by Janet Hook
The political challenge facing President Obama as he tries to pump new gas into his drive to revamp health care could be summed up in five words by Nobel prize winning economist Dan Kahneman:
In the minds of most people, losses loom larger than gains.
Obama's speech to a joint session of Congress Wednesday night was an effort to shift the balance between Americans' fear of loss and their hope of gain from changing a healthcare system that reaches deep into their personal lives.
For months, the often-vociferous debate has been dominated by fears of what might be lost if Democrats succeeded in overhauling what even critics agree is a troubled the system - fear of losses in the quality of individuals' care, in their ability to choose doctors, in their freedom from new government rules and mandates..
Those anxieties, underlined and reinforced by Republicans and other opponents of the Democratic proposals, seemed to eclipse the possible gains -- healthcare that was more affordable, less dependent on keeping one's job, less subject to punitive insurance company rules, and more accessible for all.
Obama may have succeeded in bringing the possibility of such improvements back into the spotlight. Bill Clinton got a substantial boost in public support after delivering a similar address more than a decade ago, though he let the gain slip away over time.
But Obama's speech also illustrated another, more durable obstacle to overhauling the health care system. The problems are so complex that solutions do not fit onto a bumper sticker.
"You can kill it with sound bites like `death panels' and `socialized medicine,' '' said Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), a skeptical Democrat been being wooed by the White House. Nelson was wowed by the speech, but he said "it is hard to put the sell out there on the basis of sound bites.''
For months, the White House focus has swung from moral arguments for helping the needy to pragmatic appeals to the self- interest of more fortunate Americans, from a strong defense to a government run health insurance option to a willingness to negotiate away the most dearly held goal of his political base.
Ambiguity about his commitment to a public plan as an alternative for uninsured persons who cannot find affordable private coverage was underlined again in last night's speech - underscoring Obama's willingness to rankle his political base if that's what it takes to allay fears that big government would take way individuals' autonomy.
But after months of stumbling from one policy rationale to another, Obama came closer than ever to distilling his message to simple principles: stability for those who have health insurance, affordable coverage for those who don't. And cost controls for all.
But it still took a 45-minute speech in the glare and grandeur of a joint-session Congress for Obama to begin to begin to recast the debate and respond to critics.
If he succeeds in reversing the public's declining confidence in his handling of the issue that helped elect him in 2008, Obama may also shift the balance of hope and fear among the handful of swing votes in Congress who will determine the course of legislative decision-making.
The lawmakers in the middle - centrist and conservative Democrats and a tiny number of moderate Republicans - were an important target of Obama's speech.
Whether their votes are won or lost will be depend in part by specific details that emerge during the intense legislative deal making that is expected in coming months.
But the swing votes will also be influenced by what they see as the effect of Obama's arguments on the perception of voters back home - whether he succeeded in shifting the balance between hope of gain and fear of loss, and whether he managed to cast his arguments in the sharp, uncomplicated forms that tend to stick in people's minds.
Only time will supply the final answers to those questions, but the White House might take comfort from one conservative House Democrat's reaction to Obama's pledge not to let a healthcare overhaul blow up the federal deficit.
Said Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-N.D), a member of the fiscally conservative Blue Dogs, welcomed Obama's flexibility. "I come away from that with new hope that maybe we can reach agreement. I think progress was made tonight.''
Comments
ObamaCare a hard sell?
It should be an easy sell. After all, we have as president the greatest speechmaker since Lincoln (the Swamp has told me so). And as can be seen from the above article, we have a press corps full of Democrats who talk only to their fellow Democrats.
Greatest salesman ever. 100% press support. How can ObamaCare lose?
Posted by: Peter Zenger | September 10, 2009 9:16 AM
"Obama's speech to a joint session of Congress Wednesday night was an effort to shift the balance between Americans' fear of loss and their hope of gain from changing a healthcare system that reaches deep into their personal lives."
Disagree. At no point did Obama say, "America. I hear you." in response to the many protests for, or against, HC reform.
It was just an attempt to win over the Blue Dog Dems.
My one concern with the public option is that it is just for 5% of the population, per Obama. Then why do it? If you were running a company, for example, would you even consider spending billions of dollars to benefit only 5% of the corporation? It just doesn't add up. Plus with only 5% participation and being not-for-profit - how is it sustainable?
Posted by: Phil Amderer | September 10, 2009 9:27 AM
Why has the Tribune given up on presenting both sides of an issue? There ARE legitimate concerns about the House bill, which is the only one in play at the moment. No death panels? Read pages 425-30 in the House bill. Sure, they don't say "death panel" but they mean the same. Illegals won't be covered, Obama says. But there is NO provision for checking citizenship status and there's no illegal who's going to volunteer such information. The Tribune and other of the old media need to shed their rose-colored glasses when it comes to liberal proposals. We don't ask for much, just both sides so we can make up our own minds.
Posted by: Wilson | September 10, 2009 9:50 AM
I don't understand how the Democrats can be "outraged" at joe Wilsons outburst, yet they did the exact same childish things to bush when he gave his speech to congress. Do i smell double standard and hypocrisy?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/09/10/flashback_democrats_boo_bush_at_2005_state_of_the_union.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/06/AR2005050601814.html
Posted by: Dave | September 10, 2009 10:02 AM
What is Jane smoking? Does she know it leads to hallucinations? Because only someone hallucinating could assume that Obama had any clue what is going on. There was no "argument" from Obama. His message was simple, "I don't know, but if you let me, in four years, you'll get a big surprise." What is really sad is how Obama provides no specifics, because he has never listed them. Yes, illegals will be covered, because in HR3200, in Sec. 401 mandates all individuals to have health insurance, but makes no provisions to prove citizenship. Yes, the government can come into your home, WITHOUT A WARRANT, to see if your kids are being raised in a "healthy" environment, as defined by the HEALTH commission. There are lots of other little items totally ignored by people like Janet and the only thing offered in return is "Trust Obama and shut up."
Posted by: Dan C | September 10, 2009 10:22 AM
Obama will not institute Tort Reform because he is in bed with the trial lawyers! Excess costs to Doctors are $38,000,000,000/year due to the excess testing, fraudulent cases and defensive medicine Doctors are forced to practice to avoid costly, and 98% fraudulent, trials.
If Obama were sincerely interested in helping the taxpayers why wouldn't he force the Tort Reform?
Tort Reform, nationwide competition among insurance companies, no public option and truth in the negotiations would resolve the issue.
Obama promised during the campaign that"all bills will have 5 days to be read by everyone before he would sign them" where did this go?
Obama also promised Health Care would be discuused on C-Span for all to watch and participate-have I missed that?
Obama allowed Pelosi/eid to offer bills written, not by congress, but by left wing advocacy groups like Apollo. These groups write complicated legal bills which are virtually unreadable and easy to misinterpret, as they wish. Then Obama and other politicians can claim ignorance of the details, which is what he has done and continues to do.
Demand all bills have 5 days for us to view on-line before Obama can sign them , as Obama promised.
Posted by: Florida Jim | September 10, 2009 10:33 AM
Obama clearly hit the right notes on the speech and gave moderates and the skeptical public everything they needed to at least grudgingly accept that reform is vital and the president’s agenda is far from radical. But will this effect show in the polls and in the broader public dialogue? Nail-biting times for the White House…
http://www.political-buzz.com/
Posted by: matt | September 10, 2009 10:45 AM
Wilson,
I've read pages 425-30 in the House bill. They relate to end-of-life planning. As in, letting *a person choose for themselves* what life saving measures, or not, are performed. Maybe all of your relatives have died quickly. But as someone whose family has a history of cancer, having these discussions before they're necessary is a blessing. Calling them "death panels" is a lie, rightly called out by our president. There may be parts of the plan you don't like. But please, let's focus on real issues instead of fear-mongering.
Posted by: The Janitor | September 10, 2009 10:55 AM
My guess is that Obama's speech changed no minds and will be forgotten by tomorrow.
Rick
Posted by: Rick Caird | September 10, 2009 10:57 AM
As a well known hedge fund manager once said:
I've learned 2 things about humans:
1. Each one believes he is the center of the universe.
2. Each one believes no asset he owns should ever decrease in value.
Posted by: ornery | September 10, 2009 11:03 AM
President Obama's preaching does not change the fact that the inept federal government is unable to efficiently run social security. medicare or the post office. Health care is too complex of an operation to be put into the hands of federal bureaucrats.
A good experienced manager would have congress sit down with the insurance companies and come up with a viable plan to cover the "citizens' of the US of A...
All employees of the federal government including the president
should be covered by the exact same plan.
PS: This preaching is getting awfully old, is President Obama
the leader or is he looking to take over for Oprah???
Posted by: Alex, Chicago | September 10, 2009 12:15 PM
We don't want and can't afford obamacare! This ill conceived plan is going to cost Trillions upon Trillions. Its bad news people.
And, if anyone believes illegal aliens will not be covered by the democrats, please show me in the draft bill where US citizenship proof is required, where the enforcement provisions are, and where the mechanism is to ensure only US citizens benefit from the plan?
Posted by: joe | September 10, 2009 12:22 PM
I see the Republicans are still trying to foment an insurrection....yawn
Posted by: janet | September 10, 2009 12:26 PM
I see Obama is still lying about bills he has no intention of reading.
Posted by: Hans | September 10, 2009 1:27 PM
My expectations were low, and I was not disappointed. Obamabots want to get “bipartisanship” the same way the global warmingists want to get “consensus”: denigrate and ignore opposition, because it is difficult, if not impossible, to counter with facts and logic.
If this speech was supposed to be the “game changer” that made the difference between government-run health care failing or succeeding, it went off like a damp squib, and those of us opposed to increased government will soon be breaking out the fireworks.
Posted by: Chris | September 10, 2009 2:29 PM
Hip! Hip! Horray!! The commoners will celebrate when this health care bill pass! But be careful of the Overlords. . . .being of healthy mind and body isn't good business.
Posted by: HmongRodneyKing | September 11, 2009 3:34 AM
Cong. Wilson calling the president a "liar"--AWFUL!!!!
President Obama calling what opponents say: "Misinformation," "bogus claims," "scare tactics," "such a charge would be laughable,' "it is a lie plain and simple"--FINE and DANDY.
Welcome to the bipartisanship of hope and change. Swamp style.
Posted by: Peter Zenger | September 11, 2009 12:53 PM
I’m partisan to a president that can lower my taxes and fix what the housing market “greed” created…
Posted by: aaroncrowe | September 11, 2009 2:03 PM
I hope that this health care bill is as good as the president says it is.
Posted by: chris | September 11, 2009 7:16 PM