On screaming people [Bryan]

People have been doing a lot screaming lately, much of it done by opponents of health care reform. I have watched the debate about health care degenerate for months now. What began as a fairly seriously discussion of policy issues has devolved into a strange debate about whether reform advocates want to kill old people. Where we once debated individual mandates and health care cooperatives, we now discuss whether Obama is Hitler; where we once debated comparative effectiveness research and Medicare reforms, we now seem to be seriously talking about whether there are going to be "death panels." Behold, our country turned, once again, into a farce.

What is interesting is how the emotions that are generated seem to have little to do with the scope of the policies under discussion. The proposals emerging from various congressional committees are, in reality, quite modest. We have proposed some new regulations on health insurance (for example, that insurers can't deny coverage based on preexisting conditions), we have a proposed health insurance exchange to help people find good deals on insurance (which is important in a market otherwise dominated by state monopolies), and we have new subsidies proposed to help poorer people and small businesses buy insurance. We also have various proposals to help cut costs by trimming inefficient aspects of Medicare, by doing more research on effectiveness of treatments, and by creating a not-for-profit health plan to compete with health insurance monopolies.

None of this seems radical. These proposals bend over backward to preserve the existing system (somewhat unfortunately in my mind). Granted they will cost a lot, with the highest CBO estimate I've seen being $1.4 trillion over ten years. To put this in perspective, though, the tax cuts of president Bush cost $1.3 trillion, so this hardly seems radically new or different from a fiscal perspective. Moreover, there are serious proposals out there about paying for the health reform, which (if they are implemented) would actually mark it as much less radical than the Bush-era tax cuts that were not paid for and that led to the skyrocketing budget deficits. So why the outrage now?

Much of it probably has to do with the symbolism of health care. Universal health care has long been the defining aspect of the democratic "welfare state," so its symbolic importance goes beyond the actual reforms themselves, however moderate they might be in this case. It is symbolism over substance.

I think another part, though, is that there is a group Americans who see the country as changing in ways that make them feel out of place. Much of contemporary America doesn't fit the image of what they think America has been or should be, or who Americans are or can be (of course, it never really did). They hear foreign languages spoken on the street, see a man with a funny name as president, watch cities growing and rural life shrinking, observe new technologies -- which they do not use or understand -- come and go in a dizzying whirlwind. It makes them feel like "others" have taken over the country. People "not like me" are in charge, and it is frightening to them. It is this sense of being displaced that motivates the emotions we are seeing rather than anything having to do with health care policy per se.

I think I can understand that. When I'm a little older, I'll probably feel much the same way about certain things. I reserve the right when I reach that point to shout like a crazed madman during a town hall meeting.

Update:
One of our senators, Sherrod Brown, held a town hall meeting the other day at OSU. I wasn't there, but from what I've heard, Steven Gabbe, senior VP for health services at OSU, gave a great presentation in favor of reform.

Update:
After bashing the media a few posts ago or their lack of interest in "facts," I suppose I should give credit where credit is due.