Lights, camera, health care reform?
Should the final round of health care negotiations be televised?
C-SPAN President Brian Lamb is asking to film the remaining health care negotiations. Is Lamb’s request reasonable, or would television cameras simply turn important negations into political theater?
Under normal circumstances, when there are substantial differences between versions of a bill in the House and Senate, some members of each chamber meet to resolve the differences in conference committee meetings that are open to the public. However, to prevent Republicans from using their formal powers to stall a formal conference committee meeting, Democrats will instead resort to a series of more informal private meetings and send the bill back and forth between the chambers until differences are resolved.
The fact that the final negotiations on health care are being held in such an unusual and private manner, especially for a bill of this magnitude, lends credence to Lamb’s request for media coverage. This is not to say that the Democrats are necessarily wrong for forgoing the conference committee process, but television cameras could restore some of the transparency that is lost when the proceedings were moved from a public conference to behind closed doors.However, televising the proceedings could certainly have consequences as well. Over at the Wonk Room, Igor Volksy argues just this:
C-SPAN has televised literally hundreds of hours of committee hearings, mark ups and floor debate on these bills for the public to see. On the whole, C-SPAN’s coverage informed and entertained the viewer. But did it improve the underlying bill?
Volsky’s point certainly has merit; media coverage will no doubt increase grandstanding and perhaps hinder substantive discussions. The health care reform process has been filled with fiery rhetoric and aggressive partisanship, and a more private meeting could let cooler heads prevail. However, Volsky’s slightly misses the point when he asks if television cameras “improved the underlying bill.” The point of transparency is that it makes people accountable for their actions; politicians cannot simply disregard rules or regulations because they know they are being watched. In other words, transparency is important for what it prevents, not because it somehow creates better bills.
Of course, it is questionable how much transparency television cameras would really offer. Ezra Klein explains:
What you’ll get [if cameras are allowed] are kabuki negotiations in which legislative leaders make carefully planned statements about the awesomeness of the bill while staff works in a back room to haggle out whether, say, we should tax rich folks or expensive insurance plans.
The most compelling argument against televising the proceedings is that it would undermine the quality of negations without offering the benefit of meaningful transparency. However, regardless of where one falls on this issue, it is important to not let this one topic be the sole focus of discussions over transparency. For instance, Ezra Klein proposes publishing bills in both plain English in addition to legislative language to allow laypersons better understanding of the legislation. While the debate over television cameras in negotiations may get most of the press coverage, there are other less flashy reforms, such as Klein’s proposal, that offer the potential for even more substantive transparency.
-Luke
Related posts:
- Was health care reform illegal?
- Who should pay for health care reform?
- Health care overload: whither inequality?
- Would health care save lives?
- Rationing health care?
ShareComments
Leave a Reply
