Can I talk to you about health reform, I asked twenty-eight-year-old Michelle Zywicki, who was working at a computer in the Waukesha public library. She and her husband have so little income that they can’t afford the cable charges for Internet access. “Nobody wants to talk about health reform because they are so angry,” she practically screamed at me. Zywicki was one of those angry people. You know what health reform means to me? I can’t get on BadgerCare Plus, she said.
She had heard that she could get insurance through a state Medicaid program for uninsured, childless adults with very low incomes. So she and her husband, a construction worker who is now disabled and recovering from shoulder surgery, applied about a year ago. “We got a letter saying there was a waiting list of 7000,” she told me. At about the same time, the state stopped enrolling new applicants. It didn’t have the funds to cover all those who needed the coverage. “I’ve given up hope on it,” Zywicki told me.
Zywicki may be right to forget about it. The day I chatted with her, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel ran an ominous story about the state seeking $675 million more to fund health programs, including BadgerCare Plus, one of Wisconsin’s fastest-growing services. Both gubernatorial candidates say they want to find savings in the program. Republican Scott Walker hopes to limit the number of people BadgerCare Plus can serve by making it harder to qualify. Democrat Tom Barrett wants to trim $200 million from the program by insisting that participants become more cost conscious.
Zywicki is already all too aware of the costs of medical care. She and her husband are struggling to pay down a $15,000 hospital bill for his shoulder surgery. It’s tough, considering that she works only twenty hours a week at Dollar General and can’t find a full-time job that pays more. She brings home about $130 each week after taxes, with $90 going to pay the rent. The family gets $367 worth of food stamps every month. When she calmed down about BadgerCare Plus, she was able to talk about health reform. That subject made her almost as angry.
“So they will fine low income families for not being able to pay for crap policies,” she said. That made no sense to her. “What’s more important, a roof over my head or health insurance? I’ll take a roof over my head any day. Why make a person more in debt than they are already. It’s all screwy.” When I told her she would probably qualify for subsidies to help pay for the insurance, she said: “Why hasn’t anyone told me that?”
Russell Mueller, who had recently retired and was working at a model railroad shop in Green Bay, had a lot to say about health reform. He didn’t like it, but he wasn’t going to hold that against Democratic senator Russ Feingold. He had other gripes about him. What bothered him most was that, as he understood it, insurers could not sell across state lines to bring down the price of coverage. When I explained that in a few years states would be able to form compacts and allow such cross-border sales, he insisted that Congress did not deal with the issue. Nor had it dealt with tort reform, in his opinion. “I would have liked to see drastic tort reform,” he said. “When you have a doctor who pays in insurance premiums what I make in ten years, something is wrong.”
Geez, Wisconsin must have the absolute worst journalists in the country. Why else would so many people be so appallingly ignorant about a subject (health insurance and access to health care) that has such an important effect on the quality of their life?
You expect Fox watchers to be this slack-jawed ignorant and misinformed, but the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel bears some responsibility for their customers being so profoundly ignorant. And don't they have any other local news besides the Fox Propaganda Channel? If so, they have badly failed their viewers as well.
Another nice piece, Trudy. A real public service.
#1 Posted by James, CJR on Mon 11 Oct 2010 at 01:12 PM
A pattern seems to be emerging where the people with the most insecurity about health care are the people who most urgently need the early provisions of ACA but who have the least amount of information about it. I'm wondering if that reflects another unfortunate possibility where the people with the most health care security are employed and so do not have urgent immediate need for ACA, but have the best information about it as a consequence of having the most amount of internet access both at home and at work. So the uneven roll out of the affordable in the Affordable Care Act may not be reaching those with most need---not just because of its weaknesses in falling so short of universal coverage but also because of how information is flowing during this time of transition and turmoil in the media. Web-based information favors the most advantaged groups in the population because they have the best quality of access to digital communication tools. Could access to the internet turn out to be a reliable indicator about security of access to health care?
Did ACA have any provision at all to survey the public about their knowledge of ACA and their experiences with it during its multi-year transition phase? I'm thinking the answer here is no (sigh). Surveys, which are different from polling, might be good opportunities to engage the public in two-way conversations about needs for information and levels of satisfaction about health care reform.
#2 Posted by MB, CJR on Mon 11 Oct 2010 at 01:56 PM
She finds Fox News "... to be the least biased either way, left or right leaning”.
Wow, that is a truly frightening thought!
#3 Posted by Rick Sullivan, CJR on Mon 11 Oct 2010 at 05:00 PM
So...
Who are we dealing with here?
A grown couple that can't manage more than 20 hours of work a week between both of them, but can find time to play on the welfare internet and suck down food on the public dole...
A poor man who can't pay for health care but loves to watch football on his new big screen...
A stupid and decidedly lazy kid who until recently "wasn't into" accomplishing anything for herself or society...
And last, but not least, a lazy sack of crap who is waiting to drain the last drop of unemployment insurance money before he gets off his ass and gets a job...
With a sample like this, I don't think it's possible to address the disconnect with the news coverage...
These people couldn't muster the IQ or the gumption to cut themselves out of a wet paper bag with a machete.
A fair analysis would require identifying subjects a little less moribund than these losers- like maybe some mildly comatose nursing home residents.
#4 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Mon 11 Oct 2010 at 10:24 PM
padikiller says: "These people couldn't muster the IQ or the gumption to cut themselves out of a wet paper bag with a machete.
A fair analysis would require identifying subjects a little less moribund than these losers- like maybe some mildly comatose nursing home residents."
James says: These people are just wallowing in their ignorance. Could they trouble themselves to seek out some accurate information about that which directly affects the quality of their lives? The lady at the library -- at the LIBRARY! -- can't bother to find out the facts about health care programs which she and her husband desperately need? No wherewithal to look it up on the internet? Somebody didn't tell her she may be eligible for a health insurance subsidy? It's all there at her fingertips.
No, these slack-jawed losers prefer to sit in front of their bigscreen TV and consume the bitter lies and distortions that Fox shovels their way every single day. Well, they'll get the government they deserve.
#5 Posted by James, CJR on Mon 11 Oct 2010 at 11:30 PM
Just a quick note about the earlier comment on the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel bearing some responsibility for the ignorance of those interviewed in the story. There's no mention that these people are MJS customers, or that they make any effort to read the MJS online or in print. If they did, they would have seen a wealth of well-reported, informative stories on all the subjects mentioned in this article. Full disclosure: I work at the newspaper. But if anyone has doubts, go to www.jsonline.com
#6 Posted by Tom, CJR on Wed 13 Oct 2010 at 02:53 PM
@Tom,
Thanks for your comment. I did as you suggested, and went to www.jsonline.com to see how accessible your newspaper's stories on health care might be, from a customer's point of view. I did a search for "health care" and came up with this: Search - JSOnline. Okay, now I might have clicked on the Kaiser video, that would have given me the information that I sought on what is in the health care bill, IF the browser at the computer I was using allowed videos. Most workplaces don't, you know? Then I did a search for "health reform" and came up with this page: Search - JSOnline. Okay, there's that video again. But what you have there on your newspaper site is a lot of opinion, politics, cutesy off-beat stuff on health care. The information these people seek, if they sought it on your site, isn't readily accessible in a way that is very user friendly. I am sure that the reporters at the Journal Sentinel work hard, believe me I am not criticizing. But I think you, and most newspapers, have a long way to go to make the kind of information that people seek actually accessible to them. How sophisticated does a person have to be to find the facts on health care reform on your site?
Where's the information on the elements of the law that just recently took effect? I don't see that information in my very simple, nominal search.
How do you suggest I, an information-seeking customer, find the fine articles you described on your website? Just some food for thought.
#7 Posted by James, CJR on Wed 13 Oct 2010 at 05:56 PM
In this day when access to information is readily available from numerous sources, it's truly amazing that people still claim they can't find out what's going on. Ignorance is no longer an excuse. Laziness shouldn't be, either.
#8 Posted by dpjbro, CJR on Fri 15 Oct 2010 at 02:34 PM