As i surf the internet on this rainy afternoon I keep noticing a trend in the reporting on Healthcare legislation in the US. Most of the journalists (particularly thos from the Washington Post) seem to be taking the position that Obama it fighting for his Presidency right now. Naturally republicans are taking this to heart and have begun making wild statements about "bringing him down" and making the healthcare debate "his waterloo". Of course the news media has jumped on this story an run with it, with even (fairly) liberal blogger Ben Smith penning a peice where he says, "Finally, we're starting to see him sweat"
Now nobody expected healthcare reform to go smoothly, but i think many are surprised that its going so roughly. It is begining to look like there won't be a finished bill by the august recess despite the White house's full on media offensive (and Obama's nationally televised news conference). This will, in turn, spur the media to spin stories about how Obama has lost power, how his agenda is in danger, and whatever can he do to get things back on track?
The fact of the matter is that this entire episode is somewhat self imposed by Obama, and I'm kind of at a loss of words to see why he has forced himeslf into this position. By emphasising the august deadline its almost as if he's trying to test out his legislative influence..and as we're seeing, its not just the republicans that are pushing back. Instead of waiting for september (which is when procedural rules will kick in making healthcare legislation much easier by forcing an end to debate and denying the right to filibuster) he's pushing the envelope here. Maybe he's got something else up his sleeve, but it seems to me that he could have just waited this one out for another month. As it is, he's going to take a pounding throughout august as the pundit class faults HIM for the senate's inaction (Pelosi has already scheduled a vote for the end of july on the house version of the bill and has repeatedly said they will vote).
Another aspect of this is the lack of personalization that the issue of healthcare has gotten so far in the media and debate about reform. We've heard a lot about numbers: the number of uninsured, the costs associated with reform. But we've heard less of the impact on normal americans in a more personal sense. An article by Matthew Yglesias got me thinking about this last night. The basic gist is that many of the people that would (or could) be up in arms about reform aren't, because they don't really see how thier lives would change with it. One statistic that stood out is that 90 percent of voters have healthcare (vs around 80% of the population as a whole) and thus aren't that worried about it.
What they don't realize (because the debate hasn't been framed that way yet) is that most of them only have insurance because of their job. Those that are losing their jobs come to realize very quickly that health care reform is needed (perhaps a silver lining to the 9.5% and rising unemployment rate?), but those that aren't don't nessescarily see the hidden costs of our system, because a lot of the costs are payed by the employer. Thus, they aren't really mobilized or upset about the current configuration and are content to let their congressmen wrestle with the issue.
We can beging to see a bit of an improvement in the framing of the debate in last nights speech by Obama. The theme was "What's in it for me?" and I think that is exactly the right tone to take. The american people really need to see that there is a way to have healthcare without being dependent on your employer, and that the healthcare that they probably do have is way too expensive and cumbersome. I'm not talking about publishing more horror stories about how Johnny lost his leg because he didn't have insurance, but more stories about how Frank has worked for 30 years at a job he hates because he needs health insurance for him and his family. I'm talking about addressing the issue of medicare head on, and letting the old folk know that although THEY may have government run healthcare, thier children and grandchildren don't.
I wonder why it has taken so long for the white house to come around to this tactic, and I hope that it's not too late in the game (again, time frame self imposed by Obama) for congress to be cajoled into action.
p.s. I wanted to post a you tube video here, but the server at my company doesn't allow the you tube website to load. So I'll post it later..
As to whether it would be smarter to sell healthcare as a human interest story, something that benefits that bane of intelligent discourse, Joe Sixpack, I ain't so sure. Plenty have pointed out how much happier and healthier people are in countries with universal healthcare, but that seems to be a nonstarter in the States.
ReplyDeleteAnd Yglesias talks about it as if the seniors don't really care one way or the other, but it could well be the case that the haves consciously want to exclude the have-nots because they might end up with a smaller piece of the pie, in which case rising unemployment won't help. It's the same problem as unions guaranteeing jobs for older workers, making it harder for younger ones to get jobs.
I DO think that Obama has been selling out to Congress at pretty much every opportunity (stimulus, environment, healthcare). He's keen on ticking items off his agenda, but he doesn't seem to care HOW they get done, and the Republicans are right to hit him for it.