There is no doubt that the American healthcare system needs to be changed.
The problem is that the public — the people who the reforms are supposed to help — doesn’t seem to understand how the amorphous change that has been placed on the table will fix things.
A mix of over-the-top and unhinged opposition from the far right and the GOP (are they the same thing at this point), a hands-off approach on the part of the president (until recently) and an overly technical and ridiculously complicated plan that may or may not include the one thing the public does understand (the public option) has created a level of confusion that is going to be difficult to overcome.
Consider this information from the poll released today by The New York Times:
Majorities of respondents said that they were confused about the health care argument and that Mr. Obama had not a good job in explaining what he was trying to accomplish.
“The Obama administration seems to have a plan, but I’m not understanding the exact details,” Paul Corkery, 59, a Democrat from Somerset, N.J., said in a follow-up interview.
However, and this is key, he continues to work in an environment in which the public is more likely to believe what he has to say than his opposition.
By a margin of 52 percent to 27 percent, Americans said Mr. Obama has better ideas about overhauling health care than Republicans. And the percentage of Americans who approve of how Mr. Obama has handled health care has gone from 40 percent in August to 47 percent now, about equal to where it was earlier in the year.
On one of the most contentious issues in the health care debate — whether to establish a government-run health insurance plan as an alternative to private insurers — nearly two-thirds of the country continues to favor the proposal, which is backed by Mr. Obama but has drawn intense fire from most Republicans and some moderate Democrats. The poll suggested that Mr. Obama’s big effort to deal with concerns about the health care plan has enjoyed, at best, mixed success. In the poll, 55 percent of Americans said Mr. Obama has not clearly explained his plans for changing the health care system, and 69 percent said they thought the health care reforms under consideration in Congress was confusing.
What does all of this mean? First, the numbers make it clear that the public wants a change in the healthcare system and trust the president more than they trust the GOP. And, perhaps more importantly, the public is smarter than the politicians. It is the public, after all, that views the dance happening in Washington over health care as unnecessarily uncomplicated.
The public understands the benefits of a public option — that competition from a government run program would keep the healthcare companies honest — and that forcing people to carry insurance without giving them someplace to go aside from the insurance companies is nothing more than a huge government giveaway.
The danger right now is that the current parameters of the argument are focusing on the wrong things — the deficit, for instance. We should be talking about what a lack of health insurance means for us and our neighbors, how it leaves too many vulnerable to illness and the economy, and how that vulnerability is bad for society as a whole. We should be focusing on how the system fails us every day and offering a clear plan to address it.
We should be talking about a single-payer system, which would remove profit from the system (health care companies boost profits by denying care) and place all of us on an equal plane. I know that is not going to happen at this moment in history, so we need to push hard for a public option and use the public option to prove to our neighbors and friends that a public plan is better for all of us.
Hank Kalet 
*** begin quote *** We should be talking about a single-payer system, which would remove profit from the system (health care companies boost profits by denying care) and place all of us on an equal plane.*** end quote *** Sorry to tell you but then you will have a very expensive gooferment bureaucracy denying care.Look at the VA (e.g., \”My doc is trying to kill me\”). Look at the Indian Health System (e.g., \”Don't get sick after June\”). Look at Medicare (e.g., \”If medicare denies your claim [for a Jazzy], we give it to you for free!\”).And, when the gooferment bureaucrat decides that you can't get your hair plug replacement therapy, or that needed \”experimental\” procedure, to whom are you going to appeal? Your local newspaperman who urged this on you? Your Congressperson? No! The gooferment is exceeding its role. Want single payer? Move to any of the lovely jurisdictions that have it: Canada, England, Sweden. And, when you get really sick, come on back.Progressives always want to give gooferment control. We need to stop this march to socialism before it kills us.
Hold the presses, folks! We'll just follow the libertarian health care plan. Seek charitable assistance for your $80,000 heart operation, easy as pie, especially when you're dealing with a major debilitating medical condition. Libertarianhealthcare.nutty wants to turn us into a nation of beggars. If a woman has uterine cancer, she must go on the street seeking alms for the operation and recovery period and all the subsequent check ups that last for years. Please sir or madam, will you please contribute to my annual $150,000 dialysis bill? Just drop your alms in the can. Or the alternate but not mutually exclusive libertarianhealthcare.nuts plan is…….tough luck, you didn't save for a medical emergency so drop dead or your children will have to drop dead or any of your non-veteran loved ones under 65 who don't qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP will have to drop dead, too.Recent polls have shown that seniors and veterans are very satisfied with Medicare and the VA.The VA is socialized medicine while Medicare is an example of single payer health care with parts of it privatized. The privatized parts of Medicare are less efficient and more costly than regular Medicare. Medicare Part D is a privatized part of Medicare.Why not copy the Swiss or Dutch health care systems which are based on private insurance for the most part? They are not socialized but they are universal and cover everyone. No one goes bankrupt from medical bills in those countries.Libertarians have absolutely no empathy, they just robotically repeat the catechisms, the rote responses or formulaic statements of their ideology. This term, \”gooferment,\” is getting really old, rancid, it's well beyond verbal rigor mortis.
Clearly, we have to have some type of transition from the \”gooferment messed up\” system we have today to a new and improved freedom-based system in the future. People have made life plans based on what they've been told by the gooferment. We can't just rip the rug out from under them and say \”too bad; you shouldn't have trusted us. We lied.\”First, we can eliminate the tax preference for employer paid health insurance. (Employer's get a deduction; individuals don't!) We'd have people buy health insurance like life insurance. Second, if we decide that we need universal health insurance, we can give a refundable tax credit or a voucher for the average health insurance policy in that zip code. No giant bureaucracy needed. Third, we can limit all mandated coverages (i.e., hair plugs and such).Fourth, lets form up the ideas that EVERY congresscritter agrees with (i.e., interstate competition; etc. etc) and put those in place.Then after a year let's evaluate where we are. And, see if we still have a problem.Quiet, reasoned, progress to solve a problem that is well-defined.
Oh, and I forgot TORT REFORM!!!
The Texas tort reform model has been an absolute disaster for TX and it has not lowered medical costs. TX is 50th in health insurance coverage. Tort reform was supposed to lower costs, it didn't. It was supposed to draw more doctors to TX, it didn't.As it stands now, tort reform is a function of the states. Most of the states already have enacted some level of tort reform; TX has a more draconian level of tort reform in effect and it has not worked to lower costs.Mr. Libertarian is against big government and yet he wants the federal government to impose tort reform on all the states. That's what tort reform means, i.e., that the federal government would impose tort reform on all 50 states, thereby by overruling the states. Currently, tort reform is enacted by the states. I thought libertarians wanted hands off the free market and yet they want big government to step in and limit the rights of lawyers to practice their craft? It's OK to regulate torts but not the insurance companies? I thought libertarians were against regulations? Ironique, n'est-ce pas?Tort reform will have little to no effect on health care costs. The GAO and the CBO both did studies on torts and concluded that medical torts were a small fraction of overall health care costs. Tort reform is a myth vomited up by the GOP, right wingers and libertarians.
Anon – You are out to lunch. All my friends from Texas can't stop talking about the reforms & the postive impact its had. You are out of your mind if you think that a gov't run progam would pay for anyone's 80K heart surgury. Check this out if you want just a few examples of how a National health care system would operate:http://michellemalkin.com/2009/08/09/death-panels-what-death-panels-oh-those-death-panels/I hope to God for my children that people like you do not win this argument.
Hello and thanks for the post. I know that many Americans are quite sceptical about single-payer health insurance system, but being Canadian I dare say that there are a lot of myths. The Canadian system provides 100% insurance coverage and is much less costly (less than 10% of the Canadian GDP) than the American one(more than 15%). Take care,Lorne
Many of us have always believed that greed is one of the factors that make our healthcare system the most expensive in the world.. Government has a place in keeping businesses…lawyers, drug companies, doctors, insurance companies…from making excessive profits off of people who can least afford it.Even Republicans are starting to get behind the concept that government intervention on behalf of consumers is not only necessary…it is also good.If we can put arbitrary caps on jury awards, we can put those same caps on the profits that drug companies, hospitals, doctors and insurance companies make.Tort reform in itself will only save our 2 trillion dollar a year healthcare system about 0.5%In itself…not a significant amount. But if you take the concept further and start putting caps not only on lawyers, but doctors, hospitals , insurance companies and drug companies…now you are talking real savings.Government limits to jury awards. Yes.Government limits to doctors fees. YesGovernment limits to drug companies profits. YesGovernment limits to insurance companies profits. YesNow we are all talking the same language