Today I came to a shocking conclusion: Daily Kos is farther right than the US public on health reform.
The simple reason for this is that polls generally show solid public support for instituting Medicare-for-All. Yet when I did a search over the past two weeks to find Daily Kos stories that mention this concept by its most commonly used name, I found 3 results compared to 44 for "public option." Looking back over the past quarter improves matters somewhat, but it's still pretty bad: 52 results for "single payer" and 242 results for "public option." And there is seemingly a much higher proportion of open threads among the "single payer" stories. You can go to the search page to verify this.
Of course, there are many possible explanations why. I now make a list of some that come to mind.
- Daily Kos story writers personally do not favor Medicare-for-All
- Mentioning Medicare-for-All is seen as threatening to support for the public option
- Mentioning Medicare-for-All is seen as bad tactics since it cannot pass
- The mission of Daily Kos is to report only on what Congress might conceivably consider, and so it can't discuss Medicare-for-All much because Congress has dismissed it
- Discussing Medicare-for-All is dangerous because the corporate media doesn't either
Now I will respond to and refute each of these potential arguments.
First, my sense is that most of the major story authors do favor Medicare-for-All. For example DemFromCT states:
My opinion is that while single payer is worth fighting for (it's my preference), since it has zero chance of passing (or maybe less), the public option should be looked at as the next best thing, and we should line up in support.
I could not find anything that explicit from mcjoan or BarbinMD, but I would guess something similar.
Just for the record, let's remember that the public option currently proposed in HR 3200 will probably only cover about one third of the people in the Exchange by 2019, or about 10 million people. Increasing the number of people eligible for Medicaid should result in more people being covered under that "public plan" by another 10 million people.
These changes are focused on the uninsured, and their numbers are predicted to decline greatly, by about 37 million. The surtax on millionaires is also a sensible funding source. But in terms of reducing overall health system costs it is hard to see what this bill accomplishes. Currently the US spends over 15% of GDP on health care, and that has been projected to rise to a crushing 25% by 2025. We can't avert this disaster without confronting the underlying inefficiencies of the private insurance system.
Mentioning Medicare-for-All will probably improve support for any public option because for most people Medicare-for-All has much larger benefits. Funded through progressive taxation, it would sharply reduce health insurance costs for everyone. The effects of HR 3200 for most are small in comparison. It is much easier for people to lend their support to a clear goal that benefits everyone than directly to a compromise that might not (if the surtax gets replaced in the Senate there is little benefit for most who already have insurance).
Given the relevant international comparisons, it's also a very easy case to make because with few exceptions all other rich countries have publicly funded universal insurance. So the public option as a road to Medicare-for-All is an inherently sounder argument than doing it by itself.
Discussing Medicare-for-All is also good tactics. In the first place, as noted above it makes far more sense for people to rally and generally get excited about Medicare-for-All than a public plan by itself. Therefore the prospects for building a real movement are much greater.
And when I look at the public option polls that mcjoan has quite usefully listed, the numbers don't seem higher than those for Medicare-for-All. The "drop off rate" as we move from the public option to Medicare-for-All seems extremely low. Almost everyone who supports the former will evidently support the latter, except of course in elite circles such as the US Congress and organizations with some stake in the system like the AMA, the AARP and PhRMA.
There are some more recent polls shown in the first link in this diary which are similar.
Blindly following what Congress supports is a very bad move, even when Congress is very united. There is a massive disconnect between what Congress supports and what the American people support on health care. Look at this graph:
While it's quite true that any organization that runs news stories has to comment on what is actually happening in government, it isn't necessary to adopt their political perspective. It's possible to report what happens even while dissenting. Yet the overwhelming statistics on word counts show that dissent isn't happening.
Then there is the issue of differing with the corporate media by being bold enough discuss Medicare-for-All extensively. Would doing this create an unsustainable "radical" image for moderate liberal bloggers who would then bolt Daily Kos? That seems absurd, since most of the public (let alone most liberal bloggers) probably supports it.
The question is: should Daily Kos be an organization that follows what the US public wants or what the US political elite wants? If this blog's role is to discuss what the elite wants, then I think we (the members) should seriously reconsider posting here on health care.