THE SWISS DONT NEED NO STINKIN PUBLIC OPTION! The Times examines the foreign experienceand produces an industry wet dream: // link // print // previous // next //
FRIDAY, OCTOBER 2, 2009
Taylor Branch, free of disease, breaks the law: Something important was said on Hardball last night.
How often do we get to type that?
Good God! Taylor Branch appeared on the clownish cable program to discuss his new book, The Clinton Tapes. At one point, he did the unthinkable:
Taylor Branch made an accurate statement about the Clinton/Gore era!
Normally, this sort of thing just isnt done, due to strictures of Hard Pundit Law and the prevalence of Friedman Disease (see below). But last night, this is what Taylor Branch said, sitting right there on the set of Hardball. In this exchange, you see Chris Matthews play the fooland you see Branch do the unthinkable:
Matthews, cast in his usual role, played the consummate fool throughout. And Taylor Branch broke every known stricture of Hard Pundit Law in the process! Good lord! Right there on cable TV, the gentleman made an accurate statement about the Clinton/Gore era:
Fourteen words youre not allowed to say on TV! Last night, Taylor Branch said them.
Just this week, weve seen the way the hacks, the wh*res and the purchased fellows function when discussing this era. In that very same New York Times, Thomas Friedman finally said that Whitewater was a bogus scandal, used by the right to hound Bill Clinton (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 9/30/09). He even put scandal inside scare quotes, letting us see how bogus Whitewater was! Of course, Friedman said nothing resembling that during the Clinton/Gore era, when it actually might have mattered. And in this weeks column, Uncle Tom was too dishonest to explain his change in stance.
But such is the heartbreak of Friedman Disease. Heres how its defined in the medical texts: The inability to be truthful about the Clinton/Gore years.
This disease has always driven the press corps, including its mainstream and career liberal factions. It drove the press corps during that era; it has driven the press ever since. It has driven the Marshalls, the ODonnells, the Olbermanns, the Cornsthe Dionnes and, of course, the Gene Robinsons. Frankly, it has driven the Riches. And of course, the disease is contracted from small, slimy microbes which breed on the set of Hardball.
But uh-oh: Taylor Branch had never played Hardball before last night! He arrived on the set in good health.
This disease has always served the interests of the big rollers who have made a joke of your discoursewho began to consolidate their power during the Clinton/Gore era. From that day right up to this, a Hard Pundit Law has obtained, enforced from precincts on Nantucket: To get on Hardball, you had to contract Friedman Diseaseto agree that you never would tell. And the weak little hustlers all caught the disease. Taylor Branch, arriving from outside the system, showed up last night in good health.
Go aheadobserve it again. You never see this on these programs. Taylor Branch made an accurate statement!
Gene Lyons wrote the book on that matterin 1996! But so what? The entire career liberal worldthe ODonnells; the Olbermanns; the Dionnes; the Joshesran off screaming into the woods. Given prevailing winds of change, they knew they mustnt tattle or tell.
Many other things of interest occurred during last nights session with Branch. (Well plan to review some of Matthews clowning next weekespecially his claim that hes tough on everyone.) But we strongly advise you to gaze on that statement, and ask yourself why your big heroes never say such things. More specifically:
Why was even David Corn clowning about Branchs book last week? Might we repeat our deathless bromide?
You do live in an idiocracy when even the Corns start resembling the Dowds. But then, youve been denied the truth about these matters for many years now. Your liberal heroes all agreed: You, the rubes, must be played, all the way. Beyond that, fiery liberals agreed: Tens of millions of Americans voters must be denied the truth.
Last night, Taylor Branch broke the law. Like Friedmans revelation this week, it comes very late in this game.
The Swiss dont need no stinkin public option: Two key facts emerge from a review of the foreign experience in health care. Trust us, most Americans dont understand these facts:
Those are the (startling) facts which emerge from even a fleeting glance at the foreign experience. Lets state those facts a little bit differently: It seems that American citizens are getting looted in their health care spending.
But go ahead! Read the New York Times detailed account of the Swiss health system, on the front page of yesterdays paper. Nelson Schwartz does tell you, right up front, that Switzerland guarantees health care for all its citizens (has universal coverage). But does a reader ever learn that the Swiss do this while spending massively less, per person, than we spend in this country? By the time Schwartz gets through, he has given the impression that Swiss families spend as much as American families spend on their insurance premiumsand more in out of pocket expenses! (See THE DAILY HOWLER, 10/1/09.) We know, that doesnt seem to make senseespecially since the Swiss spend only 61 percent as much as we spend on a per person basis:
On a per person basis, the Swiss spend 61 percent what we spend! But Schwartz doesnt tell you that in his front-page report. And before long, hes giving you the peculiar impression we have described above.
(For the record: That per-person spending makes Switzerland Europes second biggest spender, another fact Schwartz doesnt mention. Europes larger nations dont spend nearly as much as Switzerland does. Data below.)
In short, the most salient facts about the foreign experience largely disappear in this hapless report. Instead, Schwartz has written a front-page piece the insurance industry must have loved. Right from the headline on down, the hapless Schwartz and his hapless editor seem to be pimping the industry line. Swiss Model for Health Care Thrives Without Public Option, the headline said in our hard-copy Times. The Swiss dont need no stinkin public option, this article says, from its headline on down. Indeed, the first four paragraphs of this report are an industry wet dream too:
There are no bureaucrats or socialists in the Swiss systemand no need for that stinkin public option! And not only that! Max Baucus has proposed legislation which doesnt include the contentious option of a government-run health insurance plan either! The Swiss model thrives without the option, just as the headline says.
The Swiss dont need no stinkin public optionand neither do we! That is this news reports principle message, from its headline on down. Lets be candid: If the insurance industry had written this article, it wouldnt have had to change very much.
But what is wrong with this hapless report? Let us count the problems:
Strong regulation: The Swiss model may thrive without a public optionalthough the Swiss pay much more, per person, than larger European countries. But the Swiss can eschew a public option because they have strong regulationstrong regulation provided by bureaucrats. Schwartz even mentions, in paragraph 8, that the Swiss system does keep down overall spending by regulating drug prices and fees for lab tests and medical devices. And throughout the article, he does describe some of the strong regulations which control the systemregulations enforced by Swiss bureaucratswithout ever quite explaining that thats what hes describing. But his report strongly stresses the lack of a public option while vastly downplaying the strong regulation which make this possible. In a more intelligent report, the headline would have been longer:
The industry wouldnt have written that headlineand Schwartzs editor didnt do so either. But in large part, that is because Schwartz himself produced such an unbalanced report. He vastly downplayed regulationand the bureaucrats who enforce it.
Absence of profit: Schwartz downplays the Swiss systems strong regulation. But he completely omits a second factor: In the Swiss system, health insurers are required to offer their basic plans on a non-profit basis. Incredibly, this central fact is totally missing from Schwartz 1400-word report. And it isnt like Schwartz didnt know this fact; on-line, Schwartz explains this fact in this short supplemental report. (Under guidelines from the Swiss government, health insurers offer basic plans on a not-for-profit basisalthough the companies can make a profit on supplemental coverage.) But uh-oh! That short supplemental report didnt appear in our hard-copy Times. The fact that Swiss insurance is done on a non-profit basis was absent from our newspaper altogether! Of course, the insurance industry wouldnt likely have mentioned that outrageous prohibition either. Who wants to emulate that?
Degree of excess American spending: Trust us: Most Americans have no idea how extra we spend on health care. In large part, Americans are clueless about this syndrome because the news media have made a virtual science out of failing to tell them about it. In his report, Schwartz uses the OECDs data for 2007, as do most writers on health care. Once again, for the ten millionth time, here are some of those basic, startling data:
In a rational world, those are stunning databut the mainstream press corps has made a science out of keeping them hidden from sight. So too with the hapless Schwartz. In his sixth paragraph, he does say that Switzerland provides high-quality care at costs well below what the United States spends per person. But how many readers know what that formulation meansthat the Swiss spend only 61 percent as much as we do? And how many readers know that the Swiss are actually Europes big spendersthat they spend much more, per person, than Europes larger nations? Heres your answer: Very few readers know thatand Schwartz doesnt tell them. In typical fashion, he uses the OECDs less approachable data when he does use actual numbers:
Schwartz completes the hat trick here. He uses the impenetrable percentage of GDP statistic, rather than the more approachable per person spending figures. He tells us that the U.S. is the biggest spender in the industrial world, without telling us how enormous the excess in our spending actually is. And he compares American spending to that of the Swiss alonewithout noting that the Swiss are Europes second biggest spenders.
Soon, he is telling us that the Swiss spend as much as we do for their premiumsand well more on out of pocket expenses! It would be hard to do a more thorough job of disguising the mammoth excess spending which drives the American system. Insurance hacks dont talk about that. Neither did the Times.
This is a terrible news report. The New York Times finally attempted to discuss the foreign experienceand it wrote the type of report which the mother of an industry hustler would love. We dont need no stinkin public option, the Times seems to be saying, right from its page-one headline down. Using the Swiss as the proof of this fact, Schwartz has disappeared all the factors the industry wouldnt want you to see:
He disappears the strong regulation which makes the Swiss system function.
He disappears the fact that Swiss insurance companies work on a non-profit basis.
He disappears the massive difference between American and Swiss spending.
He disappears the fact that the Swiss are actually among Europes biggest spenders.
It would be hard to do a worse reportunless you work for the industry, in which case this piece was quite strong. One last point about that fourth paragraph:
Inspiring! But the Baucus proposal also stops short of the strong regulation and lack of profit which make the Swiss system function. These very basic, elementary facts are AWOL from this piece.
American citizens need to know the basic facts about our health care. We spend two to three times what comparable nations spendlarge nations which get similar outcomes! In short, American citizens are getting looted.
Once again, the Times doesnt tell.
They get letters: This morning, the Times prints an accurate letter about these very problems:
The know such things in Elizaville, but not at the Times itself.