Skip to content Skip to footer

Joe Conason | A Note on Health Care Reform

Overstating the importance of a midterm election is understandably tempting for politicians and pundits, especially when the partisan turnover reaches historic proportions, as it indisputably did on Nov. 2. It is a temptation to which Republicans and conservatives seem particularly vulnerable.

Overstating the importance of a midterm election is understandably tempting for politicians and pundits, especially when the partisan turnover reaches historic proportions, as it indisputably did on Nov. 2. It is a temptation to which Republicans and conservatives seem particularly vulnerable.

When their party won the first George W. Bush midterm in 2002, Karl Rove crowed that his political team had made history, which was true enough — and then went on to claim a partisan realignment that would put Republicans in charge for decades if not centuries. They lost control of Congress and the White House within the following six years, not least because of false assumptions about the meaning of their victories.

If the leaders of the new Republican majority believe that 2010 represents a sweeping ideological shift — rather than an expression of fury and fear over the nation’s stagnant economy — they risk overreaching again. That risk increases for them under enormous pressure to pander to the extreme elements of the tea party movement.

Consider the Republican promise to repeal health care reform, a position that might appear highly popular to anyone who hasn’t read much polling data on the issue. Election Day exit polls showed that the health care bill is not nearly so widely despised as right-wing propaganda suggests — and that its demise is certainly not the highest priority of voters.

Asked whether they want the health care reform bill repealed in the next Congress, 48 percent said yes and 47 percent said no — a statistical tie that belies any claims of overwhelming opposition. Asked whether health care was the most important issue in the midterm election, only 19 percent agreed, compared with 62 percent who cited the economy.

Keep in mind that the midterm electorate was heavily weighted toward the conservative, older white voters most hostile to President Obama and “Obamacare,” as it is known on Fox News. Those same exit polls showed a drop in younger voters from 18 percent in 2008 to only 11 percent this year, and a rise in elderly voters from 16 percent in 2008 to 23 percent this year — a stunning shift. That helped conservatives to increase their share from 34 percent to 41 percent.

Of even greater importance is the fact that so many Americans — including many independent voters who say they want repeal — currently have little or no idea what the health care reform bill actually provides. Thanks to Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich and Fox News, millions still think the bill will force doctors to pull the plug on Grandma. In a recent survey, up to 40 percent of respondents in a recent survey said they believe the bill creates the mythical “death panels” conjured by Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich in a “government takeover” of the system.

None of that is true, of course — and many of the bill’s little known but real provisions will attract support as people learn about them in a debate over repeal. Most people like the idea of regulating insurance companies to make sure they spend money on care rather than profits and promotion; most people like the idea of protecting consumers from exclusion for pre-existing conditions; and most people appreciate the idea of letting parents insure their children until age 26.

But come January, the Republicans will be obliged to file repeal legislation — and to argue that the public will fare better under the tender care of the insurance oligopoly than with any government protections at all. Otherwise, the tea party will wreak havoc in the 2012 primaries, or so they warn.

There was no overwhelming mandate in this election on health care. Certainly here was no mandate to turn the country over to the insurance companies or any other corporate elite. The Republicans assume otherwise at their own peril.

Joe Conason writes for the New York Observer (www.observer.com).

Copyright 2010 Creators.com

We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.

As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.

Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.

As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.

At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.

Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.

You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.