Republicans waved a new flag of health reform opposition right after New Year’s, when Florida governor Charlie Crist attacked the president for health care secrecy—the same sort of attack Republicans and other opponents used on Hillary Clinton back in 1993. Said Crist:
It seems that a bill that was crafted in a closed door, backroom meeting in the White House will end the same way. President Obama has broken his pledge to the American people to be transparent throughout this process and Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have only aided in the secrecy with sweetheart deals and dead of the night votes.
Crist, who earned his transparency bona fides by creating his state’s Office of Open Government, claimed the president broke a campaign promise to have “the negotiations televised on C-SPAN so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies. That approach, I think is what is going to allow people to stay involved in this process.”
Republicans and the media smelled a good story. The St. Petersburg Times’s Truth-O-Meter ruled that Crist was right. The Christian Science Monitor picked up the thread, quoting Rep. Tom Price, a Georgia Republican who opined that “negotiations are obviously being done in secret and the American people really just want to know what they are trying to hide.” Jake Tapper and Diane Sawyer got involved and ABC viewers learned that the president had gone back on his word.
Obama told Sawyer “it’s my responsibility…to own up to the fact that the process didn’t run the way I ideally would like it to.” When Sawyer pressed about the deals in Nebraska and Florida, the president shot back that he didn’t “make a bunch of deals,” and blamed them on Congress. “I am happy to own up to the fact that I have not changed Congress and how it operates the way I would have liked,” he told her. House Republicans sent the president a letter decrying the “ongoing secret health care negotiations among Democrats in Congress” and insisting that Obama not sign any bill “crafted in a backroom deal.” A case of the pot calling the kettle black? Republicans made the same sorts of backroom deals in 2003, during the negotiations for the Medicare prescription drug benefit.
It strikes me that the president’s mea culpa on health reform transparency (or lack thereof) deserves media attention beyond simply passing along sound bites from Republicans who have latched onto a new reason to oppose health reform. Health reform transparency is more complicated than whether C-SPAN televises some proceeding like Obama promised they would in the heat of the campaign.
Here’s where the president and the press went astray. We have known for a long time what the bill would do and how different groups of people would be affected. But neither the president nor most of the media have have made those details transparent. If the president wanted the public to be involved in the process, as he told Diane Sawyer he wanted them to be, he needed to be honest and transparent about several things:
• How the requirement to buy health insurance would work and who would face tax penalties for not complying.
• How the public plan was just a bargaining chip to be traded away and that, as it was envisioned, very few could actually buy insurance from it.
• How, even with subsidies, millions of people would have to spend eight or ten percent of their income for health insurance.
• How Americans with employer-based coverage the president said they could keep face higher and higher deductibles resulting in more out-of-pocket medical expenses, leaving them underinsured if catastrophic illness strikes.
• How the lack of strong cost containment measures made the slogan “affordable, quality health care” virtually meaningless, because special interests with the most to lose didn’t want them.
- 1
- 2
Ms. Lieberman claims: "We have known for a long time what the bill would do and how different groups of people would be affected"
padikiller asks: ???????????????????
What "bill"? The House bill? The entirely different, and slightly less communist, Senate bill? One of the secret compromise bills that are being hammered out by the Dems behind closed doors?
Of course, we can't get agreement between the White House, Congress (or even between houses of Congress), the CBO, or interest groups on precisely what any of these 2000 page monstrosities mean to average Americans, so I am real glad to hear that Ms. Lieberman and her friends who constitute "we" have it all figured out.
Lay it on us, Ms. Lieberman! We're all ears!
#1 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Wed 10 Feb 2010 at 07:06 PM
C-Span is most excellent at explaining complex issues or concepts in their in-depth interview formats. (TR Reid is scheduled for a 3-hour in-depth interview in March, which could be helpful in enlightening the public conversation). Good, understandable information also comes out when they broadcast panel discussions/debates as they did recently with this interesting session at UVA (the Q&A at the end was the most interesting, particularly the comments of the German economist about the current situation with Germany's health system): http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/290724-1.
Personally, I thought it was really not worth pre-empting Book TV for the Senate vote. It's important that they document the official proceedings but health reform is too complex to gain useful understanding just by watching Congress-cam. Also by the time they're voting on such important issues, the public can do nothing about their decisions other than cheer or boo. Also Congress uses those sessions to inflame public opinion by throwing out buzz words or other pieces of shallow commentary which is another form of public-debate pollution (more bad hot air for a topic that needs clear deep breaths).
C-Span's Writers in America series was a great format that could be adapted for health reform if, instead on focusing on the career of one writer at a time, they focused on the history and practice of healthcare in one universal-coverage country at a time.
I just searched C-Span and found zero results for William Hsiao. I think Brian Lamb should spend some quality time with the Harvard professor who designed Taiwan's health system that provides affordable, universal coverage for the people of Taiwan.
#2 Posted by MB, CJR on Thu 11 Feb 2010 at 12:21 PM
MB wrote: " I think Brian Lamb should spend some quality time with the Harvard professor who designed Taiwan's health system that provides affordable, universal coverage for the people of Taiwan."
padikiller notes: Taiwan's single-payer healthcare system may be "universal" (in it's lousiness - a typical doctor's visits lasts 2 minutes) but it is hardly "affordable"... Indeed the National Health plan is running deeply in the red, and has become a political football.
#3 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Thu 11 Feb 2010 at 01:55 PM
Trudy,
Your bulleted list of items is the closest any media outlet has come to approaching root-level questioning on this issue. Thank you.
Still, there are more important points all journalists leave out: legal and moral (i.e., NOT political or partisan) arguments for and against the policy of public health care from the get-go.
Constitutional arguments, for example.
Where does the Constitution grant the FedGov the authority to require American individuals or collectives to purchase a product as a condition for lawful residence?
If it's the "interstate commerce," "supremacy" or "general welfare" clause, then that means that the FedGov can do anything under the sun so long as the FedGov rules that the FedGov is lawfully carrying out the execution of said clauses.
In which case, who is there to protect me from my "protectors"? Ah! Perhaps the "several (individual) states" DO have supremacy over the FedGov, as the Founders intended. Perhaps nullification IS a lawful avenue to resist central transgressions upon life, liberty, and property.
These are the types of root-level arguments that should be aired in major news media coverage of these issues; else, the news media render themselves superficial truth-diggers at best, and politically-and financially-motivated shills for policymakers, at worst.
#4 Posted by Dan Alba, CJR on Thu 11 Feb 2010 at 01:59 PM
To whom in the federal government would I have to swear that I did or did not have a health insurance policy? If I didn't have one, and did not even want one, would I be forced to "testify" against myslef in violation of the fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution? Why does Congress assume it has the power to suspend any part or all of the Constitution? The Preamble to the Constitution grants Congress the power to" promote" the general welfare, not provide,
or establish, compulsory, unfunded mandates. The "mainstream media" conveniently ignores this aspect of the debate about reforming health insurance coverage. The legislation is not about healthcare at all. It's about cutting the cost of what the federal government has to pay under current laws, passed by Congress during the past 50 years. It's their fault, and they want you to pay for it.
#5 Posted by D. Matthews, CJR on Thu 11 Feb 2010 at 03:39 PM
D.Matthews asks: "Why does Congress assume it has the power to suspend any part, or all, of the Constitution?" I would add, why does Obama assume he has the right to order the murder of an American citizen or anyone else, for that matter?
Because the American people are the most docile, ignorant, and couch-loving people in the world.
#6 Posted by Alice de Tocqueville, CJR on Fri 12 Feb 2010 at 08:33 AM