If the Supreme Court rules the health reform law or its central feature—the individual mandate requiring people to have health insurance—is unconstitutional, much of the public won’t shed a tear. The Affordable Care Act remains about as unpopular as it was two years ago when the president signed it into law. In April 2010, one month after passage, 46 percent liked the new law while 40 percent did not. Kaiser Family Foundation’s latest tracking poll shows that in May only 37 percent of the public had a favorable view of the law; 44 percent viewed it unfavorably. Over the months in between those numbers have seesawed back and forth, with neither supporters nor opponents able to claim a clear majority.
What is not measured in those pro and con numbers, though, is how poorly the law is understood. As the Affordable Care Act continued its long bloody march through the legislative process, then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi declared, “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy”—an admission from the get-go that the American public knew little about a bill that was about to land on the president’s desk and in whose name it was passed. The controversy over it continues, yet large numbers of people—even those who might benefit from it—still know little about health reform. In Omaha a few weeks ago, for one of my CJR Town Halls, I talked to Heather Brown, a 38-year-old nurse who has no insurance, can’t afford to buy it, and, under Obamacare, would probably qualify for subsidies to help defray the premium. What did she know about the law? “Very little,” she admitted. “There’s just so much crap being spoken from both sides, it’s hard to know what’s the truth. You just stop listening.”
And in March, Kaiser’s tracking poll also found that familiarity with the law’s provisions “erodes as time passes.” Kaiser found that the proportion of Americans who are familiar with the provisions in the health reform law has dropped in the months following its passage. For example, in April 2010, 75 percent recognized that the law provided for subsidies to help people buy insurance. In March 2012 only 56 percent did.
Why is the law so poorly understood?
The Republican strategy to demagogue the Affordable Care Act has certainly taken its toll on clarity. As the Pew Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism showed in a study released this week, the enemies of the Act are winning the communications war. And they seem to have the help of the media.
Pew’s research found that coverage of the health reform law “largely disappeared” as a news subject as it wound its way to the Supreme Court after passage.
When it was a major story, however, most of the coverage focused on the politics of the bill rather than the substance of the legislation. And the language and framing of the issue favored by the bill’s Republican critics was far more prevalent in the news coverage than the language and framing favored by Democrats supporting the bill.Still, ferocious messaging by the Act’s political enemies is just part of the story. The president and his allies have been doing a poor job of explaining it. A few weeks ago New York Times columnist Tom Friedman wrote:
Barack Obama is a great orator, but he is the worst president I’ve ever seen when it comes to explaining his achievements, putting them in context, connecting with people on a gut level through repetition and thereby defining how the public views an issue.
Not only the president, but other Democrats and the advocacy coalition that helped shepherd the bill through Congress have not been not talking about the heart of the Affordable Care Act—the individual mandate—and how it operates, and why they think it is necessary for health reform to work.
A teacher would be fired if her lectures were as unpredictable as the events the news media must investigate. But no one in the news media is interested in communicating like a teacher because that would be too boring.
#1 Posted by Stanley Krauter, CJR on Wed 20 Jun 2012 at 12:13 PM
The media sure has done a poor job of explaining Obamacare to the ignorant masses. For example:
1. What happened to the idea that Obamacare would save American families $2500 a year?
2. Why has the "Affordable" Care Act cost jobs, when it was supposed to create jobs?
3 Why has the "Affordable" Care Act caused insurance premiums increase at double-digit rates?
4. Why is Obamacare costing taxpayers more than TWICE what Obama and the Dems said it would costs.
Yeah... The media sure does need to do a better job, alright....
#2 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Wed 20 Jun 2012 at 01:35 PM
I have found that opponents are putting forth one-liners from hate speech talk radio/tv as substantive arguments. The idea that we examine something, discuss, and apply critical thinking has been co-opted by the high some get from being part of mob chants. Sadly, the demagogues are supplying the chants and the people don't challenge themselves to really look at something and decide for themselves.
#3 Posted by Art As Social Inquiry, CJR on Wed 20 Jun 2012 at 01:36 PM
>> The public doesn’t understand it. Whose fault is that?
Answer : BUSH ?
#4 Posted by Marty, CJR on Wed 20 Jun 2012 at 01:43 PM
We understand it. We don't like it. What about this is so hard to understand? Nobody like the individual mandate. It's as unpopular as the war in Afghanistan. It was passed over 2 years ago. What more needs to be explained?
#5 Posted by Chris R, CJR on Wed 20 Jun 2012 at 01:49 PM
From the misssion statement: "Columbia Journalism Review’s mission is to encourage and stimulate excellence in journalism in the service of a free society. It is both a watchdog and a friend of the press in all its forms"
From the article: "Those are important questions overlooked by a press still waiting for its cues from the president"
From watchdog to lapdog in 12 paragraphs...
#6 Posted by Peter, CJR on Wed 20 Jun 2012 at 01:58 PM
I agree with Trudy that the news media generally have done a poor job of explaining the law (just as they did a poor job of explaining the Clinton health plan back in the 90s), but there have been notable exceptions. I wish there had been more great articles like this one all along:
http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/104094/tennessee-health-care
#7 Posted by Harris Meyer, CJR on Wed 20 Jun 2012 at 02:24 PM
Eh... the reason this "law" is not understood is that IT DOESN'T EXIST in any form which can be rationally examined, yet.
Some 1500 instances of "the Secretary (off HHS) shall determine" or "as determined by the Secretary" exist in this "law". It is nothing less than a cruel MadLibs joke that the Obama Administration is now free to fill in as it pleases.
Why does anyone think the Religious Freedom issue was never argued during DEBATE of the law itself? Answer: this was triggered by one of the rules the administration made up on-the-fly.
Congress doesn't vote on the law in the Age of Obama. Rather, Congress votes on how blank a slate is handed to him and his minions to impose rules by executive fiat. This is why he doesn't see anything wrong with circumventing the law or Congress on coal, GM/Chrysler/UAW, immigration and, now, running interference for Holder.
When the wheels finally come off this thing, it's going to be Biblical.
#8 Posted by A Goy (@AGoyAndHisBlog), CJR on Wed 20 Jun 2012 at 02:28 PM
"We understand it. We don't like it. What about this is so hard to understand? Nobody like the individual mandate."
Nobody likes non-universal coverage either (since the people with it have the pay for the critical emergency room care of the people without it).
What people don't understand is that you can either have both a mandate and universal coverage or neither. You can't have just the universal coverage. It breaks the managed competition model republicans originally constructed.
"In 1993, Washington state passed a law guaranteeing all residents access to private health-care insurance, regardless of their health, and requiring them to purchase coverage.
The state legislature, however, repealed that last provision two years later. With the guaranteed-access provisions still standing, the state saw premiums rise and enrollment drop, as residents purchased coverage only when they needed it. Health insurers fled the state and, by 1999, it was impossible to buy an individual plan in Washington — no company was selling...
Starting on July 1, 1993, health insurance companies were required to accept all state residents who applied for coverage — and it barred health plans from charging sick subscribers more, a practice known as underwriting. The requirement to purchase coverage, meanwhile, was not slated to take effect until five years later, in 1998.
That didn’t happen. Republicans took control of the state legislature in 1994 and repealed the individual mandate. The guaranteed-issue provision, however, remained on the books.
“The legislature was loath to repeal the insurance reforms because those were very popular,” says Katz, who advised the legislature on the issue. “That put the insurance companies in a bind.”
The bind they were in was this: The only people buying health insurance were those who foresaw themselves incurring high medical costs. That drove health insurance premiums up. As premiums went up and insurance became less affordable, enrollment decreased significantly.
As one report from the Washington State Insurance Commissioner’s Office described it, the insurance market entered a “death spiral,” with customers buying coverage only “when they needed it.”"
Pick. Do you want 50 million uninsured and under insured or do you want a mandate?
The failure of Obamacare has always been one thing- NO PUBLIC OPTIONS until you hit 65, thus no cost control.
#9 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 20 Jun 2012 at 03:28 PM
Thimbles presents a false dichotomy: Do you want 50 million uninsured and under insured or do you want a mandate?
padikiller responds: I want 320 million "uninsured" if by the term you mean Americans who rely on health insurance paid for by Somebody Else...
What is going on here is a thing that the liberals never expected.. And a thing that drives them nuts....
When people buy health insurance with their own money, they purchase catastrophic plans and pay cash for routine care.
The very notion of this sort of personal responsibility and free market decision-making scares the Bejeezus out of them.
#10 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Wed 20 Jun 2012 at 04:56 PM
"padikiller responds: I want 320 million "uninsured" if by the term you mean Americans who rely on health insurance paid for by Somebody Else"
Okay, complete bastard padi wants to frame the issue as inhumanly as possible, so I will accommodate.
Do you want universal health care coverage regardless of job status, income, or health?
Or do you want health care "paid for by Somebody Else" in the emergency room?
Or do you want someone with a wheel barrow shouting "Bring out your dead!" because of the people who cannot get coverage nor afford care? (padi pipes up "No big government, union wheel barrow pushers! People should take personal responsibility and cart their own bodies to the dump!")
Pick an option to deal with the uninsured. If you pick the humane option, you have also selected a mandate.
If you pick the commodity option, in which those who can't afford their coverage must use whatever's available at the emergency room, then you've selected:
"The lost productivity of uninsured Americans costs the economy up to $130 billion dollars a year — more than the estimated cost to cover the uninsured.
Covering the bills of the uninsured increases the annual health premiums for the average family by $922.
Hospitals typically charge uninsured patients 2.5 times what they charge privately insured patients.
Uninsured adults are 4.5 times more likely to go without medical care than insured adults.
Uninsured cancer patients are nearly twice as likely to die within five years as insured patients.
Over half a million Americans are currently battling cancer without insurance.
Among non-elderly adults, the lack of health insurance is the sixth leading cause of death in America."
And between 22,000 to 26,000 premature and preventable deaths a year due to non-coverage.
If you choose the the commodity option, in which care is incumbent upon payment and if you're thrown onto the street if you don't pay, then I suppose you've selected Somalia. Enjoy your career as a pirate.
Hope everyone is pleased with the dichotomy of these choices.
#11 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 20 Jun 2012 at 06:16 PM
There is nothing stopping anyone from buying health insurance.
You can buy health insurance at Sam's Club, for crying out loud.
There are hundreds of alternatives in the free market.
The problem is that liberals want Somebody Else to foot the bill. And they want the Gubmint to force Somebody Else to pay.
NEWSFLASH - The Gubmint doens't owe you Snickers bars or Band Aids.
If you are an able-bodied adult, SUPPORT YOURSELF AND ANY CHILDREN YOU MAKE.
If you can't support yourself, you should become a ward of the state, live in an institution, and be supervised to make sure you aren't too fat, get enough exercise and sleep, eat healthy foods and that you abstain from the use of alcohol, tobacco or other drugs. For your own good.
#12 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Wed 20 Jun 2012 at 07:15 PM
"The problem is that liberals want Somebody Else to foot the bill. And they want the Gubmint to force Somebody Else to pay."
The problem is conservatives want to live in Somalia, but they don't want to put in the work to move there and supply the clean water, air, food, roads, security, etcetera they take for granted.
Because if they did move and put in the work, someone might actually expect them to share some of those comforts with a Somali. "Ewwww. Get off my road, somali!"
Wonderful charming people, these republicans.
#13 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 20 Jun 2012 at 07:26 PM
So the function of "conservatives" is to do all the work and then to "share"?
??????????????
The question to be derived from your rather silly hypothetical is "Why aren't the Somalians building their own water systems, roads, farms, etc?"
Similarly, the question to be answered with regard to our own country is "Why do millions of Americans live in the squalor of public housing or subsidized housing and refuse to lift a finger to better themselves?"
Answer? Because nobody makes them, because we pay them to be unproductive and because they are lazy and dependent.
Well, this rather ridiculous national social disgrace is ending. The Gravy Train's done.
The "Somebody Else's" of this country have had enough of buying Snickers bars and cold beer for the mooches.
#14 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Wed 20 Jun 2012 at 10:22 PM
"So the function of "conservatives" is to do all the work and then to "share"?"
No, you idiot. Conservatives do none of the work and then assume all the rewards. That's called capitalism these days. Gubmint evil, kleptocrats good.
"The question to be derived from your rather silly hypothetical is "Why aren't the Somalians building their own water systems, roads, farms, etc?""
Because yehaw, moron, they have small weak government. Failed state anarchy. None of that intrusive big brothery stuff enforcing rules upon the warlords.
Whoopie.
"Similarly, the question to be answered with regard to our own country is "Why do millions of Americans live in the squalor of public housing or subsidized housing and refuse to lift a finger to better themselves?""
I don't know. Perhaps if they had 40 more years of conservative boot strappiness, the education fairy would bestow upon them all the required skills and trappings to get lucrative jobs in the industries that haven't been sold to Mexico or China. Maybe if there were some sort of drug war filling the jails with youths and fathers for non-violent crimes of possession, maybe those individuals with convict records and a reduced voter franchise will transform into productive members of society. Sometimes, all you need is magic to transform a society. Look at Somalia.
#15 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 21 Jun 2012 at 03:10 AM
"Answer? Because nobody makes them, because we pay them to be unproductive and because they are lazy and dependent."
Really.
I'm just going to drop this topic, because I really don't need to engage with people who need to make the "these people are lazy and dependent" argument.
Save the tough love for your tuxedo suited, vandal, kleptocrats.
#16 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 21 Jun 2012 at 03:19 AM
Back on topic, when you reject universal coverage + mandate you select more of this:
"WENDELL POTTER: [I]t really took a trip back home to Tennessee for me to see exactly what is happening to so many Americans. I--
BILL MOYERS: When was this?
WENDELL POTTER: This was in July of 2007.
BILL MOYERS: You were still working for Cigna?
WENDELL POTTER: I was. I went home, to visit relatives. And I picked up the local newspaper and I saw that a health care expedition was being held a few miles up the road, in Wise, Virginia. And I was intrigued.
BILL MOYERS: So you drove there?
WENDELL POTTER: I did. I borrowed my dad's car and drove up 50 miles up the road to Wise, Virginia. It was being held at a Wise County Fairground. I took my camera. I took some pictures. It was a very cloudy, misty day, it was raining that day, and I walked through the fairground gates. And I didn't know what to expect. I just assumed that it would be, you know, like a health-- booths set up and people just getting their blood pressure checked and things like that.
But what I saw were doctors who were set up to provide care in animal stalls. Or they'd erected tents, to care for people. I mean, there was no privacy. In some cases-- and I've got some pictures of people being treated on gurneys, on rain-soaked pavement.
And I saw people lined up, standing in line or sitting in these long, long lines, waiting to get care. People drove from South Carolina and Georgia and Kentucky, Tennessee-- all over the region, because they knew that this was being done. A lot of them heard about it from word of mouth.
There could have been people and probably were people that I had grown up with. They could have been people who grew up at the house down the road, in the house down the road from me. And that made it real to me."
As seen in films like this:
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/06/you-gotta-put-a-bandaid-on-it.html
Yes, that's right. Andrew Sullivan has to remind us this is not Africa, this is Tennessee. Read the what-the-wapo-wont-run link on that page. There's a story there that could use telling, though the Washington Post probably has more important things to talk about (Sally Quinn for instance).
#17 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 21 Jun 2012 at 03:41 AM
Ablebodied adults should support themselves and their families. PERIOD.
Modern "health insurance" is stupid. It only came about during WWII as a way to dodge Gubmint wage freezes.
Why is it stupid? Because insurance only makes financial sense to protect against unlikely and extremely costly losses. It only makes financial sense to buy insurance when you hope you'll never need it. Buying insurance to pay for something you are certain to need is just silly.
Your homeowners insurance policy won't cover painting your shutters when the paint peels or replacing carpet when it wears out. These are maintenance issues.
Your car insurance won't cover tire replacement or oil changes for the same reasons.
Insurance adds to the expense of losses. Agents, adjusters and lawyers don't work for free or work in offices that rent for free.
So a health insurance policy that covers a routine doctor's visit for a sore throat is a stupid one - it only adds to the expense of treatment. It is inefficient.
Covering a $150,000 cancer treatment or a $60,000 heart operation makes sense. Covering an earache doesn't.
What drives the leftists nuts is that when people spend their own money in the free market, most of them realize the stupidity in paying to insure routine costs, and they end up buying catastrophic plans.
Having people paying for routine care from providers of choice runs counter to liberal dream of Gubmint-run Everything.
#18 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Thu 21 Jun 2012 at 07:18 AM
People who do not have money for rent and food from their two part time jobs, do not have money to cover their treatments or risk of catastrophe.
And it doesn't matter how often you scream "Gubmint Liberal, GUBMINT LIEberal, gubMINT, LIIIIIBEBRALLLL", you still haven't changed that, haven't dealt with it.
#19 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 21 Jun 2012 at 12:45 PM
"People who do not have money for rent and food from their two part time jobs, do not have money to cover their treatments or risk of catastrophe."
So get three part-time jobs. Or four. Whatever it takes. Rake leaves. Paint houses. Pick up scrap. Walk dogs. Flip burgers. Mow grass. Babysit kids. Clean toilets. Polish floors. Load boxes. Etc., etc, etc....
Do WHATEVER it takes to support yourself and your children.
Get off your ass and stop mooching off the Gubmint.
And the world will be a better place.
#20 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Thu 21 Jun 2012 at 03:29 PM
The KFF tracking poll does have a section that tests respondent's understanding of the law. Read beyond the toplines and look at the questionnaire before characterizing what the study does and does not do. Catchy phrase, but factually inaccurate. If you would review the more deeply the poll results, you will find your hypothesis about Americans' misunderstanding of the law to be generally true and broken down along fairly intuitive lines, however, the author has assumed that no such data exists and has made an unfounded claim when the data that grounds his claim is at his disposal. I'm sure no one will see this, but I just thought someone might appreciate this.
#21 Posted by Noah Braiterman, CJR on Thu 21 Jun 2012 at 04:29 PM
Any polls showing support for 'liberal' positions that draw scrutiny about whether the polled 'understand' the issue?
No wonder so many nice people believe 'reality has a liberal bias'. In the alternative world about which they read and watch movies and so forth, the down-side of liberal reality is left quietly unexplored.
#22 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Fri 22 Jun 2012 at 12:54 PM