Amy Traub
David Brooks: We Are Americans, Hear Us Cough
Based on his own superior knowledge of the American national character – not actual surveys of what Americans say they want[pdf] – David Brooks tells us that “European-style” single-payer health care is anathema to the American way. Funny, it would sounds less foreign if you called it “Canadian-style” which is what it is. And it would sound still less exotic if we called it “Medicare for All,” another accurate description.
“Americans, who are more individualistic and pluralistic will not likely embrace a system that forces them to defer to the central government when it comes to making fundamental health care choices.” No, we prefer to defer to insurance companies to make these choices for us. It’s more “individualistic” that way because the companies aim at making profit rather than making sure we get high quality care. Plus, we (or more likely, our employers) can choose which company will be denying our claims.
Instead of looking at what Americans actually do want from their health care system, Brooks looks to the Heritage Foundation for answers, some of the same folks that gave us the brilliant plan to privatize Social Security.
Before we see what the good people at Heritage had to say, let me share a bit of personal experience. At the Drum Major Institute, we have explored a variety of state attempts to deal with health care, both the crisis of rising costs and the millions of uninsured Americans. We explored Maryland’s attempt to make sure the largest and most profitable employers don’t force the public to pay for their employees’ health costs. We looked at how California has regulated property and casualty insurance rates and speculated about how this could work in health care. And we talked with one of the architects of Maine’ s successful effort to rein in prescription drug prices.
One common thread that emerged from these on the ground experiences in all three states was the conviction that America’s broken health system is too big a problem for the states to handle on their own. So what solution does Brooks take from the Heritage Foundation? “The states should be left free to innovate and compete.” That may suit the multinational insurance and pharmaceutical companies, who prefer to divide and conquer fifty small state governments, but it does little to help Americans struggling with the high costs of health care.
It says something that the popular momentum for an overhaul of our health care system is so overwhelming that even David Brooks and his friends at the Heritage Foundation admit we need to rewrite the social contract. The problem is, their draft would give us more of the same.
***
Well worth your time is this great new animated parody video by the California organization It's OUR Healthcare. The video highlights some of the consistent failures of our current healthcare system and the destructive practices of private insurers-- in this case Blue Cross. Fans of Monty Python and health care reform will love the video.
.
Amy Traub: Author Bio | Other Posts
Posted at 4:32 PM, Sep 10, 2007 in David Brooks critique | Health Care
Permalink | Email to Friend | Comments (2)











Comments
David Brooks' reliance on Heritage Foundation should not surprise us. He naturally finds the furthest right-wing position on every issue. He's an easy, if fun, target of opportunity.
What does surprise me, however, in these times during which universal health care proposals are supported by a majority of Americans (indeed, by a narrow majority of Republicans) is how difficult it has been to put such proposals on the progressive agenda. Even much more modest proposals such as the expanded S-CHIP, now in conference committee in Congress, has run into serious roadblocks from the Bush Administration.
How, as a practical matter, can we make support of Mr. Bush's vision of no insurance for many (His idea, I kid you not: go to the ER for care) political death? Two of Mr. Bush's health care allies represent nearby New Yorkers Peter King (Nassau Co.) and Vito Fossella (Staten Island & Brooklyn).
How, as a practical matter can progressive Congress Members like Nydia Velaquez (my member) or John Hall (for whom I campaigned) be persuaded to take concrete action on behalf of universal health insurance?
Posted by: Daniel Millstone | September 11, 2007 07:11 AM
I think you hit the nail on the head with that question: how do we turn strong popular support into actual policy change? I think we're on the right track now: we keep demanding and pushing for change and debunking those, like Heritage and Brooks, that are trying to push health care policy in the wrong direction. SCHIP is the right fight to have. In the short run, we push the SCHIP issue for all it's worth -- it's important both for the substantive policy of getting more kids to the doctor and because it gets at the heart of the different between progressives and the right. We believe government can make a positive difference where the market has blatantly and manifestly failed, and they believe in clinging to stale "market" answers even when kids' health is at stake. It's an issue people intuitively get. Progressive Members of Congress should push the issue, and push their more timid colleagues to take a stand. Reps. like Fossella and King can be hammered for standing against kids getting health care. The same thing has to happen with health care reform as a whole, but we sadly have to expect a longer time line for that. If health care remains one of the top issues for the presidential race in 08, we can hopefully get policy that moves us toward universal coverage in 09.
Posted by: Amy Traub | September 11, 2007 10:28 AM