The Swiftboating of Health Reform

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Recently, in two separate conversations, I heard senior Democratic officials remark that they were taken aback by the right's distortions in the health care debate. My initial reaction was surprise: What did they expect? We've seen this before. But I'm coming around to their point of view.

Exhibit number one is the treatment of Eziekel Emanuel, the distinguished oncologist and bioethicist who is working on health reform at the Office of Management and Budget. In the course of his writings, which span academia and popular publications, he has argued forcefully and clearly against physician-assisted suicide. Yet somehow Emanuel finds himself accused of--wait for it--advocating physician assisted suicide.

Writing in the New York Post, Betsy McCaughey suggested that Emanuel wanted to ration care so that a "grandmother with Parkinson's or a child with cerebral palsy" couldn't get care. Soon Michelle Bachmann, Sarah Palin, and right-wing websites were piling on, calling Emanuel "Doctor Death." All of this about a man who, rather than using his considerable talents to get rich, has devoted his life to healing individuals--and improving the human condition. Oh, and did I mention his sister has cerebral palsy?

My colleague Harold Pollack touched on this earlier, as have other writers. Today, Time's Michael Scherer did, as well, with an item worth quoting at length:

In her

Post

article, McCaughey paints the worst possible image of Emanuel, quoting him, for instance, endorsing age discrimination for health-care distribution, without mentioning that he was only addressing extreme cases like organ donation where there is an absolute scarcity of resources. She quotes him discussing the denial of care for people with dementia, without revealing that Emanuel only mentioned dementia in a discussion of theoretical approaches, not an endorsement of a particular policy. She notes that he has criticized medical culture for trying to do everything for a patient, "regardless of the cost or effects on others," without making clear that he was not speaking of lifesaving care but of treatments with little demonstrated value. "No one who has read what I have done for 25 years would come to the conclusions that have been put out there," says Emanuel. "My quotes were just being taken out of context."

But that's not all, sadly. The attack on Emanuel is part of a broader offensive--an effort to persuade anxious Americans that health reformers will harm people who are seriously ill or who have disabilities. The argument seems to be resonating with at least some Americans. Whether it's a lot or a few is impossible to say from the television images. But even a few would be a few too many.

Every year, millions of families struggle to get affordable medical care for themselves or their loved ones--and end up in financial ruin, going without medical care, or some combination of the two. Many of these cases involve diseases like cerebral palsy or Parkinson's--or other conditions that require ongoing, expensive care.

Insurance companies try their best to avoid taking on these people. Apply for an indivdiual policy with one of these pre-existing conditions and an insurer will reject you if it can. If it can't--if, say, you're lucky enough to get coverage through an employer--you may well find the insurance doesn't cover what you need.

Changing that isn't merely a by-product of reform. It's the whole point of reform. The plan Obama and his allies support would make coverage avialable to everybody regardless of pre-existing medical conditions. It would require insurers to cover a broad range of medical servcies. And it would police insurers to make sure they didn't try to get around those requirements. No less important, the health reform measures moving through Congress have special provisions within them to help people with disabilities, like the Community Living Assistance and Services and Supports (CLASS) Act that disability community advocates support strongly.

It'd be one thing if the lunatics on the right had a coherent argument for why these initiatives might be ineffective or counterproductive. But they don't even bother to acknowledge them, preferring instead to throw out scare quotes like this one from Palin: "Who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course."

Of course, not all conservatives stoop to this level. You can have a rational, if still contentious, deate over health reform with the likes of Stuart Butler (who studies health policy at the Heritage Foundation) or Gail Wilensky (who ran Medicare for George H.W. Bush). But Butler, Wilensky, and others like them aren't driving the conversation right now. Palin, Bachmann, and their allies are.

We're stuck in what Josh Marshall has called a "nonsense feedback loop"--a conversation in which Zeke Emanuel wants to kill grandma, health care reform is bad for the people who can't get health care, and Stephen Hawking has been snuffed out by the British National Health System. Instead of arguments that are unrelated to reality, we're getting arguments that are the very opposite of reality.

Like I said, maybe those Democratic officials are right. Maybe this really is worse than what we've seen before.

--Jonathan Cohn

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_treatme...lth-reform.aspx

[scandal 951]

Of course, not all conservatives stoop to this level. You can have a rational, if still contentious, deate over health reform with the likes of Stuart Butler (who studies health policy at the Heritage Foundation) or Gail Wilensky (who ran Medicare for George H.W. Bush). But Butler, Wilensky, and others like them aren't driving the conversation right now. Palin, Bachmann, and their allies are.

I think it all depends upon which media outlets you pay attention to. I don't watch cable news, so I'm largely shielded from the shrill voices in these debates.

I am finding passionate and intelligent advocacy for all sorts of opinions - left and right - from the media sources I've learned to value - The Newshour, NPR, ABC This Week, NBC Meet the Press. There are conservative opinions that are worth listening to in this debate. Voices that call for reform, but want to see where the money will come from and want to ensure that Americans who currently have coverage they like can keep it. I'm willing to respect and listen to those views, and feel they should influence the debate and the final bill which come out of Congress.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Of course, not all conservatives stoop to this level. You can have a rational, if still contentious, deate over health reform with the likes of Stuart Butler (who studies health policy at the Heritage Foundation) or Gail Wilensky (who ran Medicare for George H.W. Bush). But Butler, Wilensky, and others like them aren't driving the conversation right now. Palin, Bachmann, and their allies are.

I think it all depends upon which media outlets you pay attention to. I don't watch cable news, so I'm largely shielded from the shrill voices in these debates.

I am finding passionate and intelligent advocacy for all sorts of opinions - left and right - from the media sources I've learned to value - The Newshour, NPR, ABC This Week, NBC Meet the Press. There are conservative opinions that are worth listening to in this debate. Voices that call for reform, but want to see where the money will come from and want to ensure that Americans who currently have coverage they like can keep it. I'm willing to respect and listen to those views, and feel they should influence the debate and the final bill which come out of Congress.

Thing is, there wont be a bill that passes. Id rather have a payroll tax holiday.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Of course, not all conservatives stoop to this level. You can have a rational, if still contentious, deate over health reform with the likes of Stuart Butler (who studies health policy at the Heritage Foundation) or Gail Wilensky (who ran Medicare for George H.W. Bush). But Butler, Wilensky, and others like them aren't driving the conversation right now. Palin, Bachmann, and their allies are.

I think it all depends upon which media outlets you pay attention to. I don't watch cable news, so I'm largely shielded from the shrill voices in these debates.I am finding passionate and intelligent advocacy for all sorts of opinions - left and right - from the media sources I've learned to value - The Newshour, NPR, ABC This Week, NBC Meet the Press. There are conservative opinions that are worth listening to in this debate. Voices that call for reform, but want to see where the money will come from and want to ensure that Americans who currently have coverage they like can keep it. I'm willing to respect and listen to those views, and feel they should influence the debate and the final bill which come out of Congress.

Oh, really? She is an example of why men prefer blowjobs.