Tweet
The Health Insurance companies and other opponents of government-funded health care have been trying to overcome the statistical evidence of the superiority of public systems by spreading “Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt” using horror stories and, of course, outright lies about the failures of health care in other nations having such systems. Those of us who favor health care reform, either single payer, or plans with robust public options, have been replying with horror stories about health care here, and testimony from individuals, primarily Americans in Canada, or Canadians, about their own very positive experiences with Canada’s single payer system. The exchange of stories is probably somewhat effective, especially because people here really don’t trust the sources of the anti-Canadian health care anecdotes. Wouldn’t it be a big improvement, however, if we could cut through all the static and win the health care anecdote war? Guess What? I think we can.
I think the way to do it is for the President to take a couple of quick trips: one to Canada, and one to France, to carry on Town Halls to get the personal experience of Canadian and French citizens who use their single payer systems everyday. Of course, those town halls must not stack the deck. There can be no hint of staging to ensure positive testimony, or the value of the Town Halls would be destroyed. But think of it. These appearances would be big events. The MSM couldn’t avoid covering them and featuring them. It would be hard for the Press to spin them. The President would be seeking experiences from people of other countries, and would be demonstrating American humility and willingness to learn from our friends and Allies.
In Canada, a Town Hall to get the Canadian experience would be a very high impact event, because Obama is very popular there, and people would be both glad to help him out and happy to be asked to do so. In France, we can just imagine the reaction of the Sarkozys to the favorable publicity, their excitement over promoting and arranging for the event, and the feelings of pride among the French people asked to give their experience to a popular American President striving to bring universal health care to his country, and seeking French wisdom on the subject to help him do it.
Both the Canadian and French events would produce powerful messaging that would be hard for counter-anecdotes to overcome. But just to make sure of the outcome of all this, I’d also send Hillary Clinton to Australia and New Zealand to get their experience as well. Both countries would be honored to be asked for their experience and would be glad to help their American ally. They’d be tickled, of course, if the President could go to their countries too. But given the calendar on health care and the need to keep the pressure on Congress here, It’s probably not feasible for him to visit more than Canada and France, and it’s also true that Hillary Clinton is both the Secretary of State, and probably the next most popular American down under, save the President himself, and perhaps her husband. Also, we know that Hillary Clinton will do a pair of great Town Halls, and that her doing them will make the kind of big story whose drama the MSM will find irresistible. They’ll follow her there, and the messages from the Town Halls about health care in the Australian and New Zealand systems will come through loud and clear, and, coupled with the Canadian and French Town Halls will overcome the counter-anecdotes and flat-out lies being spread by the opposition.
Finally, I think the President needs to let the single payer health care bills in both houses of Congress off the floor. The John Conyers and Bernie Sanders bills should at least be scored by CBO along with the other alternatives being considered. After all, the nations that the President and the Secretary will visit, will all be telling us how their single payer systems are working. So, people are bound to wonder what single payer would cost us, and why Congress has not proposed such a plan. In addition, the Kucinich Amendment, opening the way to State-level single payer plans has now made it out of committee, and this too suggests that the Public would benefit from being able to compare relative costs of a single payer plan with other options being considered. Who knows? If, after CBO scoring, single payer turns out to be the least costly option, and everyone knows it, then perhaps the opposition will stop delaying and agree quickly on a public option, rather than take the chance that single payer might gather momentum and put an end to the dominance of private health insurance immediately and for good.
15 Comments
With all due respect, I’d be against this idea. The polling is pretty clear: Americans have no idea what Canada or Britain’s health care is like, but they know for damn sure they don’t want it.
For better or for worse, we need to at least brand our health care reform package as an “American solution.” Getting into talking about other countries guarantees you lose, no matter how good those other countries actually are.
I understand that point of view very well, Jason. But, also with all due respect, I just don’t agree. The Town Halls I’m talking about would let Americans see what ordinary people in other nations think about their own health plans. It’s pretty clear that those people, in heavy majorities, think those plans are working really well, that people don’t die from lack of insurance, that they don’t suddenly find that their insurance won’t cover them when they get into trouble, and that they don’t go bankrupt due to health care costs. When Americans see that I think it will have an impact on the confidence independent voters have in public plans.
We don’t have to adopt a plan just like any of the countries I suggested visiting. But having been exposed to stuff like this, people would be able to support a robust public option with a lot more confidence that it’s likely to work. Also, polls show that a majority of Americans do favor single payer. Town Halls might add to that majority, and might increase the pressure on Congress to provide a State-level single payer option, and to resist trying to pass a bill with a weak public option that will not hold down private sector costs. And, btw, I didn’t mention the UK for a few reasons. As for Canada, the horror stories would be overcome by the Town Hall stories, and the truth is that Americans currently have a life expectancy that is 3 years less than Canadians. I think it unlikely that Americans will want that for our children, once they come to understand that this life expectancy difference and a substantial discrepancy in infant mortality rates are both hard facts.
To the degree that Americans are ignorant of other nations’ systems, HCAN has been at the forefront of not lifting a finger. But as for what Americans are on record supporting, poll after poll after poll after poll [note: pdfs] show that solid majorities of Americans, including 59% of physicians, are ready for national health insurance like Medicare, available to all, even if it requires higher taxes. The American people are ahead of Obama, the Democratic leadership, and most definitely HCAN on this score.
The one poll public-option boosters continually cite, showing support for a public plan to compete with private plans had no corresponding question about a straight Medicare extension to all or any information on the differences. As Robert Kuttner noted
LGID, I would make one correction (h/t DrSteveB): what’s needed for all health reform bills, including HR 676, is not simply CBO scoring but a full CBO analysis. Scroll down in this post for the crucial distinction.
FWIW, the town halls I’d like to see would involve Obama, or Sibelius, or Richard Kirsch, face auditoriums full of Canadians, Frenchmen, Taiwanese, and yes, even Dutch, Germans, and Swiss, and try to convince them to give up their health care systems in favor of the hybrid monstrosities embodied in the Senate HELP or House Tri-Committee (HR 3200) bills.
I can predict the French reaction.
Ralphbon, thanks for your reply. I agree that CBO should do a more complete analysis, but it has restricted itself to partial analyses of the budgetary impact of the bills, thus far. Here’s my own complaint about partial analyses of impact.
To get through the noise here, the Town Halls need to be run by Obama and Hillary Clinton. Otherwise they won’t get the coverage they need to get from the MSM.
Short of the town halls, viral exposure to Frontline’s Sick Around the World would provide essential education, coupled with an honest discussion of how far short of the advantages of these systems Obamacare as currently shaping up will fall.
Thanks for the Frontline link. I certainly agree that exposure to Frontline is a good way to spread information about alternative systems.
michael moore’s sicko is available online too. i so want to move to france now.
eh, i live in a very insular, very republican, very anti-taxes part of the country but even here people are starting to talk about moving to england or france or canada for the free health care.
It is common sense to learn about what you Americans call single payer from those of us who have health care as a birthright. I have answered many questions at Oxdown about how medical is delivered in Canada. Rest assured, not one person ever said they did not want what we have here in Canada. The commercials playing on MSM that are anti Canadian health care are misleading at best and sometimes outright lies. Cheney’s evil spawn was on King yesterday and she lied and said we don’t choose our own doctors. Sanchez was a rude little interrogator in an interview with one of our x Health Ministers. The following are the words of another Canadian. An error in #4 as the author does not know that in some provinces and territories a monthly premium is paid based on family size and net income. In British Columbia, the maximum ever paid is $108 monthly for a family of three or more.
********************
“As a Canadian I marvel at all of these terms that are so common to Americans, but are virtually unknown to us.
Here’s a partial list off the top of my head:
1. “Out of network”
There are no “networks” in Canada. Doctors and hospitals are not affiliated with private insurance companies. Doctors are private business entities and hospitals are usually run by non-profit boards or regional health associations.
2. “COBRA”
Health coverage is NOT tied to your place of employment in any way. So any COBRA-like scheme is unnecessary.
3. “Co-Pay”
The government pays 100% of basic care, 100% of the time. Drugs are not covered, but are subsidized by government to a point. And because of mass buys, discounts are obtained from the drug companies. That’s why our prices are so much lower. Most employers offer a drug plan that pays for 100% of drug cost coverage.
4. “monthly premiumdeductible”
Wazzat? We don’t consider our health to be the same as our possessions.
5. “waiting for approval”
Doctors are the sole decision makers for health care. NOBODY influences or delays their decisions, warns them of costs or prevents them from giving treatment for any reason.
6. “Government interference”
The provincial government in each province PAYS for whatever services doctors provide. No questions asked. Unless the procedure is experimental, not medically necessary or unwarranted, doctors cannot deny basic care – by law.
7. “Health insurance lobby”
There are NO insurance companies for basic care, only companies for providing insurance for travelers. No money to be made here.
8. “bureaucracy”
When we visit a hospital or doctor’s office, we walk in, get treated, walk out. No “applications”, “registrations” or any other kind of paperwork is required. We NEVER have to talk to a single “government official” or wait for a “judgment”.
9. “PRE-EXISTING CONDITION”
This is such a foreign concept to us. A Canadian’s usual reaction to the explanation of this term is astonishment.
I’m glad to see that a sane health care system is within reach in America. Fight for it. It’s WORTH it. “
http://journals.democraticunde…..stanian/25
“I’ll add a few more words to the list:
10. “rescission”
Your health insurance won’t be cancelled when you need it most, i.e., when you get sick. That’s the whole point of having insurance, isn’t it?
11. “individual rates”
There are no individual rates based on your age or medical status. The premium for everyone in a provincial plan is the same.
12. “uninsurable”
No one is uninsured or uninsurable. Everyone is covered.
13. “profit”
There’s no private insurance companies offering coverage for primary medical care, so there’s no question of profit, no corporate bottom lines to incentivize screwing people out of the medical care they need.
It’s a shame something as transparent, straightforward, and unbureaucratic as the universal single-payer system Canadians and other citizens of developed nations enjoy is not even being considered by Obama and the Dems in congress. More Americans may get health care insurance out of these health care reforms, at a more affordable price, and that’s a good thing. But true bold change isn’t even being proposed, just tinkering with the existing system, and I can’t help thinking that it’s a shame. Opportunities for sweeping change don’t come often, and this one is being missed. “
http://www.dailykos.com/storyo…..ealth-Care
CNN heard from many who noticed Liz Cheney’s lies.
********
http://larrykinglive.blogs.cnn…../#comments
I don’t doubt that other countries are satisfied, or that they do it better. I’m just saying, these tactics aren’t quite as effective as you think they might be. It’s too bad, really, because you’re quite right about the quality of health care in other countries.
Jason, I don’t see how you can say that a priori. Do you really think that a really high-powered campaign by the President and his best media people can’t educate the American people to the obvious facts existing in the world? I don’t believe that for a minute. If I did I wouldn’t think there was a chance in hell of keeping our democracy.
I think what we’re looking at here is a simple failure of courage on the part of both the Clinton and Obama Administrations. They’ve simply assumed, without any real evidence, that people can’t see that single payer has worked well in other countries and that our system is a miserable failure by comparison.
Now, please understand, I’m not trying to be idealistic here. It is not that I’m holding out for the best alternative in preference to a good alternative. I support a public option in pressuring my Congressman and Senators. What I am objecting to is the marketing and sales decision made by the Administration. Specifically, the idea that the complex public option idea with all its opportunity for Blue Dog and Republican and health insurance Company fooling around and sabotage, and with all its complex issues and details that have to be explained to the public, is somehow easier to sell than the idea of Medicare for all. That’s nonsense. It would have been a lot easier to structure a single payer plan and tour the country to build support against all comers.