Too Quiet, Again, on Health Care

[n2doc]

Nearly two dozen Pennsylvania residents, interviewed recently by Abby Goodnough of The Times, said they were opposed to President Obama’s health care reform law. Though almost all of them would benefit from it, they expressed fears about a loss of control over their health care that is nowhere in the law.


There are two reasons for this situation, which is repeated around the country. Business groups allied with Republicans have spent $235 million on television ads attacking the law with false accusations, with the vigorous aid of Mitt Romney and his campaign. Meanwhile, Democrats and the Obama campaign have been amazingly reluctant to speak up for the president’s biggest accomplishment and tell voters what’s in it.

The president has not even capitalized on his victory in the Supreme Court last week over his opponents’ attempt to dismantle the law on constitutional grounds. He listed some of its benefits in a low-key East Room speech after the ruling, and the campaign has sent out several direct-mail fliers on the subject to women. But the campaign has broadcast no television ads about health care, except for one in Spanish. Jack Lew, the White House chief of staff, said on “Fox News Sunday” that it was time “for the divisive debate on health care to stop,” suggesting Democrats want to move on.

Mr. Lew might consider going to a swing state and turning on the television because the debate isn’t going to stop. Republicans are happy to continue it with obvious propaganda like “Obamacare is the largest tax increase in U.S. history.” Countering this attack and, more important, building a foundation of support for a vastly important social change, will require the president and other Democrats to spend more time and more money explaining the law’s benefits, and pointing out that Republicans have no useful ideas to replace it.
more
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/04/opinion/too-quiet-again-on-health-care.html?hp

[COLGATE4]

1. You are absolutely correct.

Obama has been terrible in getting out information on any of his successful programs, but nowhere more than with the ACA. From the beginning the rethugs were able to begin framing the debate with their ginned-up Town Hall meetings and 24/7 lies from Fux and hate radio. Now they are even more determined to make it one of, if not their chief issue for the November election. The late unlamented Josef Goebbels postulated that the essence of propaganda was a simple message, repeated again and again, and that's what's happened with the ACA. Many (if not most) Americans simply do not know what it is, or what's in it. But every time they turn or their radio, channel surf and hit Fux or go to almost any commercial establishment that has a TV they keep hearing about 'death panels', 'government takeover of health care', etc. So it's no surprise that many of them now believe that to be the case.

No better example of this technique exists than the most recent meme, the great 'tax hike'. In truth, the only 'taxation' in the ACA is it uses the Internal Revenue Code to enforce a penalty against those who should but choose not to participate. But since Roberts used the term 'tax' to justify it's legality, the RW echo chamber has been at 1000 decibels screaming 'tax increase, tax increase, tax increase!!!'. And the Obama administration has done nothing to refute it.

The worst thing we could do now is to assume that, since the USSCt ratified the validity of ACA we can relax and move on to other things. We do so at our peril. The Rethug machine will use the "tax increase" to cudgel us with from now until November, and it's possible that they could do enough damage to cost us what is clearly going to be a close election.

Why they continue to ignore the importance of messaging is beyond me. Surely we have our own Frank Luntz that could help our people come up with a short, concise response.

[Amonester]

2. K&R (and Email to all who can do something about it). nt

[madashelltoo]

3. President Obama is damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

[n2doc]

5. When does he 'does'?

This passiveness happens all too often.

[madashelltoo]

7. Funny question.

For some there is no answer.

[demwing]

4. I bet Team Obama was so intent on introducing a "Plan B"

that they neglected to prepare for the success of Plan A.

[Rosanna Lopez]

6. Obama is no FDR

Unfortunately Obama is no FDR (my favorite President). He is a centrist Democrat, not a New Dealer. He doesn't believe in aggressively standing up and advocating for Democratic policies and social programs.

It's just not in his nature to be bold or to be a visionary. He's very cautious, careful and conservative. Look at his pick for V.P. - an older white male who had been in the Senate for 30 years.

As Bill Maher has said, Democrats don't stand up and defend and advocate their programs enthusiastically the way the Republicans do.

And of course, unlike FDR, who Wall Street tried to overthrow, Wall Street loves Obama - they just love Romney even more.