Bureaucracy? Or Opinion? "Obama and the Bureaucratization of health care" Posted on September 8, 2009, In a Wall street journal opinion section, Former Republican vice presidential candidate, and former Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin asserts that President Obama's proposals at health care reform will create an enormous, inefficient, and ethically questionable bureaucracy. Does her opinion have evidence? Or is it strictly argument?
First off, Sarah Palin, in her op-ed article, appeals to the conservative base of her party by stating the President's proposals for health care reform as "Bureaucratic" in nature. This fits in with the much-opposed health care reform attempts by Democrats in Congress, and the near unanimous opposition from major Republican Senators and Representatives.
Ms. Palin then proceeds to appeal to populist support, and show a sense of compassion regarding the un-insured. She refers to a statement made by former President Ronald Reagan that People should not be denied medical care because of lacking the finances to cover them. She also states that we as a people have an obligation to care for the old, and the sick who cannot care for themselves.
She then proceeds to make a case for the business community, by acknowledging the "crippling expenses of health care". She also states that allowing government health care spending to continue unabated will add to the federal budget deficit. She argues that the current medicare and medicaid programs are wrought with waste and inefficiency. Ms. Palin then cites an article from the Congressional budget office that indicates that the current legislation in congress will do little to deter federal health spending. She also states that the legislation creates an independent advisory council that is "unelected, and largely unaccountable" that is given the task of reducing costs. She refers to such a council as a "death Panel" in her op-ed article.
After making these points, she summarizes her thoughts in the last few paragraphs. She states that the health care reform will lead to lower wages for American workers, unwanted influence of government power in ordinary citizen's lives, uncontrollable deficits, and take the individual power of medical choice out of the hands of Americans.
Now, that having been said, Sarah Palin does have credibility to her argument, and the Wall street journal is a prestigious news source used by millions of Americans, and businessmen and women. However, She does intermingle a good deal of fact, with opinion.
For example, the Medicare advisory council, that Ms. Palin asserts is a completely new entity that would bring about "rationing of care" and "death panels" is not a new entity at all. In a published letter to House majority leader Steny Hoyer on page 3, the director of the congressional budget office states that the individuals, who would have to be physicians, or specialists in health care, would be appointed by the president, and only approved of if the Senate passes them. Furthermore, any actions proposed by the Medicare advisory council, would have to be approved by the secretary of health and human services, and the President. Furthermore, on page four of the letter, the CBO also states that the council would not have a set target of budget cuts, and there would not be a requirement to deny care due to budget circumstances.
The next fact that Sarah Palin asserts is a quote from the congressional budget office that the current health care proposals will not generate much savings. This is correct. According to director Elmendorf in a letter to House majority leader Steny Hoyer, the current proposal would not bring about much in the way of cost savings.
Ms. Palin also takes information provided by the Cato institute to make her argument that such health care reform would result in lower wages. This is a debatable subject, and given the nature of the Cato institute, that it is a pro-conservative organization that is opposed to the current health reform proposals, one should take into account this bias when reading their information.
In all, Ms. Palin's article does contain some fact, and some strict argument and opinion. Throughout her article, she uses various methods of connecting with the audience. Some of these methods include appealing to emotion, logic and reasoning, and ethical arguments.
At the onset of her article, Ms. Palin quotes former President Reagan on the need to ensure that everyone can get medical care. She then proceeds to make the argument for the responsibility of society to care for the sick and the elderly, and those who cannot care for themselves. This kind of argument will appeal to those people who feel that there is a moral duty of society to care for these groups of people. This is a strong appeal to the Evangelical base of her party, and is a recurring theme with many of the Evangelical-Christians in the party base.
Ms. Palin also makes an appeal to logos here, by citing examples from the Congressional budget office, and the Cato institute studies done on health care. She could be trying to appeal to moderates and independents that are on the sidelines of the health care debate by using independent sources that aren't directly affiliated with either party.
Perhaps her most potent argument now, comes from the emotional side of the issue. Many members of her party base have a distrust of the government. If not a distrust, then at least a deep skepticism on the ability, and competency of the government to operate. She appeals to this base again with the statements that while insurance companies can be unaccountable, the federal government is perhaps even more so. Now, this part of her article involves much opinion, and contention. However, it is most probably very effective for the base of her party that questions the efficiency, and even honesty of the federal government. She continues to claim in the article that many of the proposals from the democrats will increase the deficit, decrease the earnings of everyday Americans through inflation, and "increase the power of unaccountable government technocrats". Again, all of this is more opinion then fact. Independent agencies and fact check organizations have not verified these claims with any certainty, so they should be taken at best with a grain of salt.
At the end of her article, Ms. Palin states that despite President Obama's promise to the contrary, the current health reforms will not provide more stability to American families and individuals. Again, this could be a very debatable subject here, depending on the audience receiving it. There are legitimate points to her article, she uses some credible evidence to support her argument, and makes a strong emotional and ethical appeal. However, all of these facts may become clouded by the simple reality that her description of the "death panels" does little to appeal to logic, due to it being untrue, and does not broaden her appeal to audiences beyond the base.
As an audience member, I appreciate the appeal to logic by using findings from independent groups, however they were too few and far between to be an effective argument on the subject for me. Also, due to the fact that her claims about the Medicare advisory panels were inaccurate, I have not been swayed by this article to her position.
So then, in closing, was Sarah Palin's article an effective one? Did it make me challenge my beliefs or ideas about health care? Are her statements accurate and unbiased? And did she adequately use fact to support her position? It is my belief that she did not have an effective combination of these elements. As a writer, she does use good research with some of her arguments, however, there is a possibility that not all of what she states is entirely accurate.
Bureaucracy? Or opinion? Let the reader decide.
No comments:
Post a Comment