Washington Post Article on 'Broken Health System' Also Broken

  • Bookmark and Share

President Obama is making his big health insurance push and The Washington Post is right there beside him, helping make his “ambitious” case. The June 9 Post detailed the “inequities, shortcomings, waste and even dangers in the hodgepodge of uncoordinated medical services that consume nearly one-fifth of the nation’s economy.”

The Ceci Connolly article argued everyone agrees the health-care system must be changed. “On that point there is rare unanimity among Washington decision makers: The U.S. health system needs a major overhaul,” she wrote. 

Connolly certainly made it seem that way, including only two conservative voices who also argued for sweeping changes to our health insurance system. One of those two, Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), was originally nominated Obama’s Commerce Secretary.

There were other problems with Connolly’s story, including some of the other facts she used in her article, such as the number of Americans in need of health insurance.  “Today, about 46 million Americans have no health insurance, so they go without or wait in emergency rooms for expensive, belated care,” she wrote, mischaracterizing the actual total by 10 million people or more.

The number 46 million and similar totals are used a lot by the media and politicians when speaking of the health-care situation in America. But that claim isn’t even close. The tally also includes many non-citizens, those who can afford to pay on their own, as well as people who have failed to file for government coverage.

The majority of Connolly’s article focused on shredding any link between the amount of money spent on healthcare and the level of the quality.  She reached the conclusion, along with spine surgeon James N. Weinstein whom she quoted as saying, “Less is more, and more isn’t better,” that throwing money at the problem is not the solution.

Connolly said the public pays for the “46 million Americans” who do not have coverage: “Everyone else helps pay for that Band-Aid fix in the form of higher taxes and an extra $1,000 a year in insurance premiums.”  Yet she left out the massive costs Obama’s new plan would include or any substantial argument in opposition to such a proposal.

Another key flaw in Connolly’s article was her random labeling of the think tanks and organizations which she cited.  The only think tanks and institutes which she labeled were the “libertarian Cato Institute” and the “independent Massachusetts based Institute for Healthcare Improvement.” Several others, including the liberal Center for American Progress went unexplained.

Connolly also highlighted what she portrayed as a reason for physicians to not provide the finest care: the fee-for-service payment system.  According to the story, “bright young physicians” become more “like assembly-line workers of the past, are paid on a piecemeal basis, earning more money not by doing better but simply by doing more.” 

Later in her article, she cited the president of the National Quality Forum, Janet Corrigan to hammer home that position. “Because the fee-for-service payment system rewards quantity over quality, there is little incentive – and there are even disincentives – for doctors, nurses, and hospitals to improve, Corrigan said.”
 
Connolly neglected, however, to mention other possible “disincentives” that could come with future health plans, including the decrease in doctors’ pay that might well come with nationalized health care. 

 


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Obama's health care

Obama's health care "reform" plan is to blow up the building in order to fix a leak in the roof-Herman Cain

I think that about says it all.

-Dave

Catherine.. when we remove the illegal's from the mix..

Catherine.. dead on.

When we remove the 10 million+ illegal's from the mix.. the number of uninsured in the US is suddenly just a hair over 10% of the population - and you addressed the fact that a great number of that 10% is addressable, where it needs to be addressed. Goodness, we can fix that. 

The truely uninsurable - who have been locked out of being able to obtain coverage could indeed be picked up in some sort of a pooled public/private insurance plan. Actually - they could just jump into The Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program. Guarantee their acceptance into the massive program, which is private a private insurance pool.

Those who are loosing their benefits from being laid off, or from their company going out of business or deciding they can't afford to continue the companies health plan any longer, can be handeled by a few quick changes to COBRA law. Allow the member to select a cheaper plan at election time (right, they just lost their job - may not be able to afford the rich plan they had). Allow them to keep that coverage until they obtain coverage someplace else, via work or a private family plan, or until they are eligible for Medicare. Get rid of the 18 month rule (36 in a few states - like CA) - keep them in the system.

OK, now were down to 10-15 million uninsured - goodness, how are the Democrats going to sell all of this fear mongering with only that to go on:

"My God people - some 5% of the population don't have coverage - the end of civilization as we knew it, is near."

Matthews: Exactly, Mr. Democrat fear monger.

(;~/ gary

The truly insurable already

The truly insurable already have access, it's called Medicaid.  Now why would anyone change the system when the few have their issues already addressed?

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.

dscott..

Well, actually that's not what Medicaid is all about. Medicaid is primarily for those who can't afford to pay for health insurance - for the very poor.

There is a hole in the system - however. There are a great number of people - thru no fault of their own, just can't get a fair shot at having good health insurance, becuase of pre-existing conditions. Some are born with a condition while others have developed a health problem, serious or not so serious, and others suffer injuries that leave them uninsurable or disabled and unable to perhaps land a job that offers them insurance.  Some options have been made available, but by and large, they offer minimal coverge and are generally unaffordable to most. A solution can be had - we just have to do it - and it does not require a national single payer system, which would be a disaster for all of us.

(;~> Gary

The whole is easily

The whole is easily plugged, let them pay Medicaid a monthly premium to be insured.  The very poor have similar issues of pre-existing conditions and that doesn't stop the government from paying their bills. Problem fixed! 

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.

dscott

Exactly. If that wasn't the point I made, then thanks for helping me along. We can fix a 10% problem without all of their power grabbing socialism.

Connolly better get with the

Connolly better get with the program.

Last night, while interviewing her, Tingles inflated the uninsured total to 60 million. And she didn't correct him.

100 million can't be too far behind - nice round number, too. 

“Because the

“Because the fee-for-service payment system rewards quantity over
quality, there is little incentive – and there are even disincentives –
for doctors, nurses, and hospitals to improve, Corrigan said.”

False premise, as compensating the provider based on their level of skill and expertise must be commensurate to the risk, time and money they invested to be a provider.  What one values little, gives little value. An under paid doctor is not one who will stay in the profession very long when there are other professions that pay more.  If the premise were true then doctors in England and Canada would be the most satisfied and improved professionals in the world.  We all know that is BS!

Fee for service assigns a value to the transaction, if it is free then it is in all probability worthless or close to it.  Not to mention, anything that is free has little priority and is not worth the risk.  The same goes on the otherside of the equation for the customer.  If it is free then you have nothing to say about the quality of care.  Hence, the horror stories of patients in English hospitals and Candians literally dying due to waiting lists.  As a patient you have no recourse in a system that costs you nothing.  If your life and health mean little to you, then by all means supports ObamaCare.  

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.

American Healthcare Is NOT Broken

To repeat myself: 

America has BETTER outcomes overall than anywhere else on the planet.  Examples of why our medical system is better than elsewhere can be read here and here.

I really dislike these manipulators and their enablers.  Without the decade's long steady propaganda drumbeat of doom and gloom by the Liberal press and power-hungry Liberal politicians, the American public would have a much higher opinion of healthcare. 

Like a battered spouse believing they are the problem, the American public has been bludgeoned into submission over healthcare and the inverse opinion of what government should do...

Healthcare has become indistinguishably politicized much to the detriment of our country.

Check This Out!!!

I'm not sure if you guys have been over to MM's site yesterday or today, but in case you haven't, you've got to check this these posters out for Obamacare.

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/06/09/death-taxes-obamacare-poster-contest-round-two/

Too Freakin' Funny!!