Still, when I asked if the candidates were addressing her as a voter, the first thing she brought up was healthcare. That was really bothering her. Westervelt explained that her company had recently increased deductibles for its workers. Instead of coverage with a $5000 deductible, her family will now have to satisfy a deductible of $10,000 before the policy pays. “It’s incredibly scary,” she said. “It’s awful. But it’s better than not having insurance,” she said.
The company still provides good dental and life insurance, she added, but had to make the change in healthcare to be able to keep the coverage. “Health care needs to be more affordable,” she said. She also thought there was a possibility they would have no insurance, “depending on what the government does.” What did she mean?
“Obamacare is making an impact on insurance policies,” she explained. “He’s driving the price up and insurance companies are panicking to be able to keep out of the government’s hands. I worry it might turn into socialist medicine that takes away from patient care.” Westervelt believed that another type of healthcare system would “lose the specialization we have in the states.” She had once broken her back, when she fell off a horse while fox hunting, and said she knew the value of specialists. We talked some about the overtreatment that occurs in the US. “Right now we have the right to say no to overtreatment, like physical therapy,” she said. What should Obama do with healthcare? “I don’t have an answer, but it should remain in private hands,” she said.
We got around to the election. Westervelt said she is a Republican these days, having changed her affiliation a few years ago, but she did not know whom she would vote for. She hoped that a third-party candidate might appear. Westervelt said she wouldn’t vote for Obama unless he came up with some different ideas for healthcare and the wars. She was troubled by “all the money he’s throwing away. As far as the wars, she said, “it’s time to pull out.”
Carl
Carl Burrows had come across the Missouri River from nearby Iowa to have a drink at his favorite bar in the Old Market.* There is only one bar in his town, Carter Lake, he told me, and “It’s a dive.” Burrows, who is 67, worked as a technician for the phone company and took early retirement, but works part time on a contract with his old employer. He said for now he was OK financially.
Are the candidates speaking to him? “Not really,” he replied. “The Republicans are the worst. There is no cooperation in their party. The way things are, Republicans are just awful. I just don’t want Romney.”
Still, though Burrows said he was a Democrat, he is still not sure he will vote for Obama. He doesn’t really know why. Burrows does have some sympathy for the president, though. “Everything he has tried to do gets shot down. I personally don’t doubt him. I do think he’d do fine, if they gave him a chance.”
Steve
I wandered into Aromas Coffeehouse and saw a man with gray hair working at his laptop. I told him I was doing man-on-the-street interviews with ordinary people. He told me he was not an ordinary person but was a defeated politician who had just lost the Democratic primary race for the Senate to former Nebraska Sen. Bob Kerrey. Steve Lustgarten, 60, said he had jumped into the race three months ago with no expectation he would win. He had returned to Omaha from Los Angeles, where he had been in the film distribution business, and decided to try politics. The experience? In a word, he said, “sordid.” “Nothing about Bob Kerrey sits well with me,” he said. But Kerrey had name recognition, Lustgarten said, and voter turnout in the primary was low.

Interesting interviews. Very sad that most of the people interviewed would benefit significantly from the Affordable Care Act but are either uninformed or misinformed about it.
#1 Posted by Harris Meyer, CJR on Tue 12 Jun 2012 at 12:48 PM
Harris gives us Iteration #5893 of the standard liberal "The Average Slob Is Too Stupid To Know What's Good For Him" elitist, anti-democratic nonsense.
Some pigs are always more equal than other pigs in Liberal La La Land.
#2 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Tue 12 Jun 2012 at 11:28 PM
"Harris gives us Iteration #5893 of the standard liberal "The Average Slob Is Too Stupid To Know What's Good For Him" elitist, anti-democratic nonsense."
What Padi actually believes liberals believe:
"Can you perform the surgery required to excise a brain tumor? If not, you must be stupid."
Implication? Padi believes we don't need expertise to understand complicated systems or perform complicated tasks. The "average slob" should be able to perform your brain surgery.
Of course, when you use his arguement to claim executives and lawyers don't merit their high compensation, especially when their understanding of complexity is so low in quality you could hardly imagine how the "average slob" could cause more catastrophic damage, he gets a tad upset.
The fact is that Romney care does solve relatively well some major healthcare problems:
http://m.npr.org/story/146701343?url=/blogs/health/2012/02/13/146701343/health-care-in-massachusetts-abject-failure-or-work-in-progress
And in the state that it was first implemented, people have high rates of satisfaction. The problem it avoids solving is:
"That doesn't mean everything about Massachusetts health care is wonderful. The 2006 law didn't do anything about controlling health costs, which were already among the nation's highest. Dreyfuss says that's at the top of the agenda now.
DREYFUSS: When suddenly every employer is offering insurance, everyone is paying for it and the government is subsidizing it, and it's growing at 8 or 10 percent per year - year over year - suddenly, there's a lot more interest in doing something about it."
So that is the problem which needs dealing with in future. However, we can't focus on that problem because republicans want to nulify everything.
""The president's plan assumes an endless expansion of government, with rising costs and, of course, with the spread of Obamacare," Romney says. "I will halt the expansion of government, and I will repeal Obamacare."..
"I will not go back to the days when insurance companies had unchecked power to cancel your policy, or deny you coverage, or charge women differently from men," Obama says. "We're not going back there. We're going forward."
There is no overlap at all in the two men's current approaches to health care. If Romney is elected, he'll work to get rid of the law that was based on his own plan. If the president wins a second term, he will fight to keep what he can."
We're not going to face the problems to come because republicans have defined the president and his party as their problem. And when they are in power, under Bush or Romney, they will continue to avoid looking at solutions to problems because, in their minds, they have the solutions - it's just the problems which need redefining. It will be a return to bush style government based on pr campaign, not knowledge or expertise. "invade Iran + tax cuts for the rich, that will solve everything!"
And fox news will run with that story, everybody else will be "balanced". When the "average slob" is uninformed or misinformed by his institutions, that isn't because he's stupid and "liberals are elitists", that's because institutions are failing to inform the public in a meaningful way.
#3 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 13 Jun 2012 at 03:22 PM
You want elitism? Here's conservative David Brooks;
"Maybe before we can build great monuments to leaders we have to relearn the art of following. Democratic followership is also built on a series of paradoxes: that we are all created equal but that we also elevate those who are extraordinary; that we choose our leaders but also have to defer to them and trust their discretion; that we’re proud individuals but only really thrive as a group, organized and led by just authority.
I don’t know if America has a leadership problem; it certainly has a followership problem. Vast majorities of Americans don’t trust their institutions. That’s not mostly because our institutions perform much worse than they did in 1925 and 1955, when they were widely trusted. It’s mostly because more people are cynical and like to pretend that they are better than everything else around them. Vanity has more to do with rising distrust than anything else...
To have good leaders you have to have good followers — able to recognize just authority, admire it, be grateful for it and emulate it. "
Shorter David Brooks:
http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/003626.html
"DAVID BROOKS: Okay, so our act starts with us inflating a giant internet bubble. Then that collapses, taking the country's economy with it, just as we massively cut taxes on millionaires because, we say, if we don't the government will have too much money. Right after that we blow off warnings about terrorism and let 3,000 Americans get slaughtered. We use that as a chance to lie the U.S. into invading a country that had nothing to do with the attack, killing hundreds of thousands of people and turning millions into refugees. In the middle of all that we borrow torture techniques from the Inquisition and use them on people in secret sites around the planet. Then we make billions off another financial bubble, the biggest in human history, and do nothing as it collapses, plunging the world into the greatest economic calamity since the Great Depression. To fix that we open up the national bank vault and shovel out money as fast as possible to all the criminals who made it happen in the first place. Then—as the amazing finale—we refuse to prosecute anyone for that, for the war, or for torture, and we start killing U.S. citizens with flying death robots.
[LONG PAUSE]
AGENT: ...That's a hell of an act. What do you call it?
DAVID BROOKS: The Aristocrats!"
#4 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 13 Jun 2012 at 03:29 PM