LETTER: When it comes to health care, don't believe everything you read online

Congressman Sam Graves opened his public meeting in Fayette on Aug. 12, by accusing the Obama administration of quadrupling the federal deficit since January. According to David Leonhart of the New York Times, “President Obama’s agenda, ambitious as it may be, is responsible for only a sliver of the deficits, despite what many of his Republican critics are saying.”

“Some of his proposals, like a plan to put a price on carbon emissions, don’t cost the government any money. Others would be partly offset by proposed tax increases on the affluent and spending cuts. Congressional and White House aides agree that no large new programs, like an expansion of health insurance, are likely to pass unless they are paid for," writes Leonhart.  

He goes on to analyze the swing from surpluses in 2001 to the deficits in 2009 by looking at four categories. The business cycle with its recessions, reduced tax revenues, and increased safety net spending accounts for 37 percent of the national deficit.

New legislation under President Bush such as tax cuts and Medicare Part D, which costs the government and continously increases debt payments, runs around 33 percent, according to the Times' article.

President Obama’s main contribution is the extension of several of Mr. Bush’s policies including the Iraq war, tax cuts, and the Wall Street bailout equaling 20percent of deficit spending. Seven percent comes from the February economic recovery package, and 3 percent is attributed to health care, energy and education initiatives. Extending the analysis to well beyond 2012, the Obama agenda accounts for only a slightly higher share of the projected deficits, according to the Times.

Rep. Graves had the opportunity to dispel some very serious misinformation about the health reform bills that are being considered in Congress. He chose not to, thereby leaving people with the impression that the dire consequences of reform being touted are true. When he lets the “kill your grandma” rumor stand, it brings into question his credibility on other issues. I assume the questioner was seriously concerned that he would be required to meet with a government agent to determine the best way to die. The actual proposal in one of the House bills would pay, through Medicare, for a voluntary consultation with one’s doctor to discuss health directives such as living wills, durable powers of attorney, resuscitation orders and palliative care.

Less than 30 percent of Americans have directives in place, and by law, hospitals already offer such information when someone is admitted to their care, not ideally the best time for such a discussion. Since most of us want to make our own decisions about care if we become disabled, being able to have an advanced discussion with one’s physician to help make those decisions makes a lot of sense.

For some reason, people think that if they read it on the Internet, it’s true. The Internet is like any another medium — not always one hundred percent accurate. There are lots of ways to verify “facts” sent to you, but the best is to use a wide variety of sources. I’ve seen those sheets going around purporting to be the truth about HB3200. A few words taken from a lengthy section will not likely give you the truth. Unfortunately, Congressman Graves isn’t likely to either.

 Jane Whitesides lives in Missouri's Sixth Congressional District and is the mid-Missouri regional organizer for Missouri Progressive Vote Coalition.