I watch with bemused detachment.
We all know (or should know by now) that most policy is not based on a rational assessment of data. Science matters not a whit in the world of media pundits. All that matters is the trio of power, money and politics. In entertainment television news, the sound bite and five-second image makes the anecdote one of the most powerful policy tools available.
What? Nobody on the right anticipated that the Dems would parade a child affected by the SCHIP veto? Duh. The only possible response would be to attack the eligibility of the child and their family. "They're too rich." "They don't deserve help." Did anyone on the right realize their response would paint them as heartless goobers?
For the background, Graeme Frost is a 12-year old with a brain injury who was trotted by some pretty smart strategists looking to build opposition against the President's veto of the SCHIP reauthorization bill over Medicaid expansion. The Republicans attacked with a characteristic degree of opprobrium which was only unusual and inadvisable in its intensity. The commentary has been incredible (but Ann Coulter's miserably stupid misrepresentation of Christianity's beliefs is higher on the Technorati's top searches.)
Here is a sample of editorial and blog commentary:
Paul Krugman at the New York Times
Jean Marbella of The Baltimore Sun
The big pharma puppets at Drug Wonks
Ann Coulter wanna-be Michelle Malkin (talk about nauseating)
Multiple commentaries in the mainstream press collected by the Kaiser Foundation and on and on. They have been collecting opeds daily for weeks.
Jon Cohn (a conservative voice in support of SCHIP) in the New Republic, plus TNR's additional commentary on the blog war.
An exchange courtesy of The Cato.
Think Progress
Health Affairs
Reproductive Health Reality Check
The whack jobs at Insure Blog analyzing the cost of insurance in Baltimore (laughable.)
The Health Care Blog
Megan McArdle, one of the most intelligent commentators on the subject, here, here and here.
Finally, Gary Schweitzer highlights the fact that this veto makes for great comedy.
I side with Megan, this entire blowup was predictable. Ronald Reagan was the father of the anecdote and the use of a personal story to drive policy. It is fair play. So what the heck did Republicans expect? The right's response has been an irresponsible, shallow, stupid knee-jerk which will galvanize the country and assure expanded coverage. This is the outcome of the SCHIP war.
Our problem now is how to pay for the coming health system and how to control costs. I am not sure how increasing consumerism in health care fits in with further insulating consumers from the costs of their health care. But finally, the debate will have to move to where it rightly belongs.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Thanks for collecting the commentaries. I was thinking of doing the same thing on my blog. For all of the ideologically-based, emotionally-heated, irrational arguments surrounding SCHIP and 'government-run' healthcare, the fundamental issues of cost, quality, efficiency, safety, access, and delivery are being swept into the corner, behind the sofa, under the rug, beneath the guise of politics and responsibility.
I like one of the points that Megan made, especially since it is reflects the frustration I have experienced in dealing with the 'safety net' system. Being forced into living at poverty levels simply to gain access to necessary medication is insane and financially irresponsible.
Megan said: "...this actually raises important issues about benefits that no one is asking. To wit: should we expect families to sell assets in order to qualify for benefits? On the one hand, Medicaid's ludicrous rules keep disabled people in crippling poverty. On the other hand many people, including me, don't want to pay for the health care of someone so that they can stay in their Park Avenue mansion."
So where would you, as an individual caught in the web of chronic disease, decide is an appropriate threshold to require the selling of assets.
Megan raised an important issue, one which is difficult to operationalize. Where can you draw the line and how, so that a business person can set up a set of business rules to indicate when a patient would need to sell assets in order to continue being eligible for benefits?
It's a really tough question, because you no one wants to lose their property due to events beyond their control. But taxpayers cannot be held accountable for all costs associated with that illness.
But it is a substantive issue worthy of discussion, unlike... well, let me stop there.
Any thoughts?
I considered your questions and have posted on the subject over on my blog. Come on over.
When Should Tax Payers Pick Up the Tab?
Sincerely, Lisa
Post a Comment