Almost every day here, there are great diaries about health care. We can get lots of details about what's going on. We hear what the politicians are talking about, we can understand better than most average people just exactly what a trigger is and how a coop might work.
Just today, we have another great diary by slinkerwink about what the politicians are doing. Downtowner provides us with another compelling story of life with and without health insurance in the US. Machiado gives some details about how the politicans are parsing their words like the first class lawyers and politicans they are. Each day here at kos, we're able to have indepth conversation on the issue.
But, the main conversation in the US does not include much of this information. Tell someone in a casual conversation that you are against triggers, and they will stare blankly at you until you explain what a trigger is. Often, it's too much detail. You lost them. They want some sort of change in health care, but they're busy and distracted.
The main talking points I'm coming across are that this is all going to be too expensive and so while it all might have been a nice idea, we probably shouldn't do it right now. Then, there are those who are not happy with what they've got, but it's the evil they know. They're afraid of change.
And then my congresswoman calls with a tele-town conference, and I get to hear a variety of questions and concerns on this health care topic. That's what all but one of the questions was about. But, it's still just people who have been interested enough in the political process to have contacted the congresswoman before. In a country where so few people vote, that can't be a very high percentage of her constituients.
So, I thought I'd list some of the comments and questions I've heard from the "anti-change in health care" people. I think that any additional ideas and tips I can get will only help in the conversation.
The most common thing I hear is that "people who use government run health care in other countries all say ours is better."
Funny, these "people" never have a name. And I've never run across one of them myself. My own congresswoman uses this to explain her preference for the republican "plan." Ed Schulz has had some great ideas on this, including a field trip to Canada, and now I tell people to listen to his show once in a while to hear if any senators take him up on this and just exactly what they learn first hand.
Will health care run by the government be like going to the welfare or unemployment office?
I mean, geez, I don't have to deal with waiting on metal chairs and listen to babies cry right now. I don't have to stare at dirty walls while I wait for hours to be seen by some indifferent government or union worker. How do you answer this guy? His whole point just sounds like a scare tactic to me. I'm not even sure he wants to hear about optional private coverage, but that also seems like a trap. So, we have government health care, but I'll still need private insurance? So you're admitting that government care won't work? Mention countries that currently succeed in using blended government/private care, and they're suddenly lost. Or you're a European socialist.
Where will all the doctors come from if we make sure that the 45 million people who aren't covered right now get to see doctors?
I gotta admit, this one stunned me. Heartless, I first thought. But, where will the additional doctors come from if even poor people get to waltz into a doctor's office whenever they want? I have no answer for this guy. I think he's a heartless prick, but I can't refute his point. By the way, this question came from my congresswoman's teleconference. And she agreed with this caller that making sure everyone has what "we" have will be a real problem that hasn't been well thought out by "their side." Republicans are very comfortable saying this. They make it an us & them issue between people who still have something and people who do not. Someone later brought up nurse practitioners and programs like WIC, but that is not effective if you're telling people that they will still get to see their doctor. Wait a minute! All of a sudden I won't get to see ANY doctor? Just a nurse?
For the record, we already use a nurse practitioner for many of our kids' sports checkups and things like that. Nurse practitioners are a great alternative.
We can't afford to have any more money taken out of our paycheck for programs that probably won't be there when we need them, like Social Security or Medicare.
Well, I've taken this one apart pretty well I think. But, I'm always interested in people who can add to my list. Our family thinks we currently pay well in excess of $20,000/year for health INSURANCE. Not any form of health care or money to a doctor. Just INSURANCE. My list currently includes:
We have to purchase our own health insurance plan (with high deductable)
A portion of our auto insurance
A portion of our homeowners insurance
Workman's comp
A percentage of EVERYTHING we buy that goes to employer-provided insurance
A % of EVERYTHING we buy that goes to the company's liability insurance
Medicare and Medicaid that we cannot use
Every time I'm in a higher tax bracket because I have to purchase my own insurance and therefore use after tax dollars
All of the government employees I provide for with my tax dollars, from the local park district workers to the President of the United States. Hey - Ron Paul fans - does he take his taxpayer subsidy or does he have paperwork to show he pays for his own?
Nobody who uses the cost argument has ever been able to tell me that a strong public option or single payer will cost me more than this. The redundancies and inefficiencies are obvious.
OMG! I'll have to wait to see a doctor!
This one is easy for me, too. We've had the same doctor for the kids for over a decade. I offer anyone with this fear to call my doctor, say they're me, and say they want a physical. They will wait MONTHS right now with everyone wanting their kids' school and sports paperwork done before August/September. But, say your kid is sick and describe some serious symptom, and they will likely see you as soon as you can get there. Sounds like a foreign plan. Yeah, for some things you might wait a bit. But not if it's serious. This is no different than what I have right now, with a great credit rating and good (expensive) insurance.
I'll pay into another government program and then nothing will be there when I need it.
The stories on the previously insured are endless. Either you lost your job and now can't afford the COBRA, or the COBRA has expired. Or, you're uninsurable with your preexisting condition. Or, you have some of the many jobs that do not offer health coverage. Or, you're like me. You are paying now, but if you get sick and lose the ability to work, you will no longer be able to afford those premiums and you will lose your insurance. So, what's the difference? None that I can see. Bring on the good public plan and I'll put my money there right away. If there is nothing for me someday when I need it, then I'll be in the same boat I am right now. But at least my money will have gone to help SOMEBODY rather than build a fancy new office building for BCBS or line the pockets of some insurance company.
And my main question for congressional Democrats right now? Why in the world are you letting Republicans get away with supporting employer-based insurance in this health care discussion when just a couple short months ago they were saying that it is employer-based insurance that is destroying the US auto industry's ability to compete globally?
Add to my "talking points." And if you've heard some other question that I haven't, please let me know. It all goes to being prepared. And then, after you've made your calls to your congresspeople about health care, get out there and talk to some citizens! It is an easy conversation with most people.