The relentlessly cynical and negative traditional media has talked itself into believing certain things about the fight over health care reform, whether there is any serious evidence beyond their own self-reinforcing stories or not. Unfortunately, what happens when these kind of stories are written, is that everyone -- Congresspeople, unnamed lobbyists, unnamed administration officials, other journalists, progressive activists, and bloggers -- then reacts to these stories, usually to reinforce their own point of view or their client's interest.
The problem is that so many of these assumptions are unproven/unknown at best, or downright mythological at worst. Having been deeply immersed in both the lasting health care fight in 1993-94 and this one today, I feel fairly confident in pointing out some of these things that most traditional media reporters seem to believe as gospel that in fact are not all certain. Let me just mention a few of the biggest:
I. Serious health care reform is dead or on "life support"
Versions of this story have been floating around for many months now, with reporters eager to cover a train wreck and flaming failure for Obama.
Now don't get me wrong: I don't want to imply that reporters particularly want health care reform, or Obama, to fail. They just like to declare everything a failure. In the 1992 campaign, reporters and pundits declared Clinton to be a walking corpse after Jennifer Flowers, the draft dodging thing, the didn't inhale quote, the brutal NY primary, after Perot got in, and several other times as well. They declared the 1993 Clinton budget dead at least a dozen times before we passed it, and the same thing happened with the 1994 crime bill. After the '94 elections, they declared Clinton gone, irrelevant, powerless, certain to be defeated many times before he smoked Gingrich in the '95 budget battle and went on to another electoral vote landslide in '96. They declared that it was a matter of days before his resignation after the Lewinsky scandal broke, and that he would be forced out of office for sure after the news about her dress came out. They declared Gore toast before he won the popular vote in the 2000 elections, and Kerry dead in the primaries before he won in Iowa. They said Hillary Clinton was the nominee for sure in the fall shortly before Obama won in Iowa. This year so far, they declared the stimulus in deep trouble right before it was passed, and Obama's budget in a world of hurt shortly before it passed.
A strong comprehensive health reform bill (yes, with a public option) has passed four committees so far, and according to public statements by members and private vote counts a lot of us advocates have been doing, we are well within range of victory. House Progressives have the votes to defeat anything without the public option, and they are still standing firm. Strong health care reform, with a public option, is far from a done deal, but it is quite alive, thank you.
2. The town halls and August recess have been a disaster for health care
The yelling, Hitler comparisons, and people bringing semiautomatics to events made for great theatre, but the reality on the ground was very different. In the local newspapers and monitoring by Congressional offices I am aware of, supporters of health reform out-numbered opponents at most places. The swing congressional offices I have talked to received more calls, faxes, mail, and email from supporters than opponents. And I have yet to talk to any members of Congress, or even their staffers, even the more conservative ones, who have said to me that they have come out of the August recess wanting to give up on or even slow down on health care reform.
3. Obama and the left are at war over health care reform.
Other than occasional unnamed White House staffers who enjoy dissing their progressive friends for their own reasons, and the occasional progressive blogger who takes everything Politico and Ceci Connolly say seriously and is therefore convinced Obama is out to do us wrong, I see little evidence Obama and progressives are at war over health care. It is progressives, after all, who are actually fighting for the ideas Obama laid out on health care in his campaign and earlier this year, ideas Obama has not renounced or said he is giving up on. From what I can tell, Obama is doing everything he can to try to get a bill out of Senate Finance and then out of the Senate itself, while continuing to support Pelosi in her efforts to get the strongest possible bill out of the House.
Having fought this fight in 1993-94 and so far this year, I know how tough this is to pass, and how ugly the process is. I take nothing for granted, and take nothing on faith. Health care reform could still die; war over what goes to the floor could still tear the Democratic Party apart; politicians, including Obama, could still sell progressive activists down the river to get a bill, any bill, passed. But all of the above is conventional wisdom, not fact and not a done deal.
The White House has just announced that Obama has raised the stakes even higher, through the roof in fact, by planning an address to a joint session of Congress next Wednesday. That means this White House is determined to pass a bill on health care reform by hook or by crook, by any means necessary. I hope that also means that the White House realizes passing some meager, small compromise of a bill, with the stakes this high, would be a political nightmare. But one way or another, they will show their cards next Wednesday. Will the president, in front of a joint session of Congress, meekly give up fighting for anything big? Will he declare war on his progressive friends? Will he announce that he no longer cares about keeping insurance companies honest? We will know the answers after his speech, but I wouldn't be drawing any firm conclusions until after you listen to it.
1. There is / was never a serious healthcare reform bill presented. At best we have a healthcare insurance bill. Even such a bill has many loopholes. Likely we will continue to have many uninsured. The fines (for not enrolling) on the employers and employees are low. Many will continue to elect not to carry insurance; and be a burden (cost-shift) on society when they get ill.
2. I do not think the town-hall meetings have been a disaster. They certainly could have been better utilized and more focused. Elected officials have come away worse-off and bruised. Most intelligent people and those working in the healthcare should be very upset with politicians of both parties and both chambers. This specially applies to the Senators who hijacked the debate on healthcare; making it an argument about healthcare insurance. The electorate are more educated and now know that the elected officials are corrupt and on the payroll of the lobbyists and private corporations. The myth that campaign contributions buy access and not votes has firmly been debunked.
3. The elected representatives were / are working at cross-purposes. Healthcare costs are supposed to be reduced. The 17% of GDP of healthcare cost needs to be brought in line with our economically competing countries. Yet the govt. is making case of spending more and looking at various tax alternatives to pay for care.
I don't see any reason why we can't strike a deal. I think it will be done, but an unrestricted public option will not be part of it. At least not yet. This is only the first step. Let's get everyone covered, first. That's truly a giant step.
Being a liberal, I am concerned about HOW that is achieved.
If everyone is required to purchase health insurance, I'm against it. That would not be reform. That would be the death knell for America, to be forced, yes MANDATED, to participate in the corrupt health care system we have in place right now, that is bankrupting our nation.
Look out for HR 3200. That is what it says.
4. The President has done a good job of explaining the basics to the general public. In fact, he has opened the door to the right wing wackos by not explaining in simple terms what is going on.
5. Liberals are united on this topic. Most liberals want to die on the cross of single payer. Then there is a large group that supports the public option without knowing enough about it to last for 15 seconds in a debate with an opponent of health care.
6. We can predict the results of the public option on competition. Good luck!
7. The health insurance companies are behind the town hall nuts. The fact is that fringe groups are behind the town hall nuts. Ever notice the resemblance between these people and the ones who used to yell at you at airports?
8. With the public option we will all live happily ever after. While I support the public option as the best choice on the table now, health care reform is very complex and uncertain. Ideally, reform will mean good dignified care for all at a price we can afford. If we get there if will be more luck than brains. The tug of war in health care is being waged by multiple parties and we can all get torn to shreds while the victory is pushed and pulled from one camp to another.
Reform is needed on more than just the insurance level, from providers to drugs, the current system, if you can even call such chaos a system is a nightmare. I think that the objectors at these town halls have never really had to face serious illness, I pity them when they do.
He's not a conventional politician who won the election by unconventional means. Conventional punditry does not apply.
Officials in Congress receive health care mostly paid for by us tax payers, yet many are trying to make it impossible for us to purchase an affordable plan of our own :
While many of us are struggling to afford medical insurance/medical bills.
While Congress people try to stop healthcare reform.
While Congress people accept large contributions from lobbyists to prevent health care reform.
Please sign these petitions - and by all means, spread the word! Thank you!
http://www.petitiononline.com/PubOp676/petition.html
http://action.firedoglake.com/page/s/keepthepledge?source=email&subsource=fwd
http://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/5649/t/4922/content.jsp?content_KEY=2763&tag=hk1_typ-e1
http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/petition-congress-to-pass-single-payer-hr-676-national-health-insurance.html
Believe me, it makes little difference when insurance companies are so good at avoiding honoring their contracts anyway.
They're just pretending they don't want to cover pre-existing conditions to get leverage -- they're thrilled by the prospect of offering "protection" to the segment of the population least able to combat their tactics.
We have the best system in the world -- WRONG. The current system costs 2X per person over the next most expensive country and the U.S. has poor life expectancy. The current system is way too expensive and delivers mediocre care. Why? Because the private health insurance market, unique to the U.S., represents a classic market failure.
http://axisofreason.com/2009/07/13/us-private-health-insurance-classic-market-failure/
There are (mainly false) stories circulated about how sluggish the health care system is in Britain. Just ask Stephen Hawking, right? Forget that nothing like the British NHS is being proposed here, by anyone. Heck, Medicare is actually like Canada's system, not Britain's totally government run operation, so even the call for "Medicare For All!" is really proposing a Canadian-like system. (Keefer Sutherland's granddad, the guy who got Canada's health care system passed parliament, was recently voted "the most important person in Canada. Ever." I digress.)
So I say, okay: Assume NHS distortions are true. Let's spend $4-5,000 per insured person, the extra $1.75 trillion this raises (@ $4k per person) ensuring better delivery than NHS (includes insuring the extra 47 million at about an extra $235 billion at the *$5k per person* price) -- and we've just succeeded in cutting health care spending in this country by about 1/4.
Yes. And British life expectancy, according to the CIA Fact Book, is somewhere around 6th or 7th among the top 50 industrialized countries. Canada's in that territory too.
We're around 35 (37th according to the World Health Organization).
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN1747974920080717
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/17/business/17health.html?_r=2&oref=slogin
Then you can re-frame the debate. How "civilized" is a society that denies basic care to MILLIONS of its citzens?
I would like to hear your experience why there is no ins. co. advertising campaigns against the bill this time. I learned that 1993 bill privileged 4-5 companies with handling all the new policies, and those left out funded the campaign. This time, the bill is built for all insurance companies, all get the benefits.