Much has been made of the opposition to healthcare reform by Blue Dogs and other conservatives in the Senate. But while the progressive community does not need further convincing as to the righteousness of pubic healthcare, these conservatives' resistance is based largely on a very real fear of reform on the part of their constituents. (I am not ignoring or discounting the effect of campaign contributions by the health insurance industry, but the fact is that if the senators in question were convinced of the overwhelming support of voters in their states, it would be much easier for them to break with their contributors.)
So the key is still to win the health care debate on its merits in the arena of public opinion, thus lifting the vail of fear from millions of middle-Americans. The majority of those voters have an employer-sponsored insurance plan and a justifiable terror of replacing it with something unknown.
For that very reason, the President has stated over and over, in a read-my-lips tone, that if you like your current health insurance, you can keep it.
That's a big mistake...
The health insurance industry, and their proxies the Republicans, are fighting heathcare reform through a massive disinformation campaign (lies). Basically, their arsenal consists of denegrating the systems in other developed countries and making false claims about the virtues of the U.S.'s existing system. These barrages are augmented by the constant tax and spend and socialism cover fire. By now, the stories of Canadians with long waits for service and Brits denied coverage by unfeeling bureaucrats are all too familiar. The arguments have been easily debunked by many authors; the data is clear that the U.S. pays more, in exchange for worse outcomes. Adding to the argument is beyond the scope of this diary.
My concern is less about what healthcare reform opponents say that is false, and more about what they say that contains the ring of truth. When faced with an argument that has some basis in fact, we have a choice: 1) Deny it and make up our own lies to counter their lies, or 2) Concede the point and re-frame it to turn a perceived negative into a plus. In other words, when faced with fire, we have a choice to fight back with either our own fire, or to try to extinguish the flames using the water of truth.
What realities could possibly be emanating from Republicans in this debate? The main one is that a government-run system would replace the private system, a charge that President Obama vehemently denies.
He shouldn't.
Examining the main healthcare systems in use in the developed world, they fall into two broad categories: 1) publicly financed plans like those in France, Great Britain, and Canada, and 2) systems that include or are based on private insurance like Australia and The Netherlands. However, even in Australia and The Netherlands, the private insurance industry is not free to bar unprofitable policy applicants, charge whatever they want, and deny coverage at the slightest provocation. Instead, insurers are heavily regulated and, in effect, act as proxies for the government, which ensures that they operate in the public interest.
To argue that the U.S.'s current system of private health insurance can continue to operate as it does now, and freely and openly compete with a government-financed plan, is just plain silly, and easily seen through by most.
A relevant comparison is public schools vs. private schools. According to the U.S. Dept. of Education, in 2007 enrollment in private K-12 represented 10.7% of total student population. One can argue that the reasons parents put their children in private school, while simulateously paying for public schools for all, are as varied as there are parents. Still, common themes arise. One is that the public school environment is so offensive to parents in terms of percieved quality of education, addressing of special needs, social climate, and curriculum that they are willing to pay almost any price to avoid it. Obviously this is a minority view. In the face of government competition, private schools basically exist in this country to serve what can rightfully be called a niche market. The same is true of the niche market for moving letters coast-to-coast in one day for $20.00 vs. the government's offer of three days for $0.44. Very few people are going to buy a service when they can get a roughly equivalent service for free (or nearly so), but a few will.
According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), in 2008, 65% of Americans under the age of 65 were covered by private insurance. Is the health insurance industry ready to give up this 65% market share in favor of the 11% share enjoyed by private schools? Not likely. And they will fight with everything they have to avoid this near-certainty should the U.S. get serious about public healthcare.
So the assertion that if you like your current insurance you can keep it is really untrue and indefensible. The private plans will disappear quickly as mainstream offerings if faced with direct competition from the government. The industry knows it and the public can figure it out. I view the elimination of these plans and the companies that offer them as a positive. I am not the least bit concerned about being fair to the private health insurance companies. Given all the pain and suffering they have caused, I am anxious to impose the death penalty. I think that, presented with the facts, an overwhelming majority of Americans will come to agree with that position. I urge President Obama to embrace the truth: In the long run you will not keep your employer-sponsored plan, nor would you want to. The President's retention of his you can keep your insurance argument is, I'm afraid, a severe underestimation of the intellect of Americans. It is another clinging to guns and religion miscalculation.
One reason the Republican party has managed to garner a 21% approval rating is that people can smell their lies a mile away. The best way for Democrats to self-destruct over healthcare is to answer opposition lies with lies of their own. If they insist on doing this, Americans will see that both sides are being disingenuous, assume politics as usual and, unable to find virtue in either side's position, opt for the default of doing nothing.
So let's avoid the temptation to fight fire with fire. I urge the President and all progressives to fight fire with water instead.