What Do Americans Want On Health Care?

A year ago, it was clear that most Americans wanted health care reform. They still do. But along the way, Washington has cut them out of the process.

This summer, lawmakers took a lesson from town hall meetings back home. Members endured angry, scared voters. Some of the protesters were acting on their own, some as part of organized efforts. Either way, it had a chilling effect on members of both parties.

Members of Congress returned to Washington with the idea that the issue of health care reform is a political football with two clear sides. The dividing line was determined to be the public option. Thus, members with liberal and progressive bases fight for it, and members with conservative bases are fighting against it.

But what if the message members brought home is wrong? What if most people don't see the public option as the dividing line that government and the insurance industry do? What if, in 2010, a vote against the public option is seen as a vote for big business, and a vote for the public option is viewed as a vote for big-government. Alternately, what if very few Americans see through the prism through which partisans are framing this debate, and their views are as varied as the population itself?

The real tension about the public option is this: partisanship has confused the issue to the point that regular Americans no longer feel they can trust what lawmakers say. After a summer of yelling, fear, and no compromise, it is very hard to tell what the public thinks about the pubic option or many other aspects of health care reform legislation being considered. We know people want insurance, and health care. That is what we knew a year ago, and that is pretty much all we know now.

There are two key players who have indicated they may be willing take or leave the public option in order to get a bill passed. They are Sen. Snowe and President Obama.

A public option would make the bill acceptable to Democrats alone. Amidst criticism, the President has signaled willingness to sign legislation with or without this divisive, hot-button element. Unlike Snowe, he prefers a public option, but has not said he would veto a bill without one. Strange that so few are willing to consider other, alternative options that would get bipartisan support.

Comments

[rlugbill]

Health care costs will come down and access to medical care will increase when there are more doctors. Many options aren't even being discussed for political reasons.

If there were more doctors, prices for medical services would be cheaper. And there would be more doctors available to treat people. Right now, it's hard just to see a doctor. More competition would cure many of medicine's problems.

We need more medical schools, more doctors (primary care), and more hospitals. Right now, these are all rationed, keeping prices artificially high and reducing access to health care.

Also, more free clinics that offer medical services to indigent people would ensure that everyone has basic medical care. There should be a free clinic in every county in the country, supported by a combination of federal, state, and local government grants, and contributions, fundraisers, endowments, and fees from those who can afford to pay.

And pharmaceutical companies should not be allowed to advertise or promote their products. Get rid of those salesmen who are always bringing samples to doctors. The use of drugs should be minimized, and other methods should be made a priority since drugs are expensive, toxic, often addictive, and only address symptoms, not the cause of the problem.

All this gets around the insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies. So, it would never be passed by Congress.

[rughead23]

Big business had a good run at it with the tax cuts for the wealthiest not to mention they (i.e. Bank of America) get away with only a slap on the wrist when they defraud share holders. Hows the economy since sed tax breaks?

[MeinNH]

I want simple things in "health insurance".

1. My doctor to decide my care. Not an insurance company who will not allow me to take medication for midgraines that is the only thing in 8 years that has worked because it costs 25.00 per pill. It should be up to the insurance company to negotiate with pharmaceutical company for a more affordable cost.

2. Dental care. It has been proven that dental health and physical health are interconnected.

3. Vision care. If I need glasses and tests, I should not have to be charged $600 for a pair of glasses...­.without fancy expensive frames mind you.

4. Alternative treatments. Those that are proven to help with illnesses should be included.

5. Affordability. Depending on income, low cost and subsidized assistance with paying premiums, copays, and medication costs.

[ouroborous]

And if you don't have number 5 -- if you can't afford to pay for points 1-4 -- all the rest is meaningless.

And ensuring affordability -- ensuring point 5 -- is exactly what this entire battle is about. The fact that health insurance is rapidly becoming out of reach for many businesses, let alone individuals (and let's not even CONSIDER people who have pre-existing conditions) is precisely why the number one cause of personal bankruptcy is medical bills related to a serious illness. It's precisely why this entire battle is about affordability above all else. Once we have affordability, we can work on fine tuning the plan to have all the other perks.

But without affordability, we might as well give up the fight, since the issue is a non starter.

[ouroborous]

Ms. Donahue, without some sort of government-run or government-funded health care option -- without either single payer or a public option -- health care reform is a dead issue.

The reason is simple. Without at LEAST a public option, all that's left in the reform bill is a "goody bag" of regulation. For instance, a requirement that health insurance cover everyone, with no pre-existing condition check.

However, without meaningful competition from a government­-administe­red, not-for-profit plan, all that this pre-existing condition requirement will do is drive up premiums! In other words, since sick people use more health care than well people, and since insurers will be required to insure sick people, their costs will increase. And if you think that they're just going to turn around and swallow this hit to profits, you're mad. No, they'll "pass it on" to the consumer, and what we'll get is premiums spiraling ever more out of control.

Now, couple that with a "mandate" to buy insurance -- you are required, under penalty, to carry health insurance -- and you begin to see a public-option free reform plan as exactly what it is: a massive, MASSIVE giveaway -- a wealth transfer or "bailout," if you will -- for the pharmaceutical and health insurance industries.

This is why we lefties have been fighting so hard for a public option. Without at LEAST a public option, there IS no reform -- just a handout to the industry being CALLED reform.

NO PUBLIC OPTION means NO REFORM.

[socalgal38]

right on, on all points. fanned

[DLazar1]

Are you so completely convinced that a road to single payer is something that the MAJORITY of Americans want? Are you so convinced that the Democrat plan to overhaul our health care system will leave it better than it is now for a MAJORITY of Americans . . . because if it turns out to be UNTRUE . . . then a MAJORITY of Americans will vote Democrats out of office. Are you willing to pay that price? Elections are won, in the end, by majority vote.

[Mister-Natural]

I am convinced that HR$ 676 is the reform we need.
Single payer or nothing.

[djs111]

Actually, despite all the blathering about party lines and "what America wants" - which IMO is all pure projection - I think that if we are all forced to pay private insurance companies what will amount to about a double tithe, ensuring that they make obscene profits, there will be hell to pay.
Paying private corporations or getting fined by the IRS? That is blackmail, that is highway robbery.
I don't really care what is "palatable" to people like Snowe or the Democrats or the Republicans, sitting on piles of money in Washington.

Single payer.
There are plenty of profits to be extracted from American paychecks through other means.

[ouroborous]

Yeah, I've actually been considering what I might do if a mandate without at least a public option is passed as law.

I might very well resort to civil disobedience and try to refuse to pay either. Of course, I'm just one guy and I can only carry that so far, but if enough people followed suit and refused to pay the "2009 Health Insurance Bailout Act Tax," there might be real change.

[darker]

Americans want WHATEVER CORPORATE PROFITEER PROPAGANDA
SAYS THEY WANT!

Corporate health care/insurance profiteers take 44+% of your premiums as
PROFITS. You think they want to LOSE THAT? ? ?

That's WHY they don't want gov't plan COMPETITION.
The profiteers RUN THE SHOW. They've already begun to
raise premiums, deny coverage of whatever THEY SAY is a "previous condition" and
eliminate what is actually covered.

Americans are manipulated by propaganda and SCARE TACTICS, once again.

[DLazar1]

I have insurance with a non profit insurance carrier. I really don't have any complaints with them. All my angst is with the cost . . . the costs . . . but I just don't see any health care proposal that truly brings down costs . . . with everything on the table. But its hard to craft legislation that brings down costs when Special Interests are writing it.

[BernardFeld]

Dear President Obama,
There is more to “change” than just Not Being George W. Bush.
It appears that the Democratic Party and your administration are about to engage in a huge sell-out to the Insurance Industry on health reform.
The Baucus bill--and with it the looming defeat of the public option--is nothing more than a great big bonanza for the health insurance industry with some reasonable, and long overdue, regulations tacked on. The main beneficiaries of this bill would be the insurance and health care industry, NOT the American people.
Frankly, Mr. President, if this happens it will be the strongest evidence yet that BOTH political parties, Democrats as well as Republicans, represent the big businesses that have legally bribed them with political contributions and not the people they are sworn to represent.
You brought hope and inspiration to a country that had traded the American dream for crony capitalism, abandoned its principles, and wandered in the wilderness for the last eight years.
But it is going to take more than stirring speeches and talk show appearances to fulfill the promise of your election.
It is up to you to keep faith with the people who elected you and believed in you. It is up to you to make sure that this bill contains a robust public option. Otherwise when the next election rolls around, I and millions of Americans like me, will no longer believe that anything meaningful has changed.

[ouroborous]

This is a good letter, but:

1) All evidence indicates that Max Baucus is just following White House marching orders. In other words, Baucus' public option-free bill is just what Obama and Rahm ordered. So I'm not sure the beseeching Obama to fix a legislative traffic jam that he (or at least Rahm) is partially responsible for creating, will do much good.

2) The public option is NOT DEAD. It is dead in the Senate Finance Committee, but there are *gasp* OTHER Senate bills. Then there are House bills (one of which is pretty much single payer! -- HR676). Then there is reconciliation. This fight ain't over yet, and by accepting the meme being pushed so hard that it IS over, we're giving up before being actually defeated. That becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Now is the time to double down and call your representatives, not the time to give up and pray to Obama for rescue.

[Jannsmoor]

Please elaborate on how you compromise with people who think 'end of life counseling' is a 'death panel,' any government involvement in a public option means a government take-over of all health care, we don't currently ration health care but will if the government gets involved, even talking about universal health care is socialism, etc.

What we need is for anyone who wants to can buy into Medicare. If you want to continue with the insurance provider you have, you have the right to. Simple.

[BLBass]

"Strange that so few are willing to consider other, alternative options that would get bipartisan support."

I beg of you, name one!

I have gone to some effort occasionally in recent months to envision alternatives to the public option that could be acceptable to both sides, based on the purported objections of Republican lawmakers (working under the questionable assumption that they criticize in good faith). I don't think any of my ideas really fit the bill; either they are too weak, or they would never be acceptable to Republicans who have decided that a defeat for Obama is more important than successful reform for their constituents (I'll ignore the truth-value of that premise), or both. No idea yet put forward by conservatives -- though few and far between I'll admit they exist -- is acceptable to those who favor policies that put people ahead of business interests. I have been going out of my way to consider those proposals and they all fail to address the most basic needs our country should expect out of health reform. The issue is not will to engage opposing viewpoints, it is the lack of viable alternatives from the opposition.

[ouroborous]

Indeed. There IS no bipartisan solution, so it behooves us to let the Republicans do whatever insane things they want to do while we use the 60-seat supermajority that *WE VOTED FOR* in the Senate, the majority that *WE VOTED FOR* in the House, and get a bill that the Democrat President *WE VOTED FOR* will sign.

Democrats are acting like they lost the election. Of course, it's just a sham designed to cover up what's happening -- this whole health care reform thing has turned into a kabuki play with Rahm Emanuel pulling the strings, designed to funnel more lobbying dollars from Big Health Insurance and Big Pharma into Democrat coffers. But hey, let's play it out to its logical conclusion­s...

[PaxEterna]

I want what the Congress has, sans the insurance industry.

It's our money, and I pay enough in taxes several times over to warrant healthcare as a benefit in return.

[Amplifryer]

Amen. "Strange that so few are willing to consider other, alternative options that would get bipartisan support."

It's obvious Americans want reform. I would suggest that Americans also understand all too well that while costs for health care are soaring, so too is the deficit. Americans are smart enough to put 2 and 2 together and see that government always over promises on restraint of costs and over delivers on overruns. That was bad enough before the deficit meltdown stemming from the mortgage derivative fiasco last year, but while health care costs are not sustainable, nor is increasing federal debt. Nobody believes, except the far left, that government can contain costs by "eliminating waste", or providing its own "competition". There's great ideas that likely can work, like eliminating 50 states worth of individual mandates and replace them with a fair streamlined federal mandate that will open up massive private competition. But liberals actually don't want anything to work that will keep them from getting the government in control of the health industry. Government adds 2 and 2 and comes up with 1, just like Medicare had a 1 billion budget at it's inception that ballooned to 1990 projections by 1970.

[ouroborous]

Strange that so few are willing to consider the public option, which the public -- and doctors, to boot -- OVERWHELMINGLY supports.

Just like Iraq and a zillion other issues in the past decade or so, somehow our legislators have decided that the overwhelmingly popular position is some how too far-fetched and crazy to be considered.

NO PUBLIC OPTION means NO REFORM

[Jaywalkker]

I want the return of the Office of Technology Assessment.

Congress used to have, similar to the CBO, a group of scientists or a pipeline to call in qualified scientists of multiple disciplines to comment on all science/technology related legislation. Then good 'ol Newt came into Congress and thought the OTA was redundant, congressional members can get their "own information" through their "own sources." And thus the birth of junk science.

The OTA was an organization that many governments once emulated, because they thought an independent 3rd party review board for science and technology was good and worked for us. Now we're at the whims of vocal pundits, ideological organizations, and special interest funded studies telling Congress how to vote.

Bring back OTA - THAT will help with health care assessments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Technology_Assessment

[BLBass]

I'm in favor. The sneaky thing to do would be to tie restrictions on the Fed (a libertarian ask for decades now) with this and a few other similar proposals that would make regulation smarter and easier across the board -- CFPA, for example.

[pontesisto]

Even though 65% of Americans want a public option (cbs nytimes poll from 2 days ago) it still got voted down. Our elected officials do not care what we think they just want to secure campaign contributions for their next election. The health insurance industry has poured millions of dollars into their pockets and it has clearly paid off. The only legislation we are likely to see out of Congress is a bill that will only increase the profits of health insurance companies.

If you would like to take a stand in support of health care reform please join our voting bloc here:
http://www.votingbloc.org/Health_Bloc.php

If you would like to take a stand against the open corruption of Washington please join our reform voting bloc here:
http://www.votingbloc.org/Reform_Bloc.php