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 way 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.
In his big health reform speech the other night, the president said that small businesses will be required to either offer their workers health insurance or chip in and presumably cover the cost of purchasing policies in the individual market. Sounds like Massachusetts to me, where employers pay a token penalty for not offering health insurance to their workers. But the president said that, under his proposals, 95 percent of small businesses will be off the hook, either because they are too small or have small profit margins. That was it. No details, no definitions of “small business,” or what kind of tax credits they will get, or if they’ll be enough to make shopkeepers buy coverage.
When we chatted with small business owners, employees, and customers in the college town of Columbia, Missouri, most didn’t know much about Obama’s health plan, and they certainly had no clues about where small businesses fit in. Based on Obama’s remarks, they probably still don’t.
The day I met Bizzie Tseggai she was folding T-shirts at ACME Global Industries, one of those college town shops that design T-shirts with funny sayings and logos for fraternities. The walls are decorated with off-the-shelf designs for customers to choose. Tseggai says the shirts can be decorated in thirty minutes. She has been working at ACME for more than a year, but like most workers for small business, she doesn’t get health insurance.
When she turned twenty-four last January and was no longer a full-time student at the university, she was kicked off her parents’ heath policy. She says she doesn’t have the greatest health history, but can’t afford the $300 to $400 a month that insurance would cost, considering that she makes “peanuts”—between $250 and $280 every two weeks. “I am completely debt free right now, and I want to keep it that way,” she said. What could she do? “I could beg my parents to buy the insurance or work at Starbucks (which provides workers with coverage). Those are my only options right now.”
“I know nothing about health care reform,” she admitted. Tseggai had never heard of the individual mandate that Obama finally mentioned Wednesday night—-the clause that would require her to buy insurance, maybe with subsidies if she jumps through the hoops to qualify. “I really don’t know what he’s trying to do,” she said. “I don’t watch much TV.”
“At this time, health reform is not important,” said the wife, who refused to give her name. “I don’t know a whole lot about it, and I don’t feel like it’s affecting us.”
Her husband chimed in. “Basically it’s just kind of fuzzy to everybody,” he said.
Did they want to know more, I pressed. “Not at this time,” said his wife. “I don’t want to know more. It has been in the news. If we were really concerned, we could find out about it.”
Translation: "We're gonna die in a few years, before that Medicare cost curve explodes, so it isn't our problem.
We have no qualms whatsoever about leaving our children with a broken, bloated system that cannot be sustained. But don't call us selfish!!!
When we were younger, we had some concern for the future of our country and the generations that will inherit it, but at some point in the 1980s we decided that selfishness and greed were the height of personal virtue, and we haven't cared about anyone but ourselves since."
You're welcome. I'll enjoy paying off your largesse, Boomers. Feel free to suck that Medicare teet dry.
And they say the far-leftists are irresponsible moochers...
#1 Posted by Hardrada, CJR on Fri 11 Sep 2009 at 02:48 PM
I don't get your intergenerational anger, Hardrada. Are you angry at the people who legislated Medicare in the 1960's? I don't disagree with you about the Decade of Greed which was the 1980's, but it wasn't really a generational thing. Truth be known, the yuppies of that era were the boomers' children. But Reagan RAISED Social Security taxes and Medicare taxes, arguably making the systems more viable and fiscally responsible for a longer period of time. Social Security is still very viable for the next 50 years, but Medicare is in trouble because of the failure to deal with health insurance reform.
I don't disagree that urgent action needs to be taken, but I don't get the intergenerational bitterness about it or the catastrophic doom-saying. There are stupid, slack-jawed people of all generations. The lady you quote, with a 19-year old daughter, is more of the Yuppie generation, not the boomers. It's kind of irrelevant. Or are you in favor of ditching the whole Medicare program? I don't get where you are coming from.
#2 Posted by Tom, CJR on Sat 12 Sep 2009 at 10:14 AM
" our results are not scientific, but we think they offer some pretty good clues"
Ok, so we have these pseudo "townhalls" that CJR thinks are valid indicators despite there being NO evidence that they are. (That generally means someone is projecting their own beliefs on to a Rorschach.) We read the interviews and the most blistering fact is that most of the people interviewed are mostly uninformed about almost everything related to the healthcare debate. I guess the argument by CJR is that if we just look at the baseless beliefs of the uninformed we will find great clues about how to shape the healthcare debate? I don't know why after all these months people are so uninformed, but surely it is the result of something other than the debate itself.
#3 Posted by Gary Bollinger, CJR on Mon 14 Sep 2009 at 09:55 AM
I think you completely miss the point, Mr. Bollinger. The series is an attempt to measure how effective (or ineffective) the media has been in transmitting the message. CJR has gone out to interview perfectly normal people going about their daily lives and see what THEY know or believe about the health care reform debate. We know what politically motivated people think about it, and people who appear at organized, televised town halls with one or another agenda or wish to promote their own celebrity.
The whole point of the thing is how little of this big debate is filtering through and is understood by the general population. I think that is an extremely valuable insight, and an extraordinarily valuable piece of journalism that Mr. Lieberman and CJR.
#4 Posted by Tom, CJR on Mon 14 Sep 2009 at 10:47 AM
Gerry says "he doesn't know why people are so uninformed after all these months. Surely it is something other than the debate itself". Yes he's correct. The racists sporting banners comparing President Obama to Hitler are his kind of people influenced by hate mongers Limbaugh, Beck, and Malkin the "something others" Gerry defends. How pathetic.
#5 Posted by ryecatcher, CJR on Mon 14 Sep 2009 at 10:24 PM
Well, its good to know that ryecatcher who I don't know but who apparently knows me thinks racists, tea-baggers and Glenn Beck are "my kind of people." No hate mongering there. I actually support single payer - but who cares about facts these days.
I just don't see the point of dividing people into "perfectly normal people" and the rest of us. Two of the interviews take place in MO - center of many normal people I guess. Also, the mainstream media outlets are not the only sources of information. I would never defend them as good sources. So I don't think its hard to get informed on these issues. The actual bills are posted online.
Does my perhaps wrong opinion mean I deserve to be called a a fan of racism, Glenn Beck, Malkin and other hate mongers? Perhaps there is more value to these interviews than I see - but its not such a terrible thing to have a wrong opinion. Surely not as bad as being a fan of Glenn Beck and Malkin?
#6 Posted by Gary Bollinger, CJR on Mon 14 Sep 2009 at 10:49 PM
I just encourage you to read the rest of the series. No one is trying to "divide" normal people from news junkies and those who are politically on top of the health care debate. She is just trying to examine how informed or ill-informed, and how interested and knowledgeable, people are about health care reform. She is going out to places unannounced and choosing people who are going about their business. This in an attempt to avoid the ginned up posturing by attention grabbers and those with an agenda to push. Those people happen to represent the majority of people who vote. She is attempting to get THEIR perspective and opinion, and interview them.
Most people don't have the time or inclination, as you do, to search out and read 1,000-page legislation and digest it to decide which model they would like to see pass. They rely on the news media to digest it for them. the news media has not done that job very well, and tragically, as we see from this series, their audience doesn't realize that.
Read the whole series. It is an worthy endeavor, extremely enlightening and and an example of what journalism could be in America, without the corruption at national level.
#7 Posted by Tom, CJR on Tue 15 Sep 2009 at 07:19 AM
Ok, I agree that CJR does a far better journalistic job than the MSM. Its one source of information that is better than MSM and no harder to get to than watching CNN. And I agree that it is interesting to document by anecdote how uninformed most people are on this huge issue. In part I expressed my frustration because it is obvious to me quite apart from this series, that most people are poorly informed. My own brothers and sisters in Montana, Colorado and Oklahoma illustrate the point quite clearly to me. These same people have never heard of CJR. So the same people that are informed about health care issues are now also informed about how uninformed most people are about health care issues. It feels like we are just eating our own tail.
#8 Posted by Gary Bollinger, CJR on Wed 16 Sep 2009 at 04:47 AM
I don't disagree with your conclusion, but CJR is all about commenting on the media and how they are doing their job. It is frustrating to me as well how uninformed the general populace is about this issue, but that's really nothing new. It takes a lot to get people interested in policy issues, even when it affects their own bank account. This series demonstrates how abjectly the media has failed here.
Now if they would just institute a Newsman Wanker of the Week award, maybe they can embarrass some of their colleagues to do a better job. How about Chuck Todd for the rollout?
#9 Posted by Tom, CJR on Wed 16 Sep 2009 at 08:35 AM
As Ms Lieberman revealed, many people, if not everyone, knows little about healthcare reform. That's because the media concentrate solely on the politics of healthcare: who's supporting what, who is saying this, etc. This is because there is no certainty about what will be in any final healthcare package, and because the language of the bill is so opaque and confusing it is almost unreadable in some instances. The President's language is vague, if not misleading, and even he cannot be nailed down to specifics. And, no one, in government or out, has made a reliable, defensible case for reform of of this proposed magnitude. 290 million Americans have some form of health insurance. Allegedly, 45 million do not. What are the various reasons this group does not have health insurance? And, do the members of this group ever move into the larger group of insureds? Or, do they all just stay where they are all the time? Why not work to help these folks get insurance and leave the rest of us alone?
#10 Posted by dougmatt, CJR on Wed 16 Sep 2009 at 10:15 AM
I have always been curious about functionality in websites and, well, the world in general. I read this article with great interest. It does seem to me that the reason we comment is to speak our minds so why not have the comment field first? However, as others have pointed out, one gets used to the conventions regardless of reason.
online marketing
#11 Posted by venus, CJR on Mon 11 Jan 2010 at 12:10 PM