By Barb Shelly, Kansas City Star editorial page columnist
A fair amount of attention is being paid to an oped piece by Jeffrey S. Flier, dean of Harvard Medical School. He gives the health care reform efforts in Congress a failing grade and says,
Speeches and news reports can lead you to believe that proposed congressional legislation would tackle the problems of cost, access and quality. But that's not true.
But one dean does not a consensus make. In this piece for the National Journal, journalist Ronald Brownstein quotes some economists and experts who think the bill just passed by the Senate contains provisions that will make a substantial difference in reducing overall costs of health care while also improving access and quality.
Economists like the provision in the Senate bill that taxes high-end insurance policies, both to raise money to pay for health care reform and to discourage excess spending. The Congressional Budget Office concludes that the bill would cut the federal deficit. If creates an independent commission with the authority to impose savings on Medicare if spending grows too fast. And it contains a number of incentives that would pay doctors and hospitals for results, not procedures.
"I can't think of anything I'd do that they are not doing in the bill," MIT health economist Jonathan Gruber told Brownstein.
There'll be a big fight over a public option and paying for abortions. But a lot of health policy experts think Harry Reid has put forth the makings of a substantial reform measure.
Follow Barb Shelly on Twitter.
Delicious
Digg
Could the "spin" be any more laughably presented?
"Harry Reid's Senate health care bill is looking promising" blares Babs' headline.
It would appear that her inability to suppress her bias has reached comedic status.
But one dean does not a consensus make.
There'll be a big fight over a public option and paying for abortions. But a lot of health policy experts think Harry Reid has put forth the makings of a substantial reform measure.
This post is a thoughtless and condescending slap at the opinion of a highly respected leader in the medical services provison field. You gratuitously cite consultants of unidentified source and qualifications plus one MIT "health economist", implying that they should be considered in the same light. NO SALE
The rapidly growing inclination of the thinking public, Barb, is to trust the health care providers not the "experts" and "economists". I guess this post excludes you from that "thinking public" group.
Quoting "health policy experts" in hopes of moderating public opinion on this bill is the equivalent of hoping for a river to reverse its flow.
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
More lunacy from barb with no gravitas
More idealogical drivel from a true believer. The bill is a mess that will place us into default sooner, and not later. This crap will take a long time to undo if it gets passed. And we will have to undo it. The returning Republican majority will have enough power to do it too. The actions of the masochistic suicidal democrats are bringing some serious clarity to Americans and they won't be tempted to vote for them again, like they did in 08. Obama is worse than Carter and even the folks that liked him are begining to see it.
Health care reform? Bull crap!
Oh, for a Governor Like This....
http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/017/277bjeer.asp
another article on the healthcare bill...
http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/017/278iilzz.asp
less then 12 months of this insanity, less then 36 months of Jimmy II whose approval rating has dropped below 50%, headed for 37% next November.
You Pick
Dean of Harvard Medical vs. Journalist. Who has more credibility? Who do you believe? I would say that calling an op-ed writer a journalist is stretching the definiation. One cannot be un-biased in writing op-eds, so one of the first rules of journalism is broken. Sorry but this op-ed in the Star is predicable and meaningless. Do some real reporting on the health care issue, such as why are the costs high and are the present bills in Congress reforming health care or health costs.
National Journal
Interesting. When National Journal ranked Obama as the most liberal senator in 2007, leftists dismissed NJ as biased and/or irrelevant. Now when the liberal Brownstein writes an article favorable to the vile Harry Reid, NJ suddenly has credibility.