Everyone, it seems, is trying to take the pulse of the electorate—Americans who, as the saying goes, vote with their feet and may well decide the fate of this effort to change the American way of health care. The pollsters, the wordsmiths, the PR firms, and the stealth groups have been out in full force, trying to influence the hearts and minds of people turning out at town hall meetings. All this leaves reporters in a pickle, though: How do they know what people really think? So we at Campaign Desk decided to use that age-old reporting tool—the man-on-the-street interview—and set out to look at what men and women we met have to say about health reform. The series is archived here.
We have come to believe that the entire debate, its complexity and its nuances, has been taking place 30,000 feet above the heads of people in whose name the reform battle is being waged. Our interviews confirmed that observation. Of course, our results are not scientific, but we think they offer some pretty good clues to the way ordinary Americans are thinking. Too many people we met are not engaged, have heard lots of wrong information, and have no idea what reform means to them.
The first place I stopped was a Starbucks in my neighborhood, where the baristas one morning asked me what I did, since I came every day at the same time to buy iced tea. When I told them, they asked me to come back when they weren’t busy to explain what health reform was all about. Marisol Gonzalez, the assistant store manager, told me she got interested in the debate when she heard on the hip-hop station Hot 97 that Obama planned to take health insurance away from people. But she really got alarmed when a customer came in for his latte and told her Obama is going to ruin this country with his health care. Ruin the country? Not likely, I said, and explained what was on the table.
“I know Obama is trying to implement a plan a lot of people are disagreeing with,” she said, and then asked what the disagreement was about. Gonzalez is an Army reservist and completely believes in the Afghan war. She said she learned in the military that “if you want to reshape something, you have to tear everything down and start over.” She wanted to know if that applied to health care, too.
Her co-worker, Jose Santiago, admitted he didn’t know much about reform. “I thought Obama was trying to change the health plans,” he said. “By next year he will probably eliminate health coverage completely. He is following up on what Bush already planned.” Are you worried? I asked. “Not much,” said Santiago. Starbucks provides its workers with insurance. But Santiago didn’t know a lot about his coverage, or how much he had to pay for it. He did want to know what “death care” was. Death care? A plasma TV screen at 57th and 6th piqued his interest. It flashed the words “Health Care or Death Care” as he happened to pass by.
Roger Melendez and Brent Carrington, computer technicians on a call, were just finishing their drinks and closing their laptops when I approached them. Melendez, who served in Vietnam, said he was ashamed to be a Republican. What he called “the death list” he said was “a Republican tactic to discredit this administration.” He had been following the news “quite a bit.” As he understood it, if you have insurance, nothing changes and your rates may drop. “There’s a lot of good that can come out of this,” he said. Carrington had just been rehired after a three-month layoff. He confessed he didn’t follow politics, watch the news much, or know anything about the debate.
- 1
- 2
It's not surprising that many people seemed 'put out' at the very idea of discussing a political question. I find this the most prevalent reaction when leafletting. I am convinced that it's because most Americans don't 'do' politics, find it too confusing, since they have no history, current information or deep convictions, other than getting stuff. So they feel exposed and put onthe spot when anything political intrudes into their individual bubble.
#1 Posted by Alice de Tocqueville, CJR on Mon 31 Aug 2009 at 02:11 PM
"I am convinced that it's because most Americans don't 'do' politics, find it too confusing, since they have no history, current information or deep convictions, other than getting stuff. So they feel exposed and put onthe spot when anything political intrudes into their individual bubble."
You're absolutely correct, and our population's ignorance makes us -- rightly -- the laughing stock of the world.
The usually identified culprits are the appalling popular news media we suffer, and that's certainly part of the story; but the main responsibility lies at the feet of we the people, who by and large are too lazy to shift their fat asses and find out about issues that affect us profoundly. And then we complain.
A prime example is the invasion of Iraq, hugely supported by the US public (of whom, even today, a sizable percentage believe Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks). Anyone who could be bothered to read the websites of the UK or other foreign newspapers knew that Hans Blix's UN inspectors were reporting a lack of Iraqi WMDs. If the US public had troubled to check, perhaps Bush might have been deterred from that heinous enterprise.
#2 Posted by DK, CJR on Mon 31 Aug 2009 at 02:44 PM
Well duh, you guys are visiting a Starbucks in NYC hoping to find thoughtful, well-informed voters discussing health care policy?
There's your problem right there; location, location, location.
To find the results you're looking for, ask yourself "Where might I find thoughtful, well-informed voters discussing health care policy?" and go there.
Y'know, like a bait & tackle shop in Alabama, or a truck stop in Missouri.
Reminds me of an old George Carlin joke: "Think of the average person in this country. Now, think; HALF of 'em are even more stupid."
#3 Posted by Hardrada, CJR on Mon 31 Aug 2009 at 02:53 PM
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
#4 Posted by brandon, CJR on Mon 31 Aug 2009 at 03:48 PM
I fear using a sampling of folks waiting for caffeine gives skewed results--much like the MSM's treatment of townhall meetings--people confused and upset is better copy and gives the impression that all feel this way.
I have been without health insurance for over 5 years and have followed the debate using various sources. The population seems not to be invested because the media needs a new ratings puller. If you have insurance, you might not feel compelled to engage. If you are on Medicare--the townhallers--you are afraid and believe the lies. If you are one of the 47 million without--like me--you see the flaws and want to things to change. One of the simplest and best explanations about health care reform was on CBS Sunday morning about 2/3 weeks ago.
#5 Posted by LC, CJR on Mon 31 Aug 2009 at 05:40 PM
It is a shame that people are so ill informed. I personally blame the media for chasing the quick, easy photo-op which is people yelling at each other. Like the coverage of Arlen Spector's town hall meetings. He had one in a mostly Republican community where he used to have support. Now that he's changed parties it's not surprising that people showed up to yell at him. So that got a lot of attention, in all the papers and on TV, a man shouting at him right in his face. But the next day a town hall meeting in Philadelphia where most people that showed up were Democrats who support President Obama's health care reform that was respectful and most likely a serious discussion of the facts, got almost no coverage at all. They wrote it up in the Philadelphia Inquirer but I didn't see anything in the Times. Probably nothing much on TV either, not nationally. It's only interesting if there's conflict. Nobody cares about informing the public. I don't want to hear how "hard" it is to get at the facts and public opinion. I don't think that's true. I don't have any trouble here finding out how people feel. National reporters are only interested in stories that follow the "if it bleeds it leads" formula. Until that changes we don't really have a news industry here anymore.
#6 Posted by Ellen Blanchette, CJR on Mon 31 Aug 2009 at 08:18 PM
FYI: We will indeed be reporting on town halls held in different locations, including a stop in Missouri.
#7 Posted by Trudy Lieberman, CJR on Tue 1 Sep 2009 at 07:51 AM
This is a very interesting piece. Thanks for that, Ms. Lieberman. This is how the news and the noise have filtered down into the public awareness among the majority of folks who don't follow politics closely. It is an indictment of the state of the news media that these people are so full of misinformation. The Democrats have completely failed to get their message out, and the Republicans have thus far succeeded in throwing out so many lies and so much noise that eventually some of it sinks in. It is the media's job, supposedly, to sort out the truth from the lies and the misinformation. They have certainly failed, haven't they? This is exactly what happens when they serve up nothing but the horse race.
#8 Posted by Tom, CJR on Tue 1 Sep 2009 at 07:54 AM
Saw you last night on The News Hour. You provided the best information in spite of the other two not giving up much time.
Try to emphasize how much we pay and how little we get, relatively speaking, to other advanced countries. We pay twice as much - where does the extra money go?
#9 Posted by Bart, CJR on Tue 1 Sep 2009 at 08:40 AM
This article was silly. On PBS Lieberman stated there is a consensus, that health insurance for everyone would be mandated. That is news to me. I've read a lot of articles, watched a lot of videos and written my Representative, Senators, and President, lots of letters, I am engaged. She was trying to steer opinion.
If a universal insurance option has any chance or working, mandated health insurance is required. Let's now address the root of the issue, health care. Most Americans don't have very good health care... habits. With over half of the US population overweight, it's difficult to argue otherwise. If you've read this far, ask yourself, did I make healthy choices today? Am I exercising enough, getting enough sleep, eating healthy? If you say, "Yes" then you can get health insurance and it will be cheap, much cheaper than the national average. Ironically, due to your healthy lifestyle, you will use your health insurance the least. That's a good thing.
For everyone else, we'll call you, risk takers. Here's a question. Why in the world should I spend my money to provide health insurance to you, when you don't even care enough about yourself to live a healthy lifestyle? You may want insurance, but you aren't exercising, eating, sleeping in healthy ways, maybe you're self medicating, regardless you can't get insurance cheaply. Why not? Don't want to do what it takes? That's ok. You have the rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Live your life how you want, but don't be surprised, when I don't want to pay for your health issues. Mandated health insurance, will financially punish the healthy.
Go here: http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf then to page 16 section 102, read it. This is the most complete house bill. It talks about existing insurance, and how, if you have it, you can keep it. It also puts a limitation on new enrollment into the existing plans. Essentially, it says that insurance companies can not enroll participants into their plan after Y1 of the government plan. If you think this through, it is the death knell of private insurance. Obama was asked about this exact section in July and said he wasn't familiar with it. Two months later, I'm watching videos stating that there is no provision eliminating private insurance, but this section still exists.
Perhaps, our journalists are wise, and know what's best. Maybe they're unfamiliar with this bill, because it is one of many, and there's no reason to read them until a bill is finalized. I don't believe either of those things.
This is life and death. You're going to die. If you want to live a long life, be healthy, but that's no guarantee. If you want doctors and insurance companies to enable your poor lifestyle choices, be prepared to pay for it, but don't expect others to chip in much. If you think our government is any better at managing cost than the average US household you are deluding yourself. Just look at the deficit and how it's grown since you've been alive. If you think the government can take better care of your health than you can, you're going to be sorely disappointed. In theory, Universal Health insurance works well for the majority, but you're an individual, so there will be lines, just see how long it'll take you to get into the Mayo clinic (That's a model Obama wants to copy.) There will be escalating costs, look at Mass 97% insured, but the state has done nothing to reign in costs. There will be panels, that's what happens when costs get out of control. There will be winners and losers. Insurance company employees will get hired by the government, because they know how to limit fraud and deny claims.
Do you know what I want? I want a federal law that requires Insurance companies to itemize the expect
#10 Posted by Mark Morash, CJR on Tue 1 Sep 2009 at 12:09 PM
It's just preposterous to call a section dealing with grandfathering existing plans "the death knell of private insurance." Jeeez, how melodramatic can you get? It means the plans won't be subject to rules relating to recission, preexisting conditions, and the like for a certain amount of time. The bill is about HEALTH INSURANCE REFORM, and this section deals with existing plans that won't be subject to that reform. How you get "death knell" out of something as banal and ordinary as a grandfather clause is testament to the stupidity, whether real or deliberate, and dishonesty of the rump Republican Party.
Back to school for Remedial Reading Comprehension 101 with you! Immediately!
#11 Posted by Tom, CJR on Tue 1 Sep 2009 at 12:41 PM
Tom I buy individual insurance for my family. Because we are healthy, we can get new coverage each year at a different insurer at much cheaper rates. Section 102, page 16 lines 11-16, states, "In General. - Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1." That's pretty clear. If I were trying to do away with an industry I'd hide it like that. Maybe you think that's not a real threat. Maybe you're not healthy and you have an axe to grind. I know this, I've read this, I've sent it to my Representative asking for clarification, I've sent it to Obama doing the same, and my Senators, but they oppose this type of reform, so I don't expect them to clarify it. Nothing has addressed it other than "Back to school for Remedial Reading Comprehension 101 with you! Immediately!" Oh and let's not forget "It means the plans won't be subject to rules relating to recission, preexisting conditions, and the like for a certain amount of time." as you assert. It's not as clear as you would like it to be. With that type of language, I'm inclined to believe you have some sort of a legal background. Be constructive, find the area in the bill that let's me continue getting my insurance the way I've been doing it. I'll repeat, I'm healthy and I've been replacing my health insurance each year to keep my premiums down.
You're angry and not convincing. Laws get interpreted in ways they were never intended to be. I can see this one shutting down the type of insurance that I have been buying since 1998. I can see this portion of the bill terminating private health insurance, forcing everyone into the same plan. I don't trust my elected officials to understand health insurance, and if, as I've read 50% of the US population is overweight, they don't really care about their health, why should I?
#12 Posted by Mark Morash, CJR on Tue 1 Sep 2009 at 04:24 PM
Nice job Trudy. Keep up the good work.
Ellen
#13 Posted by Ellen Carney, CJR on Tue 1 Sep 2009 at 05:00 PM
Mark,
I feel no obligation to try to correct your paranoid, Fox-fueled misconceptions about health care reform; your assumptions and false assertions are too ludicrous and too numerous, and I have a feeling it would be like writing to a dining room table.
If you are so distraught about this language, and/or other language in the bill, here's an idea for you. Go seek out and retain a nonpartisan attorney to explain it to you. Or, hell, you could probably get a second-year law student to go over it with you. Going through life listening to Limbaugh is no life at all, my friend.
#14 Posted by Tom, CJR on Tue 1 Sep 2009 at 05:20 PM
@MarkMorash, what happens when one of these fat/lazy uninsured bums has a heart attack? They go to the hospital, and the hospital isn't allowed to refuse treatment in this country; they are legally required to treat. Who pays for that?
Now, on the other hand, if these people were forced to buy insurance, they would have some incentive to stay healthy.
#15 Posted by Hardrada, CJR on Tue 1 Sep 2009 at 06:29 PM
Trudy, could you write an article on how the HMO-style companies are forcing the standard of care down, even for patients who (often self) pay more?
They pay more to get better care- but they still don't
SO - even those of us who have traditional insurance end up getting the bullshit tests, and the six minute doctor visits, getting the run around, all with the goal of cutting off the chronically ill, and those who are trying to get well, well, they do their damndest to deny those patients what they need to get treatment, tests and diagnoses of illnesses, or giving them garbage diagnoses designed to cut off hope of resolution.. All to save a few hundred bucks on some test, then somebody curable cant get better, a life is ruined. You have to self pay, and then, as you say, good luck finding a good doctor who hasn't signed a gag clause contract to prevent care.
Patients who received treatment for chronic illnesses in the past, or visitors or arrivees from other countries suddenly find themselves being told that their treatment they know works doesn't work or "is no longer covered", oThe lie that it doesn't work when it does is particularly illuminating.
Basically, the whole US health system is a broken lie and they no longer even care enough to maintain the illusion of functionality or fairness.
Our government is cooperating with this criminality. The result is that the quality of care patients receive in even poor European countries or Canada is increasingly better than what even the fairly well to do receive here.
This has to change.
#16 Posted by Brian Katrin, CJR on Wed 2 Sep 2009 at 12:16 AM
Health care reform this year is not the end of the matter, but the beginning. Of course it is not going to work; it will make for wedge issues in next year's election, when the Democrats hope to trounce the Republicans and increase their majorities. Then the problems (included the unanticipated problems) can be fixed.
This is a battle of corporations like WalMart against corporations like the health insurance industry. It will continue until the health care costs consume much less than 20% of GDP. I don't see the Obama administration catching up on 200 years of history, so we certainly won't get a European style plan - ever.
#17 Posted by Chris Vail, CJR on Wed 2 Sep 2009 at 03:28 AM
Tom LOL U r funny. I am amused with your strategy, looks something like this, when the going gets tough, verbally abuse and then quit. Man! I wish all reformers were as easy as you, and the friend part, that was heart warming. My wife actually asked me what I was laughing about. Allow me to correct you. You are using fighting words. We're enemies.
Hardrada, Ok I'll bite. Someone has a heart attack now with no insurance, they go to the hospital and gets treated.
A person is forced to buy health insurance, but can't because he still doesn't have enough money, so the government gives it to him. Now he has a heart attack goes to the hospital and gets treated.
He was treated in both cases. How did reform help?
No kidding, a healthy lifestyle is the best form of insurance.
Oh, Trudy, one other quick question. Civil disobedience is always a fun option. What happens if the government mandates a universal plan that increases premiums for people like me, and I refuse to pay the difference and any fines. Do you think they'll attach my bank account making them liars about the government accessing people's money? Maybe they'd jail me. How long would that last? Don't worry about answering. My work is done here.
#18 Posted by Mark Morash, CJR on Thu 3 Sep 2009 at 12:17 PM