Donkasaurus Post

Our debate on the issue of health care overhaul has not been very informed.

This is a result, it seems, of poor communications and perhaps idealistic hopes on the part of some Democrats; misinformation and misimpressions spread on the part of many health care reform “opponents;” and, perhaps lamentably, a rather prevalent pattern of superficial coverage of the issue by the media.

Is Obama’s promise to pay for health care reform very realistic? Without better articulation of the plan by Democrats, it’s hard to see how. 

It also seems to us, here, that “effectively” mandating that individuals purchase health insurance via high tax penalties, is a terrible idea. 

In addition to more indirect “forced incentive” on what is more of an individual than a collective decision (as opposed, say, to sensible environmental policies — which effect the one true thing, aside from national defense, which we must share whether we like it or not), health insurance, we believe, is part of the problem, more than the solution.  As we stated here:

We think health insurance — at least health insurance that rakes up  overhead, profits, paperwork, and other garganguan and unnecessary “middleman” costs while covering most routine things that insurees could afford themselves (at least, could afford if they were not paying an arm and a let, so to speak, on health insurance), rather than that which just provides for true “security protection,” aka catastrophic losses — is a big part of the problem.

And which, we might add, often winds up limiting individual patient choice. At the same time , it often severely curtails and even economically dictates their care by way of “pre authorization” review –which an average patient might feel economically compelled to follow, having given most of their health care dollars over to insurance companies rather than put it directly into their own health care — or wind up paying large amounts for care that it already paid out insurance funds in order to cover.

But at the same time, improving the efficiency of a vastly inefficient system would generate enormous savings, and , as we stated here – along with the reasons why — there is something very sensible to be said for it.  And our health care model is certainly not working. 

The question is of course whether Congress is capable of passing a bill that might accomplish this, while not limiting choice and not increasing governmental influence and dictate.

There is also something to be said for Robert Samuelson’s column (which is not often the case – at least in so far as that that something is both positive, and objective) yesterday on health care.   But what Samuelson really deserves credit for, is for so mightily struggling to achieve actual balance, and, in his words, “fairness.”  That is, in the 3d millenium mantra of the media’s definition of it therein,  making sure to always criticize both sides equally or close to it.

To wit:

Obama’s selling of “reform” qualifies as high-class hucksterism, but in fairness, many conservative opponents match or exceed his exaggerations and distortions with low-class fear-mongering.

See, now Samuelson has been “fair.” (And “balanced”!)

It seems to us that the characterization of Obama’s “selling” of ” reform”  as hucksterism, is subjective; and in fact might well be incorrect. But “in fairness,” were this not treated the same way as non subjective, objective misrepresentations and lies, why then, our nation’s prominent “common sense” economic commentator, could not be as “fair” and “balanced” as he is.   Because if those in the media know anything, it’s that if they are not able to often criticize some notion of “sides” in roughly equivalent measure, they are being unfair.

So when Obama promises (as others, particularly on the far right, have written quite scathingly, if not altogether objectively, about) to ultimately be able to pay for health care reform by actually reforming the way in which government tax dollars are currently frittered about — to the tune of more than almost anything else that our government spends money on, and rapidly rising — he is dissembling.  To Samuelson, and others.

It is ironic. The main fair criticism of these health care proposals is that they could add significantly to the already burgeoning budget deficit. The main unfair criticism (in fact, “lie,”) is that they will ration treatment and care and take away decision making on the part of an individual seeking that care, any more so than is currently done.  Yet these criticisms stem from complete and often abject misrepresentations of most potentially sensible and otherwise non rationing, non restrictive, proposals to in fact seek to sensibly curtail costs, so that our health care system can be reformed without adding much in the way of net costs.

Which leaves us with the quandary that people essentially are driven not by facts on this issue (hence how we can debate it so vociferously as a country for months, when most participants in that debate know practically next to nothing about the actual issue and proposals), but whether they think we should do something about it or are morally compelled to make sure the uninsured have coverage in any regard, or those that think doing something about it will not help, and that we are not so morally compelled.

Which gets back to the issue of  what exactly the current  problems are, and how the current proposals will help, while not undermining other rights.

Which gets back to the issue of communication.