These are some tactics used by the right to argue for healthcare. In this post, I have evidence that right uses fear to market its message to their followers in the area of government intervention in the healthcare markets.
I recieved an e-mail everyday from Townhall.com which is a collection of different right-wing columnists. Normally, I just delete it unless I think somebody has something interesting to say on a issue than the normal right-wing noise that we hear on Fox News and from Rush Limbaugh.
However, I received an e-mail that sounded like pure progranda. Here is an excerpt from it
"In 2005, a COURT ordered the removal of a feeding Tube from Terri Schiavo. It outraged a nation. If the Government takes over health care, bureaucrats will decide who lives and dies in America. In the name of "creating efficiencies," they will delay – or deny - treatment to critically ill patients because it costs too much.
We will have a NATION of Terri Schiavo’s, with a faceless Federal Bureaucracy pulling the plug instead of a Court.!
Sound crazy? It happens every day in Great Britain.
You can STOP what will in effect be government sponsored euthanasia in America if you ACT NOW.
If you care about the Sanctity of Life, the proposed Government Takeover of Health Care is an attack on your value"
This is propoganda in its worst form. The person who wrote this piece is using appeal to fear. Appeal to fear is defined as "is a fallacy in which a person attempts to create support for his or her idea by increasing fear and prejudice toward a competitor. The appeal to fear is extremely common in marketing and politics."
The fear is that if the government tries to take over health-care than it spells the end of American healthcare as we know. It uses the most extreme language to sell its ideas to a conservative audience.
If government health-care is so bad, why do they have to resort to this language to sell their ideas? If government intervention in the healthcare market is that bad, the people who oppose government internvention could use simple facts and statistics that are cross-referenced to creditable documentary sources. People can look up this information and verify that it is factual and accurate.
In addition, the sources were consider to be independent and are independent from political influence, corporate influence, and influence from other outside sources. In the subject case, I would consider them to have a very creditable argument aganist government intervention in the healthcare market.
However, relying on these tactics makes me feel that they have a weak arguement and reliance on these methods increases the case for government intervention in the healthcare market.