The Problem With Healthcare Reform Isn't the American People

by: Ian Welsh

Mon Sep 21, 2009 at 06:00


Ezra Klein has an article whose thesis is that as Americans don't directly pay the full cost of their healthcare since employers pay a large chunk, or they're on Medicare, Medicaid or some form of socialized medicine (the military and the Veterans administration) Americans aren't for radical change.

The problem with this is simple enough.  Polls find that a super majority of Americans, from 70% to 80% want a public option.  A straight up majority want single payer.  That certainly qualifies as radical change.

Americans may not pay the full cost of insurance, but they are well aware of the full cost of health care.  About 60% of all bankruptcies are caused by health bills, everyone who is self-employed knows the full cost, and people who get sick routinely had claims denied or lose coverage.  The full cost of healthcare becomes evident when you get sick, and the health care you thought your insurance provided doesn't actually appear, or you have to fight tooth and nail for it.

Everyone may not have experienced these costs and problems directly, but I'd be willing to lay long odds that almost no Americans haven't had them happen to a friend, co-worker or family member.

And so, contra-Ezra, in fact Americans are ready for radical change.  Even if you don't consider the public option radical, single payer is, and a majority of Americans want it.  One might argue that that the intensity of desire for change is not there, that there haven't been huge crowds in support of health care change, but the problem there is Obama has been rather wishy-washy. He isn't offering single payer, which is what would get the hard left out in large numbers, and he isn't even willing to say that his bill must have a strong public option.  His plan, and those offered by the House and Senate, have a mushy feel to them.  "Might pass this, might not, and we aren't committed to it."

It's hard to get worked up for mush and so, by and large, people aren't.

But still, it's clear Americans want radical change of the health care system.  It's the politicians who don't.

Specifically Democratic conservative Senators like Baucus and Conrad, virtually every Republican Senator, and President Barack Obama, who ruled out radical change in the form of single payer and who won't insist on even a bad public option, let alone a truly robust one, are the ones who don't want radical change.

And yes, it's probably because American politicians don't feel the cost of health care: they're fully covered, and virtually all of them are millionaires.

So, no, the problem isn't American citizens not having the appetite for necessary radical change.  The problem is American politicians.

Ian Welsh :: The Problem With Healthcare Reform Isn't the American People

Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
healthcare needs more suffering? (0.00 / 0)
The thing is, Ezra's basic point is wrong, and it's a bigger problem than just one blogger getting excited about neo-liberal economics.  For a second, take his point seriously:

If people are insulated from health care costs, the system's expenses will explode out of control.

If that were true, then France, England, Canada, Germany, etc., would logically have much more expensive and out-of-control health care spending than us, because they are much more insulated from health care cost than we are.  In the real world, that doesn't actually happen.

It's a bigger problem than just Ezra, because it appears that the CBO analysis, and Wyden's whole approach depend on Ezra's broken assumption.  (And it's too close to the Libertarian argument to abolish the Fed because people should feel the true pain of recessions.)

In practice, having political control over the actual hospital and doctor expenses has been much more effective than just forcing people to pay their own insurance premiums.  Paying your own premium doesn't give you any influence over the underlying costs, as the breakdown in the individual and small business insurance market should make clear.


the problem is money (4.00 / 1)
the insurance lobby has lots, regular people don't. really, it seems that simple to me. logic, history, math and science all clearly demonstrate that universal single payer is the only way to go, and strengthens the economy to boot, never mind being the civilized and humane solution. but so long as the insurance lobby is able to funnel millions a day for Village hookers and blow, "our" pols won't consider it.

for this reason and several similar examples in areas like the banking and defense industries, i have said for a while now that our focus should be upon two things only: campaign and lobbying reform, and primary challenges from the left. most of the rest of our efforts will fall on deaf ears, or should i say ears stuffed with dollars.  


"The problem with this is simple enough." Yup. But it's not what you say. (0.00 / 0)
I mean, yes, a majority of citizen supports even radical change, but Ezra is right, too, they're not really aware with how big the problem really is. The problem is, Americans aren't aware how much the providers overbill them. The same operation that costs about 40000 dollars in the US can be had for less than 10000 bucks in other western nations. But Ezra doesn't mention that there is much more pork in the system than the lame Rand and Harvard pundits acknoledge. And he idiotically makes it sound as if the primary problem with the republican approach, higher out-of-pocket payments, is that it's unpopular! Of course, it's unpopular, but for very good reasons: The "customers" simply don't have the insight to expertly question their bills, and if the procedures were necessary and reasonably priced. And even if they were, they lavck the market power to change anything about it. And the high copayments actually are the opposite of "insurance", and result in people being driven into bankruptcy because of serious health problems. That's not a desirable outcome for the scoiety, and that isn't a reform that would rive costs down. That's the real problem, but Ezra totally omitts it. Horrible.

Yes, well (4.00 / 1)
agreed for the most part.  I decided to take one important thing he was incorrect about, deconstructing the entire mess would have taken far longer.

[ Parent ]
Right, that story really is a mess. (0.00 / 0)
Looks like Ezra stomping for the republican side of healthcare reform. Horrible. And even though he's too wonkish to be a steadfast liberal, such a pathetically onesided account is not typical for him. He must have had a very bad day.

[ Parent ]
Ezra Is Stumping for the White House (4.00 / 2)
He has been for awhile.  It's just the White House is stumping for the Republican version or, more accurately, is willing to use Republicans and Blue Dogs to water down the "reform" they never really believed in anyway to ensure the corporate donations continue to flow to the Democratic party and its leaders.  In the end, of course, they won't get a single GOP vote, but that won't matter because the GOP will already have served its purpose, which is to pair with conservative Democrats, including Obama, to quash the growing movement for real reform, which is the last thing Obama wants.  But he can't come out and say that, so this allows him to play victim of the GOP, which should weaken him, but won't because the left hates the GOP and so will rally around Obama as a means of fighting the GOP that Obama just sided with time and time again.  

It's not a bad move, really, if you think about it from a neoliberal, corporatist standpoint (which is what Obama is).  

Now if only more "progressives" would recognize this game that Obama is playing and refuse to take true reform off the table because it's not "politically feasible" (and you know you're being played when a politician in an alleged democracy claims something that is supported by more than half the American people is not politically feasible). Unfortunately, on healthcare that ship has sailed and most of the "left" - or at least the progressive blogs - already caved on single payer in favor of the undefined public option (which seemed to be mostly defined as whatever Obama wanted, which Obama was smart enough not to say in too much detail), making Obama's job of selling out reform so much easier than it would have been if he'd been facing a more united left calling for Medicare for All (something most Americans not only understand, but support).

But if it's too late this time, it's not too late to learn from mistakes and not make them again next time.  Although when it comes to Obama, I fear the "progressives" will never really learn.  


[ Parent ]
Exactly (0.00 / 0)
Just as his FISA flip-flop told us everything we needed to know about his political character, Obama's choice of Emanuel pretty much told us everything we needed to know about his political approach. Namely, that he's focused first and foremost in getting reelected, which means pleasing his corporate donors by promoting policies that favor them, outmaneuvering his GOP enemies by co-opting their ideology and policies, holding onto as many of his botlike supporters by fooling them with empty rhetoric, and keeping his left wing at bay by cutting them off at the knees and siccing his botlike supporters on them.

It's not that he isn't interested in advancing good progressive policy, just that for him it has to be done within these constraints, meaning that it will always be diluted by them. He long ago decided to play it safe politically, and to seek to accomplish only that which entailed minimum political risk. He is an accomodating incrementalist, a classic "work within the system pragmatist", as opposed to a true reformer (let alone radical). To me, and others, that's just a nice way of saying that he's a coward, which I believe him to be. But since one isn't supposed to be this blatantly rude (civility apparently being the highest political virtue), let's just stick to calling him a cautious centrist. Uhuh.

True reform is never incremental. It is always radical. E.g. our own revolution, the constitution, Civil War, progressive era reforms, New Deal, Great Society, etc.--all radical. Obama's inability and/or refusal to acknowledge and operate upon this reality makes such reform unlikely to happen under his watch. Ok, perhaps he isn't a coward so much as he's a fool, believing in his own bipartisan centrist bullshit. But I'm not so sure. Surely he's not that stupid. I suspect that it's a front, a carefully crafted facade intended to mask his own political cowardice, his refusal to fight, because he might get bloodied or lose. The last thing we needed at this juncture, at least from our side of the aisle.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton


[ Parent ]
and another Exactly (0.00 / 0)
(and you know you're being played when a politician in an alleged democracy claims something that is supported by more than half the American people is not politically feasible)

No more talk about the naive President Obama.

It's still a big question, I guess, whether or not he can be useful in other areas - his proposal for a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency and associated regulations of the finance world.

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

George Santayana, The Life of Reason, Volume 1, 1905


[ Parent ]
There's still some hope left with Obama (0.00 / 0)
I base this on one, the fact that he's not a moron, which most politicians are (I'm not being snarky, I firmly believe that most of them are literally morons when it comes to policy, as opposed to politics), two, he's not ideologically bound to any one policy school (at least as far as I can tell), having ideological tendencies that lean both mildly right and mildly left, and three, he appears to be the sort of politician who is most responsive to whatever forces apply the greatest pressure on, and most flatter, him.

I.e. he's a weak and vain man, who just happens to be very smart and knowledgable--i.e. another Bill Clinton--and who appears to be "capturable" by whichever faction makes the most appealing policy and political case to him. He is, in short, the ultimate politician--as opposed to the ultimate statesman. So there's still hope, I believe, but only if the left can put up a sufficiently effective appeal to his "better angels". That remains to be seen.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton


[ Parent ]
Thank you - more common sense on Obama (0.00 / 0)
Your comments plus a post today about Rahm Emanuel on Firedoglake go a long way toward explaining Obama's reneging on his campaign promises.

http://seminal.firedoglake.com...

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

George Santayana, The Life of Reason, Volume 1, 1905


[ Parent ]
Why does anyone give a damn what Klein thinks? (0.00 / 0)
If he truly believes in his split the difference Broder 2.0 nonsense, then he's an idiot who should be ignored, or at most smacked down now and then to remind him and anyone who cares that he's an idiot. If he's afraid of a real fight then he's a coward. And if he's shilling for his beltway buddies in the hopes of moving up in the club, then he's an unprincipled hack. Either way, he's not a serious thinker on this issue, on either a policy or political level.

I have no use for people who either consciously tailor their words for maximum approval by those whose approval they most desire, and/or don't know what the hell they're talking about, which he doesn't. It's not enough to cultivate a thoughtful and erudite public persona. You have to actually BE thoughtful and erudite on the issues on which you want to be taken seriously on, which he's clearly not.

The era of conservative idiocy, incompetence and lunacy appears to have been replaced by a new era of centrist idiocy, cowardice and fatuity. All praise be to the keepers of the safe conventional wisdom! Political self-preservation before all!

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton


Who cares? Hey, he's the #1 print and online reporter in the US! (0.00 / 0)
At least according to new meida site Mediaite:
http://www.mediaite.com/power-...
What a joke!

[ Parent ]
Considering who else is on that list (0.00 / 0)
I think it's safe to say that he can and should be ignored. And I'm guessing that the subset of people who take their columns seriously who are also regular readers of this and other serious progressive blogs is miniscule. For progressives to have their ideas heard by both the broader public, and policymakers, they have to compete with, and not merely react to, these fatuous Village asskissers. That has not happened yet, with the exception of people like Rachel Maddow. We need to stop getting so upset at what these morons, fools and liars say, and focus our energies on offering alternative narratives that get noticed and taken seriously by those who matter.

Ezra Klein is the new David Broder, with perhaps a slightly more "leftie" feel. But it's just a feel, not a reality. He lacks the spine to write from a genuinely progressive perspective, because he knows that it would make his job a lot harder and less cushy. And we can't have that, of course.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton


[ Parent ]
"Hard left"? (0.00 / 0)
Please don't make us sound hard-hearted.  How about calling us the "committed left" or the "real liberals"?  

No, here is the problem with the American people (0.00 / 0)
and it applies directly to the health care debate:

Americans want to live beyond their means.

By means, one can speak of economic means, such as whether every tummy ache gets a CT scan, or every knee and back pain gets an MRI.

or the spiritual means: accepting the fact that self, mom, or dad  are going to die, and it is better to do so gracefully and leave some resources for the next generation,

or intellectual means; wanting to have that six-figure lifestyle, but spending afterschool hours playing ball games, "hanging out", or vegging out in front of the latest orgy of cartoon combat on the XBOX 360.

Now, can you blame people for wanting to live beyond their means? Not really; narcissism is part of human nature.

But you sure as hell cannot respect them or pity them the consequence.


You are totally right to point out what Klein's column is missing. (0.00 / 0)
The American public is painfully aware of the high cost of health care, and of buying insurance.

I think you should send this post as a letter to the editor.

It matters because it's the Washington Post.

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

George Santayana, The Life of Reason, Volume 1, 1905


Donate to Open Left








Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search