Health care seems like such a dull subject, until you get laid off, or graduate from college, when suddenly it becomes vitally important. At the risk of stating the obvious, there has to be a way to generate a buzz about health care that moves the debate beyond converts.
Support is growing for a rational, efficient health care system. But Amy Goodman
points outs out the obvious obstacle:
One of the most powerful industries in the country opposes it-the insurance industry. Under universal coverage, insurance profits are preserved. Under single-payer, they are not.
I respectfully disagree with those who say the timing is wrong for vocal demands for a single-payer plan. In fact, this may be the best political moment possible, analogous to the 1930s, when FDR almost supported it before caving in to business interests. (It’s worth noting that Britain and Canada did manage to push it through in those years). But I do agree that it’s naive to expect politicians to lead the way.
In the past decade the default argument has been that single-payer health care is a radical form of government intrusion into people’s lives. The media never mentions about how liberating it can be to change jobs without being tied to health care, or to work as a freelancer without being in constant fear of getting sick. Or how it reduces anxiety during a bout of unemployment. The only positive coverage it gets is when manufacturers leave the US in search of a single-payer workforce.
The problem is that candidates who support single-payer health plans suffer as a consequence. I supported Kucinich (at first for his anti-war position) and his health plan, also known as HR 676, but he got the usual reward for political idealism. John Edwards always seemed to have more faith in the health care marketplace than I found persuasive.
So maybe expecting politicians to stake out principled positions is foolhardy. They can’t, and they won’t. If they do, they pay the price. Instead, local mobilizing and letter-writing campaigns are much more effective in shifting the public mood, which then gives politicians the breathing space to look at what really works and what people really want.
There’s a lot of good information out there, but it’s pretty static. Both the Physicians for a National Health Program as well as the American Medical Students Association have decent web sites.
From a more hands-on, activist perspective, the Universal Health Care Action Network also has a pretty comprehensive list of state organizations for those who want to get involved. But again it doesn’t reach anybody who’s not already motivated to learn more.
I propose a letter-writing campaign to local newspapers, triggered by any mention of the health care proposals currently circulating, promoting HR 676 or any other comparable version of a single-payer plan. There’s got to be a way to make this issue exciting and politically relevant, given that lack of access to health care fuels inequality in this country.
My feeling is that the media won't look at issues without a lot of prodding. The latest sensational sound-bite is always going to dominate. It's up to us to change the subject and to do so by moving the debate beyond those who already agree.