Advertise Here

Deliver your message to thousands of readers every day.

Our readers are influential opinion makers - politicians, journalists and activists.

Learn more about ads.

Our latest headlines

Want more? Dive into the archives.

About Us

David Greenwald, Editor. (Contact David.)
CFC Education Foundation, Publisher. (Contact us.)

Got a news tip? Want to write a guest column?
Contact David here.

About California Progress Report.

Founded by Frank D. Russo (Publisher and Editor, 2006-08).

Books

The Black-White Fallacy of Public Option

Kevin Lynn

Call me a cynic, but I am deeply skeptical of the rhetoric I hear coming out of the Obama administration regarding healthcare reform. I am concerned at the pace with which a plan was adopted, the apparent lack of curiosity when it came to evaluating and embedding best practices of other countries, and the use of a propaganda ploy known to those in the trade as the Black – White Fallacy.

The Black – White Fallacy as defined by the New World Encyclopedia is the presentation of “only” two choices, with the product or idea being propagated as the better choice (for example, you can have an unhealthy, unreliable engine, or you can use brand X oil.) So after all the years of clamoring for reform we have now in front of us two choices when it comes to deciding the future of how healthcare will be paid for and delivered in this country.

One choice, the choice that has been quietly incubating in the dimly lit areas of the Washington Beltway is the insurance industry’s response to the inevitable collapse of the dysfunctional tripartite that currently exists between private insurers, doctors and patients. Tom Daschle’s book “Critical” spelled out in general terms how through the creation of a quasi-public/private system modeled on the Federal Reserve the same for-profit insurance companies that are gouging us today will with the coercion of the Federal Government continue to do so well into the future, or at least until they once again trip over their own greed.

The second choice, or rather “option” we are being offered is the same system as in the first choice but with an expanded Medicaid type facility that would include those that are either too poor to pay for private insurance or wish to simply opt out. This option, the “Public Option” plan is not Single Payer. In short, nothing here is going to get at the root of the problems and engineer a system that is focused on prevention, making Americans healthier, and reducing costs.

So those are our choices. If you are starting to feel a little squeamish right about now, you probably should be.

You can see now why Senator Bacchus worked so fervently to ensure Single Payer didn’t have a place at the table. For the ploy to work there can only be “Brand X” and a “Brand Y” that is framed through the use of clever neuro-associations as the bad choice. But try as they may, they will not succeed. They won’t succeed not because the American people aren’t stupid enough to be duped – sadly, we are. The reason they won’t succeed is because the more the citizens of this country learn about Single Payer, the more they like it.

There are also couple other propaganda ploys at work here as well. Let’s see if these sound familiar:

• Appeal to authority – Citing prominent figures in support of a position, idea, or course of action.
• Appeal to prejudice – Using loaded or emotive terms to attach value or moral goodness to believing the proposition. For example, “A reasonable person would agree that our healthcare system is in crisis and something needs to be done.”

Right now millions of progressives across the country are in a bit of a quandary. On one hand they understand the benefits of a Single Payer system, but on the other Dr./Governor Howard Dean is steering them to Brand X. I was in a bit of a quandary myself. There is a lot I respect and admire about Howard Dean but I am not about sacrifice my principals for him.

If in his estimate we cannot get from Congress the best health insurance system possible, then it is probably too corrupt a Congress to even attempt to pass any kind of healthcare reform. Perhaps the priority should not be reforming our healthcare system but reforming the way we finance our political campaigns. After all, if we really had our priorities straight wouldn’t we expect to first pass the “reform that makes all other reforms possible!” I bet Single Payer would have a place at the table if it were taxpayer money funding Senator Bacchus’s campaigns and not the insurance industry.

In closing it must not be lost on Progressives that President Obama did not run under the banner of REFORM, but rather under the banner of HOPE. And that is certainly indicative of what has been coming out of the Oval Office and through the bowels Congress since January. So we’ll have to continue to hope they’ll someday stop cutting the tops off mountains in West Virginia, stop escalating the conflicts in the Middle East, not pass environmental legislation that lines the pockets of coal and oil companies with taxpayer dollars, and pass true healthcare reform.

Kevin Lynn is a political activist and former delegate and member of the Executive Board to the California Democratic Party representing the 46th Assembly District which includes the Downtown Core, Little Tokyo, China Town, Boyle Heights and parts of East and South Los Angeles.

Kevin’s goal is to elect fiscally responsible and socially progressive leaders to office. To that end he is currently forming an umbrella organization called the Center for Progressive Urban Politics to assist political organizations with turning red districts blue and forcing our elected officials confront the difficult problems affecting the state of California. He is also the Treasurer for the Washington D.C. based think tank, Progressives for Immigration Reform.

Posted on July 04, 2009

Comments

I first studied this issue in freshman economics - oh, about 46 years ago now. Not a great deal has changed.

When you look at the basic economics of healthcare you find that one of the economic variables - elasticity of demand - is greatly different for healthcare than it is for most things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elasticity_(economics)

For many people the elasticity of demand is infinite for healthcare. As the cost is reduced to zero, the demand goes to infinity.

That is, of course, the COST - not necessarily the need, but with a public system there is very little difference between what is generally perceived to be necessary and what the system will eventually decide is necessary.

We do a LOT of unnecessary medicine - elective cosmetic surgery is an example (I'm actually old enough to remember Michael Jackson's original nose and skin tone), but if you look at state-mandated insurance plans, do we need homeopathy? Chiropractic? Naturopaths? Massage Therapy? Aromatherapy? Colonic therapy?

Once healthcare becomes a "right" we need to decide of course which of these are "rights" and which are merely expensive fads. If we spend on stuff that doesn't work - even if people want it - there's that much less to spend on stuff that does work.

Anyone really think that's going to be easy?

Do you actually believe that cr@p about us saving money from preventive medicine? Not going to happen. Oh, we'll perhaps give people more years of life - that's certainly possible, but eventually they ARE going to die, and they will die from something that will be to a greater or lesser degree treatable.

You going to deny a vibrant 80 year old the treatment you would have given a non-vibrant sixty year old? And do you seriously think we are going to SAVE on medicare or social security from people living longer.

It's a cold ugly statistic, but premature death from COPD (caused by smoking) does NOT cost the government money - it saves the government money - considerable money. Are you aware that when the social security retirement age was set at 65, the AVERAGE person didn't LIVE to be 65?

You can't actually believe we will SAVE money in social security by increasing the mean time people are supported by social security - do you?

Be careful what you ask for, and don't rush through on this issue. It is fraught with issues within issues and major unintended consequences.

Posted by: George Hanshaw at July 4, 2009 07:51 AM

Mr. Lynn, the author, and Mr. Hanshaw, the first to comment, make some thought provoking points. It is unfortunate that the Senate effort on health care is being led by two senators who have shown so much contempt for so many years for the public interest, and consequently one wonders if they have been honest and direct in informing the public of the true costs and consequences of their proposed legislation. It is fact that the longer serving senator flat out lied to the public with regard to the consequences of the 1965 Hart Cellers Immigration act.
One wonders if the Congressional Budget Office was recently pressured to fudge its numbers - see http://dodd.senate.gov/
Also, see http://www.kaisernetwork.org/health_cast/player.cfm?id=4062&play=7#clip_7
and
http://budget.senate.gov/democratic/documents/2009/CBO%20Letter%20HealthReformAndFederalBudget_061609.pdf

Posted by: Erik Kengaard at July 4, 2009 08:36 AM

I was pleasantly surprised to learn that Mr. Lynn heads up a progressive organization that appears to recognize some of the downside to excessive immigration. Am I missing something?
See http://www.progressivesforimmigrationreform.org/

Posted by: Erik Kengaard at July 4, 2009 08:51 AM

Sorry, comments are temporarily disabled. We're doing a bit of server maintenance on the commenting area. We'll be back up and running shortly. Thank you for your patience.

Get Email Updates

Want the California Progress Report by email? Once a week, we'll send you the latest and greatest headlines.

Stat tracker