Soundbite arguments and missing the point.
There is a paragraph appearing here and there on Facebook that goes something like this:
So they just passed a health care plan written by a committee whose chairman says he didn’t understand it, passed by a Congress that exempts themselves from it,signed by a president who smokes and has high cholesterol, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn’t pay his taxes, and better yet it is to be financed by a country that’s broke!? Repost if you agree
And while I’m sure it is just meant to be funny and gather a few laughs from the “believers,” it seems to me that it exemplifies the inaccuracies, and plain out falsehoods that pass as gospel in a soundbite society. It is sad to me that much of our debate about important issues is reduced to snarky comments which at best oversell reality and at worse distort the picture of what is actually going on.
I believe there are reasonable arguments against the health-care bill (or any other issue for that matter) and these arguments should be presented and discussed. However, when we reduce things to cheap soundbites, we are 1) inevitably wrong, and 2) miss the opportunity for honest dialogue. But it is to the first point that I want to address the rest of my post. I would like to examine the Facebook comment and look into whether or not it gives an accurate representation of what is happening, or if it distorts the truth in order to make it’s point. Let’s begin, phrase by phrase.
Chairman says he doesn’t understand it.- I’m assuming this comment is referring to articles like the following: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/print/54930. The essence of what is being said is that the bill is written in legal language – which is hard to understand. But this is not unique to the health-care bill. ANY bill written by congress is written in legal language. There is a reason for that. The reason for writing in technical language is, ironically enough, so that the meaning is unambiguous. So while one might argue that this is a bad thing, it is not unique to the health-care bill. It is an artifact of congress. So if this is true of all bills in congress (you should try reading the patriot act), what is the point in calling it out as a weakness of this particular bill.
Passed by a Congress that exempts themselves from it.- The gist of the argument seems to go like this:
- The bill requires the creation of state exchange plans.
- Congress members are not required to use the exchanges for their health insurance.
- Therefore, it is a double standard.
The problem is that the bill doesn’t require everyone to participate in these exchanges. They (the exchanges) are meant for people who don’t have employer related coverage. Congress does. A rather lengthy, and more complete, explanation of why this statement is false, can be found at: http://mediamatters.org/research/201003250022
So, this statement is demonstrably false.
Signed by a president who smokes and has high cholesterol. This one is a good one. I’m guessing that the idea behind this is that an unhealthy president has no right to pass a health-care bill. It makes me wonder what people think health-care is all about – perhaps helping people with health issues. But regardless, let’s assume that the president should be healthy in order to be worthy of passing a health care bill – or that at least he should practice healthy habits. How does Obama measure up.
Clearly he smokes, so a check against him. On the other hand, he is trying to quit. And from talking to people who have tried, this is not trivial matter.
What about exercise.? It turns out Obama exercises a lot. Look it up. You might also note that the number one lifestyle risk reduction factor is exercise. In other words, if you want to improve your health, exercise. But has it made a difference. His latest physical exam seems to show that it does: Resting heart rate of 56, blood pressure of 105/62, and a BMI of 23.7 (for reference a normal weight BMI is 18.5 to 24.9). According to the CDC, the average adult in the United States has a BMI of 26.6. So he is pretty healthy there.
What about this cholesterol bit? 209. According to e-health that is in the borderline high category. However, the key question is, can he do anything about it by a lifestyle change. According to e-health again, cholesterol levels can be determined to a certain extent by your genetic makeup. E-health lists three lifestyle items that influence cholesterol levels: What you eat, how active you are, and what you weigh.
We have already established that Obama is active and has an appropriate weight. What about the third item – does he have a healthy diet? I couldn’t find a lot of information on this. But this article comparing Obama’s diet to McCain’s seems to indicate that he eats in a healthy manner.
So he smokes and has high cholesterol. But in comparison with the average American, he is quite healthy. But then again, why do you have to be healthy to be sponsoring a health-care bill?
With funding administered by a treasury chief who didn’t pay his taxes. This is clearly true. On the other hand, it’s also true about the funding that is used for defense, homeland security, social security. It is all administered by him. On another note, this is an incomplete statement (like most “soundbites”). As of today, he has paid all of his taxes. And he always did pay his taxes. He just didn’t pay all of them. He claims it was an error. Whether you believe him or not, one must admit that making an error on taxes is not exactly hard to do. Of course, that doesn’t excuse him. Especially, since he is supposed to be the “money guy”.
On the other hand, this assessment (he should have known better since he is the guy in charge of all the money in the US) may be a simplification. I often encounter this oversimplification in relation to electrical engineers. People assume that an electrical engineer should be able to wire their house, fix their tv or make their phone work. Most of the time, this isn’t true. The electrical engineer can’t do those things, not because he isn’t an electrical engineer, but because his training is in other items – possibly power engineering.
So this statement is partially true, but the implied message is much stronger than actually warranted by reality.
Financed by a country that’s broke! This one is great! Great in the sense that someone totally missed a key point of the health bill. But before we go there, let’s ask the question, what does it mean for a country to be broke, or bankrupt? Laurence Kotlikoff brings an interesting answer to that question — more precisely, Is the United States Bankrupt (written in 2006). If you don’t want to read the whole article, the author concludes that countries can, and do, go bankrupt, and that the United States is headed that way. What is even more interesting, however, is the solutions he presents (retail sales tax, personalized Social Security, and wait for it, a globally budgeted universal health-care system). Obviously, this is a point to be debated. But one of the key tenets of health-care reform is that it will help reduce the deficit. So once again, a soundbite misses the point.
So let’s recap, the healthcare bill is written in legal language, which is difficult to understand, just like any other bill. Congress is Not, in fact, exempt from what it prescribes (they still have to purchase health insurance). While Obama does smoke and has high cholesterol, he is much healthier than the average American probably as a result of his lifestyle choices which include abundant exercise and a healthy diet. Geitner did mess up on his taxes, and he possibly should have known better, but this a simplification at best. And finally, the United States is going bankrupt, but a reasonable argument can be made that the Health-care bill will help alleviate that problem, not make it worse.
Now, I don’t have any delusions of making any grand change in the way we look at things. But my invitation is to shy away from cheapshots and soundbite arguments. These are serious issues with lasting consequences. They deserve a better treatment. We deserve a better discussion.