A fine piece last Wednesday by Politico’s Carrie Budoff Brown dissects what political prognosticators from Bill Clinton to Obama pollster Joel Berenson had predicted about the ultimate acceptance of health reform legislation. “Rarely have so many political strategists been so wrong about something so big,” she writes. “At the six-month mark, the law remains a riddle for political analysts, lawmakers and the White House.”
Riddle? Not really. Months ago the public sensed a bait and switch, and the media weren’t helping them out. The seeds of the public schizophrenia over reform were sown during the presidential campaign, when candidates Obama and Clinton talked about universal health care, making it seem that the country was on the verge of adopting a true national health insurance system like the rest of the developed world.
That’s not what they had in mind, and universal health care morphed into universal coverage provided by private carriers. Then the pols and the press discarded that term when the rationale for reform became insurance market reform—a snoozer for sure.
The constant bashing of insurance companies by the president, his health secretary Kathleen Sebelius, and advocacy groups did not compute with the public. Many Americans have had wicked experiences with insurers—but if they are so evil, why give them twenty-five million new customers? At the gut level, that didn’t make sense, and media explanations about bringing everyone into the risk pool didn’t resonate. But probing further would bring up the nasty, controversial subject of the individual mandate—the requirement that everyone have insurance. The pols were not eager to talk about the central feature of the legislation, and the press didn’t discuss it much either.
If they did, that might have raised another better-to-ignore topic, affordability: whether middle income folks would really be able to afford a policy they will be required to buy, even with government tax credits to help pay the premium. Last week I interviewed twenty-eight-year old Michelle Zywicki in the Waupaca, Wisconsin public library. She doesn’t earn much working twenty hours a week at Dollar General, and can’t find a full time job. She has no insurance. Zywicki heard she would have to pay a fine for not buying insurance which she cannot afford.
Because her income is low, I told her, she probably would get large subsidies when the mandate took effect. “Why hasn’t anyone told me that?” she shot back angrily. “I’ve tried to read articles and they put me to sleep.” Somehow, dear colleagues, we’ve missed with her—and probably millions more in her shoes.
The president’s equivocation on the public option allowed its large number of supporters to believe it was possible to create an alternative to private insurance, only to have their hopes dashed when it became clear the mighty stakeholders didn’t want it, and so the pols threw it under the bus. Nancy Pelosi herself kept telling reporters that the House bill would have a strong public option, perhaps knowing all along it wouldn’t make the final cut. To the public, Pelosi’s remarks came across as just another politician’s flimflam.
A month ago in Columbia, Missouri, holding one of my periodic town hall meetings, I talked to fifty-six-year-old Charles Paxton, who told me: “When they started it, I was for the law. By the time they got it done, I thought it was not a good idea. There were way too many compromises made to get it passed. You know it’s not going to do what it should.” What news there was of the president’s deal making with insurance companies, doctors, hospitals, and drug companies didn’t sit well with people who thought those days were over.
Republicans have exploited this distrust that is likely to intensify as more people learn about the mandate. “I don’t like the fact people will be forced to buy insurance,” said Hannah Spratt, a University of Missouri sophomore who is not spending her time watching Glenn Beck. Robert Hanna in Lincoln, Nebraska, told me he would never vote for a Democrat ever again, because the president “said he wouldn’t sign a bill that would increase the deficit and include illegal aliens which the bill does.” The GOP message had gotten through.
- 1
- 2
Superb article!
#1 Posted by William Du Bois, CJR on Mon 27 Sep 2010 at 09:34 AM
Obama and Axelrod talk of how they've ended denial of coverage-never mentioning that their legislation has buried within it a nominal $100 a day fine for denial of coverage which makes a lie of any claim to have stopped this heinous practice. What's a $100 a day to an insurer who can just wait out the 6 months it'll take for you to die? No treatment due to no insurance will save them $100,00 and your "death benefit" to the insurer will pay the pitifully small 6 month fine of $18,000. Lets be honest-insurers are the only industry to routinely and legally kill Americans through rescission, the denial of coverage after, say, 20 years of premium payments, for failing to mention a grass allergy when you were 10 and you now have cancer so actually NEED insurance. Read about those killed here: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=105680875
What Massachusetts and now the nation's healthcare delivery system represents is the grandest money laundering scheme ever hatched where our MANDATED premium dollars are scrubbed clean by insurers then used to keep in power the politicians who will lobby against any kind of movement towards slowing the rapid siphoning of what little disposable income remains for the Americans while they FORCE us to buy insurers deadly product.
#2 Posted by Scott, CJR on Sat 2 Oct 2010 at 12:06 AM
I'm a retired shipyard worker in the Pacific Northwest, who has come to rely on alternative journalism for my information. I had not known about this website until I read Trudy Lieberman's succinct and lucid article about the health care reform bill and its effect on the electorate. This piece had been posted with attribution on a progressive political site which aggregates articles of interest daily for their readership. Thanks and kudos to Ms. Lieberman for a style of reportage I had thought extinct, and to the Review for being available for truth junkies like me. In future, I look forward to reading articles from this valuable resource.
#3 Posted by Gordon Glick, CJR on Sun 3 Oct 2010 at 11:22 AM