Washington Post editorial page editor Fred Hiatt writes today (10/26/09) on the fear that the public option is a backdoor effort to bring a single-payer system to the United States:
Private companies would have to raise their rates, so more people would choose the public plan, so private rates would rise further—and we could end up with only the public option and no competition at all. Single-payer national health insurance may be the best outcome, but we should get there after an honest debate, not through the back door.
Post columnist Robert Samuelson on the same theme, also today:
Many would say: Whoopee! Get rid of the sinister insurers. Bring on a single-payer system. But if that’s the agenda, why not debate it directly? It’s not insurers that cause high health costs; they’re simply the middlemen. It’s the fragmented delivery system and open-ended reimbursement. Would strict regulation of doctors, hospitals and patients under a single-payer system provide control? Or would genuine competition among health plans over price and quality work better?
That’s the debate we need, but in truth, doctors, hospitals and patients don’t want to be limited, whether by government or markets. Congress reflects public opinion. Fearing a real debate, we fake it.
Well, this is good news. One of these guys should speak to an editor at the paper to encourage more op-eds on single payer, which has faced a virtual blackout in the corporate media debate (FAIR Media Advisory, 3/6/09). Maybe Fred Hiatt could speak to the person who runs the opinion pages at the Washington Post; after all, what better place to encourage a Washington debate?
Wait—isn’t that Hiatt’s job?
“Fearing a real debate, we fake it.”
Don’t they just? And that could be said of the corpress for everything from climate change to wars of empire to social and economic equality, couldn’t it?
And when does “Congress reflect public opinion”?
The vast majority of the time when public opinion’s been able to be manipulated to suit ruling class (power elite … them what’s got … greedy bastards – call ’em what you will) ends – which, given control of the mass media, occurs with sickening regularity, doesn’t it?
One disturbing habit (among so very many) of news organizations of this generation is their way of covering the contest rather than the subject matter. This may be because this techniques draws a bigger audience (therefore $), but national and world events are not football contests, after all, and deserve better coverage than analyses of what either side has to do to overcome the opposition of the other side.
We see it in issue after issue, whether troop buildups, health care, bailouts, budgets, immigration, or foreign policy. Our news people bring us information on who has which position, how each side is arming for the upcoming battle, what strategies are needed, the obstacles that lie ahead, chances for success, and so forth. So little effort is spent on what the issue is, and how it is important, and what we citizens really need to know to be well informed. Never mind how the titans are girding their loins, our news organizations could serve us all better if they helped us know more about the game of football (so to speak) than about the each team’s game plan.
Excellent comments. Good use of metaphor.
you should have seen the pro socialized medicine piece that the WSJ ran on the VA system this week- of course they never mentioned single payer or socialized medicine-instead they only talked about all the good things that the VA’s reforms had done, implying that if a few private insurers bought the software( some of which is public domain and free) then we could have high quality efficient healthcare for a profit……
It looks like Speaker Pelosi is now reneging on her promise to allow a House debate on a (Weiner) single-payer substitute amendment for the House health reform bill. Talk about the inability to have a real debate about single-payer – seems like any debate is impossible. Let’s see how the media handles this Pelosi/ Waxman broken, public promise.
Hasn’t anyone in our Congress had an epiphany yet? It is true that a few brave souls have agreed that the only reform is single payer. Even with some amendation, it would be vastly cheaper than anything all of our ‘bought’ so-called representatives have managed to come up with. How rediculous are those who have had the temerity to present a 2000 page bill? Have they totally lost their ability to reason? They keep on talking of the dollar cost. What about the human cost, the moral cost? Who in this country cannot believe that our Congress have lost any sense of reality?
Let’s call a spade a spade. Big money has managed to empty the heads of an arrogant Congress.
The lack of DEBATE is not the problem. It is in your face EVERYDAY!!! The problem is, as an example, will costs go up or go down with the bill put forth by Congress? One side says up the other down, all theoretical or “best guess”. So who is right? Both sides jerk the figures around to make their point. I say, if it doesn’t make sense then trust your instincts. History shows programs like these are grossly under estimated when it comes to what it costs the tax payer. SO STOP THE SPENDING!
I THINK ANY DEBATE AGAINST HEALTH CARE THAT SHOWS JUST WHAT THE WHOLE THING IS ABOUT IS GOOD, WHO ELSE IS GOING TO STICK UP FOR THE PEOPLE THAT ARE AGAINST IT. THIS ADMINISTRATION IS LEADING THE PEOPLE OF THE USA DOWN A ROAD THAT I DON’T WANT TO GO AND I DON’T THINK ANY ONE IN HIS RIGHT MIND DOES EITHER.
Coverage, coverage, coverage.
We don’t need no stinkin’ coverage!
We need care.
Coverage is NOT care.
Single-payer is the ONLY solution.
Everything else is just putting lipstick on a pig.