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.
