While Republican types freak out about the idea that government reform of health care will somehow involve government — economist Arthur Laffer’s “Just wait till you see Medicaid and Medicare run by the government!” was a classic of the genre — most people I know seem to be heading in the opposite direction. Why, they ask, is Congress spending so much time and money patching a system that is fundamentally broken? “Insurance companies waste so much money hiring people to deny you coverage,” said one. “We need to just get rid of them. And,” she added, “there should be a cap on doctors’ salaries.” (She happens to be a doctor.)
Now, this could just be a matter of who I hang out with. But maybe America is more like Brooklyn than you might think: Last week, a Time magazine poll found Americans backing a “Medicare for all” plan (aka “single-payer,” aka “what our Canadian neighbors laugh at us because we don’t have”) 49 percent to 46 percent.
That’s a crazy high number, considering public insurance has been under a near-total media blackout. A recent study by the group Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting found that single-payer is almost never discussed on TV, except when conservatives are attacking it. And once a topic is declared off-limits, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy: Times columnist Paul Krugman recently admitted he thinks Medicare-for-all would be the best solution, but doesn’t write about it because it’s “not going to happen any time soon.”
Of course, lots of things were “not going to happen any time soon” until they happened —electing a black man to the White House, anyone? First, though, people need to talk about them. And that’s hard when news coverage sticks to “balancing” the status quo with mild reform — the kind of coverage that led columnist Alexander Cockburn to memorably spoof how TV news would have reported on the Donner Party: “Tonight, should cannibalism be regulated?”
With watchdogs like these, no wonder the Canadians are laughing.