If reform fails to pass, what’s the reason?
Is it because Congress ignored that ninety-eight percent of healthcare is local; Hyperlocal? I think the answer is a resounding yes. What is hyperlocal? You know the saying, “All politics is local?” Well, hyperlocal is local on steroids. It’s moms and dads making choices about who will care for their family. It’s the doctor down the street, not the doctor chosen by some system.
I think individuals see the bill as “What’s in it for them—them is defined as anyone other than me” and “What will it do to me?” HR 3200 isn’t viewed as improving my healthcare, nobody sees it as meCare. That is why when viewed nationally so few are behind it.
It’s not that nobody is interested in providing healthcare to those who don’t have it. What concerns people who do have healthcare is their belief—which may have nothing to do with reality—is that to provide healthcare to those who don’t have it requires that those who have it to give up some of their benefits. Those with healthcare see reform as a zero sum game.
What has people trying to kill the bill is that nobody who currently has healthcare believes they will see any net gain benefit from the bill—they will see a net loss. If any benefit will accrue to those who presently have healthcare, they certainly can’t articulate the benefit.
To gain support for HR3200, Reform 3.0, or whatever it comes to be called the bill must address first person interests, not second or third. Does that sound selfish? It may be. However, they are toying with reforming a fifth of the economy and a service of which eighty percent of the people are generally pleased.
For reform to pass, Congress must learn to conjugate the care verb: First person—iCare, meCare Second and third person—heCare, sheCare, theyCare, youCare. That about covers all the various forms of caring.
What Congress hasn’t come to grips with is that there is no meCare in heCare, sheCare, or theyCare—hence, people don’t care to support reform.
What do you think?