One of the tactics republicans are most effective at using against progressives is the dysphemism lance.
Well there are a few ways of turning this on the republican's heads. I propose we frame the debate as follows: we present opponents to universal healthcare as either out of touch with reality, or callous and heartless. Here are the soundbites:
Opposition to 'real' healthcare reform, in the guise of a strong public option or a single payer system can be broken down into three groups.
- Those ideologically opposed to government involvement in health care. no matter how much good it will accomplish or how many people will die without reform
- Those who don't believe that the government is capable of running anything, and ignore the immense success of police departments, the military and any number of government run programs
- Those who profit from the waste in the current system.
Opposition to 'real' healthcare reform, in the guise of a strong public option or a single payer system can be broken down into three groups.
- Those ideologically opposed to government involvement in health care. no matter how much good it will accomplish or how many people will die without reform
- Those who don't believe that the government is capable of running anything, and ignore the reality of success of police departments, the military and any number of government run programs
- Those who profit from the waste in the current system.
#1 takes a swipe at the AMA, calling out into the open the conflict between their statements on public healthcare and their hippocratic oaths.
#2 creates mental dissonance by pitting two core principles against each other. The first is the worship of the private sector, the second is the worship of the military. While I will be the first one to concede that this line of argument will not sway many conservatives, it will still serve to make many of them look silly on air, which is the point.
#3 reinforces the anti-lobbyist sentiment.
We should be careful to present as a settled and undisputed fact that single payer is more efficient than any other system for health care. Be dismissive with this point; "any thinking person knows that buying in bulk and optimized resource distribution is the most efficient model. That's why large corporations can have lower margins than tiny ones, etc". Arguing this point goes directly opposed to the goal with point #2.
When point #2 is inevitably attacked, there is a second sound bite to use against lawmakers who oppose it: "Are you saying you can't do your job and run this honestly?"
Don't be afraid to bring in the IRS either; "but what about the IRS? They're very effective at taking your hard earned money"
We are pidgeonholed all the time as 'tax and spend liberals'. Well I think we can be very effective at doing the same thing to the conservative opposition. Calling out the consequences of opposing universal health care is important.
Call a spade a spade.