This is interesting, on some basic level it does make sense (conservatives being sensitive to fear), but I can’t really comment on the science.
One important and interesting point Kristof makes:
“Conservatives may be more responsive to health reform, he suggested, if it is framed as a national security argument. For example, American companies complain about the difficulty of competing with foreign companies that don’t have to pay for employee medical coverage. In that sense, our existing health care system leaves us vulnerable.”
This makes intuitive sense, but also makes you wonder. How has healthcare reform been framed? Would people really be more responsive if they considered that it was weakening American companies in global competition? Or wouldn’t they be more responsive if the perceived threat was to them, individually, also? Isn’t that the problem we’re facing - convincing people for whom the lack of healthcare reform is not an individual threat?
