysis." (see rest at wsj.com)
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Big Government, Big Government. Big Government said: How the Media Has Failed America on Healthcare Reform–Part II: In part I of this article, I provided a little b.. http://bit.ly/ZtZQp [...]
It's never been about "reform". It's just another "crisis" they were and are all too eager to exploit. The problem for them now is as they continue to press the issue their motives become clearer. Of course they don't realize the damage they are doing to their reputations because they are too busy listening to themselves rather than the people they are meant to serve. They will regret trying to bully the American people.
I posted earlier here about Madison Avenue. Here is an interesting little article about a recent poll, and how the figures were skewed. It is all in the presentation, figures lie, and liars figure…………………
With or without a public option, all versions of health reform include the government imposing strict limits on what plans may or may not cover, including what they must cover, as well as dictating how much can be charged and who must be allowed to buy coverage. All of these are things the government is strictly forbidden to do, and that's the bottom line for me. Yes, the government is forbidden from selling health insurance, but they already do that anyway.
I believe that tying the idea of a government takeover to the availability of the public option is a ruse. Get people to buy the connection, and then you can scale down or eliminate the public option and claim that there is no takeover, despite the fact that it is in the government's unconstitutional mandates on the structure, pricing, and operation of "private" plans that constitutes the real government takeover.
If health reform passes in any of it's current forms, it will become a federal crime to sell you any health care not only if it is not approved by the government, but if it is not DESIGNED by the government. This includes the plan you have right now, no matter what it is, because there isn't a plan available on the market today that meets the government's criteria. Sure, it will feel a lot like it already does at first. Your insurance company will tell you how much you have to pay, and what is and isn't covered. The difference will be that the government will be telling them what to tell you, they won't be basing it on any kind of business consideration. And just as importantly, all companies and plans will tell you the same thing. If you don't like what Aetna offers you, you'll still be free to go to Cigna (for the time being), but there won't be any point, because Cigna will offer the same plans with the same coverages for the same prices, because the government will force them to. While "death panels" are not in the bill, and public option may or may not be, all of the above is. And that's bad enough.
It doesn't matter, the "public option" as offered by Congress is literally to pave the way for a single payer plan. Barney Frank has said so (he's a big back of this) as did Barack Obama in 2007. They want Euro-style health care, no matter what the cost as it increases governmental control over the population. After all, they "know what's good for you, you don't understand all of the difficulties inherent in modern life."
NPR "credibility"? That's an oxymoron…. They've been shills for a long time.
Republicans are not now, and never have been, serious about health care reform. They would have opposed any plan, no matter what its provisions. They are pimps for health insurance companies, pure and simple.
By singling out a specific political party you are playing their game. Try thinking for yourself. Politicians, regardless of their political affiliations, cannot be trusted. Think about it. Most of them are either lawyers or power hungry millionaires.
None of them is serious about health care reform. Why? Because what is wrong with the insurance companies is by design. Currently health insurance companies are exempt from anti-trust laws. Why? Why are policies not portable? The government has been stifling competition and then ALLOWS them to negotiate standardized pricing. Now, having created this boondoggle they propose to "fix" (aka reform) it through expanded government control (aka regulation) and government run and funded "non-profit" programs. What's more is that the government programs already in place such as social security, medicare and medicaid are virtually bankrupt yet these "leaders" (read politicians) propose, nay insist, the government knows what it's doing.
Try not to allow yourself to be blinded with propaganda, taking points and labels. This is politics and you are nothing more to ANY of them than a pawn in their quest to power.
What a relief to hear someone dissect one facet of the “bias by ommission” coverage by NPR. Thank you!
And thank you for filling in some of the context gaps that NPR, along with the rest of our journalists-in-name-only (JINOs?) have willingly avoided explaining.
The best thing this administration and Worst.Congress.Ever could do right now is just STOP. Everything. And start all over again. Where’s that “Reset” button when you need it?
Thanks for that thoughtfull troll response, it really helps the conversation.
Don't you have some pre-printed union signs, you should be holding out on a street corner somewhere ?
Dr. No – if you are a doctor, then you would know that a free market approach would reform health insurance (not healthcare itself, as we have the best in the world) 1. meaningful tort reform (and yes, I am a lawyer); 2. allowing competition between states by insurance companies; 3. because of 2., portability of insurance; 4. health savings accounts (which could be government funded by a tax credit for the truly poor and uninsured); 5. because of 4, doctors contracting directly with consumers, which would drive prices down, incentivize people to take care of themselves with their own money, and allow the healthy to save the money; 6. incentives for doctors to practice in the less served inner city and rural areas, such as public university debt forgiveness (taxpayers getting something for the education dollars).
These taken altogether would go a long way to real reform, not government run programs. Anything wrong with these ideas?
Most of the above suggestions (tawnyalawyer) are in the Repubs' healthcare plan, which the Dems have no interest in because it doesn't put them in charge of our bank accounts, which is their main motivation. That, and controlling our lives, making sure we vote the one-party way or no healthcare for us. They also need a new revenue source to pay for all those cadillac plans for retiring union members. The unions are going broke and Bambi needs them for his reelection campaign.
Speaking of the "death panel," that was passed into law in the stimulus bill with a panel already in place. They've got to kill the seniors off earlier because the social security money has already been spent. So when Obumble says the death panel isn't in the healthscare bill, he's technically correct. It's in the stimulus bill. Watch out for The Won's word parsing. He makes a living at it.
[...] By employing a disingenuous strategy to force through the public option, … Continued here: Big Government » Blog Archive » How the Media Has Failed America … Share and [...]
Here's the problem with a private insurer-based system. Twenty-five to thirty percent of the premium dollar does not go to healthcare. It pays no doctors, no nurses, no hospitals. This makes no sense. We are sucking 25-30 percent of our healthcare dollars out of the system and getting nothing in return. We might as well burn this money. Competition is not going to solve this problem. It might reduce the squandered funds by a few percentage points, but that's about it.
Tort reform won't make much difference. The CBO estimates that malpractice-related costs account for approximately 2 percent of the total healthcare budget. Maybe with tort reform you cut it to one percent. Nothing wrong with that, but it's not really much help.
Our healthcare system is rife with inefficiencies. The biggest by far is the fact it is private insurer-based.
Out healthcare system, while good, is not the best in the world. At least as measured by generally recognized metrics.
Ah a troll, hating companies and manufacturing easy targets for his infantile rage. How cute!
Um, less than 50% of the cost of food you buy doesn't go to the farmers that grow it / rear it.
Does that mean that capitalism in the food industry is equally at fault?
Given that the average profit margin in the insurance industry is less than 3%, your argument is futile.
Trying to discuss this with you would be like trying to talk to a wall. You obviously have it all figured out. Good for you. So go enjoy your mutual masturbatory sessions with your fellow crackpots.
Obviously Dr No hasn't read H.R. 3400, or any of the other bills proposed by the Republicans for healthcare reform. As usual, someone blasting off his mouth with no knowledge of the subject whatsoever.