In the midst of angry protests, offensive placards, and ridiculous conservative talking points, it's hard not to wonder what, exactly, motivates opponents of health care reform.
After all, improving the fundamentally flawed system would have broad benefits for all Americans. Some of Rush Limbaugh's listeners are one serious illness away from bankruptcy. Some Sarah Palin supporters can't get coverage because of a pre-existing condition. Some Glenn Beck viewers will see their insurance companies drop them when they need their coverage most. Some RNC donors may want to start their own business, but can't because they can't afford to pay the monthly premiums. Some of the same people who attended "Tea Parties" in April saw their family coverage disappear after they lost their job.
Across the country, untold thousands wait in seemingly-endless lines in the hopes of seeing a physician at a free clinic. And some of those thousands may very well be Republicans.
It's too often overlooked, but there's nothing partisan or ideological about this -- everyone is getting screwed by the status quo. We're all paying too much for too little. A huge chunk of the country is uninsured, underinsured, or uninsurable, and the system is blind to how you voted in the last election.
With this in mind, the far-right apoplexy is counter-intuitive. Why would people who stand to benefit from health care reform literally take to the streets and threaten violence in opposition to legislation that would help them and their families? President Obama supports an approach to health care reform that emphasizes competition and choice, doesn't increase the deficit, and wouldn't raise middle class taxes ... and conservatives are comparing the plan to the Nazi Holocaust?
To fully appreciate the larger dynamic, it's important not to lump all opponents of reform together into one large group. We've heard many of the same arguments from a wide variety of activists, but different groups are fighting with different motivations.
I tend to see them in five distinct factions:
* The Greedy: There's a fairly small group of people who profit handsomely from the broken status quo. Regular Americans are getting screwed by the system, but The Greedy are getting rich. Reform puts their profits at risk, so they're fighting back to protect their livelihood.
* The Partisans: If President Obama does what many presidents have failed trying to do, it will likely make him more popular and make his presidency successful. The Partisans care more about Republican gains than the national well being, so they're fighting to prevent a major Democratic victory because it would be a major Democratic victory. For an example, consider Bill Kristol's infamous admonition to Republican leaders.
* The Tin-Foil Hats: If reform passes, the government will kill their grandparents, create "death panels," lavish benefits on illegal immigrants, and mandate that ACORN volunteers live in their basement. The Tin-Foil Hats have active imaginations, and believe their own ridiculous conspiracy theories. They're likely to benefit from reform, but the voices in their head discourage them from believing it.
* The Dupes: Probably the largest group in opposition to reform, The Dupes tend to believe what The Greedy, The Partisans, and The Tin-Foil Hats have told them. When confronted with accurate information, The Dupes suspect the media, Democrats, and their lying eyes aren't to be trusted. After all, Sean Hannity wouldn't lie to them, would he? Like The Tin-Foil Hats, The Dupes stand to benefit from reform, but are skeptical because they don't know who's telling the truth and who isn't.
* The Wonks: The smallest of the groups, The Wonks are conservatives who actually care about substantive policy details, have read the proposals, and believe there are better ways to improve the system. They're looking for a meaningful policy debate, and are slightly embarrassed by their allies' dishonest temper tantrums, but The Greedy, The Partisans, The Tin-Foil Hats, and The Dupes have decided to ignore The Wonks. They don't scream at town-hall meetings and they don't show up for 9/12 strategy sessions.
The Wonks notwithstanding, the first four groups combine to make a force to be reckoned with, and the various teams feed off of one another nicely. The Greedy aren't a big enough group to disrupt a town-hall meeting, but if they can feed some ideas to The Tin-Foil Hats, they can get a lot done. The Partisans can't come right out and acknowledge their concerns, but if they can rope in The Dupes, their combined efforts can make a considerable difference.
A reader emailed me recently, saying, "I don't understand why the wingnuts are so angry." My suspicion is they're angry for different reasons, many of which will fade if/when Democratic policymakers manage to do the right thing.
Follow Steve Benen on Twitter: www.twitter.com/stevebenen
What are you smoking? A public option that will enable employers to dump more expensive plans and put their employees in it does not emphasize competition and choice.
Your comment about not increasing the deficit or raise middle class taxes is only true if you believe in wishonomics vs economics.
You forgot a category that is opposed to Obama's plan. The intelligent elderly. These are the people who realize you cannot increase the number of participants, maintain quality while reducing costs. They have enough knowledge and sense to realize this plan goes eventually to rationing and they are smart enough to know who will be on the short end of that stick.
This nothing in the Constitution that authorizes the federal government to force Citizens to have health insurance.
Government has NEVER demonstrated ANY ability to provide effective, efficient, cost effective services of any type. NEVER. They've STOLEN every penny of 72 years of Social Security withholdings and replaced it with a Ponzi scheme. The federal government is demonstrably incompetent to provide the services they claim they will provide under HR 3200. Read it and you will find a much different story than the administration's talking points.
We've trusted federal government to provide healthcare for Veterans and Native Americans for generations. They have failed horribly, and that is in servicing only about 1% of the population.
Existing healthcare is prohibitively expensive because the federal government subsidies and authorizations make it that way. If Americans can't afford healthcare now, how will we afford healthcare for the alleged additional 47 million uninsured?
It is impossible to dramatically increase:
RISK (no prior condition exclusions, no denial of coverage, no increase in premiums, no refusal of policies),
USE (no co-pay to moderate sniffles visits);
USER BASE with no increase in healthcare providers while telling providers their compensation will be significantly reduced: and expect a satisfactory outcome.
If you want low cost, quality healthcare the ONLY solution is to remove ALL government subsidy and control of healthcare. It will get ugly for a while, but it won't take the free market long to adjust.
According to Steve, "Why would people who stand to benefit from health care reform ...legislation that would help them and their families? President Obama supports an approach to health care reform that emphasizes competition and choice, doesn't increase the deficit, and wouldn't raise middle class taxes ... "
Yeah... right....
Under Obama-care most people will have LOWER medical services under national health care than existing insurance policies. If not, why is Congress and Obama not signing on for this wonderful system for their families, eh? They all know coverage will be less.
Competition? With HIGHER TAXES subsidizing the national health care option? That's paying for an inefficient government program via taxes vs. policy premiums. It's hiding the payments and is dishonest.
Choice? With a LEGAL MANDATE to join an approved national plan if your policy changes anything?
You're asking - by anyone's survey - 70+% of the American people who are HAPPY with their current medical insurance to change. The voters deserve an honest justification.
Finally, name one, just one, government health program the U.S. government has ever run in all of history that provided competition, choice, lower costs, lower taxes and doesn't increase the deficit. Heck man, I defy you to name one health program run by any government in world history that can show this claim.
Bring on THE FACTS if you dare. I'm betting you can't and won't.
GOVERNMENTS, anywhere, at any time in history, have never run a cost effective social programs...NOT possible.
If your business had zero competition(like any government program), you would be charging more giving less and sleeping in.
What you fail to acknowledge anywhere in your article, Mr. Benen, is that nearly every group you describe with your demeaning put-downs are simply sick and tired of the power-grab by this narcissistic administration and the trampling of the Constitution that they demonstrate every day.
The reason people are opposed to this health care bill is because we don't want an inept federal bureaucracy that can't even run a letter and package delivery organization without losing 7 billion dollars a year, to be responsible for our health care system.
We have enough socialism already running rampant as a result of this administration (nationalizing of the financial system, nationalizing the auto industry, the impending nationalization of the energy industry through Cap & Tax) and we do not want another 1/7th of our economy taken over by the government.
Do we need reform? Absolutely. There have been numerous proposals put forward by Republicans (HR 3218 for one - 24 pages long, doesn't cost the taxpayer a penny and does more for health care recipients than the joke of a piece of legislation put forward by the Socialist Democratic party), but the state-run media would rather cover a few right-wing fringe knuckleheads at a Town Hall meeting than cover alternative proposals that would actually improve health care without asking the all-mighty government to take it over.
Here is a suggestion that will please everyone. Why don't all of you conservatives pack up and move to that economic free market paradise called Somalia. No government there to interfere with you. Health care is not an issue because there is none. The media won't pose a problem because it doesn't exist either. You can even indulge in real piracy if you care to.
I for one am sick and tired of this country being turned into a third world banana republic by the genocide of the American middle class performed by the ultra rich right wing who will not rest until all American workers are forced into indentured servitude. What is next, a great hunger like the British used to exterminate the Irish in the 1840's?
PS Don't beat me over the head with the Constitution, the Republicans who were in charge showed abslutely no respect for it.
If you needed a heart transplant which country would you fly to? Well we all know that America is still #1 at something - health care. But that doesn't stop the loony left from wanting it to become the same as public education - 3rd world in quality.
The few problems we now have are due to the government - like preventing insurance companies from offering nationwide health insurance plans like we have with car insurance. Look at any problem and the government caused it.
Now you want the same government, the one that is totally bankrupting our country, to "fix" health care?
Dream on...
HR676 (http://hr676.org) Single Payer system that is proven, pro-business and pro-people:
* Slashes at least 30% of costs off the top by removing private insurance overhead.
* Companies take health care expenses off their books. Stock value increases. Better able to compete internationally.
* Small companies could have access to higher skilled workers because previously they couldn't compete in the labor market by offering similar benefits.
* More entrepreneurial ventures will launch since they have more money and less unrelated risk.
* Dramatic drop in bankruptcies.
* Dramatic drop in lawsuits. Most of these lawsuits are simply to obtain money to cover health care if something interrupts their coverage.
* Reduced system complexity. Greater efficiency due to fewer regulations.
* Savings from employees not having to fight with their insurers during work hours.
* HSA and MSA dollars redirected back into the economy for goods and services.
* Additional money to spend from not having to carry "uninsured motorist coverage" on your auto policy.
* Contract employment is more viable for workers since they are guaranteed access to health care.
* People are covered when unemployed. No chance of being wiped out financially if you lose your job.
* Health care providers (doctors, hospitals, therapists...) see increase in business with much less administrative expense.
EXACTLY!
This approach would unleash an entrepreneurial Renaissance that this country hasn't seen. It would actually get us back to innovation dominance that we currently cede to China, Japan, Europe, etc...
I'm talking about HARD products. Not the "make believe" stuff coming out of Wall Street that nearly sank the entire planet's financial system.
According some reports from the own health care insurance industry, about 6 million Americans will travel abroad because they can not afford the costs on this country.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/03/27/india.medical.travel/index.html
The statement above is the perfect example of how ideological fanaticism and ignorance is guiding this health care debate .How can you have a rational discussion with this people?
Patriotism has been historically the perfect weapon for tyrannizing people: not reason, not empirical evidence is enough when you are blinded with some abstracts ideas that doesn't match with the current reality.
What a sad country.
It talks of people going to India for treatment for treatment, for several reasons-
-Cheaper (for folks from the US) - this is market forces, the kind that will disappear in the US if we allow ourselves to be propelled towards a single payer system
-Care not available (from less developed countries)
-Tired of waiting (from COUNTRIES WITH NATIONALIZED HEALTH CARE!)
I'm not one of those you call "tin-foil hat," but I'm always appalled when personal attacks and impugning one's motives are used in place of real argument. ON BOTH SIDES, it still stinks.
Will $500 billiion need to be trimmed from Medicare's budget or not? If so, where will you find the cuts beyond Medicare Advantage?
Will the reimbursement rates and premiums for the public option be set so low as to entice America's employers to abandoning private insurance? if so, how does this square with Obama's "promise" that "If you like your current plan, you can keep it?"
How do you bring 47 miilion uninsured Americans into a health care system without vastly expanding the pool of doctors, and expect that fees will NOT go up? Do you know the Law of Supply and Demand?
Why don't you start with THOSE questions.
And leave the personal attacks out of it.
Keep flailing about, and keep attacking anyone who doesn't tow the line for whatever hair brained scheme the goverment comes up with.
You are doing wonders for your cause, really.....