The Creator of the Obama Death Panel Myth Speaks

Last week the “Daily Show” aired an interview with Betsy McCaughey, widely considered the creator of the Obama death panel myth. Dr. McCaughey is the former Lieutenant Governor of New York State and has a PhD in history from Columbia University. Dr. McCaughey never actually used the words "death panel." In fact it was failed Vice Presidential candidate and failed Alaska Governor Sara Palin who, inspired by McCaughey’s comments, coined the term death panels. Nationally prominent Republications soon joined in. Here is Senator John McCain supporting Palin’s comment (click here). And here is a video of Republican Party Chairman, Michael Steele agreeing with Palin (click here).

The interview between Betsy McCaughey and Jon Stewart is available on the Daily Show’s website (click here to view it). It’s an amazing spectacle. I urge you to view it and draw your own conclusions. If you would like to read the relevant section of the health care bill follow this link. (See pages 432-434). It is amazing that an educated person could read this bill and conclude that the bill is in any way creating anything that could be considered a death panel. It’s more amazing that so many serious national politicians believe it does.

My new favorite Member of Congress

This morning, while drinking my “morning Joe” and watching the MSNBC TV show by the same name, I saw my new favorite member of Congress. He is Anthony Weiner, a Democrat from Brooklyn, New York. I assure you my admiration for Congressman Weiner has nothing to do with the fact that I am also a native Brooklynite. My admiration for Mr. Weiner comes from his cogent defense of the “Medicare for All” proposal. Medicare for all would work like this. Currently the government-financed Medicare program pays for healthcare for Americans age 65 and above. “Medicare for all” would lower the eligibility age to birth. Even people without jobs would have access to health care. Your employer would be relieved of the responsibility of providing health insurance, and if you changed your job you would no longer have to change your doctors.

Medicare for all currently lacks the 218 votes needed to pass the House of Representatives. I talked with Congressman John Conyers of Michigan about the proposal back in the spring of this year. As of that time there were 86 co-sponsors (including Conyers and Weiner). It’s an even bigger long-shot in the Senate. The politics are too complicated. But, the policy is sound. Several months ago at the beginning of the healthcare reform process a fellow patron at my barbershop (knowing I am a health policy professor and believing my job title meant that I knew something about health policy) asked me how I thought healthcare reform would turn out. My answer then as now is: We will probably pass something this year that will be a slight improvement (for example disallowing health insurance companies from declining people for coverage because of preexisting health conditions), but the 2009 “reforms” will not address the major healthcare problems (rapidly raising costs, too many Americans without access, inadequate quality, and inequality in access and quality), then we will muddle along for 20 more years before we are finally left to conclude what Congressmen Conyers, Weiner and at least 84 others have already figured out. Medicare for all, while imperfect, is the best option.

The President's Town Hall Meeting

The president appears to be taking a new tack in his effort to make the case for healthcare reform. I watched his town hall meeting from New Hampshire today. He made all the right arguments. He focused on the personal stories of individual Americans who had suffered in the present system. He defused the lies and rumors… death panels, and such. I always get a chuckle when I hear people rant against “government healthcare” while insisting that the government not “mess with their Medicare.” But, most importantly he responded to the reasonable concerns that people have about healthcare reform. For example, one man suggested that a public option would inevitably kill private insurance companies, since “no company could compete with the government.” President Obama’s deft reply was that Federal Express and UPS are able to compete effectively against the US Postal Service, and in fact it is the USPS that has the constant financial problems. Another man asked about tax increases. The President pointed out that the previous administration (self-defined as fiscally conservative) added a new pharmaceutical benefit to the Medicare program without figuring out how to pay for it. Many of the same members of congress who now express concern about costs of healthcare reform voted to create this new benefit even in the face of massive income tax cuts, two wars, and a mounting budget deficit. My only quibble with the President’s message is on the cost issue. If you provide care to 47-50 million people who currently don’t have access to care, you are going to have to pay for it, and there are only three possibilities. (1) Increase revenue by raising taxes, fees or some other device; (2) cut services somewhere else in the budget; (3) add the costs to the deficit. None of these are pleasant options. However, in the end one of these things will have to be done.