dead essay follow url go here see url follow url aiu resume cytotec sold in jamaica? ordini cialis spese di spedizione https://www.pugetsoundnavymuseum.org/paraphrasing/best-nursing-scholarship-essays/24/ source https://library.citytech.cuny.edu/podcast/article.php?publish=5000-word-essay-how-many-references-should-be-on-a-resume https://www.accap.org/storage/premiumedtabs/28/ video games essay topics 5 ft 6 150 lbs female viagra enter site https://teamwomenmn.org/formatting/an-essay-on-man-analysis-alexander-pope/23/ 600 word essay how many paragraphs in a summary https://chanelmovingforward.com/stories/how-to-write-an-essay-paper/51/ cheap daily feb statistics viagra essay advertising techniques https://peacerivergardens.org/proof/thesis-on-structure/25/ https://www.aestheticscienceinstitute.edu/medical/take-soft-tab-viagra/100/ how to make a powerpoint presentation into a video follow farmacia online affidabile cialis fluoxetine mepha wirkung viagra 1st rx orders dissertation examples in architecture cheapest way to get a viagra prescription creative writing milton keynes Bill Robinson, a Palm Springs insurance agent and voracious researcher on health care reform issues, recently circulated a gem of an article concerning a seeming contradiction in how Americans view the health care system. The gist of the article, posted in November by The Century Foundation and written by Maggie Mahar, is that Americans consistently denigrate the health care system while simultaneously claiming, by huge majorities, that it works just fine for them, thank you.
Comparing results from several polls, Ms. Mahar identifies this apparent discrepancy as resulting from Americans’ satisfaction with their own current health care coverage, but insecurity about how long they’ll be able to maintain it. With premiums rising, coverage contingent on sometimes precarious employment and, if I can add to Ms. Mahar’s list, politicians constantly claiming the system is broken beyond repair, widespread insecurity is not surprising.
At the same time, there are plenty of polls showing that people don’t have a lot of confidence in how Washington runs things, either. This creates an interesting quandary for presidential candidates. Most voters feel the system needs substantive changes, yet they don’t trust the government to make things better.
It’s no surprise then, that none of the major Democratic presidential candidates have called for a government-run single payer system. Instead they call for plans that expand the size and scope of public programs to varying degrees, but preserves the private system. There are differences between the plans: Senator Barack Obama focuses on affordability, Senator Hillary Clinton, former-Senator John Edwards and Governor Bill Richardson place more emphasis on universal coverage, with Governor Richardson distinguishing himself by avoiding the creation of any new bureaucracies.
What’s significant, however, is that the second most oft used phrase by the candidates is that “no one will have to give up their current insurance if they don’t want to.” (Still holding strong in first place is “The system is broken.”) The Democratic candidates, consequently, get to have it both ways, to a degree. They get to say they’re going to fix the current system with new regulations and public programs, but they’re going to preserve private sector involvement. This may play well in the general election, but it’s not likely to excite many of the more strident constituents of the Democratic party who will accept nothing less than a single-payer system (cue the California Nurses Association).
Republican candidates face a different challenge. They have an aversion to new taxes (or cutting back on existing tax cuts). And they don’t like turning private sector services over to the government. So they focus more on affordability with few, if any, new public programs. This addresses the “my coverage is fine” dynamic the polls identified, but it doesn’t face up to the demand for change. The result is the inverse of the Democrats’ dillema: the Republican candidates’ positions will get them through the primary season all right, but it’s going to look weak after the conventions.
As the Kaiser Family Foundation surveys and other polls have shown, health care is one of the most important issues voters expect presidential candidates to address. And as Ms. Mahar points out, the polls also indicate a nuanced understanding of the issue by voters. Since the candidate’s messages must be equally nuanced, their positions tend to clump together, with obvious differences between the parties. Consequently, the specifics of the candidates’ health care proposals are not likely to be decisive in garnering support, at least not early in the primary season. What will be more important than specifics is how their proposals reinforce their core messages.
Senator Edwards, for instance, needs to show that his plan will help the poor and middle class. Which is why he emphasizes universal coverage. Senator Clinton’s program needs to underscore her claim of competency and experience, which she does by highlighting the differences between this plan and the one she pushed in her husband’s administration. Senator Obama represents a break with the past, which means his opponents do him a favor by attacking his plan. And Governor Richardson brings to the campaign broad government experience at the state and federal level. His plan underscores this by redeploying and expanding existing public programs, not creating new ones.
The importance of the health care reform issue, and of the candidates plans, will change over time. For now, however, they are mirrors of the candidates’ themes. Which, given the seeming contradictions in the polls, is no doubt the wisest political strategy.