Tweet
When Sen. Kent Conrad told the Senate Finance Committee that several successful universal health care systems in Europe, including France and Germany, did not achieve universal coverage via government-run insurance systems, numerous health reform observers were quick to point out he’s just flat wrong.
Everyone but Conrad knew that France’s highly rated universal system is founded on a government mandated, government run insurance system for basic coverage. And the other systems Conrad mentioned as not having government-run systems rely on such pervasive government direction and regulation that Conrad’s distinction becomes meaningless, if not disingenuous.
Steve Benen helpfully summarizes several rebuttals to Conrad’s claims, while Matthew Yglesias, traveling in Germany, adds that when he repeated Conrad’s descriptions to his German friends, they couldn’t stop laughing at how misinformed our Senators are about their health care system. Conrad, of course, is one of the Senate’s health care "experts."
Yglesias then focuses on Conrad’s comments to Ezra Klein that a government-run health insurance system is just incompatible with American cultural values. In Conrad’s world, Americans don’t want government involved in insuring or delivering health care, so the fact that over 100 million Americans are generally happy with Medicare, Medicaid, VA, Tri-care, SCHIP and other government-sponsored systems just doesn’t fit in his view of America. "I’ve thought about that a lot," he told Ezra. I’ll bet.
Conrad is probably not alone in his mistaken views, and that goes a long way towards explaining why the Senate Finance framework, indeed the common framework for all the major Congressional and White House reform efforts is having such a hard time catching on with the public.
According to the latest Times/CBS poll, while Americans support the regulations that prohibit rescissions and denials for previous conditions, they’re not comfortable with a government mandate, unless it is coupled with the ability to choose between public and private plans.
But most Americans don’t understand what the President and Congress are proposing. I suspect that’s because the Senate leadership hasn’t told them that every other country that has successfully solved the problem of universal coverage started from a different "cultural" premise founded on some variation of a strong government-run system that covered everyone.
And that’s a concept the public gets. Note this result from the Times/CBS poll, asking about the "public option," but really telling us a lot more:
q57 Would you favor or oppose the government offering everyone a government administered health insurance plan — something like the Medicare coverage that people 65 and older get — that would compete with private health insurance plans?
Total
Favor = 65%
Oppose = 26%
Democrats:
Favor = 81%
Oppose = 12%
Republicans
Favor = 47%
Oppose = 42%
Independents
Favor = 61%
Oppose = 30%
Aug09 Totals
Favor = 60%
Oppose = 34%
Notice the broad wording of this question. It’s not asking how people feel about a limited public option available only to the uninsured and very small businesses. The question is about the choices available to everyone under universal coverage. Everyone would be eligible to choose a "government administered health insurance plan — something like the Medicare coverage that people 65 and older get" or choose a private plan.
The results suggest huge majorities of Americans favor a system in which everyone could choose a government administered Medicare-type option or a private plan. And they’d favor a reform bill that included this choice, while opposing one that didn’t offer it.
Apparently, there are more possibilities comprehended by American culture than are dreamt of in Kent Conrad’s philosophy.
41 Comments
Earth to Kent Conrad, earth to Kent Conrad – is there anyone there, come in conrad
Response:
*zero*zilch*zip*
Well yeah. And no bill currently in play comes close to offering it. So why must our beloved reform coalition insist on pretending that HR 3200 gives the American people what they want? Is it too much to ask them to simultaneously call out the deficiencies of the current PO and fend off the co-op and trigger attacks?
May I say he sucks?
When is the march on D.C.?
Its so beyod SICK that conrad is considered and “expert” because he is a paid insurance industry shill
Hey! Mike Ross!!!
You pig! Soooie!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWMynRGeR88
Enjoy the game and don’t be late! You’ll miss the commercial.
You may.
conrad really looks like george jeffersons whitey neighbor, “bensen”
Really.
so hold it.. they’re saying that our American cultural proclivities require us to pay twice to three times as much as anyone else does for the same level of healthcare service while, at the same time, leave millions completely uncovered? So, basically, what he’s saying is that we’re stupid. Sen. Conrad thinks American culture (and, indeed, the Americans who choose to live with such a culture) are collectively stupid.
“Uniquely American,” indeed.
American Exceptionalism. People kick that phrase around and I never knew what it meant,.
Exceptionally stupid.
continuing on #10 above. Let’s consider how truly radical this statement is. For generations, American nationalists, conservatives and racists have argued that our culture makes us superior, is why we do things better than others.. why our government works, why our industries are the most efficient and productive in the world, why we enjoy the world’s highest standard of living.
Now, these same thugs have totally reversed themselves on all these claims to moral and cultural superiority. They are saying that our Culture requires us to live with substandard healthcare, corruption, insurance company death panels, millions of uninsured, to live with ever-worsening conditions, AND, to boot, requires us to pay twice as much or more for the privilege.
In other words, they appear to be arguing that our culture requires us to be inferior. This statement is simply so radical, so extreme, so Biblically Karmic that it really should be trumpeted on the headline of every media outlet in the world. Rethugs proclaim: American culture = failure.
I do have to admit though I like the glasses. Need a new pair and want a a pair like that. It’ll make me look smart.
I think that overstates or over complicates it somewhat, Blub. I think you could have just stopped at “stupid” as in your 10.
That’s what you get for looking up your facts in the “Healthcare Lobbyist’ Guide to Getting Rich”
$10 says he was wearing edible underwear when that picture was taken.
“a government-run health insurance system is just incompatible with American cultural values”
True. It does does not value capital higher than labor nor enable the moneyed class to extract rents from workers.
Completley UnAmerican.
I guess I’m not really competing on Sen. Conrad’s statement, which was specific to Medicare and waiting times he alleges for Canada, but the mentality that leads people on the other side of the aisle to endorse it. If this argument rests on American exceptionalism, then if you parse it given the context of today’s healthcare crisis, it does appear that they have turn exceptionalism on its head, making it an argument about why we should accept a poorer level of outcome. Yes, I did use hyberbole, but the underlying question remains.
All the other countries begin with the premise that health care is a right and then they make sure that everyone has access to it. Best way is obviously a single payer and for those who want “more” they can take from their own pocket and buy more.
KISS
The problem is protecting profits for the health industrial complex and the myth that the rich will be paying for slackers if the government is involved.
And the other systems Conrad mentioned as not having government-run systems rely on such pervasive government direction and regulation that Conrad’s distinction becomes meaningless, if not disingenuous.
Disingenuous.
We all know Conrad excellent well, Scarecrow.
He is a fishmonger.
The french govt. doesn’t RUN the insurance system- it’s private, they just determine what the insurers can charge for premiums and how much money they can make on the business (zero is the correct answer by the way).
The French model may be the best one for the US to follow in the sense that it would require less change than would going to-say- the british system
Senator Conrad has a solid background:
It’s odd that he would be so parochial. I guess all that money spent on his education was wasted.
yes, it’s been misrepresented here that the French system is a true single payer one like Medicare. It actually isn’t, but rather a tiered system where a kernel of universal national healthcare insurance is integrated in their Sécurité Sociale safety net system and covers most but not all basic services. This kernel is supplemented by competitive private insurance plans (as well as options from the national system for supplemental coverage beyond the basic plan), covering the many services and procedures excluded from Sécurité Sociale. 90% of the population carries such private insurance. As such, the French system is actually closer to how I imagine a strong PO will ultimately work (although we will have to avoid French mistakes that have led to a lot of unnecessary cost inflation).
With respect to the private insurers, experience-rating is prohibited, which effectively stops private insurers from turning away pre-existing conditions even though there is no explicit prohibition on such practices. There is a universal mandate with respect to the basic kernel, and also a stab at true portability with respect to the private insurers. Additionally, there is also a network of nationally-owned hospitals and clinics, which is a vital element in keeping systemwide costs down (and what I have long argued here is the missing element in some type of Medicare-for-all scheme, without which such a scheme fails on cost-containment).
A somewhat more extreme (socialized) version of the French system is the Singaporean system (which still falls well short of the Canadian and British models), which adds other elements such as means-adjusted prices for hospitalization and services, as well as several additional layers of trust fund protection to ensure that all procedures are accessible to all based on means to pay.
The French system is public insurance, supplemented by some private insurance.
The State is responsible for insuring that health care is available to all.
on a historical note, it’s also interesting to understand how the French system of universal coverage was phased in. Farmers and the employed uninsured (in other words, workers whose employers did not provide them with coverage) were provided access to a type of public insurance in the 1960s. However, universal insurance was not offered until 1974, with the creation of the general national health insurance company for salaried employed workers, Caisse Nationale d’Assurance Maladie des Travailleurs Salariés (CNAMTS), which now provides basic coverage to 80-odd% of French people. The final gaps (for the unemployed uninsured, resident non-citizens and several other overlooked groups) were not filled into 2000.
It’s going to much harder for us, because we’ve allowed underlying costs to spiral all that more wildly out of control, making it that much more difficult to introduce universal coverage on the French model. Perhaps there are lessons for us to learn, but remember, economically speaking, we’re starting in a very different, and much more problematic place. I’m not going to say, “C’est la fin des haricots” but it won’t be easy if we want the French system here in the US.
he can say whatever he wants most americans won’t know the difference. in their minds america is greatest in everything.
most americans still think we are ranked number one in health care.
30 million without health care in america does not faze most americans.
600 thousands filing bankruptcy over medical costs is not a big or any concern for most americans.
wealth and capitalism creates a very selfish and self centered society.
we are living proof of that.
not for long wealth is now going to the few and americans are whining like you know what.
but most stood in line to vote for reagan.
hate to say it but I told you so.
what seems to work short term has profound long term self destruction
we needed a roosevelt we got a carter that gives good speechs. there is always hope. :-)
five blacks in the white house that has got to be driving the racists nuts in this country I mean I bet they are going to have parties to show their racism full blown.
Tell me: why don’t Democrats just offer an amendment to end all government run health care—you know, all the Medicare, Medicaid, Veteran’s and Military health programs, the Federal workers health insurance including that of the Congress-critters—–just kill it all? How long before Republicans would whine for an exception?
Having been born in the United States, spent 20+ years in the US Navy and immigrated to Tahiti where I became French (Dual Nationality) in 1984. I believe that I am well qualified to tell you that France has a better health care system than the United States, including health care for this retired US military person. I am on Full Disability, which means free medical care, doctors visits, hospitalization and treatments and medicines for as long as I live. I have a primary health care provider and specialists in all fields of medicine that might be needed. I am finding that French health care is light years ahead of what the USA offers and there is NO co-pay for anything.
I wait in NO lines, and fill out no forms, If needed travel expenses are totally covered along with all personal expenses for the journey. Living on an island we have our own hospital, but for the more advanced tests etc., I must travel to the Island of Tahiti and that is covered completely.
I personally know Americans who were here as tourists who needed medical treatment and they received it, without cost…. I don’t think that happens often in the United States.. Especially under the Republik Klanns
There’s one party in the U.S.. Today’s Democrats are nothing more than Eisenhower Republicans without the integrity.
Obama is becoming nothing more that a Democratic Herbert Hoover with a rhetorical flourish.
In France it’s Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite. In the U.S. it’s, “Your own your own bub!”
We see everyday what we have elected to Congress, and how unintelligent they are, yet we will re-elect them, and suffer under the Government they give us. We all need to remember that the Congress has caused every problem this Country has, including the present crisises, and not fixed one. They have not passed on regulation for the banks. They have not quit taking the money from Social Security. Yet we are looking to these people to fix healthcare, the system that the Congress set up so they wouldn’t have to provide healthcare for us. It’s so much like betting on a dead horse, that it’s unbelieveable, but the American people are placing their bets, with no hope of winning. Only paying more for less.
Well I can speak for the people I voted for and if it were just them, I would have Single Payer. FDLer’s need to look in the mirror at the people in their areas they have in office even if they didn’t vote for them. In most of the urban progressive areas of the country, we don’t have this problem.
This is purely a tiny rural state issue…
I can’t do anymore than call or email. If I don’t live in their area, they don’t care what I say and won’t take my call or email.
You need to find all the progressives in your area or just plain move.
The South won’t rise it has no money. It will fall into obscurity if it keeps this up.
It must be some strange process of devolution by which we are oppressed by elected officials whose only appeal can be to the lowest common denominator of humanity or feeling, without any sense of fairness or justice.
I can only blame it on the Old Testament. Were our “Christian” leaders in government more concerned with the New Testament than the Old, the entire picture would change.
Great Idea! …but the Dems in Congress still wish to be perceived as being humane, despite so many of their votes in the past decade.
I’ve often had that thought, but for me it’s “Rockefeller Republicans.” I think we lost the Democratic Party to them in 1992, when Clinton was nominated, and we have yet to get it back. We came close last year, but Barack turned out to be nothing more than a Clintonite who thought that he’d be a better Clintonite leader than Hillary.
Are you joking? -:) It’s the old testament that’s more about fairness and justice, and the problem is that too many of these hypocrites go to Church every Sunday, and hear far too much about love and forgiveness, and far too little about social justice, and social and economic democracy.
Why not just pass HR 676, the enhanced Medicare for All bill? That’s an American Model. Here’s a new analysis of cost savings that might produce.
I think it’s a good question, blub. There are many issues where the right-wing and blue dogs reject policy proposals out of hand using American uniqueness arguments to counter arguments that the proposals have worked when implemented in other countries. There is a real “not invented here” problem. I really think we have to start delivering an American Pragmatists reply. Namely, that if it works it’s American; if it doesn’t, it’s Unamerican.