How the Media Reports Debate and Why Single Payer Advocacy Matters

Shame to All So-Called Progessives Who Let Medicare for All Slip Off the Table »

How the Media Reports Debate and Why Single Payer Advocacy Matters
By: masslib Thursday August 27, 2009 9:02 am	Tweet

What frustrates single payer advocates the most is how they have been sidelined from the national health finance reform debate. People who support single payer, or enhanced and improved Medicare for All, have long waited for the chance to present their case to the American people for real health care reform via a single payer method. With the ever increasing cost of care, and the growing number of uninsured and under insured Americans, single payer advocates view inclusion of proposals that support a one payer system for financing health care an essential part of the debate. How surprising to the single payer movement when in light of the newly elected super majorities in Congress, and a Democratic President in the White House, single payer proposals in Congress were taken off the table at the outset. More surprising, and equally disappointing, was the quick dismissal of Democratic grassroots groups and popular progressive bloggers of the single payer concept who instead embraced an undefined, amorphous policy called the "public option".

For most of the debate, it’s been as though there were only two sides. The Democratic side, with or without a weak public option, and the Republican batsh*t, crazy side of "No!". The Left has largely moved to silence single payer advocates by disinviting them to speaking engagements, ignoring single payer editorials, news stories and advocacy groups like the California Nurses Association, and PNHP, focusing fundraising initiatives on public option advocacy only, and using their front page blog space to promote public options, while not exploring single payer proposals. Some say single payer isn’t "politically possible". Some call single payer advocacy "kabuki". Some argue "serious" politicians have said it’s off the table so why discuss it? Barney Frank, a long time single payer supporter, went as far as calling advocacy for the plan he supports, "suicide". As a result of the single payer blackout, the media has focused on the only two vocal sides of the debate. Because of this coverage, the entire national debate has taken place within the center/right to batsh*t, crazy right side of the spectrum, but what happens to the debate via media coverage when single payer advocates make themselves heard? It shifts Left:

Via David Swanson:

What Happened When Single-Payer Was Uninvited

By dswanson – Posted on 27 August 2009

I blogged earlier about astroturfing on the left and a healthcare rally at which AFSCME chose to uninvite anyone supporting single-payer. The result was a rally at which half the crowd had single-payer signs, and the local TV stations reported on a debate between single-payer and the public option, as if no other position (such as nuts screaming about death panels) existed. TV reporters just need two sides, they don’t care which two sides or whether they’re leaving out a third or fourth side. Keeping single-payer in the debate makes public option the rightist choice. Channel 29′s clip did this. Here’s a follow up article by Brandon Collins that includes video from Channel 19.

Even if you prefer the Congressional proposals with or without a public option to single payer, if liberals and progressives want to move the debate and the policy left the greatest tool at their disposal is broadening the debate leftward.

10 Comments Recommend

10 Responses to How the Media Reports Debate and Why Single Payer Advocacy Matters

ubetchaiam August 27th, 2009 at 1:21 pm «

I was watching a town hall meeting in Greensprings,VA on CSPAN today at the Greensprings Retirement Community.
It was absolutely amazing to see that all of the people either had Medicare coverage or were Federal retirees and that their greatest concern was ‘government takeover of healthcare’.

Add to that all the misinformation they had about Canada’s healthcare system -as well as other countries where healthcare for all is enshrined in law and overseen by the respective governments these people were laboring under- and it truly is ANOTHER failure by the mainstream media to do their jobs of informing the public.

masslib August 27th, 2009 at 3:07 pm «

Agreed. It’s also a testiment to government financed health coverage that these folks don’t know they have what they are afraid of. But, the confusion is on both sides. I had a back and forth for moths with a liberal who wanted to keep her insurance. Turns out she’s on Tri-Care.

selise August 27th, 2009 at 1:57 pm «

great diary. thanks masslib.

Some say single payer isn’t “politically possible”. Some call single payer advocacy “kabuki”. Some argue “serious” politicians have said it’s off the table so why discuss it?

it’s savviness:

BILL MOYERS: One of the subjects not in the debate over health care reform is single-payer. And contrary to what many people think about it being a far left proposal, the polls show that it has substantial support among a large swath of the American people. Many of whom would not call themselves far left.

But Senator Baucus said, its not in the discussion because we’ve gone too far now to go back and consider single-payer. There it seems to me is a very good example of how a legitimate idea gets delegitimated in the debate between the powers that be.

JAY ROSEN: I think it’s a classic example of the real religion of the Washington press, which is savviness. And from a problem-solving point of view, we would certainly want to consider single-payer, because it’s an important option in a debate. But from a savvy point of view, the inside players know that single-payer is never going to be the answer. And they’re already factoring that into their political calculations about what’s likely to result.

Which in a way cuts off the debate that we need to have. And so, the inside players in Washington are able to kind of contain the debate by anticipating the outcome, and then talking about the things that are most likely within that set of assumptions.

rosen says it’s a religion. i think it’s a disease.

masslib August 27th, 2009 at 3:08 pm «

Ah, that explains it. Sawiness, I will have to remember that.

ubetchaiam August 27th, 2009 at 2:23 pm «

Hi Selise,good to hear from you; I think it’s called schizophrenia *G*

selise August 27th, 2009 at 2:49 pm «

howdy ubetchaiam!

PaulaT August 27th, 2009 at 8:20 pm «

I was perplexed when single payer advocates were shunned. It seemed the perfect play for the post-partisan consensus builder Obama painted himself as being in the campaign to let the left propose single payer. The right would advocate “free market solutions” and then Obama would swoop in and point out that the middle ground is the exchange of private plans and public option he campaigned on. If he thinks his left flank is politically unrealistic or even batshit crazy, it still works out better for him to send them out there, especially since he was already playing coy on his own preferences in the name of letting Congress do its thing without his interference. It all made sense only in light of the premise that he wanted to be pulled right of his campaign promises.
letsgetitdone August 27th, 2009 at 10:02 pm «

I’ve been making the argument that Medicare for All needs to be back on the table for quite a few weeks now, if only for the sake of getting a better PO passed than what’s in HR 3200. By now, I think the only way this is going to happen is if public demonstrations demand it.

PaulaT August 27th, 2009 at 10:56 pm «

Or even the idea of letting people buy into Medicare voluntarily. Instead of death panels for seniors, we could be discussing getting more money into Medicare so seniors aren’t left high and dry some day. If they’re going to argue that it’s all a death march to communism anyway, might as well use the system that is already set up and needs the premiums and let them tell the seniors why they won’t even let patriotic Americans who want to help out pay into the system. I have a preexisting condition that means no private insurance even though I only see a doctor a couple times a year and never used up what my employers paid in premiums for me. Come on, defenders of truth, freedom, and grannies everywhere, let me give that extra money to Medicare instead of Blue Cross! I’ll even pay a little extra for the uninsured, but if they get to say none of their money goes for abortions, I get to say none of mine goes to CEO’s who hopefully will find themselves unemployed and uninsured.

libbyliberal August 28th, 2009 at 10:52 am «

Thanks masslib. The fix is in apparently, the lobby money was taken and still pours in. Honor among thieves at this date is that they do their payback (the politicians) and yet at the same time razzle dazzle the public they are still working for them. And corporate media takes its marching orders from its corporations and hypnotizes the sheeple into looking away from reality, and the lobbyists push emotional buttons and wedge issues to divide up and conquer the public … making an angry group with misplaced anger and responsive to authoritarian snark fight against their own interests.

Single Payer. Obama is not our friend. Will he ever be? Is he the ultimate authoritarian follower? Dreams of his father? Are his new fathers authoritarian corporatists and militarists, media moguls and gamesmen not statesmen politicos?

« Single Payer 101

Shame to All So-Called Progessives Who Let Medicare for All Slip Off the Table »