Tweet
My experiences canvassing at my local farmer’s market was both heartening and disheartening. Through Organizing for America’s website, I organized the event, and 5 people signed up to be there. Most of the volunteers showed up. Nobody shouted at me or other volunteers, or otherwise acted in a threatening manner. I had many good conversations with neighbors who both agreed and disagreed with me. I met up with some wonderful people, and we agreed to do it again. So that was the good. The ugly was small indeed–one person got red in the face when he told me that "Obamacare would cut my wife’s paycheck in half!" That’s a new one. And one very strange woman told me that Obama wanted her to shut up and that I was stupid and should shut up. Ok. So what was the bad? As one 60-year-old man opposed to healthcare reform told me, with whom I had a long conversation, "You have to understand that people are frightened, so that makes them angry." He ended up deciding that I was reasonable and intelligent, if naive. Thanks. So what’s the bad? He and many, many of the people in my small town are absolutely convinced that the quality of their healthcare and their access to it will worsen.
I figured that once we exposed the zombie lies to sunlight, that we could turn to the formerly deluded and ask, "Why would you possibly oppose a public option?" What this man helped me to grasp was that the zombie lies tap a sense of "I’ve got mine, and it’s good enough, so don’t mess with it."
What I learned is that the opposition isn’t just teabaggers and birthers. We can fight against the fact-free paranoia. And we must. We can peel back the zombie lies–Obama won’t kill your grandmother or Palin’s baby. Yes, we must do this. But that is nowhere near enough.
We need to realize that a lot of the people who already have health insurance and a huge number of the people who have medicare are scared that Obama’s plans will make the situation worse for them. While we fight back the crazy lies, we also have to explain in VERY CLEAR language how people who think their insurance is good enough (and for their sake, I hope it is) or who are scared that we threaten their medicare don’t have to be scared. We have to explain how their current insurance coverage could even be improved (for instance, no more rescission). We have to puncture the comforting lie that we already have the best healtcare system in the world. And we really have to explain that health care for medicare patients won’t be rationed, i.e., that surgery won’t automatically be denied to someone in his/her 80s.
We need to explain all of this, or we won’t reduce the opposition to a public option. And I found out that we haven’t done a good enough job on that rhetorical front while the forces committed to health insurance industry profits and bringing down Obama are certainly reaching out to these folks, and doing so effectively.
42 Comments
No small irony that conservatives are massing against a private-public hybrid system in part because of the supposed damage it might inflict on a straight-up single-payer system.
But the perils of VRWC propaganda as illustrated in your post — for which, thanks — are very real. We single-payer advocates make much of the rather consistent 60% public support for Medicare for All, as the Obamacare boosters make much of the (more definitionally dubious) 76% support for a “public option.” But in either case, the volatility of that support in the face of a concerted propaganda campaign remains a troubling question mark.
Nice post!
Tempting as it may be to ridicule “people who don’t understand that Medicare IS a government program” that’s only the tip of the iceberg and not really representative of what’s going on.
The fears of worsening what they already have are real. If we pass something like the current plans in Congress (and I’m not advocating that we don’t), we have to face the fact that somewhere down the road there’s going to be a cost crisis and we’ll start hearing all the “entitlements” crap again and what people have now will indeed be threatened. People know this because the general economic drift in this country is to the detriment of middle class people and Barack Obama hasn’t done much of anything to change that. So the teabagging assholes have a built-in fertile patch of ground to play in.
Of course, current benefits are just as much at risk if we do nothing but that’s not an easy sell either.
Ultimately the solution will have to get the point that that the private health insurers contribute nothing of value for the vast sums they garner, that they suffer from an unavoidable conflict of interest between their need to make a profit for their shareholders and the patients they are supposedly insuring. And it won’t do to call the opponents of this policy “selfish” for not wanting others to have what they have. “Every man for himself” has been the dominant political ethos at least since the seventies. That isn’t our point – the point is not to get current Medicare recipients to share what they have with others – it’s to cut the leeches out of the picture, as difficult as that may be politically speaking. There is a tendency among political types to assume that ordinary people understand all the accommodations to “political reality” they’ve been forced to make along the way and that’s never true, as you found out.
Ultimately, you have to have an enemy, which Obama is learning the hard way, since it goes strongly against his grain.
But good on you for actually going out and talking to real people instead of just talking to ourselves on the Internet.
The biggest problem I had was how bad my “propaganda” material was. I used what I got from Organizing for America, which was largely big, glossy pictures of Obama and not many specifics. I wanted something that got rather specific about how a public option and other aspects of likely legislation would help the people I spoke with and/or wouldn’t harm them. When I voiced my unhappiness with the material, the OFA people sent me pdf’s of literature created by volunteers, that at least had useful information, such as about how many people are uninsured, underinsured, can’t get insurance due, and are in danger of losing their insurance. The petition I had was so anemic and vague, that it made me a bit embarrassed to ask people to sign it. Medicare for all would be easier to explain, and a lot closer to what I personally support, but right now we have to fight for a robust public option.
The point I wanted to get across is that the fear that your health care is in jeopardy is a visceral, powerful one. I should know. I recently lost my insurance and can’t afford COBRA or more than the most useless catastrophic insurance. I have found that people without insurance or who have had horrible experiences with insurance companies don’t need convincing. But there’s a sizable chunk of the population that is insured (no matter how badly) or has medicare and is scared about what “Obamacare” would mean for them.
What is a VRWC?
Man, I wish I had had you there. What you’re saying is exactly what I was trying to get across, but I didn’t have the words or information. Exactly–we have to make sure that people don’t think they’re being told to give up or share what they have.
FDL has been at the forefront pushing the public option and of getting out information about healthcare events in people’s areas.
How about posting good propaganda for activists to use as talking points and literature to distribute?
“Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy”.
The phrase dates from the Nineties when Hillary Clinton used it to describe the Impeachment brouhaha at the time, and she took a lot of flak for using it.
It’s since taken on a life of its own, referring to the Republican Party, the Bush administration and right-wing ideology in general.
People who live in Left-Blogovia exclusively use such shorthand because it’s easier to type and don’t understand that it means nothing to ordinary people. Thanks for raising the point.
Apologies for the jargon; thanks, sTiVo. Lilybelle, for more on the empty feeling one gets from OFA, see my post from two months ago. For more robust counterpropaganda to right-wing talk points, you might, if you haven’t already, check (God forgive me) the HCAN web site.
HCAN does have some better material, some of which I’ll use, but it’s not quite enough. I want more and better equipment. Progressive grassroots activists are going to have to produce their own literature–hint, hint.
Hi ralphbon,
Part of my argument in various posts here is that Medicare for All is an easier sell than public option because its meaning is much clearer to people.
Yes, those who oppose it are in firm opposition; but those who will support it are firmer too; and I think the volatility of opinion in relation to Medicare for All, would be much less than for public option.
As for the people in the middle; I think persuading them to support Medicare for All is easier because, it is harder for the opposition to lie successfully about how it’s going to work. One example relates to “socialized medicine.” Many Americans know, at least at some level, that Medicare is socialized insurance rather than socialized medicine. It’s much harder to call it socialized medicine when people know that they have been able to select their own Doctors and providers under that program. They can be frequently reminded of that during any campaign for Medicare for All.
The good “propaganda” is here at FiredogLake. You just have to look for it under various bloggers. Scarecrow has great stuff on Health Care. So, does ralphbon. Jane’s posts, are, of course, not to be missed. And I think my own recent blogs here, may provide some good talking points.
More on good propaganda. I think that wigwam’s post puts forward a really good talking point.
You’re exactly right, and thanks for the tips. But that material needs to be centralized in some manner–like if you click on one of those tabs at the top you can access such posts.
Let’s say you’re right that medicare for all would have been easier to explain and sell–and I think you are. The problem is that’s not what’s before us right now. And if a public option doesn’t go through this fall, it’s not like we’ll get the change for better legislation. It’s more probably that we’d wait another 15 years. Of course, if it’s a weak public option or a co-op, then …. too dreadful to think about. So the issue is how to explain and sell a public option, as that’s what’s on the table.
I totally agree. The scare talk about euthanasia was started by people who understand that there is a split in the polls, with the young being much more supportive of reform than are seniors.
If the anti-reformers can keep the elderly, who vote in larger numbers,
anxious about any change to the status quo,
they will have half the battle won.
I think this is right. We’ve got to differentiate between those Americans who can and want to be moved, and those who can’t and won’t.
lilybelle, I’m in Ohio too, SE Ohio. I have not been going many places recently due to dentist appointments and such, so I haven’t heard what you heard, but it sure sounds familiar.
You know what we need? We need a very clear booklet like they give out to kids in the ER. Well, those were coloring books but no matter. “This is the nurse, she’ll take your BP, it doesn’t hurt. Then you see the doctor…” Etc.
We need a booklet like this explaining what is involved here. Very Simply.
And we do need more details from the administration.
Excellent work Lilibelle.
Fear of change is number one. esp. for seniors.
The 800lb gorilla is that we will have to ration health care
public option or not. We need to eliminate fraud and unnecessary
procedures being done.
Until we stop this petty bickering
we will be facing insurmountable costs down the road.
LGID: I completely agree; Medicare for All is what I march for, and it’s what I’ll keep pushing for after the smoke has cleared on the current legislative Pee Wee Soccer scramble. I’ve only taken issue regarding the immediate tactical value of the forthcoming symbolic HR 676 floor vote. It’s a nice-to-have but at this moment, SOO not a need-to-have.
A bit OT, but I saw a comment on a FDL post (I thought) this am about right-wingers hiding behind the “have you read the whole bill (though there are currently 4), and what in it is beneficial…blah, blah, blah…” line of obfuscation…I cannot find it, and if anyone could point me to the thread, I would really appreciate it.
If people have a good break-down of the elements of all the bills, that would help too.
Thanks…
here’s the comment
http://firedoglake.com/2009/08…..nt-1952435
from this post
http://firedoglake.com/2009/08…..town-hall/
I think that’s what you’re looking for.
lilybelle, You said:
For give me, but I think the “we won’t get another chance for 15 years” talking point is just so much BS. If we pass a bad bill, with no or a lousy public option, that’s when we have to worry about 15 years, because we’ll have proved that Government (the weak public option) doesn’t work. That will just add to the anti-government cynicism out there. No bill at all, and we can get mad, get a movement going, run against the Republicans and the Blue Dogs, and get them again next year, when if they vote against Medicare for All, after another year of deterioration in the health insurance situation, it will cook their collective geese, because the voters won’t have time to forget that they condemned people to death and bankruptcy.
But apart from the 15 year-scare tactic, the idea that Medicare for All is not before us right now is just propaganda; and Obama and HCAN propaganda at that. Bernie Sanders has a Medicare for All bill in the Senate S 703, and John Conyers has HR 7676 in the House. HR 676 will even be getting a floor vote. So it is before us.
Let’s whip it and not even worry about the public option. Even for those of us who prefer a public option to Medicare for All, or who think that it is “a public option that is before us now,”it is a better strategy to push for Medicare for All, because if we get it going among the public and we can begin to get Congresspeople who really think it’s best to vote for it, we may just get the insurance industry scared enough that we can get a stronger public option.
Apropos of that, what kind of strategy of negotiation is it to begin negotiations with the position that you want to end up at? What kind of bonehead play is that? If you were selling a house and you wanted $185K for it, would you start out by asking 185K for it or would you ask 205K?
It seems to me that what the public option folks have done, and are still doing is to ask for 185K when they want 185k, a sure recipe for having to settle for 175k or 165k depending on the market. They’ve really got to get off that sort of move if they want a strong public option bill; but perhaps I’m being far too naive. Perhaps the White House and HCAN wanted a weak, or no, public option from the beginning, and any public advocacy for a strong public option on their part was just so much kabuki?
That’s right, and that’s another reason why Medicare for All would have sold better than the public option. If Obama were lauding Medicare all this time and saying that it was a solution that worked and that what we needed to do was to extend it to everyone, I doubt that older people would be worried about a new insurance program (a public option reform that might somehow compete with Medicare).
Yes, and we also need to differentiate those who can and will be moved, and those who can’t and won’t in relation to public option bills, on Medicare for All bill on the other, since the results ae likely to be very different if we vary the type of bill involved.
Another irony worth pointing out to truly concerned people — be they motivated selfishly or otherwise — is the fact that Republicans and DINOs are rather keen on eliminating Medicare. That’s their idea of reform.
One person’s petty bickering is another person’s policy analysis.
ralphbon, I understand. But I think we do need it. We need a symbol. We need to tag people who vote against it. And we need to show them that it’s HR 676 that we care about.
We need to warn them beforehand, that if they vote against HR 676 on grounds that it is unfeasible now and will just fail in the end, that we won’t accept that as an excuse or forgive them and that we will vote for their primary opponents if they say they support it. But, on the other hand, if they vote for HR 676 and are defeated, we will back them to the hilt in the next election.
Love the name…
That was it…thanks! It’s not as on the mark as I thought I remembered it to be, so I think I should still look for a point by point comparison of the bills (plural).
I can’t give you the thread; but this move by right-wingers is well-known. It’s another reason why we should be working to get HR 676 passed. It’s only 30 pages. It’s very clear what it says, and there’s not a bunch in there they can easily lie about If we go to meetings and all we talk about is Medicare for All we’ve got a much simpler selling job with much simpler talking points. The key point here is that we’ll never get rightists, centrists and Blue Dogs to accept a public option by trying to explain it to them. But we might be able to get them to accept a public option, if they see everyone at Town Hall Meetings and in the Congress beginning to line up in back of medicare for All, simply because they don’t have to know or understand how the public option works for them to know that Medicare for All is much, much, worse for them than a public option would be.
You know, you’re right – our propaganda isn’t nearly as good as theirs, and part of that is because, of course, they are willing to tell lies. It’s so much easier to express a lie pithily because, well, you just leave out everything that shows it’s a lie.
Truth requires nuance, and RW’ers don’t do nuance. (Much like their erstwhile leader. I think that’s one reason they liked him so much)
But there is surely a way to boil down the main proposals, while also countering the wild distortions/myths/lies that are already out there.
Of course, a new wild made-up claim that frightens people will instantly arise.
Ah, hmm, thinking out loud….maybe we should go ahead and use fear, ourselves.
It wouldn’t be that hard:
Be afraid of your insurance company: They’ll cancel your ass as soon as you get sick.
Be afraid: When you need a biopsy right away, they will take a month to decide whether or not it’s okay.
Be afraid: When you have a blood clot that needs to be repaired immediately, they will deny the repair is medically necessary!
You get the idea. One thought at a time, of course.
Thanks for the response! As you can see from my post just above yours, the good doctor found what I was referring to.
All right, HR 676 is one, HR 3200 is another, I believe…what are the other ones and is there a site that does a side-by-side analysis?
tejanarusa,
The three fears you mentioned are all quite realistic, since the insurance companies work that way all the time. Clearly Obama hasn’t been using that approach because he’s been trying to do bipartisanship, community consensus, and solutions emerging from reasonable compromises among contending parties.
It’s great to do that when the other side is not fighting a war. But clearly they are, and have been from the beginning, while Obama has been practicing unilateral disarmament. Bring on all the fear talking points you’d like to, so long they reflect the truth about what is going on. Progressives aren’t obligated to use arguments that refrain from mentioning what people ought to fear; only arguments that use propositions that we know are false.
Hi Styve,
Kip Sullivan has a comparison of HR 3200 and Jacob Hacker’s real public option requirements, here. I haven’t seen a comparison of HR 676 with HR 3200, point by point. But one can probably be constructed by using Kip’s analysis of HR 3200 and setting it against the provisions in HR 676 which are available in a .pdf on the web. Just google for it.
A comparison of HR 676 and S. 703 can be found here: http://guaranteedhealthcare4al…..Bills.pdf. Sanders’s S 703 is not Medicare for All; like its counterpart in the House introduced by Jim McDermott, it funds individual state single-payer systems. HR 676 is stronger.
Bad link; sorry. Go here for 676 vs 703.
ralphbon, Thanks for clarifying things, and also for the links.
In fact, since the “public option” is so complex, ill-defined, and experimental that Obama’s not even willing to run on it for his second term, the fear that the health care plans on offer will make things worse is quite well-founded.
That’s why advocating for Medicare for All is the reasonably course of action: Medicare is so successful that the wingers can’t let themselves think it’s a government program!
*** Lilybelle, thanks for canvassing and for writing this report. ***
It’s the 1000-page bill that’s obfuscatory.
As far as waiting 15 years… I think that’s a “savvy insider” talking point that’s meant to pressure us into settling for less. The need for a real solution doesn’t go away, so the pressure for it won’t go away.
So much of the Republican fear is heightened by what Democrats themselves do or worse, don’t do. “Entitlement reform” used to be a WaPo and Republican talking point. Now “entitlement reform” is an Obama administration talking point. Social Security is a huge money flow that the usual suspects would like to tap. Given the administration’s extremely close ties to the financial industry, it’s entirely rational to watch them closely on this issue. Now, the Republicans have taken that fear and turned it into a cartoon, but that doesn’t mean that the original fear is not grounded.
You answered my question.
Lilybelle -
thank you for your work and the report !
– and you are correct – there seems to be a dearth of easy to follow material out there – Labor did a great job on the campaigns last year, was disappointed they weren’t duplicating their efforts with Healthcare.
here’s a page of simple to understand pro reform posts
Can’t give you anything specific on PO
Click here for some examples of flyers on single-payer, then click on “tools”
And although SB 840 was vetoed by Schwarzen-idiot, SB 810 is basically the same thing
Single payer talking points
PS I mean Medicare for All ;-)
The right wingers are probably getting that from this post