Why the White House Couldn't Fight the "Obamacare" Lie

[n2doc]

— By David Corn

May/June 2011 Issue
IN THE SPRING of 2009, as the titanic fight over President Barack Obama's health care proposal was beginning, Frank Luntz—an infamous Republican consultant who specializes in the language of politics—drew up a confidential 28-page report (PDF) for congressional GOPers on how they could confront, and defeat, Obama on this crucial issue. He suggested that they use a particular phrase: "Government takeover of health care." And they did. Again and again, for the entire months-long debate. During one Meet the Press appearance, Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio), then the House minority leader, referred to Obama's plan as a "government takeover" five times (without once being challenged).

It was a clear falsehood. Obama's system relies on private insurance and the market—especially after he abandoned a public option—albeit with additional government regulation. PolitiFact.com, a fact-checking site operated by the St. Petersburg Times, declared Luntz's formulation the "Lie of the Year" of 2010. (Luntz didn't have to make an acceptance speech.) Yet the line stuck. A Bloomberg poll conducted as Congress approved the legislation found that 53 percent of American adults believed it amounted "to a government takeover." A USA Today/Gallup survey indicated that 65 percent thought the new law would expand government's role in health care "too much." Several months later, a Gallup poll found that 10 percent selected "government involvement in health care" as the No. 1 health care problem facing the nation—over access or cost. In 2008, only 1 percent had cited government interference as the top problem.

Though Republicans lost the legislative war, they had Luntzified the debate and won the battle to define the health care measure through a Big Lie. This was significant: It established a foundation for the right's counterattacks—including the 2010 congressional elections, the ongoing effort to repeal or curtail the law, and the burgeoning 2012 campaign.

So why did two measly words come to bedevil the most powerful man in the world? What could Obama and his crew have done to stop the fabrication from taking root and growing into poison ivy?

more
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/frank-luntz-obamacare-lie

[barbtries]

1. this is the gist of the issue in my opinion:

"During one Meet the Press appearance, Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio), then the House minority leader, referred to Obama's plan as a "government takeover" five times (without once being challenged)."

the media is the problem, and the media is not on our side.

[Scuba]

2. We knew that. How about the President?

[groundloop]

4. I'm not so sure if it's because "the media isn't on our side", or that the media isn't well infored

I'm not even thinking of Faux Noise, everyone knows where they're coming from. But my perception is that many members of the media don't take the time to become well informed, and are more than happy to get a couple of sound bites and go home.

In any case, yes, these pre-orchestrated catch phrases make it onto the news again and again, and all of a sudden they become defacto truth. It's just like the Swift Boat Veterans bullshit. The right makes up lies so fast that it would take a small army of fact checkers to call them out on it, and by then they've spit out a dozen more lies.

[snot]

10. They're careless because their owners pay them to be.

If good journalism were rewarded, there'd be more of it. Instead, good journalists are fired (Chris Hedges et al.)

[KittyWampus]

15. Good point. They are not journalists anymore. They are just talking heads reading scripts.

And as far as those who've been around long enough to know what real journalism is- they just want their paychecks.

[blondeatlast]

17. I always precede the word "media" with lazy. We can talk about their bias

till we are all out of breath and it won't make a difference to anyone.

"Lazy" does make a difference.

[Bandit]

19. It isn't just the Media, usually there is at least one Democrat on those shows as well.

The Democratic opponent on those talk shows is also at fault for not calling them on their LIES immediately and often...and Loudly...if they LIE call them LIARS to their face and to the general public...Our Representatives feel they are to polite and gentlemanly to accost the LIARS.

[fredamae]

3. ....And I don't believe We

fought at all. I agree with Bill Maher: "When they stop calling it Obamacare, I will stop calling them teabaggers"...(Or something close to that).

What did I do? When talking about the HC Plan, I would "nod in agreement" when someone said "Obamacare" instead of correcting the terminology to: "The Affordable Health Care For America" Act.

[alc]

5. another lie: "The Affordable Health Care For America" Act

It didn't reform health CARE. It doesn't make insurance affordable - it creates A WHOLE LOT of agencies to make regulations that may or may not result in affordable insurance which may or may not cover health care people need. If you think the financial and oil drilling regulators were an anomaly then you can expect the insurance regulators to keep prices down and coverage up. If you think the financial and oil regulators are typical of federal oversight of businesses then expect prices to go up and coverage down and waivers to continue.

There absolutely are groups who will be helped by the bill. But claiming it will result in affordable health care for everyone is a big stretch.

[fredamae]

6. What? Did you expect a Perfect Bill out of the gate?

We have this as a foundation. As soon as the pubs stop trying to make the Whole Idea of reform "moot", we Can improve upon it.

Imagine what Obama Wanted it to do and never forget why it didn't happen.

[msongs]

7. media is not responsible for dems incompetence in PR and framing issues nt

[snot]

11. Media are responsible for reporting facts & challenging spin that substantially misrepresents them.

[phiddle]

8. Regulatory Reform + Subsidies + Mandates---

That's what Obama wanted and got, all the posturing and theater (from both sides) aside. If you claim that he really wanted a public option and was prevented by opponents, then you must disbelieve Daschle's admission that it was a non-starter in the administration's negotiations with stakeholders; also you must explain why single payer advocates (the counterbalance to the right wing) were systematically excluded from participation at all levels; and you must explain why Obama never publicly advocated a Medicare buy-in, the version of the public option which is easiest to explain, set up, administer and campaign for.
The future result will be: the regulatory reform will be captured and killed by a thousand lobbyists' cuts, the subsidies will be cut in the name of budget prudence, and the mandates, good for insurance companies' profits will be maintained. That is to say, BS!
This is NOT change I can believe in!

[fredamae]

9. What are you doing as a responsible

citizen to get what you want? Waiting for it? What did you and I do during the debates to Help the president?
I will take responsibility: I sat on my ass and Waited for HC reforn to be handed to me.

[phiddle]

12. No, I'm not waiting for it, and have not been.

If you sat on your ass, then I've done much more than you---I've called, written representatives and talked myself blue in the face.
Given that a Medicare buy in is such an easy starting point, I refer you to the (unrefuted) rest of my post to establish that our dear leader's failures were probably by design and intention. So no amount of "helping the president" would have engendered a better result---he got what he wanted.

[fredamae]

13. What proof have you

about that assertion?

[phiddle]

14. Which assertion?

1. If you refer to my assertion that Obama got what he wanted and no amount of "help" would have changed the result, please see and respond to my first post.
2. If you refer to my assertion that I have been active in trying to promote better policies and results, I don't have to prove this, especially not to some one who admits to having merely sat on their butt.

[fredamae]

16. You are correct, I was politically more naive

a couple years ago than I am now. I didn't "sit on my ass" for lack of support, I sat on my ass because I didn't believe I could make a difference..I no longer believe that.
I simply don't want to allow the illusion that I was then, as politically active as I am now. I wasn't, because at that time, I still did not comprehend how great the Political Obstruction was and clearly did not see how bad it was yet to be...anymore than I can imagine today, how bad it will be by 2012.
Has anybody ever seen anything like this before?

I was referring to actual proof that Obama "got exactly what he wanted". Or was it simply the Best he could get at that time?

Otherwise, I suggest that we agree to disagree about cause and consequence of HCR.:)

[phiddle]

18. Please offer any refutation of the 3 points I made in my initial post

(Daschle's comments, the exclusion of single-payer advocates, and failure to use the bully pulpit to build support at least for a Medicare buy-in) and then I'll concede that your point has a fact-based, as opposed to faith-based, basis, and we can agree to disagree! :-)

[fredamae]

23. Well, this says it better than I and

I don't know what Daschel really heard in that room..I wasn't there.

All I know is that we didn't get that seat, I don't know the real reason. Of course we can speculate.

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/frank-luntz-obamacare-lie

[TheKentuckian]

22. I was a fucktard and wrote letters, hammered the crap out of Dumbing and McChinless

despite knowing it was a losing cause, called all the leaders in both houses, and tried to convince people in the real world about health care reform before there was a mark.

I'll never do it again because the favored mark out of committee turned out to be the zombie reanimation of Gingrichcare straight from the Heritage Foundation and the biggest piece of corporate welfare in world history that further entrenched a predatory cartel, forces the vast majority of Americans to buy a private product sold on the open market at the sole discretion of their employer, sets up the IRS and the enforcer of this public/private Frankenstein, and failed to control price at all and controls cost by setting up sad little individual death panels of one by shifting costs to foster self denial of care.

One of my great regrets is working to advance this scam. It should have never made it out of committee and. The other four marks weren't conferenced but rather abandoned in favor of Gingrichcare 2.0.

[LeftinOH]

20. The current administration (and Democrats in general) are not good at "branding" their efforts;

thus, the Repubs (who are very good at it) do it for them. Which is how "Health Care Reform" came to be known as "Taxpayer funded abortions-on-demand", etc. etc.

[kenny blankenship]

21. Well their big idea is to take 90s Repuke ideas and implement them eg health care "reform"

and tax cuts. So no wonder they are clumsy at marketing: there's no way you can start from Democratic Party values and philosophies and get to forced payments to insurance corporations. They can't explain what they do in terms of traditionally Democratic language, so they don't explain it at all - except to say We were trying so hard to get Republicans to like us and vote for our bill! Which isn't any kind of acceptable excuse at all. But meretricious corporatism needs a figleaf so that's what they use.