> My hunch is that if the Obama administration could outmaneuver/bypass the
> Congress and introduce "radical" policy initiatives with populist appeal -
> such as single payer universal health care system - its popularity would
> skyrocket, recent opinion polls notwithstanding. In my view, survey
> questions about general views and attitudes are useless, they the
> so-called "sin and motherhood" items (anyone is against the former and
> loves the later) that do not tell much about where the respondent would
> fall in a concrete situation.
===========================
Agree 100%. Even self-described working class conservatives who express
skepticism about "big government" in the abstract support state-sponsored
programs where they experience a direct benefit to themselves and their
families, eg. health care, mortgage relief, student aid, etc.
Unfortunately, I doubt the Obama admin has the will or ability to outmaneuver Congress and to deliver a health care reform with some teeth, least of all single payer, which even the liberals have given up on.
There's a real danger, in fact, that what is finally passed will be angrily rejected by many American workers, including a good part of Obama's base.
Today's Washington Post reports Senate leaders are considering legislation under which "...a single person earning $35,000 per year who does not have coverage today would be required to buy it under the legislation but would probably not receive help in offsetting a policy's cost, which averaged $4,704 in 2008.
"The committee also is considering provisions that could lead to higher insurance rates for adults in the 55-to-64 age category and higher out-of-pocket costs for certain people who buy their own insurance.
"Meanwhile, the House is considering a national value-added tax (sometimes called a national sales tax), a tax on sodas and other sugary drinks, and an increase in alcohol taxes -- all measures that would break President Obama's campaign pledge not to raise taxes on households with annual incomes below $250,000.
"In an analysis of the Finance Committee draft, the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found that families with modest incomes that buy the lowest-cost coverage could face steep out-of-pocket costs if they experience a serious medical problem. And families who are just outside the 300 percent subsidy threshold could face daunting bills, with no relief.
"The lowest-cost plan would have an actuarial value of 65 percent, meaning it would cover 65 percent of the medical costs of a typical population, the report showed. One scenario in Congress proposes capping out-of-pocket costs at $11,600 for a family and $5,800 for an individual.
"Judith Solomon, author of the report, noted that 82 percent of uninsured people have incomes below the 300 percent threshold -- meaning the Senate bill would still cover millions of new people. But, she added, households with slightly higher incomes include many "working-class people in high-cost-of-living states. And they need help, too."
Habituated as I am to Democratic administrations abandoning their expectant liberal base, I would still find this particular retreat difficult to understand in terms of the administration's and DP's own electoral calculations. If this kind of bill emerges from Congress, how would they carry their base and the majority of other American voters who supported them in the next set of elections?
If the report is credible, the legislation being crafted seems primarily aimed at reducing hospital emergency room costs by insuring the uninsured. The latter is a big step forward for tens of millions of uninsured, which the hospitals and insurance industry will also see as profiting them, but how much relief will the mass of privately insured workers see, especially if a publicly-run plan is also gutted or stripped from the bill?