Pub. 16 2019 Issue 4

16 O V E R A C E N T U R Y : B U I L D I N G B E T T E R B A N K S — H E L P I N G N E W M E X I C O R E A L I Z E D R E A M S n IT’S ALL IN THE FRAMING continued from page 15 Total national health spending would be $2 trillion lower from 2022 to 2031 under the plan, the report found. While the price tag for the federal government would increase significantly, decreased spending by other groups would lower total healthcare spending over that 10-year period. our current private health insurance system versus moving to a government-funded Medicare-for-All system. We must first acknowledge the facts, which is that, according to a Com- monwealth Fund study from 2017, the U.S. ranks 11th out of 11 developed countries in overall healthcare. Simply put, our healthcare system works wonderfully for those with unlimited resources, but is incredibly difficult to navigate for the vast majority of Americans. According to the Commonwealth Fund study, “Despite hav- ing the most expensive health care, the United States ranks last overall among the 11 countries on measures of health sys- tem equity, access, administrative efficiency, care delivery, and health care outcomes. While there is room for improvement in every country, the U.S. has the highest costs and lowest overall performance of the nations in the study, which includ- ed Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. The U.S. spent $9,364 per person on health care in 2016, compared to $4,094 in the U.K., which ranked first on performance overall.” So, the problem is acknowledged. The U.S. healthcare system is clearly not working. Now, in proposing the solution to the problem, the framing of the issue becomes vital. For instance, a common complaint about Medicare-for-all revolves around higher personal income taxes and the price tag. Proponents of Medicare-for-All, such as Bernie Sanders, are constantly asked about the price tag. Politicians who support keeping the current private health insurance system are rarely, if ever, asked about the price tag. However, according to the Libertarian Mercatus center, under Medicare-for-All, “total health spending would actually come in about $303 billion lower in 2031 than under current projections, with $7.35 trillion going to healthcare that year versus $7.65 trillion expected now. Total national health spending would be $2 trillion lower from 2022 to 2031 under the plan, the report found. While the price tag for the federal government would increase significantly, decreased spending by other groups would lower total healthcare spending over that 10-year period. Meanwhile, the model also assumes that 30 million more people would get access to healthcare, and many people would get more robust services. The savings would come from a variety of places, such as the government's ability to leverage its bargaining power into lower prescription-drug costs and mandating all health care providers take the lower Medi- care payment rate.” The framing around Medicare-for-All is that it would be outra- geously expensive, neglecting to mention that our current system is more expensive and consistently ranks last. The framing also revolves around emphasizing higher tax rates, neglecting to mention the elimination of copays, premiums and deductibles, which essentially act as a private tax. The argument is never framed around the absurdity of the private healthcare system. Why does the mainstreammedia do this? Corporate media has a vested interest in emphasizing the private insurance companies because they make a lot of money off of them. They are financial - ly incentivized to frame Medicare-for-All as an impossible pipe dream, despite the fact that every other developed country has some form of it. The healthcare issue may be the most obvious example of how important the framing of the discussion is so crucial. Many Americans have come to simply accept the cruelty and ineffectiveness of our healthcare system because they’ve heard so many politicians and pundits say something to the effect of, “Our current system may have problems, but it’s what we have.” Any discussion around change revolves around minor tweaks around the edges. In recent discussions around healthcare, the concept of “choice” is mentioned. It’s ludicrous because no one likes choosing their health insurance provider and it’s complete- ly disingenuous framing. It’s as if people are choosing ice cream flavors. To put in perspective how our private insur - ance system should be framed, think about our fire or police departments. Imagine the fire department was privatized and you had to pick between multiple fire prevention companies, weigh the pros and cons of various plans, and choose whether you want your living room covered or your kitchen covered. These are the kind of “choices” that we make with our health insurance. The point is that framing is so incredibly important in how people respond to ideas and changes. With an issue like healthcare, it is vital to understand the source you are reading in order to understand what perspective you are hearing. Is it someone who has a vested interest in boosting the private health insurance companies? It’s important to be cognizant of factors like this. Economy The area where perhaps the framing of information is most critical is the economy. With economic reporting, one can essentially choose which information to include or exclude depending on how one wants to portray economic conditions: Either darkly pessimistic or rosily optimistic. The framing from mainstream media is largely that the economy is booming due to the record highs of the stock market and low unemployment numbers.