Last week I tried to make the point that PolitiFact was wrong to label as lies what are really useful phrases of political shorthand to signal passionately held differences of opinion:
All three disputed claims are what the rest of us might consider hyperbolic hysteria, if not downright lies, but which politicians think of as a routine component of their debate speech. There would really be no “death panels,” of course, but there would of necessity be rationing by the government of some sort or another, which would require people to do the rationing. “Death panel” thus becomes useful shorthand to signal how far the crazy other side is willing to go. Likewise, Republicans aren't really going to “end Medicare,” but saying so is shorthand for pointing out how radical the changes to it might be. The government really wasn't going to “ban” our current cheap light bulbs, either, but it was going to set the efficiency standards for them so high that they'd be too costly to make, so “ban” was good shorthand for excessive government interference.
Now, Ramesh Ponnuru of The National Review makes essentially the same point, and better than I did:
One of the worst features of contemporary politics is the tendency -- found on the right, on the left and in between -- to label our opponents liars, often without a shred of evidence that the person we're attacking is saying something he knows to be false. PolitiFact makes that problem worse, not better, by giving a supposedly authoritative imprimatur to such loose accusations.
he reason we have politics at all is that we disagree, sometimes deeply, about how to promote the common good, and we need a peaceful and productive way to resolve or at least manage these disagreements. We disagree about how to improve U.S. health care, and we disagree about how each other's proposals to change it should be characterized. The pretense of PolitiFact, and other media “fact checkers,” is that many of our political disputes have obvious correct answers on which all reasonable people looking fairly at the evidence can agree -- and any other answer is “simply not true.”
This pretense really is false, and like dishonesty, it is corrosive.
I still contened, though, that PolitiFact is providing a valuable service, however misguided its intent and whether or not we agree with a specific lie label. By calling out excessive rhetoric and calling it a whopper, the "fact checkers" force partisans to go beyond the shorthand and fill in some of the context and nuance
Comments
I agree with you with one exception: There is no doubt in my mind that Sarah Palin really believes Obama's health care plan includes literal death panels. She has said it too many times, and far too clearly, for me to think otherwise. Also, she doesn't seem terribly bright.
Well Littlejohn, any time a panel of people decides whether or not you are worthy of the continued expense required to keep you alive, what would you call it?
semantics.....they decide if you live or die.
I don't think you can legitimately write it off as a euphemism or "shorthand" when it's clear that the term is being used to instill fear. A deliberate misrepresentation made for calculated effect is still effectively a lie.
any time a panel of people decides whether or not you are worthy of the continued expense required to keep you alive, what would you call it?
Whatever you choose to call them, these people exist today. They work for insurance companies.
Yes, Jim, but those insurance companies operate under the guidance of a capitalistic economic system which itself is under the guidance of a democratic political process...which is itself under the guidance of a capitalistic economic system.
Well, I was going to say that this proves that our current system is fair and nothing needs to be changed. But then I remembered how our "demcratic" political system actually works and realized that is total nonsense.
Jim & Phil, If an insurance screws you, at least you can sue them. If Obumblecare screws you you'll have no recourse at all.
That should read insurance company, sorry I sure don't want to bring out the language and spelling squad.
"If an insurance screws you, at least you can sue them."
HAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAhahahaaaaaaaa...
With what money? If you have enough money to sue an insurance company, you probably don't need insurance that badly.
I agree with Chris on this. It's like the FOI charade. If you have enough money to pay a lawyer to ask for the information, you might be taken seriously. And look at the Lemus-Rodriguez case with FWPD. The father got a third of a million, all because he was able to fly in here with lawyers at his side. But we were given the bill, told that nothing went wrong, and were told that we weren't allowed to see the evidence ourselves. We do not have an equal justice system in this country for rich and poor.
In Canada once you reach a particular age, you are no longer eligible for some healthcare procedures. They deem them not to be of value due to the person age and function after a particular procedure. They also have created standards based on the MASH unit where the more critical the problem, the sooner you see a doctor. For non life threatening examinations, it can take months to get an appointment.
Europe, Japan and many other countries with government run healthcare use the same basic structure. This is both good and bad. Good in that they have nearly a 100% utlization rate of equipment, structures and doctors; bad in that it may take you a long time to get into the que and see a doctor or receive treatment.
The closest thing we have in the US to a government healthcare system is the VA. The VA years ago had a lot of incompetent doctors. Today the doctors may be a bit better, but the number of people who are eligible (any veteran who meets a means tested criteria) can be part of the system. The VA is pretty good at scheduling routine examinations and emergencies, but anything else is poor. Even if your doctor requests another specialist, it can take years to see one.
Insurance companies need to make a profit or they go out of business. Governments may seem like sugar daddies able to pay for everything, but they too have limits. Just look at the outcry over the temporary payroll tax cut. Now the workers want to keep it, yet not pay for it. In my opinion it comes down to economics.
Remember the catostrofic healthcare bill passed ~20 years ago, that was supported by the seniors, but quickly repealed once the seniors found out they had to pay for it.
I most like have some spelling errors, sorry hope everyone can still read my intent.
Canada has a 15% sales tax as well as substantial income tax to pay for that national healthcare system. So you're right, Bill, there is no free lunch. I guess I'm a socialist for supporting it as I used to go there to gamble and drink.
Triage was invented by Napoleon's army doctors, and it gave him a substantial military advantage. It was used by MASH and it's used here as well as in Canada. Some patients will die, no matter what you do, so you have nurses make them comfortable. Some patients will recover no matter what you do, so they wait forever. For the remaining group, prompt expert care makes a big difference - and these patients go to the head of the line. So if you wait in the ER forever to be seen, you should feel fortunate, no matter how aggravating it seems.
This has nothing to do with who's paying the bills; it's simply good stewardship of limited resources.
My wife has vascular dementia, and it's hard to get in to see specialists who might help her. Frankly, I don't think there is much to be done. The radiology shows *nothing* in the front of her skull, where there ought to be brain. If I were a doctor, I'd rather be seeing someone I can help, too. On the other hand, I'm in the early stages of kidney disease, and doctors see me early and often, and seem very hopeful.
And I love Medicare. Doctors welcome me. One of them says Medicare pays less, but they pay promptly, without arguing. Dealing with private insurance takes a lot more manhours for their insurance clerks because the insurance companies are always trying to weasel out of paying.
Sue an insurance company? They spend a lot on their insurance staffs because it's cheaper than paying the claims they are legally committed to pay. Bloodsucking weasels and cheats! They oughta go into honest work like selling dope and pimping little girls.
The problem with Medicare is economics. It is based on the a similar premise as Social Security Disability. The difference is where as disability due to job are decreasing, the definition of disability is changing. As new treatments become available, people survive longer; surviving longer increases costs.
Medicare cannot pay current promised benefits to those who are over 65, let alone those who are younger. There is a disconnect between what was paid in and what is being paid out.
Something has to give. In many ways paying into Medicare today while young may actually make you less well in the future when you may actually be eligible for Medicare. Though the tax is only 2.9% of income, there are lots of people who struggle to pay even a few doctor visits a year. To me we started with the wrong age group. When Medicare started, we should have started with the young so that when they reached 65, they would be healthier. But then, they most likely would live longer and that would make things worse for Social Security.
The problem is there is no free lunch, no matter how politicians like to talk about such things.
Insurance companies are a middle man. Medicare is a middleman that reimburses doctors far less than the cost shifting cost to others driving up the costs for all others.
Or, insurance as it is now is the middleman that drives up the cost by skewing "what the market will bear," and thus causes that price increase to others as a means of increasing its own profits.
I am not sure of the years gone by when the Wallstreet Journal reported on a new approach to healthcare or maybe going back in time.
A group of doctors who became upset with the cost of healthcare (filing insurance, Medicare and billing) decided to not accept any insurance, Medicaid or Medicare period. This eliminated about 25% of the cost. In return they lowered the price for office visits and all other tests, etc. All they required was payment at time of delivery. This they said saw an increase in treatment and a reduction in non healthcare time.
People who had insurance would simply file their claim with the insurance company instead of the healthcare provider and the insured would be sent any payment.
At the time of the article there were many more offices scheduled to open. I have no idea where it is now.
As for insurance profits, they fall in line with those of grocery stores. In addition, most state laws require the insurance company to hold a large fraction of premiums in reserve for potential payouts. When the reserve falls below a set amount, the state insurance board comes in and closes down the operation. This is done to minimize loss to the insured; company broke cannot pay claims on which they collected premiums.