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.

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.

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.

Schumer Offers Middle Ground on Health Care

By Robert Pear
The New York Times
May 5, 2009
In an effort to defuse the most explosive issue in the debate over comprehensive health care legislation, a top Senate Democrat has proposed that any new government-run insurance program comply with all the rules and standards that apply to private insurance.
The proposal was made Monday by Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, the third-ranking member of the Senate Democratic leadership, in a bid to address fears that a public program would drive private insurers from the market.
Democrats in Congress hope to shift the debate from the question of whether to create a public health insurance plan to the question of how it would work.
“The public plan,” Mr. Schumer said Monday, “must be subject to the same regulations and requirements as all other plans” in the insurance market.
The chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana, asked Mr. Schumer to seek a solution. In his response, Mr. Schumer set forth these principles:
* The public plan must be self-sustaining. It should pay claims with money raised from premiums and co-payments. It should not receive tax revenue or appropriations from the government.
* The public plan should pay doctors and hospitals more than what Medicare pays. Medicare rates, set by law and regulation, are often lower than what private insurers pay.
* The government should not compel doctors and hospitals to participate in a public plan just because they participate in Medicare.
* To prevent the government from serving as both “player and umpire,” the officials who manage a public plan should be different from those who regulate the insurance market.
In addition, Mr. Schumer said, the public plan should be required to establish a reserve fund, just as private insurers must maintain reserves for the payment of anticipated claims. And he said the public plan should be required to provide the same minimum benefits as private insurers.
Karen M. Ignagni, president of America’s Health Insurance Plans, a trade group, said, “We are very, very grateful that members of Congress have been thoughtfully looking at our concerns.” But she said she still saw no need for a public plan “if you have much more aggressive regulation of insurance,” which the industry has agreed to support.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/05/health/policy/05health.html?ref=politics

The success of the effort to reform health care seemed to be threatened by the disagreement over whether or not a public insurance option should be offered to compete with private health plans. All Republicans have expressed opposition to the public option, indicating that it would be a deal breaker if included. The Progressive Caucus in the House, which actually wants single payer, has taken a position that leaving the public option out of the reform legislation would be a deal breaker.
To prevent gridlock, Sen. Charles Schumer offers the simple solution of “public option light” so that it would not be a deal breaker for either side. The progressives would have a government-sponsored plan in the mix of private plans, and the Republicans would have government-sponsored plan that is indistinguishable from private plans, creating a level playing field. Thus each side could move forward with reform without having to implement their deal-breaking rhetoric.
This is not simply Sen. Schumer’s personal effort defuse this bomb. His public option compromise was prepared at the request of Sen. Max Baucus who has been working closely with Sen. Charles Grassley to craft truly bipartisan reform legislation. In fact, at yesterday’s Senate Finance Committee hearing on expanding health care coverage, in addition to the fifteen scheduled witnesses, Sen. Baucus called on committee member Schumer to present the public option compromise.
Look at the history of what has happened here. The progressives were told by the moderates that the votes for single payer were not there. So negotiations began from a position that single payer was off the table. The progressive community then decided to concede that the Republicans and the insurance industry could have their market of private plans, and that the compromise position that all could accept would be the addition of a public insurance option.
In the compromise process, the Republicans and the insurance industry finally made their move. That was, “drop dead.” The Progressive Caucus responded with, “we’ve already come more than half way, so now you drop dead.” So now we have the Schumer compromise of public option light, which now has been blessed as the current, official Democratic position, even though it moves even closer to the Republican position.
What have the Republicans conceded so far? Nothing. What is the insurance industry’s position on a competing public plan that looks just like their private plans? Karen Ignagni of AHIP says that she still sees “no need for a public plan.” No concession.
The Democrats have already conceded on an effective public plan option. They have conceded that universal coverage is not possible so we should merely “aim for universal.” They have admitted that they have not figured out a way to pay for plans with adequate benefits for working families. They have abandoned support of policies that would improve value while controlling costs.
The Democrats have already given away all major policies for reform, and the Republicans haven’t had to budge the least. Why should they when the Democrats are rushing in their direction?
It is ironic that yesterday, at the Senate Finance hearing, one by one, eight individuals, including physicians from PNHP, stood up and offered to present policies that would work.
One of them stated, “… single payer national health care; we want a seat at the table.”
Sen. Baucus responded, “We want police,” and he got them. Each was arrested in turn.
That allowed enough time for Sen. Baucus to add Sen. Schumer as an additional pseudo-witness so that they could kill the last, but all-too-feeble effort at real reform – the public option.

Hearing on “Expanding Health Care Coverage”

Senate Committee on Finance
May 5, 2009
The opening of the hearing was disrupted by a passionate protest from the audience…
Person from audience: (at end of the protest)… We need health care now! Put single payer on the table now!
Sen. John Kerry: Is there anyone in the audience who didn’t come to…
(Laughter)
Sen Max Baucus: Let me say this. I think I speak for everybody on the committee and everybody in the Congress… deeply, deeply respect the views of all members of the audience and of all Americans who feel deeply about health care reform, especially those who are worried about single pay system, public option, who really do fervently believe that is the proper result. That is a view that many people have. It’s a view which I respect. There are other approaches to health care reform which also I respect. The whole point of this hearing and other hearings is to try to determine the best route, the best option, in determining how to best reform our country’s health care system. So for those of you who remain in the audience who may be inclined to stand up and, out of order, to state your views, I encourage you to not do so, because I want you to know that I personally care deeply about your views. I deeply respect your views. I hear what you say. I talk to a lot of people in my home state of Montana who have the exact same views. I represent 900,000 of the world’s best bosses, Montanans, and many of them have the very same view. But we aren’t going to get the best result here… the more we can have an orderly discussion of how we should best reform the health care system. So I want to say to everyone, especially those of you who might be inclined to stand up, that I urge you not to so we can proceed with the hearing holding your views also deeply in mind as we proceed. Thank you.
http://finance.senate.gov/sitepages/hearing050509.html (includes the list of witnesses and their testimonies)

Apparently the single payer views must have been held very deeply, hidden in the minds of the Senators and the witnesses, since at no time during the hearing was single payer discussed as an option for reform.
It is one thing to respect the views of those who support a model of reform that actually would provide all necessary health care for everyone and make it affordable for each and every individual, but it is quite something else to restrict the discussion to options that cannot ever achieve those goals.
This hearing represents the the framework of reform that is being crafted behind closed doors. The tragedy is that any bill that results from this process will delay further the reform that we desperately need. In the meantime, tens of millions or more will face unnecessary physical suffering and financial hardship, and many will die.
The epitaph: BUT MY VIEWS WERE RESPECTED