healthcare as "homeownership" vs. "education"

This is definitely an excellent reframing of the healthcare debate. If the public perception of healthcare shifts to viewing it as part of an "foundation towards success," a demand to make it so that everyone has it is inevidible, since we believe that everyone should have a strong foundation for their careers.

So where could this frame backfire? If cons can push the argument towards post-graduate territory, it will once again become common sense to say that healthcare should be based on merit. The frame can be stolen easily this way if they examine the "grading" structure that is a part of American education. You "graduate" into having better healthcare; until then, you rely on someone else who has already graduated, or you simply suffer. This would maintain the status quo.

In order to counter this argument, progressives would have to focus on a "necessity" for good healthcare. "Education is a necessary part of someone's life no matter what merit calls for, and so is healthcare. How can someone make inroads to bettering their life if they have thousands of dollars in medical expenses piling up?"

It would be very interesting to actually take a hard look at home ownership in this country and compare and contrast it to other nations. How many of us actually own more than 50% of our homes? Even if we did, don't mortgage companies still own the note until it's paid off? How many of us have shifted how much of our debt into other areas of life so we can own a home? How many of us are right now stuck in a market that was overinflated and now overstocked? How many families are going upside down on their mortgage all for the sake of ownership?

I am one American that has been burned by this false sense of security pushed by the miracle of home ownership. As far as I can see, the real estate racket just gets everyone scared to death of changing their position in life because leaving their home would mean financial ruin. Yes, I know millions of people disagree with me and would argue to death that real estate is the only investment that is a sure thing, but I would argue that there are barely any Americans left that can truly invest (which indicates you have leftover income to play with) in a shelter that puts them in a positive living situation.

SAmiller49 points out a good opportunity to expose the wealthy who (I can only assume) act as if it is a matter of birthright that you can own your own home outright and/or afford to be healthy. It is very much the let them eat cake mentality.

Maybe this is to be part of Bush's loner-ship society?

http://www.rismedia.com/wp/2007-01-22/06-foreclosure-rate-29-percent/
[...]
Nationwide, foreclosure filings for 2006 rose 42% over the previous year, climbing to 1,261,110 filings, or a rate of one filing for every 92 households. The previous year, 885,845 properties entered some stage of foreclosure, the report shows, a rate of one filing for every 131 households.
[...]

Foreclosure seems to be down somewhat by the latest news articles, but hardly good:

http://www.bendweekly.com/Real-Estate/2083.html
Jan 19,2007
Foreclosures decrease 9 percent in December
by Bend Weekly News Sources
   
Foreclosure filings exceed 100,000 for fifth straight month, up 35 percent from December 2005

RealtyTrac®, the leading online marketplace for foreclosure properties, this week released its December 2006 U.S. Foreclosure Market Report, which shows that 109,652 properties nationwide entered some stage of foreclosure during the month, a decrease of nearly 9 percent from the previous month but an increase of 35 percent from December 2005. The report also shows a national foreclosure rate of one new foreclosure filing for every 1,055 U.S. households.
[...]

Home ownership is at about 69%, but that includes people whose home is really largely owned by the bank or finance company, and have a mortgage. If that were health care it would mean over 30% would be without it, and what do they do when they can't afford to pay the "health mortgage"? Mnay people have lost their jobs, and then then their homes.
Of course, a home also give a person equity while health insurance is pure overhead: it's as if a home could never be owned but only rented.

Also, I would hope people who "own" health insurance would do better when catastrophe hits then the resident in New Orleans, many of whom are still homeless. Maybe this is Bush's "Katrina Health Plan"?

from Tom Paine website, concerning the Bush health care rhetoric

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/01/24/bushs_health_care_conspiracy.php
  
Bush's Health Care Conspiracy
Marilyn Clement
January 24, 2007
[...]


http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/01/24/state_of_delusion.php

State Of Delusion
Robert L. Borosage
January 24, 2007

[...]
Even where it has dawned on the president that there is a problem to be addressed, his proposals are gestures, if not mockeries. The health care system is broken. The president’s reforms, by his own exaggerated numbers, might provide health insurance for maybe 3 million of the 47 million that now go without, while taking a whack at workers who have decent plans (read unions) and public hospitals (read Hillary Clinton’s New York, which takes 40 percent of the hit).
[...]

Here is some more, from Center for American Progess

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/01/bush_healthcare.html
Bush is Wrong on Health Care
By Karen Davenport
January 23, 2007
[...]

-----------------------------------
I think the below is especially effective in countering the proposal:

(links in original)

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/apps/nl/newsletter2.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&;b=917053

[...]
HEALTH CARE PROPOSAL IGNORES COST AND COVERAGE ISSUES: Bush last night said he would propose offering a standard tax deduction for all who buy insurance, a step "that would make only a tiny dent in a huge problem." The initiative is aimed at rewarding people who buy their own health insurance in the individual market, consistent with the president's notion that "private health insurance is the best way to meet" the needs of Americans who seek coverage. But for those who need health care the most

including the 47 million uninsured in this country -- the private market fails to provide affordable coverage. According to a Kaiser Family Foundation report, people who aren’t in perfect health are largely unable to buy individual health insurance. The study found “roughly 90 percent of applicants in what’s known as less-than-perfect health were unable to buy individual policies at standard rates, while 37 percent were rejected outright.” The president also proposed to throw the real work of providing health coverage to the uninsured to the states, through the Affordable Choices initiative. This states-based approach would give participating states new federal dollars to promote private coverage -- but would not support the proven approaches states use today to expand coverage through public programs.
[...]

Cost savings of efficiency don't kick in unless health care is restructured

this, and Bush's tax gimmick, is a like jumping half-way across a hole. Half a cupcake might be better than none, but half a ladder isn't, and half a television set is worse than useless.

http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/4198

 Mass. Universal Health Plan Already Falling Shortby Megan Tady
Jan 26

[...]
But critics of the state's plan have been warning the government that universal health care achieved through the
requirement to buy private insurance will lead to bloated premiums and
bare-bones coverage for middle-income residents who can only afford the minimum
plans.
"We should not let these board members get away with telling us that they're
surprised [about the costs for the minimum plans]," said Steffie Woolhandler, a
physician at Cambridge Hospital and the co-founder of Physicians for a National
Health Program, a nonprofit organization pushing for comprehensive national
health plan.
In an April interview with The NewStandard, Woolhandler predicted: "Many people
will be forced to pay thousands of dollars for a policy that is only a piece of
paper. If someone actually does get sick, the policy will be so full of gaps --
like large co-pays -- that they could go bankrupt. They'll be facing the worst of
both worlds: [being] forced to hand over thousands of dollars to the private
health-insurance companies, and finding that they're not actually covered when
they get sick."
[...]