George Lakoff offers some framing tips to the Democrats re health care reform

Linguist George Lakoff is asking how a man who did such a marvelous job campaigning for President has stumbled so often on the issue of health care. Lakoff thus wrote an article offering some a list of language/framing advice to the Democrats. Here's the foundational concept:

The list of what needs reform makes sense under one conceptual umbrella. It is a public alternative that unifies the long list of needed reforms: coverage for the uninsured, cost control, no preconditions, no denial of care, keeping care when you change jobs or get sick, equal treatment for women, exorbitant deductibles, no lifetime caps, and on and on. It's a long list. But one idea, properly articulated, takes care of the list: An American Plan guarantees affordable care for all Americans. Simple. But not for policy wonks.

The policymakers focus on the list, not the unifying idea. So, Obama's and Axelrod's statements last Sunday were just the lists without the unifying institution. And without a powerful institution, the insurance companies will just whittle away at enforcement of any such list, and a future Republican administration will just get rid of the regulators, reassigning them or eliminating their jobs.

According to Lakoff, Obama needs to break out of his wonkish way of talking about health care. He is mistakenly operating on the principle of "policy speak":

If you just tell people the policy facts, they will reason to the right conclusion and support the policy wholeheartedly.

Lakoff argues that "policy speak" is a big mistake. Mere facts don't win arguments. Rather, the facts need to make sense to people, resonate with them and inspire them to act. Here's Lakoff's version of what should be Obama's basic message:

Insurance company plans have failed to care for our people. They profit from denying care. Americans care about one another. An American plan is both the moral and practical alternative to provide care for our people.

The insurance companies are doing their worst, spreading lies in an attempt to maintain their profits and keep Americans from getting the care they so desperately need. You, our citizens, must be the heroes. Stand up, and speak up, for an American plan.

Lakoff has lots of specifics. For instance, remind Americans that health care is a patriotic duty. Highlight the phrase "doctor-patient care." Deny that the insurance companies care; rather, they clearly communicate that insurance companies make money by depriving us of care. Hammer the phrase "insurance company bureaucrats." Tell Americans that their health care premiums are "private taxes" levied by insurers. Remind Americans that health insurers "govern our lives." Talk about the "failure" of insurance companies. The "villainizing of real insurance company villains should have begun from the beginning. George Lakoff is asking how a man who did such a marvelous job campaigning for President has stumbled so often on the issue of health care. Lakoff thus wrote an article offering some a list of language/framing advice to the Democrats. Here's the foundational concept:

The list of what needs reform makes sense under one conceptual umbrella. It is a public alternative that unifies the long list of needed reforms: coverage for the uninsured, cost control, no preconditions, no denial of care, keeping care when you change jobs or get sick, equal treatment for women, exorbitant deductibles, no lifetime caps, and on and on. It's a long list. But one idea, properly articulated, takes care of the list: An American Plan guarantees affordable care for all Americans. Simple. But not for policy wonks.

The policymakers focus on the list, not the unifying idea. So, Obama's and Axelrod's statements last Sunday were just the lists without the unifying institution. And without a powerful institution, the insurance companies will just whittle away at enforcement of any such list, and a future Republican administration will just get rid of the regulators, reassigning them or eliminating their jobs.

According to Lakoff, Obama needs to break out of his wonkish way of talking about health care. He is mistakenly operating on the principle of "policy speak":

If you just tell people the policy facts, they will reason to the right conclusion and support the policy wholeheartedly.

Lakoff argues that "policy speak" is a big mistake. Mere facts don't win arguments. Rather, the facts need to make sense to people, resonate with them and inspire them to act. Here's Lakoff's version of what should be Obama's basic message:

Insurance company plans have failed to care for our people. They profit from denying care. Americans care about one another. An American plan is both the moral and practical alternative to provide care for our people.

The insurance companies are doing their worst, spreading lies in an attempt to maintain their profits and keep Americans from getting the care they so desperately need. You, our citizens, must be the heroes. Stand up, and speak up, for an American plan.

Lakoff has lots of specifics. For instance, remind Americans that health care is a patriotic duty. Highlight the phrase "doctor-patient care." Deny that the insurance companies care; rather, they clearly communicate that insurance companies make money by depriving us of care. Hammer the phrase "insurance company bureaucrats." Tell Americans that their health care premiums are "private taxes" levied by insurers. Remind Americans that health insurers "govern our lives." Talk about the "failure" of insurance companies. The "villainizing of real insurance company villains should have begun from the beginning. I recommend reading Lakoff's entire article, which is detailed, and thoughtful."

Continue ReadingGeorge Lakoff offers some framing tips to the Democrats re health care reform

Just A Question Or Three

Just a couple of what seem to me like obvious questions. (I know, I've been writing a bit on the health care debate, and I'll try to do some other things after this, don't want to bore anyone, especially myself.) I see a lot of protesters waving signs that contain something like this: HEALTHCARE REFORM YES, GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER NO. TORT REFORM NOW! Something about that doesn't quite add up. If health care is to be reformed, who is going to do it? The industry isn't, not without a threat. Which means there will have to be something outside the industry doing the threatening. What might that be? Hmm. The government? And the nature of the reform, if it isn't to be entirely self-serving on the part of the industry, will have to be devised by a somewhat disinterested party. Who might that be? The government? And tort law...well, that's, as it says, Law. Which is legislation. Which is---wait for it!--- the government! So what is being asked for here? That the government enact reforms that do not involve the government, do not make use of government authority, do not engage government offices, and will not grant the government any power to enforce. So how will that work exactly? Or is there some third party out there we haven't been told about capable of doing all this reforming? Oh, the market! Which basically is consumers, which is, well, all of us. The people. But wait...isn't the government supposed to be the duly elected voice of the people? So if the people are demanding reform, how are the people supposed to both express such a desire and then implement said reforms? I guess, through their duly elected voice---the government. But if the government is not to be trusted, I guess that means the people aren't to be trusted. The people don't know what they want, what is good for them, or how to go about managing the reforms they've demanded and, somehow, achieved. So there will have to be an appointed body of presumed experts who do know how to manage all this to act on the people's behalf... Who might that be? The industry? Hmm. Well, since it's the industry that needs reforming and the people who have demanded reform, handing management of the reform over to the very thing that needs the reform would seem, well, not to put to fine a point on it, stupid. So I guess we'd have to elect a representative body to manage the reforms. Oh, wait, don't we already have such a body? Yeah, it's the government. So by demanding reform of an industry, it would seem reasonable that we not trust the industry (that already doesn't do what we want it to do) to reform itself. It would be silly to create a whole other body to oversee all this when one already exists that has over two centuries of expertise in doing exactly this sort of thing. So how is anything is going to change otherwise? Just wondering, you know, because some of the demands sort of don't make any sense.

Continue ReadingJust A Question Or Three

Stop Discriminating against Sick People!

Stop Discriminating against Sick People! Jonathon Alter was a guest on "the Ed Show" tonight on MSNBC. In a noisy debate with Ed, he said that the goal of healthcare reform should be "to end discrimination against sick people". He said that the path to reform was largely irrelevant. That whether or not there was a public option was largely irrelevant. That healthcare reform is a civil rights issue, and that reform had nothing to do with the mechanics of that reform. To be clear, Mr Alter stated that he was personally very much for a public option. But he was also very clear that regardless of the public option, this reform needed to pass. I agree with Jonathon. Discrimination against sick people must stop. Discrimination against people with 'pre-conditions' must stop. Discrimination against people, must stop. It's time to act. Call your congressman. Enact healthcare reform.

Continue ReadingStop Discriminating against Sick People!

Who needs a public option anyway?

One of my republican friends asked me"who needs a public option, anyway?"over a beer the other evening. He was responding to my shout of dismay over Ms Sibelius statement that the public option was "not really necessary" to health care reform.

So who needs a public option?

People who are currently uninsured, of course. Most of them are not uninsured by their own choice, but by the choice of an insurance company. A few may have elected to remain uninsured even when eligible, due to cost of premiums, etc . Many younger colleagues fall into this latter group, which has the effect of raising insurance rates for everyone else (since the remaining population are older and higher risk)

People who cannot afford to lose their insurance. Many people maintain are locked in to their insurance because of conditions that would be considered 'pre-existing' by a new insurer. Even if able to be covered by a new insurer, their premiums would likely be higher, or their coverage would carry many more restrictions. Health costs are already high - who would choose to voluntarily increase their expenses while reducing benefits?

And people like me. I have a job. I am in reasonably good health, and have decent employer-based health insurance for myself and my family. But I am effectively locked into my current employment. I would love to start my own business, but I cannot afford to be without healthcare. Private healthcare is so expensive, my baseline operating costs would be simply exorbitant. The risk of starting a business is already high. The penurious cost of private healthcare makes a high risk venture, insanely high.

In my travels I meet a great many people - and many people feel equally locked into employment: "I'd love to quit this job and go do X but I can't afford to give up my healthcare".

Lack of a public option is killing America's spirit of entrepreneurship. It's killing the goose that laid the golden egg. The ability of common Americans to start their own ventures without hindrance is central to the spirit of independence and vitality that made this country an economic powerhouse in the 19th and 20th Centuries. The fact that republicans are most viscerally against a public option demonstrates that they are not "for business", but are simply and solely for "big business".

Continue ReadingWho needs a public option anyway?

Police officers have epiphany: time to legalize and regulate street drugs

In the Washington Post, two police officers make the case that it's time to legalize and regulate street drugs. Why? To quit squandering tax dollars, to quit filling prisons with people who don't belong there and to protect neighborhoods and police officers.

Only after years of witnessing the ineffectiveness of drug policies -- and the disproportionate impact the drug war has on young black men -- have we and other police officers begun to question the system . . . Drug manufacturing and distribution is too dangerous to remain in the hands of unregulated criminals. Drug distribution needs to be the combined responsibility of doctors, the government, and a legal and regulated free market. This simple step would quickly eliminate the greatest threat of violence: street-corner drug dealing.

Here's the "money" quote:

Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron estimates that ending the drug war would save $44 billion annually, with taxes bringing in an additional $33 billion.

Continue ReadingPolice officers have epiphany: time to legalize and regulate street drugs