In discussing the Obama administration's healthcare plan, it seems like a lot of false details have been proliferated. I've heard from various sources that the plan would include plans to encourage euthanasia of the elderly and the ability of the government to stop treatment of the elderly who have expensive treatments but not a long life-expectancy. CNN has a "Truth Squad" whose sole goal is to measure the veracity of such claims and has been busy investigating one false rumor after another about the health plan.
I'm wondering who is to blame for these misconceptions, and worse whether it's misinformation or deliberate disinformation. I think it's easy to jump to the conclusion that opponents of the health plan have tried to create a climate of fear surrounding the reforms. At the same time, I can't help but think that the administration has done a very poor job in giving the facts to the people. This is complicated by the fact that this reform is HUGE. Getting the government involved directly in healthcare and in determining appropriate treatments for various diagnoses creates an entirely new role for the government. Also remember that healthcare represents a large and growing percentage of the entire economy (I think around 10%).
I think the truth is that no one really knows what the reforms will ultimately look like, so it's difficult for the legislators to convey what will happen to the public. When there is such uncertainty, people are understandably scared and prone to misinformation and disinformation. In my opinion, the reforms should be much more narrow in scope. For example, programs to encourage preventive medicine through government agencies or subsidies to healthcare providers. That would narrow the conversation down to the merit of preventive medicine, which has often come up in discussions of the health plan, without conflating it with the myriad of other changes that are occurring. In the end, I'm personally skeptical of government involvement when it's not clearly delineated. The biggest reason for intervention seems to be rising healthcare costs and to provide universal coverage. I'd prefer to see plans to address those issues separately so I could better understand the logic of the reforms. The bogus rumors are just a result of the fact that no one, including a lot of the legislators, really knows what this plan will do.
4 comments:
Hehe, you and I already began a conversation on this, and you know I disagree. :)
I like the post, and I agree with you that part of the misinformation problem is that the reform is complicated and the gov't hasn't done particularly well in clarifying everything.
But I also think that the complexity of the debate, and the proposed plan, reflects the nature of trying to attack what's really a multi-dimensional problem. And, unfortunately, I do think that the core principle of health care reform - universal health care - can't be compromised in favor of merely step-by-step reforms (e.g. incentivizing preventative medicine). On the other hand, it's also not feasible to achieve without controlling costs.
... which is why the whole thing gets complicated, of course.
Other question ... should illegal immigrants be able to access whatever form of 'universal health care' emerges?
p.s. I know what your brother would say. ;P
I still think the issues CAN be separated. Cost saving measures are good whether or not we have universal health care. I think it follows that if we make healthcare cheaper in general, in the future adopting universal health care would be far easier and acceptable to the public.
I know it's the nature of politics to bundle things together to get enough votes but here I think it's leading to inaction.
Post a Comment