The Democrats’ Communication Problem

Democrats are still smarting from Scott Brown’s upset victory in Massachusetts last week. Health reform seemed inevitable and then, suddenly, it wasn’t. As Karen pointed out, Democratic lawmakers are still searching for a path forward that might include reconciliation. They may succeed, but certainly not because the American people got on board with their plans. No, if Democrats manage to squeak by comprehensive health care reform legislation, they will do it in the face of polls showing that the majority of the American people oppose their efforts. Most Republicans would no doubt argue that the public is rejecting the Democratic plan for reforming the U.S. health care system, but a report released yesterday shows the Democrats came up short in a far more fundamental sense. They failed to convince the public that the system is flawed enough that it needs fixing.

A new survey from the highly respected Robert Wood Johnson Foundation indicates that slightly more Americans are confident in their ability to access and afford health care than they were in May 2009. Despite all the town halls, the rallies organized by pro-reform progressive groups, the pro-reform television ad campaigns, the Congressional hearings featuring Americans injured by a flawed insurance apparatus, the public is simply not convinced that the health care system is broken enough that it needs to be changed dramatically. (And I might add, despite all the reporting that’s been done about how broken the U.S. health care system is.)

In conversations with pro-reform policy experts and Democratic political aides throughout 2009, I heard it said that one reason Bill Clinton’s 1994 health reform efforts failed was that things weren’t bad enough back then. But fifteen years later, I was told, enough people had had negative experiences with their insurance companies over denied claims. Enough people had seen their premiums skyrocket. Enough people had found themselves suddenly and terrifyingly uninsured. But this turned out not to be true. Most people in America are still happy with their health care coverage and their health care. And most believe they will continue to be happy, despite Democrats’ effort to convince the public that the system is buckling and will eventually cost Americans far more than they can afford. Nope, this message did not get through.

According to the latest RWJF survey, which is conducted monthly, Americans have about the same confidence not only in their current ability to access and afford health care as they did in May 2009, but also the same confidence in their future ability to access and afford health care. The methodology of how the surveyors calculate “confidence” is fairly complicated, and the sample size is small – about 500 adults – but here’s a snippet of the results:

* 76% of those surveyed in May 2009 who had health insurance insurance said they were “not worried at all” or “not too worried” that they would lose their coverage. 69% were not worried in December 2009.

* 56% of those surveyed in May 2009 said they were “not worried at all” or “not too worried” they would not be able to afford routine health care in the future. In December 2009, the figure was 58%.

* 76% of those surveyed in May 2009 said they were “not worried at all” or “not too worried” they would go bankrupt from medical bills. In December 2009, the figure was 74%.

* One set of responses in the survey that experienced at least a 10-point swing between May 2009 and December 2009 came from a question about public health insurance programs. 16% of those on public insurance programs were worried about cuts to the programs in May 2009. By December, that figure had risen to 26%.

So Democrats failed to communicate on all counts. They did little to convince those with health insurance that their coverage was fragile and likely to cost more soon. Meanwhile, Republicans successfully convinced Americans that reform would cut funding for public programs. A reality check: The existing employer-based health insurance system – where some 60% of Americans get their coverage – is objectively unsustainable. Costs for these plans increased 131% between 1999 and 2009; employee contributions went up 128%. Surveys indicate that in 2010, 40% of employers will shift more premium costs onto employees and 39% will increase deductibles, co-payments, co-insurance or out-of-pocket maximums. These are just a handful of the available statistics that expose the massive vulnerabilities in the U.S. health care system. In addition, Democratic health care reform would dramatically increase the size of the public insurance program Medicaid – to the tune of 15 million people. Money would be cut from the Medicare program, but would mostly come from the subsidized private Medicaid Advantage program. None of the Medicare benefits legally required by current law would be cut.

The Democratic health care reform plan is either worth passing or not. Where you stand depends on many factors, including how much you trust the Democrats and what you believe the role of government should be. But regardless, it’s hard to argue with the notion that the first step in selling dramatic change is selling the idea that change of some kind, any kind, is badly needed. On this, American voters were not convinced. At least not in 2009.

Related Topics: employer-based, esi, health care reform, health reform, medicaid, medicare, robert wood johnson foundation, scott brown, Congress, Democratic Party, Health Care, Republican Party
  • Latest on Swampland

    The Phony War: Obama and Romney Are Debating Character, Not Policy

    More than five months from Election Day, the back-and-forth about Mitt Romney’s record at Bain already feels played out. Unfortunately, there’s good reason to expect the campaign continues in this vein indefinitely. Neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney are terribly interested in dwelling on policy platforms. Romney’s plan to slash spending and keep taxes low on the wealthy isn’t especially popular, at least not at any level of detail beyond a blithe promise to shrink the deficit. Meanwhile, Obama’s signature first-term achievements, like health care, the stimulus and Wall Street reform, are all unpopular or tricky to sell. (The Dodd-Frank bill is the most popular of these, but hyping it means offending wealthy donors.) So what we’re getting instead is a superficial duel about character–and, worse, one that’s based on the largely false premise that the better man can better “manage” the economy back to health.

    Obama Administration Blocks Global Health Fund To Fight Disease In Developing NationsHuffPost Politics

    Audacity of Dope: Tales of a Toking Teenage Obama

    We knew Barack Obama smoked weed in high school because he wrote about it in his books. What we didn’t know, until Buzzfeed posted these choice nuggets (I’m so sorry) from David Maraniss’s new book on the President’s younger years, were the giggle-worthy details of his “Choom Gang” lifestyle, which are right out of a buddy stoner flick. Obama and his friends drove around the lush Hawaii countryside, hot-boxing their VW bus and re-upping with a long-haired pizza-tossing dealer named Ray, whom Obama thanked in his yearbook “for all the good times.”

  • http://www.pledge-drive.com bondwooley

    The Dems had better start acting like leaders, because the angry and paranoid factions on the right are starting to make the rest of us angry and paranoid. See:

    http://bit.ly/5K4TIZ

    (social satire)

  • deconstructiva

    Kate, what’s the R’s HC plan again? That aside, I’m guessing most Americans stay sort of healthy enough to avoid major doctor / hospital stuff. They’re NOT experiencing health insurance hell firsthand. Once they do (or if their employers dump coverage), they’ll learn (too late). Huge reality check.

  • Matt

    Most of the problems bedeviling the Dems and Obama are messaging related. They seemed to lose their focus once the ’08 campaign was won.

    http://www.political-buzz.com/

  • nflfoghorn

    We’re still not convinced that change is needed? We’re all ostriches, is that it?

  • pintortwo

    Thank you Kate, for the post and links.
    .
    (The Democrats) failed to convince the public that the system is flawed enough that it needs fixing.
    .
    I tend to agree that it boils down to the above statement. The need for change wasn’t articulated well enough, despite the fact that changes are absolutely necessary (we all can probably agree on this). Seems like an easy “sell”.
    .
    We can discuss the reasons for failure- perhaps selfishness, the system resists change, the media’s coverage is decidedly pro-industry… But let’s put aside speculation, for the moment.
    .
    I think what is becoming abundantly clear is that, collectively, elected Democrats do not possess the will to fundamentally change US Healthcare.

  • kryptik1

    From what I remember of their laughable propositions last year, the Republican plan is essentially ‘Let insurance co. sell across state lines, and give ‘em tax breaks too!’. No cost controls, no stopping of recissions based on pre-existing conditions, no real attempt to even make it more affordable for people. You know, usual trickle-down BS.

  • spob

    When POTUS says things like, “If you like your healthcare, you can keep it.” and when they tell people about making healthcare cheaper etc., people tend to get skeptical. Obama has a credibility gap.
    .
    and then there’s this:
    .
    http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2010/01/27/reid-between-the-lines-harry-now-in-no-rush-to-save-the-sick-and-dying/

  • Ivy_B

    As you say, part of the communication problem is that the Democrats are bad at getting their message out. However, they really don’t have any help.

    This morning I heard what would be thought of as a news item on NPR saying how much Obama had to do in his SOTU to overcome all the bad. Then they had a Republican response – an interview with John Boehner. (Not sure why you need a Repub response to a news item. Guess because it mentioned the President.) Asked tough questions like How do you explain that your party objected to everything the Democrats proposed. Enabling him to respond that his party had tried over and over to act in a bipartisan way, but there were no overtures from the White House or the Democrats. However, it doesn’t mean that they won’t keep trying.

    If the Dems didn’t waste the whole summer trying to do something to bring Grassley and Snowe along, we would have a bill passed right now.

    A citizen complained that the only thing the President has done all year is health care reform. He should be able to do more than that. Citizen knows that because that is all that the press has said. Hmmm. No Afghanistan, no stimulus, no education programs (which actually are succeeding), no improvement of international relations, only the failure of the Congress.

    They all better get a grip. If you didn’t like most recent Supreme Corp decision, you are really not going to like the next ones with a Repub appointed justice.

  • spob

    “Despite all the town halls, the rallies organized by pro-reform progressive groups, the pro-reform television ad campaigns, the Congressional hearings featuring Americans injured by a flawed insurance apparatus, the public is simply not convinced that the health care system is broken enough that it needs to be changed dramatically. (And I might add, despite all the reporting that’s been done about how broken the U.S. health care system is.)”
    .
    But the idea that something must be done doesn’t mean that the status quo is not better than what Pelosi & Reid have put together.

  • nflfoghorn

    I’m sure a couple of them will leave the scene before 2016 :)

  • charlieromeobravo

    Unfortunately the Dems allowed the Republicans and other right wing organizations (not to mention drug companies and the insurance industry) define the plan while it was still being crafted creating public mistrust and causing the more timid politicians to run for cover or, in the case of Leiberman and Nelson, extract a pound of flesh as the price for their support.

    Here’s what I think. If this fails, I place the blame squarely at Obama’s feet. He won the election with broad public support but in refusing to take a stand on specifics early on and by refusing to use the leverage of that popular support to get the party to fall in line. At the very least he could have used his high approval ratings to provide cover for some people. AND, in taking a stand and saying “The bills must have X Y and Z in it” he could have been out educating the public on the bill and its goals while congress crafted the specifics. Instead he left the entire thing up to congress which is hopelessly broken at the moment. And I blame him and his people for not seeing how broken congress is and making adjustments to compensate for that. He’s governing like a senator and not like the leader we need.

  • nflfoghorn

    This lack of assertion is the potential flaw in BO’s makeup that I questioned in ’08 when he was running – would he have enough guts to do what’s needed? Stop being so accomodating to people who aren’t nice to you and want to see you fall flat on your butt! Don’t know if he’s got that he’s the prez now, not the junior senator from Illinois.

  • newfreedomblog

    Ms Pickert:
    .
    Perhaps the “communication” problem you identify was not solely due to the terrible bill Democrats in Congress have attempted to pass. When the message overall is wrong, Americans despite Joe Klein’s assessment that we are all “stupid and ill informed”, do know a bad thing when we see it.
    .
    It does not take a Harvard degree or even a degree from Penn University to know the direction the liberal progressives in this country were attempting to take us all down is a path of pure failure.
    .
    stuart zechman loves to describe it as some fairytale land of “New Democrats” who are at fault. These “New Democrats” somehow twarted the aspirations of the “true” liberals in this country.
    .
    Well Ms Pickert, respectfully, it is not “New Democrats” or anything other than a President backed by the most liberal Congress ever assembled attempted to drive down the throats of the American people a health care reform plan that is simply bad. Americans quickly realized that the so-called “reform” they were all shouting about was nothing about reform, and everything about bribes, kickbacks, and big deals.
    .
    Americans I believe have finally realized the politicians in Washington have one thing and one thing only as their main concern. Appeasing and padding the pockets of their special interest and lobbyist groups. Those special interest and lobbyist groups who pay them back with fancy trips around the world, posh weekend golfing outings and big money payoffs to family members.
    .
    The district near me which Rep John Murtha represents is a classic example how corrupt politicians rape the tax payer of their hard earned dollars. Murtha’s family has prospered and become millionaires.
    .
    This is bigger than the failure of Democrats to pass health care reform. And, if you or Obama think that is all it is, you will be so surprised when the elections are held this coming November. The anger and distrust is at a level this country has never seen before. These politicians will be voted out of office. Both Republicans and Democrats. The same Republicans and Democrats who have basically held a life-time appointment. The people are listening. They will take action, and they will vote corruption out of Washington once and for all.

  • newfreedomblog

    By the way, you can read my predictions on what you shall hear from this President tonight. He will transform into a Populist President.
    .
    http://www.newfreedomblog.com

  • deconstructiva

    …rustyblog, when you wrote this…

    It does not take a Harvard degree or even a degree from Penn University to know the direction the liberal progressives in this country were attempting to take us all down is a path of pure failure.

    …you forgot that Kate’s a Columbia grad (ditto for lovely Jay) not Harvard or Penn. So maybe she has a different viewpoint? Are you also discounting degrees from Texas (and those who hook ‘em, I mean, hold ‘em)? Of course no one who’s sane would mess around with anyone from the Harvard Divinity School.

  • http://theblindspotsofgod.wordpress.com lawyermommy

    Everything was almost in the bag and then they lost Massachusetts. I do not know what that makes of Obama and his agenda.
    Could that loss not have been prevented because of the inevitable domino effect it would cause and is now causing?

    I find myself watching Fox news more these days, not because I am a Conservative (I am not) but because they seem more reasoned and focused on their job.
    Their job is of course to tear down the President and make sure that he does not succeed.

    The more liberal stations like MSNBC and so on just seem to be empty and all over the place. The way I see it, they appear frazzled and disconnected.

    The Democrats are beginning to reassemble the Republicans in disorganization. I wrote it here before and I am doing so again. The President did not rein in the Blue and Yellow dogs. He did not take a hard line against many people and things who without cause opposed and ‘vociferously’ misrepresented his plans.

    He apologized too much and wasted too much time trying to create bi-partisanship which he should have known would NOT be happening.
    He spent loads of time wooing Snowe when he should have been explaining the Healthcare plan to the American public.

    The general public appear fickle and easily misled and Obama knows the deal.
    The Public for the most part do not read indepth matters, are prone to fear and respond to theatrics..he should have responded to the public in the manner they understand– to protect his major initiative, Health care.

    I thought he had a plan which was how I explained the lack of a sustained response to the continued erosion of public confidence in the Obama Healthcare reform proposal. Now it seems increasingly evident that he did not have a good robust plan. Sad.

    One of the reasons I like Palin is because she is tough and strong. I like Obama because he is reasoned and appears bright and effective however, he needs to be tough and strong!
    As President TOUGHNESS and single minded drive are a “sine qua non” of the job.

    A political party falls apart at the seams when leaders are either weak, disconnected or when they start believing all the hype about themselves.
    In this case, the Democrats relaxed in their own fluids and lost a crucial seat. Now, all the Presidents goals and initiatives are in jeopardy.

    Washington is still politics as usual and until Obama changes the system as he promised to do during the campaign, he should have played the system like a drum to get the Health care bill passed.

    If Obama’s key initiative, Healthcare fails because of his inability to “manipulate and maneuver” the political terrain with the required Presidential dexterity then he can kiss re-election a big fat goodbye.

    LM

    http://theblindspotsofgod.wordpress.com/2010/01/15/technology-savvy-nigerian-criminals-are-the-greatest-threat-to-national-security/

  • nflfoghorn

    “One of the reasons I like Palin is because she is tough and strong…”
    .
    And don’t forget “CLUELESS.”

  • stuartzechman

    Kate Pickert:

    [the Democrats] failed to convince the public that the system is flawed enough that it needs fixing.
    .
    The existing employer-based health insurance system – where some 60% of Americans get their coverage – is objectively unsustainable.
    .
    These are just a handful of the available statistics that expose the massive vulnerabilities in the U.S. health care system.

    I’m very grateful for this reporting, it’s superb, truly it is.
    .
    However, I’m a bit puzzled by a central premise of your piece.
    .
    The current health care system is “objectively unsustainable,” this is an empirically verifiable fact. And yet, it seems apparent, although you do not cite polling data in support, that Americans don’t seem to be in possession of this important information.
    .
    If Americans by-and-large are not aware of key facts that could impact their decision-making about which government policies or proposals to support, then how is this at all to do with Democrats’ communication skills (or lack thereof)?
    .
    Why is it the task of Democrats to ensure that a democratically-empowered public has basic, objective facts about the health care situation?
    .
    I’m trying to recall the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights, but I’m relatively sure it doesn’t read:

    Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the Democratic party;

    Doesn’t the Constitution mention something about freedom of the press, presumably because that function is so critical to the nation for healthy democratic processes to be the norm?
    .
    If the facts are what they are, that both the private system and public Medicare/Medicaid are on a sure path to economic perdition and failure, and “despite all the reporting that’s been done about how broken the U.S. health care system is,” a huge majority of Americans still don’t know this, why would you entitle this piece “The Democrats’ Communication Problem“?
    .
    Shouldn’t the title of the piece be:
    .
    The Press Corps’ Failure To Inform
    .
    , Kate Pickert?
    .
    Why is the premise of your piece that the function of Democrats is to “communicate” information that’s “out there” to an un-trusting public? I’m not saying that they haven’t failed –of course the Democrats have failed, at governing, at communicating, at representing the peoples’ interests, at integrity, etc., etc.– but it’s not really their duty to inform, it’s their duty to persuade, correct?
    .
    I just don’t get it. Can you help me understand why you believe that the press corps is functioning as well as it should, and yet the American people are bereft of what they need to know in order to decide whether politicians are telling the truth in this circumstance or lying? Why is that a political party’s responsibility, and not your profession’s, at least in your mind?
    .
    Thanks so much in advance for clarifying what is apparently a very, very different set of premises for you about how the political process is supposed to work, and the different roles each institution is meant to fulfill, Kate Pickert.
    .
    …And one more thing:
    .
    Is there any polling data available on what percentage of Americans know that the price of US health care ( link to health care comparison pricing ) ($7290/per year/per person in 2007) is twice that of the average wealthy country ($2964/per year/per person in 2007), even though rich countries get the same or better health care for less money?
    .
    Is there any polling data that shows a correspondence between US health care consumer satisfaction and un-awareness of how much more they’re paying (including taxes for Medicare/Medicaid, don’t forget) than everyone else? Anything to suggest that, if they knew how badly they’re being ripped off compared to other folks, they’d be out in the streets with pitchforks demanding a fair deal for their hard-earned money before you could say “OECD data”?
    .
    Thanks again for this reporting, Kate Pickert.

  • stuartzechman

    …None of this is to suggest that the Democrats shouldn’t have been shouting these facts from the rooftops, of course.

  • newfreedomblog

    Deconstructiva:
    .
    The reference you cite to my comment was directly implied to the self-described “elitists”, Barack Obama and Joe Klein. Not towards Ms Pickert or Ms Newton-Small. I do not get the impression that either Kate or Jay describe themselves as elitists, for the most part I do see them both reporting and leaving their opinons to the side on most all of their posts.

  • http://theblindspotsofgod.wordpress.com lawyermommy

    Haha, I would not say clueless. She has people who believe in her. She is loved and respected by many.

    What about you “nflfoghorn”, do you have Palin’s grit or any of the other qualities which catapulted her into the line light and keep her there? That was a rhetorical question i.e. no response needed..ie asked and answered! :)

    Michelle Obama, Hillary and Palin all have strength in common and for women that is a needed attribute!

    LM

  • stuartzechman

    “If you like this pricing, where our people pay the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs, don’t vote for this amendment,” said Byron Dorgan, right before the vote on his amendment to safely re-import prescription drugs from Canada, Europe and abroad.

    How did 31 Democrats, all leadership, including Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer (former head of DSCC), Bob Menendez (current head of DSCC) vote down the single most cost-effective thing they could have done for Americans’ health care? How did the Obama Administration let this go in silence –if they didn’t actually line up the votes?

    elected Democrats do not possess the will to fundamentally change US Healthcare

    Byron Dorgan, author of the amendment that would have changed everything for the prospects of health care reform, is not running again in North Dakota, now that his proposal was crushed by his own party.

  • stuartzechman

    This is true.

  • stuartzechman

    This whole strident, abrasive persona isn’t coming across very well.

  • deconstructiva

    …sorry about that, stuart.

  • messenia

    Despite all the town halls, the rallies organized by pro-reform progressive groups, the pro-reform television ad campaigns, the Congressional hearings featuring Americans injured by a flawed insurance apparatus, the public is simply not convinced that the health care system is broken enough that it needs to be changed dramatically.

    Well count me among those who are convinced that we need big changes…and don’t believe that anything under discussion constitutes the kind of change required. We don’t even have a health care system in country…or at least nothing that would be recognized as such anywhere else. The “system” is a patchwork of disparate financing models that work against the long-term stability of the economy,
    .
    The Democrats haven’t proposed change; what they constructed is an extension of the existing dysfunctional, bankrupting financing model. Many people who really do believe we need reform think that the programs in the bills are like taking more passengers onto a leaky lifeboat and the result will be drowning for everyone onboard.
    .
    The endless polls reflect a popular understanding that is clearer than most analysts would like to believe. As early polls showed, most people really do understand that the situation in the US is unsustainable. What most people believe though, is that the bills Congress has crafted will make a bad situation worse.
    .
    It doesn’t matter what Obama says tonight or what various talking heads advocate: the current non-reform effort has reached a dead end. If Democrats want to get credit for addressing the national insecurity engendered by our failing health care model, they are going to have to come up with a radically different approach.
    .

  • newfreedomblog

    If using this site as an example of the press you believe to be failing in their attempts to educate Americans about health care reform needs, Mr Zechman, then they have done their job. Actually, they have pointed this out time and time again.
    .
    The failure, which is not a communication failure on the part of Democrats in control of both houses of Congress and the Presidency is the failure to pass a bill that actually addresses the cost of health care.
    .
    That failure alone is what most Americans have witnessed. That failure is not reform at all, but a corrupt centralized government which is controlled by the Democrats.
    .
    Americans can see that the health care system is broken. What they can’t get their representatives to listen to is plain common sense. We do not need a big government entitlement program to solve the health care problems.
    .
    We do need reforms in the health care system. We need investigations as to why health care costs are nearly 2 times as much as any other country in the developed world. Then take the necessary steps to ensure that prices are brought down, and free enterprise is allowed to flourish.
    .
    Competition has been stiffled by State to State monopolies set up for the insurance companies. Reforms need to be passed to open up these monopolies held by the various insurance companies and allow for competition for our health care insurance dollars.
    .
    Again, bribes, kickbacks and payoffs with special deals is not reform. This is what was communicated by the Democrats in Washington as “reform” to the people of this great Nation. The people have recognized it, and have rejected it. It is that simple.

  • nflfoghorn

    I grant you that Palin’s a woman for sure :)

  • anon76

    I have a different problem with the lede here- Ms. Pickert says that confidence in status quo healthcare is up from last May, yet her link to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation seems to say the opposite. The provide an index on a 1-200 scale expressing confidence in the healthcare system- the scale was arbitrarily normalized at 100 last April, and stands at 99.1, which is not only lower than last spring, but also lower than the mean value since the index was established (99.2). I have no idea what real movement (as opposed to statistical noise) would look like for this index, but I am confident that you can not say (as Ms. Pickert has here) that confidence is up since the healthcare campaign began.

  • stuartzechman

    Kate Pickert:
    .
    Lest you get the idea that I disagree that the Democrats –specifically President Obama– have a “communication problem,” I’d just like to make one thing clear.
    .
    Remarks of Senator Barack Obama ( link to the full text of the wonderful, brilliant speech that convinced so many Americans that Democrats were on their side )
    .
    The American Promise
    .
    Democratic National Convention, Denver, Colorado
    .
    August 28, 2008

    Now is the time to finally keep the promise of affordable, accessible health care for every single American. If you have health care, my plan will lower your premiums. If you don’t, you’ll be able to get the same kind of coverage that members of Congress give themselves.

    Right…
    .
    What was that, again?
    .
    If you have health care, my plan will lower your premiums.

    Costs for these plans increased 131% between 1999 and 2009; employee contributions went up 128%. Surveys indicate that in 2010, 40% of employers will shift more premium costs onto employees and 39% will increase deductibles, co-payments, co-insurance or out-of-pocket maximums.

    The Health Care Reform legislation that the Administration has “shepherded” through Congress to this point does nothing whatsoever about this unsustainable shift in costs to the majority of working Americans.
    .
    Sure, there’s a cap on out-of-pocket, sure there’s a ratio of X-to-1 that insurers can charge based on a “healthy young person” premium price of whatever they wish to charge, sure, there’s a prohibition on lifetime payment caps, but none of those peripheral fixes come close to controlling the price of basic premiums (or the price of drugs, or hospitals, or MRI’s, or lab tests, or any other health care prices for which premiums pay), which means premiums are still free go up, as you’ve reported, and not compelled to go down, as candidate Obama promised in his “American Promise” speech.
    .
    Am I wrong, Kate Pickert? Have I read the legislation wrong?
    .
    If I’m correct in my reading of the Senate bill, the facts being what they are, Democrats sure do have a “communication problem,” alright.
    .
    It’s called lying.

  • nflfoghorn

    And what newspapers do you read, LM – “all of them”? (see my point?)

  • newfreedomblog

    Very well said.

  • stuartzechman

    No, no, I didn’t mean you, deconstructiva!
    .
    How could you think I meant you?

  • nflfoghorn

    ‘Guess collectively we have attention spans that are THAT short. Media included.

  • shakrai

    5.1: stuartzechman, they voted it down because the White House made sweetheart deals with the drug industry to buy their cooperation for health care reform. They basically codified their business model into the legislation and ensured that Americans would be paying inflated drug prices for the next century.
    .
    This is corporate welfare at it’s most ugly and I’m honestly surprised that more people aren’t calling out the Democrats on this. It’s particularly infuriating when you consider Candidate Obama’s promise of an open and transparent process.

  • shakrai

    Your blame at the drug companies for this bill dying is misplaced. You do realize that the White House cut a deal with Big Pharma to buy their cooperation and ensure that they keep making record profits off the backs of the sick and dying, right?

  • Ivy_B

    Thanks for clarifying SZ

  • stuartzechman

    Rustyblog:
    .
    Show me one piece put up by the Swampland pro crew in which the price of US health care is put up against the prices in the rest of the industrialized world, so the American people could intelligently comparison shop for a decent, affordable health care system, and I’ll drop this right now, and go to every other major media blog I can find, and ask them “Why aren’t you doing what the great reporters at Swampland have done?
    .
    Other than that, I agree with much of what you’ve said about the press doing some of its job exposing the corrupt proceedings we’ve witnessed on display, probably better than it ever has, due to the internet.
    .
    The problem is that focus on process over substance. One without the other still leaves the American people uniformed. It’s like reporting “Rat poison has somehow gotten into this shipment of Coca-cola!” without ever reporting on how that possibility exists, nor whether or not it’s healthy for people to drink the normal, poison-free Coca-cola in the quantity that they do. Folks still don’t know enough to make informed decisions.

  • stuartzechman

    Well said.

  • tjoyce994

    You forgot tort reform, which would cap insurance settlements for the injured but do nothing to reduce the cost of malpractice insurance.

  • allthingsinaname

    stuat is correct for sure. The only thing that makes sense is a Universal Health Care plan. Does anyone really believe that the Health Care Industry, can, will, or wants to maintain costs and still deliver quality care?
    .
    All health Care should be not for profit. Pay the providers well, but if a hospital and it’s staff wants work, let them fight for customers by providing services, but without profit..
    .
    Incentive you ask? How about their jobs.

  • stuartzechman

    They also proposed a state-based “reinsurance program” that sounded kind of like the state-based exchanges in the Senate bill, but with fed money going to the states, instead of into the exchanges. Equally worthless, I mean.
    .
    They banned rescission, too.

  • tjoyce994

    “Haha, I would not say clueless. She has people who believe in her. She is loved and respected by many. ”
    -
    They are idiots that should not be allowed to cross the street alone. How tough is it to spout mindless gibberish and lies?

  • stuartzechman

    This is corporate welfare at it’s most ugly and I’m honestly surprised that more people aren’t calling out the Democrats on this.

    .
    Actually, it’s Third Way centrist ideology in practice.
    .
    This is exactly the kind of “partnership” role that New Democrats envision the government to assume with respect to industry and finance.
    .
    These are the same New Democrats who repealed New Deal banking regulations in 1999, which gave us the collapse. They’re the same New Democrats who vote for telecom immunity for domestic spying in 2008. They’re the same New Democrats who gave us NAFTA a dozen years ago, and their the same New Democrats who are legislating compulsory purchases of private insurance policies from local monopolies.
    .
    That’s the Third Way. Not “government is the counter-balance against the power of corporations”, but “government is the partner of powerful corporations, to rule in technocratic bliss”.
    .
    That’s Third Way centrist government. It’s what they believe in.

  • stuartzechman

    sorry, “they’re the same New Democrats

  • tjoyce994

    “Well Ms Pickert, respectfully, it is not “New Democrats” or anything other than a President backed by the most liberal Congress ever assembled attempted to drive down the throats of the American people a health care reform plan that is simply bad. Americans quickly realized that the so-called “reform” they were all shouting about was nothing about reform, and everything about bribes, kickbacks, and big deals.”
    -
    I disagree with your statement “the most liberal congress ever assembled.” One of the problems has been the degree of liberalism/conservativism within the tent known as the democratic party. It’s so diverse that the 60 votes was rendered meaningless.
    -
    There is no question that the Dems should have done a better job explaining this. But, really, when you have adults convinced that elected goverment officials are actually going to assemble Death Panels, you have a pretty uneducated electorate. I’m not sure if you can close a knowledge gap that wide, because there is so little to work with.
    -
    I think people are foolish enough to assume that if they have jobs, they will have health insurance. It’s the other guy that falls through the cracks. Because America isn’t a homogenous country, it’s tempting to believe that people who have problems aren’t people like you. They did something wrong. They didn’t work hard enough, didn’t save enough money. Lived to extravagant a lifestyle, smoked cigarettes. The thinking doesn’t have to make sense; it just needs to make us feel secure. Ignorance is bliss.
    -
    The government needs fix this. I’m not saying that everyone is entitled to free insurance. I’m saying that the government needs to make insurance affordable and available so that no one has to chose between paying medical bills or paying mortgage, and no one has do die because no amount of money will buy them a policy. My government owes me that, because my tax money is sent all over the world to provide aid and support. It’s my turn.
    -
    The people that don’t understand won’t. We can’t wait until the system falls on their heads for them to realize that there is a problem.

  • tjoyce994

    You forgot credit card reform.

  • deconstructiva

    Stuart, have fun blogging. KT did address our costs vs. the world’s (with some help from you and Ezra Klein – japan wasn’t in his charts but our awful costs are) –
    http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/11/02/how-much-does-health-care-cost/
    .
    …of course, crosslinking KT’s piece everywhere will add to her media starlet status and drive more traffic here, which is good. Instead of tying up all free time hitting the blogs, can you get Lovely Bride to do this for you (in exchange for a gourmet dinner)? You are making a difference here.

  • tjoyce994

    “The reference you cite to my comment was directly implied to the self-described “elitists”, Barack Obama and Joe Klein.”
    -
    I have never heard Obama describe himself as elitist. In fact, he says he went to Harvard on scholarship.

  • newfreedomblog

    Actually here are three examples by our “pro” reporters from swampland reporting on the cost of health care.
    .
    http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/12/21/health-care-what-does-the-senate-bill-mean-to-you/
    .
    http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/11/02/how-much-does-health-care-cost/
    .
    http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2008/09/11/mccains_health_care_tax_increa/
    .
    I like the 2nd link the best, personally. I put up the last one to simply show how out of touch Joe Klein was at that time, and is now with regards to health care reform needs. He was putting down McCain’s proposal to tax health care benefits, and now that is exactly what Obama is proposing to pay for reform for the most part.

  • newfreedomblog

    There he goes again, ranting about the “Third-way”, “New Democrats” who are responsible for this atrocity they call health care reform.
    .
    It is and shall be forever known as the Democrat Health Care Reform Bill. Period.
    .
    The liberals in Congress as represented by Democrats, of the Democrat Party, by the Democrat Party created, crafted and voted for the current bill.
    .
    Period.

  • tjoyce994

    “do you have Palin’s grit or any of the other qualities which catapulted her into the line light and keep her there? ”
    -
    Palin was catapulted into the limelight because she a Hail Mary pass to save McCaine’s election campaign. He had never had a serious conversation with her, she wasn’t vetted properly, and she was totally unprepared. McCaine got a walking, breathing cartoon, and it did energize his crowds. And then she opened her mouth.
    -
    And she has so much grit, she walked away from her job as governor. It was just to difficult to finish the term.

  • tjoyce994

    sz, good post.

  • deconstructiva

    Here are other KT pieces on our individual costs, but these don’t compare to other countries (except in comments) whereas the link in 12.5 does
    http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/11/30/health-bill-what-would-it-cost-me/
    http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/11/11/health-reform-the-cost-of-doing-nothing/

  • newfreedomblog

    “My government owes me that, because my tax money is sent all over the world to provide aid and support. It’s my turn.”

    .
    Your government does not OWE you anything, except Freedom, Liberty and Justice.
    .
    We are not Haiti, Cuba or Russia. We are not Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela. We are America. We built this country out of virtually nothing, and we shall continue to build and be the strongest world power the world has ever known, unless people like you who believe the government should take care of them is allowed to ever take power.

  • stuartzechman

    Rustyblog and deconstructiva:
    .
    You’ve done it.
    .
    I did forget about that one post that shining light of professionalism incarnate, Karen Tumulty, put up. (The other two posts don’t really highlight the price of US health care vs the folks not getting ripped of in other countries). Ezra Klein does mention this, albeit almost off-handedly:

    There is a simple explanation for why American health care costs so much more than health care in any other country: because we pay so much more for each unit of care. As…academics and consultancies have repeatedly confirmed, if you leave everything else the same — the volume of procedures, the days we spend in the hospital, the number of surgeries we need — but plug in the prices Canadians pay, our health-care spending falls by about 50 percent.

    In other countries, governments set the rates that will be paid for different treatments and drugs, even when private insurers are doing the actual purchasing. In our country, the government doesn’t set those rates for private insurers, which is why the prices paid by Medicare…are much lower than those paid by private insurers. Other countries don’t have nearly that much variation, again because their pricing is standard.
    .
    The health-care reform debate has done a good job avoiding the subject of prices.

    If I were the kind that tries to get out of their declarations when the facts aren’t on their side, I would say something like
    .
    But he puts it in so much gobbelty-gook. He does an irritatingly wonkish job of saying a very, very simple thing: We pay twice as much as everybody else. He didn’t put up that $7300/person vs $3000/person figure, and start there, so that everybody would understand. Also, where was KT? Why didn’t she help out with the simple version? Why did she just cut n paste n run?
    .
    , but I’m not. What did I say, again?
    .
    Oh, right:
    .
    “…I’ll drop this right now, and go to every other major media blog I can find, and ask them “Why aren’t you doing what the great reporters at Swampland have done?”"
    .
    See you folks later, I’ve got some other media outlets to visit right now…
    .
    Talk amongst yourselves!
    .
    Enjoy the drop in average post length while you can!

  • tjoyce994

    If the American public is afraid of changing this system, would they ever agree to wholesale reform? The current bill doesn’t go far enough, but public isn’t behind it.

  • shepherdwong

    …sorry, “they’re the same New Democrats”
    .
    With the full support, encouragement and backing of 1) the corporate suites and 2) all Republicans.
    .
    Stuart, your obsession to fix blame strictly on New Democrats is starting to look like extreme partisanship or, possibly, psychopathology. I couldn’t detest them more but you’re missing the big picture about the sources of “conservative” dogma and its effects on the media, public opinion, politics and policy. You keep blaming the hitmen for the murder, rather than their paymasters. If you fail to stop the paymasters, there will always be more hitmen.

  • southernbell49

    What Ivy said.

    I’m not saying Dems haven’t made mistakes but the reality is and probably always be is that the Dems are not a national party. That’s one of the reasons HRC tried to present hrc to the Congress instead of haggling with them in the 92s. She and Bill knew that they would have trouble with a lot of Dems BECAUSE those Dems would have problems with the voters back home.

    Of course, the MSM always presents this fact as the Dems being in “disarray” instead of the reality of a political party that has conservative, moderate, liberal and progressive wings in their party.

    All in all, televised MSM has done a terrible job of explaining the stakes of hrc to Americans. There are young people in my office who had no idea that the premiums that are taken out of their paychecks are a fraction of the actual cost our firm incurs insuring them, that the firm kicks in about an extra $400, and that this money is part of their “compensation package”. Money that goes to insurance companies instead of being available for yearly raises.

    Getting back to HRC and Bill, the MSM crucified their approach. And now that the MSM is sactimoniously opining that Obama made a mistake in not taking control of the issue and dictating terms to Congress, are they also realizing Hillary’s style wasn’t so horrible? No. As usual, when it comes to the press, Dems are damned if they, damned if they don’t. Dems are held to a higher standard than Republicans.

  • shakrai

    What makes you think that money would be available for raises if the Government was running health care?
    .
    How is the Government going to fund health care? The money has to come from SOMEWHERE. It’s either going to come from business (thus taking the raises away) or individuals (thus taking the raises away).

  • http://elvisberg.wordpress.com Elvis Elvisberg

    For your consideration:
    -
    http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/1435/truth-about-polling
    -
    Consider how much we spend vs. how much the rest of the planet spends; the kinds of outcomes we get; the long-term consequences of inaction for the deficit; and the number of uninsured (again, compared to everyone else on the planet).
    -
    If people believe things that aren’t true, it’s the fault of the politicians, and of the people who are supposed to inform the people. What are those things called again?
    -
    (This isn’t meant to be mean to you, Kate. Thanks for the post.)

  • shepherdwong

    Is there any polling data available on what percentage of Americans know that the price of US health care ( link to health care comparison pricing ) ($7290/per year/per person in 2007) is twice that of the average wealthy country ($2964/per year/per person in 2007), even though rich countries get the same or better health care for less money?

    I’d love to know that also. But, regardless, and regardless of whether people feel personally at risk, the fact that people don’t understand that the “…existing employer-based health insurance system – where some 60% of Americans get their coverage – is objectively unsustainable,” is objectively the fault of our public media, is it not?

  • deconstructiva

    …interesting that Venezuela’s mentioned. Chavez really is trying to create a pure communist economy. Good luck, he’ll need it. Then again, his country does have two major exports he can leverage: oil and beauty pageant winners.
    http://www.mirror.co.uk/celebs/news/2009/08/24/top-10-reasons-why-venezuela-has-the-most-beauty-pageant-winners-115875-21620865/

  • rustyreturns

    shakai:
    .
    You are asking an almost impossible task of the liberals to understand there isn’t a big money tree in the back of the White House or the Capitol to pay for all the entitlement programs they want to put into place.
    .
    They can only say “let the government pay for it”. Well, the government doesn’t have any money of it’s own to spend unless they TAX people.
    .
    The government is not a business selling a service which gains a profit so that it can be spent on welfare programs, like Universal Health Care.
    .
    If, and that’s a big if, a universal health care plan is put into place, what is next?
    .
    A car made by Government Motors Corporation in everyone’s driveway?
    .
    Pay for a yearly vacation to Haiti to stimulate growth there?
    .
    Buy everyone their monthly supply of medical marijuana to treat all the various ailments they have that supposedly marijuana can cure?
    .
    Or this goody, provide free day care for all the newly married Gay and Lesbian couples after they have adopted all the now homeless Haitian children?

  • tjoyce994

    “Your government does not OWE you anything, except Freedom, Liberty and Justice.
    -
    We are not Haiti, Cuba or Russia. We are not Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela. We are America. We built this country out of virtually nothing, and we shall continue to build and be the strongest world power the world has ever known, unless people like you who believe the government should take care of them is allowed to ever take power.”
    -
    You can’t read. I never said the government should take care of me. What I said was
    -
    I’M NOT SAYING THAT EVERYONE IS ENTITLED TO FREE INSURANCE. I’M SAYING THAT THE GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO MAKE INSURANCE AFFORDABLE AND AVAILABLE.
    -
    Why is this not the job of the government? Only businesses have a right to protection? How do you justify being against insurance being affordable? There are millions of people who can’t buy a policy because no insurance company will sell them one. Is that right?
    -
    You said I am owed nothing but freedom, liberty and justice. Well I’m asking for justice. Not welfare. I don’t mind paying for healthcare. I want a good product at a reasonable price. That’s next to impossible when carriers are allowed to fix prices, refuse to provide coverage, and rescind a policy at will. Our only alternative is to sue them in court, and hope we don’t die before we can get a favorable verdict.
    -
    I understand that this isn’t Haiti, Cuba (although I understand that they have good healthcare there) or Russia. I am a property owning, tax-paying U.S. citizen. And I am asking my government to stand up for me and millions of others against the insurance companies, because we aren’t strong enough to do it individually. There is nothing unAmerican about that.
    -
    You also are in desparate need of a history lesson. You erroneously stated that America was built out of virtually nothing. America was built on the backs of a lot of cheap and free labor. We are the strongest nation. But we are 37th in health care and #1 in healthcare cost. There is nothing unAmerican about wanting to fix what’s broken. Only a fool would use patriotism to pretend that it is.

  • shepherdwong

    “If the American public is afraid of changing this system, would they ever agree to wholesale reform?”
    .
    I’m afraid that people aren’t in the mood to hear any “political reality” at the moment, even if they are normally rational and smart. The “radical change” they’re talking about, the only thing that will bring costs to something like what other countries pay, is to do away with the private insurance-based system and replace it with a public system (like Britain) or public-private hybrid (like France). I’m pretty sure I’m not going to get my magic flying pony this year either.
    .
    However, if they were to add a solid, national public option to the current Senate bill, along with a progressive funding mechanism, that would still be good reform with being “radical”.

  • southernbell49

    Who said that Government had to run healthcare? I’m talking about doing something about the greedy insurance companies.

    Many nations in Europe, Australia, Japan, use private insurance almost exclusively to provide healthcare for their citizens. What the governnment does is regulate the insurance industry. In these countries, the public has much more choice and more rights. Most Americans who have private insurance are stuck with whatever their company can afford, they have no say in the negotiations.

    However, I do think the Canadian system works better than the US mess, overall. And the military healthcare for the families of service members is excellent.

    And another thing that drives me crazy: tort reform.

    Conservatives who blanch at the thought of interfering in private business when it comes to regulating insurance rates have no problem with the idea of placing limits on lawsuits, which means they are fine with interfering with the law business but not with the insurance companies.

    Makes no sense.

  • chas682

    The politicians don’t seem to care what the majority of the electorate wants.

    Has anyone noticed that all President Obama wants to do is ‘talk down’ to the public. He does not appear to be interested in what the public has to say. He does appear to have his own agenda for doing just what he wants to do.

    With the Democrats inability to get anything done with control of White House, Senate and House for the past year – 2009, I don’t see them accomplishing very much during the remainder of President Obama’s tenure.

    During the Presidential campaign Barack Obama stressed the point that he would provide more transparency in governing. He is certainly doing that. He has gotten so transparent that more and more people are able to see right through him.

  • rczoom8

    Healthcare reform should not be a Democrate or Republican issue, but they should work together to try and accomplish some positive results – and now it looks like they will have to work together. I have not seen or read any info on how the democratic bills would make healthcare better or more affordable, only that more people may be covered – so from an employed person with healthcare insurance point of view, it does nothing to help me and can very possibly make things worse. The issues that would help all citizens deal with the cost of care, which in turn drives the cost of insurance. Today I just paid $103.98 for 4 pills – and I am a person who understands the cost / time involved to develp drugs, but over $25 for each pill is outrageous – look at the price of a 10 minute (if you are lucky) visit with your PCP . . . after you have waited 30 minutes just for your 10 minutes of face time. To truly address the cost of healthcare insurance, we must first address the cost of healthcare.

  • anninpanola

    A reality check: The existing employer-based health insurance system – where some 60% of Americans get their coverage – is objectively unsustainable.

    .
    Here’s what I don’t understand: If that’s true, then why don’t either of the bills address that Why do the the Democrats want to reinforce the chains that keep people working at jobs they don’t necessarily like and force parents to get second jobs just to get low or no-cost coverage? Why are they trying to force employers to participate in this unsustainable arrangement rather than moving us all to something more secure?
    .
    I voted for Obama with the expectation that we would get on the road to some kind of universal coverage. I didn’t vote to create another poverty program and I didn’t vote for some sort of arcane congressional budgeting that spends more on what we don’t want while claiming to eventually spend marginally less in areas that need big savings now.
    .
    I expected/hoped that the Democrats would get realisitic about the fantasy of single-payer and end up with something more like Germany or France where employer expenses on benefits have been replaced by payroll taxes that finance 80%-85% of what is essentially a private system that covers everyone. I figured that if we didn’t go that route, we’d end up with an universal individual system like the Netherlands or Swizerland. I never dreamed that the Democratic non-solution would be to pour more public money into what we know doesn’t work.
    .
    I don’t think I’m alone. I think people want something better and realize that subsidies for some poor people isn’t reform. Government in this country already spends 46¢ of every dollar spent on health care (the comparable figure in Germany is 15¢). How much more can we possibly spend on this? Why not look at trying something different?

  • deconstructiva

    They can only say “let the government pay for it”. Well, the government doesn’t have any money of it’s own to spend unless they TAX people.

    …at first this is true but once revenue comes in the govt. should be investing that to bring in even more money (currencies, debt instruments, oil and other commodities) or to hedge / warehouse it (gold) …just like businesses and individuals. China is a good example of this as they hold vast amounts of foreign debt. Whose debt is another story, but I digress.

  • http://herbbishop.wordpress.com Herb Bishop

    The healthcare system and the solution that is being offered are based on the failed philosophy of managing poor health. This approach is too expensive. Our leaders need to develop a new strategy that places the focus on keeping people healthy through nutritional education and being proactive in their own health. When we come up with a plan that rewards those who live healthy lifestyles, then we will begin to change the future of healthcare.

  • tjoyce994

    I remember reading that when most countries changed their healthcare system, the first thing the did was get everyone covered. Once the system was set up, it was easier to convince people of the changes that needed to be made to control the costs.
    -
    When the medicare buy in was first discussed, some one had suggested making the exchanges open to everyone, which would evenually wean us off the employer based system. There was even talk about taking the money that your employer would pay for your health care and allowing the employee to use it on the exchange.
    -
    If your job is paying less for health insurance, there is more money for raises. My last employer actually kicked in more money to employees who had the HSA plans.
    -
    Businesses have been strangely silent during this whole debate.

  • stuartzechman

    shepherdwong:
    .
    I trust that this is an honest criticism, and not just the equivalent of playing Dean Scream footage to discredit the message.
    .
    If you think about it, it’s just as psychotic as my attempts to get the price of health care in the US to be the focus of the debate.
    .
    It’s not mindless, it’s not compulsive, but it is a campaign, and relentless, that’s true. If I didn’t think I could persuade anyone to at least consider that there’s another set of facts to keep in mind when thinking about what’s wrong, I’d probably stop, and try something else. But some people read my stuff, and start to consider these things, even though it’s, at this point, a relatively unique point to be making. Some folks I respect, and whose work I make sure I read, have actually started to understand and repeat what I’ve been going on about for more than a year, specifically because they’ve communicated with me, and read this commentary.
    .
    It is partisan, absolutely. I think that it’s about time that we got partisan on their asses, right the f*ck now! That’s the thing: they’re a little, unrepresentative, unpopular bloc within the Democratic party. They speak for us, even when they’re trashing liberals and the DFH “left”. They’ve shut us out of any chance at the solutions we know have the best shot at working for the American people. They work as a bloc. They are as partisan in practice as the Republicans. If we don’t fight back by hardening our own partisan majority, and assuming our own voice, we’re going to be in the same boat every single time…and then be blamed in American culture for this bloc’s failures.
    .
    It’s a problem that’s largely disappeared in political coverage, which is why talking about it is so important. If we allow this particular wing of the Democratic party to represent liberalism and Democrats in general –which they obviously do not– then we will surely take the fall for their failures and corruption.
    .
    I disagree that I’m missing the big picture regarding rightist framing, media ownership constriction, various complicity, etc., etc., I’m obviously aware that I don’t make those concerns front and center, but there are all kinds of voices speaking to those real issues, and not very many speaking to the issue of this particular political ideology as a cause of our problems.
    .
    Liberals and Democrats keep going back and forth, endlessly agonizing over these things:

    Why do the Democrats do this?
    .
    Why the obsession with compromise?
    .
    Why the corporatism instead of populism?
    .
    Why the rhetorical concessions to right-wing frames?
    .
    Why the lack of will to change?
    .
    Why the lack of liberal solutions? Why the running away from the word “liberal”, 22 years after Dukakis?
    .
    Why the deliberate rejection of popular Democratic will?
    .
    Why the predictable political failure, always in the same direction?
    .
    Why, why, why do the Democrats predictably do what they always do?”

    And we always find ourselves asking these predictable questions, and coming back to many of the same theories, theories that are always incomplete, or flawed.
    .
    We say “It’s that they’re playing politics.“, but then they predictably lose. We say “They’re corrupt!“, but then they mindlessly do things out of principle (like vote against something merely because liberals are for it). We say “They’re really conservatives!“, but they’re not, and they have voting records to prove it, where they vote with Democrat majorities 80, 90 percent of the time. We say “They’re failures, incompetents!”, but they seem to keep getting results that this little bloc likes, over and over again! We say “They’re timid, they’re cowards!“, but then they stand up to us, and vote against widely popular things.
    .
    The one thing that we don’t ever seem to consider is that they believe in what they’re doing. The one thing we seem to have some strange reluctance (along with the political media) to do is ask “What do these people say they believe in?“, look it up, then look up the term “Third Way”, and then ask ourselves “What would Third Way policy and politics look like in action? Does Third Way centrism resemble what we’re seeing now?“, and then talk about it.
    .
    Somehow these other storylines we have in our heads are so much more pleasing, that we tend to accept the idea that these are failed or corrupt liberals, instead of what they say they are. I think that we need to re-think some of our assumptions about who these Democrats are, re-marshal the facts, and get back to work replacing them –with a fuller understanding of exactly who we’re dealing with.
    .
    I’m not saying that this is it, the grand unifying theory of everything, but it’s something that we need to have in our heads. And just like defense spending being disappeared from the debate on government spending, just like mindless support for the policies of Likud being the frame, just like single-payer being “off the table” and therefore invisible, we need to be cognizant of a certain kind of rhetorical manipulation being standard operating procedure for the political media when they use centrist –not right-wing– frames like “pragmatic” and “non-ideological” and “extreme vs moderate”, or liberalism will continue to lose traction in public culture.
    .
    I’m not even trying to persuade you that this theory:


    New Democrats will predictably do the things that we liberals have seen (and hated) over the last year when they’re in power, and will predictably do the things that we liberals have seen (and hated) when they were out or partially of power during the Clinton/Lott, Bush/Daschle, Bush/Frist and Bush/Reid years.
    .
    These phenomena are predictable, and can be explained fairly well using Third Way political ideology as a guide for what New Democrats will do in the future.

    is perfect or even correct, or that you should believe in it, shepherdwong, I’m asking that you truly consider it and that you talk about it, that you give it the kind of voice that it deserves, along with other liberal analyses of politics and policy.
    .
    I understand that this kind of thing is lonely –how freaking lonely did Dennis Kucinich look up there during the primary debates talking about single-payer, whilst the others were on about “universal coverage”– and looks odd if you’ve never heard about or read about the ideology of the people in charge of the Democratic party apparatus and its money.
    .
    I understand that not many people know that Rahm was the head of the DLC, or what the DLC is, or what it stands for, but that’s not a reason not to talk about it, and that’s all I’m doing: talking about what this strange affliction the Democrats are suffering means, and what it might be.
    .
    Does this make more sense to you, shepherdwong?

  • rustyreturns

    The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 27% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-two percent (42%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -15

    .
    You may want to also correlate how Obama’s approval ratings have tanked with those of health care reform.
    .
    Both of these polls go nearly hand in hand. As Obama’s favorability ratings have plummeted, so has support for health care reform. There has to be a connection to this as well.
    .
    People have simply lost all faith in Obama’s ability to “make change happen”.
    .
    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
    .
    Obama also recently said…
    .

    “I will be very happy to be a good, one term President, rather than a two term mediocre President”

    .
    Just like grading himself, he forgot that you can also be a mediocre, ONE TERM President. Ask Jimmy Carter!!!

  • shakrai

    The grading himself bit was very disappointing. A more experienced politician would have known better and would have come up with a response along the lines of “That’s for the American people to decide.”
    .
    Instead he came off as just another self-important political hack with an inflated opinion of his own accomplishments. Combine that with some of his other rookie mistakes (“The Cambridge police acted stupidly”) and I’m beginning to wonder how this man made it through the Chicago political machine without imploding.

  • goznes

    The president has presented the information about how objectively vulnerable we are with our current health care system- including rising costs, rejections due to pre-existing conditions, caps on payments and refusal to pay on the part of insurance companies. As a society we apparently don’t care about those who are dying as a result of lack of access to needed health care. If we haven’t had a bad experience with health insurance companies and don’t mind the rising costs, we are satisfied. How sad we can’t see beyond our own experience.

  • stuartzechman

    As a liberal, I can say for damn certain that I didn’t vote for new poverty programs, I voted for a new and sustainable health care delivery system for all Americans.
    .
    Thanks for giving voice to these ideas.

  • messenia

    “Many nations in Europe, Australia, Japan, use private insurance almost exclusively to provide healthcare for their citizens. What the governnment does is regulate the insurance industry. In these countries, the public has much more choice and more rights. Most Americans who have private insurance are stuck with whatever their company can afford, they have no say in the negotiations.”
    .
    1. Most Americans, be they politicians, pundits, or just regular citizens, don’t know that. They assume that all universal healthcare systems are funded through public money.
    .
    Relatively few people here realize that healthcare in the US already depends far more on government spending than care in places like Germany, France, or Austraila — all of which have universal coverage and spend half (or less) of what we do in both actual money and as a percentage of GDP.
    .
    2. Insurance regulation works in those countries because it is a component of a coherent national policy. You can’t regulate insurance into a policy; a successful system uses insurance to advance the goals of the public — not to replace the responsibility of the government.
    .
    Insurers in those countries are not subject to unfunded mandates that can only result in rising premiums or corporate insolvency; regulation includes provisions to compensate them for bearing increased risks of different types.
    .
    The appalling ignorance and lack of vision on the part of those responsible for crafting legislation has been most disappointing. Democrats had fifteen years to develop and sell real reform. Yet when the opportunity to pass something arrived, they were curiously unprepared.
    .
    Liberals went straight from whining about single-payer to talking about some weird “public option” to control costs. They never seemed to realize that those are contradictory solutions. Either health care is a commodity amenable to free market theory or it is not (most countries have found that it is not). You can’t believe that free market approaches are inaadequate for the situation then talk about using a public company to lower costs through competition. That’s a “uniquely American” approach based on wishful thinking.

  • spob

    So goznes, what are solutions that do not involve a quasi-nationalization of healthcare and the transmogrification of insurance companies into utilities? I think everyone in politics wants to see our healthcare system get better. So what are some “no-brainers”?
    .
    The President himself has said that we could achieve significant savings through fighting “waste, fraud and abuse.” Ok, we don’t need sweeping HCR to accomplish that. Will the media (KT?) hold Obama to this promise? Will the left? Every dollar spent on “waste, fraud and abuse” is a dollar not spent on delivering health care to people.
    .
    One of the issues with health care “insurance” is that it does double-duty as a payment mechanism and insurance. So is there a way to decouple the payment system (while keeping the tax benefits) from the true insurance system? That would likely cut down on a lot of inefficient payment mechanisms.
    .
    Can the delivery of some medical services be more streamlined? I read that Wal-Mart and some other places wanted to do routine healthcare. How can we encourage that?
    .
    Tort reform?
    .
    Obama made a big deal about the computerization of healthcare records. Presumably, after dealing with privacy issues, most people would be in favor of figuring out a way to have records computerized so as to better deliver health care. Why can’t we push forward on this?
    .
    Healthcare reform need not be dead. Only root-and-branch reform is dead.

  • shepherdwong

    Stuart, I get more sense from you than just about anyone, except for this:

    We say “They’re really conservatives!”, but they’re not, and they have voting records to prove it, where they vote with Democrat majorities 80, 90 percent of the time.”

    .
    They are “conservatives”. Ronald Reagan, corporatist “conservatives” through and through. Just because they’re not voting with the rabid, insane right doesn’t mean they’re not “conservatives”, it just means their base isn’t as rabid and insane, though, perhaps, just as easily fooled and manipulated.
    .
    I think you’ve got the Third-way Democrats down pat. You’re missing something about their role in movement conservatism, and movement conservatism’s role in creating and sustaining New Democrats. Just look at the nonsense people believe about taxes, regulation, markets and government’s role and you can understand how Third-way Dems are able to operate, regardless of whether they really believe “conservative” economic dogma or not.
    .
    Look at it this way, if movement conservatism was created by certain rich elites to inculcate the populace with anti-tax and anti-regulatory dogma and further co-op our elected representatives into supporting anti-tax and anti-regulatory policies – it was – how can Third-way Democrats not be a part of that movement? And if you eliminated all of the New Democrats tomorrow, without getting at the structures and methods of the “conservative” movement, what do you think would happen on the next election cycle?
    .
    I agree that Third-way Democrats are a huge problem for liberals and Democrats, particularly at this moment in history, but they are certainly less important than our false beliefs in corporatist market dogma, our corrupt political press, or the corporate money and power that fuels them both. They are also less to blame for the mess we’re all in.

  • southernbell49

    Messenia, great post.

    I believe that if polls asked specific questions while giving info, such as “The French (Australians, Japanese, etc) people have private healthcare insurance and each individual personally has to pay theh insurance companies half of what American individuals have to pay the insurance companies, which means the French (Australian, German, Japanese) people have more take home pay to spend on other things they want to buy. Do you support the federal governent regulating the insurance industry to make them cover all Americans and keep premiums down”?

    I’m sure if the poll was more specific and focus on pocket-book issues, a majority of Americans would support the government’s regulating the insurance industry.

  • tjoyce994

    I don’t think Obama or anyone else should be making decisions based on polls. A poll is a snap shot that reflects where the polled people are at this moment. People don’t have jobs, or the jobs that they do have are insecure. Understandably, they are focused on immediate needs. If unemployment were 4% those poll numbers would be different.
    -
    This is nowhere near a perfect bill, but I don’t see it as being a poverty program either. If you are allowed to keep your children on your policy until age 26, it is assumed that you have insurance. That isn’t a poverty program. If you are ininsured and can seek coverage from an exchange/public option and (here is where everyone gets lost) BUY the coverage, that isn’t a poverty program. If you buy into Medicare at age 55, you are paying your own way. That isn’t a poverty program. You need a job and assets to be able to purchase coverage. Makin coverage available helps millions of Americans.

  • http://theblindspotsofgod.wordpress.com lawyermommy

    Ahh, the anti Palin freakazoids. Here we go.

    If McCain is reading more newspapers than Palin, his home state certainly has very little to show for it.

    I might not vote for her into higher office BUT her grit cannot be ignored. She left the position of governor because she explained that she did not want to be a “lame duck”.
    Yes, I was surprised that she left… but who knows why. People quit in politics all the time.

    Some who should quit like Edwards just stick around and hurt our eyes.

    As for Nfloghorn’s lecherous remark.. ?? I am glad you noticed! How observant. Ha :)

    LM

  • tjoyce994

    What grit? How much courage does it take to make snarky, erroneous comments (does the term death panels sound familar?) from a blog site? If you say she’s entertaining, I would agree with you. She should have a talk show. But she has proven herself unfit to govern. She has walked away from one job. Who would be insane enough to vote her into another one? The lame duck comment? That dog won’t hunt.
    -
    You are right about what McCaine reads. But the point is he does.

  • stuartzechman

    Liberals went straight from whining about single-payer to talking about some weird “public option” to control costs.
    .
    My belief is that career liberals in the press corps (and a number of bloggers) were sold a trojan horse for single-payer in the form of a “public option”, and they did their best to take the only crumb they believed they were given.
    .
    That’s why the whole “control cost” nonsense didn’t make any sense. If you’re really going for a foot-in-the-door to the system you had slammed in your face, then it doesn’t have to, as long as you keep people uninformed about the policy, but up-to-date on what their tribal affiliates are saying is good for them.
    .
    Career liberals in the political media really shot themselves (and the rest of us) in the foot with that public option cost-controlling chicanery.

  • shepherdwong

    One more question that may help illustrate the connection between conservative Dems and the far right-wing conservative movement: without the successful lies about “big government takeover”, “death panels” and “make you pay for other people’s health care” and other right-wing anti-HCR propaganda, would Nelson and Landrieu, et al, have simply dropped popular measures like the public option or tied funding to cuts in popular social safety nets programs and taxes on the working-class, rather than a modest progressive tax on billionaires and millionaires to provide access to healthcare for all Americans?

  • shakrai

    tjoyce994,
    .
    Whatever the good points of this bill may be I can’t get past the fact that it seeks to impose a mandate on the citizenry to buy a service from private enterprise. I’ve gone over the Constitutional problems with such a mandate numerous times and won’t rehash them again. What I will say is that even if you believe the mandate is Consitutional you can still make a case for why it’s bad policy.
    .
    As a case in point, consider the example of someone who currently receives insurance through their employer. This person is likely forced into a one size fits all plan that may or may not meet his needs. Perhaps he’d like to shop in the new exchanges to find a policy better suited to his circumstances. Of course by virtue of having employer provided insurance he isn’t allowed to access the exchanges. So what we’ve done here is to mandate that this individual carry insurance through his employer regardless of whether or not the plan is appropriate or cost effective for him.
    .
    I wish the Democrats had the political courage to go after the linkage between employment and insurance but they made a political decision at the beginning of this process not to do that. I also wish they had pressed the case for single payer. I personally don’t want to see a single payer system but I would find it easier to live with than a mandate that I do business with an industry that seeks to profit off the pain and suffering of others.

  • stuartzechman

    I agree that Third-way Democrats are a huge problem for liberals and Democrats, particularly at this moment in history, but they are certainly less important than our false beliefs in corporatist market dogma, our corrupt political press, or the corporate money and power that fuels them both. They are also less to blame for the mess we’re all in.

    First of all, thanks for reading through all of that.
    .
    Second, obviously the New Democrats don’t represent the structural or systemic problems we face –they’re just a flush-full-of-cash minority bloc who controls the leadership of the political party we support. The problems you rightly identify require a lot more than identifying Third Way ideology and its adherents to solve, true, true. And your implication that popular movement capable of overcoming these catastrophic problems is ultimately required is also true, true.
    .
    But isn’t part of the solution –especially the immediate solution– that we get partisan on their asses right the f*ck now?
    .
    Doesn’t that involve knowing who we’re actually fighting, that it is this bloc of DLC’ers called “New Democrats”, and the ideology of the Third Way that prioritizes compromise with conservatives over the people’s interests, and helpful, technocratic corporations over stupid, easily-fooled voters?
    .
    Why shouldn’t we be talking about the Third Way as much as –or more than– we rail about the crazee right?

  • messenia

    “…what are solutions that do not involve a quasi-nationalization of healthcare..”
    .
    Government (federal, state, and local) in the US is responsible for a larger percentage of total health spending than in many universal care countries. Government here defines what is covered and sets payment rates for the millions already covered by Medicare and Medicaid. In other words, health care in this country is already more “nationalized” than in the Netherlands, Germany, France, or Switzerland and, as in every other aspect of this issue, we have less to show for it.
    .
    “…and the transmogrification of insurance companies into utilities?”
    .
    What’s would be wrong with using something other than the auto or fire insurance model to pay for health care costs?. In Germany, the 300+ companies that pay for care aren’t even called insurance; they are “sickness funds”. Many are affiliated with standard insurance companies but their function is recognized to be significantly different from other lines of business. It is the sickness funds, not the government, that negotiate with providers on a regional basis. Everyone in the region gets the same deal — doctors and hospitals don’t gouge the uninsured (because there are none) or reject the poor because they can’t charge them enough. The sickness funds are non-profit and compete on …service ( not price). Every subscriber has a payment card to facilitate completely automated provider payment.

    Like everyone else, the Germans are constantly refining their system but I guarantee you, no one there is talking about breaking it up into something that costs twice as much and reduces individual choice.

  • tjoyce994

    Sharkai, I don’t have a problem with requiring everyone to have some form of healthcare, because everyone should pay their own way. How else could we be assured that I don’t go to the ER and run up bills that the public has to pay? With liability insurance, business can post company assets. I suppose that would work for Bill Gates but not most people. Your house wouldn’t be enough collateral. I don’t understand why buying health insurance is different from buying auto insurance.
    -
    I agree with you that the exchanges should be open to everyone. During the talk about the Medicare buy-in, I think it was Senator Ron Wyden that proposed just what you suggested. In fact, you could take the money that your employer paid for your health care and shop on the exchange. The idea was to pull away from employer based health care. I never heard what happened to that.
    -
    I don’t see a single payer system in our future. The insurance companies are here, they are powerful, and they just got the green light from the supreme court to exercise their right to free speech by funding political campaigns. The politics of the situation just isn’t realistic.

  • messenia

    shakrai : “Whatever the good points of this bill may be I can’t get past the fact that it seeks to impose a mandate on the citizenry to buy a service from private enterprise”
    .
    It’s hard to second guess the court about a universal mandate but I find it hard to believe that anyone seriously inequity inherent in the proposed mandate would stand up to legal challenge.
    .
    Under which “uniquely American” principle does it make sense to continue the tax exemption for employer paid benefits then require those who pay for coverage themselves to do with after-tax dollars?. The Democrats should have paid attention to Mike Enzi’s proposal on that because someone is going to pull the plug in court.

  • shakrai

    tjoyce994: So your solution is to fight them by requiring all Americans to do business with them? How do you reconcile that with the harm that they are doing to our system? You think they’ll be any easier to deal with when they have 300,000,000 guaranteed customers? Have you found your cable and/or wireline phone company any easier to deal with since they got monopoly status bestowed upon them by your local government?
    .
    From where I sit the individual mandate takes everything that’s wrong with our existing health care system and codifies it into law. It’s absurd and wasteful to use insurance to pay for routine expenses (imagine using your auto insurance to pay for oil changes) yet the individual mandate will lock this practice into law.
    .
    Buying health insurance is different from auto insurance for two reasons. 1) It’s a CHOICE to buy a car. One can live without a car in most of the country, albeit with varying degrees of difficulty. 2) The auto insurance mandate comes from the states, not the Federal Government. There is no provision in the US Constitution that would authorize the Feds to impose such a mandate.
    .
    As far as your assurance that everyone pays their own way you still won’t have that with an individual mandate. Illegal immigrants and those without income (thus no need to file taxes and get hit by the mandate) will still be able to obtain free care at your local ER.
    .
    This was the source of Rep. Wilson’s famous outburst. While I certainly don’t condone his abhorrent behavior one can understand his frustrations when the President claims that we won’t be paying for health care for illegal immigrants. That’s factually incorrect unless the President is purposing that we end the mandate that ERs treat everybody regardless of ability to pay.
    .
    I’m sorry but I just can’t support legislation with an individual mandate. That’s where I got off the health care reform bus. If it passes I’ll be the first one in line volunteering to be the test case against it for the inevitable Constitutional challenge.

  • shakrai

    I’m not quite clear on what you are trying to convey with your first paragraph. Could you elaborate?
    .
    Regarding the second one, how does it make sense that I’m to be prohibited from shopping in the exchanges because I have insurance through my employer? My employers policy is tailored towards families. It’s a waste of money for a single guy such as myself. I’d love to buy something that made more sense for my circumstances but three things conspire to prevent me from doing this:
    .
    1) I lose the income tax exemption on my health insurance.
    .
    2) I lose the money my employer kicks in (75%) towards my premiums. There is no option available for me to take it in wages instead.
    .
    3) Under the purposed legislation I’m barred from shopping in the exchanges.

  • shakrai

    Crud, I replied in the wrong spot. The above message was aimed at messenia in post #26.
    .
    Sorry for the confusion folks.

  • stuartzechman

    But still, what you’ve said is entirely accurately.

  • messenia

    I’m not quite clear on what you are trying to convey with your first paragraph. Could you elaborate? – shakrai

    Well I left out a word or two…What I was trying to say was I don’t see how anyone can seriously think that government can compel one segment of the population to spend after-tax dollars on insurance while retaining the tax-free ride others and not end up in court.
    .
    On your other point: I’m certainly not the person to defend the exchanges. To me, they are just another non-universal patch in a quilt that is so worn it has patches to patches.
    .
    There is a big difference in a universal, individual insurance scheme (a la Netherlands or Switzerland), in which everyone participates and the exchanges in the Democratic bills. The latter are another futile exercise to avoid facing the biggest obstacle to getting universal care: tax exemption of employer-paid coverage.

  • tjoyce994

    Shakari, first of all thanks for your response. In case you haven’t noticed, health care reform didn’t pass, and the insurance companies aren’t getting ANY new customers.
    -
    Someone has to provide healthcare, and the insurance companies aren’t going anywhere. We already regulate insurance companies. I don’t think health insurance companies are regulated enough. I’m suggesting that we accept the reality that we have to deal with them, and do so. Exchanges got popular late in the health insurance discussion. But I remember early claims that there are few that work well, and it took them years to get there. Working with health carriers may be a political reality, and I’m all for dealing with the world as it is.
    -
    People use health insurance to pay for routine medical costs now. The people who don’t have insurance don’t have routine procedures done because they simply can’t afford them. It costs me $40 to change my oil. In 1990, I paid for an ultrasound out of my pocket. It costs me $450. I have no idea what it costs now. Last year I paid $400 for 30 pills, and that was with the co-pay. Without the co-pay, they were $2,300. Who could possibly afford that? There is no reason some of this can’t be regulated.
    -
    You are right that buying a car is a choice. If you own a car, you need to be able to pay for any damages you cause. (I really don’t see what difference it makes where the mandate originates). At some point everyone gets sick, and they should be able to pay for their healthcare. I don’t have a problem with a sliding scale, but everyone should pony up something. If you don’t have insurance, how do plan to pay for your medical care? I’m not being flippant, I really don’t understand.
    -
    Obama is a constitutional lawyer. People who worked with him in the Illinois state senate claim that he is obsessed with civil liberties. I have a feeling he has that one covered.
    -
    Mandating that government money not be used for illegal immigrants made sense and is good political policy. However, refusing to allow illegal immigrants to buy insurance was just plain stupid. Depending on whose numbers you use, illegal immigrants are only 12 million of the 40 million uninsured. Even if we leave them out, there are a lot of people who could be helped.
    -
    People with no income that own cars are still required to have insurance. In fact the industry has set up products and payment schedules that accommodate them. Insurance is a business.
    -
    Hospital ERs are there to provide emergency care, and they shouldn’t be burden with determining some one’s legal status before they provide care. That isn’t their function, and requiring them to do so leaves them open to other liability issues.
    -
    Joe Wilson is an uncouth jack ass that wanted to be seen. The Obama adminstration didn’t lie. They stated that the bill prohibited use of government money to provide coverage for illegals, but admitted that they didn’t control hospital ERs.
    -
    One other thing on illegals and poor. The poor are covered by Medicaid. It is the working class person who owns a home that is caught in the insurance squeeze. I think some of us are so obsessed with not paying for someone else that we overlook the idea that good healthcare is smart business. Do you really want to buy a sandwich from some one at Subway that is carrying TB? Is it okay for your kids to pick up some foreign germ from classmates who aren’t in this country legally and have no way to get medical care?
    -
    Anyway, thanks for listening.

  • shepherdwong

    “Doesn’t that involve knowing who we’re actually fighting, that it is this bloc of DLC’ers called “New Democrats”, and the ideology of the Third Way that prioritizes compromise with conservatives over the people’s interests, and helpful, technocratic corporations over stupid, easily-fooled voters?”
    .
    Yes.
    .
    “Why shouldn’t we be talking about the Third Way as much as –or more than– we rail about the crazee right?”
    .
    Well, obviously, I think we’ll have to beat back “conservative” dogma and belief before we can have much electoral success replacing Conservadems with more progressive representation. But, tell you what, you tilt at your windmills and I’ll tilt at mine. Who knows what will do the most damage?

  • stuartzechman

    shepherdwong:
    .
    I think we understand each other, and where we agree and disagree.
    .
    I hope you understand that I’m being completely genuine when I say that I very much appreciate having this conversation with you.
    .
    This was pretty productive, as far as these things go.
    .
    Thanks, shepherdwong.

  • shakrai

    tjoyce994: Read the 10th amendment to the United States Constitution and you’ll understand why I care where the mandate comes from. As far as Obama being a “Constitutional Lawyer obsessed with civil liberties”, how do you explain his reversal on FISA and the get out of jail free card he helped to procure for AT&T’s illegal spying on American citizens? As far as I’m concerned Obama is no friend of civil liberties.
    .
    But I digress. Regarding “routine procedures”, you aren’t looking at the whole issue. Why do your prescription drugs cost so much when they are sold at much cheaper rates in other countries? Candidate Obama supported the idea of drug reimportation. President Obama has closed the door to that idea because he cut a deal behind closed doors with big pharma to buy their support for this legislation.
    .
    Regarding the ultrasound, one of the reasons they cost so much money is the lack of transparency in medical billing. A hospital as at least three different rates for every single procedure that it offers. Negotiated rates with private insurance carriers, medicare reimbursement rates, and the rate that they bill the general public. In many cases the general public winds up footing the difference between what it actually costs to provide a procedure and the amount that insurance companies and medicare are willing to reimburse.
    .
    I do agree that good healthcare is smart business. I just don’t see the current legislation as offering good healthcare. I see it taking everything that’s wrong with the current system and codifying it into law. I see it taking away my personal choice and compelling me to buy a product that may or may not make sense for my individual situation.

  • shakrai

    That’s a good point that I hadn’t considered. It hardly seems compatible with the notion of equal protection under the law if certain people receive an income tax exemption while others don’t.
    .
    My solution would be to make health insurance tax free for everybody, but then I’m generally opposed to the notion of collecting taxes on life essential services (food, clothing, etc.) in the first place. Either way though it has to be the same for everybody, doesn’t it?
    .

  • shepherdwong

    stuartzechman:
    .
    I think we disagree very little, as far as these things go.
    .
    As always, it was my pleasure to converse with you.

  • http://instanthealthinsurancequotesinformation.info/60/3-tips-on-how-to-find-affordable-health-insurance/ 3 Tips on How to Find Affordable Health Insurance | Instant Health Insurance Quotes Information

    [...] The Democrats' Communication Problem – Swampland – TIME.com [...]

  • http://lowcosthealthinsuranceinformation.info/60/3-tips-on-how-to-find-affordable-health-insurance-3/ 3 Tips on How to Find Affordable Health Insurance | Low Cost Health Insurance Information

    [...] The Democrats' Communication Problem – Swampland – TIME.com [...]

  • http://www.homeinsurancepremiums.info/2010/02/02/health-reform-did-dems-misread-public-mood/ Health Reform: Did Dems Misread Public Mood? | home insurance premiums

    [...] Read more on Time Magazine [...]

  • http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/02/04/the-unsustainable-u-s-health-care-system/ CMS Report Says Health Care Spending Was 17.3% of GDP in 2009 – Swampland – TIME.com

    [...] said here before that Democrats have basically failed to convince Americans that the health system needs [...]

  • http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/02/07/political-theater-or-substantive-debate-or-both/ Political Theater or Substantive Debate or Both? – Swampland – TIME.com

    [...] is – after all, it's not as though Democrats haven't already tried (and failed) to explain the dysfunctions in the U.S. health care system. But then again, Obama is right about the fact that there is wide [...]

  • http://slinkingtowardretirement.com/?p=27615 “The knowledge of basic civics is pretty low.” – Swampland – TIME.com | Slinking Toward Retirement

    [...] to health care. Poll after poll has shown this. At the height of the health care debate, Americans remained confident in their work-sponsored health insurance, even though it’s being eroding and Democrats were [...]

  • http://swampland.time.com/2011/05/25/paul-ryans-sisyphean-task-selling-medicare-reform/ Paul Ryan’s Sisyphean Task Selling Medicare Reform | Swampland

    [...] message about Medicare changes. He’s going to face the problems Obama and the Democrats did selling their health care plan. And as much as Ryan tries to convince the public that Medicare is broken – unsustainable cost [...]

blog comments powered by Disqus