San Diego Single Payer Healthcare Coalition

U.S. Competitiveness Suffers Without National Healthcare

noreply@blogger.com (Philosopher3000) — Tue, 01 May 2012 21:50:00 +0000

Obama Success = Redneck Failure

noreply@blogger.com (Philosopher3000) — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 08:30:00 +0000

Comprehensive Achievements of ObamaCare! Care to Share It With the 54% Who Favor Repealing IT?

Posted on January 10, 2012 by TiMT

Editors’ note: It pains me to see that there are many folks who are not well informed about the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare). Below the fold, I have compiled a well researched comprehensive list of the ObamaCare achievements. I am giving permission to anyone interested to use/re-post the information within this essay to your audience as you see it fit.

=============================================================
President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) into law on March 23, 2010. Since then, there has been a lot of talk about repealing ObamaCare. In fact, House Republicans passed unanimously voted in favor of repealing ObamaCare by a 245-189 vote with three Democrats [Rep. Dan Boren (OK), Rep. Mike McIntyre (N.C.), and Rep. Mike Ross (Ark.)] joining in with the Republican majority.
Sometime ignorance is bliss when what you don’t know is just more comfortable than seeking the truth. So, here is why it is important that we speak about what ObamaCare has done to date and if you believe a right wing polling entity like Rasmussen Reports, why we must change the hearts and minds of the 54% of likely U.S. Voters who still seem to favor repealling one of the most comprehensive Health Care Reform Bill.
The only way to remedy misinformation and ignorance is by sharing sourced and factual information about what ObamaCare has achieved for Americans. Below is a summation of the benefits and what ObamaCare has contributed in helping Americans since the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) passed into law.

Benefits of the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare):

Prevents denial of coverage to children with pre-existing conditions.
Adults up to age 26 can stay on their parents’ health plans.
Requires new health plans to provide free preventive care without cost-sharing such as co-pays or deductibles. HHS issued interim final regulations on preventive services and amendment to the final regulations.
Prohibits rescinding coverage making it illegal.
Prohibits lifetime limits on the dollar value of insurance coverage.
Prohibits annual limits on insurance coverage.
More options to appeal coverage decisions.
Provides $5 billion in immediate federal support to affordable Coverage for the Uninsured with Pre-existing Conditions.
Provides a $10 billion investment in Community Health Centers to expand medical services.
Create immediate access to re-insurance for employer health plans providing coverage for early retirees over age 55 who are not eligible for Medicare.
Implemented a process that requires states to review insurance companies premium increases. The final rule for the insurance rate review program was published in the Federal Register on May 19, 2011 .
Provided grants worth almost $250 million ($46 million and $199 million) to assist States enforce the insurance rate review program.
Provides tax credits or grants to employers with 250 or fewer employees for up to 50% of the investments costs in projects that qualifying Therapeutic Discovery Project. About a $1 billion in tax credits and grants have been provided by end of 2010.
Appropriated $5 billion for fiscal years 2010 through 2014 and $2 billion for each of the subsequent five fiscal years to support prevention and public health programs.
Provides a $250 rebate to 750,000 Medicare Beneficiaries who reach the Part D coverage gap in 2010. As of March 22, 2011, 3.8 million beneficiaries had received a $250 check to close the coverage gap, according to an HHS report.
Requirespharmaceutical manufacturers to provide a 50% discount on brand-name prescriptions and a 7% and 14% generic drug discount (in 2011 and 2012, respectively) filled in the Medicare Part D coverage gap.
Businesses with fewer than 25 employees will get tax credits covering up to 35% of employee premiums effective 2011 and a 50% tax credit effective 2013.
Creates a state option to provide Medicaid coverage to childless adults with incomes up to 133% of the federal poverty level. By 2014, States are required to provide this coverage.
Provides a 10% Medicare bonus payment for primary care services and to general surgeons practicing in health professional shortage areas.
Requires insurance companies spend at least 80 to 85 percent of the proportion of the premium dollars on clinical services and issue a rebate if the share of the premium spent is less than the threshold.
Creates a temporary program to provide health coverage to individuals with pre-existing medical conditions who have been uninsured for at least six months.
Imposes a tax of 10% on the amount paid for indoor tanning services.
Expands eligibility for the 340(B) drug discount program to sole-community hospitals, critical access hospitals, certain children’s hospitals, and other entities with a savings estimated to be 20% to 50% on the cost of pharmaceuticals and reaching more eligible patients while providing more comprehensive services.
Eliminates cost-sharing for Medicare-covered preventive services that are recommended (rated A or B) by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.As of October 6, 2011, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) reported that 20.5 million people had participated in the free Annual Wellness Visit.
Provides 3-year grants worth $100 million to states to develop programs for Medicaid enrollees with incentives to participate in comprehensive health lifestyle programs.
Awarded $185 million worth of grants as of August 2011 to states to begin planning for the establishment of American Health Benefit Exchanges and Small Business Health Options Program Exchanges, which facilitate the purchase of insurance by individuals and small employers.
Requires disclosure of the nutritional content of standard menu items at chain restaurants and food sold from vending machines.
Imposes new annual fees on the pharmaceutical manufacturing sector. The sector will be assessed at the following rates: $2.8 billion in 2012 through 2013, $3 billion in 2014 through 2016, $4 billion in 2017, $4.1 billion in 2018 and $2.8 billion in 2019 and after

Final Word from FRONTLINE

noreply@blogger.com (Philosopher3000) — Sun, 18 Apr 2010 07:58:00 +0000

We never got Universal Single-Payer Health Care on the table.
We lost the public option.
We won?

This healthcare debate has demonstrated the deep problems with U.S. Government.
The corporate lobbyists from the insurance business, and "BIG PHARMA", spent hundreds of million$.
People against Obama exposed their racist insanity.
Our representatives in Congress and the Senate sold out, failed the American People, and we end with a mild win.

Let's now hope that this will be the first step toward universal single-payer rather than the first step to the next healthcare crisis.

Healthcare Passed - A message from Obama

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 09:46:00 +0000

For the first time in our nation's history, Congress has passed comprehensive health care reform. America waited a hundred years and fought for decades to reach this moment. Tonight, thanks to you, we are finally here.

Consider the staggering scope of what you have just accomplished:

Because of you, every American will finally be guaranteed high quality, affordable health care coverage.

Every American will be covered under the toughest patient protections in history. Arbitrary premium hikes, insurance cancellations, and discrimination against pre-existing conditions will now be gone forever.

And we'll finally start reducing the cost of care -- creating millions of jobs, preventing families and businesses from plunging into bankruptcy, and removing over a trillion dollars of debt from the backs of our children.

But the victory that matters most tonight goes beyond the laws and far past the numbers.

It is the peace of mind enjoyed by every American, no longer one injury or illness away from catastrophe.

It is the workers and entrepreneurs who are now freed to pursue their slice of the American dream without fear of losing coverage or facing a crippling bill.

And it is the immeasurable joy of families in every part of this great nation, living happier, healthier lives together because they can finally receive the vital care they need.

This is what change looks like.

My gratitude tonight is profound. I am thankful for those in past generations whose heroic efforts brought this great goal within reach for our times. I am thankful for the members of Congress whose months of effort and brave votes made it possible to take this final step. But most of all, I am thankful for you.

This day is not the end of this journey. Much hard work remains, and we have a solemn responsibility to do it right. But we can face that work together with the confidence of those who have moved mountains.

Our journey began three years ago, driven by a shared belief that fundamental change is indeed still possible. We have worked hard together every day since to deliver on that belief.

We have shared moments of tremendous hope, and we've faced setbacks and doubt. We have all been forced to ask if our politics had simply become too polarized and too short-sighted to meet the pressing challenges of our time. This struggle became a test of whether the American people could still rally together when the cause was right -- and actually create the change we believe in.

Tonight, thanks to your mighty efforts, the answer is indisputable: Yes we can.

Thank you,

President Barack Obama

Public Option is Viable, Now We Need Courage!

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 00:32:00 +0000

NMR community journalism project investigates unpaid doctors in California

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 07:27:00 +0000

Submitted by Mera Szendro Bok

Democrats.com Unity

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 21:47:00 +0000

After months of debate, an overwhelming majority of Americans support a "robust public option" similar to Medicare.

And thanks to the heroic efforts of progressive activists, we have almost enough votes in the Senate and House to pass it.

The Democratic majorities in the Senate (60/40) and the House (258/177) are large enough to pass a "public option" even with no Republican support. But a handful of conservative "Democrats" are blocking the will of the Democratic majority.

These conservative "Democrats" refuse to listen to the Democratic voters who elected them. That means it's up to our Democratic leaders - Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and President Obama - to persuade them.

Join the Democratic Donor Strike for a Robust Public Option:
http://www.democrats.com/donor-strike-for-public-option?cid=ZGVtczI3Mjk4NWRlbXM%3D

We will not accept a weak public option or worse, a "trigger." We want a robust public option (based on Medicare rates, not negotiated rates) that is nation-wide (with no state opt-outs), administered by Medicare (not a for-profit insurance company) and available immediately.

That is why we are joining together in a Democratic donor strike against the DNC, DSCC, and DCCC until the Democratic Congress passes - and President Obama signs - healthcare reform with a robust public option. Until then, we will only donate to individual Democrats who will truly fight for us.

Join the Democratic Donor Strike for a Robust Public Option:
http://www.democrats.com/donor-strike-for-public-option?cid=ZGVtczI3Mjk4NWRlbXM%3D

A brave new world

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 03:56:00 +0000

Last Chance - Robert Reich is My Hero

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 11:51:00 +0000

Gloria Penner tells the truth about Health Care Townhalls

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 11:04:00 +0000

Listen to Penner's Dead On Commentary

Download Audio MP3 here

Penner explains the mass hysteria about Health Care by ignorant, low income whites:

"PENNER: Well, maybe we're just too vulnerable these days. Often, people become disturbed, disrupted, confused when they've lost economic security and they feel that they're out of touch with the new culture and their place in it. And, certainly, the joblessness of this recession has affected millions and millions of people. Then there's the invasion of, if I dare say that, the social media into our personal lives. That's new. You know, Twitter and Facebook and MySpace and all of that, plus—here it is—the election of our first African-American president. So they've set the stage for some of the disorientation and the powerlessness experienced by large segments of our population, especially the poor, white, working class, militia-oriented people."

Then she picks apart the real problem:

"There are well-heeled interest groups helping to organize the town hall mods. Key organizers include two AstroTurf—that means fake grassroots organizations. FreedomWorks, which is run by the former House majority leader Dick Armey, and a new organization called Conservatives for Patients' Rights, and that's run by Rick Scott. You may remember the name Rick Scott. He was the former head of Columbia HCA, that was a for profit hospital chain. He was forced out of that job because there was a fraud investigation, and the company eventually pleaded guilty to charges of overbilling state and federal health plans. They paid 1.7 – excuse me, $1.7 billion dollars, that's billion, in fines. So, you know, we do have these monied interest groups behind it but I think there's something else. The organizers appear aggressive but they – it doesn't appear that the people disrupting those town halls are Florida-style rent-a-mobs. For the most part, the protestors appear to be genuinely angry and the question is, you know, what are they angry about?"

Great Analysis, and dead-on facts.

Finally, she hits the nail on the head about so-called "death panels".

"PENNER: Because I don't think we have time to do all three. Let me talk about the so-called death panels. That actually sort of came through fairly recently when the former vice presidential candidate for the Republican party, Sarah Palin, used that term and Republican Senator Charles Grassley used that term. There is nothing in any of the legislative proposals that would call for the creation of death panels or any other governmental body that would cut off care for the critically ill as a cost cutting measure for those people who are maimed or elderly. But over the course of the past few months, anti-abortion conservatives stated that Mr. Obama would pursue a pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia agenda combined with accounts of actual legislative proposals—and these were twisted accounts; they didn't really exist—that would provide financing for optional consultations with doctors about hospice care, other end of life services. So they took those accounts, these consultation type panels, and they used that to feed the rumor whereby these became death panels. So I think if people could get beyond that, if they could take a look at this and say, you know, we're – people are trying to scare us and they're succeeding, and I'm going to resist it."

The big guns are trying to manipulate the public opinion through fear tactics (never seen that before), and these right-wing conservatives are too stupid to wise up. The fall for the bait every time.

The real news

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 01:13:00 +0000

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Exclusive - Betsy McCaughey Extended Interview Pt. 1

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Healthcare Protests

OOPS - time Fwd: Saturday Fun In The Sun for Single Payer WITH SUSAN DAVIS

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 22:55:00 +0000

1-2pm...

Begin forwarded message:

From: Jady Montgomery <jadymontgomery@mac.com>
Date: August 26, 2009 3:53:36 PM PDT
To: Jady Montgomery <jadydmont@earthlink.net>
Subject: Saturday Fun In The Sun for Single Payer WITH SUSAN DAVIS

Dear Friends -- The weekly Nobel Drive and I-5 Single Payer Intersection Rally folks have decided this week
to join forces with those going to Rep. Susan Davis' "Neighborhood Day" event
at
Spring Valley Branch Library
835 Kempton Street, Spring Valley, CA 91977

Join us if you can.
We'll be back at Nobel and I-5 next week.
:-)

Jady

Jady Montgomery
www.JadyMontgomery.com
jadymontgomery@mac.com - NEW!
858-554-0482 hm, 760-271-3328 cell

Join Focus on Change!
http://focusonchange.ning.com/group/singlepayerhealthcarecoalitionsandiego

Saturday Fun In The Sun for Single Payer WITH SUSAN DAVIS

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 22:53:00 +0000

Dear Friends -- The weekly Nobel Drive and I-5 Single Payer Intersection Rally folks have decided this week

to join forces with those going to Rep. Susan Davis' "Neighborhood Day" event

Spring Valley Branch Library

835 Kempton Street, Spring Valley, CA 91977

Join us if you can.

We'll be back at Nobel and I-5 next week.

:-)

Jady

Jady Montgomery

www.JadyMontgomery.com

jadymontgomery@mac.com - NEW!

858-554-0482 hm, 760-271-3328 cell

Join Focus on Change!

http://focusonchange.ning.com/group/singlepayerhealthcarecoalitionsandiego

George Lakoff on Reframing the Healthcare Debate

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 15:17:00 +0000

This is valuable stuff - some of you may have seen. A lot to read. But then, our President is good at that... Can anyone hand deliver to the White House :-)

What can we do here? Jady

Forward from John Falchi -

Dear Friends:

In a well reasoned analysis of what we have been doing wrong, George Lakoff steers us in the direction of speaking clearly, and framing correctly, the health care debate for the American people. John

                          The PolicySpeak Disaster for Health Care
                                                                        By George Lakoff
Published on Thursday, August 20, 2009 by CommonDreams.org
Barack Obama ran the best-organized and best-framed presidential campaign in history. How is it possible that the same people who did so well in the campaign have done so badly on health care?
And bad it is: The public option may well be gone. Neither Obama himself nor Senior Advisor David Axelrod even mentioned the public option in their pleas to the nation last Sunday (August 16, 2009). Secretary Sibelius even said it was "not essential." Cass Sunstein's co-author, Richard Thaler, in the Sunday NY Times (August 16, 2009, p. BU 4) called it "neither necessary nor sufficient." There has been a major drop in support for the president throughout the country, with angry mobs disrupting town halls and the right wing airing its views with vehemence nonstop on radio and tv all day every day. As the NY Times reports, Organizing for America (the old Obama campaign network) can't even get its own troops out to work for the President's proposal.
What has been going wrong?
It's not too late to turn things around, but we must first understand why the administration is getting beat at the moment.
The answer is simple and unfortunate: The president put both the conceptual framing and the messaging for his health care plan in the hands of policy wonks. This led to twin disasters.
The PolicyList Disaster
The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
Howard Dean was right when he said that you can't get health care reform without a public alternative to the insurance companies. Institutions matter. The list of what needs reform makes sense under one conceptual umbrella. It is a public alternative that unifies the long list of needed reforms: coverage for the uninsured, cost control, no preconditions, no denial of care, keeping care when you change jobs or get sick, equal treatment for women, exorbitant deductibles, no lifetime caps, and on and on. It's a long list. But one idea, properly articulated, takes care of the list: An American Plan guarantees affordable care for all Americans. Simple. But not for policy wonks.
The policymakers focus on the list, not the unifying idea. So Obama's and Axelrod's statements last Sunday were just the lists without the unifying institution. And without a powerful institution, the insurance companies will just whittle away at enforcement of any such list, and a future Republican administration will just get rid of the regulators, reassigning them or eliminating their jobs.
Why do policymakers think this way?
One: The reality of how Congress is lobbied. Legislators are lobbied to be against particular features, depending on their constituencies. Blue Dogs are pressured by the right's communication system operating in their districts. Congressional leaders have a challenge: Keep the eye of centrists and Blue Dogs on the central idea, despite the pressures of right-wing communications and lobbyists' contributions.
Two: In classical logic, Leibniz' Law takes an entity as being just a collection of properties. As if you were no more than eyes, legs, arms, and so on, taken separately. Without a public institution turning a unifying idea into a powerful reality, health care becomes just a collection of reforms to be attacked, undermined, and gotten around year after year.
Three: Current budget-making assumptions. Health is actually systematic in character. Health is implicated in just about all aspects of our culture: agriculture, the food industry, advertising, education, business, the distribution of wealth, sports, and so on. Keeping it as a line item — what figure do you put down on the following lines — misses the systemic nature of health. The image of Budget Director Peter Orszag running constantly in and out of Senator Max Baucus' office shows how the systemic nature of health has been turned into a list of items and costs. Without a sense of the whole, and an institution responsible for it, health will be line-itemed to death.
Obama had the right idea with the "recovery" package. The economy is not just about banking. It is about public works, education, health, energy, and a lot more. It is systemic. The whole is more than the sum of its parts.
The PolicySpeak Disaster
PolicySpeak is the principle that: If you just tell people the policy facts, they will reason to the right conclusion and support the policy wholeheartedly.
PolicySpeak is the principle behind the President's new Reality Check Website. To my knowledge, the Reality Check Website, has not had a reality check. That is, the administration has not hired a first-class cognitive psychologist to take subjects who have been convinced by right-wing myths and lies, have them read the Reality Check website, and see if the Reality Check website has changed their minds a couple of days or a week later. I have my doubts, but do the test.
To many liberals, PolicySpeak sounds like the high road: a rational, public discussion in the best tradition of liberal democracy. Convince the populace rationally on the objective policy merits. Give the facts and figures. Assume self-interest as the motivator of rational choice. Convince people by the logic of the policymakers that the policy is in their interest.
But to a cognitive scientist or neuroscientist, this sounds nuts. The view of human reason and language behind PolicySpeak is just false. Certainly reason should be used. It's just that you should use real reason, the way people really think. Certainly the truth should be told. It's just that it should be told so it makes sense to people, resonates with them, and inspires them to act. Certainly new media should be used. It's just that a system of communications should be constructed and used effectively.
I believe that what went wrong is (a) the choice of PolicySpeak and (b) the decision to depend on the campaign apparatus (blogs, Town Hall meetings, presidential appearances, grassroots support) instead of setting up an adequate communications system.
What Now?
It is not too late. The statistic I've heard is that over 80% of citizens want a public plan, but the right wing's framing has been overwhelming public debate, taking advantage of the right's communication system and framing prowess.
The administration has dug itself (and the country) into a hole. At the very least, the old mistakes can be avoided, a clear and powerful narrative is still available and true, and some powerful, memorable, and accurate language should be substituted for PolicySpeak, or at least added and repeated by spokespeople nationwide.
The narrative is simple:
Insurance company plans have failed to care for our people. They profit from denying care. Americans care about one another. An American plan is both the moral and practical alternative to provide care for our people.
The insurance companies are doing their worst, spreading lies in an attempt to maintain their profits and keep Americans from getting the care they so desperately need. You, our citizens, must be the heroes. Stand up, and speak up, for an American plan.
Language
As for language, the term "public option" is boring. Yes, it is public, and yes, it is an option, but it does not get to the moral and inspiring idea. Call it the American Plan, because that's what it really is.
The American Plan. Health care is a patriotic issue. It is what your countrymen are engaged in because Americans care about each other. The right wing understands this well. It's got conservative veterans at Town Hall meeting shouting things like, "I fought for this country in Vietnam, and I'm fight for it here." Progressives should be stressing the patriotic nature of having our nation guaranteeing care for our people.
A Health Care Emergency. Americans are suffering and dying because of the failure of insurance company health care. 50 million have no insurance at all, and millions of those who do are denied necessary care or lose their insurance. We can't wait any longer. It's an emergency. We have to act now to end the suffering and death.
Doctor-Patient care. This is what the public plan is really about. Call it that. You have said it, buried in PolicySpeak. Use the slogan. Repeat it. Have every spokesperson repeat it.
Coverage is not care. You think you're insured. You very well may not be, because insurance companies make money by denying you care.
Deny you care… Use the words. That's what all the paperwork and administrative costs of insurance companies are about – denying you care if they can.
Insurance company profit-based plans. The bottom line is the bottom line for insurance companies. Say it.
Private Taxation. Insurance companies have the power to tax and they tax the public mightily. When 20% - 30% of payments do not go to health care, but to denying care and profiting from it, that constitutes a tax on the 96% of voters that have health care. But the tax does not go to benefit those who are taxed; it benefits managers and investors. And the people taxed have no representation. Insurance company health care is a huge example of taxation without representation. And you can't vote out the people who have taxed you. The American Plan offers an alternative to private taxation.
Is it time for progressive tea parties at insurance company offices?
Doctors care; insurance companies don't. A public plan aims to put care back into the hands of doctors.
Insurance company bureaucrats. Obama mentions them, but there is no consistent uproar about them. The term needs to come into common parlance.
Insurance companies ration care. Say it and ask the right questions: Have you ever had to wait more than a week for an authorization? Have you ever had an authorization turned down? Have you had to wait months to see a specialist? Does you primary care physician have to rush you through? Have your out-of-pocket costs gone up? Ask these questions. You know the answers. It's because insurance companies have been rationing care. Say it.
Insurance companies are inefficient and wasteful. A large chunk of your health care dollar is not going for health care when you buy from insurance companies.
Insurance companies govern your lives. They have more power over you than even governments have. They make life and death decisions. And they are accountable only to profit, not to citizens.
The health care failure is an insurance company failure. Why keep a failing system? Augment it. Give an alternative.
The Needed Communication System
A progressive communication system should be started. It should go into every Congressional district. It should concentrate on general progressive ideas. President Obama has articulated what these are.
· The basic values are empathy (we care about people), responsibility for ourselves and others, and the ethic of excellence (making ourselves better and the world better).
· These values form the basis of democracy: It's because we care about our fellow citizens that we have values like freedom and fairness, for everyone, not just the powerful.
· From that, it follows that government has two moral missions: protection (of consumers, workers, the environment, the old, the sick, the powerless; and empowerment through public works; communication, energy, and water systems; education; banks that work; a court system: and so on. Without them, no one makes it in America. Taxes are what you pay for protection and empowerment by the government, and the more you make the greater your responsibility to maintain the system.
Appropriate language can be found to express these values. They lie at the heart of all progressive policies. If they are out there every day, it becomes easier to discuss any issue. This is what it means to prepare the ground for specific framings.
The Culture War is On! You Can't Ignore it
President Obama wants to unify the country, and he should. It is a noble idea. It is the right idea. And he started out with the right way to do it. Campaign for what you believe – for empathy, social responsibility, making the nation better. Activate the progressive values in the many millions of Americans who have some conservative values and some progressive values.
But also inhibit the radical, harmful conservative ideology in the brains of our countrymen, by directly saying what's wrong with it. Yes, there are villains. They have a very potent communications system and can organize their troops. Every victory makes them more powerful. They have put together powerful narratives. We need more powerful ones.
And avoid PolicySpeak and PolicyLists.
What should have been done?
It is useful to review what should and should not have been done, because we need to understand the past to avoid future mistakes.
First, it was obvious to the framing community what the right wing would do. Almost every move could have been predicted, and most of them were. There should have been a serious counter effort from right after the election.
Second, an effective communication system should have been built. Not for dictating what to say, but for creating a system of effectively trained spokespeople who can get the basic progressive values out there every day, to compete with the very effective conservative system. It should not work issue by issue, but in addition to the issues of the day, it should promote general values that apply to all issues.
The elements are all in existence. The money is there. Indeed it would be a lot cheaper to build than spending tens of millions of dollars on health care ads. What it would accomplish is laying the groundwork in advance of any particular issue. The work of such a communication system would be to activate ideas already there in the millions of citizens who have progressive as well as conservative worldviews in their brain circuitry. The idea would be to make progressive ideas stronger and conservative ideas weaker, balancing what the conservative communication system is doing now.
It is rather late in the game for the stimulus, cap and trade, and health care, but better late than never. And it would be indispensible for future policy campaigns. Framing a powerful message is a lot easier when the groundwork for it has already been laid. Without the groundwork, it is much harder.
Third, a serious framing education effort with folks who do know the science should have been organized, not just for the communications system, but for the policymakers themselves.
Fourth, the villainizing of real insurance company villains should have begun from the beginning. As it is, the right wing turned the tables. They attributed to government all the disasters of insurance company health care: rationing, long lines, waits for authorizations and visits to specialists, denial of care. The administration is trying to turn that around, but it is harder now, and they are trying it using PolicySpeak, which is the most ineffective of means.
Fifth, the positive policy should have been made in moral terms, with clear and vivid language. The term "public option" is a PolicySpeak loser. The public is the American public, it is all of us, it is America, and it should have been called the American Plan.
Sixth, the administration should have been on the offensive not the defensive all the way. The use of conservative language should never have been used in debunking.
Seventh, it was a mistake to shut out single payer advocates. They should have been welcomed into the debate. Though the term "single payer" is hopeless PolicySpeak and "doctor-patient care" would have been more accurate, nonetheless the doctors, nurses, and unions advocating for such a plan could have done a lot of the work of villainizing the health care industry and would have drawn fire from the Right. An alternative on the left would have made the President's plan a compromise. Besides, there is so much to be said in favor of single payer, that there might have been fewer actual compromises with the right.
Eighth, it was a mistake to put cost ahead of morality. Health care is a moral issue, and the right-wing understands that and is using it. That's why the "death panels" and "government takeover" language resonates with those who have a conservative moral perspective and have effectively used terms like "pro-life." Health care is a life and death issue, which is as moral as anything could be. The insurance companies have been on the side of death, and that needs to be said overtly.
Ninth, accepting the idea that health is a line item separate from agriculture policy, the food industry, regulation of food and drugs, education, the vitality of business, banking reform, etc. is just bad economics. These are all tied up together. In this, health care might have been treated like the "recovery" package, but in reverse.
A causal approach to economics would be appropriate. Instead of putting funds in many places, it might have taken funds from sources of health problems. For example, big agriculture and the food industry produce and heavily marketed foods that have been central causes of the obesity epidemic and heart disease — corn syrup, too much meat, and so on. They might have been called upon to pay the costs of treating heart disease, strokes, and diabetes. It would not be popular with those industries, but it would be causally fair, and might even save a lot of lives – and money.
Our take another example of causal economics. Hugely high private taxation (that is, high costs and profit taking) by the health insurance industry helped drive American automakers into bankruptcy. The health insurance industry should have had to use a portion of their profits for bailouts of the auto industry, and the equivalent amount of bailout money could have been used for providing health care to those without it.
Given the systemic nature of our culture and our economy, a move in the direction of such causal economics should start to be seriously considered. At the very least it would bring up the question, alert the public to systemic causation, and start people thinking about the justice of causal economics.
All this is not just 20-20 hindsight. My colleagues, Glenn Smith and Eric Haas and I have made many of these points before. See our reply to the May 2009 memo by Frank Luntz:
www.huffingtonpost.com/...lakoff/health-care-reform-some-b_b_200132 .html.
And take a look at an even earlier memo of the logic of the health care debate:
http://www.cognitivepolicyworks.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/logic-of-the-health-care-debate.pdf.
Where PolicyLists and PolicySpeak Come From
Framing is everywhere, not just in language. What people do depends on how they think, on how they understand the world — and we all use framing to understand the world. Truth matters. But it can only be comprehended when it is framed effectively, and heard constantly.
This point is to often misunderstood that it is important to understand why. It is also important to understand where PolicyLists and PolicySpeak come from and why they have the powerful grip that they have. This is especially important now, when there might still be a chance to turn the health care debate around.
The source of these political disasters lies in an unlikely place: our most common understanding of reason itself.
What Is Reason Really Like?
PolicySpeak is supposed to be reasoned, objective discourse. It thus assumes a theory of what reason itself is — a philosophical theory that dates back to the 17^th Century and is still taught.
Over the past four decades, cognitive science and neuroscience have provided a scientific view of how the brain and mind really work. A handful of these results have come into behavioral economics. But most social scientists and policymakers are not trained in these fields. They still have the old view of mind and language.
The old philosophical theory says that reason is conscious, can fit the world directly, is universal (we all think the same way), is dispassionate (emotions get in the way of reason), is literal (no metaphor or framing in reason), works by logic, is abstract (not physical) and functions to serve our interests. Language on this view is neutral and can directly fit, or not fit, reality.
The scientific research in neuroscience and cognitive science has shown that most reason is unconscious. Since we think with our brains, reason cannot directly fit the world. Emotion is necessary for rational thought; if you cannot feel emotion, you will not know what to want or how anyone else would react to your actions. Rational decisions depend on emotion. Empathy with others has a physical basis, and as much as self-interest, empathy lies behind reason.
Ideas are physical, part of brain circuitry. Ideas are constituted by brain structures called 'frames' and 'metaphors,' and reason uses them. Frames form systems, called worldviews. All language is defined relative to such frames and metaphors. There are very different conservative and progressive worldviews, and different words can activate different worldviews. Important words, like freedom, can have entirely different meanings depending on your worldview. In short, not everybody thinks the same way.
As a result, what is taken as "objective" discourse is often worldview dependent. This is especially true of health care. All progressive writing supporting some version of health care assumes a progressive moral worldview, in which no one should be forced to go without heath care, the government should play a role, market regulation is necessary, and so on.
Those with radical conservative worldviews may well think otherwise: that everyone should be responsible for their own and their family's health care, that the government is oppressive and should stay out of it, that the market should always dominate, and so on.
Overall, the foundational assumptions underlying PolicySpeak are false. It should be no wonder that PolicySpeak isn't working.
The Bi-conceptual Audience
A property of brains called "mutual inhibition" permits people to have contradictory worldviews and go back and forth between them. Many people have both progressive and conservative worldviews, but on different issues — perhaps conservative on financial issues and progressive on social issues. Such people are called bi-conceptuals. President Obama understands this. He has said that his "bipartisanship" means finding Republicans who happen to share his progressive views on particular issues, and working with them on those issues—and not accepting an ideology (radical conservatism) rejected by the American people.
The people the President has to convince are the millions of bi-conceptuals. That means he has to have them thinking of health care in progressive moral terms, not conservative moral terms. How can this be accomplished?
Why Do the Nature of Reason and Language Matter?
It's all in the brain. Words activate frame-and-metaphor circuits, which in turn activate worldview circuits. Whenever brain circuitry is activated, the synapses get stronger, and the circuits are easier to activate again. Conservative language will activate conservative frames, which will activate and strengthen the conservative worldview.
Conservative tacticians may not know about brain research, but they know about marketing, and marketing theorists use that brain research. That is why conservatives place such importance on language choice, from the classic "socialized medicine," to Luntz's "government takeover" to Palin's "death panels." When repeated over and over, the words evoke a conservative worldview, with many of the specific bogeymen — abortion, socialism = communism = nazism, euthanasia, foreigners, taxes, spending, the liberal elite, Big Brother, and so on. The most effective language has emotional appeal and, to conservatives, a moral appeal because it activates the conservative moral worldview. And such language, repeated every day, changes brains, strengthening the synapses of those who listen.
Conservative language will activate and strengthen conservative worldviews — even when negated! I titled a bookDon't Think of an Elephant! to make this point. The classic example is Richard Nixon's "I am not a crook," which made everyone think of him as a crook. And yet I've heard President Obama say "We don't want a government takeover," which activates the idea of a government takeover. Mediamatters.org's major story, as I write this, is: "The media have debunked the death panels -- more than 40 times." It then gives a list of 40 cases of debunking, each one of which uses the term "death panels." And you wonder, after so many debunkings, why it is still believed! Each "debunking" reinforced the idea. The first rule of effective communication is stating the positive in your own terms, not quoting the other side's language with a negation.
The Conservative Communication System
The serious reporting on role of conservative think tanks began in the mid-1990's with works such as:
·  Buying a Movement: Right-Wing Foundations and American Politics (People for the American Way, 1996).
· Sally Covington, Moving a Public Policy Agenda: The Strategic Philanthropy of Conservative Foundations(National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, 1998).
· Jean Stefancic and Richard Delgado, No Mercy: How Conservative Think Tanks and Foundations ChangedAmerica's Social Agenda (Temple University Press, 1996).
In 1996, my Moral Politics appeared, outlining the conservative and progressive moral worldviews and how the conservatives used language to frame public discourse their way.
In 2004, Rob Stein tracked the conservative communications system, traeling the country with his detailed powerpoint, "The Conservative Message Machine Money Matrix." Stein tracked not only conservative think tanks, but also the language experts and training institutes training tens of thousands of conservative spokespeople He also tracked the communications facilities, and the collections of "experts" on every issue, together with a booking agency booking the experts daily on media all over the country. Daily talking points are repeated by those "experts." The conservative communications system extends into every congressional district, including the districts of democrats. In the case of the Blue Dog Democrats, who come from relatively conservative districts, the Blue Dogs have to deal with constituents who hear conservative framing over and over every day without anything effective countering it. That is a major factor in Blue Dog resistance to administration proposals.
With all this information, you might think that progressives would set up their own communications network going into the heart of conservative districts everywhere, day after day, effectively countering the conservative framing.
It didn't happen. Instead, PolicySpeak prevailed. The old philosophical theory, which is taught in every policy school, won out. Progressives thought such a communications system would be illegitimate — what the conservatives do. They believe, in 17^th Century fashion, that if they just state the facts, people should reason to the right conclusion.
So progressives set up truth squad websites and blogs to negate conservative lies – like Media Matters, The Center for American Progress, the People for the American Way, the Center for America's Future, MoveOn, Organizing forAmerica, and so on. These are all fine organizations, and we are fortunate to have them. But … they are preaching to the choir (because they don't have an adequate communications system), and they are using PolicySpeak: just stating the policy truths will be enough.
As I was writing this, I received the viral email written by David Axelrod, which he refers to as "probably one of the longest emails I've ever sent." It is indeed long. It is accurate. It lays out the President's list of needed reforms. It answers the myths. It appeals to people who would personally benefit from the President's plan. It drops the Public Option, which makes sense of the list. And it is written in PolicySpeak. It has 24 points – 3 sets of 8.
Ask yourself which is more memorable: "Government takeover," "socialized medicine," and "death panels" — or Axelrod's 24 points?
Did the administration do a reality check on the 24 points? That is, did they have one of our superb cognitive psychologists test subjects who were convinced of the right-wing framing, have them read the 24 points, and test them a couple days or a week later on whether Axelrod's 24 points had convinced them? PolicySpeak folks don't tend to think of such things.
I genuinely hope the 24 points work. But this is the kind of messaging that created the problems in the first place.
I respect Axelrod deeply. But the strategist who ran the best-framed campaign I've ever seen is giving in to PolicySpeak.
The Irony
There is a painful irony in all this, and I am aware of it constantly. Highly educated progressives, who argue for the importance of science, have been ignoring or rejecting the science of the brain and mind. Why?
Because brains are brains. A great many progressives have not grown up with, nor have they learned, the new scientific understanding of reason. Instead they have acquired the old philosophical theory of reason and assume it every day in everything they do. The old view is inscribed indelibly in the synapses of their brains. It will be hard for those progressives to comprehend the new science that contradicts their daily practice.
They may find it hard to comprehend framing, metaphor, and narrative as the way reason really works — as what you need to do to communicate truth. Instead, they may well think of framing as merely manipulation and spin, as the mechanism that the right wing uses to communicate lies.
An excellent example of such old-theory thinking appears in the Rahm Emanuel/Bruce Reed book, The Plan, where framing is seen only as manipulation, not as the structure of ideas. Emanuel and Reed (p. 21) assume that policy is independent of what they incorrectly understand framing to be. As a result, they assume that framing can only be illegitimate manipulation.
This is, of course, the very opposite of what I and other cognitive scientists have been saying. They are right that real reason can be manipulated in that way, as Frank Luntz has shown us. But it need not be. An understanding of how the brain really works can be used to communicate the truth effectively, and that's how it should be used.
In the Obama campaign, honest, effective framing was used with great success. But in the Obama administration, something has changed. It needs to change back.
George Lakoff is the author of Moral Politics, Don't Think of an Elephant!, Whose Freedom?, and Thinking Points(with the Rockridge Institute staff). He is Richard and Rhoda Goldman Distinguished Professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics at the University of California at Berkeley, an

HR676 Pettion Drive @ OB Farmers Market - Yum

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 21:14:00 +0000

Begin forwarded message:

From: Guy McClellan <guymcclellan@yahoo.com>
Date: August 22, 2009 2:45:55 PM PDT
To: jadymontgomery@mac.com
Subject: You're Invited!

Guy McClellan has sent you an invitation to 'HR676
Petition Drive - OB Farmer's Market Aug. 26th' -- click
here to view the invitation and submit your response:

http://my.barackobama.com/page/event/detail/gpkgp2

---

Hi Jady,
I met you downtown outside Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein's offices. I'm trying to get signatures for HR676 this Wednesday at OB Farmer's Market and help inspire other's to print out the petition as well to collect signature's within their own social networks. Would you be so kind as to share this event with other people that are in support of Single Payer?

Sincerely,

Guy McClellan

Fwd: Obama Deputy Chief of Staff delivered single payer message

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 05:02:00 +0000

Not sure how many of you are on Don Bechler's email list. Apologies for duplicates....

Jady

Begin forwarded message:

From: dbechler@value.net
Date: August 20, 2009 5:49:56 PM PDT
To: dbechler@value.net
Subject: Obama Deputy Cibama Chief of Staff Jim Messina delivered single payer message

Obama Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina Receives Message that Californians Want Single Payer Healthcare

Dear Single Payer Healthcare Activist,

On Wednesday, August 19, Obama Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina was delivered the message that Californians want single payer healthcare.
On short notice we had 35 sign carrying single payer supporters in front of a San Francisco restaurant making our message clear.  Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina was speaking at a fundraiser sponsored by the Democratic National Committee and Organizing for Change.  The leaflet we handed out is pasted below.  We will be bringing a similar version to upcoming town hall meetings.
Also pasted below are pictures from event.

Thank you.
Don Bechler
Chair – Single Payer Now
415-695-7891
www.singlepayernow.net

Leaflet distributed on August 19.

Dear Healthcare Activist,
Please let Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina know that Californians want single payer healthcare.  And we want the Kucinich Amendment passed so states can enact single payer.
1.   The California Democratic Party wants single payer healthcare.
2.   The Democratic controlled state legislature has twice passed single payer healthcare (SB 840), only to have it vetoed by a Republican Governor.
3.   The City of San Francisco supports single payer both nationally (HR 676) and in California (SB 810).

Single Payer Healthcare is the most politically viable solution to our healthcare crisis.
Advocating for HR 676, the US National Healthcare Act gives the opportunity for legislators to look their constituents in the eye and honestly explain that passage of HR 676 will:
1.       Allow everyone to have comprehensive healthcare.
2.       Allow choice of healthcare provider.  Private insurance companies restrict this choice.
3.       Allow caregivers and patients to regain their autonomy to decide what's best for a patient's health, not what's dictated by the billing department.
4.       Save money.  Private health insurance bureaucracy wastes 31 cents of every health care dollar.
5.       Enhance benefits by including full prescription drug, vision, mental health, and long term care benefits.
6.       Remove co-pays and deductible to zero dollars.

If any fact is clear from the last century of using private health insurance, it is that market mechanisms to increase competition for better healthcare does not work.  It is in the gene structure of the insurance industry to avoid the sick, deny claims and pass expenses on to others.

Trying to include the insurance industry in a healthcare fix is like trying to include the Mafia in a community meeting on public safety.

Healthcare Yes!  Insurance Companies No!
Distributed by Single Payer Now: PO Box 460622; SF, CA 94146
Singlepayernow.net    415-695-7891   email dbechhler@value.net

Saturday Single Payer Fun In The Sun Rally

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 04:53:00 +0000

Dear Single Payer Advocates, Ever Faithful Believers in the Possibility of Change... Eventually!!

YES - Some of us will be gathering again on Saturday as part of our Summer Fun-In-the-Sun-for-Single-Payer

WHEN: 10:30am Saturday

WHERE: The "four corners" at Nobel Drive just west of I-5, (La Jolla Villa Square)

We'll have signs - or bring your own - and smiles, and friends!

Jady

Jady Montgomery

www.JadyMontgomery.com

jadymontgomery@mac.com - NEW!

858-554-0482 hm, 760-271-3328 cell

Join Focus on Change!

http://focusonchange.ning.com/group/singlepayerhealthcarecoalitionsandiego

EALTH CARE WANTED: DEAD OR ALIVE

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 11:21:00 +0000

The Administration plan requires that everyone must have health insurance, so it is delivering tens of millions of new "customers" to the insurance companies. Health care? Not really. Insurance care! Absolutely. Cost controls? No chance.

You will next hear talk about "co-ops." The truth is that insurance company campaign contributions have co-opted the public interest.

Instead we are told the pharmaceutical companies will accept a 2% cut in the growth rate of their profits - this they call cost control!

- Dennis Kucinich

10 secs!: Petition fort Congress to Have Same Healthcare We Get

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 04:39:00 +0000

Excellent way to let elected officials know their constituents are fed up with the elitism of Congress. It's only fair that Congress should be deal with the same reality as everyone else.
Next, why should Congress receive full pay indefinitely after serving only one term. The perks are ridiculous.
This is something virtually everyone can agree on regardless of party affiliations. Let em know the power....and the bite......of the people.
Pass it on.
It took me 10 seconds to sign up to require our congressmen and senators to drink at the same trough! It is about time these bozos play by the same rules as they force the rest of to. Three cheers for Congressman John Fleming of Louisiana !

Congressman John Fleming a Louisiana physician has proposed an amendment that would require congressmen and senators to take the same healthcare plan they force on us (under proposed legislation they are curiously exempt). Congressman Fleming is encouraging people to go on his Website and sign his petition (very simple - just first, last and email). I have immediately done just that at:http://fleming.house.gov/.
Please urge as many people as you can to do the same! If Congress forces this on the American people, the Congressmen should have to accept the same level of health care for themselves and their families

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.13.58/2309 - Release Date: 08/17/09 06:08:00

Fwd: Single Payer Fun-In-The-Sun Rally at Nobel & I-5

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 15:01:00 +0000

(sorry if this is a duplicate ---- some sending problems...)

Dear Single Payer Advocates, Ever Faithful Believers in the Possibility of Change... Eventually!!

YES - Some of us will be gathering again on Saturday as part of our Summer Fun In the Sun for Single Payer
WHEN: 10:30am Saturday
WHERE: The "four corners" at Nobel Drive just west of I-5, (La Jolla Villa Square)
We'll have signs - or bring your own - and smiles, and friends!

Jady

Jady Montgomery
www.JadyMontgomery.com
jadymontgomery@mac.com - NEW!
858-554-0482 hm, 760-271-3328 cell

Join Focus on Change!
http://focusonchange.ning.com/group/singlepayerhealthcarecoalitionsandiego

Fwd: Single Payer Fun-In-The-Sun Rally at Nobel & I-5

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 14:59:00 +0000

Dear Single Payer Advocates, Ever Faithful Believers in the Possibility of Change... Eventually!!

YES - Some of us will be gathering again on Saturday as part of our Summer Fun In the Sun for Single Payer
WHEN: 10:30am Saturday
WHERE: The "four corners" at Nobel Drive just west of I-5, (La Jolla Villa Square)
We'll have signs - or bring your own - and smiles, and friends!

Jady

Jady Montgomery
www.JadyMontgomery.com
jadymontgomery@mac.com - NEW!
858-554-0482 hm, 760-271-3328 cell

Join Focus on Change!
http://focusonchange.ning.com/group/singlepayerhealthcarecoalitionsandiego

Sick For Profit

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 03:47:00 +0000

Healthcare Industry BILLION-heir , CEO Stephen Hemsley, makes $100,000/hr. off your premiums.

Robert Greenwald of BRAVE NEW FILMS has a new Documentary called "SICK FOR PROFIT", in which he exposes the greed and waste within the "Healthcare Industry". This is just the kind of progressive report that needs an outlet in the San Diego Media.

Liberty One Radio

Words from Boxer Intern AND HC $$$$ to Democrats

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 03:18:00 +0000

Below: a variety of useful info --- I'm only sending this to a small group, so forward to your respective groups/contacts as you wish. Jady

From a 2009 Summer Intern with Senator Barbara Boxer:

"Thanks a lot for organizing for health care. One of my summer internships has been with Senator Boxer and nearly all the calls we get are against health care reform. It does seem like somehow with Obama elected and a Democratic majority, progressive voters have sat back and waited for the "change". Its good to hear from you and from the grassroots."

In case you no longer have the Congressional telephone numbers we have included it below.

Right now we hope that you can spare a few minutes to make a few phone calls. Senator Barbara Boxer - 202-224-3553, Local: 619-239-3884
Senator Dianne Feinstein - 202-224-3831, Local: 619-231-9712
Sen. Max Baucus - 202-224-2651
Sen. Harry Reid - 202-224-3542
House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi - 202-225-0100
House Minority Leader Steny Hoyer - 202-225-3130
Rep. Duncan Hunter - 202-225-5672, Local: 619-448-5201

The following Democratic Senators have received between $1.5 million and $8.9 million from health care lobbyists. None of them supports the public option. They need to hear from you. See Open Secrets Web site below.

Sen. Joe Lieberman (CT) - 202-224-4041

Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (ND) - 202-224-2043

Finance Committee Chair Max Baucus (MT) - 202-224-2651

Dianne Feinstein (CA) - 202-224-3831

Evan Bayh (IN) - 202-224-5623

May Landrieu (LA) - 202-224-5824

Ben Nelson (NE) - 202-224-6551

John Kerry (MA) - 202-224-2742

TO REACH ANY SENATOR OR REPRESENTATIVE, you can call toll-free 800-828-0498 and be connected to their offices, OR call toll-free 1-866-338-1015 and an operator will give you the phone/FAX numbers, addresses, and e-mail addresses for any Senator or Representative. Simple. OR, go on line and www.senate.gov or www.house.gov will give you all this information.

Boxer.senate.gov will put you at her website and give you all needed info including the place to write an email.

This format works for every Senator. Hunter.House.gov is the format for reaching any Representative.

Resources for information about the Health care issue and current legislation:

www.Healthreform.gov

www.consumerreports.org

www.Opensecrets.org

"This isn't about me. This isn't about politics. This is about a health care system that is breaking America 's families, breaking America 's businesses, and breaking America 's economy. And we can't afford the politics of delay and defeat when it comes to health care. Not this time. Not now. There are too many lives and livelihoods at stake."

~ Barack Obama

Jady

Jady Montgomery

www.JadyMontgomery.com

jadymontgomery@mac.com - NEW!

858-554-0482 hm, 760-271-3328 cell

Join Focus on Change!

http://focusonchange.ning.com/group/singlepayerhealthcarecoalitionsandiego

LaughRiot -- Fwd: obamacare on jon stewart

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 04:55:00 +0000

if you an stand a laugh... jady

Begin forwarded message:

Subject: obamacare on jon stewart

folks, this is a riot.
best,
raffi

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Healther Skelter - Obama Death Panel Debate

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Spinal Tap Performance

Why is Big PhRMA spending millions to lobby for "reform?" A Progressive response to Mitch Stewart & OFA letter

noreply@blogger.com (Mike in the Morning) — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 16:24:00 +0000

Dear Mitch Stewart & OFA,

I am glad you are still Organizing for America -- we need the activated grassroots energy that swept Mr. Obama into office to keep things moving forward.

But I have to share with you things that are really bugging me in the "Health INSURANCE Reform" debate -- the first one is just that, the language you started using.

When the healthcare debate got started, you hooked me into supporting the President's ideas with the words "Health Care Reform." Then, once I had heard the health-care horror stories, and was spoiling for a fight to support these much-needed reforms (which sounded good), suddenly you altered the language, subtly, adding the word INSURANCE, to make it "Health Insurance Reform," not Health Care Reform. (If I understand correctly, health insurance is something you purchase for a fee from a for-profit insurance corporation, is generally employer-based, and is only indirectly connected to health care.)

So why are the high-powered grass-roots OFA organizers now being organized, essentially, to strategize and advance a plan that keeps for-profit insurance in control of health care? Why the bait & switch on the grass-roots organizers?

Next point: today, it comes out in the New York Times that Big Pharma's big-money lobbying arm, "PhRMA" has now hired Public Relatsion firms including "Obama for America's" PR expert David Axelrod's old firm, for $3 million per day to lobby for "Health Insurance Reform."

Do you think progressives should be concerned about these OFA/Axelrod/Big Pharma connections? Exactly who is making money lobbying for Big Pharma's health care agenda, painting it with Obama's colors and making it "Hopey & Changey?"

How much more money will Big Pharma make off the proposed 'reform' agenda? Pharma isn't kicking in $150 million for PR in August simple promote the Obama plan for nothing, are they?

What happened to the promise OFA originally hooked me with, of moving towards a system that lowered costs and expanded coverage to all? Where did that go? Am I being bamboozled?

Maybe I'll find out on the conference call you've invited me to with David Axelrod, whose PR firm is front and center of the PhRMA corporate campaign for "insurance reform."

I admit it: when massive amounts of corporate money starts being spent on an agenda, while the organizational infrastructure I trusted now "moves the goal-posts" and alters the message to health INSURANCE REFORM, I get a bad feeling I've been suckered.

(Tell me I'm not becoming paranoid: my health insurance plan doesn't cover that. )

Mike Copass

PDA Metro San Diego

http://www.newser.com/story/66443/pharma-to-push-obama-plan-in-150m-ad-blitz.html
(Newser Summary) – Drug companies have authorized their lobbyists to spend up to $150 million on TV ads supporting Barack Obama's health care reform plan—a surprisingly large sum that suggests the industry still has a deal with the White House on capping pharma's costs, reports the New York Times. A few spots that have already aired echo Democratic talking points about consumer protection and universal coverage. The connections run deep—one of the agencies involved is David Axelrod's old firm.
Democrats in Congress have bridled at an agreement struck with the White House last June, in which the drug industry agreed to pay $80 billion over 10 years into health reform. The terms of the deal were not made fully public, and it's unclear just what drug companies are getting in return—although the industry stands to pick up millions more customers as health care coverage expands.

On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 11:01 AM, Mitch Stewart, BarackObama.com <info@barackobama.com> wrote:

Mike --

I just talked with David Axelrod, former Obama for America strategist and current Senior Adviser to the President.

David knows that with the fight over health insurance reform at a fevered pitch, the organizing we're doing is more important than ever. So he asked to be able to speak with a few of our most active supporters to update them on the state of the fight -- what we'll need to do to make sure real reform passes.
I've set up a conference call for Tuesday night, and I'd like to invite you to join us.

What: Health Care Conference Call with David Axelrod
When: Tuesday, August 11th8:00 p.m. Eastern Time

http://my.barackobama.com/AxelrodCall
The call will be led by Jeremy Bird, OFA's Deputy Director. David will give an overview of the debate in Washington, discuss the strategy for passing reform, and answer questions that you can submit when you sign up. It's a great opportunity to hear from one of the smartest minds in politics at a critical time. I hope you can make it.

Talk to you soon,

Mitch

Mitch StewartDirectorOrganizing for America
P.S. -- Please make sure to register by 3:00 p.m. Eastern Time tomorrow (the day of the call), so that we can make sure your information is entered in time and you're able to join.