(Mis)information Overload
(Editor's note: The following is a guest blog from Mark McGraw, staffer on ADVANCE for Health Information Executives)
Earlier this week, Bob Mitchell, our managing editor here at ADVANCE, posted a blog chastising the behavior of some overzealous attendees at a recent public debate on U.S. health care reform held in the Philadelphia area.
But the City of Brotherly Love isn't the only place where the "discussion" surrounding proposed health care legislation has turned ugly, as amped-up activists from around the country have joined the fray as well.
(Click here for news on related incidents in Florida, Missouri and Georgia)
Instead of engendering thoughtful debate, many public meetings to discuss health care reform have instead devolved into shouting matches and in some cases violence.
And -- not at all surprisingly -- opinions on the legislation are largely split down the political aisle. The health care issue is certainly complex, but in its simplest terms, the party lines generally go something like this:
From the left -- The current U.S. health care system is in dire need of an overhaul, and the proposal put forth by the Obama administration would ultimately mean more choices and more affordable care for more Americans, and would allow doctors and patients to make health care decisions that work for them, not the insurance companies.
From the right -- Obama's proposed legislation would be financed by cutting Medicare benefits, would hurt small business, would force many Americans out of their current insurance plans and ultimately send us down a slippery Socialist slope that ends with the federal government controlling individual health care decisions.
A true, complete picture of the Obama plan for reform has yet to emerge, as the legislation is still being drafted. But the argument becomes more contentious by the day, as both sides passionately plead their case for or against the presidential plan to revamp health care. And, as in many arguments, facts and logic have at times been obfuscated by rhetoric and bluster.
In an effort to clear up misconceptions about the proposed legislation, the White House has launched a Web site, www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/, aimed at providing visitors to the site with "the latest ‘reality checks' and tools to combat misinformation," according to a White House official.
The site features a variety of videos from White House officials and health care experts attempting to dispel claims that reform would amount to a "government takeover" of health care or that reform would encourage or even require euthanasia for seniors, for example.
The new site may be intended to bring the facts to the surface, but reform opponents have quickly countered that the White House is only muddying the waters further.
The site is "full of errors, misstatements and falsehoods," House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said in the Aug. 11 edition of the Los Angeles Times.
White House officials "don't know how many employers are going to drop their coverage altogether if their plan goes into effect," Boehner told the paper, adding that the White House is wrong to say that individuals would be able to keep their current insurance plans if they so desired.
As a rebuttal to detractors, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) penned an opinion piece that appeared in USA Today on Aug. 11. In it, they accused health care reform critics of engaging in an "ugly campaign" bent on drowning out opposing views and preventing members of Congress and their constituents from conducting a "civil dialogue" on health care reform.
And on it goes. However it happened, anything resembling a civil dialogue about health care reform seems to have been muted by the sound of an angry mob elbowing its way to the podium to demand its say, differing opinions be damned. And if that's the track we're on, what are the chances of the health care situation being adequately addressed anytime soon?