National Inflation Association Spreads Healthcare Lies, Suggests ‘Violence Could Escalate’

15 August 2009 :: staff

Open letter to the National Inflation Association, suggesting retraction of false healthcare claims and immediate public apology

Your report “Violence at Town Hall Meetings Could Escalate” uses inflammatory, irresponsible language and is full of misstatements of fact and even overt falsehoods. It also appears the document could be used to promote a campaign of violence against citizens or public officials promoting reform.

The following quote contains a number of overt falsehoods: “Although the Obama administration has not indicated what they will do with this information, it is very troubling and really shows their authoritarian mindset. It appears as though the White House is looking to limit free speech through intimidation.”

1. The Obama administration never obscured in any way “what they will do with this information”: the point is to find out what lies are being told and then to issue responses to the false information being spread.

2. The assertion that this project of trying to make sure people whose lives may depend on healthcare reform aren’t misinformed is a sign of “their authoritarian mindset” is not even a rigorous enough statement to qualify as opinion. It is simply fabrication.

This administration has done more to cooperate with Congress in making sure major initiatives are legislated, not mandated, than the last administration did, and unprecedented efforts to promote transparency and grass-roots democracy mean the entire House bill is online (go to OpenCongress.org), line by line, in full, and the president is engaging the public in town hall meetings. These are facts that relate to a measurable and verifiable real project of opening government to the people, not the reverse. It is the least authoritarian presidency we have seen since World War II.

3. The White House is not attempting “to limit free speech through intimidation”. People expect the government to report facts and to counter dangerous manipulations that put the health of tens of millions at risk. Free speech allows people to say whatever they want; it doesn’t mean that outright fabrication and hateful lies (comparing the White House to Nazi Germany or a research plan aimed at ensuring patients get higher quality care to “eugenics”, an irrelevant term designed to sow hatred and fear) can be justified or “floated” in hopes political unrest and even violent reactions will ensue.

The following paragraph has just as many problems: “Obama is looking to do the opposite of this. By the government providing health insurance on its own at below market costs, they will drive the competition out of health care and create chaos. The most talented doctors will no longer want to work in the industry and the quality of health care will deteriorate. Government price controls have never fixed anything, just ask the people of Zimbabwe. Free market forces are more efficient than clueless politicians in Washington 100% of the time.”

1. The “public option” is not “the government providing health insurance on its own at below market costs”; it is the government providing health insurance (which Obama has said will not be subsidized to undercut market costs) without a profit motive. The government would also adhere to the higher standard of not rejecting consumers and not rejecting treatment. This increases outlays for the plan, serves as a correction to the market currently distorted by insurers looting their own funds and rejecting claims in many cases in overt violation of the law, and competing in the marketplace.

If “free market forces” are so dynamic and “efficient” “100% of the time”, they should have no problem competing with this standard.

2. It is just logically incoherent to allege that the government is engaging in competition, which you claim is unfair competition, then to say that they “will drive competition out of health care and create chaos”. More competition means more work for today’s insurers; I think we can all agree they need to work harder at providing care, instead of devoting the hundreds of millions of dollars they currently devote to denial of coverage and denial of treatment, i.e. “rationing of care” for private profit. More competition does not mean less competition.

3. “Government price controls” are not part of this plan. There is no price control provision. But, if you research the ongoing process of negotiated collaborative healthcare reform, you will find that the big pharmaceutical companies, the nation’s hospitals and the AMA —representing doctors— have agreed to significant cuts in fees, which will allow a reduction in cost per patient or cost per treatment, but a sustainable expansion of the market (46 million to 52 million new patients covered by insurance of some kind), which will expand overall revenues for each of the sectors mentioned, and reduce “chaos” by eliminating the problem of uncompensated care.

4. Zimbambwe’s absurd rates of 230 million % inflation are not specifically linked to price controls. Price controls were instituted to try to stop the bleeding. Just like any such measure, the risk is that the bleeding was too intense when the remedy was tried. Zimbabwe’s economic chaos is owing to a number of factors that sow fear and scarcity: namely, inattention to resources, poor management of arable land, and rampant political violence, which keeps people from interacting with their government or seeking community-based solutions for fear for themselves or their families.

Poor negotiation of international debt regulations and corruption that allowed leaders to steal that money without investing it properly bankrupted the country, making it harder to attract foreign investment and putting the regime in a zero-strength position as concerns aid or debt repayment.

5. Free market forces are sometimes more efficient, sometimes less. For instance, there is a reason the Postal Service is still far cheaper than Fed Ex. One reason is that Fed Ex has an entirely different business model, the other is the problem of profit and private investment. That the Postal Service charges such low rates in comparison has never hurt Fed Ex’s business, but Fed Ex cannot reasonably be expected to operate on such low costs as the USPS.

But more importantly, over the last 30 years, the cost of Medicare and Medicaid has increased on average 8.8% per year. That’s very steep, and it’s a sign of what’s wrong with the healthcare system. But, it’s not a sign of government being inefficient. Private insurers, whose rates were already higher 30 years ago, have increased costs by 9.9% per year on average over that same 30 year period. If private insurers had been as “efficient” as government programs have been, premiums would be 33% cheaper than they are.

By far the most important and disturbing of the manipulated language in your report is the suggestion that “We believe the violence erupting today at health care town hall meetings is only a sign of things to come. These meetings will likely get louder and more raucous in the upcoming weeks and if Obama moves forward with his plan to socialize health care in America, the violence could potentially escalate to an uncontrollable level.”

This is concerning because 1) you follow the statement with a number of falsehoods and outright lies, all of which are designed to sow fear and push a specific ideological view of the proposed reforms which is not based in fact and is akin to the confusion which is causing the unrest at these meetings, and 2) you inform readers that “We will be attending multiple town hall meetings and health care protests in the weeks ahead”, suggesting that you not only foresee an escalating campaign of violence, but intend to be present for it, likely repeating the falsehoods that are creating the unrest in the first place.

It is incumbent upon your organization to retract the overtly false statements made in the report “Violence at Town Hall Meetings Could Escalate”, and issue an immediate public apology, including language specifically urging that no readers construe the piece’s message as promoting or condoning violence or unrest of any kind.

You or your members may hold financial interests, ideological preferences or partisan leanings, that motivate a desire to see healthcare reforms, as currently proposed, fail, but that does not and cannot under any circumstances be allowed to justify a departure from reporting the facts or a permissive or wishful attitude toward violence at public gatherings.

Please note: this article will be updated to include mention of any such public apology or retraction and to note the specific retractions or corrections made.

- · – · – · – · -

Explore the actual proposed House legislation:

- · – · – · – · -

More reporting on healthcare reform from Cafe Sentido:

Home Page

Join Us / Sign In

Categories

Archives

No Comments