hcr

How does one know when a politician isn't up with the times? I suspect there are a number of devices that get to this metric, but one might be looking for someone harping about the nation being "center-right."

John McCain, of 2008 "Country First" fame, appeared with Sarah Palin yesterday to speak to a crowd of Tea Partiers. While Palin continued to gloss over the constant references to violent acts in her exhortations to teabaggers over the past couple days, McCain railed against health insurance reform, vowing a repeal of the newly-passed law.

When McCain spoke, he responded to President Obama's speech yesterday, in which Obama defied Republicans to campaign on a platform of repealing the health care reform law, in light of the various benefits included within it. "And my attitude is, 'Go for it,'" Obama said.

McCain declared: "We're gonna 'go for it,' an we're gonna repeal this bill. We're gonna stop this spending."

McCain also said: "Our answer is, yes, we're gonna 'go for it,' and we're gonna get it, and we're gonna restore the government back to the people of this country, because this is a right-of-center nation, and this president is governing from the left, and it will not stand."

When I finish reading that, the question that immediately pops into my head is... "What happens if it does stand?" What happens if people like this health insurance reform, given that a majority of Americans had already liked the bill's individual previsions or believed they weren't liberal enough? What happens if the world does not end? More broadly, what happens when the entirety of the nation's most diverse generation ever comes of age and is largely politically active, expressing its left-leaning viewpoints?

I think this all comes back to many members of the GOP and the conservative fringe being unable to zoom out and view these events over the long-term. We saw this with McCain himself in his poorly-run campaign in 2008 -- the difference between tactics and strategy. Yes, Obama faced some trouble with the Rev. Wright controversy, but he gave a forward-looking and eloquent speech that muted much of the criticism. Yes, the McCain campaign was enjoying success in its portrayal of Obama as a celebrity political novice that summer, but because it wasn't rooted in anything, the McCain camp apparently didn't think anything of choosing a mayor with frighteningly little experience as their vice presidential nominee. Yes, health insurance reform has had its troubles, and while the GOP was responsible for many of those Democratic struggles, their refusal to do anything other than saying no left them without any input whatsoever. And now, there's this call for repeal, a move to take away all the benefits given to 32 million people. A conscious choice to choose the student loan industry over young Americans.

As the GOP leans more to the right, its rhetoric closer and closer to a boiling point, it will increasingly place itself in untenable political positions. The GOP chooses to live in the moment, ignoring the political realities around the corner. Contrary to John McCain's wishes/statements, this is no longer a center-right nation. As the Millennials come of age politically, their size and pro-government/socially liberal positions will tip the country to the left, a la the 1930s.

So, again John -- what happens if it does stand? What's the contingency plan?

Ben Goddard at The Hill comments on the current generation gap in politics. His discussion reminds us of the coalition-based, yet impatient methodology Millennials use to solve problems.

They have not generally gotten involved with candidates or issues because “Millennials perceive politics as a polarized debate with no options for compromise or nuance,” in the words of the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement. They don’t want to be limited by political party affiliation. They care about issues important to their “community” and will work with anyone who can get something done.

But [Millennials] are impatient. That is why so many seemed to drift away from President Barack Obama as the healthcare debate dragged on and partisanship in Washington got out of hand. For nearly a year and a half their parents’ and grandparents’ generations argued over what — to many — seemed like petty details. They tuned out not because they didn’t care but because they were bored.

Now that there actually is a healthcare bill, it will be fascinating to see if they are willing to re-engage. The Obama campaign showed how to communicate with and motivate this generation in 2008. Re-engaging them will be crucial to the president’s reelection and, arguably, to Democrats’ congressional future. There are 44 million Millennials eligible to vote, which is about 20 percent of the electorate. Most of them are independents — at least in their voting patterns. Recent polls show independents drifting away from the Republican Party as a result of the angry debate in Washington. The Millennials could lead that bloc of voters back into the Obama/Democrat fold if the president can show that together, they are making a difference. Millennials make up a big community confident in their ability to make change and willing to get involved if the president and congressional Democrats send them the right pithy message: Yes, we did.

Goddard's assessment is the first I have encountered that accurately captures the Millennials' move away from Democrats this year. It's not that they are becoming conservative. It's that they are looking at an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress -- a Congress they have more of a stake in than any other in recent history, given their turnout rate in 2006 and 2008 -- and seeing few issues of theirs discussed in a substantive manner. When the focus is on bitter, personal debates -- personality rather than the problem itself -- any notion that representatives and senators might be interested in problem-solving is out the door.

And now we get to why that impacts our country. The obvious answer is rooted in that generational pact seen in American society for centuries -- that each generation is responsible for ensuring that the torch it passes to a new generation burns brighter. We know that the life-long adoption of civic habits like voting are dependent on youth engagement. The more a young person votes when he or she is first eligible, the more he/she will continue to vote later in life. Furthermore, from a large-D Democratic perspective, given the obvious electoral benefits of adding a large, engaged, liberal generation to the voting rolls, the Democrats should be thinking of everything they can do to appeal to young people. In V.O. Key's terms, the PIG (Party-in-Government) must mind the PIE (Party-in-Electorate), designing ways to better communicate the process so that it doesn't interfere with young voters' appreciation of the policy output. Easier said than done, but it must be done.

Bottom line: if we fail to engage a group of young people who are interested in being engaged, we're not only letting them down, we're letting our nation down.

Catherine Rampell, from the New York Times blog Economix, suggests an alternative to the conventional wisdom that youth aren't insured (and don't care about reform) due to their invincibility.

Rampell constructs her argument using some Gallup data released last week. First, she confronts the idea that young people, assumed to be healthier than the rest of the population, would rather risk not buying health insurance, thus leading to higher costs for the rest of the pool. In fact, Rampell finds that young people are actually less willing to take risks than you might think:

Three-quarters of those 18-29 year-olds describing themselves as healthy still purchased health insurance. As Rampell explains, one can dig deeper into this data, inquiring about variables like income. Rampell does that and finds something.

Perhaps people who are likely to have health insurance are also likely to be healthy for an independent reason: It costs money to buy health insurance, and it costs money to maintain a healthy lifestyle. In other words, perhaps it is money, not perceived risk of getting sick, that determines whether young people get insurance.

As it turns out, people who can afford health insurance are much, much more likely to get it:

Among young adults, 86 percent of those in the top third of the income distribution (people earning $48,000 or more annually) have health insurance. In the middle third (those earning between $24,000 and $48,000), 72 percent have health insurance. And in the bottom third (those making less than $24,000), just 58 percent are on a health plan.

It appears to be affordability, not recklessness (or even rational cost-benefit analysis of health risk), that is driving young people away from insurance policies.

Though reporters and pundits might think something is true, that doesn't mean there aren't other unseen or unmentioned possibilities or factors affecting the phenomenon. Thanks to Catherine Rampell for digging deeper.

An interesting blog post at Newsweek's "The Gaggle":

The other issue, I think, is the way health insurance has been sold and positioned. In general, we talk about the outcome of health care reform in two ways: the micro impact on individual citizens and the macro impact on health care costs. Neither has struck a cord with Millenials [sic]. Like I said, the individual impact strikes us as unimpressive. The large-scale economic outcomes take a lot of effort to understand. They seem distant, probably to Millenials [sic] and the rest of the population, and easy to lose sight of in a Twitter-size news cycle.

Instead, the more attractive part of health insurance for Millennials, these poll numbers indicate, is the moral underpinnings of the bill: that all Americans ought to have access to insurance, that this is our responsibility as a nation. While 47 percent of Millennials generally support health care reform, 70 percent support the idea that all Americans should have access to affordable health insurance, the highest number for any demographic. Maybe we’re just young and idealistic, maybe we have genuinely different viewpoints than our parents; either way, that provision really strikes a cord with younger Americans. But the bill has not been sold that way--if it had, perhaps more Millennials would strongly support health care reform instead of the kind of, sort of support we see now.

Yes, the expertise gap is tough for us to navigate. But I think what's worse for youth engagement is the heavy presence of traditional Washington behavior. Untelevised hearings. Deals behind closed doors. Inaccessible jargon. A lack of political courage. All of these elements and more preclude young people from focusing on the moral principle at stake.

We live in the United States -- all of us should should have access to affordable health insurance. But when the discussion is misrepresented, shrouded in Washington-speak and timidity, we lose that right to health care and we (young people) understandably lose patience with the process.

Don't you wish we could just all jump into a bus and go canvas Connecticut?

Newsweek is reporting this morning that the Senate's version of the Health Insurance Reform bill will feature a restoration of funding for abstinence education.

"Their provision would restore a program called Title V, which, since the Welfare Reform Act of 1996, has allocated a yearly $50 million in grants to abstinence-only education programs. Obama let the program lapse in June, leaving some abstinence-only groups in dire straits. So in September, Sen. Orrin Hatch offered an amendment to restore Title V via heath-care reform, which (much to the outrage of liberal groups) just squeaked through the Senate Finance Committee with a 12–11 vote. A similar amendment, offered in the House by Rep. Terry Lee from Nebraska, died in committee.

The American Medical Association reported this summer that Abstinence Only Education programs not only don't work, but they could also be the cause of the spike in teen birth rates in 2006.

"This report stated that these abstinence programs resulted in "no delay of initiating sexual activity, no reduction in the number of sexual partners and no increase in abstinence," according to Stuart Gitlow, MD. . .

"The AMA believes that federal funding should support sex education programs, which include condom use, abstinence and other methods of contraception."

Its quite simply nonsense for federal funds to be given to programs we have proven don't work and can result in the increase in sexually transmitted diseases to our nation's youth. Last year, ABC News reported that 1 in 4 teen girls now has an STD.

When will conservative US Senate members put right-wing ideology aside and allow young people to have the facts about protecting themselves and their own health?

Jose Antonio Vargas has a piece on the Huffington Post asking what happened to all of the young people that turned out for Obama. He also asks where too is the mainstream media

"the same MSM that declared 2008 as "The Year of the Youth Vote" -- in covering how young people are impacted by the health care debate, which has dominated the news for months? (Studies show that a quarter of Americans ages 25 to 34 don't have health insurance, while about a third of Americans ages 21 to 24 live without it -- more than any other age group."

Vargas says this is in part due to the high unemployment among young people and that many employers don't offer health insurance.

"Where is the Team Obama that adeptly leveraged the enthusiasm of its digitally-plugged young troops, who scheduled rallies on Facebook, passed YouTube videos around their network and sent text messages reminding their friends to vote? Speaking last month at George Washington University, just a few blocks from the White House, Obama's campaign manager David Plouffe told the college crowd: "Your generation won the election. . .Obama simply wouldn't have been the nominee without you."

He goes on to quote our friend Tobin Van Ostern who created Students for Barack Obama but who is now working with Campus Progress

"But, as far as I can tell, engaging young people hasn't been a top priority for the OFA, DNC and the White House."

Sad but true. Vargas talks about who is knocking doors for OFA and who is doing the work for the DNC but the long and short is that the work done by the campaign to do outreach to young voters, on campus, online, in their communities isn't even half of what they did during the campaign.

We were lucky to have a representative from the Treasury Department speak at the 80 Million Strong Conference and had Interior Secretary Ken Salazar talk about the outreach he is doing to young people to encourage them to get more involved in our state and national parks. Beyond that there is very little outreach to young people, particularly considering that young people were such a large portion of the voters.

"The sentiment is echoed in a blog on the popular site Tech Crunch that's gone viral in the past few days. "On the night of your acceptance speech, just before you walked on stage, 'you' sent out an email saying 'I will be in touch soon' -- but you disappeared and all we were left with was the strange feeling you get when your older brother ditches you for his cooler friends," began the post, which blogger Edo Segal wrote as an open letter to Obama."

He goes on to quote many who say that Obama the candidate ran a new and different campaign based on change, but governs in the same old way politicians always have. The New Media Strategy has also seen a major change. While it was a major facets to the campaign with their director reporting directly to the campaign manager, the White House new media strategy falls under one of the many outreach tools in the communications department.

Not mentioned by Vargas is the office of public liaison whose youth outreach representative is the same as the faith based and non-profit outreach person. Can you honestly tell me that one person can handle all of the faith based outreach and non-profits and then have time to do an aggressive youth outreach strategy? Not a chance. At the same time, faith based groups are accustom to having a seat at the table in the White House, and they know very well how it works. Youth are accustom to being ignored, so they aren't as likely to stick their neck out and demand a meeting with someone from the White House.

At one point there was a monthly conference call among youth leaders and the office of public liaison, but one youth leader who asked to not be identified said it was such a colossal waste of time that he quite participating and he doesn't know if they continue.

While the process might seem trite, the result has the appearance that youth aren't a major concern to the White House, the DNC, or OFA.

By contrast, Congressional Democrats have done a lot more in efforts to reach out to young people. While I consistently criticize Chris van Hollen for the DCCC's youth outreach program being "showing candidates the data," chairs of Congressional Committees (particularly Rep. George Miller) have worked with several youth groups and young leaders as partners in policy initiatives and in passing legislation. The Speaker's office continues to be an open door to young people, and Speaker Pelosi reaches out to youth more and more each year.

Reporters and bloggers have been writing about the upcoming election saying that young voters won't come out for the midterms. It's the same thing we've heard over and over again, and each year we work to show them they're wrong, we are relevant, and that we can't be ignored. But in a year when we've been so consistently ignored, placated, and the once "You're the change in this movement" has turned into "you think you're invincible," makes me wonder if its a self fulfilling prophecy.

Vargas closes his piece quoting youth ally Morley Winograd who spoke about the outreach the White House could have done around health care to guarantee it was passed:

"There's been a missed opportunity here in showcasing the kind of youthful, optimistic, hopeful energy that greatly Obama benefited from during the campaign," said Morley Winograd. . ."But of course it does not at all mean that the opportunity has gone away."

In her first outreach event to the Millennial Generation, former Kansas Governor now Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius will answer questions by young voters on upcoming health care reform legislation, how the HHS is doing outreach to young people, and what options for young people who continued to be uninsured.

Sebelius was unable to the 80 Million Strong for Youth Jobs summit in July which discussed at length the staggering unemployment rate for Millennials and the over 1/3 of uninsured youth. But former US Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle spoke at length about health care reform.

Daschle identified 3 main problems with today's system

1. Access - 50 million people he says lack health insurance. But 48% of people who do have insurance don't have adequate insurance or are under-insured.
2. Quality - Daschle reminds us that last year the World Health Organization ranked the United States 37th in the world for quality of health care, behind Costa Rica. The US is 31st in life expectancy and 29th in infant mortality, and 24th in overall women's health.
3. Cost - what Daschle says is driving the debate more than anything. When he was born health care was 4% of the nation's GDP, today its 17%, and when we're his age the CBO projects have it at 32% of GDP. Our nation is going bankrupt because of health care.

Last Monday I was in Washington as Speaker Pelosi, Rep. Chris Van Hollen, and Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper joined with young leaders to announce the Young Adult Health Coverage Act which allows young Americans remain on their health insurance plan until they turn 26. The Congress has taken a strong first step in both dialoguing with youth on their needs, but further acting on those dialogues to ensure policy matches those needs. I've been amazed at how eager Members have been to work with young leaders on many of these issues, and I look forward to the White House taking a similar role.

I look forward to hearing about Secretary Sebelius's take on young people who are uninsured or under-insured and any solutions the White House is proposing. To join in the event register here. It's unclear if there will be video available or if the event will be live streamed but if it is we'll bring you the information.

Photo Credit: Josh Landau/Young Invincibles

Continuing our coverage from Washington DC, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi along with Reps. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) and Kathy Dahlkemper (D-PA) held a press conference with representatives from several youth organizations in support of the Young Adult Health Coverage Act which allows young Americans remain on their health insurance plan until they turn 26.

According to the Speaker

"Young adults are the most uninsured group in the country. They often lose coverage at age 19 when they graduate from high school or a few years later when they graduate from college. Once they enter the workforce, they face new obstacles to getting insurance. Today, they are speaking out and their voices are being heard. For many weeks, young Americans have added to the call to the chorus for reform. They have offered specific proposals about health insurance reform that works for everyone.

Our legislation answers their call by: ending discrimination based on pre-existing medical conditions, capping out-of-pocket costs, focusing on preventive care, investing in workforce training to boost the number of primary care doctors and nurses, creating a health insurance exchange to give Americans a better deal in the individual insurance market, and speaking personally, a public option in the House bill. Today, I’m pleased to announce that our bill will allow young people to stay on their parents’ policy until their 27th birthday if they need it.

Our young people are our future. This is our opportunity to lay a foundation for growth, progress, and prosperity for our youth, and provide affordable, quality health care to every American. It is an opportunity we will not miss."

The Speaker has been a consistent ally to the youth movement, frequently lending her leadership to issues that support my generation. Reps. Van Hollen and Dahlkemper should be proud of their work on something so meaningful in the health care battle.