Does the Journal Sentinel care whether Wisconsinites favor Healthy Wisconsin? And: The Journal Sentinel don't know much about Wisconsin history

As everyone expected, the debate over Healthy Wisconsin between David Riemer, who helped draft the plan, and WMC Board Member and Journal Sentinel business columnist John Torinus was a nonstop laff riot.

The biggest gutbuster, though, was this from John Torinus:

David, Business groups were respectful, but not committed to your plan, mostly because it was somewhat about consumers. But that's all gone. So, far as I can see, support for the Senate Dem plan is just about non-existent outside the Senate Dems. No business group has endorsed it; it's partisan because no sitting Republicans are aboard; the hospial association is not on board; nor is the state Medical Society; nor is Democratic Gov. James Doyle. Even the teachers' union has bargained its way out at the outset (false-Brawler). Medicaid isn't on board either. There don't seem to be wings for this shaky craft.

(UPDATE: In Effect has more on the debate here.)

That's right: There is no support for Healthy Wisconsin -- apart from a clear majority of respondents in a recent poll who favored a guaranteed health plan (essentially Healthy Wisconsin though the poll was conducted before the budget bill was dropped). Which itself was just the latest poll to indicate popular support for universal government sponsored health care.

After the Brawler mentioned this poll in a post yesterday (yes, the Brawler will be going back on hiatus soon), a commenter asked why the Journal Sentinel hasn't reported on this latest finding of broad support.

The Brawler's initial response is that newspapers are loath to report on polls commissioned by partisan groups, which this poll was (the WCHRC to be precise). Though it's worth noting Lake Partners is a legit polling outfit.

But then it occurred to the Brawler that the Journal Sentinel has reprinted -- perhaps without spellchecking -- too many WPRI and WMC press releases to count. Hell, an editorial last month in favor of eliminating the MPS teacher residency requirement appeared to borrow heavily from a previously discredited WPRI report on that subject (Note: The Brawler is not weighing in on the merits of the residency requirement here, just the MJS's basis of argument). So is there a double standard in George Stanley's house?

Of course, the Journal Sentinel isn't obligated to publish the findings of polls it finds dubious from the left (if that's the case) just because it publishes bogus research from the right.

But you would think that the future of health care in this state is an important enough issue that the Journal Sentinel would want to get a sense of what people in the state  actually want.

So if it doesn't trust the Lake Partners poll, the Journal Sentinel ought to conduct its own poll. We know Paddy Mack loves him some HSAs. We know John Torinus thinks Serigraph and other employers should be the ones to drive health care reform -- even though the private sector has manifestly failed in this endeavor. (And even though Serigraph's innovations won't mean squat to the 25 employees it recently cut). What about Wisconsinites?

Unless there's a quiet majority out there that craves HSAs, the Brawler would be willing to bet the MJS's findings would not be dissimilar from Lake Partners poll.

On a related note -- and The Brawler realizes he's late to this one, but he was camping or otherwise enjoying his summer -- the Brawler had some issues with the lede of a Guy Boulton piece about Healthy Wisconsin in the July 21 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

Within a span of two days last month, the state Senate passed one of the most sweeping health care reform proposals in the country and perhaps the most far-reaching legislation in Wisconsin history.

If Guy had written "one of the most far-reaching pieces of legislation in Wisconsin history" the Brawler would not have had a problem with the sentence. But he had to go and call it "perhaps (the weaselly "perhaps"!) the most far-reaching legislation in Wisconsin history."

And after describing Healthy Wisconsin thusly, the story never backs up that characterization. Instead the reader is just left to think that this is not only a "radical" piece of legislation (to quote from a previous MJS story) but something that's a total departure from Wisconsin history.

Which, of course, is a bunk. The Brawler would argue that such Progressive era reforms as workmen's compensation and state regulation of the railroads went beyond Healthy Wisconsin insofar as being "far reaching" in that they challenged and chipped away at the laissez faire ideology of the era. They were truly radical departures in a way that Healthy Wisconsin is not.

Yes, Healthy Wisconsin changes the funding mechanism for health care coverage. But given the existence of such federal and state programs as Medicare, Medicaid and Badgercare is it a radical departure from the current fragmented public-private health care system in the United States or more of an evolution? And if it's the latest progression along that scale, is it really the "most far reaching" legislation in our history?

It's a sweeping piece of legislation. No question. But characterizing it as "the most far-reaching legislation in Wisconsin history" -- particularly without providing any context or support to that assertion -- is tantamount to calling it radical. Which is tantamount to signaling to your readers that this is an extreme piece of legislation.

Perhaps the Brawler is overparsing. But the Brawler's always thought that words have meaning and consequences. They should be chosen carefully.

Comments

[xoxx]

Also the first state income tax in the nation in 1911, rather far-reaching.

[billy pilgrim]

"Perhaps the Brawler is overparsing. But the Brawler's always thought that words have meaning and consequences. They should be chosen carefully."

Not when you're fear-mongering.

Or maybe I should say that the words have been chosen carefully to misrepresent to the greatest extent possible without being directly false.

Man, I've become cynical.