Ohh!! Lawsuits are the problem!! Right...
Today, in Bush's first radio address since winning the election, he said that, "We must confront the junk and frivolous lawsuits that are driving up the cost of health care and hurting doctors and patients," an argument he hammered repeatedly over the last year. He’s at it again. THE ELECTION IS OVER!! You can stop feeding us crap now.
Check out this interesting Op-Ed from the New York Times on this issue http://reclaimdemocracy.org/articles_2004/malpractice_crisis_or_sham.html
Even if it can be established that the legal environment is part of the problem, why is the President of the United States making this one issue the focus of the health care debate. This typifies this administration. Arguments are framed in the most ridiculously simplistic terms, as if lawyers are the problem. This is why I can’t stand the modern Republican Party. They exploit our attention deficit tendencies, our media’s hunger for nifty sound bites, and they speak down to the ignorant among us. It’s insulting and they know it. I want to hear a republican acknowledge that Bush’s approach to policy debate is to oversimplify and misrepresent issues in a way that is unmatched by the democrats. Both sides do it; republicans have mastered it and democrats shamelessly react to it in kind. But republicans started this practice and are in complete power now, so the only way I’ll be satisfied at the end of the next four years is if republicans manage to change their ways. The dems will follow; I promise.
posted by The Decider @ 1:59 PM
15 Comments:
This issue has been around for years, of course, but now with the downturn in the stock market and the loss of investment income, it became a crisis that needs immediate attention, it seems, as promoted by the insurance 'industry'. I don't see anything wrong with the medical and insurance establishment making noise about it, but it is really a shame that the government tells, always, just one part of the story. The information is out there, and anybody that wants it can easily obtain enough information to have a complete and educated picture of the 'crisis', unlike the Iraq war where the real information was hard to come by. Two things are truly irritating: the government telling us, again, just a fraction of the trutn, and playing, again, to our fears. This time, that there will be no doctor around, ever, to take care of us if we keep destroying their practices with our frivolous suits. Kerry had a good proposal for handling this issue. I only remember one instance in which I heard them (Kerry & Edwards) talk about the essence of their plan, during the debates. It was a nice idea, that deserved attention and debate, but somehow it got buried completely during the campaign. I asked one my republican colleagues at work what they knew about this issue (my polling techniques suck, only one person at a time..) and he said: Kerry wants to defend Edwards and all the lawyers so that they can keep making money at our expense and our doctors. I said, that's not what they said in the debate. He said, that's what I heard.
So there. This issue will be a test for the democrats, see if they can really push their ideas forward and promote a healthy and educated debate on this mess. If they don't do it, we can't really blame the republicans for, once again, getting away with some kind of reform pushed on us based on half-truths and, eventually, lies. Right now, their 51% are primed to believe everything they hear. If they question the validity of Bush's statements, they would have to question the validity of many other things he said, something that has been ruled out as a healthy practice when promoting policy or pushing decisions with long term effects. I'm surprised that Bush didn't say that lawyers have stockpiles of WMDs. Yet.
I didn't sign. Sorry.
Guille
I think Clinton was the master of dumbing down the debate to pithy, meaningless statements such as "It's the economy, stupid!"
Trial lawyers suck the life out of everything and make it more expensive. Just ask an OB/GYN what he pays for malpractice insurance. How do you suppose he pays these high rates? He gives you a pap smear or a baby and takes an arm or a leg.
With respect, you sound confused, Brian. “It's the economy, stupid!” was the Clinton campaign’s message to keep the debate focused on the state of the economy which was in a two-year recession. It was grounded in the advantage Clinton had in 1992 over George H. W. Bush's horrible economic record, which was real and broad in scope. That’s a far cry from Bush’s narrow-minded “junk and frivolous lawsuit” catch-phase, which is a misleading, shallow and over-simplistic description of our nation’s health care woes used as a distraction of other issues, such as pharmaceutical development and marketing of drugs without true competition and little regulation. The cost of drug marketing FAR exceeds the effect of lawsuits’ costs on health care. I challenge you to show us that lawsuits are the overwhelming reasons for our health care cost problems, or more specifically for a decrease in doctors entering the workforce or their high costs in insurance being passed on to the customer. Are those THE reasons why costs are too high for patients or why many can’t afford care at all? It sure seems like it is with the focusing the Bushies have put on this issue.
“It’s the economy, stupid!” is not an example of “dumbing down.” At worst, it’s reacting to the sound-bite requirement in our media and political stages–-a requirement that I assure you democrats would rather avoid if it meant getting equal camera time with republicans. This morning, I heard the panel on Chris Matthews’ show charge Kerry with failing to come up with that powerful “one-liner” and THAT’S why Bush won. Dumbing down the debate is not preferable for liberals because liberals want the truth—not their own subjective truths or the truths of a minority of people, like Evangelical Christians, but truths that have been appropriately examined and debated. Liberals’ arguments are complex in nature (i.e., the death penalty, civil rights, social justice, social safety nets, etc.). They’re grounded in science, history, and logic, which all require intense introspection and debate to come to solid conclusions. Republicans have an inherent advantage because their arguments are based in simplicity, e.g. Tax cuts to the wealthy creates jobs and a strong economy follows; if you examine this argument closely, you’d find that it is true if certain assumptions are true, like wealthy people spend their tax cuts on increasing labor, which from an economist’s perspective is a ridiculous assumption to have for every firm, every market, every time period, and every economy (labor is an input in the production decision. A manager makes labor level decisions based on which combination of labor with other inputs will maximize profit at the least cost, which can result in a decrease of labor in certain situations. Some times it works; sometimes it doesn’t).
In other words, the modern Republican Party has taken stubbornly resolute positions on complex issues that are not static or independent from changing contextual elements, e.g. not raising the minimum wage to account for inflation. The frivolous lawsuits issue is a great example of this. There certainly is a high cost associated with protection against malpractice lawsuits. But it’s not that simple. Malpractice lawsuits act as a watchdog on patient care quality. While it may be overused, its mere existence is not THE one big problem with health care. I challenge you to show me—with evidence this time!—that it is. I imagine that since the President hasn’t done so, you won’t be able to.
- Nan
Narl,
You had to go and push my hot-button topic of minimum wage. While talking to some of my republican friends at work, I let go the comment, "Corporations would pay their employees in dirt if it were legal." We all know it's true. With very, very few exceptions, corporations could care less whether or not their employees are happy, healthy, or able to buy duct tape to repair their shanties. (As an aside, everyone reading this blog should watch the documentary "The Corporation".)
The republican's response to that comment was "How much is minimum wage? 6.75?" HE HAD NO IDEA WHAT MINIMUM WAGE WAS!
After I told him it was $5.15 an hour, he was shocked. In fact, for every republican I have this discussion with, after I tell them how much minimum wage actually is, they agree it should be raised.
Companies that exploit minimum wage employees, like Wal-Mart and the fast food industry are virtually indistinguishable from the republican party. I wonder how many minimum wage workers out there voted for W?
--Joe
A few quick items to contribute:
1) Hello! Welcome to the blogosphere! It's good to have friends maintaining their own little corner of the web, and I look forward to reading this regularly, even though I do have differing opinions on much of what you write. And with that nice welcome, let me move on to the divisiveness!!!
2) Let's not fool ourselves into thinking that Democrats do not dumb down debates (Affirmative Action: "Mend it, don't end it." and Welfare Reform: "I want to end welfare as we know it." being only two instances), and let's give conservatives a little credit as thinkers - we have our fair share of big thinkers who actually see complexity in policy debates just as much as liberals do (consider Milton Friedman, Dinesh D'Souza, John Fund, Peggy Noonan, and on and on).
3) Having debated you many times, Nan, I am all too aware of the type and quality of evidence needed to prove something. So, while a very quick survey of the web did not provide the overwhelmingly compelling evidence that you likely want, the best I could do was this: a GAO report on medical malpractice insurance that finds that the increase in malpractice claims (read: lawsuits) seems to be the primary driver behind increases in rates. An increase in rates means an overall increase in overhead that drives up prices at the doctor's office. Not only do prices go up, but doctor's are more likely to engage in preventative medicine that, to use a technical term, "covers their ass" when it comes to potential lawsuits. By ordering more tests and more services, the overall cost of care increases.
4) Look at this another way - healthcare costs are rising, no one will dispute that. What can the government do to stem this? The number one contributor to rising healthcare costs is technological innovation. It is neither possible or desirable for the government to limit that. So what can they limit? They can limit an inefficiency in the market that not only drives cost up, but also drives actual practitioners out of the market.
So, to sum up: I disagree (respectfully, of course), and I love the blog. Keep it up...
Alex,
1) Welcome to Fantastiko! I was wondering how many hopelessly liberal posts I would have to publish to elicit a response from you! I appreciate the debate and welcome the civil tone in your message (are you sure you’re a republican?).
2) Let’s begin:
I’m not convinced that the two examples you’ve provided serve your argument well, nor do they address my claim that republicans are the masters of redirecting debates to narrow and misleading points, like frivolous lawsuits in health care (I’ll get to this later). My core argument is not that democrats are not guilty of creating nifty catch-phrases and sound bites. To repeat my original post: “…both sides do it; republicans have mastered it and democrats respond shamelessly in-kind.” In any case, you did mention a few “good” republicans, although, regrettably, you’ve omitted yourself from that list!
3) I appreciate that you’ve anticipated my thirst for evidence. You’re a good man! Without trying to sound smug (a goal I admittedly tend to fail at consistently), I’m afraid that you’ve managed to prove my point that republicans tend to inaccurately frame an argument. The GAO report does indeed state that lawsuits are a primary factor for a national increase in premium rates. Kudos! You’ve established that the current malpractice environment has helped produce an increase in premium rates; an important point, to be sure. But, closely reading the conclusion section of the report also reveals that there are other problems and factors to health care affordability that are not addressed by the report. Is health care unaffordable to many to begin with primarily because of malpractice lawsuits? In other words, would health care be unaffordable for many even without these increases in rates due to lawsuits? It seems to me that if Bush is, as you claim, trying to come up with an argument to fix health care affordability, he’d need to address these questions.
My point is that reducing the health care affordability argument to addressing increases in rates due to lawsuits is misleading. Bush and company don’t even do THAT correctly! If they insist on putting lawsuits so front and center–which I’m arguing they shouldn’t be doing–then they should also be addressing other questions like the following: Why are there lawsuits to begin with? Where are they happening? Who are typically the victims and defendants? Without addressing these issues, which Bush didn’t do during the debates or his campaign as far as I know, then he is not telling you the whole story. The GAO report is important, but it doesn’t tell the whole story.
I think we agree that the issue of health care affordability CANNOT be sufficiently addressed by focusing on one factor, as Bush would lead one to believe. Affordability has been a problem since the 1960’s, which is why Medicare/Medicaid was created, and is affected by population growth, state regulations, health care tie-ins with business/employment, lack of competition, demand vs. supply for specialization, technology advancement and how to insure technology, and so on. This is a VERY complex issue that has been simplified to a quick one-liner. It isn’t like “mend it don’t end it” which merely attempted to remind us that affirmative action isn’t bad because it’s broken. “Junk and frivolous lawsuits” tries to distract us from looking at other problems, some of which I’ve mentioned here.
4) I agree; increasing technology is vital. But if you think that will solve all the health care problems everywhere (i.e., equity is just as important as efficiency), then you have more faith in the health care industry than I do.
- Nan
Alex and Brian,
This is going to be short and sound curt—but it’s all for the sake of getting straight to the point. You both gave bad examples of “Dems doing the same thing”. Alex, your post was insightful—and I think you made one great point, which is to make a shout out to some real Republican thinkers. Definitely adds perspective to this mostly liberal blog. However, you were off the mark with respect to addressing the issue of republican over-simplification. Nan asked, “Why do Republicans frame the rising healthcare costs solely in litigation/malpractice?” He essentially was making the claim that it just is NOT that simple. Your answer: Republicans aren’t simplifying—the issue of healthcare is just simple. I know you don’t really think that, so please, since you’re probably the only Republican who will post here, answer the issues directly. Please don’t defend for the sake of defending.
Clarity: There ARE many reasons for rising healthcare costs. Our overly litigious society is but ONE of the causes that can (and should) be addressed. While there are many very legitimate malpractice suits, there are also many illegitimate ones. This is a market inefficiency that can be corrected with minimal government intervention. If we want to lower costs (which I'm sure we all do), then this is one way to do it. Not the only one, but certainly one we can do something about - the reason why President Bush is pushing this as part of his agenda.
Let's be realistic. The insurance companies are out there to make a profit, and a hefty one at that.
Do you actually think insurance companies are going to lower their rates?
The reason Bush is pushing this as a part of his agenda is a simple one: by placing a cap on awards from malpractice suits, insurance companies will make EVEN MORE money. We all know where the money goes from there.
Don't fool yourself -- insurance companies aren't running at a loss, or anywhere near one.
--Joe
Well said, Joe. During the campaign, tort reform was a very hot issue, one that Bush brought up in nearly every speech. I don't recall him ever saying anything about the insurance industry. Premiums are up. That's it. It was not mentioned whether that industry was also in crisis and those raises were needed or justified. It was only stated, in no uncertain terms, but without any background or explanation. There were four groups at war: the people, suffering from the lack of doctors and proper health care; the doctors, suffering for the high malpractice costs; the lawyers, benefiting from them; and the insurance industry, raising premiums to stay afloat. Really? Bush went at great lengths demonizing the liberal greedy lawyers, victimizing the people, idolozing doctors, and saying not one single word whatsoever about the insurance industry. OK. Fine. That's not surprising. So, good for him, if he feels that he can sell this war in the same sloppy and partial way in which he sold other 'wars'. I could blame the people, and myself, for not demanding more clear and comprehensive foundation for the government's actions. But I won't. I'll blame the president, any president, that doesn't do his job right and that insults and abuses our intelligence with such a blatant disregard for a 'fair and balanced' description of the reality he is trying to modify. If the insurance industry is not at fault, then he should say so and prove it. Otherwise, 49% of us will think, be convinced, and act, and vote, on our belief that we're being duped. No interest whatsoever on giving him the benefit of the doubt when he himself abused that trust from us so openly.
Back to work. Have a good day.
John The Guish Lennon
Excellently put!
Yoko
I thought this quote was relevant to the whole "dumbing down" issue being discussed in the previous posts. It comes from our good friend, Karl Rove.
"As people do better, they start voting like Republicans - unless they have too much education and vote Democratic, which proves there can be too much of a good thing"
I agree with Nora and hope he gets a massive disease in the ass!
-Dawn
Is Rove serious?!?
Are the Republicans who read this blog insulted by this?
Post a Comment
<< Home