RHetoric

One of the things I try to convey in media training sessions is that taking a reporter’s bait can be fatal. In the case of network TV news, reporters often know what story they’re trying to tell before they interview you, so baiting is their way of getting you to say what they need to fill in the blanks in their segment.

John Edwards took the bait in New Hampshire, when the press was abuzz over the impact of Hillary’s emotional response to a voter question about the difficulty of campaigning. When the press corps heard about this, they went chumming. Would this be Hillary’s version of Howard Dean’s embarrassing scream, with all the fall-out that accompanied it?

In front of the Edwards campaign bus, reporters were casting their lines deep, looking for reaction to Hillary’s emotional display. Edwards didn’t bite: “I really don’t have anything to say about that,” he said. Yay John! Your media training is paying off. Good job avoiding the bait. Now bridge to your campaign message.

He continued: “I think what we need in a Commander-in-Chief is strength and resolve…” Uh-oh, John. This doesn’t sound like a bridge to your campaign message. “…And presidential campaigns are a tough business, but being president of the United States is also a very tough business. And the president of the United States is faced with very, very difficult challenges every single day, difficult judgments every single day. What I know is that I’m prepared for that, and I’m in this fight for…”

Oh, heck. It doesn’t matter what he said after that. He could have announced Sen. Larry Craig would be his running mate and no one would have noticed. By then, the press corps had likely closed their notebooks, turned off the TV cameras, and were busy polishing off their segments for the evening news.

Will consumer control of healthcare spending reinvent the U.S. system?

Sure, if it could ever happen. But it won’t, despite what the presidential candidates are claiming. Read what Uwe Reinhardt, one of the most respected international experts on healthcare financing, said on NPR’s Science Friday today:

“Americans just have to get used to the idea that in the coming decade, the role of government in financing healthcare in America will inexorably grow no matter who runs the show… most of these health plans [offered by] Senator Wyden, Senator Edwards, Senator Clinton, Senator Obama, they all use private companies as purchasers but there will be heavy government regulation because government is not a patsy. It will insist on performance, including quality measurement and reasonable prices. So people who dream to get government out of healthcare, they are dreaming. Government will increasingly intrude, no matter who runs the country.”

And if a Republican wins the presidency, asked host Ira Flatow? “Same thing. Small businesses will say we can’t deal with this anymore, and whoever the president is will have an impoverished lower middle class, impoverished by health, and those people vote.”

So what are the implications for the hundreds of millions of investment dollars that are chasing consumer-centric health I.T. solutions? Much of it will be wasted. Look at Steve Case’s Revolution Health, Microsoft’s acquisition of Azyxxi, and Google Health. These ventures are ignoring the elephant in the room… the government’s role in financing our healthcare.

The good news is that our healthcare system can be fixed, and technology will certainly be the most significant factor. Another Science Friday guest, J. Fred Ralston, MD, noted that Britain spends $192 per person per year on healthcare technology as a public investment; while the U.S. spends 43 cents. If Britain is any guide, there is huge demand in the U.S. for the right health I.T. solutions.