Facts unravel reform push
Well, there they go again. Purveyors of fear and hate and other really nasty stuff are persisting in clogging the heads of grannies and grandpas with tales of health care reform doom. Look at this: “Bills now in Congress would squeeze savings out of Medicare, a lifeline for the elderly.” And this: “I am finally scared of a White House administration ... [R]ationing is a basic part of Obama’s eventual master health care plan.” Pass the tea party placard and pack the concealed heat.
But first a bit on sources. Who is responsible for peddling this anti-reform drivel? Well, that would be in case the first, The New York Times, that mother of all liberal bastions, in an Aug. 21 story headlined, “A Basis is Seen for Some Health Plan Fears Among the Elderly.” In case the second, former Village Voice columnist and First Amendment sage Nat Hentoff, an endorser of Obama in last fall’s election.
Here’s what they say:
The Times points out first that Obama has placed a premium on cutting cost, a thing he says can be accomplished by appointing “a new federal panel of medical experts on ‘what treatments work best.’ ” Best for what? Well, that’s the rub isn’t it? He wants to slash “unwarranted subsidies” to private Medicare Advantage plans. Some of that money, The Times explains, goes to providing extra benefits, like, say, biopsies for prostate cancer or some other such frivolities.
Hentoff elaborates on the dread federal panel. “President Obama’s desired health care reform intends that a federal board ... decides whether your quality of life ... merits government-controlled funds to keep you alive. Watch for that life-decider in the final bill. It’s already in the stimulus bill signed into law.”
Then Hentoff cites a report filed by Obama advisor Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, brother of White House Chief of Staff and strongman Rahm Emanuel. Dr. Zeke refers to what he calls “the complete lives system,” which translated means that at age 65, one has had a more complete life, in terms of the raw years, than a 25-year-old. So who gets the nod if it’s a choice between caring for Gramps, whose usefulness is almost used up, or the young fella with a good 40 years of government-revenue generating capacity ahead of him? Hey, Granny, yank that plug out of the wall.
Notice that enemies of Obamacare are increasing in number and scope to include some of those who once believed in his special, and hollow, brand of hope and change. His contention that opponents have fabricated reform’s hazards has splintered against the rock-hard reality of what proposed legislation actually says and means. Americans, especially the elderly, feel a tightening grip around their throats and are slapping away the choking hand of government. Reform is needed but not this kind.
One of the central Shenandoah Valley’s representatives in Congress, Bob Goodlatte, R-Roanoke, knows this and can be counted upon to vote against Obama’s version of reform. The other, Tom Perriello, D-Ivy, was coy when confronted last week with the question of which side he will take. He cited litmus tests that include abortion funding, which he opposes, and questions of cost. In this, Perriello appears to tread perilously close to missing the point. Reducing costs, naturally, is important, but it’s an exceedingly expensive proposition if it means bureaucrats will make treatment decisions.
Voters should demand precision on this from the freshman lawmaker, and, in fact, they should demand more. They should demand that he join the swelling ranks of Democrats likely to oppose the reform bill.
Perriello, perhaps, will do this as he sees what’s becoming plain to others. Obamacare is plunging toward a fiery crash. As this happens, it is steadily more evident that what The Times referred to as “myths and falsehoods” indeed have been spread about the president’s health care revolution. Obama and his pals, not their opponents, have been the tellers of untruths. No longer are they universally believed.
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
One would expect Mr. Graham, the chair of the local Democrat party, to defend his party’s position, and one would not be disappointed. However, it is surprising that he should become a major contributor to the News Virginian, a paper and site in competition with his own Free Press.
I am affiliated with neither party, nor care to be. I am a senior who is worried about the intrusion of the federal government into my health care. While Democrats talk endlessly about the health care crisis, I myself do not experience it (I am not on Medicare yet… So my opinion could change later.). I have poor relatives, offspring and acquaintances who have managed to receive good medical care with just some thoughtful planning. I know others who have chosen not to invest in medical insurance out of purely economic concerns - and who don’t want their taxes raised to pay for insurance they don’t want.
My reading of the NYT and other supposedly respected media indicates that – despite all the screaming - only a small portion of the US population can be viewed as in a health crisis. Yet we are about to launch a massive government-funded invasion into health care over that small portion. We would do better to focus on that small number rather than risk one of the best health care systems in the world to the oversight of unproven government bureaucrats.
I do see facts being manipulated in this debate, but by the left every bit as much as the right. But simple logic does shed some light. If the government goes into competition with health insurance companies, the government will win and there will be only the government. There can be no other outcome. If the government is the primary or sole payer of medical bills, budget considerations will enter in. They always do. Limits will have to be imposed, and there will be rationing and delay. It’s only logical… And it’s what has happened in other nations, and will happen here. There is no other possibility. Our political system, once allowed fully into health care, will – of necessity – ultimately dictate all health care. Medical decisions will not be the purview of doctors alone.
As frightening, government takeover of medication prices will end the dramatic and successful research drug companies have conducted for decades. Other countries whose governments have long controlled drug prices have forced US residents to bear essentially all research costs – hence our higher prices – by forcing drug companies to charge only production costs in their countries. There is absolutely no reason to suppose our government would be any different. Governments are “in the moment” and have no interest in or use for the future, or the research that will make that future better. Admittedly, we need to do something to force other nations to pay for research, but that is a separate matter. I don’t own any drug company stock because it’s return is not that great, and the risk is high. If the US suppresses prices, there are no obscene profits to absorb price cuts, only research costs.
I am neither a classic liberal nor conservative. I see that there are important roles for government in society. However, medical oversight is not one of those areas. There is so much talk about conservatives not being willing to compromise, but I have seen no movement by either side. The much-touted compromises by the liberals are of the order “We will have government managed health care… But let’s talk about how we fund it… Or let’s talk about how fast we move into single-payer… “ That’s not compromise. Compromise would be for both sides to dump the monster legislation and sit down to discuss fundamental approaches, then starting over. Write legislation that addresses the real problem, not to just grow government, protect political supporters, or put a band-aid on the issue. But I don’t expect it. I expect we will ultimately get a half-baked government takeover that will grow inevitably to reduce the effectiveness of our health care system for all but the rich and/or powerful. I expect we will get a system that future pundits like Mr. Graham will be constantly attacking for its great inequity, inefficiency and sluggishness. But, then, it will be too late.
But
If the criticism is to make the reform that we end up with better, then drop the swords and sit at the table so we can get our heads together to make it better. Obama, even in the face of internal Democratic critics, has been emphasizing health-care reform as a bipartisan reform from the beginning, and continues to do so. The olive branch has long since been extended, not for the sake of doing it, but because what will make this reform work is making it uniquely American, and to do that we need to have the input of Republicans and Democrats and agnostics, as it were.
If it’s about blocking any reform from happening, say that, too, so we can get a sense of where we all stand. The country is still about 50-50 according to the polls I’ve looked at in the last couple of hours on what to do about the reforms as proposed. It would do us well to get a handle on how many of the 50 percent saying they’re opposed are deadset opposed or are just uncomfortable for fear of the unknown.
My sense is that the more we work through our differences on the substance of the reform, the more we try to make the reform work, the less there is to be unknown about the reform, the less fear there will be.
The other leg, not quite as wobbly now, upon reflection, has to do with the fear of the unknown, and you’re right, upon an additional reading of the Times story, it’s not just seniors, though it has to be said that exactly one doctor is quoted, the one you reference below.
His point is well-taken. Remember that the legislative process is just that, a process. If the specific issue raised by the doctor is something that needs examination, needs tweaking, needs to be taken back to the drawing board, whatever, that happens in legislative bodies every day many times a day.
We’re not there in this process. The strategy being deployed by the health-insurance industry and its political partners in the GOP and parts of the media is akin to the use of Agent Orange to defoliate forest areas concealing the Viet Cong in Vietnam in the ‘60s and ‘70s. The atmosphere itself has become poisoned, and we’re poisoned along with it.
What should be considered a necessary component to the improvement of our quality of life has been reduced to so many soundbites about “death panels” and a scoreboard for Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh to gloat about at the end of the day.
Nat Hentoff, who called Obama “the flimflam candidate,“ who excoriated him on abortion, numerous times, who urged John McCain to pick Sarah Palin out of the thin air to be his running mate, who reluctantly pulled the lever for Obama mainly because of the presence of Joe Biden as his running mate, is now critical of the Obama health initiative.
That’s a mighty wobbly leg to stand on.
The fact is Hentoff said he’s “pulling the lever” for Obama.
That’s an endorsement, qualified, tepid, tortured or whatever. Anybody who’s been in the business of publicly endorsing, or choosing, candidates similarly has made “tortured” picks. You’ve probably been in that position both as Democratic chairman and a political commentator. It’s the choice that makes it an endorsement, not the feeling behind it.
And, yes, I read both the column and The Times piece.
Did you notice the second sentence in the latter: “But Medicare beneficiaries and insurance counselors say the concerns are not entirely irrational.“ And the third: “Bills now in Congress would squeeze savings out of Medicare, a lifeline for the elderly, on the assumption that doctors and hospitals can be more efficient.“ And the fourth: “President Obama has sold health care legislation to Congress and the country as a way to slow the growth of federal health spending, no less than as a way to regulate the insurance market and cover the uninsured.“
And later:
“In effect, Mr. Obama says he can cut bloated Medicare payments to inefficient health care providers without adversely affecting any beneficiaries. Many doctors are dubious.
“Medicare officials recently proposed changes that could increase payments for some primary care services but reduce payments to many specialists. Cardiologists would be especially hard hit, with cuts of more than 20 percent in payments for electrocardiograms and 12 percent for heart stent procedures.
“‘Cuts of this magnitude could cripple cardiology practices and threaten access to services for millions of patients,‘ said Dr. John C. Lewin, chief executive of the American College of Cardiology.“
By all means, read the story. Yes, there is a reference to “fear of the unknown.“ But that’s explained, not just as a bunch of old people being averse to change but as real worries about what this brand of reform will mean: “Getting specific information about the proposals and what they mean is really hard. Seniors don’t trust the government to carry it off,” said Carol H. Carter, a spokeswoman for LIFE Senior Services in Tulsa, Okla.
The story closes by referencing the 1965 law that bars “any federal interference ... in the practice of medicine,“ then says: “But the meaning of that guarantee has shrunk as Medicare officials and Congress have set more detailed standards for doctors, hospitals, nursing homes and others in Medicare.“
The fact is, there are real, legitimate concerns about the effects of this brand of reform; it’s deeper than the depiction by the left of wild-eyed loonies out to bring down Obama. Even The New York Times, in this story at least, acknowledges this.
And the fact is, Nat Hentoff, a pro-life libertarian, yes, endorsed Obama in the presidential election—grudgingly, reluctantly, torturedly, but still he wound up “pulling the lever for him.“ And now Hentoff is troubled by Obamacare, like many other intelligent, rational people.
People aren’t accepting this simply because Obama insists that they do so. That’s the point. It’s clear, and we stand by it.
Turns out, again, that he didn’t. Did you read the column with his “tortured” endorsement?
“In pulling the lever for him, I am actually voting for the vice president on the ticket, Joe Biden.“
Considering the praises Hentoff had lavished upon Sarah Palin dating back to the spring, even his endorsement of Joe Biden rings hollow.
The headline on the Times article does speak for itself. “A Basis is Seen for Some Health Plan Fears Among the Elderly.“ The article relates that seniors with a fear of the unknown are raising questions about the proposed reform.
We usually try in jouralism to avoid sentences and in particular headlines and ledes with passive verbs. Shame on the Times. “A Basis is Seen.“ By whom? By a neutral observer? Or by the seniors with a fear of the unknown?
Read the article. It’s not the neutral observer seeing the basis. The neutral observer is explaining to us as readers what seniors with a fear of the unknown are seeing.
Turns out Hentoff did endorse Obama, in a syndicated column published Oct. 7, 2008, in The News Virginian, entitled “My tortured vote for president.“ We don’t post syndicated columns, but you can read it here: http://portagedailyregister.com/news/opinion/article_d8244380-91c9-11dd-bdda-001cc4c03286.html.
We did not describe Hentoff as “a solid Obama guy.“ We said he endorsed Obama. There’s a huge difference. We endorse candidates here, McCain, for example, but sometimes with our noses clamped shut. Calling us ‘solidly McCain’ because we endorsed him would simply be incorrect; from a conservative point of view he was the only option, but not a good one.
Endorsements are assessments of who one thinks is best for the job, and sometimes it’s one choice between two bad ones. We and Hentoff would agree, I think, that such was the case in November. He chose to endorse Obama.
Also, calling Hentoff staunchly Republican is misleading. He’s staunchly pro-life. But you’d be hard-pressed to find a more scathing critic of the Bush administration than Hentoff. He’s loyal to the pro-life ideal, but not so much that he couldn’t bear to back Obama.
The headline on The Times story, by the way, speaks for itself.
Turns out Hentoff wasn’t an endorser of Obama in 2008.
I typed every combination of the words “nat hentoff” and “obama” and “2008” and “endorse” and “endorsement” that I could try.
Here’s what I came up with.
- Hentoff endorses Palin for VP, cites what he calls Obama’s “extremist” abortion views - http://tiny.cc/kK5He.
- Hentoff calls Obama “the flimflam candidate” - http://tiny.cc/kidpn.
- Hentoff says he was “once strongly inclined to vote for Barack Obama for president,“ but “then I learned Obama’s voting record on abortion” - http://tiny.cc/ZsuSW.
There was a lot more where that all came from. Archives from his Jewish World Review columns are here - http://tiny.cc/ug9Sc.
Nat Hentoff is hardly someone we could say is a liberal jumping off the Obama ship. Hentoff is a self-professed libertarian, which puts him in the same company as our esteemed vice mayor, Frank Lucente, and is also pro-life and was a staunch advocate of the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Which is fine, but he’s sold here as having been a solid Obama guy, and it’s more the case that he’s a staunch Republican who jumped ship and is now swimming back against the tide.
The Times article cited here, meanwhile, makes the point that much of the concern about health reform among seniors results from “fear of the unknown.“
See for yourself here - http://tiny.cc/YLALR.
If it was true that the Times article cited in this editorial was critical of the Obama health reform, and that Nat Nentoff was a solid Obama guy who is now scared of what the administration is doing, then this piece would be quite damaging.
That the Times wrote otherwise, and Hentoff is otherwise, makes this attempt at picking holes in Obamacare just another smear.
One other thing - Tom Perriello doesn’t represent any portion of the Shenandoah Valley. The Fifth comes close, just a couple miles away from us on the other side of Afton Mountain, but it’s still the other side of Afton Mountain.
Advertisement