This week, for the first time, I was insulted by a Redeye column. (The Redeye is a smaller free edition of the Chicago Tribune, targeted towards younger readers)
On Wednesday the Redeye printed a column entitled "Would you buy an oven from Obama?" It was written by Robert Tong, and since I had never seen anything of his in the paper before, I expected his first piece to be something thoughtful. Instead, I got little more than a rant about the recent healthcare bill filled with highly charged right wing idioms like, "it'll cost you some freedom", and that the bill represents "socialism at it's best."
I was kind of insulted. This brand of extreme rhetoric is something I would expect to hear from Glen Beck or Rush Limbaugh. But the Redeye? The Redeye is supposed to cater to young Chicagoans. I'd expect to be treated with more respect.
The debate over healthcare presents economic, scientific and philosophical issues that should not be addressed with broad statements that dismiss efforts to socialize medicine as an evil government takeover. If the current bill is so clearly wrong – as Mr. Tong suggests – then why do so many learned and well meaning people respectfully disagree on the subject? If 67% of the country is opposed to the bill – as Mr. Tong suggests – then why did a man who essentially ran on a platform of universal healthcare far more radical than what has recently passed get elected President in a landslide election?
Do not mistake me for a left wing zealot. A decade ago I considered myself conservative and now consider myself moderate. I am certainly not an unwavering proponent of universal healthcare. The U.S. is much larger than countries like France and Denmark where such systems seem to work; our rich are richer, our poor are poorer, our bureaucracies are bigger, and sharing wealth is not an ideal with which most Americas have been brought up.
There are several sound arguments against socialized medicine, and I respect those who make them. I respect a healthy and wealthy person who simply asks why they should contribute an amount proportionate to their wealth, when instead they should contribute an amount proportionate to their risk. I respect someone who expresses concern that an entity run by the federal government will not operate as efficiently as ones being run for profit.
However, it is also safe to say that our current system of private healthcare does not work as well as it should. For example, this Monday my friend returned to the U.S. from Bangalore India, where he underwent surgery on his neck because he couldn’t afford to have the procedure in the U.S.
And it’s not as if my friend had just been released from prison and didn't have health insurance. My friend is an attorney for a Fortune 500 company with a comprehensive health insurance plan. However, his insurance company simply refused to pay for the procedure – a procedure that every specialist with whom he met recommended. Instead, his insurance company only offered to pay for an alternative procedure that all of the specialists suggested he NOT undergo because it would limit his mobility for the rest of his life. And in making this decision in the face of a great deal of medical evidence, the insurance company cited a clause in his policy specifically stating that they were under no obligation to adhere to the advice of doctors when making their decision.
I am not informed about healthcare issues to a degree where I feel comfortable giving a published opinion on the idea of socialized medicine. However, I do feel comfortable saying that when you reduce such a serious issue to an inflammatory and ill-informed column like what I read Wednesday morning, not only do you sensationalize the issue, but you trivialize it.
Mr. Tong is certainly entitled to his opinion. However, as a Chicagoan, all I ask of my local paper is honest discourse. Like Thomas Paine once said, “The only thing worse than an uninformed electorate, is a misinformed electorate.”
(Ok, Thomas Paine didn’t actually say that, I just thought it would sound more authoritative coming from Thomas Paine than it would from me (given my last post.))
3 comments:
I got the same type of remarks from a die hard tea party person at work when I was simply making the observation that medical costs in every single country (developed and developing) are much lower - in some cases we are talking about 40% to 80% lower costs. Her answer was that they were all subsidized by over taxing everyone.
By the way, I was wondering when I will be getting my NC state tax refund. Apparently they don't send them out until all the people who owe have paid. So I asked the same co-worker mentioned above if she wouldn't mind paying her NC taxes (she does that thing where you claim a million dependents even though you are single with not children so she gets all her money up front then owes). Also I asked her how she gets to the tea party meeting--"don't you use public roads to get there?" Isn't that pretty socialist?
I haven't really talked about medical reform and policy and all that on my blog - I suppose I may address it in bits and pieces, but it really is hard to understand why our medical care is so expensive. My theory is that since insurance companies have total control over everything, it is somewhat like price fixing. If I am not mistaken, they may have been been doing this legally over the years since insurance companies fall out of the jurisdiction of the antitrust laws - I may be wrong on that. It is certainly a mess. And I agree about far right talking points - they are just giving me a goddamn headache at this point.
you expect informed discourse from the Red Eye? come on, dude, you know better than that.
HG - your story really says a lot about the state of our healthcare system.
Colin - you're right, the redeye is a weak paper to say the least, but I respected it for avoiding the political op-ed war. And so when they jumped into it, I was at least hoping it would be somewhat honest.
Post a Comment