Needs work. Via.
Needs work. Via.
Michael Hiltzik’s L.A. Times column delves into President Obama’s health care reform plan, what Americans need to know about it, why they don’t know it, and why concise, effective messaging would go a long way to remedy that.
He rightly emphasizes that in this age of 24/7 news, social media, and sound bites, getting the word out about the benefits of the Affordable Care Act has been difficult, to say the least, and he wants to know why that is.
The Affordable Care plan, which the president now calls Obamacare (owning the GOP’s disdainful label), won’t fully kick in until 2014, but so far, more than 2.6 million young adults have been covered, it has cut prescription costs for millions of seniors by a total of $3 billion, co-pays on preventive services such as child immunizations and cancer screenings are a thing of the past, and more than 80 million people will no longer have annual and lifetime claims caps.
Did you know that?
And did you know that in 2014, millions more Americans will not be allowed to be dumped by Big Insurance, nor will those with an illness or injury have their premiums raised beyond what they can afford?
“No longer will people be bankrupted because they have a bad gene or a bad traffic accident,” says Jonathan Gruber, a health economist at MIT who helped fashion the pioneering healthcare reform act in Massachusetts.
Most people do not know any of that, yet polls show that, despite most Americans supporting the various components of the Affordable Care Act, they remain evenly split about the plan itself:
Blame for the knowledge gap belongs chiefly to the act’s supporters, who have consistently failed to stand up for their own accomplishment, as was evident during the 2010 congressional campaign, when they allowed opponents to define the act for them.
Dems need to brag more and accelerate their own framing, as we did with Willard Romney’s embarrassing Etch A Sketch moment, and a year ago with the dreadful Paul Ryan/GOP Kill Medicare plan, the one that he’s currently trying to revive (for the most part).
Next week the Supreme Court will be stepping in to decide on the constitutionality of Obamacare. Let the fear mongering begin. Cue the comeback of “death panels” and “government takeover” signs.
It’s time for proponents of the plan to tell their side, simply and clearly. Here are some healthcare reform facts:
As a result of a reform act mandate that offspring as old as 26 could be covered by their parents’ policies, the uninsured rate in this cohort has plummeted to less than 25% … a tangible benefit not just for younger people who can now afford insurance, but also for many parents who had continued to foot their kids’ bills for individual insurance.
The billions in savings in prescriptions from seniors comes from the act’s closing of the “doughnut hole” in Medicare’s Part D prescription coverage [...]
The act already has eliminated a loophole that allowed insurers to deny coverage for children with preexisting conditions, and has provided federal funding for states to provide coverage for adults with chronic conditions who were denied insurance in the private market. [...]
Conservative analysts Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office, and Vernon Smith, a Nobel economics laureate at Chapman University, observed last week in a Wall Street Journal op-ed that the reform act would cost insurers $360 billion over 10 years without the mandate, but produce a gain of $6 billion with it. For insurers, they concluded, “the benefits of the individual mandate … are projected to balance, nearly perfectly, the costs” of other regulations in the reform act.
Now the Obama administration needs to get out there and feed this to the country in small, easily digested bites. He’s already engaged the Twitterverse by doing this:
And that was a very good, and very smart, start.
Memo from Nancy Pelosi: Whatever you do, Dems, do not say “stimulus”! D’oh! I just did! It won’t happen again, sweartogod.
Recognizing the unpopularity of the 2009 package… Democratic leaders have revised their message with less loaded language – “job creation” instead of “stimulus;” “Make it in America” in lieu of “Recovery Act” – in hopes of tackling the jobs crisis.
I don’t know how they do it, but Republicans manage to effectively sell their wrongheaded corporate message while Democrats not-so-effectively try to sell their ideas… which is a lot tougher, because you know how people hate to think. Just ask Fox.
Rep. George Miller (Calif.), the senior Democrat on the Education and Workforce Committee and Nancy Pelosi ally:
“Economic growth, not austerity, will rescue the American economy… We have tried shrinking the economy and sowing economic uncertainty for 8 months now, and it has failed. It’s time for job creation and economic growth as our first order of business to strengthen our middle class.”
He’s right, but will he be able to communicate that effectively to voters? As Pelosi points out, the “Make It In America” initiative should be passed to “strengthen our manufacturers and small businesses, and invest in rebuilding America’s roads, bridges, rail lines, schools, and airports.” Or as the GOP likes to call it, Marxist, socialist, Commie taxing, spending, and over-regulation.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report on the 2009 stimulus plan noted that, without it, as many as 2.9 million more Americans would be unemployed. But as far as the GOP is concerned, that little factoid, along with the plan’s $299 billion in tax benefits, don’t exist.
Not only that, the GOP pushes the false talking point that the stimulus bill was full of tax hikes.
And so to try to counter the lies and get America on their side, the Dems will ban the S word. If only Republicans take one tiny moment of their limited time on the job to address the J word: Jobs.
Oh, and the T word: Truth.
Doyle McManus has an op-ed in the L.A. Times that’s a good read. One complaint about the president that I hear about repeatedly is “messaging”. President Obama has been called “weak”, “jello”, “complicit”, “indecisive”, you name it.
McManus’s take? He lacks clarity:
Obama has suffered, in part, from a clarity gap. Even his own supporters aren’t always sure what he’s willing to fight for.
“He needs to plant a flag somewhere,” complained William A. Galston, a former top aide to then-President Clinton. “I don’t care what color it is. But periodically planting a flag and then lowering it is no way to inspire confidence.”
The president took a clear position on only one issue in the debt ceiling negotiations: He said any deal had to be “balanced,” meaning it had to include new tax revenue as well as spending cuts. But in the face of Republican opposition, he backed off even that one demand.
Obama’s negotiating victories in the final deal weren’t on matters of substance, like tax revenue. They were on matters of process… Try selling those to voters as a victory for the beleaguered middle class.
But President Obama is pivoting, changing the subject to job creation (thankfully). Now that is easy to understand.
[T]he debt ceiling debate isn’t over; it’s merely gone into remission. … Republicans have given answers that many voters find extreme, but at least they’re clear. If Obama hopes to keep his job, he will need to match their clarity.
Obama is very intelligent, which is a trait I happen to eat up the way Chris Christie inhales pizza. But McManus has a point about clearing things up for voters. President Obama is a superb speaker, but… Strong, clear, consistent messaging coupled with standing up for progressive values is a winning combination. And right about now, the Dems need a winner.
Please read the rest here.
The Political Carnival T-Shirt
Modeled by @suzannegypsy
Lt. Col Barry Wingard is the lawyer for Gitmo detainee Fayiz Al-Kandari. For their ongoing story + related topics, please click on the link below:
Kuwaiti Citizen Detained at Guantanamo since 2002
The Political Carnival is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to amazon.com.
Photographs on The Political Carnival site (please read):
Photographs from other sources sometimes appear on TPC for humorous or illustrative purposes. As it is not our intention to use these images in any inappropriate manner or to infringe upon any rights held by others, anyone holding legal rights in the use of these images who wishes to have them taken down please contact us immediately requesting such removal, with which we will comply promptly.