Healthcare Debate: The Ultimate in FUD Manipulation

As a freshman in college on a Spring Break trip in Florida, I went to the ER for an ill-timed bout with strep throat and mono.  While waiting for my turn to be seen, I witnessed a woman behaving erratically and raising her voice with the receptionist.  She was nearly hysterical, but with anger rather than sadness.  I had my ears tuned in to try to make out what was going on.  Sadly, when her partner arrived, she told her that because they lacked health insurance, their sick baby would not be seen.  At the time it seemed harsh - who wouldn't help a baby in need? Now that I am a mother, I can imagine the helplessness, anger, and desperation that the baby's mother must have felt.  

That was many years ago, and I don't know how that situation would be handled today.  But I still  wholeheartedly support providing basic health care to every member of society. I have been lucky enough to have had health insurance my entire life and have never had to wonder "what if....".  I'd gotten so spoiled that I even assumed a mistake had been made when I got a $500 bill for my most recent Labor and Delivery experience (it was due to a change of coverage; $500 was my copay.  I didn't pay a dime for my two other babies).  As to the expense - I am happy to pay for it out of my tax dollars. I just think it is the right thing to do.

What strikes me about the debate today is the seeming control of the information by lobbying groups and extremists.  It really seems to be classic FUD marketing - per Wikipedia, the Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt angle is a manifestation of the appeal to fear.  People seem to oppose reform because of examples set forth that likely won't represent their experience.  For example, when I asked one acquaintance her opinion, she stated that she was opposed because "Obama wants to socialize medicine".  Really? You're going to take a position based on what you're guessing somebody might want to do? One must really have a lot of faith in Obama to think he could accomplish that (the socialization of medicine) in 8 years.  She also said that the government option wasn't "fair" and "would make the insurance companies go out of business".  If that doesn't sound like the mouthpiece of the insurance companies' PR firm, I don't know what does.  

Another friend said he opposed the reform because he didn't want to have to "wait in line" for health care. Again, this strikes me as a complete long shot from what is currently on the table.  It is hard to find great doctors in Manhattan that take insurance, AND there is a black market for kidneys...do you *really* think we are a society that would deny better care to those who can pay more?   It seems to me that we are a long way away from truly socialized medicine.

And I might be missing something, but aren't there several groups still working out how to best accomplish the reform?  The specifics haven't been established yet, and we are still wasting energy on shooting down others' ideas, rather than working together to find common ground.  If health care costs are rising due to waste and inefficiency, a good place to start is just to agree that some sort of reform is required, and go from there. Instead, what seems to be happening is criticism without a constructive aspect.  As my formed Economics professor used to say about shooting down ideas without providing an alternative - "any chimp can do that". 

This is an original post for NYC Moms Blog.