A truly transparent process would tell Medicare beneficiaries that buried deep in the legislation are provisions that would require them to shoulder more their medical costs when they buy Medicare supplement policies Plans F and C, the most popular plans. Right now most seniors don’t have a clue they might have to pay more.
Would they learn all this on C-SPAN or at Obama’s next televised event? Maybe, maybe not. If Harry Reid had made his deal with Ben Nelson on C-SPAN, would there have been a deal at all? Who knows? My guess is that the two would have signaled to each other in a code that few listeners could make out. Or does the public still need a go-between like the press to explain it for them? In my book, the need for that press function has not disappeared.
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