The first problem with this New York Times headline (12/15/16) is pretending the Republicans have a healthcare plan.
Members of the GOP leadership were likely jubilant when they read the New York Times (12/15/16) and saw the following headline: “GOP Plans to Repeal Health Law with ‘Universal Access.’”
The Times’ decision to include the words “universal,” “health” and “plan” in the headline was extremely misleading and irresponsible. It gave readers the distinct—and deceptive—impression that Republicans have something resembling a “universal” health plan, and will use it to replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
It appears that the same corporate media who misled us into the Affordable Care Act (ACA) (Extra!, 4/10) are now misleading us out of it—and the Times’ reporting on the GOP’s health care agenda is a particularly egregious example of this.
Republicans haven’t determined what, if any, plan will be enacted to “replace” the ACA after it is repealed. Donald Trump’s brief 7-point campaign proposal (3/16) does not even contain the word “universal.” There are several other conservative proposals from prominent organizations and politicians, including House Speaker Paul Ryan (6/22/16), the Cato Institute (7/4/12), the Heritage Foundation (10/13, 11/22/16) and various legislative efforts vetoed by President Obama (Health Affairs, 1/9/16). There is nothing in any of these plans approaching universality—not as a goal, a result or a guiding principal.
The phrase “universal access” sounds nice, but is a meaningless slogan clearly aimed to confuse the status quo, in which healthcare is a commodity, with everyone actually being able to get the medical treatment they need. “Our goal here is to make sure that everybody can buy coverage or find coverage if they choose to,” one anonymous GOP aide told the Times (12/15/16). Of course, the right to “buy coverage” has never been in question—the more than 30 million Americans who currently lack insurance can “choose” to buy coverage today. And when that number swells by another 20 million or so, which the Congressional Budget Office (12/3/15) predicts will happen if the ACA is repealed, they will all be allowed to buy coverage then too. Using this flawed logic, the Times could just as well amplify nonexistent GOP plans to provide “universal access” to housing, childcare and transportation, too.
But not a single critic was quoted in the Times article. The only quotes were from the anonymous Republican aide, Paul Ryan and a federal judge who ruled against some ACA subsidies. Not even a token response from the Democratic leadership was included, let alone an independent policy expert or advocate for true universal care. This omission occurs despite the article being 853 words and 20 paragraphs long—25 column inches, to use old print vernacular, and not a solitary clause devoted to a critical response.
But misleading coverage from the dominant newspaper is hardly surprising on this topic. In addition to spreading nonsensical and unchallenged arguments made by Republicans, major media outlets also routinely rely on current or former industry executives as sources or op-ed contributors.
Politico, for instance, has relied on Heritage Foundation health analyst and former Pfizer executive Ed Haismaier as their go-to expert. Haismaier, who co-authored the Heritage repeal plan, has been cited or mentioned in 22 Politico articles since the passage of the ACA, including six times in November 2016. This included more than 20 minutes in a Politico podcast (11/28/16). This, it would turn out, was just 10 days before he was announced (Politico, 12/7/16) to be part of Trump’s Department of Health and Human Services (DHS). Yet more evidence of how, according to the Wall Street Journal (11/25/16), “Heritage has become a hybrid of an administration-in-waiting for Mr. Trump” and “a policy factory for the new Republican-led Congress.”
The Washington Post (12/7/16) recently published an op-ed from Marilyn Tavenner that advanced the agenda of private insurers whom she represents as CEO of America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP). “There is no single ‘silver bullet’ to ensure that people get and stay covered,” Tavenner wrote, advancing the notion that universal health care is virtually impossible. Of course, despite using the word “single,” she ignores a policy that is used in almost every industrialized nation to “ensure that people get and stay” covered: a single-payer system (or a similarly structured public plan).
This is hardly a surprise. The corporate media have long allowed partisan power brokers in Washington, funded heavily by the health industry, to frame the debate in the narrowest of terms, treating the commodification of healthcare as a default setting that can never be changed (Extra! Update, 6/94; FAIR.org, 5/11/11, 1/20/11).
While the industry and Heritage/Trump staffers all get to have their say about what should replace Obamacare, finding an advocate for single-payer in these outlets is far more difficult. For instance, the only mention of Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP) in Politico is a reference to a failed health reform effort in Vermont (12/20/14). In fact, PNHP compiles a list of major articles that advocate for single-payer, and with the exception of two articles from the Hill (11/16/16, 11/30/16), and one letter to the editor in the Times (11/16/16), since Trump’s stunning victory, the only articles advocating a national health system are from small local papers or independent news sites.
This problem existed during the Obama presidency as well, when the media portrayed the ACA, which was a “market solution” once promoted by Heritage (7/20/90; Forbes, 10/20/11), as the furthest acceptable “left” solution to the healthcare crisis. Single-payer, and even the far less transformative public option, were largely dismissed (FAIR.org, 5/11/11, 1/20/11).
Further, the media published a great deal of hyperbole from partisan liberals about the ACA, falsely portraying the law as a groundbreaking path to universal coverage as a human right (Washington Post, 11/23/13; Politico, 1/1/16). This portrayal further enforced the doctrinal notion that only market solutions were worthy of consideration, thereby undermining legitimate critiques of the ACA and its shortcomings (Truthout, 6/9/16).
The Times story uncritically advancing GOP talking points, just as the party prepares to take a hacksaw to what little safety net already exists in the United States, is a worrisome sign that the media’s flawed coverage of health policy will not be improving anytime soon. In terms of the coming repeal of the ACA, it seems the public will have “universal access” to the narrow viewpoints of a small group of power brokers in Washington, and little in the way of critical dialogue.
Michael Corcoran is a journalist based in Boston. He has written for the Boston Globe, The Nation, the Christian Science Monitor, Extra!, NACLA Report on the Americas and other publications. Follow him on Twitter: @mcorcoran3.
Yeah couldn’t share this on Facebook! Tried!
Find the article on FAIR’s Facebook page and try sharing from there. It’s a great article and needs to be spread far and wide!
Single palaver
What does anyone expect, one of the NY Times reporters is Robert Pear.? He was one of the “reporters” who pushed the idea that the ACA was like the Swiss system since both the ACA and the Swiss system use private insurers and mandates. Well except the Swiss system is highly regulated and covers a good deal more. Also the insurance plans are non-profit.
A remark about the article itself first:
“A default setting that cannot be changed” is a self-contradictory phrase. A default is something that is used if no specific thing is otherwise specified; it is INTENDED to be changed, if desired. I think you meant that market-based health finance is “hard-coded” and not subject to change at all.
But, feh, OK. Not everyone is expert with software, whence those two terms come from. Moreover, it’s not as if there are any rules about writing news and opinion these days, right? Which is why this site exists at all.
Now, as to substance, which you did a really good job with: I complained, bitterly, for years as the promise of health care “reform” turned into huge subsidies for the health insurance industry. Not much to do with health, really. For instance, I need an MRI due to my condition, but the insurance company won’t approve it. Why? Because it is unnecessary, or because the insurer wants to improve its margin? Hmmmm. Lesseenow. But my doctor tells me there IS a way to get an MRI by employing certain “tricks” — so now MD’s have to be magicians too? (But I do want the MRI because I’d like to find out what is going on! Hopefully, my doc’s slight of hand will work…)
The main problem I encountered in the run-up to ACA was that people seemed to have a binary view of the options that were before us: Either the market-based system we had pre-Obamacare fraught with waste, or a greatly-expanded version of the same flawed market-based theory of healthcare financing, this time with subsidies for both consumer and insurer alike. And, with a built-in equalization system to address the risk adversity problem in market health care solutions. At least, that was the discussion the Dems and PDA were having; we single payers were shut out completely. (“We need more police” anyone?)
Over on my side, the debate was between market-based solutions — ALL market-based solutions — versus a single payer. And this was where the press really missed it. They presented the debate as being between the then-existing system and whatever the Democrats cooked up. This was very deceptive, and now we will end up paying for this deceit for a long time to come. That is, unless Donald’s “plan” is a single payer. And who knows — maybe it will be. That is, if he can somehow shove it through his tightly-packed, neoliberal cabinet.
Something tells me that, no matter what happens, there will be a lot of drama.
A lot of drama in the political theater we call “government?” You don’t say.
I think, to a certain degree, TeeJae, that politics IS theater. And that isn’t completely bad, either, if you’ll allow me this departure from the usual shunning of politics.
Politics is a naturally-occurring process that arises out of competing interests and competing solutions to societal problems. It is inevitable, given any political issue, that at least someone will disagree with us, even when the solution seems to be quite clear and straightforward. Yes, it is conflict, and some of it may seem petty to us. I am willing to bet the South thought the abolitionists were completely wrong about slavery.
So, how do we handle these conflicts? Theater. When I think of the great statesmen (whatever I may think of them personally), I realize that they had to figure out a way to make people see a solution their way. This took a bit of cajoling, some education, and even some clever wording at times. I think a few of our presidents create some excellent theater, as do a few British prime ministers. Politics may, at times, contain some actual scientific evidence, and maybe even some logic, but I think largely, when dealing with huge populations who don’t have the fundamentals of science and reason mastered, the only alternative is putting on a bit of a show.
I don’t agree with things being this way. But I do think I am telling the truth.
Very well put, ND. And The Donald is certainly a show-man of the first stripe.
Pretty soon we’ll all have universal access to buy our own personal junk insurance plans, universal access to have our cases reviewed by corporate death panels, and universal access to the street when we lose our homes because of medical bills.
We can all thank Trump for making America great again, but don’t forget to thank Obama too for squandering a 60-seat supermajority in the Senate and not including a public option.
Greg, you just said in 2 paragraphs what I’ve been saying since the 2000’s, prior to the so-called “health care reform” of the Obama administration. Thank you, and keep repeating this. It should be every REAL progressive’s 30 second elevator speech.
Obamacare was kinda spare
So Trumpcare’s really better
It lets you buy whatever’s there
Without it, you’d be deader
But the ruling Dems,
Sucked-up Congressmen,
Had insisted it be so
uniquely American!
Were they truly the wit
than reinventing again
They could simply look northward
and copy the system Canadian.
Weak Democrat half-measures, overwhelmed by the strong courage of conviction of US conservatives, and their willingness to lead.
It looks like the “slavers” lost the war but are winning the aftermath.