The pushback on George Will continues as Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson slams Washington Post columnist George Will. Robinson also becomes the first Postie to note the role played by Will’s editors in helping him attempt to deceive the Post‘s readers. He does it gently since, after all, he works for them. But he does it:
MADDOW: Eugene, I feel like factchecking politicians is a full-time job and it is a very fun one. But does it sort of feel like there is just more made up stuff in the daily back and forth of political news right now than usual?
ROBINSON: It certainly does, and it’s distressing. I think there’s a distinction here among the examples we cite. What George Will did was cherrypick a sentence in a report, be very persnickety in the way he parsed his sentences, and end up making it sound as if the report had said the exact opposite of what it actually said. He was persnickety enough that his editors, who happen to be my editors, felt he didn’t cross the line. I thought he did. And the ombudsman agreed with me, actually, and wrote about it in last Sunday’s paper.
I think the Post is in an untenable position here. If they think that Juliet Eilperin and Tom Toles and Eugene Robinson are slandering Will, then it seems that they ought to do something about that. But if they think that Robinson is right, and Will is cherry-picking phrases in order to make it sound as if reports say “the exact opposite” of what they really say, then it seems that they ought to do something about that. Why run Chris Mooney pointing out that Will is misleading people and then keep giving Will a platform from which to mislead them?
Yesterday, Sens. Judd Gregg (R-NH) and Kent Conrad (D-ND) questioned Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner about why the administration wanted invest new money into an already bloated health care care system. This morning, when Joe Scarborough asked Washington Post columnist Eugene “not an expert in health care” Robinson how President Obama’s proposed $634 billion investment would reduce health care costs, Robinson admitted that he didn’t know:
SCARBOROUGH: Where does it go? That’s my question. Retool how? I’m not being pushy. I just keep hearing “We gotta spend that money.” What do we spend it on?
ROBINSON: Well, you know. Hopefully more than computerized electronic medical records, which I don’t think should cost as much as the administration says it should cost. You know, I don’t know. I’m not an expert in health care. I’m not.
Watch it:
Robinson may not be a health care expert, but it doesn’t take a masters in health policy to push back against pundits and policymakers who argue that investing in the system won’t lower costs or improve health outcomes.
For one, half of the money in Obama’s $634 billion health care fund actually comes from re-investing money already in the health care system, just as Gregg, Conrad and Scarborough suggest. But most reform advocates also believe that to really lower health care costs and improve health quality, $634 billion is a good start, but it’s certainly not enough. One must first invest in the system to see long-term cost savings:
- Expanding Access To Contain Costs: Expanding coverage to the 45.7 million uninsured and treading their chronic conditions won’t come cheap, but it’s necessary if we want to manage chronic diseases and offer preventive services that will treat conditions before they develop into costly medical emergencies. By extending coverage to all, you can achieve efficiencies and end cost shifting.
- Investing In Preventive Measures To Contain Costs: While the United States spent $132 billion in 2002 treating Americans with diabetes, just $70 billion went to the prevention of all diseases. It can be difficult to quantify the possible savings from expanded prevention efforts, but experts estimate that just ensuring that every child receives every routine vaccination could reduce direct and indirect health care costs by up to $40 billion over time.
Recently, PhRMA, SEIU, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, AARP, Aetna, AFL-CIO, and AHIP signed a letter urging Congress to suspend pay-go rules when considering health care reform: “While the cost savings from improving the efficiency and quality of health care will be significant, many of the anticipated savings will be realized in the long term, and may thus not be evident in a ten year budget window…Requiring spending or revenue offsets for the entire cost of health reform within a ten year budget window, as required under a traditional pay-as-you-go rule, will significantly reduce the likelihood of enacting legislation to achieve essential reforms for long-term savings.”
