Keep it honest, indeed.

August 24, 5:42 PMNY Business News ExaminerJavier David

Previous Next

Comment Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the NY Business News Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

Until very recently, your correspondent has long considered himself an unabashed fan of The Economist (the British weekly that is de rigeur reading for observers of business and economics). Even in instances where one may not agree with their conclusions, the magazine’s usually sober analysis combined with jocular writing makes for thoughtful journalism.

All of which has made the magazine’s coverage of the health care reform debate here in the United States completely disappointing, to say the least. The Economist’s portrait of President Barack Obama’s efforts have been overly solicitous and largely sympathetic.

The Economist’s coverage has been characterized by a breathtaking degree of intellectual dishonesty and misguided arguments, such as this week’s editorial that parrots much of the conventional (read Democratic) wisdom that REALLY distorts the debate and does little to inform its readers:

Au contraire, mon éditeur. In fact, The Economist (and indeed, its cohorts in the British press) has run articles aplenty that detail the inefficient bureaucracy that is Britain’s health care service. Alas, there are several powerful arrows in that particular quiver, few of which make mention of the “death panels” (a melodramatic rhetorical flourish used by former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, meant as a euphemism for the very real prospect of health care rationing).

Reading the pages of The Economist (a microcosm of sentiment demonstrated by reporters and editors in major news outlets around the country), one might come away with the sense that ALL opposition to President Obama’s signature domestic initiative is driven by politically-opportunistic Republicans and purveyors of blind anti-Obama [racist] troglodytes. To be fair, at least some opponents are politically-driven, or implacable Obama critics who don’t like him and never will. But conveniently omitted from this narrative, however, are the following concerns which form the core of skepticism over health-care reform:

1. COST. The Economist’s reporting has focused primarily on the politics of the debate, to the near-exclusion of the biggest concern of all: how to pay for reform. Meanwhile, the magazine superficially elides the most important problem with reform, which is it’s hefty price tag. The same doubts are fueling concerns over the dollar's exchange rate and exploding budget deficit, all of which have serious implications for the U.S.'s ability to finance its deficit;
2. WHO'S AFFECTED: Most of the major proposals floating around Washington are not concrete, but independent observers note that the burden for paying for health-care will fall disproportionately on small-businesses and middle-class taxpayers, which would result in higher unemployment and curtailed consumer demand;
3. PUBLIC OPTION: Debate is raging over whether a public health-care option is central to reform efforts. But critics contend that a public insurance plan would induce the private sector to offload costs to the government, or stop offering health plans altogether;  
4. RATIONING: Despite the magazine’s breezy assertion that rationing is commonplace and isn’t half-bad, there are legitimate reasons to believe that ethereal government bureaucrats will be ultimate arbiters of who gets treated and for how much. While the president has cast the debate as everyone getting the best of all possible worlds, the facts – being the stubborn things they are – militate against this notion. 
5. NEW ENTITLEMENT, WRONG TIME: The recession and lavish government spending are causing the budget deficit to explode. Elsewhere, Social Security and Medicare are projected to become insolvent sometime within the next 20 years with no solutions in sight;   
6. OPPOSITION IS NOT JUST REPUBLICANS: The Democrats hold a substantial majority in both the House and Senate and can easily push through a bill on a party-line vote. Underreported by sympathetic media outlets, however, is that skepticism is coming from Democratic legislators and governors, many of whom would get stuck paying for unfunded health care liabilities. Even avowed supporters of President Obama have indicated both the political and policy calculus behind the health care push have been badly mishandled.  

Your reporter does not aspire to be a media critic, but it appears to him the coverage of this very important initiative has come close to undisguised cheerleading for the home team that isn't even close to impartial. Although The Economist (along with vast majority of major publications) endorsed Candidate Obama, they should realize their greater duty to the public and the national dialogue, especially on complex policy matters such as health care.

Facebook: Javier E. David

Twitter: hankrearden73