In The Beginning, There Was The Word!

Anyone who doubts the power of the spoken word, need look no further than the ongoing debate over health care reform.  For instance, many elderly Americans are viscerally angry about the perception that the bills working their way through Congress will result in more "government" control over the management of their health care options.  At one of the recent Congressional "Town Halls," an irate senior shouted at his Representative, "You better keep your government hands off my Medicare!" When told by the Congressman that Medicare was indeed a government run program, the old man responded by calling his representative a liar.  Hello!

So what is going on here? Instead of pining over the lack of policy-savviness that has all but taken over this debate, perhaps the solons of the Potomac should have been more concerned about language than legislation.  Like it or not, words matter!  For instance, what if the term "Expanded Medicare Program" had been used instead of "Public Option?"  Nowhere in any of the healthcare reform proposals before Congress has there been a proposal to "socialize" American medicine.  But when a term like "public" is used as a label, it is no wonder that many among us think immediately of "government-run."  In a response to an earlier posting, one of my readers railed against my support of the healthcare reform plan, stating that as a soldier, he was well aware of how the government runs healthcare and that he wants nothing to do with it!  Too bad he does not realize that the reform package before Congress does not call for a government run healthcare delivery system.  But can you blame him?  The rhetoric used to both label and promote the plan are confusing at best, and downright misleading at worst. Medicare is a government funding program, not a government healthcare delivery program.  The reason that Medicare recipients are so happy with this "government" program, is that they get to choose all their own "private" health care providers.  No one, and I mean no one in a private HMO (insurance company program) gets that kind of choice.  If you belong to Blue Cross, you can only go to a Blue Cross approved doctor, no exceptions! Oh yeah, and if you get real sick, Blue Cross has the legal right to drop you, Medicare does not.

The very term, "Healthcare Reform Bill" is itself a poor title for what is actually going on.  From the outset, the legislation should have been called what it really is, a health insurance reform bill.  Changes in healthcare delivery are not on the table.  What is being debated in Congress are bills that change the way health insurance companies do business.  Is there anyone in this country, other than the CEO of Aetna Insurance Company who likes the way we pay for healthcare?  The answer is yes, anyone who holds health insurance company stock, as the current system is incredibly profitable. . . for Wall Street, not for Main Street!

Of course, clarifying the language will not silence all the critics of reform.  The crazies and profiteers will continue to amp-up their pin-headed followers with phrases like "death panels," and "socialism."   Wouldn't it be nice if the calm center of our political universe could clearly understand what is actually being proposed? If we could take those Americans out of the current ruckus, then only Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, and their foil-cap wearing toadies would be left. That may, however, be too much to hope for, because one thing I do know is that rhetorical clarity and politician-initiated jargon have never been "fellow travelers."