Healthcare consistently ranks as one of the top issues for Democratic voters, so helping those voters understand Democratic presidential candidates’ positions on healthcare ought to be a key job for journalists. Right? A recent survey of those voters shows that they are woefully confused and misinformed, and a recent Washington Post story on the issue perfectly illustrated why that’s the case.
The Kaiser Family Foundation, a health policy think tank, polled people on their knowledge and opinions about Medicare for All and other healthcare reform ideas, and found all sorts of mistaken beliefs—most notably, that under Medicare for All, people would still pay deductibles, co-pays and premiums, and that they would be able to keep private insurance plans they currently have.
On the other hand, Democratic voters are clear in the Kaiser survey that they want to hear from the candidates about decreasing healthcare costs, increasing access, protecting the ACA and implementing Medicare for All.
The Washington Post (6/21/19) wants you to believe that no candidates are talking about things like “the price of insulin, hospital charges and insurance premiums.”
Reporting on the Kaiser survey among others, the Washington Post (6/21/19) framed the story as a “disconnect” between Democratic candidates with “bold ideas to achieve the party’s long-held dream of ushering in health coverage for every American” and “many voters [who] are not focused on such lofty goals. They want something simpler — to pay less for their own healthcare.”
The Post’s Amy Goldstein quoted a Democratic voter named Ron Jungling (whose wife happens to work as an insurance broker) who thinks Medicare for All won’t “keep costs down,” to illustrate the article’s contention that there is a “misalignment in candidates’ focus and, in some cases, their level of attention.”
There’s definitely a misalignment here, but it’s not the one the Post describes—it’s the one between the reality of Medicare for All and the distorted caricature of it that healthcare industry-friendly and right-wing groups are actively trying to promote. As Medicare for All supporters routinely point out, universal access means affordable access; the cost of care and the availability of care are intertwined. And even candidates who aren’t pushing for full Medicare for All are talking about both access and costs. But the Post tried to spin the story into a false competition between the two.
According to the Post‘s expert sources:
The debate is not going to be 2008 or ’16 over again. It’s going to be about the price of insulin, hospital charges and insurance premiums, with, “What are you going to do about them for me?”
Another source argued that “prescription drug prices” are a “hot issue” with voters that’s not being talked about enough, because candidates are “playing to the values of Democratic primary voters, who tend to lean further left than others in the party.”
They’re arguments that could only seem logical if you manage to overlook Bernie Sanders’ campaign—and those of the seven candidates who have signed on to his Medicare for All Act in the Senate or the companion bill in the House. Sanders, who has put Medicare for All front and center since the last election, has spoken out repeatedly on insulin prices. As previously noted (and as Sanders’ campaign frequently points out), hospital charges and insurance premiums would be eliminated under Medicare for All. The first link on his website’s “Issues” page is “Healthcare for All“; on that page, the second sentence is about unaffordable healthcare costs for those with insurance, and the four-paragraph page devotes an entire paragraph to prescription drug prices. If voters don’t hear candidates talking about these things—and if they’re completely confused about what Medicare for All even means—it’s because journalists aren’t doing their job in covering them.
In the Post article, for example, when Goldstein finally gets around to talking about Sanders, it’s only about overall costs:
When Sanders talks of Medicare for All, still near the core of his campaign’s rationale, he contends that a single-payer system would be more efficient and would lower the nation’s health-care spending. But reducing overall costs is not a priority with the public, recent polls show.
Medicare for All would almost certainly reduce most people’s healthcare costs, but it’s a complicated plan with lots of possible pathways to funding and implementation that make it irreducible to simple soundbites. That’s where journalism comes in; helping voters understand the options would be the way to ensure a healthy debate on the subject. Instead, reports like the Post‘s only perpetuate the misinformation, boosting the industry-friendly line that Democrats’ ideas are too “lofty” and “bold” for voters.
Messages can be sent to the Washington Post at letters@washpost.com, or via Twitter @washingtonpost. Please remember that respectful communication is the most effective.
First do no harm
To Bozo’s healthcorp holdings
WaPo’s Bozo (Amazon), Warren Buffet (financial speculator) and Jamie Dimon (Bankster-JP Morgan) are creating their own “health care” insurance corporation.
They have a LOT to lose when we force passage of HR1384 – Expanded and Improved Medicare for All…
“… all sorts of mistaken beliefs—most notably, that under Medicare for All, people would still pay deductibles, co-pays and premiums.”
This is not a mistaken belief–as is obvious when one simply looks at the Medicare program. The author is confusing Improved Medicare (or Improved Medicare for All) with Medicare for All, and is consequently diluting justifiable complaints about WaPo with groundless criticism. A valid criticism might be directed at advocates who omit a qualification such as “improved.”
The criticism is that as the polling shows, the WaPo is purposely blocking/deflecting any discussion of the features of HR1384 – Expanded and Improved Medicare for ALL — which is what the few democratic candidates advocating for Medicare for All mean.
Since Bezos (Amazon), Buffet (financial finagler) and Dimon (bankster-JP Morgan) are busy creating their own mega-“health”-insurance corporation to cash in on the for-profit remedial sick care gravy train, the misleading and myopic coverage of the subject at the WaPo is perfectly understandable.
It’s the CORPORATE media (driven by the corporations that own the sick care industry) who are making sure that people do not understand that when WE say “Medicare for ALL” we are talking about a system like that in HR1384.
How many people read the Washington Post? Even fewer likely read FAIR.
As one of the mouthpieces of bourgeois imperialism, naturally the WaPo wants to lead voters in a different direction. However, FAIR can point out again and again and again how MSM outlets are just mouthpieces of bourgeois imperialism (while sticking to more neutral-sounding language) engaged in either hypocritical/fraudulent denials or disavowal (Verleugnung), but what will it ever change? WaPo is consistent with its own ideology and class interests. FAIR is (rightly) griping about the hegemony of that ideology, and suggesting that other class interests are being marginalized/criticized. By way of contrast, over a century ago Lenin wrote a book called “What Is to Be Done?” Most English translations leave out a large portion of the original book. What section is omitted? Well, the one about how to found and operate a newspaper! Doing so was a necessary first step in reducing poverty, promoting literacy, promoting the rights of women, and other such political objectives. Ultimately, the problem this FAIR article leaves us with is how news media with a different ideology can be founded and sustained, which means principally how such a new media organization can be funded (and its work distributed) without reliance on the very classes and institutions that its needs to be critical of. The burning question today remains, “What Is to Be Done?”
It’s amazing to me that more people don’t realize how they are being taken advantage of under our present health insurance programs. Medicare works for my wife and I but we are still covered up with co-pays sometimes very high copays.
If we cut the insurance companies, the drug companies, and the for profit hospitals out of the equation our government can guarantee free, yes free, health care including dental, vision, hearing, and long term care for billions less. We are being taken by CEOs that make multi millions a year and do nothing for health care. Once people realize this they will get behind Bernie’s plan, it just makes sense like every other industrialized nation on earth does for their citizens.
(don’t know if block quotes work)
I’m a Conservative but I wish people would at least be honest about the trade offs and not spin the facts. People are constantly complaining about the increasing cost of their health plan, so if a Medicare plan is more efficient, reduces inflation, and the payroll taxes are lower than your current out of pocket cost then people DO care about this.
I believe it. In a single payer system, you have one Insurer who can basically set prices for all services, so yeah, it will reduce Healthcare inflation. But it could very well create shortages because there is a point where doctors will go to Mexico and work underground for the Cartel rather than settle for $500 for doing heart surgery. It’s a trade off and a debate worth having. I’m not an ideologue.
[quote]But it could very well create shortages because there is a point where doctors will go to Mexico and work underground for the Cartel rather than settle for $500 for doing heart surgery.[/quote]Look at all the other industrialized countries with single-payer or even, as in the UK, true socialized medicine. There is no perceived doctor shortage. True, doctors may earn less, but my sympathies lie with us recipients of healthcare (everybody!), not overpaid providers.
I have always said anyone who thinks they have great insurance because of employment has never actually had to rely on their insurance. This has always been the major impediment to getting single payer, the fact that young healthy people with insurance mistakenly think they have earned some great privilege they do not actually possess. The American media love to report that people are afraid they may not keep their policy and do not report how healthcare is rationed in the US. Instead, we falsely hear that care is rationed in nations with public healthcare.