Health care takes a back seat in the election

By: Lelia Chaisson
Posted: 10/9/08
Two years ago, Americans couldn't get enough of the health care debate. With Massachusetts leading the way to universal coverage, health care dominated the headlines. Forty-seven million uninsured, staggering U.S. expenditures on medical technology and lagging U.S. health statistics were disturbingly familiar, and it seemed certain that America was on its way to health care reform.

So what happened?

Right in the middle of our attempt to fix the "broken system," health care lost its momentum, much as it did in the 1990s with Hillary Clinton's failed attempt to revolutionize it. In both cases, huge movements swiftly lost their authority and eventually faded into the background, leaving Americans to deal with the ever increasing costs of health care. It seems that, despite the perpetual health care calamity in America, every time we get close to making some progress, health care disappears from the headlines.

Health care has once again taken a back seat in the 2008 election, despite the fact that recently published reports show that access to health care remains a considerable problem for more American families than ever before. Indeed, the Center for Studying Health System Change recently disclosed that almost one in five families struggled to pay medical bills last year; Twenty percent of those having problems even considered declaring personal bankruptcy. Nor is the issue limited to those without medical insurance. Reports indicate that of the 57 million Americans under pressure, 43 million have some form of insurance. The health care crisis is far from over, yet real reform is not even on the horizon.

Why is it so hard to get the ball rolling on health care? It's not because Americans don't want health care reform. While the issue has slipped behind the financial crisis and the Iraq war in the current election, it remains firmly in the top three issues among all demographics. Nor is it for lack of ideas. Over the years myriad diverse plans have been proposed by Republicans and Democrats alike.

I can only conclude that the standstill is due to the public's wishy-washiness. Americans simply don't know what they want. Or, rather, they know what they want, but they aren't willing to take any of the necessary steps to get it. What is perhaps the most interesting thing about this debate is the combination of America's conviction that every person should have access to affordable, high-quality care, and its simultaneous skepticism concerning every proposed plan for change.

Just look at the public's reaction to some of the ideas for reform. To the suggestion that we require coverage for every American to promote preventive care comes the loud retort that forcing everyone to have insurance is un-American. To the notion that we should cut spending on costly, infrequently used procedures comes the cry that Americans should have access to any medical procedure they could ever possibly want, nevermind the price tag.

Now, I'm not saying that all of these ideas are perfect. I'm just pointing out the irony that Americans demand affordable coverage and access for all, yet reject any policy that has the potential to address these problems.

America's fickleness has reared its head once again in the current election. On the one hand, Barack Obama has suggested creating a national health plan available to all Americans, with guaranteed eligibility, benefits similar to those offered in the plan available to members of Congress and subsidies for those who do not qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP but still need financial aid.

Seemingly, his plan has addressed every criticism. No mandate for universal coverage. Affordable care for every American. Guaranteed access. Choice between private and employer-based coverage.

The public's reaction? Obama's plan is too costly and will create too much regulation.

Senator McCain, on the other hand, wants nothing close to a national health care plan, and instead advocates stimulating the private market and doing away with tax breaks for employer-based health insurance.

Now, come on. Voters say they want to ensure affordable coverage for every American. They say they want to take some of the power away from greedy insurance companies that deny care to the sick and disadvantaged. Is there really any question as to which plan will better address these issues? Granted, Obama's plan is going to be expensive. But let's be serious. Doing away with tax breaks will encourage employers to do away with their health care plans. And a $5,000 tax credit will be a drop of water in a sea of health care costs, which now average $12,680 a year for U.S. families. In addition to this, it is widely speculated that McCain's plan will leave millions of people uninsured and give more power to the insurance companies everyone despises.

But, in the end, no matter who gets elected, I doubt we'll ever get far enough to see either of these plans enacted. America loves to talk the talk, but won't walk the walk. When given the choice of actually addressing their constantly reiterated concerns about health care or doing nothing, Americans consistently choose the latter.