When legislators talk about the importance of striving for “bi-partisan” legislation, they are usually arguing for legislation that fairly represents the goals and interests of the vast majority of Americans.
But today, only 21 percent of all Americans identify themselves as Republicans. . Sixty-three percent approve of the job that President Obama is doing. Given the state of the economy, this is an extraordinarily high number.
Moreover, a New York Times/CBS poll published Saturday reveals that an overwhelming majority of independents as well as Democrats agree with the president about the need for a public-sector insurance option. The question was remarkably clear: “Would you favor or oppose the government's offering everyone a government administered health insurance plan like Medicare that would compete with private insurance plans?" Seventy-two percent of respondents favored the public option, including 87 percent of Democrats, 73 percent of independents, and 50 percent of Republicans.
The poll also found that most Americans would be willing to pay higher taxes so that everyone could have health insurance. They also said the government could do a better job of holding down health-care costs than the private sector.
So who exactly do conservative Republicans and blue-dog Democrats opposed to a public-sector option represent?
Not the majority of voters. (Note the Progressive Democratic caucus now greatly outnumbers the blue dog Democrats in congress.) Those who oppose President Obama’s goals for healthcare reform are not speaking for the voters. They represent the lobbyists—and the money behind those lobbyists.
In contrast to the president, Congress does not enjoy warm and widespread support from the American people. Many of the Republicans and blue-dog Democrats serving in Congress today are leftovers from the Bush era, a time when Americans had been persuaded that we need smaller government and less regulation. Times have changed. Most Americans now realize that a lack of government regulation led directly to the economic meltdown. They want government involved in their health care.
Some conservatives now in Congress would have a difficult time being re-elected today. One sign of the times: In 2006, Nevada was a solidly Republican state. Today, thanks to an Obama-fueled Democratic surge, registered Democrats outnumber Republicans by nearly 100,000 active voters.
In a democracy, bipartisanship sounds like a worthy goal. But in today’s Philadelphia Inquirer E.J. Dionne asks a pointed question: “Is bipartisanship more important than whether a proposal is practical and effective? And if bipartisanship is a legitimate goal, isn't each party equally responsible for achieving it?” (Thanks to Dr. Rick Lippin for calling Dionne’s op-ed to my attention.)
On Wednesday, Republicans issued their outline for healthcare reform. As Dionne points out, “their core proposals – especially their call to expand health savings accounts . . . push in exactly the wrong direction by further fragmenting the insurance market.”
Their initiatives “might cut insurance costs for those who are not ill, but at the expense of raising the already prohibitive costs for the sick,” he observes. “The marketplace is good at providing options for the well-off and the healthy, but they are not the ones with problems. That's why Obama wants the government to change the health-care market.” Exactly.
“For reasons of principle as well as politics,” Dionne continues, “most Republicans want to rail against the costs of government action and assert – against what I would insist is overwhelming evidence to the contrary – that somehow we can find a way for the market to solve our health-care problems.” The Republicans haven’t offered ideas, only ideology.
The majority of Americans know that “the market” hasn’t –and won’t—cure our health care problems. What would be the point of passing legislation based on a failed ideology, just so that we could say that it was “bi-partisan?” For-profit insurers do not want to compete with a robust public sector plan. But most Americans understand that we cannot afford to bail out another industry simply because it cannot compete. Healthcare reform is enormously important. It should reflect both the will of the American people, and what we have learned from history—not the druthers of a shrinking Republican party, and the lobbyists it represents.
The NYT poll seemed to have some extremely varying data indicating that people don’t have much of a clue as to what is even going on. This statement is pretty telling:
“It is not clear how fully the public understands the complexities of the government plan proposal, and the poll results indicate that those who said they were following the debate were somewhat less supportive.”
The following comment also deserves some light.
“And a plurality, 48 percent, said they supported a requirement that all Americans have health insurance so long as public subsidies were offered to those who could not afford it. Thirty-eight percent said they were opposed.”
This needs to be MUCH higher as coverage HAS to be mandated in a government assisted system.
It’s good to see some consensus however in the general idea of what people want, which is a comprehensive reform.
There is still division however on the overall impact of “gubmint” handling the payload:
“While the survey results depict a nation desperate for change, it also reveals a deep wariness of the possible consequences. Half to two-thirds of respondents said they worried that if the government guaranteed health coverage, they would see declines in the quality of their own care and in their ability to choose doctors and get needed treatment.”
I know you will attribute this to conservative demagoguery but frankly even people “in-the-know” are wary of the proposition. Once you enact something massive there is absolutely no going back. You can giveth but you cannot taketh away entitlements.
It needs to be done right and unfortunately that takes time and hopefully more than a 51 handed vote.
I liked your analysis Maggie, minus the DailyKos link as I have long since declined reading any such drivel. The article may make some good points and be well written but that place is just too much to stomach. Your tone seems to be getting more partisan as this blog matures however.
I am beginning to wonder about these polls talking about public plans.
I think people are thinking that a public plan will involve someone else paying more taxes and nobody paying a premium or co-pay.
The public has a great preference for the I get something and someone else pays for it kind of option.
Thanks for highlighting that CBS/NY Times poll. The people are really ahead of our politicians on this topic. A Ford retiree from Southern Indians said to me the other day: “You know, every minimum-wage worker at the local McDonald’s or dry cleaning shop pays taxes, contributes to the health care for members of Congress, federal and state employees, but can’t afford health insurance or care for themselves and their own families.”
Here are some new stats that give a clear indication of the costs of doing nothing:
Estimated number of uninsured U.S. residents in 2009: 52 million
Increase in that number since 2007: 6 million
Increase in uninsured people in the 13 Southern states* between 2007 and 2009: 2,416,000
Of the 50 million low-income U.S. adults under age 65, percent that have
some form of private health insurance: 22
Percent that are uninsured: 45
Percent of U.S. residents that say someone in their household had trouble
paying medical bills in the past year: 26
Percent of U.S. residents that substituted home remedies or over-the-counter drugs for doctor visits due to costs: 42
Percent that skipped dental care or checkups: 36
That did not fill a prescription: 29
That cut pills in half or skipped doses: 18
Number of Americans who die each year from preventable illnesses: 18,000
Rank of the U.S. among all countries in terms of health system performance,
according to the World Health Organization: 37
Percent of each U.S. health care dollar that private insurers spend on
administration, billing, CEO compensation, advertising, lobbying and
campaign contributions: 30
Percent by which combined profits of major U.S. health insurance companies
increased from 2003 to 2007: 170
Average CEO compensation at top health insurance companies: $14.2 million
Percent of U.S. public that believes health care reform is more important
than ever: 59
Percent of the public that strongly or somewhat supports creating a public
insurance option similar to Medicare: 67
Estimated amount that the U.S. would save annually if it were to do away with private health insurance altogether and institute a single-payer public
system: $350 billion
* AL, AR, FL, GA, KY, LA, MS, NC, SC, TN, TX, VA, WV
from FACING SOUTH, A News and Politics Report,
June 18, 2009 – Issue #180. See Institute Index with sources for each data item at http://www.southernstudies.org
While looking for this source, I came across research on the impact of rising unemployment in the rural south and in certain predominantly rural western states. As unemployment rises, there is the concomitant increase in the numbers of uninsured. (There’s something about the estimated numbers that is more startling than the percentages.)
It’s ironic to note that several of the Senators who oppose the public option, and who won’t even allow discussion of single payer, represent those rural states.
Pudge–
How many people do you suppose were in favor of civli rights and integrating schools?
The fact that the polls show the majority are willing to pay higher taxes for universal coverage is what is important.
A “requirement” makes people nervous because they don’t know what they will be required to buy, what it will cost and you will qualify for how much subsidy.
Also, many younger single people resent the idea of
contributing to the insurance pool. (IF you polled them, many would probalby say they don’t want to contribute to Social Security either.)
But they don’t have a choice.
As you say, we have to have a mandate if we are going to tell insurers they have to cover everyone, regardless of pre-existing conditions and can’t charge them more.
Everyone has to get into the pool: everyone in, no one out.
Yes, once you enact universal coverage, you can’t take it back. And why would you want to?
We are the only developed country in the world that doesn’t provide healthcare for all if its citizens. This is shameful.
People need to stop worrying about themselves (I might lose something I think I need!!) and start thinking in term of society.
The culture of greed and Me, Me, Me has brought this country to the point where we were in 2008–
Now, we have a good government, and a chance to do the right thing. That means, as Obama said in his inaugural “putting childish things away” (including the selfishness of childhood) and sacrificing for each other. He is saying: “Grow up America.”
Sorry you have a problem with Daily Kos– in fact the post did an excellent job of summing up the numbers in the NYT article. The piece on Kos was simply better written than the Times piece–using the same facts.
Hardly “drivel.”
(These days, I’m afraid the Times is short-staffed and writers and editors are rushed.)
You’re comparing healthcare to civil rights? I haven’t tried comparing apples to a drum of Vaseline yet, maybe now is the best time to trite…try. The constitution does not deem it necessary to award every person healthcare coverage atm while it does guarantee voting rights. Not saying that’s good or bad, but I am saying that your issue-comparison is faulty considering OUR national standard of liberty.
“Yes, once you enact universal coverage, you can’t take it back. And why would you want to?”
In light of this statement would you like to take back the 700B bailout from Sept.? Most “professionals” deemed it expediently necessary; was it not done to save a collapsing system whose failure would portent the doom and death knell of us all? Was it not done incorrectly such that maybe revisions should have been made before enacted? Was it not rushed and pushed through without significant interjection? In short yes, legislation does not always turn out “peachy” in hindsight (see Stimulus). Why ignore the past…especially when its merely months removed. We don’t have to go all Cold Case to figure this one out. Dems, Repubs, meh…both of them are problem-makers, not solution-finders.
“We are the only developed country in the world that doesn’t provide healthcare for all if its citizens. This is shameful.”
Providing healthcare and providing coverage are certainly two different animals. No one has a right to someone else’s labor (especially when so many choose to so vehemently offset the fruits of it, most notably obese/smokers/drinkers/the less-chaste/mustache-wearers et al.) but they should have a rightful claim to receiving assistance (catastrophic coverage) when facing severe medical traumas/difficulties without the risk of bankruptcy. Like it or not, some major aspects (not nearly all) of a healthful state of being are plain common sense. I’m not psyched about paying for the ever-increasing number of people that make an actively selfish (you mentioned this term I believe) choice to neglect their health. Harriette you need to find a statistic about the increasing number of obese people since the beginning of this millennium.
I may not have been clear on the drivel. I said that it could possibly be well-written and informative but the KOS as a site is truly shameful. It’s the FOX news extra-dimensional-alter-ego in the intrawebz!
Where is the ingenuity, the innovation? “Damn the torpedoes England’s Universal Coverage ahead…money we don’t need no stinkin’ money…” seems as much a bandwagon anymore as the “pseudo free-marketeers” that republicans became. We owe ourselves something better, something that will not be decided with little forethought as to the consequences or outcome…Massachusetts did what?!?!.
I agree with a good portion of what you have to say before you hit the warp speed “there is no other alternative that is worth considering that gets the job done” button.
Anyway I have nothing left to contribute in this vein.
Ginger B.,Pudge, Harriette,
Ginger B– The poll makes it very clear that the public plan would be “like Medicare”
Everyone knows that Medicare recipients pay premiums and co-pays– I doubt anyone thinks a public option would be free. . ..
Pudge:
Perhaps you remember the phrase “inalienable right” to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”?
If you don’t have the healthcare you need, you cannot pursue life, liberty or happiness,
Though rather than talking about healthcare as a right I prefer talkiing about it as a “moral obligation” for any civilized society.
A civilized society recognizes that all humans are vulnerable to disease—this is something we have in common—and so we willingly pool our resources to protect each of us against the hazards of fate.
I wrote a post about this here http://www.healthbeatblog.org/2008/10/is-healthcare-a.html
As for no one having a “right” to someone else’s labor, here you are parroting Ayn Rand’s philosophy–outdated, outmoded and generally discredited.
Morever, in this case, people who choose to become doctors take a vow to put their patients’ interest ahead of their own interest–including their own financial interest.
Finally, your attitude toward people who “don’t take care of themselves” suggests that you don’t realize the strong connection between poverty and obseity, smoking, excess drinking etc.
(In the same post, I provide a link to the medical research in this area.)
Harriette– Unfortunately, many Senators from poor states do not represent the many poor people in those states.
Maggie:
It is interesting to note that Jefferson submitted the excerpt in the Declaration of Independence to read as “life, liberty, and the pursuit of possessions.” It was changed to “happiness” by a committee.
I guess you could say one has a right to possess health.
Aside from legal connotations, I believe rights are relative.
By that I mean, people have individual rights only in relation to the community.
How much pressure does the individual’s rights put on the community?
This goes back to the famous Jewish saying “If I am not for myself, who will be for me? If I am only for myself, who am I?”
Shalom,
Don Levit
Don–
Actually, “life liberty and possessions” comes from John Locke–18h century philospher.
We don’t know exactly how it was changed to happinesss in the Declaration of Independence.
But of course at the time “possessions” included slaves. As a slave-owner Jefferson was acutely aware of this.
So perhaps he (or someone else) decided they did not want the Declaration of Independence to be a brief for slavery. (As you know, Jefferson was terribly conflicted about slavery. )
As for your second quote, everyone I know always puts the emphasis on “only for myself, I am no one.”
Among Jewish poeple I know “If I am not for myself . . .” is taken as a very old-fashioned justification for
“the Jews must do what is best for the Jews”—and over-reach in the Middle East.
Maggie:
Well you can’t stereotype Jewish people. And, you certainly can’t use your sample as representative of Jewish thought.
Your statement about the Middle East makes me squirm, but I will have the self-control to simply say I was talking about ethics, not control of land.
Do you think it is appropriate for an individual to continue receiving expensive heath care treatment, and not care one iota about the effect on the community?
Even if shown to be effective, he can simply continue the “run” on the insurance company, and to heck with anyone else?
Don Levit