Policy Window: A surprising lack of discussions regarding healthcare policy reform
Rather than rehash all the conversations about the identity or motive of the person who killed the United Healthcare CEO, I'd love to have a discussion about the policy window it seems to have opened. This is the first time we've seen widespread, bi-partisan support for an issue - seemingly medicare for all - but I can't find anyone actually talking about policy. None of the big legacy media organizations like BBC or CNN, or your typical cast of medicare for all characters like Bernie Sanders. I'm not sure if silence on the topic to insulate folks from being labelled "cold or heartless", but it seems like systematic issues with the insurance industry is at the core of what has everyone so riled up. Am I missing some large scale discussion happening that is actually focusing on regulatory change or is it just not happening?
Maybe to the heart of the question for those better informed than myself: What can we do from a grassroots perspective to push for regulatory reform while this is still fresh in the public eye? There seems to be momentum, can it be funneled into something meaningful?
I realize the threads I've seen on the topic have been locked, so if you participate in the discussion please keep this policy related. We all have strong feeling about what happened, but as much as we can let's stay on topic.
If it's happening, it's not happening much. I think we haven't seen much talk of policy reform because of the incoming Trump situation. I doubt there are very many people that think it's possible to get positive change to happen at all in the next 4 years (and possibly more) because of the upcoming situation/shitshow. I know I'd consider it a victory if we manage to make it through all of this with the ACA intact.
Even if Biden and every democratic politician suddenly had a change of heart and passed a sweeping health insurance reform on the way out, I'm sure Trump and the magas would instantly reverse it as soon as they could.
Apologies for being such a defeatist. I really do wish I was able to offer suggestions on how to feasibly improve the situation. However, the last time I can remember there being any real hope of this was in 2016 when Bernie was still in the running. We've seen just how much the system does not want us to even have universal healthcare, so I'm not surprised people have given up on even possibly maybe getting some small improvements in policy. Hell, Bernie is still saying the same things he always has been, but positive change, at least through typical political channels, feels even further away than before. I really do hope I'm wrong, though.
I suppose I was hoping this might act as a policy window as you saw pretty widespread support. I don't know the numbers, but it seemed like this was popular amongst conservatives and Trump supporters as well. The over optimist in me was hoping that if someone could pick up the ball and run with it, there might be considerable pressure to politicians across the board - enough to actually change policy.
This is a great example of what happens when you change systems from governmental or non-profit to for-profit (under Reagan and the again under Clinton) and considering all of the federal systems we're on the verge of privatizing it seems like as good a canary as any.
Sill waiting for that someone, sadly. It's a tricky issue and not many necessarily have the power, charisma, and timing to properly use that momentum that came out of a completely unpredictable event.
It's not impossible, but it usually takes more than one tragedy to really start such a widescale change.
Honestly I thought it might be Bernie banging the gong, but it seems to be silence across the board. The cynic in me is kind of surprised no one is taking this as an opportunity to take a step into the national spotlight.
The reason behind that is one that most politicians are unwilling to voice. Bernie is one of the few who will explain it in detail - the link is to the start of the relevant portion of a conversation between Bernie Sanders and Jon Stewart.
Essentially, since Citizens United, corporations can look a politician in the eye and say "you don't say shit about what we do, or we'll donate twenty million dollars to your opponent in the next election cycle, and any election cycle you try to run in, forever".
I... actually just finished making a video that is quite adjacent to this topic. I made the video because of the assassination, but the video itself is largely about politics, money, and the current nature of political power in the USA.
I go into the reasons we don't see this kind of issue (rational single payer healthcare policy) get traction in politics and the specifics of how money influences politics. Bernie deserves credit on that part.
Link here if anyone wants. I'll warn you ahead of time that it's 45 minutes of largely depressing subject matter.
I'll definitely give it a watch in the morning, thanks for sharing!
Even before the slaying of Brian Thompson, my Trump-supporting family members would've told you that the healthcare system is broken; but that doesn't mean they would support Medicare-for-All -- I'm sure they would reflexively reject it, regardless of whatever argument you could muster. We're paralyzed by our polarization, and until that is addressed, I doubt we'll have bipartisan agreement on any major policy issue.
So to answer your question:
You won't get much pushback from the left, so you would need to infiltrate conservative media bubbles. That would mean somehow building your credence among conservatives while simultaneously pushing a (traditionally) progressive policy position. There are small things you could do -- for example, talking with conservative family members about the benefits of Medicare-for-All without referring to it as such -- but to effect change on a large scale there needs to be systematic changes in the media ecosphere. Unfortunately, I doubt a grassroots campaign would be effective at engendering such change.
Alternatively, one could propose amendments to state constitutions which would guarantee the right to healthcare. This seems to be a pretty effective method for achieving policy goals when there is a mismatch between voters and political leadership (e.g. abortion rights). That said, I see at least a couple issues: (1) healthcare is expensive, and I doubt a state could cover the costs; (2) universal healthcare is a highly polarizing issue, so you would somehow need to promote it while rebranding it as something else.
I'm not any kind of healthcare expert, but it seems like the US healthcare system hasn't been the same since the pandemic. An example is Kaiser having to outsource - that seems new? If they don't have enough capacity, who does?
More healthcare workers and better working conditions might help. A problem with efficiency improvements is that if you're trying to run things at close to capacity, that means you have nothing extra if it's needed.
From the outside, having to schedule things far ahead seems like a symptom of something wrong. From a queuing systems theory perspective, under varying loads, queues should be empty some of the time. There should be busy times and slack times.
But this is just speculation. To get serious about figuring out what's going on, I would have to study more.
And I think the best way to encourage knowledgeable discussion would be to share links to the right kind of articles - educational but also accessible.