Calling Wash. Post's Connolly "ridiculous," health care activist makes his case
SUMMARY: Ceci Connolly wrote that "in an interview," Change Congress' Adam Green "was hard-pressed to articulate a substantive argument for the public plan." But Green says that he was answering a completely different question.
In the latest in a series of misleading reports on the effort to pass health care reform legislation, The Washington Post's Ceci Connolly, in an article on efforts by progressive activist groups to lobby Democratic senators to support the inclusion of a public insurance option, wrote that "in an interview," Change Congress interim chief executive Adam Green "was hard-pressed to articulate a substantive argument for the public plan but said that it 'has become a proxy for the question of Democrats who stand on principle and represent their constituents.' " But in a June 28 post on the blog OpenLeft, Green said that in his interview with Connolly, he was not responding to a question about the substantive argument for a public plan. Rather, Green wrote: "Connolly asked me a question on the politics, and when I gave her an answer on that, she said I didn't answer on the substance."
From Green's OpenLeft post, headlined "Ceci Connolly -- Ridiculous Reporter":
Connolly then asked me why progressives were picking a political fight on the public option, as opposed to another issue. I guess the fact that it's the #1 domestic issue of the day -- one that affects millions of American families -- wasn't explanation enough.
I figured she was looking for a quote summarizing the political stakes, so I though for a moment and said, "The public option has become a proxy for the question of whether Democrats will stand on principle and represent their constituents."
I was quite proud of that answer. It summarizes what a lot of people are feeling -- the public option is the "line in the sand" issue for Democrats, something Chris has written about here on OpenLeft several times.
Connolly's take on that quote:
Green, in an interview, was hard-pressed to articulate a substantive argument for the public plan but said that it "has become a proxy for the question of Democrats who stand on principle and represent their constituents."
WHAT? Connolly asked me a question on the politics, and when I gave her an answer on that, she said I didn't answer on the substance? Did I mention Ceci Connolly is a r-i-d-i-c-u-l-o-u-s reporter?
Moreover, even if her assertion were true, she could easily have provided a clear articulation of the argument. She could have cited a June 25 New York Times column by Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman, who wrote:
What will determine the success or failure of reform? Above all, the success of reform depends on successful cost control. We really, really don't want to get into a position a few years from now where premiums are rising rapidly, many Americans are priced out of the insurance market despite government subsidies, and the cost of health care subsidies is a growing strain on the budget.
And that's why the public plan is an important part of reform: it would help keep costs down through a combination of low overhead and bargaining power. That's not an abstract hypothesis, it's a conclusion based on solid experience. Currently, Medicare has much lower administrative costs than private insurance companies, while federal health care programs other than Medicare (which isn't allowed to bargain over drug prices) pay much less for prescription drugs than non-federal buyers. There's every reason to believe that a public option could achieve similar savings.
Similarly, University of California-Berkeley political science professor Jacob Hacker argued in a December 16, 2008, policy brief that Americans should have a "menu of health plans [that] must include a good public plan modeled after Medicare if the broad goals of reform -- universal insurance and improved value -- are to be achieved" [emphasis in original]. And in recent congressional testimony, numerous other health care policy experts have explained why they believe a public option is an "essential" or "important" component of health care reform.
A "substantive argument for the public plan" was not the only thing absent from Connolly's article, which portrayed activists lobbying for a public plan as unyielding in their campaign to pressure centrist Democratic senators. She also did not mention that the public option is itself a compromise for many progressives who advocate a single-payer system. Nor did she point out that in the view of many progressives, the public option is the least that must be included for health care reform to be successful.
Previous examples of health care misinformation advanced by Connolly include:
Good catch, MMfA.
The editors must be AWOL for the most part. It just goes to show how corporatized even supposedly "high quality" print journalism outlets have become.
I was appalled to read the Post's one-sided coverage of the fundamental asset to the Obama health care plan, the public option. In Connolly's June 28 article, she makes it sound as though Adam Green can't think of a good reason for a public plan. This is outrageous, and I am livid, and I'm sure Green is as well. I've been loyal to the Post, but if you're handing out the same misinformation as a right wing talk show, then I'll take my business elsewhere. Connolly's comments on the public option were maliciously negligent.
What kind of journalist does an article on politics, asks interview questions on politics, and then slanders a responder for not speaking substantively on economics?
If she wants to dabble in something "substantive," how about she ask why our "free market" is so afraid of competition? There may be many insurance companies, but there is a monopoly by one system- a system with incentives for denying care, denying insurance, and going to further and further expense for fewer and fewer people.
Is there a fundamental problem with private insurance? Yes. When insurance companies all use essentially the same model, wherein the worse job they collectively do, the more money they all make. While insuring a diabetic is bad business for an insurance company, the gov't gets the most value for dollar with investments in effective strategies for controlling chronic illness.
What are the economic incentives for a public plan? Insurance companies need only to haul sick bodies over the finish line of 65, then dump them at the gov't's feet. The gov't is the only institution in America with any incentive to work hard and cost-effectively at 55 to make health tolls lesser at 65. These would yield not only long-term monetary savings but social stability and productivity, the foundation of our economic engines.
What about small business? Small businesses insure smaller numbers of people at higher rates. If they are unable to do so, they stand no chance of attracting top talent away from mega-companies that buy benefits in bulk. Dealing with health care would be the greatest boon to small business in many decades. Speaking of bulk-buys, the gov't, with huge purchasing power, would be able to get the lowest prices for drugs and services of any purchasing body, were they only willing to drive a bargain.
What would you get out of a public plan? I'd sign up for a public plan the instant it were available. I've been healthy my whole life, but one no longer expects to keep the same job for decades. If you ever have to change health providers AFTER having an illness, you're screwed until 65 for having a "pre-existing condition." A public plan that can't ditch you and deny treatment and jack up prices for profit (just like it can't do that a senator who gets diabetes) is the only true "insurance."
And I live in an ivory tower compared to most. How about the woman who has to choose between leaving her abusive husband or keeping his insurance for herself or for a critically ill child? Right now she can stay, or she can leave and face $600/mo premiums for private insurance while she tries to get a new job and life as a single parent. Impossible. Or she can hope junior gets over leukemia on his own. Or we could have a public plan, with reasonable rates for anyone in any condition, and subsidies for those who need it.
I have never been so furious with an article in a purportedly respected publication. I look forward to your front page retraction.
Leslie
Pundits have a point to make or a cause they are championing.
They will present data and talking points that they feel make the best case for their cause. It is not expected of a pundit to present data or talking points that do not support their own aurguments.
Reporters are supposed to be dedicated to reporting the "truth", whatever that may be. They are expected to provide the data supplied by both sides of any issue and point out where the data came from and whether or not there are any questions on the validity of the data provided. It is then up to the news consumer to make his decision based on the data presented.
Once you have crossed the line and reported your "opinion", as part of the news, or, you only present one side of the case involved with the issue you are "reporting" on, then you have become a Pundit. Now you are no longer the neutral arbiter who presents all the data for people to make up their own minds. Instead you are attemping to tell people what opinion they should have and are actively trying to influence public opinion to accept your personal point of view.
BTW It isn't like this hasn't been an issue for years but; it certainly seems to be more wide spread than it ever has been before.