Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
FRANK LUNTZ TELLS REPUBLICANS TO HIT "REPEAT."
A bunch of readers have written in to ask why I haven't commented on pollster Frank Luntz's "leaked" memo advising Republicans on their efforts to oppose health reform. The basic answer is I don't think it's an important document. I could have written the whole thing myself just by reversing-engineering one of Rudy Giuliani's speeches. And it's "leak" feel a bit meta to me. It's theoretically a strategy document for Republicans, but it's being used less to inform their approach than to give the press a reason to write that they have a strategy. And so they do.
"Healthcare denial horror stories from Canada & Co. do resonate," Luntz advises. That means, I guess, that conservative politicians will continue using them, as they have for the past two decades?
Elsewhere, Luntz suggests that Republicans "define the crisis in your terms...If some bureaucrat puts himself between you and your doctor, denying you exactly what you need, that’s a crisis." Attacking bureaucrats! Where does Frank Luntz get these fresh and original ideas?
If Republicans actually need someone to tell them to say this stuff, then they're in more trouble than I thought. But they probably don't. And though some progressives are pleased that Luntz advises Republicans to be "for" reform, the actual advice in this memo is to make Obama's specific reform unpopular enough that they can move to a stance of outright opposition. Which is, again, sort of what you'd expect. I wonder how much Luntz charges for this sort of thing?
Image from Flickr user Lewis Foad.
COMMENTS (8)
"If some bureaucrat puts himself between you and your doctor, denying you exactly what you need, that’s a crisis."
Then we are in a crisis, and have been for several decades. Or is bureaucratic second-guessing suddenly OK, when it's done by a bureaucrat at a for-profit company like an HMO?
At least with the government bureaucrat, I can write my Representative and have a slight chance of getting some changes. With a corporation, it's in everyone's interest, all the way up the line, to find a way to not pay for the treatment.
Posted by: Ken | May 8, 2009 3:18 PM
The question isn't how much is he charging but who is paying? Is he working for the Republican Party or the insurance companies? I am still bracing myself for his sequel to the Contract with America.
Posted by: cathy | May 8, 2009 3:59 PM
We can match every horror story 'from Canada & Co.' with a horror story right here is the good old USA. I have to think that enough people have had experience with this system that those arguments will not go very far.
Likewise with the bureaucrat argument. Who is distrusted more, the government (who happens to run Medicare quite well all in all) or an insurance company?
Posted by: scott | May 8, 2009 7:11 PM
I tend to agree with Ezra - there's not much to this... but at the same time, Luntz makes a point that's uncomfortable - the stuff works, has worked and is working... because it's going out in a void: there's not a good coordinated, and clear effort to explain healthcare to the average folks (remember, the people more likely to be reading about Angelina Jolie?) and define the problem and the solution on progressive terms. The 'heahcare debate" thats been going on - long before the elecion, but certainly since it - is mosly a discussion among people "in the know" who already agree; as long as that's going on, Luntz's talking points will work... like they have been. No, the GOP may not be able to derail the bill that winds up going through Congress... but if they make enough noise, it may not matter for their goals - which, after all, are really about making Dems look bad enough to win more local elections. Insurance reform - especially a reform that helps working whites with lower incomes at smaller companies - isn't a bad thing for the GOP... but a world where some folks get a reform... but don't like Dems for it... well, that's their sweet spot, now, isn't it?
Posted by: weboy | May 8, 2009 8:49 PM
Careful:
1) Slogans work and it is all about context. Dont be dismissive--you know a lot about healthcare, John and Jane Doe dont.
2) It isnt news? If you told me Coke is rolling out their "New Coke" campaign again, then fine, I turn off the alarm clock. However, this stuff when applied properly is gold. Why do bank robbers rob banks? You finish.
3) A quote:
"In addition, we cannot convey fully the deep distress that accompanies a majority of voters’ imaginings of government acting as the sole deliverer of care. One of the most memorable comments from our careers in opinion research came during probing of concerns about the nature of government involvement in the "Clinton Care" plan in the early 1990s. "I like national health insurance," patiently explained one focus-group respondent. "I just don’t want the government to run it."
Health Affairs, 27, no. 3 (2008): 699-704
doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.27.3.699
I usually agree with you Ezra, but you are dead wrong. These phrases resonate and those who dont pay heed will be very surprised at how quickly the electorate turns.
Posted by: brad | May 8, 2009 8:51 PM
"Then we are in a crisis, and have been for several decades. Or is bureaucratic second-guessing suddenly OK, when it's done by a bureaucrat at a for-profit company like an HMO?"
You can change an HMO, or the government can regulate HMOs. When the government is the insurer, there is no exit and no appeal. Even if there is an appeal process, it's not like health decisions can usually wait for the cumbersome process to play out.
"We can match every horror story 'from Canada & Co.' with a horror story right here is the good old USA"
Then you lose. The only way Americans consent to a public health care system is if it's BETTER than Canada or Britain. If it's just a new set of problems to replace the old set, then it's a political loser. That's why single-payer boosters have been lying for years about access in single-payer systems, saying that you get everything you get in the US, and you get it free and now!
I'm okay with a public option in competition with private options, but the public option must operate under the same conditions as the private plan. In other words, it can't run at a deficit to drive out competitors, because such an action would be illegal if done in the private sector.
Posted by: Adam Herman | May 10, 2009 3:44 AM
You can change an HMO
If your medical care is paid for by your employer, no, you probably can't. In the real world, most Americans currently have little or no choice about their healthcare. Your employer chooses the HMO or insurance company and the insurance company chooses the doctors you can go to, the drugs you can have prescribed, the labs you can use, etc. etc.
Posted by: TL | May 11, 2009 8:57 AM
This is a quarterly growth figure. It is standard practice in the United States to report growth data on an annual basis.
thanks admin
Posted by: sesli sohbet | January 11, 2010 9:44 AM