Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
PUBLIC OPINION AND HEALTH CARE REFORM
I'm on board with a lot of what Kevin says about the forces facilitating health reform (and will soon be coming out with an absurdly long article on the subject), but it's worth taking issue with one point. Kevin writes that "The public was in favor of healthcare reform in 1994, but not overwhelmingly — and Harry & Louise were enough to turn them against the Clinton plan. Today, public opinion is far more strongly in favor of healthcare reform." I'm not actually convinced that's true. Below, I've graphed some numbers from recent CBS/New York Times polls asking respondents where they think the health system needs minor changes, fundamental changes, or a complete rebuild. The more individuals in the "rebuild" category, the better off reformers are. The data set is a bit incomplete, so a couple of years are missing, but the trends are useful:
As you can see, the number of Americans asking for a complete rebuild is historically fairly high, but not as high as it was in 1993. 1993, to be sure, was the tail end of an intense recession that would lift by 1994, and 2007's reading was taken while the macroeconomic numbers were fairly good (February, to be exact), but the numbers have remained fairly stable. The good news is that I think these readings suggest the public is -- and has been -- ready for health reform, and you simply need the right combination of presidential leadership, political strategy, and forward-thinking legislation. In other words, I think this could have worked in 1994, if not for the millions of mistakes and misjudgements. But I don't think the evidence suggests that Americans are substantially more upset over the health care situation than they were in the early 90s.
COMMENTS (10)
Well, things are about the same way they were in 1991. Which is good! The public is about to endure $400 million worth of campaigning where a huge part of the message is "we need to make big changes in our health care system to cut cost and provide coverage to everyone".
Posted by: Nicholas Beaudrot | December 20, 2007 4:04 PM
All this is true.
But the MSM won't talk about it without starting from the premise that single-payer is effectively off the table (FAIR had a great bit about this, in re: the 'discussion' ABC Nightly News featured on the subject last week).
And if the MSM won't talk about it, when there is clearly so much sentiment among the unwashed in favor of it, it's because The Village doesn't want to talk about it. How this could be possible, I don't know, but it clearly is the [goddamned depressing] reality "on the ground."
Posted by: Captain Goto | December 20, 2007 4:30 PM
But what you really need to pass health care reform is a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, which ain't gonna happen unless something transformative happens in our political system. (I'll leave you to figure out what that might be.)
Posted by: BobN | December 20, 2007 5:04 PM
But what you really need to pass health care reform is a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, which ain't gonna happen unless something transformative happens in our political system.
Well yes, you probably do need that, but I'd say it's within reach -- at least on this one issue. Remember, not all of those sixty have to have "Ds" next to their names. All that's required is to hold the Democratic caucus together and get a few Republicans to jump ship on this one issue. There's a fair chance the economy will be in worse shape come, say, the spring of 2009 than it is now. I have a feeling obstructing an effort to get everybody covered with healthcare might be politically difficult for some Republican senators -- especially those facing reelection in 2010.
Posted by: Jasper | December 20, 2007 6:27 PM
For Republicans, 51 senators can accomplish ANYTHING. But for Democrats, everything must require at LEAST 60 senators.
Those are the rules that everyone follows.
Posted by: BoyBlue | December 20, 2007 8:17 PM
Universal health care update:
I was feeling under the weather--thought it was serious overwork (I'm self-employed and November is high season in my field). Got more rest and still felt shakey. Realized that it was a recurrence of a hyperthyroid condition I had 14 years ago.
Called the doctor. Got an appointment a few days later (this Monday). She listened to what I had to say about my symptoms, took my BP and heart rate and wrote out a requisition form for several blood tests and an EKG. Went downstairs and got the tests done immediately. Yesterday (Wednesday), the doctor called to confirm the problem. She sent a requisition to an endocrinology clinic, rush order. Clinic called today and I'll be going on Jan. 3.
Cost to me: $0. I love paying taxes for services like this.
Just another day in universal health-care land.
Posted by: A Canadian Reader | December 20, 2007 10:27 PM
"Completely rebuild" plus "fundamental changes" appears to be higher than any year since '93, and it's got to be up in the 90% plus range. And we're still wondering whether we'll get anything at all passed? The world's greatest democracy at work . . .
Posted by: SqueakyRat | December 21, 2007 1:05 AM
Senator Obama has the best chance to not only unite the democrats, but also pull in some centrist republicans into the hearlth care solution. This is the kind of leadership needed.
Posted by: genejockey | December 21, 2007 10:11 AM
"Senator Obama has the best chance to not only unite the democrats, but also pull in some centrist republicans into the hearlth care solution. This is the kind of leadership needed."
Except Obama's plan is pretty crappy.
Posted by: Ricky | December 21, 2007 1:37 PM
fuck this
Posted by: Anonymous | February 17, 2009 12:03 PM