Every lobbyist swarming Capitol Hill these days knows that, when it comes to legislation, the devil is always lurking in the details, not lounging in the concepts. Yet concepts, not details, are drifting down to the public—who will be in for a surprise when they realize that reform is not what they think it is. How these details are hashed out, or slipped into a bill at the eleventh hour is crucial to the success or failure of reform. This is the sixth of a series of occasional posts that will look at where the devil lies in key provisions of the health care bill. The entire series is archived here.
Bill Clinton’s heart stents gave Fox News a chance to take a whack at health reform. This time the issue was comparative effectiveness, which means systematically comparing, based on scientific evidence, how effective two or more treatments are in treating disease. While this sounds straightforward enough, comparative effectiveness is not a slam dunk. Supporters promise that it will save money, a prediction that may or may not come true. Some doctors, who are used to raking in big bucks from ineffective treatments, aren’t keen on the idea. Neither are right-wing ideologues who use comparative effectiveness to invoke the specter of rationing and to whip up hysteria against reform in general. Pity the poor patient denied some advertised life-saving treatment, even if its efficacy is questionable!
That’s the line that Fox took the other day, implying rather clumsily that the former president might not have gotten his stents if the Democrats’ health reform “had gone through.” Fox & Friends host Brian Kilmeade got right to his point by asking the network’s legal analyst, Peter J. Johnson, Jr., if Clinton would have gotten his stents. “I do think under a lot of protocols, he would have gotten those stents,” Johnson replied, and then quickly moved to the “what if” part of the conversation. He cited the sums the government plans to spend on comparative effectiveness research—the $1.1 billion called for by the stimulus bill and the nearly $300 million requested in President Obama’s budget—which could create, he said, “best practices, a standard of care.” Johnson went on, getting in his licks about the Obama crew:
If the government decides to adopt the Peter Orszag, budget director, architect of health care, method and put in regulations that say there is a gold standard, there is a best practice based on the literature, perhaps hundreds of thousands of people like the president.
- 1
- 2
Wow, an attack singling out Fox News coverage! How daring! How refreshing!
In the meantime, the mainstream broadcast media was joining the administration in an exceptional effort to promote his brand of health care 'reform' as soon as he took office. There were no tough questions asked. The Democratic narrative that the public is panting to have its health care even more directly controlled by politicians was accepted by rapt, adoring minds. The massive miscalculation by the Administration, and press complicity in it - which may cost it control of Congress in November, showing the Clinton lessons were not learned by slow-minded liberals - is not ruthlessly scrutinized at CJR. Instead, when in doubt, attack Fox News by holding it to much higher standards than other more liberal news outlets.
#1 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Tue 16 Feb 2010 at 12:27 PM
SOMEHOW each of is going to have to learn how our body works in relation to medications and surgical treatments and genetics plus good health care and environment. But seemingly that's too much of a mouthful for 2/3 of our population to take in. I can't use a generic form of a medication because stops the other kind that needs to work to keep me out of a sanitarium--at least from 1957 on. My 93 year old father just had stents put into his heart which has 5 valves not 4 like normal people. The 5th one kept him alive from Sterling , IL to Davenport, IA in an ambulance--about 60 miles one way. He returned to have his stents checked and they added from 2 to 5 with 3-4 medications mostly in the morning. His father lived until 4 weeks before his 97th birthday and had only medications and wine to take him through three heart attacks in the 60's and 70's. He died of prostate cancer--not heart trouble. We must check back over our family history, our health habits--good and bad--and the environment we live in. In many ways that can tell us and our doctors what is better for you as an individual. Also, if the doctor doesn't like being told what you have learned over the past years and either insists on you using something detrimental or useless to you--change doctors. I have had to change doctors because one insisted on my being tested for osteoporous--my age I HAD to have it as a female--but I don't. I do have osteominosis(old bones) but at 671/2 What else should I expect? Also, none of my grandmothers, aunts nor my mother had osteoporous. The first ones died at 75-80, my aunts all lived past 80 and my Mother lived until 88--despite her polio at 3 years old. All my relatives for 4 generations have lived in farmlands or small towns, so the air and water were much better for them than any big city. This "black sheep" does live in a big city--over 1 million people but no industries for air pollution and the land and water pollution (IBM, etc) is south so the likelihood is less though more dangerous than smalltown midwest America. Keep a good watch over your health and habits for eating, sleeping, exercise and medical necessities and you'll do well. Double check your family tree and it may be better than mine. If not, be prepared and ask questions and don't fear changing doctors or asking a second one. But haven't most of you heard this before???!!!
#2 Posted by Patricia Wilson, CJR on Tue 16 Feb 2010 at 07:26 PM
I would like to thank Fox News ,because of all the Half truths ,lies, and fear mongering it looks like the Dems. are finally going to get some balls and pass health care reform.
Except this time the bill will have a public option or expanded medicare, no more anti-trust monopolies,and the ability to import drugs from other countries.
They are going to do this with 51 votes .
The true winners are the American people and the people who are now on medicare as this will help save it .
The Dems. will be rewarded for this in Nov. because the people Know if they leave it for the Repubs. that nothing will happen but a few more tax breaks to the top 1%.And then more people losing their insurance and their homes in the middle class. Thanks Fox News, without you and the Tea baggers you sent to Mass. we would have been stuck with a much worse bill.
#3 Posted by Mikey, CJR on Fri 19 Feb 2010 at 01:00 PM