Town Halls: Full of sound and fury, signifying what?
[Posted by Karl]
The political arguments over congressional town halls, anti-ObamaCare protests and HCAN/SEIU thuggery began as focused on the relative authenticity of the protests. Now, Juicebox Mafioso Matt Yglesias and Democratic Strategist Ed Kilgore take the step of questioning the point of town hall meetings (which is amusing in light of the lefty charge that raucous protests at these meetings is killing democracy, but I digress).
The immediate, non-theoretical answer is that the Democrats hoped to use town halls as one way of selling ObamaCare to an increasingly skeptical public and generate favorable media coverage. The anti-ObamaCare protests introduced an element of judo, turning the town halls into a story about how controversial ObamaCare remains, exposing how staged the pro-ObamaCare events have been, and causing skittish Democrats to avoid staging more of them.
Marc Ambinder would like to believe that ObamaCare critics have discredited themselves and that the media reported on the town hall meetings in ways damaging to Republicans. (On the Right, Charles Krauthammer and Andrew McCarthy took opposing views on this question.) Ambinder assumes that Blue Dogs will write off the protesters as partisans rather than swing voters. However, it is equally possible that Dick Armey has correctly identified Tea Partiers as Perot-esque populists not so easily pigeon-holed. Moreover, people this passionate in opposition are the sort who will continue their activism in the 2010 campaign cycle; a Member of Congress would prefer that they be mollified to the extent possible.
Ambinder is on even shakier ground when it comes to his media analysis, falling into the all too common trap of analyzing from the viewpoint of a political junkie. (As did Krauthammer.) The town hall meetings kept healthcare atop the news agenda last week, but the distribution of that news coverage is telling:
From August 3-9 health care accounted for only 5% of the newshole in newspapers, online and network news. But it dominated cable news (37%) and radio (33%), the two sectors that include the debate-oriented programming that hammers away on polarizing issues.
The economy and North Korea got far more coverage on network TV, which is still where Americans get the bulk of their news. A sliver of the population gets its news from cable TV; radio is a medium generally dominated by the Right.
Accordingly, it is far from clear that the media coverage was much help to the Democrats. Public support for ObamaCare fell to a new low in the Rasmussen poll, and has dropped 21 percent in four weeks in the Gallup poll. Gallup did not break out unaffiliated adults, but Rasmussen reported increased opposition from unaffiliated voters. The attention given to the town hall protests does not have seem to reversed ObamaCare’s downward slide.
That being said, it is also far from clear that the protests are a significant cause of ObamaCare’s slide, either. Peter Kirsanow makes a decent point:
Perhaps the behavior of some of the attendees will eventually reverse Obamacare’s eroding support. But that would be a peculiar dynamic. The drop in support is a result of more and more people focusing on the probabilities that the plan will decrease the quality and availability of care while blowing a titanic hole in the federal budget. Seeing video of a few energetic people shouting at congressmen is unlikely to cause the average voter to say, “Okay, that does it. Because of that loud guy I now support high taxes, mediocre health care, and an irreparable budget deficit.” Rather, it’s more likely that ordinary Americans who see a video of their fellow citizens confronting out-of-touch, spendthrift politicians will be reinforced in their suspicions that something is seriously wrong with the bill.
I would add that bad economic news was also driving down support for Pres. Obama and moreso his policies before the August recess, and that trend will likely continue as long as job losses continue to mount. This is not run to down anti-ObamaCare activism. As noted earlier, the protests affect the media narrative, have yet to become a liability in public opinion, and may help sway some members of Congress at the margin. But political junkies (myself included) should always be careful not to assume that everyone is obsessing over the protests the way we are, or drawing any particular conclusion from them. Most of the time, it is the bigger picture that matters.
–Karl
I think that the protests actually help anti-obamcare. Before the protests were being reported, the mushy middle who pay no attention to politics knew almost nothing about what was being proposed.
The coverage of the protests caused some of these people to focus, and when that happened they realized how terrible the proposals are.
I know a number of non-political individuals who three weeks ago knew absolutely nothing about the healthcare debate, and now are strongly opposed to Obamacare. Without the protests, they would have remained in ignorance. Which is why the left wanted to try and push this to a vote before anyone in the mushy middle paid attention. Obama and the left were counting on the average american not paying attention until it was too late.
The protests have garnered some attention that otherwise never would have happened. As stated in the post, perhaps some in the middle will think that the protesters are overdoing it, or obnoxious, but that won’t make them suddenly support Obamacare. Moreover, the politicians’ reactions thus far have made them look worse, not the protestors – it is demonstrating to the middle the disdain many of these democrat reps and senators have for the voting public.
so, all in all, I fail to see how this ends up as anything but a positive (as long as the protesters don’t get too carried away or do something violent).
Monkeytoe (e66874) — 8/12/2009 @ 9:55 amThere are a couple of dynamics at work here. One is the public’s fear that is based on the fact that none of these Congress critters has read the bill. The entire process is based on “trust me.” That trust has been eroded by a number of scandals that many people are vaguely aware of, like the inspector general stories and the tax evasion stories.
The left is firmly intent on denying that anything is going on. They have fingers in ears, hands over eyes and are in a crouch. Mickey Kaus, who is very astute, disagrees with Ambinder rather strongly.
They’re the possibilities you’d want to emphasize if you were, say, a Democratic aide talking to Marc Ambinder. But are they the most important possibilities? For example, anti-Obama activists indeed seemed uncouth and even thuggish in some early townhall MSM coverage. But how many people watch the MSM in the middle of August? (And anyway, Obama has now shown that these meetings aren’t that uncivil!)
The bigger picture is whether support for health care, already too weak, builds over August or shrinks, no? Does Ambinder really think it’s going to build simply because GOPs ramped up too quickly and got too loud last week? Doesn’t the latter criticism, however valid, have the half-life of either a twitter item or Rahm Emanuel’s attention span, whichever is shorter?
Ambinder seems to be operating on the premise that all Obama needs to do is convince a finite number of Blue Dogs to vote with him and a “comprehensive” health reform will pass–the way a few more delegates once enabled him to lock up the nomination. But lawmaking isn’t that cleanly mathematical. When the general public sours on a bill, it affects more than a few swing votes. Unpopular bills have a way of magically bogging down in Congress even if a majority technically favors them and regardless of what happens with Senators and Congressman whose votes were once considered “crucial.”
I think we are at a point when health reform may be irrelevant. The changes going on are going on all over the world where government funded care is going broke. The left is crowing about the IBD mistake concerning Steven Hawking. They said the NHS would cut off his care but that has now been corrected. Not mentioned is the fact that he is at Cambridge where a huge medical complex is centered and the possibility that such a famous person would be allowed to die for lack of care is ridiculous. The point of government care isn’t that everyone would be rationed; it is that such decisions would be made subjectively, the point of my post on the other thread.
Adam Smith made the point 250 years ago that we will make decisions in our own best interest and those decisions are usually what is best for society, as well.
England now has a large private medical system, especially in southeast England, the only part of the UK that has a positive GDP. Private clinics are appearing in Canada after 20 years of government care.
We will have private care here and the principle reason why the Clinton bill was opposed by doctors is that it tried to outlaw private care. If Obama doesn’t do that, the transformation of American medicine back to a private market will continue. Doctors had it easy after 1965 when Medicare suddenly began to pay well for care. Before that, doctors were decidedly middle class. We are just returning to that era before Medicare.
Mike K (2cf494) — 8/12/2009 @ 10:11 amWhy are the comments not showing up?
Monkeytoe (e66874) — 8/12/2009 @ 10:38 amAs Crissy Mathews taught me, opposition to Barcky’s dirty little socialisms is violent racists bought and paid for by K-street lobbyists.
JD (ddbd2f) — 8/12/2009 @ 10:47 amWhat happened to the comments ?
Mike K (2cf494) — 8/12/2009 @ 10:55 amThe real problem is that there is a need for reform in two areas.
1) Insurance companies should not be able to terminate (or not renew) policies because someone has gotten sick. Such actions undermine the basic premise of insurance.
2) Pre-existing conditions should not prevent coverage. Of course the flip side is that people should not be able to seek “insurance” only when they know they’ll have a claim.
Obama’s plan(s) (there are what, 5 bills?) go way too far. But the Republicans would do well to have an alternative and to make the case for the alternative and loudly.
“Nyet!” is an insufficient response.
Kevin Murphy (805c5b) — 8/12/2009 @ 11:04 amIf these legislators (of whatever stripe) were half as savvy as they like to think, they could turn the townhall thing to their advantage. All they have to do is “active listen” people. Ask questions in response to questions. Say, “I’m here because I want to know what you think.” Carry around a gigantic print-out of the bill and read through large sections of it when you are forced to answer a question.
What kills them all is the seduction of celebrity. Someone hands them a microphone and they suddenly feel like they need to be entertaining – interesting. That’s good for the campaign commercial – but in the townhall they should put on the reading glasses and look like they are really really really trying hard here to understand their constituents concerns – and then, of course, go back and vote however they want or for whoever pays them the most.
Hey, I’m not saying it’s the right thing. But really accomplished sleazy politicians would already know this. We can all be thankful that our political leaders are as ignorant as they are incompetent.
Gesundheit (47b0b8) — 8/12/2009 @ 11:36 amKevin Murphy,
I agree with your point 1 – it seems to me that cancelling insurance b/c someone is sick is like your car insurance company cancelling your insurance right after you have an accident and refusing to pay.
Point 2 is more troublesome: “2) Pre-existing conditions should not prevent coverage. Of course the flip side is that people should not be able to seek “insurance” only when they know they’ll have a claim.”
How would this ever be policed? People who suddenly seek insurance would claim “I didn’t even know I had cancer until the insurance company told me”.
I’d be interested in any ideas for this. Obviously, requiring insurance companies to take people they know they are going to have to pay out big $$ on will increase the premiums for the rest of us.
Monkeytoe (e66874) — 8/12/2009 @ 11:39 amI had a long comment answering Kevin eaten by the server. I’ll post it on my own blog later. There are alternatives.
Mike K (2cf494) — 8/12/2009 @ 3:08 pmhttp://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/HS/htm/HS.166.htm
Texas Futile Care Law. Signed by George Bush
Sun Hudson: On March 15, 2005, six-month-old infant Sun Hudson, who had a lethal congenital malformation, was one of the first children to have care withdrawn under the Texas Futile Treatment Law.[2] Doctors demonstrated in the ethics committee reviews that keeping the infant on a respirator would only delay his inevitable death.
Tirhas Habtegiris: In December 2005, Tirhas Habtegiris, a young woman and legal immigrant from Africa, was removed from a respirator. Habtegiris died from complications of incurable and untreatable cancer that had spread to her lungs.
Andrea Clark: In April 2006, relatives of 53-year old Andrea Clark were given the 10-day notice under this act.[3][4] She had reportedly signed a statement she did not wish to die and was cognizant, although having difficulties communicating while under heavy medication and after her brain was damaged by internal bleeding and the effects of heart disease. After publicity from both right and left political groups, St. Luke’s hospital in Houston agreed to review the case again, eventually retracting the original decision this further review. Clark ultimately died on May 8, 2006 after an infection.
Carl Watkins (d80b5a) — 8/12/2009 @ 3:27 pmThese meetings expose both the legislation and our representatives to the light of day. They have demonstrated the true nature of these people and why they do not deserve our trust nor esteem.
Remember the braver of these individuals are holding such meetings. Mopst are hding out. They will not respond to you in any form.
Vote these people out. They do not represent you do not respond to you, nor care about you.
Vote all who support Obama out.
Thomas Jackson (8ffd46) — 8/12/2009 @ 4:13 pmI think everyone here should google “Getting Cancer in a ‘Hell Hole’ Socialist Country. You might learn something if you read it, also read the comments for a comparison of someone who had the same cancer here and how they were treated by their insurance company.
Mark Anderson (67ea3e) — 8/12/2009 @ 6:52 pmA comment from the post referred to but not linked by Mark Anderson. Google it yourself:
“I had breast cancer, (caught before it became invasive) and my insurance covered it pretty well, although I had a lot of out of pocket expenses. After that, my insurance refused to cover subsequent mammograms as preventive care (covered 100%) and instead “covered” them as “diagnostic,” with a $1,500 per year deductible (in other words, I paid for my mammograms out of pocket as punishment for having breast cancer).
Once my COBRA ran out, I became almost uninsurable here in the good ole USA. I paid more than $8,400 a year for coverage, but with a deductible of $5,000 per year. What does that mean? I had to spend $13,400 in a year before my “insurance would pay one penny towards my health care. If I had the bad luck to need something in December, then it would start all over again in January.
Last night I heard Tom Perriello talk about letting the insurance companies compete. He impressed me with his intelligence, but I wanted to ask him: Are you saying that insurance companies don’t have the privilege of competing now?”
Carl Watkins (d80b5a) — 8/12/2009 @ 7:19 pmAnd to answer her question “No. No they don’t.”
Because federal laws prohibit insurance companies from competing across state lines. If they were allowed to do so, you would see an amazing chance in price.
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 8/12/2009 @ 7:27 pmAs Mike K (link above) suggests on his blog, allowing interstate competition is unlikely in the extreme. Everyone will defend their pond.
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 8/12/2009 @ 8:49 pmI didn’t know where to leave this so you get it here.
==
Oath Keepers
Oath Keepers is a non-partisan association of currently serving military, veterans, peace officers, and firefighters who will fulfill the oath we swore to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help us God.
Our motto is “Not on our watch!”
M. Simon (365d1d) — 8/12/2009 @ 9:08 pmI didn’t know where to leave this so you get it here.
==
Oath Keepers
Oath Keepers is a non-partisan association of currently serving military, veterans, peace officers, and firefighters who will fulfill the oath we swore to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help us God.
Our motto is “Not on our watch!”
M. Simon (365d1d) — 8/12/2009 @ 9:08 pm#13
The government prevents inter state competition by insurance firms. This would allow pooling and more competition. You might ask your congressman why he prevents such competition.
You might also ask why the dhimmies prevent the deduction of medical expenses. Short of devastating, nbankrupting medical bills you have no real way to deduct medical expenses.
If our politicians cared they’f make medical expenses up to 3,000 per worker (anything related to health) a tax credit against taxes owed. When I asked my congressrat he said it would never be passed so why bother.
Just vote these rats out.
Thomas Jackson (8ffd46) — 8/12/2009 @ 9:30 pm” If they were allowed to do so, you would see an amazing chance in price.”
And a race to the bottom. As one person put it “like comparing cars to roller skates.” because both are forms of transportation.
It reminds me of Gingrich’s response to questions about states competing in who can drop more people off the welfare rolls: ‘So what?” The healthy would have better prices and the rest would be left with garbage policies or none at all.
It’s like listening to people on Medicare attacking socialized medicine.
Just stupid, or bizarre.
We spend more for less. And the rest of the western world is left scratching their heads.
Carl Watkins (d80b5a) — 8/12/2009 @ 9:48 pmThe real hope I have, is that the protests and vocal opposition to the health care plans are indicative of a high voter turnout in 2010 by those who will vote against pro-Obamacare politicians.
D Johnson (9e60af) — 8/13/2009 @ 2:49 pm#19
We spend more for less? Compared to whom? The British or Canadians. Nations that sentence their citizens to pain and suffering for a few dollars. Such compassion.
Perhaps you had Cuba in mind.
I’d like to see another nation which has healthcare that beats the US.
Thomas Jackson (8ffd46) — 8/13/2009 @ 7:17 pm