A "Win" On Health Care Reform
With the public option seemingly on the ropes and growing sympathy with this summer’s town hall protests, it’s worth taking a brief moment to consider what a so-called “win” in this debate might look like and ponder its consequences. While some will be tempted to push for the status quo and the outright obstruction of health care reform, a brief glance at public polling reveals that such a strategy is problematic.
The multitude of public polling on health care reform can be summarized in one sentence: Americans broadly agree upon the need for generalized reform of the existing system, but support for specific reform elements varies wildly, and is highly dependent upon framing and messaging effects. Consider: a July Gallup study found only 24% of voters that did not want any sort of health care reform bill passed, and a Kaiser survey in February found another 24% of voters that wanted to “keep things basically as they are.”
UPDATE: The recent NBC/WSJ poll shows only 7% that say the American health care system has "no need for change" and 91% in favor of some flavor of reform.
Moreover, a 2008 Gallup poll, well before any sort of partisan rhetorical contamination may have occurred (on either side), tested twelve different proposals for health care reform that varied across the ideological spectrum, and amazingly, found majority support for every single one. From “establishing a national healthcare system funded by the government” with 54% support, all the way to “reducing government regulation to promote competition” with 77% support, broad swaths of the electorate said “yes” again and again to any reform offered to them during the survey.
Further, a secondary analysis of a Kaiser health reform poll in September of last year revealed that across seven very specific reform proposals, a nearly universal 98% of voters favored at least one of the options. On average, voters favored about four out of the seven reforms. Of course, 81% also opposed at least one reform (and an average of about two reform options opposed), underscoring the rock and a hard place that members of Congress find themselves in:
Voters are decidedly reform-minded, if not completely clear on the specifics.
Considering this public opinion environment, what should a conservative win look like? There is sizeable public demand that Congress do something about reforming our health care system, and thus, it is reasonable to assume that there could be negative electoral consequences for any person or group seen as being an obstacle to reform. Should health care reform be “killed” at any point in the process, the group deemed responsible could suffer at the polls in the 2010. Rather than opening ourselves up to further criticism as the “Party of No” perhaps now is the time to embrace conservatively principled reform alternatives, such as those in the Blunt, Coburn, or Wyden plans so we can declare a more meaningful victory in the health care reform debate.
- Alex Lundry
Comments on this entry