Comments on: Health Care Summit: The Conclusion http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2010/02/25/health-care-summit-the-conclusion/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=health-care-summit-the-conclusion The Policy Journal of the Health Sphere Thu, 24 May 2012 07:58:29 +0000 hourly 1 By: Timothy Jost http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2010/02/25/health-care-summit-the-conclusion/comment-page-1/#comment-32771 Timothy Jost Mon, 01 Mar 2010 16:39:57 +0000 http://healthaffairs.org/blog/?p=3991#comment-32771 Responding to acavale, I certainly admit that I have a perspective on health care reform--I believe that the status quo is untenable, that piecemeal reform cannot fix the monumental problems we face, that starting over is not possible in the current political environment and probably won't be for another decade, and that the Senate bill as modified through the majority-vote reconciliation process presents a fundamentally sound approach to reforming our system. I have many reservations about the current legislation, which I have expressed on this blog and elsewhere. But I don't see a viable alternative being proposed. In particular the proposals put up by the Republicans at the summit would not begin to address our problems, and make some of them worse. Most of the summit was political grandstanding. In retrospect, I think that the Republicans were more effective at this than the Democrats. But the Republicans did offer some valid criticisms of the legislation, which I identified in my reporting (the underfunding of the high-risk pools, the problems with using Medicaid as a platform for coverage expansion), while the Democrats, and in particular the President, at times ably defended the legislation. My primary criticism of media coverage of the reform effort to date is that it has focused almost exclusively on process and has provided very little information as to how the reforms would work substantively, Moreover, a certain segment of the media has actively promoted misinformation about the bill. A charge was made last week, for example, that the legislation would make it "unlawful" for a person to choose the hospital to which they would be taken by an ambulance in an emergency. The only part of the legislation that I can see that has anything to do with ambulances is a section that would fund four state pilot projects to better coordinate emergency care, responding to a 2006 Institute of Medicine report criticizing the fragmentation of our emergency care system. Nothing in that section would make it unlawful for a person in an emergency to direct an ambulance on where to go. But this is only the latest example of the kinds of wild and erroneous claims that are being made about what is in the bill, which have thoroughly confused the American people. As Senator Reid said at the beginning, quoting Senator Moynihan, We are each entitled to our own opinions but not to our own facts. I have a clear opinion, we need health care reform, but I try to represent the facts as accurately as I can in my reporting. Responding to acavale, I certainly admit that I have a perspective on health care reform–I believe that the status quo is untenable, that piecemeal reform cannot fix the monumental problems we face, that starting over is not possible in the current political environment and probably won’t be for another decade, and that the Senate bill as modified through the majority-vote reconciliation process presents a fundamentally sound approach to reforming our system. I have many reservations about the current legislation, which I have expressed on this blog and elsewhere. But I don’t see a viable alternative being proposed. In particular the proposals put up by the Republicans at the summit would not begin to address our problems, and make some of them worse.

Most of the summit was political grandstanding. In retrospect, I think that the Republicans were more effective at this than the Democrats. But the Republicans did offer some valid criticisms of the legislation, which I identified in my reporting (the underfunding of the high-risk pools, the problems with using Medicaid as a platform for coverage expansion), while the Democrats, and in particular the President, at times ably defended the legislation.

My primary criticism of media coverage of the reform effort to date is that it has focused almost exclusively on process and has provided very little information as to how the reforms would work substantively, Moreover, a certain segment of the media has actively promoted misinformation about the bill. A charge was made last week, for example, that the legislation would make it “unlawful” for a person to choose the hospital to which they would be taken by an ambulance in an emergency. The only part of the legislation that I can see that has anything to do with ambulances is a section that would fund four state pilot projects to better coordinate emergency care, responding to a 2006 Institute of Medicine report criticizing the fragmentation of our emergency care system. Nothing in that section would make it unlawful for a person in an emergency to direct an ambulance on where to go. But this is only the latest example of the kinds of wild and erroneous claims that are being made about what is in the bill, which have thoroughly confused the American people.

As Senator Reid said at the beginning, quoting Senator Moynihan, We are each entitled to our own opinions but not to our own facts. I have a clear opinion, we need health care reform, but I try to represent the facts as accurately as I can in my reporting.

]]> By: acavale http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2010/02/25/health-care-summit-the-conclusion/comment-page-1/#comment-32753 acavale Sat, 27 Feb 2010 15:53:46 +0000 http://healthaffairs.org/blog/?p=3991#comment-32753 Mr. Jost: You have obviously presented your take on the summit, which is not an unbiased one. So we will take you on your word. If you are ready to accuse the media of their biased presentation of the summit to the public, it would have been only fair for you to acknowledge your biases and prejudices. You conveniently omit the eloquent and powerful argument that the two physician Congressmen made against the passage of the current proposals. But we can chalk that up to your willingness to pick and choose which parts of the discussion you would like to present. So, in the end you are no better than the main stream media. Let's get on with this plan and pass it on a party line basis and as the President said, let future elections speak to whether the people welcome this or not. Mr. Jost: You have obviously presented your take on the summit, which is not an unbiased one. So we will take you on your word. If you are ready to accuse the media of their biased presentation of the summit to the public, it would have been only fair for you to acknowledge your biases and prejudices. You conveniently omit the eloquent and powerful argument that the two physician Congressmen made against the passage of the current proposals. But we can chalk that up to your willingness to pick and choose which parts of the discussion you would like to present. So, in the end you are no better than the main stream media. Let’s get on with this plan and pass it on a party line basis and as the President said, let future elections speak to whether the people welcome this or not.

]]> By: dcohen9 http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2010/02/25/health-care-summit-the-conclusion/comment-page-1/#comment-32740 dcohen9 Fri, 26 Feb 2010 19:09:10 +0000 http://healthaffairs.org/blog/?p=3991#comment-32740 Thank you, Mr Jost. This is the best coverage of the event I've seen. And, I agree that, unfortunately, "Whether or not those Americans who did not sit through it will get an accurate picture of what transpired from the media is, of course, another question." I hope many people will read your posts. Thank you, Mr Jost. This is the best coverage of the event I’ve seen. And, I agree that, unfortunately, “Whether or not those Americans who did not sit through it will get an accurate picture of what transpired from the media is, of course, another question.” I hope many people will read your posts.

]]>