If the press missed the irony of the Republicans’ campaign strategy, it did report on the pluses touted by reformers and the administration. But in the end those pluses didn’t give Dems the political gravitas they were seeking. Perhaps that’s because some voters saw that the reforms weren’t going to help them very much. One young man hoped to get on his mother’s insurance policy, only to learn that she had coverage from the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, and that he couldn’t get on until January, when he was almost twenty-six and would soon be ineligible. In the meantime, he bought an individual policy, and now must figure out how to pay for a twelve percent rate increase his carrier just announced.
With the Republican star rising, changes are afoot. Michael Leavitt, who was Secretary of Health and Human Services in the last Bush administration, told Politico that there is a 75 percent likelihood that the requirement to buy health insurance will be disrupted, whether it’s weakened, stalled, or modified. Tuesday night, Eric Cantor, the heir apparent for the job of House majority leader, said “I hope that we’re able to put a repeal bill on the floor right away because that’s what the American people want.” Is it what the people want, or what Republicans have wanted all along? Whatever happens, the U.S. health system is still its dysfunctional, fragmented, costly self, in need of repair or wholesale reform. Going forward, this is the story the media need to tell.
"So it seems that, for Republicans, transforming the health law into a bogeyman was more important than owning up to their own solutions for fixing the system."
Amazing. More masterful strokes of political genius were Republicans actually creating their own version of health reform during the Bush Administration (the high deductible policies) but not presenting it like that to the public and having HR reps present the changes to employees as if the employers were the agents of those changes, not the government. I did not realize that is the reason why my employer dropped a decent health plan for the balloon-payment style of insurance we now have (now "grandfathered") until I saw Wendell Potter explain it on the Bill Moyers show. I just thought my employer was cheap.
This morning I listened to NPR's rundown of Nancy Pelosi's term as speaker of the House while I was getting ready for work and in the background I kept hearing her voice talk about how the public wanted universal healthcare and they accomplished that. Maybe there was a nuanced qualifier in there explaining that their health reform bill did not actually create universal coverage but I was doing other things and wasn't tuning in that carefully. In the jostle of getting out of the house it sounded like she was being credited for universal coverage even though that is not what she accomplished.
This is what I heard and when I looked at the transcript it confirms they did not actually specify that the bill did not achieve universal health care:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=131052930
"Universal health care had been a long-standing priority for Democrats, and after an arduous display of legislative sausage-making, it was finally approved in March of 2010.
"I knew I came here to vote for health care for all Americans," she said. "That has been a pillar of who I am and who we are as Democrats, but I didn't think I would be leading the way as speaker of the House, that's for sure."
And as he signed the health care measure, President Obama had nothing but praise for the woman who guided its passage, calling Pelosi "one of the best speakers the House of Representatives has ever had."
But the cheers quickly faded, replaced by taunts of angry voters this campaign season, many of whom denounced Pelosi's biggest accomplishments. They labeled the health care overhaul "Obamacare," a government takeover. They characterized the stimulus as a failure and bitterly denounced the bank bailouts. Pelosi was demonized by Republicans, as she had helped demonize an earlier speaker, Newt Gingrich. The chairman of the Republican National Committee, Michael Steele, traveled the country on a "fire Pelosi" bus tour, and Republican candidates across the nation acted as though she was their opponent.
Pelosi shrugged it off, saying the only thing that really mattered was winning. But not enough Democrats won in Tuesday's midterm elections to prevent Pelosi from having to relinquish the speaker's gavel."
#1 Posted by MB, CJR on Thu 4 Nov 2010 at 12:56 PM
i like this website it is good for our health campaign at school.
#2 Posted by danielle anderson, CJR on Thu 4 Nov 2010 at 10:08 PM
his morning I listened to NPR's rundown of Nancy Pelosi's term as speaker of the House while I was getting ready for work and in the background I kept hearing her voice talk about how the public wanted universal healthcare and they accomplished that. For more details visit http://www.brianhaskins.com
#3 Posted by learn how to wholesale houses, CJR on Fri 5 Nov 2010 at 05:03 AM
Wherever the federal government is involved, prices go up and quality goes down. This especially has been the case in health care. So why, after all these decades of rising costs and falling quality, is the federal government still "regulating" health care (or anything not granted in the Constitution, for that matter)?
A truly free, independent, and fearless news media will focus on whether the government should intervene at all — not on whether the Feds should do this much damage or that much damage, nor how each federal action will politically help or hurt DEMs and REPs.
BTW: AP news has yet to put a sufficient focus on the moral or constitutional arguments over that mandate. The AP example given above is a typical, obligatory (reluctant?) mention by the AP editor. Too little, too late, and nowhere near root level.
#4 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Sun 7 Nov 2010 at 07:21 PM