As my plane takes off from Washington, D.C., monuments dot
the landscape below me. The Capitol stands tall, overlooking the
city, a commanding symbol of a government that is truly of, by,
and for the people. What happens under its roof permeates our
nation’s capital city. What is discussed on the floor of the
legislature is then discussed and overheard at dinners, in the
streets, and on the train. It is people’s livelihood, their
hobby, their interest.
As my plane flies farther west, the landscape changes.
There is more green space, which later turns to brown terrain.
Every now and again you see a house.
The people in these houses are obviously talking about
healthcare, just as people in Washington are. After all, what
happens in the legislature has an enormous impact on their
lives.
But out here, far outside of the Washington beltway, the
conversation is different. People are not talking about the
different legislative options. They are not discussing the public
option versus a co-op plan. Outside the beltway, the healthcare
discussion is binary: government intervention or not?
This conversation has been more than apparent in town hall
meetings, which have been volatile not among people supporting
different government options, but between those who support any
degree of government intervention and those who feel that they
can get along just fine without the government’s help. Why is
this so hard for Washingtonians to see?
In Washington, the federal government is what people live
and breathe. It is hard for people here, especially lawmakers, to
imagine a place where dinner conversation is not dominated by
politics. A place where, instead, dinner conversation is
dominated by concern over the well-being of the family, by the
bills that have to be paid, and by the everyday stresses of
life.
Outside of Washington, interactions with the federal
government are far less frequent, and the local government is
what really affects people’s lives. Where people do interact with
the federal government, their experience is usually negative —
making it understandable that they have doubts about government
intrusion into their healthcare, which is literally a
life-or-death issue.
The place where most people interact with the federal
government the most frequently is the post office. People also
often complain about the post office. Mail is constantly getting
lost or taking entirely too long to arrive at its destination.
Private sector competitors continually prove themselves more
reliable and more profitable.
I recently tried to forward my mail while I was away for
the summer. The post office — the post office itself — sent me
a letter confirming the forward. I received it two months later,
along with some two-month-old forwarded mail. The rest was
lost.
Nancy Pelosi’s website urges constituents to contact her
“if you are experiencing persistent problems with mail delivery.”
This is not an isolated problem.
After the post office, the next most frequent contact that
people have with the federal government occurs when obtaining or
renewing a passport. This administrative process is so
inconsistent, inefficient, and impossible to maneuver, that most
members of Congress pay staff members to help constituents who
have problems or need help navigating the procedures.
While a problem in the private sector is generally easily
solved, a problem with the federal government can become a
full-time job with no resolution. What if that problem is your
health?
“Having a problem with the federal government can be very
frustrating,” says Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on his
website. That, Mr. Reid, is exactly why Americans don’t want to
deal with the Federal Government when it comes to their health
and well-being.
Don’t forget the government is already in the healthcare
business to a great extent. Medicaid, for example, is a broken
system. Private charity has popped up to try and find volunteer
doctors because Medicaid patients cannot find medical
professionals willing to provide care for them.
Medicare, likewise, does not fully cover the individuals it
promises to support. Seniors are regularly buying private
Medicare supplemental insurance because Medicare does not provide
adequate care. How are we to trust that an overall government
healthcare system wouldn’t require private insurance as
well?
The American people don’t trust the government to manage
their health because their experiences with the federal
government have largely been off-putting. Add to that the fact
that less than 20%, according to a Gallup poll, perceive the
healthcare system is in a state of crisis and that most Americans
rate the quality of the healthcare they receive, and even their
healthcare coverage, as excellent or good. Then, try to convince
the people across America, 70% of which think the economy is our
top problem, that we should spend more money to fix what ain’t
broke.
While policymakers in Washington figure out how to
craft and sell a plan, the rest of America is worried about
keeping their jobs and making their house payments. They are
worried about their children’s education — both now and how they
will pay for it as their children grow older.
Paying for healthcare is important to them
— money is not free, as it seems to be in Washington
sometimes.
Americans across the country have had nothing but bad
experiences with poorly run government programs and agencies that
operate at a high cost for little benefit. Why should they
believe healthcare will be any different?
