SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Prescription for a Real Healthcare Debate
How Corporate Media Have Ruined the Health Care Debate
Jul 27, 2009
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.
What
better way to counter the pundits' insistence that Obama "compromise"
with industry-backed politicians than by pointing out that the "public
option" is already a serious compromise, given that most citizens and
physicians actually favor "single-payer" -- a more comprehensive and progressive option. After all, a recent New York Times/CBS poll (1/11-15/09)
found that 59 percent of respondents said they would prefer that"the
government in Washington provide national health insurance," rather
than leaving health insurance to private industry. Meanwhile a recent
survey (Annals of Internal Medicine, 4/1/08) found that 59 percent of physicians also support single-payer.
Of course, the insurance lobbies and many politicians have never wanted to talk about single-payer.
But
it is largely the media's fault that Obama's plan has come to be seen
as the most liberal position in the debate. For the corporate media has long shut single-payer and its advocates out of the discussion.
A recent study by
FAIR found that of hundreds of stories about healthcare in major
outlets earlier this year, only five stories included the views of
advocates of single-payer -- none of which appeared on the TV networks.
Now
more than ever, it is crucial that the public have information about
the full range of options for healthcare reform -- including Medicare-for-all.
That is why the media watch group FAIR, filmmaker Michael Moore, former MSNBC host Phil Donahue, Harvard medical professors David Himmelstein and Stephanie Woolhandler and Quentin Young of Physicians for a National Health Program, Obama's longtime physician David Scheiner, actors Mike Farrell, Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon, and Donna Smith of the California Nurses Association are calling onto the TV networks to include single-payer in their coverage of healthcare reform.
You
can read their letter to ABC, CBS and NBC -- and add your voice to this
effort to bring about the broad debate on reform options that is so
essential to fixing the broken U.S. healthcare system -- here:
On
Tuesday, July 28th, FAIR, Physicians for a National Health Program, Healthcare
Now!, Code Pink, the Private Health Insurance Must Go Coalition and the
Raging Grannies will be delivering this message to the NYC offices of
ABC News -- the network that disinvited Obama's longtime physician from its recent healthcare forum where he'd been planning on asking a question about Medicare-for-all.
A version of this article appeared on Alternet.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Isabel Macdonald
Isabel Macdonald is a Montreal-based freelance journalist and the former communications director of the media watch group FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting).
barack obamamedicare for allmichael mooremsnbcnew yorkphysicians for a national health program (pnhp)privatizationsingle-payersusan sarandon
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.
What
better way to counter the pundits' insistence that Obama "compromise"
with industry-backed politicians than by pointing out that the "public
option" is already a serious compromise, given that most citizens and
physicians actually favor "single-payer" -- a more comprehensive and progressive option. After all, a recent New York Times/CBS poll (1/11-15/09)
found that 59 percent of respondents said they would prefer that"the
government in Washington provide national health insurance," rather
than leaving health insurance to private industry. Meanwhile a recent
survey (Annals of Internal Medicine, 4/1/08) found that 59 percent of physicians also support single-payer.
Of course, the insurance lobbies and many politicians have never wanted to talk about single-payer.
But
it is largely the media's fault that Obama's plan has come to be seen
as the most liberal position in the debate. For the corporate media has long shut single-payer and its advocates out of the discussion.
A recent study by
FAIR found that of hundreds of stories about healthcare in major
outlets earlier this year, only five stories included the views of
advocates of single-payer -- none of which appeared on the TV networks.
Now
more than ever, it is crucial that the public have information about
the full range of options for healthcare reform -- including Medicare-for-all.
That is why the media watch group FAIR, filmmaker Michael Moore, former MSNBC host Phil Donahue, Harvard medical professors David Himmelstein and Stephanie Woolhandler and Quentin Young of Physicians for a National Health Program, Obama's longtime physician David Scheiner, actors Mike Farrell, Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon, and Donna Smith of the California Nurses Association are calling onto the TV networks to include single-payer in their coverage of healthcare reform.
You
can read their letter to ABC, CBS and NBC -- and add your voice to this
effort to bring about the broad debate on reform options that is so
essential to fixing the broken U.S. healthcare system -- here:
On
Tuesday, July 28th, FAIR, Physicians for a National Health Program, Healthcare
Now!, Code Pink, the Private Health Insurance Must Go Coalition and the
Raging Grannies will be delivering this message to the NYC offices of
ABC News -- the network that disinvited Obama's longtime physician from its recent healthcare forum where he'd been planning on asking a question about Medicare-for-all.
A version of this article appeared on Alternet.
Isabel Macdonald
Isabel Macdonald is a Montreal-based freelance journalist and the former communications director of the media watch group FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting).
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.
What
better way to counter the pundits' insistence that Obama "compromise"
with industry-backed politicians than by pointing out that the "public
option" is already a serious compromise, given that most citizens and
physicians actually favor "single-payer" -- a more comprehensive and progressive option. After all, a recent New York Times/CBS poll (1/11-15/09)
found that 59 percent of respondents said they would prefer that"the
government in Washington provide national health insurance," rather
than leaving health insurance to private industry. Meanwhile a recent
survey (Annals of Internal Medicine, 4/1/08) found that 59 percent of physicians also support single-payer.
Of course, the insurance lobbies and many politicians have never wanted to talk about single-payer.
But
it is largely the media's fault that Obama's plan has come to be seen
as the most liberal position in the debate. For the corporate media has long shut single-payer and its advocates out of the discussion.
A recent study by
FAIR found that of hundreds of stories about healthcare in major
outlets earlier this year, only five stories included the views of
advocates of single-payer -- none of which appeared on the TV networks.
Now
more than ever, it is crucial that the public have information about
the full range of options for healthcare reform -- including Medicare-for-all.
That is why the media watch group FAIR, filmmaker Michael Moore, former MSNBC host Phil Donahue, Harvard medical professors David Himmelstein and Stephanie Woolhandler and Quentin Young of Physicians for a National Health Program, Obama's longtime physician David Scheiner, actors Mike Farrell, Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon, and Donna Smith of the California Nurses Association are calling onto the TV networks to include single-payer in their coverage of healthcare reform.
You
can read their letter to ABC, CBS and NBC -- and add your voice to this
effort to bring about the broad debate on reform options that is so
essential to fixing the broken U.S. healthcare system -- here:
On
Tuesday, July 28th, FAIR, Physicians for a National Health Program, Healthcare
Now!, Code Pink, the Private Health Insurance Must Go Coalition and the
Raging Grannies will be delivering this message to the NYC offices of
ABC News -- the network that disinvited Obama's longtime physician from its recent healthcare forum where he'd been planning on asking a question about Medicare-for-all.
A version of this article appeared on Alternet.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.