PNHP

Max Baucus Should Not Be Deciding Health Care for America

Max Baucus Should Not Be Deciding Health Care for America

The "Senator for K Street" is Putting Campaign Donor Profits Ahead of the Basic Needs of the People

by Kevin Zeese
OpEdNews
May 10, 2009

Senator Max Baucus and the Senate Finance Committee are too corrupted by corporate health industry profiteers donations to give America the health care policy it needs.

Health care is 15% of the U.S. gross domestic product. Health care costs have been rising rapidly for several years. U.S. health care expenditures surpassed $2.4 trillion in 2007, more than three times the $714 billion spent in 1990. The cost of health care is projected to reach $4.4 trillion by 2018. There is a lot of room for corporate profiteering in the increasing cost of health care. So, the millions the health care industry has invested in Baucus and the Senate Finance Committee could turn out to be a very profitable one.

It is evident that any bill that comes out of the Senate Finance Committee will be a pro-industry bill that will ensure trillions in profits for the health insurance industry, HMO’s and pharmaceutical industry.

Baucus has held two hearings so far and has refused to allow advocates for the most popular reform — a single payer national health policy — to even testify. Single payer, improved Medicare for all, is favored by more than 60% of Americans as well as majorities of doctors, nurses and economists. It is the most cost-effective and efficient way to provide health care to all Americans from cradle to grave.

Why aren’t single payer advocates allowed to testify before Baucus’ committee? Follow the money. Campaign donations explain why and demonstrate that the Senate Finance Committee should not be in charge of health care. Senator Reid should remove the health care reform bill from Baucus and start all over before the Health Committee in the senate.

Here’s why Baucus is not doing the peoples business:

According to OpenSecrets.org over his career he has taken donations from:

The Insurance Industry: $1,170,313

Health Professionals $1,016,276

Pharmaceuticals/Health Products Industry $734,605

Hospitals/Nursing Homes $541,891

Health Services/HMOs $439,700

That is a grand total of $3,902,785. Can we trust Baucus to put aside the profits of the industries that have kept him in the senate? Will he put the people’s necessities ahead of the profits of his contributors? Baucus has shown his bias and should be removed from leading the health care reform effort by the Democratic Party leadership.

In 2008 Baucus had virtually no challenger in Montana. A little-known Republican was on the ballot, Baucus won with 73% of the vote. But, Baucus sought big donations from big business anyway. He used his connections to corporations with business before his committee to raise an immense campaign fund of more than $11 million. In 2008, 91% of his donations come from individuals living outside of Montana, which is why he is more the “Senator for K Street” then the Senator for Montana. Corporate health profiteers who invested in Baucus will now benefit from his stewardship over health care reform. His 2008 donations from health care profiteers included:

Insurance $592,185

Health Professionals $537,141

Pharmaceuticals/Health Products $524,813

Health Services/HMOs $364,500

Hospitals/Nursing Homes $332,826

That is $1,826,652 Baucus took from industries who he can now make wealthier by deforming health care reform.

The health care profiteers knew that Baucus would determine their fate and ponied up. Now the only thing standing between them and their payback is a single payer national health care plan. Single payer, which would end private insurance and control the cost of pharmaceutical drugs, is not being considered — not even allowed to participate in the conversation before Baucus.

And, it is not just the chairman of the committee who has received massive donations, the full Finance Committee is a gluttonous embarrassment of campaign pay-offs. In 2008 the full committee received a total of $13,263,986 from industries affected by health care reform. Can we trust this committee to put the interests of the people before their donors? The donations to the Finance Committee in 2008 included:

Insurance $5,103,900

Pharmaceuticals/Health Products $3,308,831

Hospitals/Nursing Homes $2,809,353

Health Services/HMO $2,041,902

These industries expect to be rewarded with billions, even trillions, in profits and hundreds of millions in corporate welfare. Senator Baucus’s behavior shows they have made a good investment and bought a senator who should be called Chairman Blagojevich, as I said when I was arrested last week protesting before the committee, See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52BGI5_fcUM&feature=related. He is doing his best to make sure the single payer message is not heard because he knows it is the fairest, most efficient and cost-effective way to ensure health care access for all Americans but it would put some of his donors out of business and control the profits of others.

It is time to remove Baucus from the leadership of health care reform. It is time to move the critically important priority of reforming America’s health care system from the Finance Committee and put it before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. At least their mission is health care not money.

Kevin Zeese is Executive Director of the Campaign for Fresh Air and Clean Politics (www.FreshAirCleanPolitics.net) whose projects include Voters for Peace (www.VotersForPeace.US., Prosperity Agenda (www.ProsperityAgenda.US), True Vote (www.TrueVote.US and www.TrueVoteMD.org) and Climate Security (www.GlobalClimateSecurity.org). He is also president of Common Sense for Drug Policy (www.csdp.org).

Doctors, nurses to demonstrate for single-payer health system outside Senate Finance Committee hearing

Physicians join with nurses in 'Florence Nightingale protest' in support of Medicare for All

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 11, 2009

Contacts:
Margaret Flowers, M.D.
Carol Paris, M.D.
Clark Newhall, M.D.
Mark Almberg, PNHP, (312) 782-6006, mark@pnhp.org

WASHINGTON – Physicians, nurses and other advocates of a single-payer health care system will demonstrate outside the Dirksen Senate Office Building Tuesday morning while the third and final Senate Finance Committee “public roundtable” on health care reform is being held inside.

The demonstrators will protest the continuing exclusion of single-payer advocates from the committee’s deliberations and will assert that the list of expert witnesses who have so far been invited to testify is stacked in favor of the private health insurance industry, big pharmaceutical companies and other for-profit health industry interests.

The activists will also reject this week’s pledge by the private insurance industry, big pharma, and other big health industry players to voluntarily control health costs as fanciful, noting that the corporate boards of these companies are committed to maximizing shareholder profit, a goal that has shown itself to be incompatible with cost control or compassionate and effective patient care.

Last week, at the second roundtable, eight people, including three physicians, were arrested for voicing support for a single-payer national health system. Members of the group said they resorted to respectful civil disobedience because the committee’s chairman, Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), has turned a deaf ear to thousands of phone calls and faxes from people across the country, including from his home state of Montana, asking that single payer be placed “on the table.”

The arrest of the eight has led to an outpouring of support for them in the form of e-mail messages and phone calls, and has prompted additional physicians from across the nation to travel Washington to join Tuesday’s demonstration.

Single-payer advocates say that replacing the fragmented, wasteful private health insurance system that the U.S. presently has with a single-payer system would result in administrative savings of more than $400 billion annually, enough to guarantee all necessary medical care for everyone in the country and to eliminate all co-pays or deductibles. Patients would no longer be restricted to private networks and would be able to go to the doctor and hospital of their choice.

“There seems to be some confusion in Congress about what type of choice Americans want when it comes to health care,” says Dr. Margaret Flowers, one of the eight arrested May 5. “Most Americans want a choice of health care provider and hospital and a choice of treatment without interference from health insurance companies, which value profits over patients’ needs.”

Tuesday’s action, which begins at 9:30 a.m., coincides with the 189th anniversary of the birth of Florence Nightingale, the 19th-century nurse whose work was distinguished by a commitment to patient care. The protest has been called by activist caregivers and patients from the Leadership Conference on Guaranteed Health Care, including the California Nurses Association, the National Nurses Organizing Committee, and Physicians for a National Health Program.

Organizers of the protest say the current proposals by Baucus for health care reform amount to a bailout for the for-profit, private health insurance industry. Among the leading ideas is a requirement that every American buy health insurance, something that Sen. Baucus calls an “individual obligation,” but which is really a mandate like the one recently implemented in Massachusetts.

Despite the fanfare over the Massachusetts reform, single-payer advocates say it has failed to ensure universal coverage or to control costs. The Massachusetts plan is facing an acute financial crisis, they say, and should not be used as a model for national reform.

Flowers notes that, not surprisingly, those who do have a seat at the congressional health reform table represent the same interests who profit off the current multi-payer system. These include Karen Ignagni of America’s Health Insurance Plans, the CEO of Blue Cross/Blue Shield and big-business players such as the Business Roundtable.

Baucus himself has close ties to health insurance and pharmaceutical corporations. During the 2008 election cycle, he received over $1 million in donations from these sectors. Between 1999 and 2005, Baucus was one of two top recipients of special-interest dollars. Over two dozen of his former staffers have worked or are working as lobbyists on K Street. In fact, Baucus has been given the title of “K Street’s favorite Democrat” by some who follow congressional lobbying.

Polls show a solid majority of the public and of physicians now support some form of national health insurance, but these findings have been repeatedly dismissed by Baucus.

“One has to wonder how much Sen. Baucus’ close ties to the private health industry interests are causing him to disregard or marginalize majority opinion on health care reform,” said Dr. Quentin Young, national coordinator of Physicians for a National Health Program. “We need a disinterested, evidence-based approach to determining what’s best for our patients and nation. We need to put all options on the table. I’m confident that with such an approach a single-payer national health program, an improved Medicare for All, will come out on top.”

###

Physicians for a National Health Program, a membership organization of over 16,000 physicians, supports a single-payer national health insurance program. To contact a physician-spokesperson in your state, visit www.pnhp.org/stateactions or call (312) 782-6006.

Most M.D.'s, citizens favor single-payer system

Richard Curtin, M.D.
Guest Opinion
Fort Meyers News-Press
May 7, 2009

This is in response to recent letters to the editor, which contain a number of points of misinformation regarding Medicare.

Medicare is not an example of socialized medicine, since the providers of care are not employed by the government.

The businesses are already shedding their health care insurance for employees as fast as they can and as the unemployed numbers increase, the numbers of people with health insurance will increase dramatically, already over 48 million.

The primary reason emergency rooms are filled with people is because of the people without health insurance usually cannot get care anywhere else.

Studies have shown that very little of the increase is caused by illegal immigrants since they avoid going there if at all possible.

Texas introduced caps on malpractice awards and it did little to change the rates of malpractice insurance premiums.

Total costs for medical care are approximately $8,000 per person in this country. Countries with single payer insurance usually pay about half of that. Our total costs are the highest in the industrialized the world.

By objective measurements of health care, we do not have the best care in the world. Yes, we have some of the best care but we rank about 37th in infant mortality, maternal mortality and have a lower longevity than many.

Medicare in this country allows free choice of physician, unless you join a Medicare Advantage plan run by an insurance company and then the plan may limit your choice.

I have met no one with Medicare who has chosen to give up Medicare to get their insurance in the private market.

Yes, it needs some improvement but is far superior to being without insurance or trying to pay thousands of dollars or not be able to get insurance otherwise.

A majority of physicians as well as a majority of citizens favor a single payer health care system on the basis of recent polls.

The Institute of Medicine estimates that about 20,000 people die each year in this country due to lack of health insurance.

In no other industrialized country can you lose you home, go bankrupt or die because you donĆ¢ā‚¬ā„¢t have adequate health insurance.

About 50 percent of bankruptcies are due to medical bills.

Richard Curtin, M.D., resides in Fort Myers.

Why we risked arrest for single-payer health care

By Margaret Flowers, M.D.
May 8, 2009

On May 5, eight health care advocates, including myself and two other physicians, stood up to Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and the Senate Finance Committee during a “public roundtable discussion” with a simple question: Will you allow an advocate for a single-payer national health plan to have a seat at the table?

The answer was a loud, “Get more police!” And we were arrested and hauled off to jail.

The fact that a national health insurance program is supported by the majority of the public, doctors and nurses apparently means nothing to Sen. Baucus. The fact that thousands of people in America are dying every year because they can’t get health care means nothing. The fact that over 1 million Americans go into bankruptcy every year due to medical debt — even though most of them had insurance when they got sick — means nothing.

And so, as the May 5 meeting approached, we prepared for another one of the highly scripted, well-protected events that are supposed to make up the “health care debate” using standard tools of advocacy. We organized call-in days and faxes to the members of the committee requesting the presence of one single-payer advocate at the table of 15. Despite thousands of calls and faxes, the only reply — received on the day before the event — was, “Sorry, but no more invitations will be issued.”

We knew that this couldn’t be correct. We had heard Sen. Baucus say on that very same day that “all options were on the table.” And so, the next day, we donned our suits and traveled to Washington. We had many knowledgeable single-payer advocates in our group. And as the meeting started, one of us, Mr. Russell Mokhiber, stood up to say that we were here and we were ready to take a seat. And he was promptly removed from the room.

In that moment, it all became so clear. We could write letters, phone staffers, and fax until the machines fell apart, but we would never get our seat at the table.

The senators understand that most people want a national health system and that an improved Medicare for All would include everybody and provide better health care at a lower cost. These facts mean nothing to most of them because they respond to only one standard tool of advocacy: money, and lots of it.

The people seated at the table represented the corporate interests: private health insurers and big business and those who support their agenda. The people whose voices were heard all represented organizations which pay huge sums of money to political campaigns. These interests profit greatly from the current health care industry and do not want changes that will hurt their large, personal pocketbooks.

And so, we have entered a new phase in the movement for health care as a human right: acts of civil disobedience. It is time to directly challenge corporate interests. History has shown that in order to gain human rights, we must be willing to speak out and risk arrest. We must engage in actions that expose corporate fraud and corruption. We must make our presence known.

And that is why the eight of us, knowledgeable health care advocates and providers, most of us parents, some of us grandparents, spoke out one-by-one at the Senate Finance Committee. And it is why we will continue to speak out and encourage others to do the same. Our voices must be strong enough to drown out the influence of corporate dollars.

Health care must become the civil rights movement of this decade. The opportunity is here. And we can create a single-payer national health care system.

Yes, we can.

Dr. Margaret Flowers is a pediatrician in Baltimore and co-chair of the Maryland chapter of Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP). Her statement was co-signed by Mark Dudzic, Labor Campaign for Single Payer; Russell Mokhiber, Single Payer Action; Carol Paris, M.D., PNHP; Katie Robbins, Healthcare-NOW!; Pat Salomon, M.D., PNHP; Adam Schneider, B’more Housing for All; and Kevin Zeese, ProsperityAgenda.us.

Most M.D.’s, citizens favor single-payer system

Richard Curtin, M.D.
Guest Opinion
Fort Meyers News-Press
May 7, 2009

This is in response to recent letters to the editor, which contain a number of points of misinformation regarding Medicare.

Medicare is not an example of socialized medicine, since the providers of care are not employed by the government.

The businesses are already shedding their health care insurance for employees as fast as they can and as the unemployed numbers increase, the numbers of people with health insurance will increase dramatically, already over 48 million.

The primary reason emergency rooms are filled with people is because of the people without health insurance usually cannot get care anywhere else.

Studies have shown that very little of the increase is caused by illegal immigrants since they avoid going there if at all possible.

Texas introduced caps on malpractice awards and it did little to change the rates of malpractice insurance premiums.

Total costs for medical care are approximately $8,000 per person in this country. Countries with single payer insurance usually pay about half of that. Our total costs are the highest in the industrialized the world.

By objective measurements of health care, we do not have the best care in the world. Yes, we have some of the best care but we rank about 37th in infant mortality, maternal mortality and have a lower longevity than many.

Medicare in this country allows free choice of physician, unless you join a Medicare Advantage plan run by an insurance company and then the plan may limit your choice.

I have met no one with Medicare who has chosen to give up Medicare to get their insurance in the private market.

Yes, it needs some improvement but is far superior to being without insurance or trying to pay thousands of dollars or not be able to get insurance otherwise.

A majority of physicians as well as a majority of citizens favor a single payer health care system on the basis of recent polls.

The Institute of Medicine estimates that about 20,000 people die each year in this country due to lack of health insurance.

In no other industrialized country can you lose you home, go bankrupt or die because you donĆ¢ā‚¬™t have adequate health insurance.

About 50 percent of bankruptcies are due to medical bills.

Richard Curtin, M.D., resides in Fort Myers.

Calling All Single Payer Supporters

If you have not already heard, THIS FRIDAY – MAY 8 – there is a TON of action being planned around the country, online, and on the street to urge Congress to put single payer on the table – pass HR676, S703, et al.

In light of the arrest this week of 8 activists including several doctors during the Senate Finance Committee’s healthcare reform “Roundtable,” this call to action is even more important.

Easy events anybody can participate in –

1. “Follow Friday:” If you’re on twitter, you should “tweet” single payer tweets until “single payer” gets onto Twitter.com’s “trending topics” board. Sign up for Twitter at: http://www.twitter.com and start by following “singlepayer”.

2. www.1payer.net has launched a “fax them ’til they drop’ campaign: http://1payer.net/campaigns/finance-committee.html to members of the Senate Finance Committee (See email sent earlier today)

3. Watch the footage from BOTH CSPAN and 1Payer of the arrests and what went on at the Senate this week: http://www.singlepayercentral.com

4. There is a “teach-in” this weekend in San Francisco (http://www.singlepayernow.net) and you can find lots more at the California Facebook group on single payer and SB810: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=19429248399&ref=nf

5. Everyday we’re calling (1) Senator Baucus re: his shutting out single payer and (2) the media who continue to refuse to cover these events (For example, NPR today, when asked why Bristol Palin and the tea parties got coverage but not the arrests of the MDs at the Senate, responded “I guess we didn’t think it [the arrests] were newsworthy”).

Baucus: (202) 224-2651

Find Media phone #s: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=111 Call and demand that they cover single payer issues.

NOW IS OUR MOMENT – President Obama said on March 5th, “In this [health reform] effort, every voice has to be heard. Every idea must be considered. Every option must be on the table. There should be no sacred cows.” LET”S HOLD HIM TO HIS WORD!!

Check Healthcare Activists at SinglePayerCentral.com (online 24/7 news updated hourly and resource clearinghouse for the single payer movement)

http://www.singlepayercentral.com
Facebook – California Universal Healthcare Act – SB810

Twitter – singlepayer

Originally from Floridians for Health Care

Frank Luntz's "The Language of Healthcare 2009"

THE LANGUAGE OF HEALTHCARE 2009

By Dr. Frank I. Luntz
This document is based on polling results and Instant Response dial sessions conducted in April 2009. It captures not just what Americans want to see but exactly what they want to hear. The Words That Work boxes that follow are already being used by a few Congressional and Senatorial Republicans. From today forward, they should be used by everyone.
You simply MUST be vocally and passionately on the side of reform. The status quo is no longer acceptable. If the dynamic becomes “President Obama is on the side of reform and Republicans are against it,” then the battle is lost and every word in this document is useless. Republicans must be for the right kind of reform that protects the quality of healthcare for all Americans. And you must establish your support of reform early in your presentation.
THE 10 RULES FOR STOPPING THE “WASHINGTON TAKEOVER” OF HEALTHCARE
(1) Humanize your approach.
(2) Acknowledge the “crisis” or suffer the consequences.
(3) “Time” is the government healthcare killer.
(4) The arguments against the Democrats’ healthcare plan must center around “politicians,” “bureaucrats,” and “Washington” … not the free market, tax incentives, or competition.
(5) The healthcare denial horror stories from Canada & Co. do resonate, but you have to humanize them.
(6) Healthcare quality = “getting the treatment you need, when you need it.”
7) “One-size-does-NOT-fit-all.”
(8) WASTE, FRAUD, and ABUSE are your best targets for how to bring down costs.
(9) Americans will expect the government to look out for those who truly can’t afford healthcare.
(10) It’s not enough to just say what you’re against. You have to tell them what you’re for.
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM116_luntz.html

This is an important document. It is Frank Luntz’s recommendation to the Republican politicians on how to frame the debate over health care reform. If you have been listening to the Republicans speak on reform, you have already heard some of the rhetoric, and you will recognize it as you read this report.
This is not a report on health policy. If you read it as if it were a policy paper, you will likely become angered over the liberties that Luntz takes with policy concepts. You will recognize a great many distortions and, worse, many instances in which his statements are not supported by the facts (i.e., “lies” in common parlance).
This is a report on political framing of the debate. It is designed to provide Republicans with political rhetoric that theoretically would shift support to the Republican positions for reform, and away from the Democratic positions. As you read it, you will see that there is a very strong emphasis on the latter, and very little on the former since the Republicans have almost nothing to offer in the way of substantial reform.
A note of caution: As you read the report, you will tend to fall into the trap of responding based on their framing of the issues. Do not do that. Always address the issues within our own framing structure. When you identify rhetoric that is blatantly untrue, you will tend to say, “That’s a lie.” Such ’tis so/’tis not debates are never productive and tend to favor the smooth talkers (predominantly Republicans). Instead, respond with highly credible facts that use the framing from our own arena.
Another word about lies. You will see that Frank Luntz does not have an issue with this. What counts is a strong message that appears to be credible, regardless of whether or not it is. On our side, we must never lie, nor even distort our message. We have established unblemished credibility with our message, and we must never do anything that might impair that credibility. That makes our task more difficult because we must be very careful that anything we say is supported by sound health policy science. But it also makes the Republicans vulnerable since they tend to concentrate on sound bites that are not based on sound policies. That risks exposing them as charlatans; we can do that with our carefully framed messages.
Some parts of the report actually provide good advice not only for the Republicans, but for the Democrats as well. In fact, you will identify some recommendations that have been lifted from our camp. We can continue to use these, and we should not attack them when they use the same rhetoric. Only when they twist it unfairly should we counter with our rhetoric describing the beneficial impacts of our policies.
Look at this example from the report: “What Americans are looking for in healthcare that your ‘solution’ will provide is, in a word, more: ‘more access to more treatments and more doctors…with less interference from insurance companies and Washington politicians and special interests.'”
What Luntz left unsaid is that these are features that more closely describe the progressive position. Most of the Republican policies would make these worse. Again, you wouldn’t respond by saying, “That’s not true.” You would respond by providing accurate sound bites on how the single payer proposal provides improved access by eliminating financial barriers to care, and single payer would eliminate the private insurance industry so it could no longer interfere with your care.
Wait. Progressive? Single payer? Isn’t my comment supposed to be talking about the framing to be used the Democrats? Well, we have a problem here.
Look at another example from Luntz’s report: “We suggest ratcheting up the rhetoric against insurance companies to almost the same degree as you do against Washington bureaucracy. Call the Democratic plan a ‘bailout for the insurance industry’ — both because it is, and because it will build lasting credibility by going after the two things the American people hate most: Washington bureaucracy and insurer greed.”
Wow! Luntz is right! The Democratic plan IS a “bailout for the insurance industry.” In fact, the Democrats have lost all credibility on this one when they have AHIP’s Karen Ignagni front and center at every hearing, every forum, every summit, and her operatives providing input to the closed-door sessions, while they have excluded from the process those who most vigorously attack the insurance companies – the single payer advocates.
Read Luntz’s report. Be prepared to respond using our framing. Attack their credibility when they provide us with obvious openings.
What is sobering is that we have to use the truth to attack both the Republican and the Democratic politicians. And this was to have been our great opening to provide high quality care for everyone.
But don’t give up. The Democrats’ plan won’t work. They’ll still need us to fix our system when their failure becomes painfully obvious.

Frank Luntz's "The Language of Healthcare 2009"

THE LANGUAGE OF HEALTHCARE 2009

By Dr. Frank I. Luntz

This document is based on polling results and Instant Response dial sessions conducted in April 2009. It captures not just what Americans want to see but exactly what they want to hear. The Words That Work boxes that follow are already being used by a few Congressional and Senatorial Republicans. From today forward, they should be used by everyone.

You simply MUST be vocally and passionately on the side of reform. The status quo is no longer acceptable. If the dynamic becomes “President Obama is on the side of reform and Republicans are against it,” then the battle is lost and every word in this document is useless. Republicans must be for the right kind of reform that protects the quality of healthcare for all Americans. And you must establish your support of reform early in your presentation.

THE 10 RULES FOR STOPPING THE “WASHINGTON TAKEOVER” OF HEALTHCARE

(1) Humanize your approach.

(2) Acknowledge the “crisis” or suffer the consequences.

(3) “Time” is the government healthcare killer.

(4) The arguments against the Democrats’ healthcare plan must center around “politicians,” “bureaucrats,” and “Washington” … not the free market, tax incentives, or competition.

(5) The healthcare denial horror stories from Canada & Co. do resonate, but you have to humanize them.

(6) Healthcare quality = “getting the treatment you need, when you need it.”

7) “One-size-does-NOT-fit-all.”

(8) WASTE, FRAUD, and ABUSE are your best targets for how to bring down costs.

(9) Americans will expect the government to look out for those who truly can’t afford healthcare.

(10) It’s not enough to just say what you’re against. You have to tell them what you’re for.

http://www.politico.com/static/PPM116_luntz.html

Comment:

By Don McCanne, MD

This is an important document. It is Frank Luntz’s recommendation to the Republican politicians on how to frame the debate over health care reform. If you have been listening to the Republicans speak on reform, you have already heard some of the rhetoric, and you will recognize it as you read this report.

This is not a report on health policy. If you read it as if it were a policy paper, you will likely become angered over the liberties that Luntz takes with policy concepts. You will recognize a great many distortions and, worse, many instances in which his statements are not supported by the facts (i.e., “lies” in common parlance).

This is a report on political framing of the debate. It is designed to provide Republicans with political rhetoric that theoretically would shift support to the Republican positions for reform, and away from the Democratic positions. As you read it, you will see that there is a very strong emphasis on the latter, and very little on the former since the Republicans have almost nothing to offer in the way of substantial reform.

A note of caution: As you read the report, you will tend to fall into the trap of responding based on their framing of the issues. Do not do that. Always address the issues within our own framing structure. When you identify rhetoric that is blatantly untrue, you will tend to say, “That’s a lie.” Such ’tis so/’tis not debates are never productive and tend to favor the smooth talkers (predominantly Republicans). Instead, respond with highly credible facts that use the framing from our own arena.

Another word about lies. You will see that Frank Luntz does not have an issue with this. What counts is a strong message that appears to be credible, regardless of whether or not it is. On our side, we must never lie, nor even distort our message. We have established unblemished credibility with our message, and we must never do anything that might impair that credibility. That makes our task more difficult because we must be very careful that anything we say is supported by sound health policy science. But it also makes the Republicans vulnerable since they tend to concentrate on sound bites that are not based on sound policies. That risks exposing them as charlatans; we can do that with our carefully framed messages.

Some parts of the report actually provide good advice not only for the Republicans, but for the Democrats as well. In fact, you will identify some recommendations that have been lifted from our camp. We can continue to use these, and we should not attack them when they use the same rhetoric. Only when they twist it unfairly should we counter with our rhetoric describing the beneficial impacts of our policies.

Look at this example from the report: “What Americans are looking for in healthcare that your ‘solution’ will provide is, in a word, more: ‘more access to more treatments and more doctors…with less interference from insurance companies and Washington politicians and special interests.'”

What Luntz left unsaid is that these are features that more closely describe the progressive position. Most of the Republican policies would make these worse. Again, you wouldn’t respond by saying, “That’s not true.” You would respond by providing accurate sound bites on how the single payer proposal provides improved access by eliminating financial barriers to care, and single payer would eliminate the private insurance industry so it could no longer interfere with your care.

Wait. Progressive? Single payer? Isn’t my comment supposed to be talking about the framing to be used the Democrats? Well, we have a problem here.

Look at another example from Luntz’s report: “We suggest ratcheting up the rhetoric against insurance companies to almost the same degree as you do against Washington bureaucracy. Call the Democratic plan a ‘bailout for the insurance industry’ — both because it is, and because it will build lasting credibility by going after the two things the American people hate most: Washington bureaucracy and insurer greed.”

Wow! Luntz is right! The Democratic plan IS a “bailout for the insurance industry.” In fact, the Democrats have lost all credibility on this one when they have AHIP’s Karen Ignagni front and center at every hearing, every forum, every summit, and her operatives providing input to the closed-door sessions, while they have excluded from the process those who most vigorously attack the insurance companies – the single payer advocates.

Read Luntz’s report. Be prepared to respond using our framing. Attack their credibility when they provide us with obvious openings.

What is sobering is that we have to use the truth to attack both the Republican and the Democratic politicians. And this was to have been our great opening to provide high quality care for everyone.

But don’t give up. The Democrats’ plan won’t work. They’ll still need us to fix our system when their failure becomes painfully obvious.

Frank Luntz’s “The Language of Healthcare 2009”

THE LANGUAGE OF HEALTHCARE 2009

By Dr. Frank I. Luntz

This document is based on polling results and Instant Response dial sessions conducted in April 2009. It captures not just what Americans want to see but exactly what they want to hear. The Words That Work boxes that follow are already being used by a few Congressional and Senatorial Republicans. From today forward, they should be used by everyone.

You simply MUST be vocally and passionately on the side of reform. The status quo is no longer acceptable. If the dynamic becomes “President Obama is on the side of reform and Republicans are against it,” then the battle is lost and every word in this document is useless. Republicans must be for the right kind of reform that protects the quality of healthcare for all Americans. And you must establish your support of reform early in your presentation.

THE 10 RULES FOR STOPPING THE “WASHINGTON TAKEOVER” OF HEALTHCARE

(1) Humanize your approach.

(2) Acknowledge the “crisis” or suffer the consequences.

(3) “Time” is the government healthcare killer.

(4) The arguments against the Democrats’ healthcare plan must center around “politicians,” “bureaucrats,” and “Washington” … not the free market, tax incentives, or competition.

(5) The healthcare denial horror stories from Canada & Co. do resonate, but you have to humanize them.

(6) Healthcare quality = “getting the treatment you need, when you need it.”

7) “One-size-does-NOT-fit-all.”

(8) WASTE, FRAUD, and ABUSE are your best targets for how to bring down costs.

(9) Americans will expect the government to look out for those who truly can’t afford healthcare.

(10) It’s not enough to just say what you’re against. You have to tell them what you’re for.

http://www.politico.com/static/PPM116_luntz.html

Comment:

By Don McCanne, MD

This is an important document. It is Frank Luntz’s recommendation to the Republican politicians on how to frame the debate over health care reform. If you have been listening to the Republicans speak on reform, you have already heard some of the rhetoric, and you will recognize it as you read this report.

This is not a report on health policy. If you read it as if it were a policy paper, you will likely become angered over the liberties that Luntz takes with policy concepts. You will recognize a great many distortions and, worse, many instances in which his statements are not supported by the facts (i.e., “lies” in common parlance).

This is a report on political framing of the debate. It is designed to provide Republicans with political rhetoric that theoretically would shift support to the Republican positions for reform, and away from the Democratic positions. As you read it, you will see that there is a very strong emphasis on the latter, and very little on the former since the Republicans have almost nothing to offer in the way of substantial reform.

A note of caution: As you read the report, you will tend to fall into the trap of responding based on their framing of the issues. Do not do that. Always address the issues within our own framing structure. When you identify rhetoric that is blatantly untrue, you will tend to say, “That’s a lie.” Such ’tis so/’tis not debates are never productive and tend to favor the smooth talkers (predominantly Republicans). Instead, respond with highly credible facts that use the framing from our own arena.

Another word about lies. You will see that Frank Luntz does not have an issue with this. What counts is a strong message that appears to be credible, regardless of whether or not it is. On our side, we must never lie, nor even distort our message. We have established unblemished credibility with our message, and we must never do anything that might impair that credibility. That makes our task more difficult because we must be very careful that anything we say is supported by sound health policy science. But it also makes the Republicans vulnerable since they tend to concentrate on sound bites that are not based on sound policies. That risks exposing them as charlatans; we can do that with our carefully framed messages.

Some parts of the report actually provide good advice not only for the Republicans, but for the Democrats as well. In fact, you will identify some recommendations that have been lifted from our camp. We can continue to use these, and we should not attack them when they use the same rhetoric. Only when they twist it unfairly should we counter with our rhetoric describing the beneficial impacts of our policies.

Look at this example from the report: “What Americans are looking for in healthcare that your ‘solution’ will provide is, in a word, more: ‘more access to more treatments and more doctors…with less interference from insurance companies and Washington politicians and special interests.'”

What Luntz left unsaid is that these are features that more closely describe the progressive position. Most of the Republican policies would make these worse. Again, you wouldn’t respond by saying, “That’s not true.” You would respond by providing accurate sound bites on how the single payer proposal provides improved access by eliminating financial barriers to care, and single payer would eliminate the private insurance industry so it could no longer interfere with your care.

Wait. Progressive? Single payer? Isn’t my comment supposed to be talking about the framing to be used the Democrats? Well, we have a problem here.

Look at another example from Luntz’s report: “We suggest ratcheting up the rhetoric against insurance companies to almost the same degree as you do against Washington bureaucracy. Call the Democratic plan a ‘bailout for the insurance industry’ — both because it is, and because it will build lasting credibility by going after the two things the American people hate most: Washington bureaucracy and insurer greed.”

Wow! Luntz is right! The Democratic plan IS a “bailout for the insurance industry.” In fact, the Democrats have lost all credibility on this one when they have AHIP’s Karen Ignagni front and center at every hearing, every forum, every summit, and her operatives providing input to the closed-door sessions, while they have excluded from the process those who most vigorously attack the insurance companies – the single payer advocates.

Read Luntz’s report. Be prepared to respond using our framing. Attack their credibility when they provide us with obvious openings.

What is sobering is that we have to use the truth to attack both the Republican and the Democratic politicians. And this was to have been our great opening to provide high quality care for everyone.

But don’t give up. The Democrats’ plan won’t work. They’ll still need us to fix our system when their failure becomes painfully obvious.