Democrats overwhelming support Universal Health Care (UHC), while Republicans overwhelmingly oppose it. Since there are many large insurance firms that greatly oppose it and are willing to spend whatever resources they need to in order to defeat it, it seems that America won't be having UHC for the foreseeable future.

Now whether you support or oppose UHC, it seems the Democrats are using the wrong strategy. The key is to create small battlefields in which the odds are in your favor, while not explicitly admitting that they are really a step toward winning a larger war that not everyone may support. The pro-life groups are currently using a similar strategy of passing parental consent laws and a partial birth abortion ban as steps towards stopping all abortions. There are some Democratic presidential candidates who have plans similar to the one I have in mind, but they are going about it the wrong way.

The key is to make Medicare cover everyone under the age of 18. There are many reasons why the government should pay for the medical coverage of those too old to work. All of those reasons though certainly apply to those too young to work, and who never had the opportunity to save and prepare for their medical care. The cost to the government would a tiny fraction of what it costs to cover those over 65. And while this would greatly help low-income families, it would also help lower the insurance costs for middle-income families, which would help insure their support. To help lure the religious right to support it, make sure it covers prenatal care. A pro-life group would be hard pressed to oppose a bill that would insure healthy pregnancies and healthy children. (Obviously you must make sure it covers just prenatal care, and not the overall health of the mother, or you may wind up with the perverse situation of a woman with cancer or AIDS getting pregnant in order to get free medical care.)

The right will blast this as a step towards UHC, just like the left attacked the partial birth abortion ban as a step towards outlawing all abortions. Such attacks don't work though, since much of the nation doesn't have strong philosophical positions on these matters, and are willing to judge each piece of legislation on its own merits. If anything, the left can use this to attack the right. I can just imagine someone saying, "Is there any doubt in the world that if children under 18 could vote, the Republicans would support the bill? They support Medicare for the elderly, while they oppose it for children who are even more helpless - even though the cost of providing the care would be much cheaper. They are simply pandering for votes. Children don't vote, for the Republicans don't care about them." Now obviously that attack is completely unfair and untrue. I just want to illustrate how easy it would be to win the fight to provide UHC for children, if you are willing to leave the rest for a future battle.

Once you have UHC for both seniors and children, the next step is to focus on catastrophic illness. The major cause of personal bankruptcy in this country is medical emergencies. Once someone becomes bankrupt, they may then possibly qualify for Medicaid. The small battle is then as follows: It is bad enough that this young mother will die and leave her children as orphans. Why must she spend her every last penny on the way though, and leave her children with truly nothing? Covering catastrophic illness and medical emergencies can keep families solvent when going through their most devastating times, and enable them to continue being productive members of the economy. The imagery for the commercials would obviously be very powerful, and it would be easy to portray the right as being heartless for opposing it.

Now those who oppose UHC may find my idea offensive, and are sure to "vote" against it. Regardless of how you feel about it though, it seems the Democrats could use this as a winning campaign issue if they consistently limit themselves to the right small battles. I wonder why most of them keep swinging for the fences on this one, when the alternative seems much more likely to work.

What do you think of this idea or comment?
(You can change your vote at any time)

I agree

No opinion

I disagree