« What I've Seen With Your Eyes | Main | The Right Enemies » Giuliani's Character02 Nov 2007 01:48 pm Paul Krugman notes that Rudy Giuliani's running around the country saying things about health care policy that aren't true, and wonders "Why isn’t Mr. Giuliani’s behavior here considered not just a case of bad policy analysis but a character issue?" It's a good question. Meanwhile, Joe Conason and Ezra Klein note that he's also a huge hypocrite — the health insurance Giuliani claims was so superior to government-provided health care was . . . provided by the government. Comments (23)
Is there some rule in newspapers that reporters are no longer allowed to point out blatant lies in the body of their story? Do we really have to have all of the fact-checking done on the opinion and editorial pages? Yes, Rudy lies to us. This is not news. Sadly, what is also not news, is that there are news articles that cover what he says that don't tell us, up front, that what he said is false. 
Pay no attention to the paid shills.
Meanwhile, Joe Conason and Ezra Klein note that he's also a huge hypocrite — the health insurance Giuliani claims was so superior to government-provided health care was . . . provided by the government. There is a difference in participating in an employer sponsored health insurance plan that is provided by the City of New York and Having the government directly provide health care ala the VA or the military medical system. We all know what messes they are (or at least that is what I am told constantly whenever someone wants to make a point about veteran health care) Most municipal health care plans in this country are provided by Blue Cross or Blue Shield just like most plans provided by private employers. All the city or state does is pick up the monthly premiums. The Dr. and the Hospital are still an individual choice (as long as the are plan particpants).
Al, that 44 percent statistic isn't cited in the City Journal article. Before you tell us who's lying and who isn't, where did he get it from?
Chad, When a democrat proposes government run health care like the VA you will have a point and then we can debate the quality of government run health care, but since every plan on the table (even Medicare for all) doesn't do that you and Guiliani are full of shit.
Eric K. Connect the dots. Hillary's strategy is to: 1) Offer a government alternative along with private insurance companies (choice). 2) Legislate rules that make it impossible for the private insurance companies to stay in business: siphon off some of their healthiest clients by expanding programs like S-CHIP to the middle class; prevent them from underwriting insureds based on actuarial data, etc. 3) Until all that's left standing is the government plan (no choice).
Fred, Unlike the other right wing trolls you usually aren't this stupid. Even if we totally eliminate private insurance and go to Medicare for all we don't have government run health care. Government run insurance with private doctors doesn't equal government run health care.
Nice. First post here and I am already full of shit. Why for making an absolutely correct statement. Maybe you should have actually read what I said. But beyond that two democrats that are proposing single payer systems, which the VA is, are John Conyers and Dennis Kucinich. So did Al Gore although he isn't running this year. I'm sure there are others. There are also some Republicans out there that support a single payer system too although I can't name any off the top of my head. Anyway I'm done here probably won't be back have a nice life everyone.
Chad says: There is a difference in participating in an employer sponsored health insurance plan that is provided by the City of New York and Having the government directly provide health care ala the VA or the military medical system. beyond that two democrats that are proposing single payer systems, which the VA is, are John Conyers and Dennis Kucinich. So did Al Gore although he isn't running this year. I'm sure there are others. Except, of course, that a single payer system is not government run health care, it's government run health insurance. I won't say that Chad is full of shit, since that offends him, but you've got to admit, his eyes seem to be looking awfully brown . . .
Dude if you want to be taken seriously don't spout incorrect nonesense. As we ahve pointed out many times, single payer does not equal government run. Government run ala the VA means the doctors all work for the government. Not even Kucinich is proposing that. Single payer simply means that the government is the insurance company. Under Medicare you go to whatever doctor you want, who doesn't work for the government. And you are free to get supplemental private insurance. If all your gonna do is spout incorrect right wing talking points you don't add value anyway so good riddance, we have plenty of trolls already.
Eric K., If the government is the single payer for medical care and sets prices, what's the material difference between having the physicians directly on the government payroll versus them nominally having their own practices but getting 100% of their pay from the government?
Al, that article is great at... not refuting any of the points Krugman makes. In fact, the author just regurgitates Krugman's point -- that survival rates are better in America because more people are diagnosed in America, even if the diagnosis is improper -- and then claims that makes him (and Giuliani) right. Unless he, and Giuliani, what to argue that there's something uniquely American about prostate cancer which causes us to get it far more often, he is, in fact, full of crap.
Fred, the same difference between working for the VA and working as a physician in private practice who primarily takes patients covered by Medicare. Do you really need that explained to you?
Re: There is a difference in participating in an employer sponsored health insurance plan that is provided by the City of New York and Having the government directly provide health care ala the VA or the military medical system. Maybe so, but no one is proposing a system like the VA or CHAMPUS. Please go read the healthcare proposals of the major Dem candidates, and then throw that red herring back in the river. Re: Legislate rules that make it impossible for the private insurance companies to stay in business: siphon off some of their healthiest clients by expanding programs like S-CHIP to the middle class; prevent them from underwriting insureds based on actuarial data, etc. Insurers can certainly make a profit and stay in business without actuarial underwriting. They do so all the time-- by underwriting the group not the individual! That's how every insurer that writes group policies for large businesses (including government policies) makes its money. I really do not understand this sudden fixation on underwriting-- only a small fraction of policies are written in that manner, and the insurance companies still make money like oil sheikhs.
"Why isn’t Mr. Giuliani’s behavior here considered not just a case of bad policy analysis but a character issue?" As every regular reader of the incomparable Somerby knows, the answer is simple: Because Giuliani is a Republican front-runner, not a Democratic front-runner. Somerby can get a little intemperate when making this point but, really, it would be good if some other prominent progressive bloggers began to see these asymmetries as less of an intellectual puzzle and more of the systematic threat to progressive politics that they in fact are. Yes, it might be nice someday to sort out the "why" of all this. In the meantime, though, we keep seeing our candidates get slimed to defeat, and yet the charge that there exists, for whatever reason, a systematic right-wing media bias is one that not only doesn't come naturally to us, but that we continue to be reluctant to make. Until we do start making it, not ironically and in passing, but bluntly and repeatedly, nothing will change. As things now stand, the conservative movement still owns the conventional wisdom on this question, even though the days of genuinely "liberal media" have long since passed into the dustbin of history. We are about to be treated to a concerted effort by the nation's political press corps to portray the Democratic front-runner as a serial "double-talker", just as previous Democratic candidates were successfully smeared as "flip-floppers" or "serial exaggerators". Should this effort succeed in knocking that front-runner out, her successor will, subsequently, have his integrity and character assaulted via some similar script (and no, the fact that he will have participated in the earlier take-down, the prior round of character assassination, will not shield him from having the same treatment applied to him). If prominent progressive voices could bring themselves to recognize that this is a recurrent pattern--something that is bound to happen to all popular Democratic candidates, and not some kind of justified punishment for always elevating the wrong front-runners and nominees--they might be a little more agressive in pushing back against those media scripts.
"Fred, the same difference between working for the VA and working as a physician in private practice who primarily takes patients covered by Medicare" How many innovative procedures are developed by physicians who work at the VA or take only Medicare reimbursements? Some of the best physicians are no longer even taking Medicare patients because the reimbursements are so low. A single-payer system means that health care innovation and R&D will slow to a crawl, as there will be no way to profit from expensive research. No thanks.
Paul Krugman notes that Rudy Giuliani's running around the country saying things about health care policy that aren't true, Brian Doherty notes that Paul Krugman wishes he could use sociology in an unwelcomed attempt to manipulate all of human civilization.
I hate to rain on the good god those Republican lovin' MSM parade but Krugman, whom I admire, was dead wrong on press coverage of Rudy's claims about cancer. And, unfortunately, it plays into this larger conceit that there are a few brave columnists who go where the press won't. The fact is that within one day Julie Bosman of the NYT produced a very complete deconstruction of Rudy's claims, including tracking his horseshit back to its source. Where there was, of course, more horseshit. As well, the very capable Michael Dobbs did the same for the WPost (Tho I'm NOT certain it ran in the corporeal edition of the newspaper, which it should). And then Krugman, the NYT's best read op ed columnist, and Gene Robinson (ditto, the Washington Post) wrote very tough columns on Rudy and those same claims. Pace the splenetic Somerby, this is NOT the same thing as the coverage of al gore
The City Journal article that Al links to ignores the key point: that in the US there is much more extensive prostate cancer screening than in the UK. This additional screening is for the most part useless, as prostate cancer is very slow-growing and most men who have it won't die from it. And it may actually be counter-productive, as it encourages invasive treatments that cause impotence, incontinence, and pain. As the overall survival rates show, the extensive screening program has had little or no effect on reducing the rate of death from prostate cancer. What it does do is increase the statistica five-year survival rate. If you catch more cases of a slow-growing cancer early, your statistics will show a higher rate of survival, even if you do nothing at all to cure those cases. And it is easy to misinterpret that statistic as if it meant that any individual who is diagnosed with prostate cancer has a higher chance of survival in the US than in the UK. That's what Giuliani did. You would think that a man who wants to be president would have a better grasp on how statistics should be used to shape policy, but perhaps not. Or perhaps he's just lying. What is clear, though, is that the author of the City Journal article, who is a physician, is lying. That is beyond doubt.
Hello. Al posted a link: 1. "the percentage of people diagnosed with prostate cancer who die from it is much higher in Britain than in the United States." 2. "the percentage of all Americans who die from prostate cancer is similar to the percentage of all Britons who do." 3. "a much higher percentage of Americans than Britons are diagnosed with prostate cancer in the first place" What if American diagnoses of prostate cancer are more prone to false positives?
Comments closed November 16, 2007. |
Search
Subscribe to this blog by Email Books by Matthew Yglesias
Recent Comments
Recent Posts
Weekly Archives
Categories
|
Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Good question. I'm torn between two glib answers, though under current media rules/practice, neither can be disproven:
(1) IOKIYAR;
or...
(2) When a Republican aspiring to, or holding, federal executive office, lies like a cheap rug, it is not news. And I mean that in both regards: it isn't new information or practice; it isn't something the media feels compelled to report. And yes, this may be the same as (1), above.
Posted by Chris | November 2, 2007 2:16 PM