The War on Facts 

In the debate on health-care reform, misinformation is the GOP's primary weapon.

Within hours after the House of Representatives approved health-care reform by a narrow margin, Republicans predicted retribution at the polls next fall. They promised to make every Democrat regret that historic vote as the first step toward the reversal of power in Washington. And as the current debate has proved, they aren't going to let honesty become an obstacle.

For a preview of coming attractions, simply turn on Fox News or any right-wing radio talker, where the falsehoods of the 2010 midterm campaign are being field-tested today.

You can watch Dick Morris blather about the "death panels" that will terminate your mother and father while illegal immigrants are provided lavish care and about how you will be put in jail for failing to purchase health insurance. You can hear Karl Rove complain that we will "beggar ourselves" by adding more than $1.4 trillion to the federal debt. You can listen to Frank Luntz claim that voters disdain reform because of "the cost to the deficit."

These gentlemen have little expertise in health or economics but much experience in distracting, misinforming, and frightening the public. Aside from talking on television, that is their job. How little do they know — and how much do they simply fabricate?

It is safe to assume that Morris knows very well there are no death panels in any of the health-reform bills; that those bills expressly forbid coverage of illegal immigrants; and that none of them includes any provision to incarcerate citizens who lack insurance coverage. It is also reasonable to assume, based solely on the fiscal record of the Bush administration in which he served, that Rove never worries about budget deficits, government waste, or gross corruption unless Democrats are in charge.

As for Luntz, he specializes in political prophecies that are self-fulfilling. When he says voters are infuriated by the cost of health-care reform, for instance, that merely indicates he is trying to make them feel that way. He will succeed — all three will succeed — only by drawing attention away from actual facts and figures.

So perhaps voters ought to listen instead to the Congressional Budget Office, which by contrast has earned a reputation for candor, accuracy, and nonpartisan truthfulness. After painstaking analysis, the CBO estimated that the House health-care reform bill, known as the Affordable Health Care for America Act, would reduce the federal deficit by about $109 billion during its first 10 years. To repeat: The bill passed by the House Democrats on the evening of Saturday, November 7th, "would yield a net reduction in federal budget deficits of $109 billion over the 2010-2019 period." The CBO experts also costed out the Senate Finance Committee bill and found that it would cut the federal deficit by more than $80 billion during that first decade.

Those reassuring conclusions derive from other basic facts about reform that tend to be ignored or concealed. Reform will reduce wasteful spending by hundreds of billions of dollars annually and will depend for financing on excise taxes imposed on the wealthiest 1 percent of the population.

Much of the misinformation about the costs of reform comes from the belief — fostered by conservatives — that the government-run health plan known as the "public option" would impose a huge burden on the federal budget. So says Joseph Lieberman, the independent senator from Connecticut who has threatened to filibuster the bill.

Section 322 of the Affordable Health Care for America Act says clearly and concisely that people insured under the public option will pay premium rates "at a level sufficient to fully finance the costs of health benefits provided by the public health insurance option; and administrative costs related to operating the public health insurance option." In short, the public option will involve no new federal expenditure.

Any bill that reaches the president's desk will leave much to be desired, especially with respect to cost containment, preventive care, and new systems of compensation to encourage improved results. But it should be judged according to real merits and defects — not the delusions and distortions that now dominate the debate.

Comments (7)

Showing 1-7 of 7

Add a comment

 
Subscribe to this thread:
Showing 1-7 of 7

Add a comment

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

Blogs

Fly On The Wall Blog

Winning: You Can't Blame Trump for Selling the Sizzle

News Blog

South Memphis Becomes Bicycle 'Lab' With New Grant

Hungry Memphis

New MemPops Store in Crosstown

News Blog

Planet Fitness Coming Soon to Imperial Lanes Site

Beyond the Arc

Beyond the Arc Podcast #67: Is it time to worry yet?

Politics Beat Blog

Luttrell Weighs in for Governor's Proposed Gas-Tax Increase

News Blog

New Plan, New Task Force Coming for Riverfront

Film/TV/Etc. Blog

Music Video Monday: Alyssa Moore

Tiger Blue

Memphis Tigers: By the Numbers

ADVERTISEMENT

More by Joe Conason

  • That's Oil, Folks

    The oil-spill disaster in the Gulf appears inevitable in hindsight
    • May 27, 2010
  • Domestic Violence 101

    Plans are afoot for a mass "peaceful" armed demonstration.
    • Apr 8, 2010
  • Knee Jerks

    Republican response to terror is predictable and farcical.
    • Jan 14, 2010
  • More »

Readers also liked…

  • A Letter to the Memphis City Council

    The council gets an “F” for its performance on the Greensward decision.
    • Mar 10, 2016
  • Pay the Band

    Why we should be supporting proposed national music initiatives in Congress.
    • Aug 10, 2015
  • Memphis’ Central Park

    The Memphis Zoo/Overton Park controversy is really about the right of Memphians to craft their environment.
    • Feb 4, 2016
ADVERTISEMENT
© 1996-2017

Contemporary Media
460 Tennessee Street, 2nd Floor | Memphis, TN 38103
Visit our other sites: Memphis Magazine | Memphis Parent | Inside Memphis Business
Powered by Foundation