Mark's post responding to my case for universal health care raises some good objections that, I think, deserve consideration. He argues that this era's economic insecurity and benefit deterioration has left the middle classes cowering in the corner, flinching from friend and foe alike lest they lose the little they already have. Democrats may be trying to help, but they'll get snapped at all the same. Remember, Mark cautions, that Kerry had a rather incremental plan, and Bush effectively attacked it as a big government takeover.
But did he? This is a point Garance made on Dick Gephardt's plan, that it was widely-panned and went down with its candidate. But like with Gephardt, I fear folks have a correlation/causation problem. Both Kerry and Gephardt gained substantial political benefit from their plan despite losing their respective races. Here's ABC News:
Among likely voters, Kerry leads Bush by 50 percent to 38 percent in trust to handle health care, up from an even split in early September. Among movables, Kerry's lead on health care is wider still, 59 percent to 17 percent, with the rest undecided or distrustful of both.
Democrats with health care plans often see their plans attacked and their campaigns foiled. But that's because Democrats lose elections. If they didn't have health care propping them up, they'd lose a lot more of them, and do so by larger margins. Election losses are multicausal, just because a losing candidate got attacked for their health plan doesn't mean their health plan harmed them.
That said, Mark's point is a serious one, and it should be considered:
[Voters] are more nervous about keeping whatever they have, and easily spooked. The suggestion that you might not be able to choose a doctor (not that you can under many employer systems these days anyway) or that certain procedures might not be covered, or that the system will be too complicated are likely to scare people who are already worried.
Pay special attention to that point on choice. That's the argument used to sink ClintonCare, the argument singularly responsible for the perpetuation of our crazy-quilt system. And it's exactly the argument that, I think, has changed, rendering health care reformable for the first time since the 70's.
