Over on my Face Book page, someone started a discussion about what we are calling the object of our debate over Health Care. A Face Book poll asks me if I am in favor of government assisted Health Care. Someone had objected that supporters should not get involved with the poll and particularly SHOULD NOT TRY TO DEFEND "GOVERNMENT" HEALTH CARE.
I thought about it and I think they are right. I have written before about "framing". To some all such talk is pure semantics. If you are of this school, pass on, nothing to see here.
If you are not, consider my response in that thread and make up your own mind. I wrote this:
The question indicates that what obama is seeking is government health care. The assisted does not help that much. What we end up discussing is , do you want government (think big bad bureaucrats, red tape, incompetent. etc.)[running your health care].
A better question might be this: Do you support publicly assured access to health care? This gets up talking about our common obligation to each other to provide fair and equitable access.If the discussion touches on government involvement, it is now one component of the discussion, not the only one. There is NO presumption that the government will be providing my health care.
This all may sound like hair splitting, but given the complexity of health care reform, the frames and impressions left by the words we began to use as shorthand for the problem can matter.
That is my two cents, at least.....
Let me add that I tested this framing yesterday when I was approached by a supporter of the other side during a public demonstration.
When I used my frame , he was at a lost for an argument. He was forced to fall back on the old "socialism" meme. Then he tried, "well my friend would have died for lack of care if Obama's plan was in place."
I replied with examples of people who had no access under the present system and then riposted: " I could care less if you favor or oppose Obama, I want fair access for all Americans to health care. The rest of the world can have it, why not us?"
Then came "We have the best health care system in the world" and the unanswerable reply: "If you have greenbacks, we do."
You know you got'em when all they can do is start repeating themselves and NOT answering the question.
The point: the discussion was NOT about government run health care which you can't win with the average Joe or Jane, it was not about liking or not liking Obama which is irrelevant, it was about access to health care - which the opponents CAN NOT WIN!
It was most telling that at the demonstration we met counter-demonstrators from a local "tea bag" group. We chanted slogans about what we wanted - they chanted nothing . It is hard to chant that you want the status quo, harder to chant you want NOTHING or "just say no" to health care.
