Robert Reich Responds to VS Video…
Morgen on October 15, 2009 at 4:18 pm
I had a feeling he would…and sure enough here is Reich’s response:
Lou Dobbs, Sean Hannity, Rush, and the right-wing blogosphere seem interested in a talk I gave in September, 2007 to students in a political science class here at Berkeley, in which I played the role of a presidential candidate so politically incorrect and tone-deaf as to pummel every sacred cow in sight — including the notion that our society could afford and would continue forever to pay whatever amount of money was required to keep everyone alive forever. The whole point of the mock exercise was to show that presidential candidates can’t state what everyone knows to be the truth because they’ll be taken apart by the Right or the Left. I slew many other sacred cows in that mock exercise, some of which are held dearly by the Left. Nonetheless, two years later the Right has exhumed the lecture and taken my words completely out of context purportedly to show that Obama and the Democrats plan death panels.
If their desperation weren’t so pathetic it would be funny. After all, they have proven the whole point of my lecture. UC Berkeley maintains an archive of webcasts and my speech is available there verbatim, should you wish to listen to it in its entirety.
I’m shocked…the claim is that his words have been taken “out of context”. In fact, “completely” out of context. This is becoming a familiar refrain, to the point where the word “context” seems to be losing all meaning.
Now I’m sure somewhere out there in the blogosphere, or even on talk radio or TV, portions of our original clip have been played without the full set-up that we provided in the video. But I will say that I have read dozens of blog posts discussing this clip, and have watched or listened to the coverage on Fox and Hannity, Rush, and Mark Levin on the radio. And by and large everyone seems to be either playing or quoting the entire thing, or at least setting it up by saying that it was a mock speech given by Reich at Berkeley where he was saying what an honest President would say about health reform (along with the other issues discussed in the full speech).
And let me be clear…we posted a link to the entire speech at Berkeley as well, and encouraged people to listen to it .
So considering that Reich even now concedes that “the whole point of the mock exercise was to show that presidential candidates can’t state what everyone knows to be the truth“, I’m not sure I’m grasping how this is out of context. (Except perhaps in the bizarro universe where certain truths are only “in context” when they are spoken to an educated and enlightened audience.)
The truth is the truth – and these were Reich’s own words. And if it’s so self-evident that these in fact are truths, why has Reich been front and center in accusing opponents of reform of propagating the very same truths as…”myths”?
Look, I don’t have a problem with the speech Reich gave at Berkeley. I admire his honesty, and understand the value of using controversy to provoke academic discussion. Of course there are serious trade-offs to consider when reforming something as large as our healthcare system. And a political campaign is not the place to look if you are searching for uncomfortable truths.
But in choosing to leverage his credibility as an economic and political expert to advocate for reform, Reich is asking for the public’s trust. And it’s ultimately for the public to decide whether they trust what he has to say now in support of reform compared to his words from 2007. Words which even now he admits are the “truth”.
John Adds: Media Matters has labeled this a “lie” that won’t go away, at least that’s the headline they put it under. They note that Rush Limbaugh played it on air but, strangely, they don’t ever bother to explain why it’s a lie.
As Morgen noted above, it seems Reich has just admitted it was “the truth.” Will Media Matters correct the record?
Holding breath…turning blue…*gasp!
Category: Health & Education, Politics |
Reich, at least, has revealed that he knows the truth. Why should he then lie? The end he seeks justifies the means.
Reich and media matters are simply engaged in damage control. The ‘playbook’ out of which they operate has two fundamental operational premises; ‘reality’ is what we agree it is and, the end justifies the means.
So politically, when the facts are not disputable, briefly agree with them and then immediately claim your critics are taking them out of context.
The ‘truth of the matter’ you see is not singular but relative, therefore the only thing that matters is what people believe to be true and that can be controlled by manipulating people’s perceptions.
Perception is regulated by knowledge. Control access to knowledge and gradually you control people.
They honestly believe that reality is decided by whatever we wish it to be.
It must be so in a relativistic world-view that believes that the very concept of objective reality is an illusion.
So making a claim and then having to back it up is predicated upon the premise of the existence of objective fact. Since they reject objectivity, logical consistency is an oxymoron.
October 15, 2009 @ 6:40 pmI still insist that Reich was in the Wizard of Oz.
October 15, 2009 @ 10:00 pmI think we need a Wise Latina to sort this one out.
October 15, 2009 @ 11:31 pmThe sky continues to fall. :cool:
October 16, 2009 @ 6:59 amI think he’s counting on people’s laziness to hold up. Most people just pay lip service to truth, but in fact want to simply live in a comfy cozy world of people telling them that their presuppositions are the right one.
It’s a bluff really, and one that I think *will* scrape in a few avowed liberals who are dilligent enough to look this up, and honest enough to know that the truth matters.
Only a few, though.
October 16, 2009 @ 7:10 amI’m still confused by his comments. What exactly is the truth? Was it his mocking of a politically incorrect presidential candidate or the fact that he know presidential candidates can’t be honest?
October 16, 2009 @ 8:03 amLucas, as Reich acknowledged, everything he said was true. At least under the type of health care reform advocated by liberals. And honestly, some of what he said would be true under some conservative plans for reform as well.
For example, if we are to mandate that everyone has to obtain insurance, while at the same time restricting the amount insurers can charge people of varying ages or risk levels…then inevitably the young and healthy will pay more (probably a LOT more) for insurance than they currently do. Some conservatives support the idea of an individual mandate…I’ve wavered on this myself.
Here’s the key difference though between conservative and liberal values when it comes to health care (and a lot of other things). Liberals by and large believe that the government is the entity that needs to make decisions regarding the allocation of resources…while conservatives believe that private enterprise, with limited (but necessary) government regulation, is best suited for this.
In other words, the question is who is the “we” that Reich is referring to when he says “we are going to let you die”…?
It was a mock speech but it speaks volumes about the liberal mindset. They want to talk about “choice and competition” when literally everything they are trying to do with health reform will ultimately limit this for all of us.
October 16, 2009 @ 8:56 am“Who is John Galt?”
October 16, 2009 @ 9:35 am“including the notion that our society could afford and would continue forever to pay whatever amount of money was required to keep everyone alive forever.”
He didn’t do this at all as in his lecture he stated the old people would be left to die. He cannot even lie about his lecture correctly.
October 17, 2009 @ 11:42 amI listened to the clip. This was a mock speech. It didn’t claim to be what Mr. Reich believes. It also was a speech given in 2007. I am a senior citizen. I am not afraid about my health care in the last couple years of my life, because I do not want extraordinary intervention that would lengthen my life for a few months. By the way, the reason that doctors are being encouraged to discuss end of life issues with their patients, is that each of us needs to be empowered to have control over what happens at the ends of our lives. The decisions made by us about what we want are supposed to prevent either extraordinary painful treatment or to allow others, whether family or the medical profession, to make our decisions for us. If you go into a hospital today, they ask if you have living wills, do not resuscitate instructions, etc. They also ask for information about your power of attorney for health care instructions. If you have designated someone to be your power of attorney for health care, that person will try to follow your wishes for treatment. I have been a power of attorney for health care for three people. It is a difficult job. Even though the three people did not want extraordinary treatment, there were still many other decisions to be made. Incidentally, these powers of attorney go into effect only if the patient is not capable of making his own decisions. None of these end of life documents are government documents. They are all private papers planned by the patient with his or her family, medical personnel, and legal advisors. In the case of my three elders and myself, they were paid for by us, not the government. I believe that some doctors, without instructions, decide to give expensive and extraordinary treatment because they are taught to save lives in all cases, they are afraid of being sued, or they really believe that even a few more months of painful life is God’s will. Of course, if you believe that you should be given unlimited treatment at the end of your life, you can decide that and that’s O.K.
October 19, 2009 @ 12:50 pmJoan, I appreciate your comment and your perspective. For what it’s worth, I don’t think it’s really all that relevant whether Mr. Reich personally believes the sentiments he expressed in this video. (Although I believe he does.)
What he was doing was giving a speech on what a candidate for President would say if they were completely honest…on health reform and other topics not included in the clip that I made.
My point in posting this was to demonstrate that conservative critics of health reform have been unfairly accused by the Administration of lying about the agenda and desired outcomes of those who are pushing health reform. And Mr. Reich has made these sorts of accusations himself.
Was it fair for Sarah Palin to suggest that an increased government role in setting standards for end of life care would lead to the formation of panels of bureaucrats deciding who lives and who dies? Based on Mr. Reich’s statements, I think it was.
October 19, 2009 @ 1:04 pmJoan,
Reich did indeed say that it was what he believed. Indeed in his response he said:
That “everyone” surely includes Robert Reich.
October 19, 2009 @ 1:07 pmWhere’s that Rush quote again???
October 19, 2009 @ 7:19 pmThank you to all those who commented on my contribution. I really don’t want the insurance companies, who are not really in the helping professions, to determine what health care benefits I will receive. People criticize the “government” for potentially interfering with our freedoms, but, since we appear to be dependent upon insurance companies (or our employers who negotiate with the insutrance companies for insurance packages), we are giving up many of our “freedoms” as it is. What about freedom from anxiety and financial ruin because we happen to fall ill with a disease or condition our insurance company does not want to cover? Of course, Medicare does not cover everything we may need, either. What kind of health care would you propose that would really serve the needs of all the people?
October 21, 2009 @ 11:04 amBut do you want to have any choices at all? In the current model, many employers offer a choice of different plans and providers, and if you are not satisfied with employment-based insurance you can always choose to purchase a direct, individual plan.
And at least you have legal recourse against an insurer, versus the government where you have to go to court to obtain permission before even filing a lawsuit against them.
I appreciate your other points about security, anxiety, etc. I spent many earlier years of my life worrying about this myself. All I can say is that I think you are putting false hopes in the government if you think it can provide you with the security you are looking for. Especially considering the massive amount of debt we have already accumulated, even before passage of health care reform. Which will ultimately be the biggest entitlement program of them all.
October 21, 2009 @ 6:48 pmI believe that the area for choice should be in the choice of treatments. And I believe that the choice of treatments should be between the patient and the doctor. I do believe that patients and their doctors need more information about the effectiveness of both prevention and treatment options. Some of this information is now on the web, but most of us cannot be sure that what is posted there is reliable. What is happening today is that insurance companies are determining what options for choice are offered, and it is not clear what they are basing their opinions on. In some cases, patients are being told to contact someone that is insuring them for permission to have a certain procedure. Prescription drug plans have formularies that can change arbitrarily.
Choosing options in health care is not the same as making choices in what clothes should be worn. That is why the issue of choice in some areas is so complicated.
One way to consider various possibilities for our health care system would be to examine how other developed countries are dealing with this issue. Instead of assuming that any government involvement is automatically wrong, it behooves us to find out what is really happening. Each of these countries has a mix of approaches, some of which seem to work and some of which don’t, from our point of view.
What might happen if the payment issues were separated from the treatment issues? Apparently, that is the case at both the Mayo Clinic and the Cleveland Clinic, where doctors are on salary, and they can focus on treatment decisions.
Competition sounds good, except that in their efforts to compete, many medical providers are investing in very expensive devices which lead to increased costs for patients. Some of these expensive devices could be shared by doctors and hospitals in a cooperative arrangement, which would cut down on costs for the providers and costs for the patients. This would not involve the government at all.
Insurance companies in some instances are being subsidized by the government now. It is disingenuous of them to claim that they are really free market. I am referring to the Medicare Adventage programs (which I am not a part of), which are being subsidized at a higher rate than traditional Medicare.
October 24, 2009 @ 8:48 amI would direct you to another web site we created if you really believe that the health care systems in other countries are a panacea.
The Medicare Advantage program has been mis-characterized by the Administration in order to obscure the fact that they plan on eliminating benefits that seniors currently receive through this program. Medicare on average reimburses care providers at a level 20% lower than what private insurers do. The “subsidy” you are referring to is what enables private insurers to provide services to Medicare Advantage participants. And they offer additional services to seniors in order to compete for this business.
The real “subsidy” which exists under the current system is to the benefit of the federal government, as the real costs of health care have shifted to the private sector to make up for the underpayment by Medicare. This shows up as a hidden tax in all of our insurance premiums.
October 24, 2009 @ 9:07 amFrom the same lecture, at 26:48:
“Now, personally, I think an economy as rich as ours should be able to both provide affordable health care for most of its people and also continue to support innovation that extends the life-span of the average person in this country.”
October 27, 2009 @ 12:16 amJohn (note – this isn’t John from VS), perhaps you missed the fact that the point here was not to attack Robert Reich. Frankly, I think it’s irrelevant what Reich personally believes or doesn’t believe.
The point was that he very directly acknowledged some of the key concerns that conservatives have expressed about the healthcare bills crafted by liberals in Congress. And in doing so he directly contradicted the President, and others (including himself), who are feverishly selling reform as a free lunch. Without any sacrifices required on the part of anyone.
It was to point out the hypocrisy from all of them, and the lack of genuine leadership (and honesty) from the Administration.
October 27, 2009 @ 4:53 pm