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#
No comments:
Post a Comment