How Can Lies be so Blatant?

On monday Paul Krugman published an op-ed article in the times entitled "Hurray for Health Reform." In addition to being the author of an economics text book I study, Krugman is a Nobel Prize winning economist, a professor of economics and international affairs at Princeton and a centenary professor at the London School of Economics, to name a few of his accolades. This, I believe, makes him an authority which can be trusted.

In his article he defends "The Affordable Healthcare Act" which was, after many concessions from both sides of the house, signed in to law two years ago. He says, in no uncertain terms, that it is essential for the health and well being of the American people and highlights the problems with current systems, as well as telling us that, under Mitt Romney, Massachusetts enacted very similar healthcare reforms to great success.

He goes on to say, that in order to oppose the reforms, opponents have to resort to "make(ing) stuff up." What is hard to understand is how, in what Americans would claim is the preeminent democracy in the world, this is possible. How can a properly functioning democracy allow voters to be mislead in such a way. To vote for someone based on their lies rather than their policies will be good for no one but the politician who is allowed to feed misinformation to the public.

Why is it the sole responsibility of op-ed columnists to point out such lies? Why can such information not be considered within the scope of news? If it is true (and as I pointed out above, it comes from a very trustworthy source), is not a matter of political view point or a matter of opinion, it is a matter of national importance. Politicians apparently know they can lie without fearing significant retribution.

One such untruth is that the act would lead to the creation of "death panels" that would decide wether it was economical for a patient to be administered certain treatment. This is not how such a system would work. We have in England an organization called "The National Institute for Health Clinical Excellence" or NICE. This is not a "death panel," rather NICE is tasked with evaluating new treatments. That is how effective it is with a regard to how much it costs. A particular drug, for instance, that is only marginally effective in just a few cases should not be a burden on a healthcare system when the money could be better spent elsewhere. NICE works on the assumption that doctors should be left to treat patients and not be troubled with evaluating economic viability and effectiveness of treatment. A doctor can look up the NICE guidelines for a treatment and make an informed decision as to the likelihood that it will improve a patients standard of living with regards to the cost of the treatment to the healthcare system.

It may be hard to accept, but no healthcare system has unlimited resources. Organizations similar to NICE are essential in preventing the use of treatments that have little benefit and that could cost the healthcare system dearly. The aim of any healthcare developed health care system is to provide high standards of care to all patients. Evaluating new treatments to see if they will be beneficial is integral to achieving this aim.

Politicians are not properly serving the electorate if they lie to gain power. Especially if those lies have an adverse effect on the nation's health. Newspapers and other news outlets are also not serving the public if they do not hold politicians to account for their lies. We can (almost) not blame politicians for lying if they know they can get away with it.

Krugman's article: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/19/opinion/krugman-hurray-for-health-reform.html?_r=1&sq=krugman&st=cse&adxnnl=1&scp=4&adxnnlx=1332424925-oxxT8E6oS1VmCV86RB4FNg#

A Small Argument Against the US' Sentencing of Children to Life Without Parole

According to a paper published in 2008 at the University of San Francisco School of Law by Constance De la Vega and Michelle T. Leighton, the US is alone in the world in handing out Life Without Parole (LWOP) sentences to juveniles. The paper also argues "the LWOP sentence condemns a child to die in prison (and) is cruel and ineffective as a punishment." The United States is one of only two countries, the other country being Somalia, that has not ratified The United Nations "Convention of Human Rights of a Child" which states in article 37a:

 “No child shall be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Neither capital punishment nor life imprisonment without possibility of release shall be imposed for offences committed by persons below eighteen years of age”

The case against the US continuing this practice is strong. There is the fact that, through the medium of the UN, almost all countries have agreed that children have a fundamental right not to be treated in this way. In of it’s self, this lends a huge amount of credibility to the argument. The US holds democracy in very high regard; it represents the very foundation of the nation. It may be because if this strong belief in the democratic process that the US holds it’s self as a moral leader of the world projecting an image of the freest and the fairest society. How is it then that every other developed democracy, not to mention governments that are not held in such high regard, have recognized that this practice is not in keeping with current human rights values. It is very hard to argue that the US is right and that the rest of the world is wrong.

            The legal mechanism that allows a child to be condemned to die in prison is that for a severe enough crime a child may be tried as an adult, thus exposing the child to adult punishments. This highlights a double standard in the US justice system. It follows that because a juvenile justice system exists in the US, it is recognized that juveniles need different treatment than do adults. We can assume that the motivations of the juvenile system are that children are easily influenced, prone to not thinking things through and not making as rational judgments as adults do. Thus they are not wholly responsible for their actions. It does not follow that because a child is accused of a particularly severe crime that they have somehow gained the thinking skills that we expect an adult to have.

            So, whilst the rest of the world has decided locking up children and throwing away the key is wrong, the US continues to carry out this adult punishment. Despite recognizing that children should be dealt with in a different way to adults, the US justice system seems to be of the belief that a child is thinking like an adult when he/she commits a certain crime. That then enables the child to be sentenced to what is arguably the worst punishment imaginable.