For the Democratic Party, the health care debate has become an exercise in fact checking.
As misunderstandings of President Obama's health care plan for a public option (which only exists in loose form) abound at town hall meetings across the country, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has focused its efforts on fact-checking the statements of health care's reform's opponents--more so than spreading any pro-reform message of its own. Last week, the DCCC built a website, HealthCareFactCheck.com, incorporating fact-checks on health care "myths" propagated by Republicans from PolitiFact and FactCheck.org (along with a few pro-reform talking points for good measure).
Now, after Sarah Palin suggested Obama's plan would lead to "death panels" on her Facebook page, the DCCC is selling "fact-check cards" to its supporters, asking them to "help us fight the fear tactics." You get five of them for a donation of any size; the DCCC made the pitch in an email from Director Jon Vogel entitled "Palin's disgusting attack."
It's both a messaging strategy and a fundraising ploy, one that the DCCC hopes will resonate with its support base.
The DCCC needs that support, because its people are some of the ones
getting beaten up (figuratively--you have to be clear these days) at
those town-halls on YouTube: moderate Democrats with conservative
contingents in their districts. Some of those seats gave Democrats
their congressional majority in 2006; they'll have to be retained if
the Democrats want to stay in power.
But as times may be trying for a moderate Democratic Rep who backs
Obama on health care, the DCCC is seeking to take the misinformation on
the other side of the health care debate--and all the questions about
intellectual honesty that accompany a statement like Palin's--and turn
it into capital. Capital not only to propel Obama's health care
initiative, but to propel Democratic competitveness in the 2010 cycle.
The hope, apparently, is that saying questionable things about health
care will come back to bite conservatives in 2010--or at least to let
Democrats hold onto their congressional edge, which might be expected
to shrink after two dominant years in 2006 and 2008.
As much energy as conservatives have generated, the town-halls have
left liberals feeling more like they're in the right. They, and
moderates too, don't want to be associated with the shouting,
sign-waving, and yelling about things that aren't true.
Hence, Democrats are playing the critic; the frenzy of the other side
has become their fuel. It's a passive strategy to analyze what your
opponents are saying--to fact check them--rather than beating your own
drum. But as the id of health care opposition has run wild at
town-halls, it might be better to signify the super-ego...to absorb the
arc of that energy when it's misguided, to criticize it and watch it
die--to hope that health care's opponents do themselves in.
Though the DCCC's fact checking may be tainted by its own partisan political intentions, veracity and weight are lent by the use of independent PolitiFact and FactCheck.org (though some of the fact checking cites other sources).
The way "facts" happen, according to literary theorist Stanley Fish, is not an objective process. Texts and events incur communities of understanding, wherein things are silently agreed upon among groups of people. In this country, there is a community in which Obama's health care reform would lead to death panels; there's a larger community in which it wouldn't.
The Democratic strategy, now, is to broaden its own interpretive community, in which there's a shared truth that reform would make health care better, not by telling people that's so, but by deconstructing the other side, by making it less appealing and, in "fact," totally unbelievable. Who wouldn't want to support Obama if everything his opponents say is false?
To score points, they don't even have to make their own plan look good.
The impact of the DCCC's strategy is two-fold: it supplies supporters
with some verified facts and talking points--weapons in the national
argument--but it also makes the other side look untruthful and bad.
Democrats are the ones pushing the plan, and August began with
conservatives criticizing it. The wheel has turned: conservative opposition (at town-halls, especially) is now an object of discussion, and Democrats have become critics in the health care debate.
Mr. Good: The ObamaCare folks have a lot of "facts" of their own to clean up. Sisyphus has a better chance of rolling that boulder up a hill than President Obama does in making us believe his whoppers.
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/08/12/morning-bell-obamacare-pep-rally-fact-check/
Thats your counter arguement? A blog at the Heritage Foundation? You just proved the writer's point, you know that right?
And your counterargument is that the post is from Heritage?
If their wrong, show how and why they are wrong, rather than implying the ad-hominem that they are wrong just because they are conservative.
Glancing at the Heritage link I see at least that they provide a bunch of links to support their points. That hardly proves them right (the links can themselves be wrong) but at least they are providing sources rather than just saying the other side is wrong because of their political ideology.
see below. giving links doesn't prove anything. i could link to a website that i made up and claim that there's evidence. (in fact, that's kinda what search engine optimization does!)
i have debunked both "facts" at the top of the Heritage list. I think debunking two facts in a row just demonstrates that they're not trustworthy.
Besides which, when we look at the nexus of power between Lewin Group, United Healthcare, and Heritage Foundation, it's clear to see that they're in cahoots.
I'm not working for anyone. I'm just a citizen who cares about getting it right.
The links often travel to other Heritage articles that make claims that link you to other heritage articles. In short, their arguement essentially is 'We're right and we're our own source'.
The very fact that they keep calling it 'Obamacare' and keep pretending like there is a set in stone bill to vote on is in and of itself misleading. There is no bill. There are abut 4 or 5 proposed bills, nothing even close to concrete.
Finally, I suggest you look up what an 'ad-hominem' is before throwing it around.
If there is no actual bill, then voicing concern about what may end up in the bill cannot be considered spreading disinformation, now can it. Obama has himself taked about rationing: that his 84-year-old mother shouldn't have gotten a hip replacement, that an elderly woman who needs a pacemaker should instead consider taking painkillers. Who is going to make these rationing choices? The consumer? The doctor? Some removed panel of experts? The President? This is the question we need to be discussing. Just saying "it's not in the bill, in fact there is no bill" isn't very helpful. There will be a bill, and there will be things in it. That's why we're all here.
Re: "giving links doesn't prove anything"
Yes, and I said as much "That hardly proves them right (the links can themselves be wrong)"
But it provides more data and argument and more details about sources.
Re: "i have debunked both "facts" at the top of the Heritage list."
You did nothing of the sort.
RE: "The very fact that they keep calling it 'Obamacare'"
A common and not unreasonable name for it.
RE: "and keep pretending like there is a set in stone bill to vote on"
Analyzing either the ideas,proposals, and draft bills, and talking about the problems of each is not implying that there can or will be no change.
Thats your counter arguement? A blog at the Heritage Foundation? You know you just proved the writers point, right?
The Heritage Fdn. blog post contains two blatant falsehoods right at the top. They need to fact-check their fact-checkers.
President Obama has frequently said that, "If I could start from scratch" (a hypothetical), "I would create a single-payer plan." But given the fact that the hypothetical is false (Obama can't start from scratch), Obama doesn't want to create a single-payer plan.
Heritage also falsely accuses Obama of lying about the public OPTION. And yes, it's an option. If you want to keep your private insurance, you can. In fact, the bills under consideration in Congress would allow you to avoid recission (getting cut off b/c of pre-existing conditions, etc.). Heritage knows this. They are blatantly bald-faced lying. They know full well that Obama is not eliminating private insurance coverage. He's simply making sure that the playing-field is fair and not tilted in favor of the health insurance corporations.
That is, to use a well-worn phrase, change we can believe in.
The fact that Obama doesn't face a situation where he is starting from scratch doesn't imply that he isn't a single payer supporter. Certainly not to the point that you could reasonably say the opposite claim is a blatant falsehood. Also Obama didn't only say "If I were designing a system from scratch I would probably set up a single-payer system", he also said "So what I believe is we should set up a series of choices....Over time it may be that we end up transitioning to such a system."
Given that reasonably people can come to different opinions about his desires and intentions re: single payer, opinions that differ from yours aren't lies just because you think they are wrong.
And yes, it's an option.
In the short run yes. In the long run its rather questionable. If will probably be subsidized and thus if its not really horrible or incredibly inefficient it will tend to drive out the private sector competitors. (Perhaps leaving room for "gap" and "gold plated" coverage).
Or maybe its not subsidized. In which case there is little point to it. Its not like it would be the first non-profit health insurance organization. A better, and less controversial way to promote competition would be to eliminate the laws that effectively segregate the market by state.
He said specifically that no one wants to push single payer. There is no serious proposal in Congress that advocates for single payer.
And Obama's point is exactly right - i.e., that if you want to keep your insurance, you can. There is nothing counterfactual about that - and you can project into the future all you like, but you can't say with certainty how things will go in the long term (remember when Heritage supported the Bush tax cuts claiming that they'd be stimulative and create long-term economic growth? that was before 9/11, Katrina, etc. you can never predict the future. that's why you get insurance!).
'In the short run yes. In the long run its rather questionable.'
So, essentially, it is an option, and in order to believe it wont be an option, we have to rely on your crystal ball?
Thats a compelling arguement.
Do you have any opinion about the reforms actually being considered? Or do you expect us to take seriously the notion that all reform must be vetoed, because if we reform any part of the system--better access for the unemployed, more coverage of children, etc--that's change, and change means someday we will have single payer? This takes reductio ad absurbum to sensational new heights.
Perhaps we should apply it elsewhere: Don't reform the rules for regulating financial firms, for that way lies single payer health care! Don't simplify the steps for veterans to get medical treatment--that way lies single payer health care!
He's not. He's saying that the government won't force you to change. (But based on what I've read, they are also trying to implement incentives and maybe even mandates for your employer to keep offering you health insurance.) As of right now, if your employers want to boot you off your insurance, they can. It may be debatable as to whether the chances of that happening are more or less likely after reform, but Obama's rhetorical goal seems to be to counteract the falsehoods that people are hearing about this issue--not to try to promise something that can't be delivered.benintn - Re: "He said specifically that no one wants to push single payer. There is no serious proposal in Congress that advocates for single payer."
Single payer isn't going to be passed now because it doesn't have the support, but the "public option" is a path to it.
RE: "And Obama's point is exactly right - i.e., that if you want to keep your insurance, you can."
Many of the proposals call for regulations that would disallow some of the insurance that some people have now. The specific exact insurance plan may be grandfathered in, but if it gets canceled for any reason you might not be able to get a new one like it. Meanwhile depending on exactly what gets passed the new law may create incentives for companies to dump you in to the "public option".
Trve - RE: "So, essentially, it is an option, and in order to believe it wont be an option, we have to rely on your crystal ball?"
So essentially its an option for the moment, and to really think its going to be an option for more than the moment we have to rely on your crystal ball.
Deborah - Re: "Do you have any opinion about the reforms actually being considered?"
I've stated some of my opinions on changes being considered. If there is a specific change you'd like me to comment about, ask.
Re: "Don't reform the rules for regulating financial firms, for that way lies single payer health care!"
That would be distantly relevant if I was arguing "nothing about health care or health insurance must change". Since I'm making no such argument its a non sequitur.
I'm sorry, but this is the main reason I am having a lot of trouble trusting Obama. He keeps saying if I like my current health insurance, I can keep it. But he can't keep that promise. My employer is the party that decides whether or not I keep my current health plan. If my employer decides he doesn't want to keep paying for my health plan, he will stop. And voila, I've lost my current health insurance and will have to find something else. There isn't a da*n thing Obama can do about it. So why is he promising things he can't deliver?
So is the fact that facts are constructed by non objective means also constructed by non objective means?
It depends who you ask
The gusto with which the right wing has resorted to lies and fear tactics is amazing.
No moreso than the Left. Those of us in the middle have had whiplash for a while now.
Facts !!! How about the FACT that Obama claims AARP is on board with his plan when they say clearly they are not.
Any proof that AARP is not on board? Info? Links? Details?
Here's one: http://aarp.convio.net/site/PageNavigator/Myths_vs_Facts_splash
That looks like a pro-reform newsletter
Jake Tapper reported this incorrect "fact" last night on ABC News.
Do people not understand how a bill becomes a law anymore? First, there is no "his plan". There's a House plan, a Senate plan, and a Committee (which shall not be named because they haven't bothered to even finish it yet) plan. So, technically, the AARP has not endorsed a single plan (because there isn't one). But as the AARP link I provided clearly demonstrates, they are on board with the broad health reform goals that Obama has set forth.
FYI, here's Obama's transcript:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/08/obama-healthcare-transcript-new-hampshire.html
What Obama said about AARP was different in his prepared remarks than it was in the Q&A. He used the word "endorsed" in error. White House corrected that, with a pushback from AARP. But Obama is right in the fact that AARP is "on board" - they support the broad plan that would include lower drug costs for seniors, and they are certainly an important player who's at the table (and debunking myths on their website) and contributing positively to the discussion.
I think, Chris, that Fish understands that the truth is not merely a "fish story" that you can make up and convince others. There are examples (e.g., domestic violence, date rape, etc.) that cannot be confirmed or corroborated in many cases because you'd have to be there to know what happened.
But one of the things about the blogosphere is the ability to address and respond to rumors that have some "truthiness" (Colbert is almost as much of an expert on this as Fish) but are ultimately unsubstantiated. Fact-checking is especially important now that major news organizations are not trusted in ways that, say, Walter Cronkite was.
I do still think that facts have a liberal bias - multiple perspectives yield multiple viewpoints, and truth is usually "made up" through a process of dialogue.
The willingness of the GOP to just make stuff up (Deathers, Birthers, etc.) is important, because we can watch the rumor blossom and flower in real time (on places like Twitter).
benintn,
Thanks for the thoughtful comment. My citation of Fish, I'll admit, is sort of a loose one, from my recollection of reading him several years ago--so I should get that out there, in fairness to Fish. As I recall from reading him, Fish was concerned with texts, so it might be unfair to assign such a post-structuralist view of all facts (not just textual ones) without going back and doing more due diligence.
Your point about unverifiable truths is a good one, and epistemology is something that, I think, we don't talk about enough in news and politics.
I completely agree that fact checking is important--especially with the widespread intermixing of news and commentary that accounts for how knowledge and belief about politics and government is spread these days. (Though I don't think being pro-fact checking is irreconcilable with a subjectivist or postmodern philosophical view.)
The beauty of a network news icon like Walter Cronkite was his role as an anchor (seriously, not a pun) for national discussion. Cronkite and his trusted successors built central narratives and common understandings that allowed the nation to talk about things.
You make a great point about blogs and the ability to track and interrogate rumors. But blogs face the same problem cable news faces: people don't necessarily trust the fact checking they do, especially if the blog has an ideological slant. (I have to admit--if I don't say how I verify facts, people probably don't believe what I write, and I'm not sure they should.)
The transparency of rumor's blossoming and flowering is great, I agree: you can pinpoint the tweet where an opinion started, and you can track it throughout the web.
What's struck me about the health care town-halls is that Democratic lawmakers and health care opponents simply aren't talking about the same thing. The reform opponents don't believe what the Democrats are saying about the bill, no matter what they say. It's just two irreconcilable narratives, with no discussion possible.
Thanks again for the comment,
Chris
Hey, don't knock po mo until you try it! Or do...who's a postmodernist to preach?
I tried it once and didn't like it. I didn't even inhale at the time.
I clearly did, but only because of peer pressure. The whole lit department was doing it.
Proof AARP is not on board is here: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/12/obama-claim-aarp-endorsement-inaccurate/
And let's not forget that Obama has no plans to reduce the actual cost of prescription drugs, he actually has a deal with the Pharma's to not use the government's buying power to lower the cost. That evidence is here: http://wallstreetpit.com/9303-the-deal-between-big-pharma-and-the-white-house
Obama's "If you like your policy, you can keep it" slogan sounds great, until you realize that even if you keep your own, you still have to pay for everyone else. It's called Tax hikes. The money to pay for this program isn't going to come from thin air.
If you don't believe what I am saying, do yourself a favor and google it. The evidence is all there.
Or you can go to this AARP website: http://www.healthactionnow.org/Default.aspx
And herein lies the difference - the Democrats (Obama's White House, etc.) will correct inaccuracies.
Then, on the other side, you've got Chuck Grassley repeating the same mumbo jumbo that has already been disproven when it was uttered by Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Betsy McCaughey, and others.
I would like to know how many of the people on this page have health insurance,and if they have any idea what it would be like not to have any insurance i can tell you if you want to hear. Do any of you know what it takes to buy it yourself,what it takes to have good insurance in this world is money,and if you buy it yourself how much it costs.
wait ....... are you telling me that Republicans are using hyperbole and innuendo in making a political argument? SHOCKING. Especially after 8 years of Democrats using hyperbole and innuendo in making their political arguments.
all this might be interesting.....
except that there are enough Democrats in both houses to get whatever the Dems want. Obama's problem isnt with Republicans -- its with his own party.
Whatever happens (or likely, doesnt) on healthcare -- Obama and the Dems own it.
Obama doesn't have a problem with Republicans? How can you say that? The Republicans in the House vote in lock step (or is that goose step) with each other. The Senate is pretty much the same. At least the Dems think about it! After 8 years under the thumb of the Bush-Cheney regime, Obama is a breath of fresh air.
to pass his legislation -- Obama has a fillibuster proof majority in the Senate, and a significant democratic majority in the house.
Every Republican in the Senate and House could vote against his proposal and it would still pass comfortably.
That is why I can say he has no problems with Republicans
The truth told, facts are subjective and not objective. Have had to resort to reading the Healthcare bill or should I say parts and pieces of the several variants of it that are available. The thing that strikes me the most, is that the administration are shading the truth, that really bothers me. The second, is the fact that it is all so nebulas and obviously not ready for prime time, giving one the impression that our leaders are quiet incompetent and do not know what they are doing and or, think that the people are so stupid that they can the citizenry and bull this mess through.
The first argument the Democrats posed should have been: are we going to have single-payer healthcare or are we going to have "something else"? It should have been aired publicly and an election held to decide the issue two weeks later.
Had the thing been handled so, I predict that "single payer" would have won hands down. THEN would be the time to argue about how to set up a healthcare system. The way the Dems are going about it now, they're sure to lose in the end. Republican legislators and activists will never stop quibbling about the virtues/faults of this-or-that or some other one of the two jillion options now being fought over. Very soon now, the public will give up on the Dems and simply walk away.
The upshot will be that Dem Donkeys will be saddled with a dead horse named "Reform." The insurance companies, the AMA, Big Pharma, and the present hospital system will ride roughshod over the American people for another forty years (minimum) because no political candidate will have guts enough to raise the issue again for at least that long.
Obama and his pals are either stupid -- or they fouled it up on purpose. I tend to the latter explanation for a number of reasons: primary among them being Mr. O's choice of Max Baucus and Charles Grassley to design his proposed "reform". Nobody stepping out of the Senate into the Oval Office would be stupid enough to make that particular bungle by accident.
Suck it up, Democrats! Score one for the opposition (of which I am not one).
To those of you on the left, I have a very workable idea for a compromise. All it will take is a minor addition to the healthcare bill.
Liberals want this bill and conservatives don’t, right? Simply insert one clause that states that the new healthcare bill is mandatory for all registered democrats and optional for everyone else. You had 53% of the popular vote so you should have plenty of money in taxes to cover it. In addition, there should also be a clause that those excluded from the coverage can’t be forcibly added or taxed to pay for it without a majority vote of those affected.
If you do this, most of us who are opposed will gladly give our support and everyone wins. Who knows, maybe some republicans will even register as democrats! What do you say? You get your universal healthcare and we maintain our right to choose. Any takers? If you are against this idea, then tell my why without the name calling and insults.
When a skeptic criticizes a makes a particular provision of the generally understood version of ObamaCare, its defenders here all rush to point out that the particular provision may not end up in the final bill that President Obama signs.
Nice try, guys and gals. We can't wait that long to show our interest, ask questions, and voice our opinions. If the President had his way, he would have crammed this monstrosity down our throats a month ago. It has only been the questioning and later outrage of an aroused populace that has saved the country from this disaster, so far.
If you would like to help pressure Congress to pass single payer health care please join our voting bloc at:
http://www.votingbloc.org/Health_Bloc.php
You talk about facts as if we were preparing a tax statement. We should be well prepared for the inevitable plasticity of terms based on our experiences with insurance companies.
The notion that "these are the good guys" is lost on me, if there are any, they are still the tools of sculduggery more often than not. The most compassionate society is still guilty of heinous miscarriages despite intent, it's a complicated world. If I compare my past experience with democratic policy to the task at hand, ms Palin doesn't seem crazy at all. Health care is personal, and we don't trust you. There is no reason why we should. The working edge of any administrative genius is people, and people can't be trusted.
The relative complexity of the demands combined with the potential for abuse give any reasonable person pause. The simple ignorance of the officially relevant can lead to untold pitfalls. In short it is government, not health care that doesn't pass muster here, so why pretend we're talking about something else? My potential will only be reduced by anything this government does, they have been most clear about that over the years.
WRQ9
If facts are a Democrat's best friend, what are you and your establishment media idols reporting? Half-facts, for balance?