Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Health & Wellness

How to Talk About Health Care

By Bernie Horn, TomPaine.com. Posted April 30, 2008.


The health care debate is not about right versus left. It's about McCain's radical scheme to dump our employer-provided health coverage into a ditch.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

John McCain will be spending the week promoting his health care scheme. The crux of the plan is to abolish employer-based health insurance and throw middle class working Americans to the wolves. It is market fundamentalism at its worst.

But I'm not here to talk about the policy details. I want to discuss message framing. During an election campaign, when our ultimate audience is persuadable voters, how do we talk about health care?

Let's first understand McCain's frame. His campaign understands one crucial fact (if nothing else): About 95 percent of the voters in the 2008 general election will be insured -- the uninsured don't tend to vote. Extensive polling and focus group research has shown, without a doubt, that people who are insured are more interested in preserving and improving their own coverage than in covering the uninsured. Americans want "quality, affordable health care." But of the two concepts, they are more focused on affordability than on quality.

McCain is trying to convince voters that Democrats are all about covering the uninsured while he, on the other hand, is all about lowering health care costs. Understand that this is a good strategy because it fits voters' stereotypes of Democrats (and is fairly true). To our credit, we focus on "universal" or "single-payer" coverage, "Medicare for all," "Canadian-style" health, and the like. But this is not good message framing for the 2008 election.

"Single-payer" makes persuadable voters -- the swing voters who will decide this election -- think of bureaucracy, inefficiency, and bad service (like the "typical" department of motor vehicles). You'd think that one way to sell health coverage would be to refer to one of our nation's great success stories -- Medicare. Unfortunately, Americans have become wary of Medicare, in large part because the Bush administration botched Medicare Part D, the prescription drug benefit.

And unfortunately, many Americans have a negative impression of the Canadian health care system. More important -- because it applies to more than just health care -- Americans are not persuaded by comparisons to other nations. If they were, we'd already have single-payer health care, strict gun control, and voting rights for ex-offenders, and we would have abolished the death penalty and signed the Kyoto treaty on global warming years ago. Americans want an American solution. (You're going to hurt your eyes if you roll them like that.) This is politics; just go with the flow. Evoking national pride helps us enact programs that benefit our fellow citizens -- so just do it.

But, you respond, these voters are wrong! We need to educate them about the merits of single-payer, Medicare, and the Canadian system, you say. I'm sorry, but politics doesn't work that way. You can't change people's minds in the course of a campaign -- that takes years and there's not enough time. No, our goal is not to change minds, it is to convince voters that they agree with us already.

We do that by starting from a point of agreement -- where polls show that persuadable voters are on our side -- and lead them to see that our solution fits their preconceptions.

In the case of McCain's proposal, the key fact is that the tax provisions will encourage companies to drop health insurance as an employer-provided benefit. Fortune Magazine points this out by quoting an expert in the field: "I predict that most companies would stop paying for health care in three to four years," says Robert Laszewski, a consultant who works with corporate benefits managers.

Put another way, the McCain plan will cause businesses to drop health care benefits like a rotten egg from a picnic basket. The argument for McCain depends on the idea that once they cut health care benefits, corporations will increase our salaries to offset our loss! And no persuadable voter in America will believe this. So if you're middle-class in America, this plan should scare the sox off of you. This is Bush economics on steroids!

But also, look at it this way. There may be no more important ammunition in the fight against McCain than his health care scheme. If on Election Day voters truly understand this proposal, McCain will be defeated in a landslide.

So let's reframe the health care debate. It's not about Democratic coverage versus Republican cost-cutting. It's about McCain's radical scheme to dump our employer-provided health insurance coverage into a ditch.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: health, health care, mccain, framing, single-payer

Bernie Horn is the author of Framing the Future. He writes frequently on how to counter the right and advance progressive policies.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Health and Wellness! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
McCain wants you to put your trust in the health-care corporations
Posted by: Lector on Apr 30, 2008 1:15 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Basically McCain is offering a health care reform which he says gives Americans the freedom to chose, because, of course, all Americans like Freedom. Framing it like that, a lot of suckers will buy into it. But it is more the freedom to chose their poison. According to McCain’s plan, which involves magical tax credits, neither Elizabeth Edwards, wife of John Edwards or McCain himself, who also has a preexisting condition, would be covered by his proposed health care policy. Both of these people can afford to pay the premiums and the bills anyway but not everyone’s a multimillionaire. Which is why McCain’s plan stinks for the rest of America. On the other hand, Hillary’s so-called universal health care is not that at all, at least not in the European meaning and never will be because Americans are suspicious of anything that hints of socialized medicine, even though that’s what you get in the US military or as a government worker.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

More Race To The Bottom
Posted by: NoPCZone on Apr 30, 2008 3:00 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Repugs have been re-casting America into a third-world banana plutocracy for about 30-40 years and this is one of the final parts of their formula. The truth is that, if enacted, employees will lose their coverage and most will be UNABLE to afford the very marginal coverage they will be offered.

The tens of millions with high blood pressure, asthma, diabetes and other chronic conditions will find themselves uncovered for any illness or complication even tangentially connected to these pre-existing conditions. They might have a policy, but it will exclude most of the conditions they are most likely to need treatment for in the future.

Additionally, the surge of newly uncovered or poorly covered patients will strain the already over-stressed safety net and rural not for profit hospitals and clinics. We will witness many hospitals sinking into a sea of debt- stranding many poor and rural communities with no hospital, emergency room or diagnostic services.

Countless inner city and rural hospitals are teetering on the verge of insolvency already and will be unable to withstand the dual shock of reduced compensation and added 'service' (charity) patient load. Once the system is broken it will be prohibitively expensive to recreate what has been broken. What will result is a catastrophic mess for the vast majority of Americans and could cost many their very lives.

No sane person disputes the desperate need for reforms in the way people are medically insured and cared for in the US. The McSame plan is a trojan horse designed to get employers out of the practice of providing healthcare coverage as a benefit of employment. Wages will not rise as an offset and tens of millions will be harmed in the process.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Irrelevant
Posted by: Philor on Apr 30, 2008 4:14 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article is totally irrelevant.
Employers in the US are NOT obliged to offer:

Health care
Or paid vacation

They do it as part of a package to attract employees. So this article is irrelevant. Employers can already decide, overnight, to not offer health care.

I'm afraid improving America will require deep changes that is way beyond the comprehension of most people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Irrelevant Posted by: bdcroan
» RE: Irrelevant Posted by: CatDad
» RE: Your comment is Irrelevant Posted by: Livemike
» RE: Your comment is Irrelevant Posted by: jvaljon1
Have to love that idea
Posted by: JSquercia on Apr 30, 2008 6:46 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You have to love the idea that your Employer will raise you salary if he no longer provides for your Health Insurance . I wonder if they can providea concrete EXAMPLE of that happening
I also wonder if the Tax Credit would be a refundable Credit so that those who didn't owe $5,000 in taxes would actually get a check from the Government . based on the history of Republicans I would venture to say NOT .
When it comes to Health Care I tend to believe Elizabeth Edwards rather than John McCain . In any event individuals would have far less power in dealing with Insurance Companies than Employers do . I believe just recently our Pro Business Supreme Court ruled against an attempt
to form a group of unrelated citizens to negotiate for Health Care

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Have to love that idea Posted by: kiatoa
Employer Based Health Care Needs to Go...But
Posted by: drricklippin on Apr 30, 2008 7:22 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
McCain's plan is no solution for the depth and breadth of our US Health Care crisis. It is woefully late to this table and feeble.

I am for single payer but with much more emphasis on individual and institutional prevention.

I believe that both Clinton and Obama want to utimately get to single payer but they could not see how to do it politically right now.

Here is my plan which I published in 1995 (revised after Katrina)which Hillary liked-

GROW UP AMERICA-A HEALTH CARE PLAN FOR ALL AMERICAN CITIZENS-

-Stop prolonging death. It’s both expensive and dehumanizing at best, greedy and cruel at worst.

-Empower US citizens to assume increased individual responsibility for health and convince medical consumers that it is in their best interests not to assume the role of helpless, dependent victims/patients.

-Yet also recognize that we have medicalized America’s social problems. So we must provide healthy and safe jobs for all able citizens thereby reducing poverty and all its subsequent health impacts (possibly 1/3rd of Health Care Costs)

-Provide healthy environments including healthy air, water, soil and food.

-Rebuild America’s public health infrastructure to ensure we provide appropriate macro and individual interventions to especially low income citizens such as childhood and adult immunizations and response to man-made and natural catastrophes.

-Face the reality that a very large percentage of illnesses, injuries and hospitalizations are entirely preventable. Subsequently, the elimination of tobacco, alcohol, drug, medication and dietary abuse alone could immediately reduce medical costs by a factor of at least fifty percent.

-Incent and train physicians to maintain the health of patients and populations. Radical changes in provider re-imbursement and medical education strategies are necessary

-Recognize that early childhood preventive medical education can profoundly affect lifelong health behaviors.

*proposed in June of 1995
Revised January 2006/2007

Dr. Rick Lippin
Southampton,Pa
http://medicalcrises.blogspot.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Posted by: CatDad
Its not the Health Care
Posted by: FAITHCARR on Apr 30, 2008 8:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Its not the Health Care, it's the health insurance.

I'd gladly trade my $350 monthly premium, and $600 a month co-pays for Universal Health Care.

Take the money out of insurance and put it in actual care.

Dying early is better than living with failing health.

Faith (my name not my belief)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Is He Nuts or What!
Posted by: bettina9292 on Apr 30, 2008 8:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ok. I am self employed. I have no health benefits. My husband works for a corporation with health benefits. Last year he went to work on our own and we lost our corporate employer based health care and had to HMO it. Here is the difference per month:
Corporate based: $425.00 for a family (spouse and 3 kids)$500 deductible
Kaiser HMO: $1025.00 for a couple (47,46-no health issues). No dental.$1000 deductible.
corporate based again; $168.00 for a family (spouse 3 kids) $250.00 deductible.
Without the cushion of a large pool-we would be taken out to pasture and shot. A $5000 tax credit is ludicrous. Give me $5000 a year in coupons towards insurance premiums and I might think about it.
I think Mc Cain is getting dementia or his thorazine meds are not working.
By the way if any of us had preexisting conditions-including allergies or asma-we could be disqualified. Basically, if you don't have over a hundred people (in a pool of insured) your are actuarially screwed. Doesn't everyone know this. Mc Cains comments pander to the corporations who are fed up with the high costs of premiums and their responsibility to having to provide for their employees. He doesn't give a darn about individuals and their families.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The probem is....
Posted by: cmaukonen on Apr 30, 2008 8:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the same as the problem with education is this country. They have both become a business where nothing matters but the bottom line.

That is why health care sucks and it's why education sucks. If you want to good health car, get it out of the hands of the damn business men.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Very disturbing
Posted by: WhatNow? on Apr 30, 2008 9:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"The argument for McCain depends on the idea that once they cut health care benefits, corporations will increase our salaries to offset our loss! And no persuadable voter in America will believe this. So if you're middle-class in America, this plan should scare the sox off of you. This is Bush economics on steroids!"

Also it needs to be stressed that you will need to be in almost perfect health physically, financially, and legally or you will be denied insurance. I can't get insurance even though I have no pre-existing conditions. I'm in a real bind as to trying to figure out how to get health care. I'm poor and unemployed at the moment. I can't afford care now and when I go back to work it will probably take over half my wages to get the most miniscule amount of care I can pay for with cash.

Funny thing though, is I agree with a little of what McCain says. We should walk more and eat better. Most people won't hear that only the word freedom and they won't realize the freedom McCain is offering them is the freedom to get sick and die early.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Employer health will = higher taxable income
Posted by: Gracews on Apr 30, 2008 10:33 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I haven't read anyone's comment yet that recognizes the fact that if employers DO keep healthcare for their employees, under McCain's plan the employees' immediate tax burden will rise. Without details on how people will qualify for the tax credit at tax time, it could end up being even worse a deal that it looks like now.

The way most companies are set up nowadays, the premiums that employers pay are not considered taxable income to the employee, and the employee portion of the premium is usually deducted from their taxable gross, further reducing the amount of the employee's tax bill.

Under McCain's plan, the employer portion of the premium would be considered a taxable benefit, therefore the employee would be taxed on the value of the premiums paid. In addition, employees would not be able to reduce their taxable gross with their contribution toward the premium - no more Section 125 plans!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The first sensible article I have read about Healthcare on Alternet
Posted by: Swedish liberal on Apr 30, 2008 10:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If Democrats in general and so called Progressives in particular wishes to have any kind of health care reform they need to hone their message to what is acceptable to the general public. As the writer justly points out single payer reeks of socialism. Anathema to the vast majority of Americans.

As the writer points out America needs an American solution. The solution that would be palatable is to go the Swiss way. They went from non comprehensive health care to compulsory health care in 1994. Their solution was to keep private insurers but to instigate cost control and make it compulsory for insurance companies to accept everybody as well as for the individual to compulsory have to take out a policy.

You should watch the PBS program "Sick Around the World". They discussed five different solutions its pros and cons:

1. Great Britain, socialized medicine with gatekeepers and long waiting time

2. Japan, Universal coverage no gatekeepers, heavily underfunded

3. Germany, a popular market based system but heavily underfunded

4. Taiwan, a new system that copied others no gatekeepers but heavily underfunded

5. Switzerland, a market based system resembling the US but comprehensive and compulsory, expensive but sustainable. US spends 14 % of GDP, Switzerland spends 10 %.

You can view it on line at:

Sick Around the World

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

About Health Care
Posted by: sunlakedude on Apr 30, 2008 3:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The fact remains is that the U.S. spends more, a lot more, per capita and as a whole on health care than any other industrialized nation in the world and our health statistics are poor in comparison. McCain's "plan" would do little to change any of that but line the pockets of the special interests who are already making a killing under our current system. We need to get rid of the insurance companies by establishing a single-payer system and cover everyone. The fact that Canadians are not uniformly happy with their system should have little to do with what we do. Transfer those Canadians to the U.S. for a month and have them sample our system and they'd be scrambling to get back home in short order.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What we need is Catastrophic Health Insurance
Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com on Apr 30, 2008 3:38 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Regular health insurance encourages people to take more from the system than they put in.

This is partly why premiums keep going up.

What we need is catastrophic health insurance in case someone gets cancer, a heart attack, broken bones, or another major ailment during youth to middle age.

The random stuff no one can explain and we are left wondering why.


Type II Diabetes, Heart Disease, High Cholesterol, and other obesity and dietary related illnesses are largely self-inflicted.

Why should I have sky rocketing premiums because my fellow American decides to eat their problems away, gets high cholesterol, type 2 diabetes, and decides to take the most expensive drugs modern insurance will cover?


I think Catastrophic/Disaster Health Insurance could be sold to the public or convince the public that that is what they want. It encourages personal responsibility, something Republicans say they are in favor of.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» It's called Personal Responsibility Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
» RE: You don't really address my main point Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
» RE: You STILL didn't really address my main point Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
» RE: I am wasting my time Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
Change the paradigm
Posted by: Jeanne on Apr 30, 2008 5:36 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The wrong assumption is that Americans need health "insurance." We need health "care." Take that profit-driven third party out of the equation, and maybe providers and patients can get paid and get cared for. Insurance companies have no ethical place in the health care delivery system. Their function is to skim money off the top while creating a bureaucratic labyrinth (which takes more dollars from the bottom line) that in their perverse thinking justifies their existence by keeping high-risk (that means sick people) customers out of their pool. We need to re-think. No, we need to think.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Change the paradigm Posted by: CatDad
Dr. Government
Posted by: Sushi on Apr 30, 2008 8:52 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Most of the people who think of "government health care" seem to think that doctors will be nothing more than government employees. We all have our own horror stories about slackers with cushy jobs not needing to perform their job due to a guaranteed paycheck no matter the quality of their skills. Factory health care as if health were another product for the market.

Not so. And I don't really think any politician is talking about it in terms that mean anything to the average non-critical-thinking public. What they should really be talking about is nationalized HEALTH INSURANCE. Of course the health insurance industry is making a killing (literally) on finding ways to avoid paying for the very needs of their customers (aka "pre-existing conditions" - Is this anything like being "pre-pregnant? ) If we all contributed to a national health care pool, that wasn't tapped into or otherwise hijacked for profit), we'd have plenty of money to pay for the needs of the public. I vaguely remember Hillary's proposal of a 50 cents tax on gas (when it was something like $1.40/gal and the Republicans were apoplectic that a 50 cent hike in gas would doom the economy. Now we are paying double that plus more for profiteers, with no return for our money. AND STILL NO HEALTH CARE!

I recently had to drop my PIP health insurance company - that I'd paid for 8 years with no claims - when they raised my premiums higher than my mortgage!! *This with no claims ever. Signed over to Blue Cross last October and by April, my new bill is already raised by $112.

Last year I got sick when I happened to be in Paris. A doctor was sent to my bedside when I had a 103 fever and didn't relish walking 10 blocks in 28 F weather to his office. Cost to me? Only because I was a non-citizen of France? $40 with another $15 for the prescription. Their docs are top notch. Most of Europe is on some form of nationalized medical insurance and they are doing better than the U.S. crumbling economy.

The big fight is over PROFITS. Our national health should not be a commodity to make investors rich. Just think... here in America, getting in a tragic car wreck is actually GOOD FOR THE ECONOMY! Just think of the tow-truck fees, the repair bills, the doctor's visits, the attorneys fees or worse case, the funeral services, florists, and the survivors might be responsible for replacing ruined guardrails or signposts! Wheeee!

Make a buck off of tragedy! If you suffer, you are probably just paying for your "sins" anyway.

Sarcastically,

Sushi
"The unanswered questions are not nearly as dangerous as the unquestioned answers."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Dr. Government Posted by: CatDad
» Zorg's Philosophy (Villain from the Fifth Element) Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
FUCK McCAIN
Posted by: mindtrvlr on Apr 30, 2008 9:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
ooooyaaah

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

oxheadone
Posted by: oxheadone on Apr 30, 2008 10:32 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The first important thing is to stop calling it health care; it's sickness care; it's MEDICAL care insurance and there is every reason, as all advanced (and some poor) countries have shown, for it to be a government monopoly because it is also public health, which is a basic national concern like national defense. The US public health statistics rank it with the underdeveloped countries of the world; and its a disgrace. The real reason for this disgrace is probably that Americans, in general, to not care enough about each other to risk it costing them a little money.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement