Krugman Op-Ed Piece Highlights Healthcare Again

Paul Krugman’s New York Times op-ed piece for April 4 focused on Elizabeth Edwards attack on John McCain’s health care proposal. He presents the basics of Edwards’ appearance, but intertwines her statements with policy details and an overall explanation of the healthcare system in the United States. He finishes by giving a similar evaluation to Obama and Clinton’s plans, and expressing the hope that healthcare would receive more attention once the basketball has finished.

The piece is an excellent example of the differences between a traditional newspaper article and an op-ed piece. While the newspaper article on Edwards’ appearances stated the facts objectively, Krugman clearly attacks McCain’s proposal, and cites the advantages of Clinton’s plan over Obama’s. Since it is a New York Times op-ed piece and not a random blog, Krugman is careful to use specific policy details and economics in his attacks on the candidates, but the impression a reader of Krugman’s piece would get is a very different one than the reader of the above article would take away.

New York Times Covers Elizabeth Edwards Appearances

On April 10, 2008, the New York Times published an interview with Elizabeth Edwards in which she discusses her reasons for not endorsing a candidate as well as her recent statements on the three remaining candidates’ health care proposals. She has received attention in the last week for attacking John McCain’s proposal, but has also come out in support of Clinton’s plan, which mandates health care for all citizens, over Obama’s, which only requires children to be covered.

Another example of objective coverage of healthcare in the 2008 election by traditional media. The piece is an interview, so does not contain the opposing arguments to Edwards’ statements, but otherwise remains neutral. It includes a basic report on the interview without getting into anything other than elementary policy details.

NPR's On Point: Hillary's second time around for Health Care reform

On September 18, 2007, Tom Ashbrook spoke about Hillary Clinton and her new health care reform during the campaign.  He discusses how Hillary cam across many obstacles 14 years earlier and how she is back now with a "gentler" and "kinder" reform that focuses on choice.  He begins the interview with an interview with Susana Meadows, a senior writer for Newsweek discussing her article, "How Hillary won the health care industry" and then continues the segment with interviews with Dr. Atul Gawande, a former health advisor to Bill Clinton, Stuart Altman the current health care advisor for Barak Obama and Scott Atlas, the senior health care advisor to Rudy Giuliani.  During the interviews, Ashbrook took phone calls from citizens throughout the country from Iowa to New York voicing their opinions about Hillary's health care reform. 

NPR provided a very balanced frame for this news piece with experts ranging from supporting Hillary, to Barak to the then potential republican candidate, Giuliani.  Having the people's concerns being called in added to the balance.  However, after reading the readings about gender, this is a prime example of how a woman only represents 1/4 of the people interviewed.  They also described Hillary's new health care plan as more womanly by using the adjectives, "Kinder" and "Gentler". It appears that Hillary didn't have success with her "manly" approach 14 years ago so she made it more feminine in hopes to have better results.  Did she have to feminize the health care issue because it is usually an issue for women?

NYT Examines Effects of MA's Universal Health Care

An article in the New York Times looks at the strain Massachusetts' universal health care law has caused on health care in the state. Primary care physicians are in high demand and many have backlogs of patients waiting to get physical exams as people who did not have insurance before the law now have insurance (since it is required by MA law) and can now receive primary care.

This article provided an interesting perspective because most articles on the candidates' health care policies simply outline their plans while this article examines the possible effects of a universal health care system, which is supported by Clinton and Obama. This article that deals with the consequences of a universal health care system is, I think, very helpful for readers, especially if they support universal health care, to know what problems that type of system will face.

WaPo Article Cited by Numerous Blogs

The Washing Post article noted below on rising health care costs and wage workers was linked to by numerous blogs, such as the independent, nonprofit MotherJones Blog. The post quoted a paragraph of the original article which discussed the percentage increase (27.4 to 30.2) in benefit costs of a worker’s wage. The post doesn’t include a ton of commentary, but commends WaPo on the article and includes many comments. Though one might expect the comments to be for the Democratic universal health care proposals, and many are, some posts declare that health insurance is not a right and needs to be worked for. A good example of how blogs shorten news reports, (the original article was on two internet pages), and how interactive they are, as the comments appear as almost part of the post.

Washington Post Documents Covers Rising Health Costs

On March 24^th the Washington Post published an article documenting the impact of rising health care costs on workers paid by wages. Total benefits, which include health care, have increased from 27.4% of worker costs in 2000 to 30.2% in 2008. The article quotes many sources, all discussing the difficulty people are having paying for health care, while addressing candidate proposals for health care changes.

This is a good example of an article from traditional media covering health care, though it does a better job of addressing policy details than most. The article remains almost totally neutral and is very balanced, quoting employers with different strategies for dealing with health care costs. The journalist subtly appears to side with employers doing more to cover workers themselves, rather than leaving coverage to workers, as he quotes a worker who completely rejects her employers insurance, which only offers a health savings account combined with deductibles, while all other workers are content with their employers’ efforts.

Update to Wal-Mart Story

According to AOL News, Wal-Mart has given up its fight against Deborah Shank. It will not take the money that Shank was awarded in the suit against the trucking company. Apparently after NBC news and CNN reported the story, Wal-Mart had a change-of-heart. I suppose the hope that Wal-Mart would change its mind in light of the probable negative public opinion of it generated by news stories about its fight with Shank, was the reason that this story was probably reported.

Podcast #3 Health Care in Mind

The podcast, “Prospects for Health Care Reform in the US” aired on April 17^th 2007, interviews Dr. Ted Marmor, Professor of Public Policy and Management and Professor of Political Science at Yale School of Management about America’s dissatisfaction with  health care and the steps that can be taken to change it.  He discusses the history of health care, the pro’s and con’s of Massachusett’s new health care reform and how to reinvent a new model for national health care. 

This 30 minute podcast was very thorough in facts and Dr. Ted Marmor offered detailed information on many aspects of health care and why some attempts to change health care have failed and what can be done to change that trend.  This interview not only described the problems but also how the listeners could become more proactive to make such a transformation.  This podcast was a lot more informative and beneficial to the audience than the other health care podcast, Health Politics.  

Podcast #2 Bright Ideas about Health Care

This is the same podcast from Health Politics, aired June 6^th, 2007.  In this podcast, Dr. Magee discusses how the topic of health care is built up pre-election and disappears post-election yet offers hope to how that can change.  He states that new technology offers more options and networks for people to make that transformation.  Once again, he makes this comparison to the light bulb and how through technology, leadership, and amplification Edison’s light bulb became inefficient to newer bulbs.  Through this analogy, Dr. Magee attempts to predict how the current health care system will become obsolete with newer systems. 

While this comparison offers new insight to the listeners of how to view the health care system, it is a very optimistic approach and doesn’t give the audience enough background on the subject.  While it is refreshing to listen to some optimism on a topic that is ridden with I wouldn’t consider this podcast a reliable source of information but rather a podcast that is directed towards children given the subject of the comparison.  Another aspect of the podcast I found very interesting is that the main speaker is referred to as a Doctor in order to give the listeners more comfort that they are listening to a qualified and well-informed speaker, when in actuality the podcast doesn’t exude those qualities.  

Podcast #1 Transforming the Health Care System

This podcast from the program Health Politics, aired on June 13, 2007, discusses the industry of health care and how one can attempt to change this unequal business.  The speaker, Dr. Mike Magee argues that the health care industry not only affects the patients but also physicians, hospital administrations and nurses.  In order to describe how politicians and citizens should deal with transforming this system, the speaker gives a comparison to the issue of Mexican Coca Cola in the United States.  He states that comparisons work because health care is an industry and all industries deal with many outside forces.  In the comparison, Dr. Magee concludes that if one is hitting a brick wall, don’t keep hitting it and instead try a new tactic.  Through this analogy, Dr. Magee explains that politicians need to try new tactics and think outside the box in order to improve the health care system.

Through this new medium of podcasts, the listener is able to understand how to approach the transformation of the health care system through the comparison of the case study of Mexican Coca Cola.  This makes it easier for the listener to understand this complex topic.  While the comparison breaks down the problem of health care, a lot of information about what type of “walls” have been put up by health care are omitted.  While the audience is able to understand more are they also getting the most informed perspective?