The Washington Post

pa2010.com is proud to partner with The Washington Post in bringing our originally reported insider political news to a wide audience of decision makers and opinion leaders across the country.

Close it
advertisement
Whiteboard

Michael Livingston's Blog

Michael Livingston's Blog

Purple in Pennsylvania

send to a friend | print | comment

More on Specter and town halls

My pa2010.com colleague, The In-Specter, has responded to my last post, suggesting that Specter will benefit rather than lose out from his performance in so-called town hall health care meetings this week.

Specter, he argues, looked “strong and statesmanlike” in confronting extremists, taking a hit on behalf of the health care plan and, implicitly, the Democratic Party of which he was now a part. A number of outside commenters have taken a similar line.

I think this would be true if Specter were, for one, a real Democrat and, two, had any history of supporting universal health care. But he doesn’t. He became a Democrat only when it was clear he couldn’t win the Republican nomination. And according to most sources, he took a consistently oppositional line toward the 1993 Clinton health plan, although it never came to a final vote.

I think it is also a little unfair to call the protesters “right-wing nuts,” although there are certainly some among them. When you get to the core of it, Obama is basically saying that he can provide quality health care to a vast number of new people without taking anything anyway from what people already have, all at a reasonable cost—this at a time when most people think that even existing spending is unsustainable in the long run.

That simply isn’t credible—everyone knows the plan will be paid for, at least in part, by reducing spending on people who are now covered, and older, sicker people are the most likely victims. The yelling and screaming, and the talk about death panels, are an inelegant but also inevitable response to this basic dishonesty.

August 14, 2009 at 9:15 am

--Michael Livingston

Tags:

comments

comments [4] | post a comment

  1. WESTPADEM6

    Aug 14th, 2009

    Nah… yeah they are right wing nuts… seriously dude. Uneducated, misinformed… if that works better then so be it.

    I am glad Sen. Specter says all options are on the table. Criticizing someone for hearing out and observing the situation on health care isnt something i think people without health care are interested in.

  2. David Diano

    Aug 14th, 2009

    Michael-
    If you do more preventative care, you reduce long term costs.
    In today’s Washington Post, Charles Krauthammer made VERY false argument against this by using completely fabricated numbers about the costs of prevention vs treatment.

    FALSE ANALOGY #1:
    “Assume that a screening test for disease X costs $500 and finding it early averts $10,000 of costly treatment at a later stage. Are you saving money? Well, if one in 10 of those who are screened tests positive, society is saving $5,000. But if only one in 100 would get that disease, society is shelling out $40,000 more than it would without the preventive care. ”

    First of all, simple blood tests cost under $100 and can identify dozens of VERY COMMON potential diseases. So, screening for common stuff like high cholesterol, liver disease, kidney problems, diabetes, and various other treatable problems wind up costing a few dollars each. Also, a routine exam can catch high blood pressure and heart problems.
    The long term costs of these, if left untreated, costs FAR in excess of $40,000. Not only in direct costs (hospitalization and surgeries) but in lost wages (taxes) and productivity.

    TOTAL LIE, FALSEHOOD #2
    ‘In Obamaworld, as explained by the president in his Tuesday town hall, if we pour money into primary care for diabetics instead of giving surgeons “$30,000, $40,000, $50,000″ for a later amputation — a whopper that misrepresents the surgeon’s fee by a factor of at least 30 — “that will save us money.” ‘

    A factor of 30? Total BS. You can’t get any surgery, especially an amputation, for under $2,000 unless you work in a non-union shop with dangerous machinery.
    Seriously, an overnight hospital stay, operating room costs, follow up care, wheel chair, etc.

    So, Michael, you and your fellow right-wingers need to take some math classes. Not only for computing health costs, but to understand that making the majority of noise, doesn’t mean you have the majority opinion.

  3. Pat Yang

    Aug 14th, 2009

    I don’t think we can really call these people right wing nuts. They have been lied to and they are scared. Who can blame them for coming out en masse to scream and shout about the horrible, socialist future that is being painted by special interest. Some of these are elderly people who complain that they don’t want government involved with their health care. When asked if they are on medicare and how they like it, they generally answer that they are and they have no problems with it.
    I do not know how Senator Specter would have voted on the Clinton Health Plan in ‘93, but what I do know is that he is doing everything he can to support the President’s approach to what the public has demanded. He is trying to educate these people who have been misled and he is tirelessly working to make sure that every Pennsylvanian and American can go to a doctor when they need to. I applaud his efforts.

  4. Lee Levan

    Aug 14th, 2009

    Michael

    Before you changed course and began discussing healthcare reform, your piece sounds more like a campaign argument against Specter instead of an analysis. I’m a Sestak supporter, but I know the difference between a balanced analysis and an advocacy (or opposition) piece.

    You placed you conclusion that the recent town halls have hurt Specter in the context of a 15 year long picture. First, that doesn’t make sense when talking about recent events. Second, how many voters know or remember what happened 15 years ago?

Leave a Reply


- will not be published


pa2010.com blogs