(In my not so humble opinion) FALSELY REPORTING THE HEALTH CARE DEBATE DOES NOT HELP, BE IT ON THE RIGHT, OR ON THE LEFT:
***
Paul Krugman offered the following opinion on his blog:
"Back in 2004 I looked at TV reports on health care plans, and found not a single segment actually explaining the candidates’ plans. This time the WaPo ombud looks at his own paper’s reporting, and it’s not much better.
Why does this happen? I suspect several reasons.
1. It’s easier to research horse-race stuff. To report on policy, a reporter has to master the policy issues fairly well. That’s not easy...
...Newsweek’s Sharon Begley wrote a piece about what actually is and isn’t in Obamacare, and got mail from readers denouncing her and wishing her an early death. As I pointed out the other day, I’m getting a lot of hate mail — and I mean obscenities, death wishes, and all that, not strongly worded disagreements — for writing about Swiss health care and budget arithmetic. Much safer to report on ups and downs in the conventional wisdom.
The upshot, of course, is that we’re having a crucial national policy debate in which the great bulk of the news coverage tells people nothing at all about the policy issues."
***
I do agree with the overall gists of Paul's arguments. Nevertheless, in the haste to depict opponents to (some aspects?) of putative health care proposals as bad, the proponents of health care reform (whatever is meant by that)are also dishonest. An example is provided here. I sent the commentary below to Krugman's blog, very early on. Now the blog had the kindness to publish me many times. But not this time. Why? Well, you judge. Apparently, being caricatural is a must, and the New York Times is firmly decided to protect me from directing abrasive criticism against the presumed hero of health care. Here is my unelected comment:
***
I have appreciated Sharon Begley very much, ever since she was covering science at the Wall Street Journal. I bought her book, long ago. But her Newsweek piece is the first one I have seen of her that is content empty. For example, I know that Sarah Palin is whatever she is, and to remind me of that does not advance the debate.
But Obama has no plan we can see. Slogans are not a plan. There are 3 or 4 bills in Congress, none of them with Obama's signature on it.
The Grand Ma-does-not-need-a-hip talk was started by him, Obama. In the New York Times (May 2009).
Of course republicans were going to jump on the grand mother does-not-need-care issue. Of course Obama could predict that. And of course laying supine as republicans ran all over him was not going to improve any chance at health reform.
So the question has long been: what does Obama want? Staying friend with the health insurance king Warren Buffet?
As I stated many times, it ought to have taken 3 days to boost and improve Medicare, and pass the legislation (with the existing democratic majorities). Further tinkering could have squeezed the private life insurers' abuse. It would have been easy to find an egregious case resulting in death, and for the government to sue for homicide. That would make juriprudence, squeezing the insurers for-profit lifestyle out. Medicare could have grown.
Oops, I forgot that "friend" Warren would certainly not have been happy, with such an easy outcome...
If we do not want to do just horse race reporting, we have to stop treating Obama as a horse. Surely, he is more intelligent than that. But then how come so dumb in health care? After being so dumb with the banks? Not enough hay in the old barn?
Patrice Ayme
https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment