Friday, August 7, 2009

If It Sounds Like an Evil Villain from a Spy Movie Came Up With the Concept...

... It’s Probably Not True
(Or, Some Misconceptions About Health Care Reform)
To counteract the incredible display of horse manure flying about the airwaves, on tv, and being suggested to you by your friends and neighbors, I put together this list of a few misconceptions about health care reform. Note that I am talking about the general gist of the main bills currently on hold in Congress while our representatives are on vacation or being harangued at town hall meetings. Note also that I don’t necessarily agree with all terms—current terms, that is—of the health care bill(s). In fact, in my most recent post, I suggested a few quick reform measures of my own. Nevertheless, the amount of disinformation being broadcast motivates me—no, compels me—to put together this list.

1. The current health care reform bills will produce a system of socialized medicine in this country.

First—no, they wouldn’t. Socialized medicine is the direct control of the practice of medicine by the government. The government employs virtually all medical providers (doctors, nurses) and hospitals and places of care. All citizens receive health care free of charge unless they elect to pay for it privately. Regardless of what you might think about socialized medicine, that is not what Congress is proposing. The bills before Congress propose to achieve a few core objectives: (i) stop health care insurance companies from being able to cherry-pick their insureds; principally, this means that individual policies would be treated akin to group policies. This is very important, incidentally, to self-employed people and small businesses. It would also mean the elimination of the “preexisting condition” exception from insurance policies. Anyone who has been confronted with this form of denial realizes that this is the correct and humane thing to do; (ii) offer a government-subsidized plan to the working poor and lower middle class families (akin to Medicare); (iii) make—yes, make, as in require—the uninsured get insurance (and objective (ii) is very closely related to this objective). The culmination of all three of these principal goals is intended to produce the goal of universal coverage; viz., everyone can get health insurance of some kind in this country.

Second—every time I hear someone shout out “socialized medicine” with that sort of crazy glint in their eye, I wonder: Do they really know what they’re talking about? I don’t think so. I think it’s like we all accused someone of being a Communist back in the ‘80s. I think really it’s a substitute for “bad.” So, what they’re really saying is—health care reform! Bad!

Well, maybe if it’s the wrong kind of health care reform. And maybe socialized medicine would be bad, though the Brits seem to think it’s okay. In any case, that’s not what we’re getting, so this is a misconception and is FALSE.

2. A faceless government bureaucrat will make your health care decisions for you.

Okay. This one makes me smile a little bit, because, I mean… isn’t a faceless insurance company bureaucrat making your health care decisions for you right now? I know that’s the case for us, where my wife and I were prevented from having our second child for a year and a half because of insurance waiting periods. (Needless to say numerous conversations over the years with … wait for it… faceless insurance company bureaucrats trying to get something covered. If you haven’t experienced this yet, just wait—it’s coming, my friend. Unless, of course, health care is completely reformed). Wouldn’t it at least be better if the faceless bureaucrat were a government employee, theoretically working for you, and also subject to review by Congress and our elected representatives?

Also, of course— and here’s the zinger—uhm, no. A faceless bureaucrat would not be making health care decisions for anyone. The healthcare plan “czar” (is anyone besides me getting a little tired of the use of the word “czar” every time we set up a program where one guy is the head honcho? It’s like appending “-gate” at the end of any supposed scandal. Do they have a special course on hackneyed phrases in journalism school?) would be in charge of approving plans proffered by insurance companies who want to participate in the healthcare exchange. Doctors would be in charge. Or, as I prefer to think about it after spending some time in the hospital with my wife following her c-section, patients are in charge.

3. Health care reform will encourage euthanasia of the elderly.

This falls under the category of “if it sounds crazy, it probably is.” I am continually amazed at the capacity for some people to be so gullible and… ingenuous (as in, innocent… not “ingenious,” as in clever). Look, if it sounds like a concept of an arch villain in a spy movie, it’s not likely to be true, okay? A purpose of health care reform is not to kill elderly people. The fact that this assertion even has to be refuted disgusts me. But thanks to people like Sean Hannity and friends, this disinformation is countenanced and given air time. (Much like the “Obama was not born in Hawaii” claims. Complete and utter garbage.)

I was going to call this the “top five” misconceptions about health reform, but it’s late and I’m tired. There is also a certain level of tolerance I have for mentally engaging with and refuting what, seem to me, to be such blatant errors. Where is our independent media? Oh, wait, that’s right, we lost it when Fox started winning the air wars.

My tolerance level and endurance for this sort of thing is also taxed by an undercurrent of dismay and cynicism. These arguments—these outright lies, really—are not the real powers that need to be fought. These misconceptions are propagated by very powerful interests that stand to lose a great deal with health care reform. Insurance companies, certain health care providers, pharmaceutical companies, basically everyone profiting from skyrocketing health care and treatment costs (sellers, not providers for the most part—hospitals and, for the most part, doctors have not seen lasting prosperity from the massive inflation in health care costs over the last 20 years). My dismay and cynicism arise from the fact that the people fighting this battle on the ground for these powerful interests are harming themselves—they have been manipulated and do not even realize it. It’s truly disgusting. With a little money and an ingenious campaign of disinformation, powerful, fortified interests can manipulate people to fight a battle that harms their own interest.

But that’s the nature of the beast in our current socio-economic-political system. There will be no discussion on the merits. Only a Machiavellian power struggle.

We will see a similar event with the global warming bill—already tremendously watered down. When the time comes, I will fire up the ol’ blog. But for now, I shine my blazing beacon of truth on health care reform! And will continue to do so as long as I can tolerate it.

Peace be with you.

3 comments:

Ava T said...

I'm glad you wrote a bit on this topic. I think people get fatigued with even the broad strokes when it comes to health care reform, and when reason checks out, ideology and other garbage moves in. Moreover, Reps I think are looking to torpedo Obama's biggest positive domestic policy effort. Many Dems and other libs like me will be, well, rather angry, if Obama is unable to pass any significant health care reform, just as libs were pissed-off at Clinton when his administration failed to do it. Many libs voted for Clinton and Obama now solely to get health care reform. So failing will certainly weaken Obama and the Dems politically on the left and center, though there is little doubt that the country will suffer.

I thought the anti-slogan "socialized medicine(!)" went out decades ago (with "socialism(!)" as conflated to communism), but I guess I'm wrong. I lose track of these absurd shibboleths of the right sometimes.

I think really the only valid basis of criticism is cost, but given that the existing set-up will soon become so costly as to account for >20% and more of GDP (2008 was already at 17% - http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml), it's hard to see how we could do much worse.

D. W. said...

Thanks for the comment--as I note in the post, it's mentally fatiguing to repel all the disinformation being disseminated out there, but it's necessary, because people are so accepting of propaganda and non-critical in their thinking.

Incidentally-- AS IF ON CUE-- one of my favorite right wing idiots, Sarah Palin, came out and called the health care reform efforts "evil." That's right! Evil.

See: http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/palin-says-111154.html

Naturally, her conclusion is based on all kinds of errors and proves the title of my blog post quite nicely.

Gotta love her-- other prominent right wing commentators have the sense to use innuendo or put people on their shows to say the crazy stuff. But she just goes right out there and shoots off! I love it! Because then people (the majority at least) hear how stupid it sounds.

Not-So-Stay-at-Home Mom said...

I agree that most people have no concept of what "socialized medicine" even means. For my part, my contact with a socialized medical system while a student in England was favorable.

Even though I was not even a citizen of that country, when I got ill with a seriously nasty disabling urinary tract infection, I had no problem getting in to see a doctor quickly. In fact, it was easier to get in to see a doctor there than it ever has been for me here. (Receptionist: Oh, yes, you have a raging sinus infection with migraine headaches? Well, we have an opening in two weeks.) In addition, the doctor -- get this -- actually spent TIME WITH ME. Yes, before we even went into an exam room, he sat for about 15 minutes in his very comfortable office with me, discussed my symptoms, and took relevant medical background information. After the exam, he talked to me about what treatment he was prescribing, why, and how it would work. Beats the 120 seconds of "undivided attention" I usually get from my primary doctor here.

I also agree that people who worry about "faceless government bureaucrats" making healthcare decisions have clearly never had to deal with the faceless insurance company bureaucrats. I'm for any system that puts medical decisionmaking power where it belongs: with the patient in consultation with his or her doctor.