TNR BLOGS

July 03, 2009 | 7:55 PM
July 03, 2009 | 7:37 PM
July 03, 2009 | 7:12 PM

March 09, 2009 | 5:19 PM
March 09, 2009 | 5:16 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM

July 01, 2009 | 10:33 PM
June 30, 2009 | 8:42 AM
June 29, 2009 | 9:09 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

July 03, 2009 | 10:13 PM
July 02, 2009 | 12:57 PM
July 01, 2009 | 7:02 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
21.08.2008
Hey, Obama: Remember Health Care?

What happened to the great health care debate? That's the question Jill Zuckman asks today in the Chicago Tribune:

In the daily rat-a-tat-tat between Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama, the silence is deafening. ...

In the drawn- out Democratic primary fight between [Hillary Clinton] and Obama, the cost and availability of health care were daily fodder in the debate over which candidate would do a better job as president.

And now, there is ... not much.

The continual tussle between the two presumptive presidential nominees--Obama and McCain--has largely centered recently on national security and the high price of gasoline.

This week... [t]here were no conference calls to talk about health care. There were no television ads about health care.

She's not the only one to notice this. (Here's Ezra Klein; here's Kathy G.) And the driving force behind ths shift, Zuckman rightly notes, is the public's mood: Since the primaires, voters have become more preoccupied with high gas prices and the general state of the economy.

But health care remains a top issue, both substantively and politically. And although polls usually break out health care separately from the economy, they are intertwined. If paying for doctor visits, drugs, and insurance premiums is gobbling up more of your paycheck, you're going to worry even more about how much you're getting paid and whether your job is secure. The reverse is true, as well.

In the Tribune piece, Obama spokesman Bill Burton basically acknolwedges this--and suggests it's the media, not his candidate, that has lost focus. "The issue of health care may be getting less attention than it deserves from the media, but it's still a top concern for voters and among the top issues that Sen. Obama talks about on the campaign trail." And there is some truth here. Notwithstanding the obsessive coverage of health care you'll get from the likes of Paul Krugman, Trudy Lieberman, Ezra, or me, the political press has largely moved on.

But candidates aren't exactly powerless to shape the agenda. If Obama wanted to shift the conversation back towards health care, all it would take would be a few advertisements, maybe a major policy speech, plus a little one-on-one promotion to reporters.

So the question is, why hasn't the campaign done that yet?

The problem here, people close to Obama have told me repeatedly, isn't a lack of personal commitment by the candidate. And I'm inclined to believe that's true. As I've noted previously, Obama's history on promoting universal coverage dates back to his days in the Illinois legislature. The new draft of the party platform, over which he had a great deal of influence, conveys more ambition on health care than any platform in recent memory.

Instead, I think the Obama campaign is suffering from a lack of imagination (they can't envision forcefully shifting the agenda) or a lack of mettle (they fear getting branded as big government liberals or losing the post-paritsan aura). And either failure would be disappointing.

As my colleage Nate Silver has pointed out, Obama would almost surely benefit from expanding the conversation on the economy to include health care, since it's a debate in which the contrast between him and McCain couldn't be more clear--and in which, according to most polls, the public strongly prefers the policy approach Obama is proposing. Yes, hyping support for universal coverage would surely invite some attacks from the right. But it would also convince voters that Obama's talk of "change" is more than a slogan, at a time when the public seems to crave boldness.

Make no mistake: Obama still has opportunities to elevate health care as an issue. (Next week's release of new Census Bureau numbers on the uninsured would have been a terrific opportunity, if it weren't the same week as the convention. But others will surely follow.) The campaign's new ads, which are much more hard-hitting than previous ones, suggest Obama is already getting more aggressive. But Obama can't wait too long. At some point, it will be too late.

Update: An interested party in Washington with impeccable reform credentials just wrote me, suggesting I am too skepitcal: "I think the focus and conversation will come. There’s a season for this and it will be more into the fall campaign. I see a real commitment across the spectrum of Democratic policy makers to do this. ... There’s legitimate concern about how this can be done and how it aligns with other essential policy priorities. Not the ideal conversation for campaign silly season." 

--Jonathan Cohn

 

Posted: Thursday, August 21, 2008 1:02 PM with 7 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

AlanSP said:

I'm baffled by this.  In terms of policy, healthcare is probably the single biggest reason to prefer Obama to McCain.  He hasn't said a word about his strongest issue.  Maybe the Obama campaign hasn't noticed that it isn't 1994 anymore; the public is on their side.

Instead of putting out inane ads about Ralph Reed (yes, it's inane), he should be hitting McCain hard on healthcare.

August 21, 2008 1:41 PM

a_long said:

it could simply be timing. I'm pretty sure their thinking is divided into pre-convention, convention, post-convention, first debate period, etc. the summer pre-convention messaging hasn't been great, but it has been coherent: foreign policy; ability and judgment to lead; energy. I think they were hoping they would be able to build up his foundation a bit, and then hit the convention without having to delve into too many policy areas too quickly. And they were on that track, until Schmidt took over, tightened up his ship, and started attacking daily, with some pretty good plans, even if they seem scattershot.  Energy became a McCain winner, and a winner always drives the CW. Obama SHOULD have been nimble enough to parry that with a mini-winner of his own, but in the short time until the convention, I don't think using health care would have been the right way to go. It would have seemed forced, and made him look even weaker on energy/gas prices, like he was doing anything to change the subject. Better to come out of the convention anew with, one hopes, a multi-pronged agenda of policy advancement and attack, which will surely highlight health care, with Clinton's help, during the debate period, when many millions more voters are paying attention.

August 21, 2008 1:57 PM

dylanposer said:

They ought to give health care its own speech in Denver.

August 21, 2008 2:43 PM

mcgumbleton said:

Jonathan - on a tangental note, I've been reading about a bit of a movement to "outsource" health care to other countries like Thailand and India. So if you need a hip replacement, for example, you'd have to fly to a "world renowned" hospital in Bangkok to get it done. It worries me for the impact such a "market driven" solution might have on UHC. I haven't seen you write anything about it here in TNR but would be deeply curious to hear your perspective on it.

Oh, and Go Blue!

August 21, 2008 2:59 PM

Jonathan Cohn said:

Go Blue!  Chait, who obsesses about the Wolverines the way I obsess about the Red Sox, tells me Michigan football may exceed expectations this year--although, given the low expectations, that may not be hard.

To your very good question, I've followed the story.  I've held off writing about it because I've had a hard time believing "medical tourism," as it is called, would ever get big enough to really influence health care issues in this country.  Mostly for practical reasons, I just couldn't imagine it having that huge an impact.

But I'm starting to wonder if I was too hasty about that. I'll put it on my list of things to research more closely.  Thanks for the suggestion.

August 21, 2008 4:25 PM

guptatomic1 said:

Jonathan, your focus and expertise on health care is one of the things that keeps me coming back to TNR -- thank you, thank you, thank you.  But a couple points.  First, people will be less concerned about health care when they're having trouble paying for gas.  And second -- this is the kicker -- you may be able to argue that in the long run universal coverage will provide significant cost reduxn w/out a significant reduxn in service -- but there's no question that the shift in govt involvement/spending will be enormous, the cost in the short term will be enormous, and it comes at the worst possible time.  If Fannie and Freddie have to be nationalized (and, for all the creative ways Paulson can disguise the fact, they will ultimately be nationalized), we'll be adding 5 trilln usd to the fed debt when we're -already- approaching double-digit inflation.  How do you make huge new outlays palatable in this environment?  I already heard one McCain ad attacking Obama for tax-and-spend -- what's the response?  How do you lay this out in a way that appeals to voters but is also fiscally responsible?

August 21, 2008 7:25 PM

aeromonas said:

Yes.  The Obama campaign's reluctance to push harder on health care is disappointing and, to me, somewhat puzzling.  Seems like a clear winner.  Maybe, as a_long suggests, it's just timing.  More than a lot of candidates I can recall, Obama seems content to move at his own pace.  I get the feeling he's counting on his get-out-the-vote ground game a lot more than candidates before him.

August 22, 2008 12:20 AM