Why Folks Don't Know What To Do With Health Care

From Econmist:
"MATTHEW YGLESIAS, a supporter of health-care reform, is unsure about what to do in the face of public opinion data that shows Americans are satisfied with their own care, but most want to see the system fundamentally changed. David Leonhardt notes the political challenge this presents Democrats: "Americans say they want change, but they also want to preserve their own status quo." Our own polls show much the same thing. But while it may seem odd on the surface, I think the numbers fail to take account of one big factor influencing people's opinions: the risk that they might lose their insurance, reform or no reform.

Perhaps most Americans want to see fundamental health-care reform because they feel all of their fellow citizens deserve at least some coverage. Others, perhaps, think that the fee-for-service system is inherently flawed. But I would imagine a very large number of Americans want to see reform because they are put off by the uncertainty involved in the current system. So that while they may be happy with their current insurance scheme, they're not entirely sure it will be there in a year due to rising costs, loss of a job, or some other extenuating circumstance. Hence they support changing the system even as they oppose any change to their own care. In fact, the they support changing the system because they oppose any change to their own care."

TW: The above makes sense to me given:
1) There are several groups of health care recipients- those covered by government (Vets, Medicare, Medicaid), those with strong employer provided plans, and those with no or shaky coverage. These groups have very different perspectives. Those covered by existing plans either governmental or employer are focused primarily on retaining that coverage whilst limiting any service diminishment or cost increases. The last group is just looking for some good coverage. The key difference between those on current government plans and those on employer plans is the risk of the latter ending up in the 3rd group due to loss of employment or shifting life circumstances.
2) But the common thread is that costs for all three groups are going up at unsustainable rates.

Presumably there are three things motivating "reform":
1) Folks without any or with little coverage wanting coverage (bolstered by some empathy for their plight from those with coverage)
2) Folks concerned about being shoved into group three
3) Folks concerned about escalating costs

The challenge with the reform movement is those three groups and concerns are at cross-currents unless one believes universal coverage provides a means by which in time overall costs can be better managed. I believe it does but the linkage is complex, too complex for our legislative processes. More to come.