Corporate Media Have Ruined the Health Care Debate

[G_j]

http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/141580/corporate_media_have_ruined_the_health_care_debate/

Corporate Media Have Ruined the Health Care Debate
By Isabel Macdonald, AlterNet. Posted July 27, 2009.

TV networks have shut out coverage of single-payer as an option for health reform. We must work to get it back in public debate.


The debate about health reform is clearly in critical condition, with the prospects for President Barack Obama's proposed "public option" looking increasingly uncertain. The U.S. is the only industrialized nation where insurance for primary healthcare is largely in the hands of private corporations, but despite overwhelming public support for a greater government role in health insurance, pundits are now advising us that even Obama’s modest proposal of making private insurance corporations compete with a public insurance fund may have to be scrapped.

Sen. Max Baucus (D.-Mont.) -- the politician who played one of the most powerful roles in shaping this debate -- would seem at first blush an unlikely man to diagnose the ailments afflicting our health reform debate.

After all, many people will recall that when several doctors asked at a recent Senate hearing why "Medicare-for-all" -- a reform option that many citizens and healthcare professionals see as the best tool for fixing healthcare -- was not on the table, Baucus responded by asking for more police.

Yet as the NYT reported, Baucus has since:

"Conceded that it was a mistake to rule out a fully government-run health system, or a ‘single-payer plan,’ not because he supports it but because doing so alienated a large, vocal constituency and left Mr. Obama’s proposal of a public health plan to compete with private insurers as the most liberal position."

After all, what better way to diffuse the fearmongering about Obama’s plan being a "Trojan horse" for the right’s favorite boogeyman -- "socialized" medicine -- than provide the public with accurate information on Medicare-for-all and its benefits? After all, a single public fund that would provide all Americans with healthcare coverage, much like Medicare currently provides for seniors, is seen by many experts as the most effective way of achieving the goals of healthcare reform: reducing costs while expanding coverage.

..more..

[DJ13]

1. No, Obama ruined the debate

He should have been pushing for a single payer system from the start so he could negotiate down to a public option later.

The MSM would have been talking and talking (and lying and lying) about single payer all this time, leaving the pubic option less open to criticism.

His administration demonstrated poor negotiation skills with the health care debate.

[Robbien]

2. Yup

Now how could he believe that all of us would enthusiastically endorse this silly ass public option which means almost diddly-squat.

If he wanted the people's endorsement and have us get behind him, he should have at least started out where we are, single payor.

[MarjorieG]

4. Obama thought he was quickly clearing obstacles, not realizing his own party would not back him.

I don't see anything wrong with trying a GOOD public option first step. Single-payer would have been a huge lift so soon, where now he's at the strongest position of the four years.

I still wouldn't bet against him.

[steelmania75]

3. They and the Dems' pussiness has stopped healthcare reform once again

There will be no reform in our lifetime, unless it's done this year.

[Autumn]

5. A lot of our Democrats can share

that blame. Plenty to go around.