| The administration's logic versus the industry smear machine.
The health care "debate" is rife with the rhetoric of fear. It's punctuated by emotionally charged lies, mis-directions, and obfuscations. One thing it is not is a debate. There is no room in debate for "they who are the most terrifying win." A debate is about logic, and well-reasoned and persuasive argument and rebuttal. But mostly, it should be about truth. Philosophies can vary, but the truth should remain the truth. That's why we do need a "fairness doctrine."
Perhaps not the same one that the FCC deemed as having a "chilling effect" on political speech, as opposed to enabling it, about 20 years back. I see no realistic method of achieving the old goals of advising ahead of time those with an interest in the speech and allowing a rebuttal for every instance of political speech broadcast on any medium. This would indeed have a chilling effect on political speech, as well as being a logistical nightmare.
I ask only that we hold political speech the same standards we impose on all other forms of broadcast and print media news -- an obligation to tell the truth. No slander, no libel, and no lies. No more passing off unverifiable rumor as news using the "some people say" or "question mark" dodges. All public officials should be held to the highest standard of honesty in their discourse. They should be required to have evidence to back any and all claims, and this evidence should be readily available to the public.
If you want to say that "this amounts to a government takeover of health care," you need to prove it, and explain why it's a bad thing for the American people. If want to say that "single payer systems are rife with problems, such as rationing and the unavailability of the latest medical technologies," prove it. Not with anecdotal evidence, but with an honest assessment and due diligence.
If you want to say that "this would lead to a collapse of the private insurance industry," prove it. And while you're at it, tell the American people the truth about the private coverage you're defending. Explain the Medical Loss Ratio, and how it induces the rationing of care. Tell the American people what exactly these companies add to the value of the economy. Tell them how H. Edward Hanway makes more in a one day than the average American worker makes all year, and his primary responsibility is making sure Cigna is not spending "too much" money on health care. Then explain why this not a conflict of interest between company and consumer. |
DIRIGO BLUE is available as an