Really? Why would we think that?
August 18, 2009 9:51 am ET by Jamison Foser
Yesterday's New York Times:
For Mr. Obama, giving up on the public plan would have risks and rewards. The reward is that he could punch a hole in Republican arguments that he wants a "government takeover" of health care and possibly win some Republican votes.
Really? What indications are there that this would actually happen? Which Republicans have said that if the public plan is dropped, they'll sign on? What in the GOP's recent behavior towards Democratic Presidents -- say, over the past 40 years or so -- suggests they will abandon their "government takeover" arguments, much less sign on to health care reform that does not include a public plan but is still significant?
The Times, of course, doesn't address any of those questions. Several paragraphs later, it even acknowledges that "whether a co-operative would actually bring Republicans on board with Mr. Obama is unclear." The closest the article comes to providing any reason to think that might happen is a quote by Republican Senator Richard Shelby saying "we ought to look at" the idea of replacing the public plan with a co-op model.
For that matter, the article provides exactly zero evidence, no matter how weak, that dropping the public option would even win over conservative Democrats.
The notion that dropping the public plan will win the support of Republicans, and get them to drop their arguments about a "government takeover" is based on the assumption that conservatives are debating and negotiating in good faith. That's an assumption the media has little if any reason to make, and significant reasons to be skeptical of. But it regularly underlies media coverage of public policy debates despite the frequency with which it is shown to be baseless. This Times article is just an example -- and not even a particularly egregious one at that.
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
The same ones who oppose health coverage reform, a broken system that currently kills around 18,000 people a year, were in favor of creating an entire new wing of the federal government in the form of a Department of Homeland Security based on the deaths of some 3,000 people. Based on this simple fact alone, they themselves are more interested in power than in saving people. Over 100,000 people have died from lack of health coverage since 9-11, but this does not affect them and so it does not concern them. They have their health coverage.
They are a minority party, Mr. President. We voted them out of power in the House, the Senate, the White House, and in many governorships and state legislatures around this country. Have the courage of your convictions. You've reached out to these 'people' long enough. Get down to business, and get this health reform passed. Soon. And, complete with a public option, otherwise there is very little point to the rest of it.
OK it's time to take this one to task. It is bandied about on this forum and I'm guess most if not all have no perspective on what the data means.
The US Center for Disease Control and Prevention's mortality data say that those 18000 deaths only represent 3% of deaths of working age Americans. If we extended universal insurance coverage to 100% you would only increase life expectancy for TWO MONTHS. That is a drop in the bucket.
mfoot also fails to address the pesky bankruptcy issue.
Hey, maybe instead of health coverage reform, we should have warfare reform. You know, like a policy where we don't randomly invade and destroy some third rate country every 5 to 10 years just so the chickenhawks can feel more manly about themselves?
WHAT. THE. HELL. does your "2 months" figure have to do with anything?
That is a stupid, meaningless, misleading, completely irrelevant figure.
Let's put it a different way. For those many millions of people who the current system works for? ANY system, will work for and the're lives won't change at all. But for the 18,000 who DIE every year... you could add an average of FIVE YEARS to each of their lives, just beased on the numbers you provided! And I'd question the assumptions that go into those, as the difference between haveing medical care and not having it will clearly make a difference of more that five years on average if your sick. I'll bet the house that the five years estimate includes the effect of insurance on many HEALTHY people. Well OBVIOUSLY it doesn't matter to them
But to save them from "socialism" (whateve you think that means) you will sacrifce 18,000, and try to confuse to ignorant with bogus statistics to defend your position. Unbelievable.
IoM methodology flawed
YOU tried to make a point that is completely pointless. "Everyone's life exp would increase by 2 months." You apparently found that significant. It's meaningless mumbo-jumbo, and YOU [should] KNOW IT. Your "2 months" point was so laughable that you are either a fool, incapable of even the slightest bit of critical thinking, or you assuemd we all were and that you could pull a fast one on us. Well... I for one am not a complete fool, and I do statistics and data analysis for both a living and a hobby. If you're going to convince me you're going to have to do WAAAAY better than the FAIL that was this attempt.
They shouldn't even be invited to the table. EVERYTHING from here out should be done without a single republican vote. Let 'em sink. They're nothing but traitorous scum selling out thier country for noting but their own personal gain.
How anyone is fooled by them I just can't understand.
Alas, I fear you wont have the stomach for it. Weakness of the dems
Yeah. Brilliant thinking there, NYT.