How can the Obama team, which did such a good job staying on message during the campaign, have lost the messaging war in the health care debate? Let us count the ways.
First, simplicity is always important. Selling a simple message like “Change” is easy. Selling a tough message like “health care reform” is a lot tougher. Just as many people dislike Congress but like their Congressman, many people think health care should be reformed but the 90% of people with health care insurance seem largely satisfied. They also seem to like their doctors and seniors with Medicare also don’t want things to change. Perhaps they could have used something like health care cost reform or health insurance reform, but it’s a bit late for that now.
Second, know your audience. You don’t have to convince all the people in an election, but if you’re president you need to speak to the people who didn’t vote to you. Since we all know what the Republican base is like and what most Americans value, it shouldn’t surprise many that getting Americans to understand the specifics of health care reform isn’t easy. This recent poll about American beliefs on health care reform says it all:
· 45% believe the government will decide when to stop providing medical treatment to senior citizens
· 55% believe the bill will extend health insurance coverage to illegal immigrants
· 54% believe the overhaul will lead to a “complete” government takeover of the health care system
All three of those items are absolutely wrong and have been debunked by those on the right and left alike. But people still believe them. Clearly the administration is not controlling the debate.
Finally, in PR we have what is called the “elevator pitch.” The story goes that if you’re riding in an elevator with an editor or Congressman, you have to clearly state what you want or what makes your company great, and get him to understand it before the elevator door opens. When the opposition says things like “death panels” and “costing over one trillion dollars,” it’s got the elevator pitch down cold. Average Americans understand elevator pitches. They will not understand long, drawn-out points. This is an unfortunate but standard fact of life that the President seems to have forgotten.
There are also three health care reform bills in Congress, which makes it complicated for people who understand long, drawn-out points. Mr. President, what is your ultimate goal with this bill? Lower costs? Coverage for all? A government-run system for people who can’t get or afford coverage? Making insurance companies accept all comers regardless of the risk? I don’t think anyone is quite sure. It may be all of that.
So if the president is reading, I advise him to regroup and repackage a single bill that has three or five easy to understand points that any American can grasp in about 60 seconds. And something about how he would pay for it would be nice too.
More Info: I’ve never blogged about Massachusetts’ universal health care law, but it was championed by former Governor Mitt Romney before he started flip flopping. An excellent NGO is Health Care for All, whose former leader (John McDonough) has a Ph.D. on health care costs and was instrumental in putting this important legislation together. Oh yeah, and he’s a very liberal Democrat who hates single-payer coverage. Here’s an old interview with him just before the Mass. law was passed.
Friday, August 21, 2009
Sunday, August 09, 2009
Health Care Reform Will Not Cure Ignorance
I recently had breakfast with Jim McGovern, Democrat from Massachusetts’ 3rd District by Worcester. He told a story of how he stopped by a McDonald’s near his home and five old men in a booth yelled at him to come over. They then accosted and berated him on the new health care bills in Congress, screaming how they didn’t want the government to get into the health care business (only in terms more crude than that).
McGovern then asked how many of them were on Medicare. They all said they were. He then asked if they had any major problems with it. Nope, they said, and they wanted it to stay that way. McGovern then asked, “Did you know Medicare is a government-run, single-payer health care system?” Blank stares were the only reply.
I know plenty of liberal partisans who blindly repeat whatever the New York Times says, but at least most of the Times’ articles and editorials are well-written and have a cursory basis in facts. But McGovern’s Mickey Dee’s moment, which is being played in town halls across the country, shows what happens when the opposing army sends their soldiers into battle without a plan or at least a few talking points. It doesn’t help when the topic is as byzantine and esoteric as health care, and there are currently three different health care bills circulating in Congress to confuse people who are actually trying to pay attention.
As with the prior phony “tea party” anti-tax protests in April, I like the whole idea of asking Congressmen and women tough, challenging questions at town hall meetings – Jefferson himself would have loved the concept. But Jefferson would also be floored at the lack of civility and utter ignorance showcased at these events. The irony of old people on Medicare hollering against a government-run health care system is to put it mildly, bizarre, and those who are just regurgitating whatever the so-called conservative firebrands tell them are going to miss that forest for the trees. It’s also interesting as an observer who watched liberals and progressives shriek apoplectically about anything George W. Bush did for eight years see the exact opposite crowd doing the exact same thing about Obama. Both types of these people seem so driven by rage that they can’t even think straight.
It’s a shame because there is a problem with health care in this country and a civil dialogue could get some important steps accomplished. Both sides could probably agree quickly to get something done about costs, particularly malpractice tort reform, excessive outlays and tests charged by hospitals, and how each state has a few dominant healthcare providers that charge what they want and extort fees from insurance companies and consumers alike. If the Republicans wanted to battle Obama on reining in health care costs instead of sending clowns and seniors to spew nonsense about euthanizing old people, then they’d actually be on to something. I also know far too many Canadians and Europeans who moved here for health reasons because of bureaucratic boondoggles in the foreign, single-payer health care systems Obama spotlights. But that would require arming foot soldiers and Congressmen alike with a plan and encourage them to discuss things rationally, so don’t hold your breath waiting for it to happen.
More Info: Now this is how the Republicans should argue.
McGovern then asked how many of them were on Medicare. They all said they were. He then asked if they had any major problems with it. Nope, they said, and they wanted it to stay that way. McGovern then asked, “Did you know Medicare is a government-run, single-payer health care system?” Blank stares were the only reply.
I know plenty of liberal partisans who blindly repeat whatever the New York Times says, but at least most of the Times’ articles and editorials are well-written and have a cursory basis in facts. But McGovern’s Mickey Dee’s moment, which is being played in town halls across the country, shows what happens when the opposing army sends their soldiers into battle without a plan or at least a few talking points. It doesn’t help when the topic is as byzantine and esoteric as health care, and there are currently three different health care bills circulating in Congress to confuse people who are actually trying to pay attention.
As with the prior phony “tea party” anti-tax protests in April, I like the whole idea of asking Congressmen and women tough, challenging questions at town hall meetings – Jefferson himself would have loved the concept. But Jefferson would also be floored at the lack of civility and utter ignorance showcased at these events. The irony of old people on Medicare hollering against a government-run health care system is to put it mildly, bizarre, and those who are just regurgitating whatever the so-called conservative firebrands tell them are going to miss that forest for the trees. It’s also interesting as an observer who watched liberals and progressives shriek apoplectically about anything George W. Bush did for eight years see the exact opposite crowd doing the exact same thing about Obama. Both types of these people seem so driven by rage that they can’t even think straight.
It’s a shame because there is a problem with health care in this country and a civil dialogue could get some important steps accomplished. Both sides could probably agree quickly to get something done about costs, particularly malpractice tort reform, excessive outlays and tests charged by hospitals, and how each state has a few dominant healthcare providers that charge what they want and extort fees from insurance companies and consumers alike. If the Republicans wanted to battle Obama on reining in health care costs instead of sending clowns and seniors to spew nonsense about euthanizing old people, then they’d actually be on to something. I also know far too many Canadians and Europeans who moved here for health reasons because of bureaucratic boondoggles in the foreign, single-payer health care systems Obama spotlights. But that would require arming foot soldiers and Congressmen alike with a plan and encourage them to discuss things rationally, so don’t hold your breath waiting for it to happen.
More Info: Now this is how the Republicans should argue.
Monday, August 03, 2009
...And That's The Way It Is (Back Then)
Walter Cronkite was lucky to live to 92, and even luckier to live when he did – at a time when everyone got their news from the same television station at the same time, and anchors were still required to be objective journalists. It didn’t matter if they wore glasses or spoke in a gravelly voice or appeared on TV in their sixties. Back then, it was OK to spend several minutes on a story to make sure viewers received all the facts, and the story never was influenced by ideologies or pressured by major advertisers.
If Walter was graduating today, he probably wouldn’t think of journalism as a career, and even if he did he would never be picked to anchor a local broadcast, let alone a national one. Too dour, people would say. Too much of a perfectionist. Walter is remembered today not so much for who he was, but what he represented. Some would say his editorial on Vietnam following the Tet Offensive was a switch from journalism to editorial, but to reach that conclusion he had the nerve to actually travel to Vietnam and find out the facts first. And when you watch him and listen to his voice, there is none of the condescension and taunting that flows from so many so-called news anchors and bloviators today. He spoke with absolute authority, for he had actually bothered to do his homework. The nerve of him.
Walter also had the politeness and the class to wait until he was retired (actually, forced into retirement) to begin making his true political feelings known. That was perfectly acceptable – he was no longer an anchor or journalist. I’m sure he was disappointed in many things concerning journalism and the media, especially the partisan sniping that masquerades as debate and the downfall of the once-mighty CBS News. But if I had the audacity to guess, I think what bothered him the most was both the move from reporting the news to editorializing the sensational and the trivial. President Obama recently said he was surprised the media made the recent “beer summit” the top story instead of the meeting he had with the president of the Philippines. He had to have been joking, but Cronkite would have said, “And right there…that’s why the mighty Fourth Estate has fallen.”
If Walter was graduating today, he probably wouldn’t think of journalism as a career, and even if he did he would never be picked to anchor a local broadcast, let alone a national one. Too dour, people would say. Too much of a perfectionist. Walter is remembered today not so much for who he was, but what he represented. Some would say his editorial on Vietnam following the Tet Offensive was a switch from journalism to editorial, but to reach that conclusion he had the nerve to actually travel to Vietnam and find out the facts first. And when you watch him and listen to his voice, there is none of the condescension and taunting that flows from so many so-called news anchors and bloviators today. He spoke with absolute authority, for he had actually bothered to do his homework. The nerve of him.
Walter also had the politeness and the class to wait until he was retired (actually, forced into retirement) to begin making his true political feelings known. That was perfectly acceptable – he was no longer an anchor or journalist. I’m sure he was disappointed in many things concerning journalism and the media, especially the partisan sniping that masquerades as debate and the downfall of the once-mighty CBS News. But if I had the audacity to guess, I think what bothered him the most was both the move from reporting the news to editorializing the sensational and the trivial. President Obama recently said he was surprised the media made the recent “beer summit” the top story instead of the meeting he had with the president of the Philippines. He had to have been joking, but Cronkite would have said, “And right there…that’s why the mighty Fourth Estate has fallen.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)