The New Health Dialogue

The New Year’s just begun and already the crowd inside the Beltway has shifted its focus to the 2010 midterm elections, some 301 days away. One key question for political palm readers is how health reform will play at the polls.

Many on the Republican side believe health reform is their ticket back to power, an issue that can mobilize their base while keeping liberals and progressives at home. As Politico reports, many Congressional candidates are campaigning on a pledge to repeal the bill, and even gubernatorial candidates like John Oxedine in Georgia are getting in on the action. (Personally, we prefer some of the Ox’s other forays into new media.)

Democrats, meanwhile, worry that a disgruntled base and wary center could produce some nasty results come November. The Washington Post’s E. J. Dionne, however, doesn't believe Dems are destined for a repeat of 1994, not if they strike the right tone on health reform:

Selling health care reform as real progress is also key to winning both the middle and the left. Many progressives are disillusioned over the loss of the public option. Less ideological voters wonder what they will get out of the bill. Both groups need reassurance about a plan tarred by the convoluted legislative process that created it.

As the Senate and House make a deal on the final bill, they need to keep an eye on where progressives and middle-of-the-road voters agree. That would include making insurance affordable for middle- and lower-middle-income Americans, securing additional concessions from the drug companies, and strengthening insurance company regulation.

More than the similarilities between liberals and independents, it’s the contrast with conservatives, the Philadelphia Inquirer’s Dick Polman argues, that will create a powerful message for Democrats come election day:

One party voted to prohibit health-insurance companies from stiffing the millions of Americans with preexisting conditions. The other party voted to perpetuate that discrimination.

One party voted to prohibit health-insurance companies from skewering customers who get sick, either by hiking their premiums or dumping them. The other party voted to perpetuate those practices.

One party voted to financially help 30 million Americans who today can't afford to buy health insurance in the private sector. The other party voted to keep those Americans uninsured.

One party voted to make it easier for small-business owners to insure their workers with the help of tax credits and vouchers. The other party voted no.

One party believes health security for all Americans is a fundamental, inalienable right, just as it is everywhere else in the Western democratic world. The other party does not believe in health security -- which is no surprise, given that it once voted against Social Security for seniors.

Winning the narrative is never easy, but as we noted before the holiday break, public opinion of health reform should improve after passage, as the initial benefits of the legislation are realized (e.g. extended dependent coverage, ending the practice of recissions, eliminating lifetime limits, etc.) and the unwarranted fears (e.g. death panels, rationing, socialist takeovers) are not. If so, Democrats will find selling health reform a bargain in the next election cycle.