View Full Version : Education Republican healthcare talking points provided by an unknowing layman.

05-24-2009, 07:37 PM
This is why your party lost in November.


Republican pollster Frank Luntz recently distributed a 28-page memo, "The Language of Health Care (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22155.html)," to help Republican lawmakers undermine health care reform efforts. He talked to (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/24/magazine/24wwln-q4-t.html?ref=magazine) the NYT's Deborah Solomon this week, but wasn't exactly prepared to discuss the issue at hand.

After Luntz explained that "takeover" is "a word that grabs attention," which is why he and other Republicans "want to avoid 'a Washington takeover,'" Solomon noted the phrasing is fundamentally misleading: "What the Democrats want is for everyone to be able to choose between their old, private health-insurance plan and an all-new, public health-insurance option."

Luntz replied, "I'm not a policy person. I'm a language person."

Those are nine words that say an awful lot. Luntz's job is to help kill important legislation through rhetorical manipulation. His job is not, however, to know what he's talking about. The debate isn't about what (or who) is right; it's about what Luntz thinks he can get away with. (Asked who paid him to write the health care memo, Luntz refused to answer, saying the issue is "not relevant.")

Democratic strategist Paul Begala, to his credit, put together a pretty detailed, point-by-point response (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22853.html), to the Luntz memo, with some advice for Democrats about how to approach the debate.

Veteran Republican pollster Frank Luntz has circulated a memo which attempts to teach Republicans how to kill health care reform by misleading people. Because they know they cannot win the argument honestly, Republicans are resorting to mendacity. Democrats must not let them get away with it.

There is one fact that animates the Republicans' strategy. It should animate yours as well. That fact is this: the overwhelming majority of American support health care reform. In fact, Dr. Luntz himself notes that voters trust Democrats over Republicans by a whopping 20 percent on health care. If health care reform were unpopular, Republicans would not resort to misleading rhetoric to mask their opposition. The striking thing about Luntz's memo is how the rhetoric he advocates apes our message. The Republicans have three goals:

1. Co-opt our messaging; 2. Confuse voters; and 3. Kill health care reform.

Democrats should take their cue from Sen. Mitchell. Voters are not going to fall for Republican rhetoric – as long as we don't.
Igor Volsky added (http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/05/22/begala-memo/), "Progressives need to answer conservative attacks by defending progressive proposals on their merits -- as Begala does -- rather than resorting to the comfortable/familiar rhetoric of 'affordable health care for all' or 'shared responsibility.' Such buzz language has doomed past reform efforts. As Haynes Johnson and David Broder argue in their analysis of President Clinton's failed health care reform effort, by relying on hollow buzz words, rather than policy specifics, the Clintons allowed the opposition to ascribe meaning to reform rhetoric. Let's hope we don't make that same mistake again."

In the meantime, GOP leaders are carefully following (http://thinkprogress.org/2009/05/23/kyl-health-care-deception/) Luntz's script. It's prompted some to begin playing "Frank Luntz Bingo (http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/05/frank_luntz_bingo.php)."

—Steve Benen 1:25 PM

05-24-2009, 07:41 PM

Luntz’s 10 pointers in “The Language of Healthcare 2009”:

(1) Humanize your approach. Abandon and exile ALL references to the “healthcare system.” From now on, healthcare is about people. Before you speak, think of the three components of tone that matter most: Individualize. Personalize. Humanize.

(2) Acknowledge the “crisis” or suffer the consequences. If you say there is no healthcare crisis, you give your listener permission to ignore everything else you say. It is a credibility killer for most Americans. A better approach is to define the crisis in your terms. “If you’re one of the millions who can’t afford healthcare, it is a crisis.” Better yet, “If some bureaucrat puts himself between you and your doctor, denying you exactly what you need, that’s a crisis.” And the best: “If you have to wait weeks for tests and months for treatment, that’s a healthcare crisis.”

(3) “Time” is the government healthcare killer. As Mick Jagger once sang, “Time is on Your Side.” Nothing else turns people against the government takeover of healthcare than the realistic expectation that it will result in delayed and potentially even denied treatment, procedures and/or medications. “Waiting to buy a car or even a house won’t kill you. But waiting for the healthcare you need – could. Delayed care is denied care.”

(4) The arguments against the Democrats’ healthcare plan must center around “politicians,” “bureaucrats,” and “Washington” … not the free market, tax incentives, or competition. Stop talking economic theory and start personalizing the impact of a government takeover of healthcare. They don’t want to hear that you’re opposed to government healthcare because it’s too expensive (any help from the government to lower costs will be embraced) or because it’s anti-competitive (they don’t know about or care about current limits to competition). But they are deathly afraid that a government takeover will lower their quality of care – so they are extremely receptive to the anti-Washington approach. It’s not an economic issue. It’s a bureaucratic issue.

(5) The healthcare denial horror stories from Canada & Co. do resonate, but you have to humanize them. You’ll notice we recommend the phrase “government takeover” rather than “government run” or “government controlled” It’s because too many politician say “we don’t want a government run healthcare system like Canada or Great Britain” without explaining those consequences. There is a better approach. “In countries with government run healthcare, politicians make YOUR healthcare decisions. THEY decide if you’ll get the procedure you need, or if you are disqualified because the treatment is too expensive or because you are too old. We can’t have that in America.”

(6) Healthcare quality = “getting the treatment you need, when you need it.” That is how Americans define quality, and so should you. Once again, focus on the importance of timeliness, but then add to it the specter of “denial.” Nothing will anger Americans more than the chance that they will be denied the healthcare they need for whatever reason. This is also important because it is an attribute of a government healthcare system that the Democrats CANNOT offer. So say it. “The plan put forward by the Democrats will deny people treatments they need and make them wait to get the treatments they are allowed to receive.”

(7) “One-size-does-NOT-fit-all.” The idea that a “committee of Washington bureaucrats” will establish the standard of care for all Americans and decide who gets what treatment based on how much it costs is anathema to Americans. Your approach? Call for the “protection of the personalized doctor-patient relationship.” It allows you to fight to protect and improve something good rather than only fighting to prevent something bad.

(8) WASTE, FRAUD, and ABUSE are your best targets for how to bring down costs. Make no mistake: the high cost of healthcare is still public enemy number one on this issue – and why so many Americans (including Republicans and conservatives) think the Democrats can handle healthcare better than the GOP. You can’t blame it on the lack of a private market; in case you missed it, capitalism isn’t exactly in vogue these days. But you can and should blame it on the waste, fraud, and abuse that is rampant in anything and everything the government controls.

(9) Americans will expect the government to look out for those who truly can’t afford healthcare. Here is the perfect sentence for addressing cost and the limited role for government that wins you allies rather than enemies: “A balanced, common sense approach that provides assistance to those who truly need it and keeps healthcare patient-centered rather than government-centered for everyone.”

(10) It’s not enough to just say what you’re against. You have to tell them what you’re for. It’s okay (and even necessary) for your campaign to center around why this healthcare plan is bad for America. But if you offer no vision for what’s better for America, you’ll be relegated to insignificance at best and labeled obstructionist at worst. What Americans are looking for in healthcare that your “solution” will provide is, in a word, more: “more access to more treatments and more doctors…with less interference from insurance companies and Washington politicians and special interests.”

Dave Lane
05-24-2009, 10:33 PM
Is there nothing the republicans can get right...

05-24-2009, 11:44 PM
The republicans get just about as many things right as democrats. The problem is both parties are paid off by their particular constituenties, so they usually abuse the public to pay off those people.

They really aren't all that different. They are just paid off by different groups. So they screw the public on behalf of different people.