I am very angry at how our side has handled the debate with healthcare. I am very disappointed with how our side has failed--once again--to shape the debate. I wanted to get a better bill but it seems like we are going to get only cosmetic reforms.
I feel somewhat betrayed that Obama has not forcefully advocated for change in the system. The plan that we are likely to end up with will be a big disappointment. It seems like we will end up with a Massachusetts-style system that benefits no one but the insurance, drug, and other companies in the healthcare industry. More beneath the fold.
I am not an "activist base Democrat". I'm not the type of Democrat who gets militant about certain issues that the left gets angry about. But healthcare is very important to me. I am a Democrat because of the party's economic, healthcare, environmental, and transportation policies. Healtchare is one of the major reasons why I support the Democratic Party. To see a bill that is very weak most likely be the final proposal really angers me.
I am angry because the Democrats have shown an inability here to govern effectively. I am angry because Obama and the Democratic leadership should have realized that, after the stimulus bill, the Republicans had no intention of showing "bipartisanship". Why they don't realize that and have yet to learn that, I don't know.
But within this post I focus on healthcare debate. I am then going to focus on a recent CNN debate that took place on the Lou Dobbs show earlier this past week. I have said this many times here on the board, but I'm going to explain what I think our side has yet to realize. Our side still doesn't know how to win policy debates.
It still frustrates me that the Democrats have not yet learned their lessons from the past. They have sucked at PR. They have not advanced their message clearly. Our side is losing because (once again) we have had very bad marketing and PR efforts. There has been no unifying message. We don't have two or three easy points that can resonate with most voters.
The fact is that the overwhelmingly majority of people have neither the time nor the interest to take an in-depth interest in researching policy issues. They aren't going to read long-winded, complex policy papers. The most exposure that they will get on the issues is through TV ads, the evening news, talk radio, and cable news.
The right knows this and they've been devastatingly successful so far because they have been able to reduce their arguments into a few simple points that they can repeat over and over again. Ads from Conservatives for Patients Rights and Patients United Now have been running ads for months imploring Americans not "to let the government come between them and their doctor".
(A sidenote: It angers me that no one has called out the woman in the Patients United Now for being dishonest. No one from our side has gone on and mentioned the truth of this woman's condition. Also no one has also stated how she had to fall $100K in debt to pay her medical bills.)
Our side has been absent from the debate. We have had no ads with families who can't afford insurance, families who have had to face bankruptcy because insurance didn't pay their bills like they promised, families who have had their coverage suddenly dropped retroactively, and so forth. We have had no defining narrative. No clear unifying message fills the air. If you were to poll 10 people randomly, while a vast majority would know what the GOP position is, very few could clearly articulate ours.
I can give one example. On Tuesday night, during the Lou Dobs show, there was a debate between Sally Pipes, who represented the conservative position; and Igor Volsky, who came from the Center for American Progress. Pipes beat him soundly because Volsky didn't really answer her arguments and let her points go unchallenged. Here were her arguments and what Volsky could have said:
What Pipes argued:
1. Government run healthcare will cost a lot.
2. Government run healthcare will result in healthcare rationing.
3. Government run healthcare will result in delays and no innovation.
4. Government run helathcare will take away choice.
What Volsky should have said:
1. Healthcare already costs a lot for most families. Families have to spend thousands of dollars a year in premiums for policies that often have no benefit.
2. We already have rationing. Health insurance companies fight tooth and nail to pay claims and delay. They won't cover certain procedures.
3. So is delay by private insurer better? We already have delays. The government can't be worse. And most patients can't afford to get innovative treatments because health insurance companies often claim that they are "experimental".
4. Insurance companies already take away choice. They choose which doctors you can see and what procedures they will cover regardless of whether the patient needs it.
Whatever happens with healthcare it is clear that our side sucks at PR. For, until we learn to develop effective messaging and PR and stick to it, we are never going to win these debates.