To believe that politicians will lie is not to embrace cynicism, but to be wary and wise. To believe that those engaged in a high profile debate of great significance will lie is to simply to grasp the obvious. But when that debate is greatly significant, complex, and politically divisive, the ability to extract truth from the mix is difficult.
In the current US debate regarding health care reform (aka the effort to impose socialized medicine upon an unsuspecting population – choose your preferred label) finding what is true and not true is extremely difficult. The line that has been the most damaging to those pushing for greater government involvement in health care has been that the proposed system would in effect create ‘death panels’. The thinking here is that with the government doling out resources for medical treatment, elderly patients would be denied treatment if it were determined by government regulators that such treatment would not significantly improve the quality of life when measured against the total expense.
(It seems to me that the market now determines this, and the market is no kind arbiter of life and death decisions. But that is beside my point.)
Conservative opponents to (further) government involvement in health care are pushing the ‘death panel’ idea and those supporting proposals now making their way through the legislative process label the idea as a preposterous lie.
My problem is that I think both sides of the debate are capable of manufacturing and massaging reality in order to make their case.
I was intrigued this morning by a reporter on NPR (I know that to some readers I’ve already conceded the case by even listening to NPR, but bear with me) who submitted claims regarding the British system to a British surgeon and government advisor for his factual assessment. He asserted that the claims were not only absurd, but outright lies.
If this reporter were to speak with a different British surgeon or official, would he get a different answer? All things are possible, and that is my problem. I just don’t see how anyone can speak with any certainty on such a politically charged issue in an environment where to so many of the participants in the debate, truth is not as important as victory.
UPDATE: I originally linked to the wrong story. My apologies.
Adria
I agree with you on this dad, and I would really love to know what the bill looks like that is actually being considered.
MagistraCarminum
Randy- not sure the 3-minute piece you linked is what you heard: doesn't seem very illuminating to me. Did you notice the reporter's comment that, "Britain would love to have the cancer cure rate the US has, but not at the cost of dropping in its approval rating (which is 18th in the world compared to 36th for the US)."? I'm sorry. Give me the cancer cure rate, and approval rating be hanged.And I think part of the problem is that the bill as proposed is huge, and in a constant state of flux, and part of what frightens me is that I think it will be like the budget was– pushed through with no time to read it, much less debate it. I find the whole mess rather horrifying.
Randy Greenwald
Chris, you are correct. I linked to the wrong story. Oops. But do remember – my point in the post is not the merits or demerits or wisdom of the program, but the sense that proponents and opponents alike will resort to non-truth in order to win.
MagistraCarminum
Yes, Randy. And that is both sad and disheartening, but true I'm afraid. May we be people of Truth, not politicians for "truth".