Blumner expands her realm of credibility, albeit in an unhealthy way

I'll have to grant Robyn Blumner, that pinata of the St. Petersburg Times, an area of expertise.

After all the cherry-picking she did for this week's editorial, I'll have to take her very seriously the next time she writes about the plight of agricultural workers.

The topic this week, along with the customary swipe at Bush and/or Republicans, is health care.

Rudy Giuliani has been called "Bush with brains" by those who fear that the former New York City mayor shares a penchant for unbridled executive power. But the Republican presidential primary front-runner seems to have a screw loose when it comes to campaigning. His attack on Hillary Clinton's health care proposal with the bugaboo of European-style "socialized" medicine is not only full of factual holes but it will surely bite him in the butt if he makes it to the general election.
(St. Petersburg Times)

Cherry-pick No. 1: "(F)ull of factual holes" but Blumner will only mention one, regarding Giulianni's imprecise use of cancer statistics earlier in the campaign.

Cherry-pick No. 2:

Polls regularly show that Americans are disgusted with the current state of affairs. In a 2007 CBS News/New York Times poll, nine in 10 respondents said that the U.S. health care system needs fundamental changes and two-thirds said it was up to the federal government to guarantee that all Americans have health care coverage.

In the paragraph just preceding the one above, Blumner assures the reader that the voters "won't be fooled again" regarding Sen. Clinton's health care magic. Not many will bother looking up the poll Blumner cited, unfortunately.

The numbers she cites are accurate, albeit the wisdom of the mob isn't necessarily the best guide to public policy (I'll point Blumner to the approval for the Iraq War in 2003 if she looks askance). On the other hand, she's not telling the whole story.

Won't be fooled into thinking Hillarycare isn't the greatest thing since Social Security (we'll leave aside the fact that the younger generation correctly doubts that it will benefit from Social Security)?

CONFIDENCE IN HANDLING HEALTH CARE
(Among registered voters)
Clinton Edwards Obama
Confident 36% 22% 25%
Uneasy 51 50 44
Don’t Know 13 28 31
(CBSnews poll, page 2)

With only 51% of registered voters polled "uneasy" about Sen. Clinton's health care initiative, how could people possibly be fooled this time? Perhaps Blumner hopes that by hiding part of the truth she can bring that embarrassing number down a bit.

Blumner's key statistic, the high public approval for a federal guarantee of health insurance, had a caveat in the original poll. Not the sort of thing a Blumner would wish to share with the public.

But only about half as many Americans – less than one in three - think the government can do a better job than private insurance companies at actually providing medical coverage. Many are not sure how government would fare in this role.

WOULD GOVERNMENT DO BETTER OR WORSE AT PROVIDING COVERAGE THAN PRIVATE COMPANIES?

Government better 30% Government worse 44 Don't know 23
(CBSnews poll, page 4)

A subsequent comment by Blumner nearly resulted in my eyes rolling violently enough to fly out of their orbits.

If the next president does nothing else but add this country to the pantheon of advanced nations that provide universal coverage, it will be a successful tenure -one that will be remembered fondly by generations to come, like that of FDR for Social Security and LBJ for Medicare.

The "advanced nations" that provide universal coverage are putting their citizens on waiting lists and admitting that the system is allowing people to die as a result.

So it is acutely awkward for his successor, Gordon Brown, that, 10 years on, his government is scrambling to fend off accusations of crisis in the NHS following a damning report about hospital infections that critics say is symptomatic of a wider malaise in British healthcare.
(Christian Science Monitor)

When you look at consumer satisfaction in Canada, it's as low as consumer satisfaction in the United States, which is extraordinary, given how high it was in Canada ten years ago.
(PBS, commentary by Sharon Glied, PhD)

Germany proposes radical plans to tackle financial crisis in health care
(British Medical Journal)

In short, these "advanced" countries are creating huge problems for themselves with their national health care plans. The problem, economically is the third-party payor problem, and it also wreaks its havoc with the privatized fraction of the U.S. system (the dirty little secret of American health care is that government regulation is causing many of the problems already). But Blumner won't want her sheeple to know any of that.

Yes, Roosevelt and LBJ were fawned over by the three generations who received the benefit of their ponzi schemes. The later generations will have ample reason to curse them, assuming the government will permit dissent at that point.

Roosevelt saddled the nation with a pyramid scheme that was never designed to abide a trend toward a graying and retired population. LBJ made it even worse.

But back to Blumner, for she has yet to exhaust her stupidity. This next line sums up the thrust of the rest of her editorial.

But guaranteed health care will not only serve to relieve the anxieties of tens of millions of American families, it will also be a shot of adrenaline to our economy.

This claim of Blumner's, by rights, should be entirely laughable. Has nationalized health care stimulated the economies of those nations who follow that path? Made them noticeably more efficient? If it has, then Europe's relatively weak economies seem even more pathetic.

Blumner's focus on the link between employment and health insurance seems curious, given that President Bush proposed portable insurance back in 2006.

• Leveling the playing field by making the same tax relief available to individuals and employers. Americans who purchase HSA-qualified insurance policies on their own should have the same tax advantages as people who obtain insurance through their employer.
• Eliminating all taxes on out-of-pocket spending through HSAs. Americans with HSAs should be able to pay for all of their care tax-free.
• Making health insurance portable. Americans should be able to own the insurance policy that goes along with their HSA, and keep it when they change or lose their jobs without worrying about paying higher premiums if they become sick.
• Strengthening the buying power of America’s small businesses. Small businesses should have the same access to price efficiencies as large businesses when purchasing health insurance.
• Passing medical liability reform. Limit costly and frivolous lawsuits that waste scarce resources, increase health care costs, and drive doctors out of business.
• Improving adoption of health information technology. Electronic health records that reduce costs and improve the efficiency and effectiveness of medical treatment should be widely used.
• Empowering consumers through information. All Americans should be able to obtain easy-to-understand information about the price and quality of the health care they receive from their medical provider and insurance carrier.
• Providing affordable coverage for vulnerable Americans. Americans with low incomes and persistently high medical expenses should receive additional assistance.
• Promoting prevention, wellness, and fitness. The President encourages all Americans to lead a healthy lifestyle to prevent disease and improve their overall quality of life.

(whitehouse.gov)

I guess Blumner missed it.

*****