Why the Public is Genuinely Confused About Health Care Reform

The principle foundation of a democracy relies on an informed electorate. But the true bastions of that democracy, a free and impartial press, lately have been consistently sleeping on the job. Consider this: today, Alan Fram of the Associated Press writes the following:

The Democrats seem ready to use "reconciliation," a seldom-used procedure that could let them push legislation through the Senate with a simple majority. Republicans say reconciliation should be used for budget changes, not a dramatic reshaping of national health care policy. With polls showing that some voters consider the process unfair, some moderate Democrats have expressed a reluctance to support it. Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, D-S.D., said Friday she will be a "definite no" if it is used.

Seldom used? Health Care reform has traditionally been shaped by reconciliation in this country. COBRA was created by reconciliation, which is what the "R" in the acronym stands for. So was S-CHIP. And to make things worse, this simple sentence suggests that a simple majority vote represents some sort of unsavory legislative tactic, as opposed to the normal way the senate has operated for centuries. Is it little wonder that "polls [show] that some voters consider the process unfair"?

Truth is majority rule is normal. The Reconciliation process is also normal. MSNBCs Rachel Maddow outlines its use over the past 28 years.

Rachel Maddow Feb 24
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#35573155

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Out of 22 times reconciliation has been used in recent years, 16 of those times they were used by Republicans to strong-arm their efforts through Congress. Now they claim the process is seldom used. Seldom used by whom? Democrats? Where is the fact-checking here? Why did such a blatantly false comment so blithely slip past the Associated Press without question?

What is new is how Republican lawmakers have hijacked the filibuster, virtually bringing the legislative process to a standstill. Maybe I missed it, but did Mr. Fram simlarly condemn this process, which truly isn't normal?

Rachel Maddow (MSNBC): http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#35359330

Watch the Rachel Maddow Show for fair, impartial analysis of world news and health care reform.

There was a time when truth took precedence and facts mattered. A time when we didn't justify repeating or reporting blatantly false information by blaming the source. And we didn't go back to a source who consistently provided erroneous information.

More than 200 bills are currently bogged down in the Senate, held hostage by Republican filibusters. Bills that would help families who are facing foreclosure or that would help create jobs. Where are the stories about how the entire legislative process has come to a standstill, making it virtually impossible to pass simple legislation with a clear majority vote. Where are the investigative, in-depth stories about that?

Rachel Maddow (Feb 23): http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#35551900

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

When the President announced his plans for a health care summit to bring both Democrats and Republicans to the table for a substantive discussion on health care reform he expressed optimism that Republicans truly cared about this country, as opposed to just scoring political points. It was a genuine opportunity for both sides to "roll up their sleeves" and get to down to real work on real issues and come to a common understanding.

But as you can see from these before and after clips, Republicans used the opportunity for "more of the same."

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Do you really call this patriotism?

Hardball with Chris Matthews (Feb 25) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/#35594811

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Republicans seem quick to claim they care about this country and about what Americans want. They claim the overwhelming majority of the country who voted for the President and who support health care reform aren't "real Americans." Yet, they spread misinformation routinely that seldom gets challenged in any meaningful way by the press. Case in point: All the brouhaha over carrying the health care debate on C-Span.

John McCain made a point blaming the President for not showing the health care debate on C-Span, as if the President has any choice about what C-Span does or does not air. Anyone who follows C-Span knows that the debate over health care has been part of their coverage as a normal part of what they cover every day. Just because there was no one single "show" that exclusively focused on health care doesn't mean it hasn't been on the air, and has been on the air since the bill was introduced last year through passing both House and Senate. What hasn't been on C-Span is the part that C-Span never covers, efforts after a bill has passed both chambers of the house.

What McCain didn't mention was all the amendments to the existing health care bill that were made to adopt his own recommendations.

The White House currently lists all the amendments to the original health care proposal taken from suggestions made by Republicans. So much for trying to force legislation through with no no-bipartisanship.

So what's next? It's time to move forward. The Health Care summit showed clearly that the Republican party has no interest in making legislation or listening to the majority of the American people. Their only goal seemingly is to completely thwart and circumvent the legislative process.

Hardball with Chris Matthews (Feb 26): http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/#35611531

Speaking Truth to Talking Point - Rachel Maddow Fact Checks Right

Rachel Maddow fact checks the right-wing's "blame the Democrats" philosophy on her February 18 show on MSNBC.

Rachel Maddow Show (air date 2/182010)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#35470419

Watch the Rachel Maddow Show for fair and impartial analysis of world news, and news about health care reform

Health Care Reform Dirty Tricks

Health insurance companies are using the popular Facebook game, Mafia Wars to generate anti-health care reform letters to Congress from unsuspecting players. MSNBC's Rachel Maddow explains.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Tim Wise Discusses the Racial Undertones of Health Care Reform

Tim Wise talks about the "elephant-in-the-room" in health care reform debate, as he discusses a woman dragged from a town hall meeting when her Rosa Parks poster is destroyed.

At What Price Affordable Health Care?

Proponents say the government-funded option would come at a lower price and would keep the market competitive, preventing private firms from driving up costs. The public plan would be available for individuals and small business owners who fall short of a predetermined income level.

Health Care in US? A Matter of Debate
http://news.aol.com/article/health-care-concerns-for-individuals-and/610094

The Swiss Menace

Every wealthy country other than the United States guarantees essential care to all its citizens. There are, however, wide variations in the specifics, with three main approaches taken.

From by Paul Krugmam, The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/17/opinion/17krugman.html?_r=1

It was the blooper heard round the world. In an editorial denouncing Democratic health reform plans, Investor’s Business Daily tried to frighten its readers by declaring that in Britain, where the government runs health care, the handicapped physicist Stephen Hawking “wouldn’t have a chance,” because the National Health Service would consider his life “essentially worthless.”

Professor Hawking, who was born in Britain, has lived there all his life, and has been well cared for by the National Health Service, was not amused.

Besides being vile and stupid, however, the editorial was beside the point. Investor’s Business Daily would like you to believe that Obamacare would turn America into Britain — or, rather, a dystopian fantasy version of Britain. The screamers on talk radio and Fox News would have you believe that the plan is to turn America into the Soviet Union. But the truth is that the plans on the table would, roughly speaking, turn America into Switzerland — which may be occupied by lederhosen-wearing holey-cheese eaters, but wasn’t a socialist hellhole the last time I looked.

Let’s talk about health care around the advanced world.

Every wealthy country other than the United States guarantees essential care to all its citizens. There are, however, wide variations in the specifics, with three main approaches taken.

In Britain, the government itself runs the hospitals and employs the doctors. We’ve all heard scare stories about how that works in practice; these stories are false. Like every system, the National Health Service has problems, but over all it appears to provide quite good care while spending only about 40 percent as much per person as we do. By the way, our own Veterans Health Administration, which is run somewhat like the British health service, also manages to combine quality care with low costs.

The second route to universal coverage leaves the actual delivery of health care in private hands, but the government pays most of the bills. That’s how Canada and, in a more complex fashion, France do it. It’s also a system familiar to most Americans, since even those of us not yet on Medicare have parents and relatives who are.

Again, you hear a lot of horror stories about such systems, most of them false. French health care is excellent. Canadians with chronic conditions are more satisfied with their system than their U.S. counterparts. And Medicare is highly popular, as evidenced by the tendency of town-hall protesters to demand that the government keep its hands off the program.

Finally, the third route to universal coverage relies on private insurance companies, using a combination of regulation and subsidies to ensure that everyone is covered. Switzerland offers the clearest example: everyone is required to buy insurance, insurers can’t discriminate based on medical history or pre-existing conditions, and lower-income citizens get government help in paying for their policies.

In this country, the Massachusetts health reform more or less follows the Swiss model; costs are running higher than expected, but the reform has greatly reduced the number of uninsured. And the most common form of health insurance in America, employment-based coverage, actually has some “Swiss” aspects: to avoid making benefits taxable, employers have to follow rules that effectively rule out discrimination based on medical history and subsidize care for lower-wage workers.

So where does Obamacare fit into all this? Basically, it’s a plan to Swissify America, using regulation and subsidies to ensure universal coverage.

If we were starting from scratch we probably wouldn’t have chosen this route. True “socialized medicine” would undoubtedly cost less, and a straightforward extension of Medicare-type coverage to all Americans would probably be cheaper than a Swiss-style system. That’s why I and others believe that a true public option competing with private insurers is extremely important: otherwise, rising costs could all too easily undermine the whole effort.

But a Swiss-style system of universal coverage would be a vast improvement on what we have now. And we already know that such systems work.

So we can do this. At this point, all that stands in the way of universal health care in America are the greed of the medical-industrial complex, the lies of the right-wing propaganda machine, and the gullibility of voters who believe those lies.

Correction: In Friday’s column I mistakenly asserted that Senator Johnny Isakson was responsible for a provision in a House bill that would allow Medicare to pay for end-of-life counseling. In fact, he is responsible for a provision in a Senate bill that would allow a different, newly created government program to pay for such counseling.