Obama, the Working Class, and Health Care

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/carpenter/150




...Yesterday, however, there finally came a poll that was authentically eyepopping as well. It was The Washington Post/Kaiser Family Foundation/Harvard University poll, which looked at white, black and brown 18-to-64-year-old workers who last year earned $27,000 or less...The white workers, at least, were Hillary's exclusive "base." Remember? They were, in turn, Obama's Untouchables -- that vast cut across this great land of Nascar-loving, beer-guzzling, Bible-thumping, "Wheel"-watching, lily-white po' folk who had fallen in love with a Yale-educated millionairess but wouldn't look twice at The Black Man from Harvard. They would, instead, flock to lily-whitest McCain, no matter how much his Bush-Cheney policies dared them...But, according to the WaPo/Kaiser/Harvard poll, it's already time to reformulate that running narrative, because among working-class whites "Obama leads McCain by 10 percentage points, 47 percent to 37 percent" -- which is a parsec or two outside the margin of error -- "and has the advantage as the more empathetic candidate."

Furthermore, among those whites who feel "very" threatened financially, Obama's lead nearly doubles... As for the ethnic subgroups of black and brown, the poll's findings revealed, of course, more of the lopsided same and were therefore exceptionally unnewsworthy. Nonetheless I simply never tire of the joy they bring (especially the following part I've italicized), so I reprint them here in all their familiarity:

"Among the African Americans polled, 92 percent chose Obama as the candidate more concerned with their problems; not a single black respondent said so about McCain, although 1 percent said 'both do.' Hispanics also sided with Obama on that question, favoring him by more than 40 percentage points as the more empathetic candidate...Nearly two-thirds of the white workers surveyed," reported the Post, "want the government to make lower gas prices a 'top priority.'" No surprise there. And there was no surprise in what followed, either, except in the final, six-word dependent clause: "But slightly more, seven in 10, say government should focus on helping people like them find more affordable health insurance, a core component of Obama's campaign."

It is?

The Obama campaign may think it's a core component, and it may be telling the press it's a core component, and I appreciate that its candidate has been distracted of late by world tours and dueling drill bits, but the campaign is decidedly not telling voters that it's a core component. And Obama, it seems to me, from this point forward should be hammering this issue and framing its debate like there's nearly no other. When seven out of 10 working-class whites and roughly two out of three of all voters are pleading for fundamental healthcare reform, and only one candidate is offering it, that candidate might, just might, want to make a central and thundering issue of it. You can seize the day, Mr. Obama, by seizing the issue. Or at least that's what one poll suggests, whose issue-centered findings could very well break you out of that monotonous and precarious three-to-six point advantage in what is, after all, an underperformance.



THE FIFTH COLUMNIST by P.M. Carpenter

There are PLENTY of people for whom our healthcare system works just fine, and they would come out in droves to vote against anyone who proposed UHC. (Remember '94?)

with their health insurance. The latest thing is people rapidly bypassing the 2 million dollar lifetime cap when they become sick and being left on their own. Single payer, universal doesn't mean there can't be private insurance offered to people who can afford to buy it. It does mean everyone gets healthcare on an equal footing.

That's the only way they can have any insurance at all. Many don't have any and don't see a doctor unless it is an extreme problem. You bet we need better insurance and UHC would be wonderful. I also do not know anyone not in favor of it EXCEPT for some doctors but that's even changing. The more people without insurance the more strain it puts on the medical community. Hospital ER's have always run in the red but now it is a gushing river of dept. Meanwhile our leaders in government enjoy a health care system we could only dream of.

I'm 52 years old, my DH works for a self-insured company. We have a manageable deductible/co-pay, manageable premium, and a flex spending account that takes care of the deuctible and co-pay. The taxes to pay for UHC would be huge. Bigger than our premium, and we would probably have far fewer options for services.

We are hardly alone in this.

Voting for UHC would be against our best interests.

or your breadwinner is laid off, disabled, killed, or retired? Try to think of the bigger reality, over longer periods of time.

And then think about your kids as they enter adulthood, or your extended family. The people on whom you depend: a baby sitter, a car mechanic, the paperboy.

It isn't all about you, and only right now. It's about everyone in the country, all the time.

He works for a well-run company. Since he is a financial professional, he is in a position to know that.

He was laid off once, many years ago. He had a very generous severance package, which he had earned. We were able to continue our insurance through COBRA, until he got another job.

We are at the point in our lives where his death or a disability or retirement would not mean the end of medical coverage. That is partly good luck, and partly careful planning.

I will start a new job on Monday. My first full-time job in 25 years. I will have health coverage as part of my benefits package. Those kinds of jobs are still out there.

I understand that things are not the same for others, not nearly as good for everybody. Really. I do feel very fortunate. But the standard line I read so often here about people "voting against their own best interests" is a dangerous one. UHC is most definitely NOT in my own best interests, nor in the best interests of anyone who works for my husband's company, or a whole lot of others, either.

Whether or not I (or others in my position) should vote for the best interests of others is a matter of personal choice. I may choose to make it, others may not.

for them.

The older one is working on his PhD in biology. His university offers health coverage for TA's, but he elected to stay on our insurance. He got married a few weeks ago, then went onto his wife's group coverage.

The younger one is a full-time student, and as such can remain on our group plan until he is 25.

BTW, what a nasty comment to make, just because we disagree.

It's revulsion.

but I'm saying that you are taking a republican stance. Pull yourself up by the bootstraps and plan carefully and work hard like we did. I got mine - Now go out and get your own.

That would be great if we were all given the same opportunities in life. Hopefully you're not so sheltered, ignorant or uncaring as to not realize that in our great country of equality not all people are afforded the same opportunities.

There are people in this world who through no fault or choice of their own do not have insurance and desperately need access to health care. But hey, don't worry bout them. Do what's in your best interest.

pull themselves up by their bootstraps.

I'm just trying to tell you that this is NOT a major issue for many people who will go out and vote in November. The ones for whom it is a big issue--the young, minorities, the underprivileged--have historically not voted in significant numbers to elect a president who runs on those issues.

I think there was a time when opportunities existed in a more or less equal way. Even as late as the '70's, when I graduated from high school, pretty much everyone could have gotten a college education. Many chose not to, instead depending that the manufacturing jobs that had provided good lives for generations were secure. Not so anymore.

"I think there was a time when opportunities existed in a more or less equal way. Even as late as the '70's, when I graduated from high school, pretty much everyone could have gotten a college education. Many chose not to, instead depending that the manufacturing jobs that had provided good lives for generations were secure. Not so anymore."

So those who don't have insurance, it's their own fault? They made the wrong choices? It's their own fault for not going to college because everyone could in the 70's? What about those born in the 30's or 40's or the 80's and 90's?

Yes, it sounds like you're saying pull yourself up by the bootstraps.

It a MAJOR issue in the United States to far more people than it should be. The newest numbers show that one third of Americans do not have the private health insurance that you are fortunate to have. Medical bills are the biggest contributing factors to bankruptcy in this country. Economics is the top issue this November and the cost of insurance and health care will definitely be on peoples mind when they cast their votes.

These are their talking points as well.

Sadie clearly you are insulated from and don't care about the plight of most Americans in this regard. Perhaps you are unaware those most bankruptcies are the result of medical issues. Perhaps you don't care - which sounds more likely.

Just remember you are just one job from being just like the rest of us. jmo

I was just trying to point out that not everyone sees a dire need for UHC. For many people, UHC would be against their best interests.

Remember 1994? Clinton's healthcare plan was the #1 reason for the "Republican Revolution." People didn't see the need, didn't want to lose what they had for a big unknown, didn't believe the numbers about the taxes, didn't want to open the door to such a big program.

Things are somewhat different now than they were back then, but running on a promise of providing UHC would be a very risky proposition for Obama and the Democratic Party.

and not subject to global forces beyond the control of management, that you and your husband will stay healthy and employed and that your premiums will not go up dramatically. Fewer and fewer people are in your position and fewer people are going to make up your constituency of being pleased with your health care. The good jobs that you refer to arent there for everyone any more. The old answer of just get a job with benefits doesn't fly. There's a lot of college educated contractors who are running around without health insurance or who are paying out $1000/month or more on Cobra or self-insurance. Also, we are in for a good healthy recession. So more people will lose jobs and more more people will be losing benefits.

Also, you are making a big assumption that UHC would be worse than what you are getting. Hate to tell you, but I lived in Japan and France with UHC that was cheaper than my policies in the US, and provided more coverage with less bureaucracy. Never had to fight the bureaucracy in these countries the way that I am fighting US Health Insurance --- and, yes, even BC/BS High Option makes you jump through hoops. You might be pleasantly surprised that government can do better than a private corporation. They are way ahead of us on preventive medicine and maternal care. Imagine a nurse/midwife coming to your home for weekly visits to check to make sure everything is going OK. I imagine that your health care policy won't cover that.

which is why I stated somewhere on this thread that things have changed since the electorate rejected the Clinton plan in 1994. I'm just saying that there are a lot of people for whom this is not an issue, and those people are probably the ones way more likely to vote than many of those for whom it is an issue.

I am leary of any government program. I can remember the pre-Medicare days, when doctors made housecalls. When an office visit was affordable without any insurance coverage. Really, once the government got involved, doctors became swamped with minor matters and couldn't make housecalls anymore. They were also free to charge a lot more than they ever had before.

When my mother was in the hospital for a minor operation a few years ago, a surgeon whom she had known stopped in her doorway and asked how she was doing. She thought he was just being friendly, and told him she was doing fine. Turned out, he was able to charge for a hospital visit! This is the kind of thing that causes costs to go out of control, whether it's government-paid or insurance company paid. The difference is that when it's group insurance, there can be a little more local control. Costs go up too much, the company goes shopping for a better insurance company. Eliminate that small bit of control, and no one will care about the costs--except those of us who pay for it, and feel powerless to do anything about it.

so how would you like the government to wash its hands of the whole medical industry? Like yank grants and subsidies to hospitals, drug companies and tax breaks to health insurance companies.... Like change the tax code so that health insurance is not deductible...

If you think the pre-Medicare days were so good, then why were most seniors written out of health insurance coverage? You couldn't get health insurance after a certain age. Seniors were dying painfully at home of preventible illnesses.

The health insurance companies rely on medicare to pick up the brunt of non-profitable business. Don't get me started on Medicaid and why children aren't covered.

The government does do health care just fine when it's funded appropriately. The amount of fraud in government programs is comparable to that in industry.

society is interconnected, whether we like it or not.

Here's one example: I have fairly decent health coverage and I'm a teacher. Many of my students/their families don't have healthcare. They come to school unable to learn because of painful, rotted teeth, don't get to the doctor until they are terribly ill, or in some cases don't get to school at all because their parents are sick. They aren't able to learn when they are in pain or aren't in school. Thanks to NCLB, they score poorly on the tests they must take. That drags scores down, schools don't meet their benchmarks, and suddenly the district and community are in a state of panic--

This is just one example, but society functions better when everyone is healthy and has access to good medical care. Also, in the UK at least (according to a PBS special I watched), UHC puts emphasis on preventative care and keeping people healthy. Doctors actually get bonuses for keeping their patients healthy.

You want to see the Limbaugh-voters come out en masse? Make UHC an issue.

I'm not disagreeing with you about the effects on all of society; just telling you that when the GOP scares the Limbots into thinking that their taxes are going to go through the roof to pay for braces for the children of illegal immigrants, or whatever--the effect on the race will be devastating.

Just telling you that, as it stands now, this is probably a losing issue for Democrats.

Human capital is the ultimate renewable resource. People who are sick, hungry, uneducated, impoverished by life's vissicitudes, are no longer capital, but a tremendous drag on the economy. The solution is to see that ALL are well. Because otherwise, there's no one going to care when you are old and need help. No one.

• Single payer health insurance is a system by which the health care expenditures of an entire population are paid for through one source – the Federal government or a subcontracting entity – using tax revenue from individuals and employers.
• Distinctly different from socialized medicine, whereby the government owns and operates health care facilities, a “single payer system” is simply a financing mechanism. The government collects and allocates money for health care but has little to no involvement in the actual delivery of services. Care is provided privately at hospitals and clinics but paid for publicly.

http://www.nhchc.org/singlepayer.html

but I am entirely satisfied with my health insurance. I have low monthly payments for myself and family. My son has a chronic condition (type 1 diabetes) and we pay very little towards his perpetual needs. When he was diagnosed he spent 4 days in PICU - we never even saw a bill because our insurance covered everything. Our insurance paid 80% for his insulin pump and pays the same for his durable medical supplies. His test strips are free (without insurance they are 80 cents per strip and we use 10 per day) and we pay $25 for 3 bottles of insulin that last us almost 3 months. I can easily afford this on my teacher salary.

I do, however, realize that most Americans are not nearly as fortunate as I am.

ETA some information.

More people are becoming unemployed and are without health care. More employers are dropping health care and/or increasing the costs to their employees. Toyota just decided to open a plant in Canada, and not the U.S. because they did not want to pick up the cost of health care for U.S. employees.
Oh and by the way most American do support universal health coverage.

Sadie, you worry me. You sound like you are backing republican talking points. JMO

"Single Payer" Healthcare taxes would not be huge. America is already paying the most per head for Health care and has amongst the worst results. Single payer healthcare could be implemented by fixing Medicare. You already have the foundations for a system that could be the best universal system in the World.

Democrats should not be afraid of this issue. And for those with good private health care cover, a decent taxpayer funded system is the best way to drive the costs of private health insurance down.

As for "mandating" private healthcare cover - that is the WORST of all Worlds.

I'm fairly certain that FDR was able to sell Social Security to the American public by telling them it would only be a few cents out of their paychecks, and they would never miss it. I just checked the DH's last check stub, and the FICA deduction was bigger than the medicare deduction, bigger than the federal tax deduction, and bigger than the state tax deduction.

Medicare was only a few dollars per month 30 years ago. Not so anymore. We are paying a lot of money for a program for which we will not qualify for many years.

Federal programs tend to grow astronomically over time. Even if UHC starts out being a big bargain, there is no guarantee that it would end up that way.

I'm sure you are right about the cost of our healthcare per person, and the results; however, a lot of the voters in this country are working, have sufficient coverage, and don't feel the need to pay more taxes to cover those who don't work. That has been proven over and over again. Look at the '94 congressional races, if you want proof of that.

BTW, I totally agree with you about mandated private insurance. Can't imagine how that would work at all.

All he has to do is change the ages where people are eligible to receive Medicare. Medicare is the Gov's universal health care program.

When I was desperately broke, I went to county. In California you can get short-term insurance (6 mo) through the county. You see a dr on a regular appt. and everything including meds! (30 day supply at a time only) the down side.. you needed to be patient with anything that wasnt life threatening.

I even got X-rays of my foot (gout) covered under this program!

I'm willing to wait when it's only pain, and not life threatening. I found the overall quality of my care to be excellent!

I'm sure that any such changes in age of eligibility will have to go through them.