The Talking Points Few Noticed

[babylonsister]

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_11/020918.php

THE TALKING POINTS FEW NOTICED.... Dave Weigel tweeted this morning, "Oh, 'Morning Joe' cast, do you seriously think Obama didn't sell HCR as 'cost control' from the beginning? Were you in a coma?"

The cast of the MSNBC morning show aren't the only ones confused. Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) told the far-right Washington Times, "I wish the president would have started the debate by explaining to the American people that our current health care system is not financially sustainable, for even another decade. Driving down health care costs should have been the focus of the debate."

It was apparently quite a widespread coma.

Marc Ambinder valiantly tries to explain that this is "unreality."

The FIRST argument that the White House turned to about health care was about the cost of doing nothing.(It was Tom Daschle's formulation, actually, that Obama adopted during the campaign and the transition and the early part of this year.)

From December 22: ""Some may ask how at this moment of economic challenge we can afford to invest in reforming our health-care system. And I ask a different question. I ask how can we afford not to."

Progressive activists didn't like the obsessive focus on cost. And they believe that the president hemmed himself in by imposing a seemingly arbitrary $900 billion cap on costs over ten years.

The argument THEY wanted him to make--the liberal argument, if you will -- is a moral argument. People are getting sick and dying because they can't afford health care in a country of plenty. But Obama subordinated that argument to focus on cost.

This isn't a subjective question. Mark Warner and the "Morning Joe" cast may think the White House didn't emphasize the cost argument, but their collective memories aren't quite as reliable as transcripts.

In his first weekly address devoted exclusively to talking about health care, President Obama referenced the word "cost" 10 times, including the unambiguous line: "{T}he soaring costs of health care make our current course unsustainable." A week later, he delivered another weekly address, focused on nothing but health care costs: "The President has long noted that skyrocketing health care costs will be disastrous in terms of our long term national debt unless we pass real reform."

He went on to emphasize this argument in interviews, speeches, addresses, and statements. It was hard to miss.

This was a fundamental part of the pitch from the very beginning. Obama talked about costs on the campaign trail, as president-elect, and throughout the process. Maybe that was the right strategy, maybe not. But for relevant political players to pretend this reality never happened is absurd.

—Steve Benen

[abluelady]

1. That is Exactly What Bill Clinton Did

He pushed health care reform as an economic issue. Maybe if we could push it as a moral issue, we could cover more ground. That is how universal health care became successful in every other modern country. Absolutely, the costs need to be addressed, but I believe it is easier to talk money when the "purpose" is morality.

[uponit7771]

6. Both could've been pushed but pugs lie to the religious right about abortion and they sit on the sid

[John Q. Citizen]

8. Economic issues are morality issues. When children are hungrey, when

people are sleeping in cars or outside, they are usually in economic distress.

If cost keep escalating, then people cannot afford health care at some point. That's the root of our moral dilemma. In an attempt to preserve the profit making motive of private insurance companies who add nothing of value to the system, we are driving up costs which mean that some people go without health care.

If we contain costs, then we can afford health care.

[abluelady]

10. Absolutely

But we are stressing the $$$$ rather than the morality. Why must $$$$ be the first idea?

[John Q. Citizen]

14. Because this bill is all about the money, for the health care industrial complex. It's isn't about

cost containment, it's about tax payer subsidized corporations.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

11. The people who care about it as a moral issue are already on our side.

I find it difficult to believe that the moral case would move the bar even one iota.

[abluelady]

15. But Maybe If We Were As Loud

as they are, we could make a point. It could also change the discussion. Why does the GOP always run the agenda! We are always having to respond.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

16. In answer to your last part...

It's because creating things is always inherently more difficult than tearing them down. The GOP doesn't create anything - they only destroy. The agenda is always easier for them to control, and it always will be.

[Cha]

20. Excellent point.

[Kdillard]

2. I noticed but it seems like some people would rather spread misinformation.

[babylonsister]

4. There's no excuse for Warner not knowing this; as for the morning shmo

crew, they revel in spreading misinformation.

[Kdillard]

7. Dems always have a problem with message unity. However you are right

There is no excuse for Warner not knowing this information.

[Cha]

21. Maybe because the corporatemediawhoredom

have the bully pulpit and spread disinformation?

And, the repubs lie when they open their collective gin hole.

[Phx_Dem]

3. The Morning Joe cast is wrong 90 percent of the time for the

reasons mentioned above. They either conveniently forget facts or they're just too stupid to know what's going on in front of their faces.

[John Q. Citizen]

5. Obama said cost control. But his solution doesn't contain cost control. That is the primary

reason that i oppose the house bill. No cost control. Which means it's not sustainable, it's a short term high cost fix that will result in having to cut benefits as the cost rises.

The Public Option was sold as cost control, when it was to be a large Medicare like pool that reimbursed at Medicare rates and came pre-populated with 30-40 million of the nations uninsured, plus was open enrollment to the rest of the country.

Now that the President didn't demand a real solution, like that or like single payer, which has a long track record of cost containment, we have an expensive short term stimulas health care plan with no cost containment.

The President promised cost containment, but didn't demand cost containment from congress. He didn't lead on cost containment.

[OHdem10]

9. The Problem was not whether Obams mentioned cost control

or whatever.

When I say the following it is not to bash. It is to explain.

It is not substance, it is the marketing or lack thereof.

After all the years of Republican Success, the Democrats instead
of learning lessons appear to ignore a few simple principles.

Example: Yes, Obama mentioned costs and cost control.
However, that is how it came across. He mentioned it.
There was no passion, no urgency. Most of all there was
no repetiton. Worse yet, there was not a string of Democrats
from the Hill appearing on Television especially the Cable
Channels and REPEATING A DEMOCRATIC MESSAGE of what is
going on with Health Care. AFFIRMING Obamas message.

Instead, they appeared to shy away from Cameras the entire
summer. The GOP who excel at getting their message out
and have influence the American People against the bill.

Instead of selling their HCR, they permitted the GOP to
almost derail it.

I admire Obama's coolness under pressure as much as the
next one, but Coolness does not sell a program--Passion
does. The Democrats on the Hill need to assume their
leadership role and get out there and Sell.

Of course, they have a hard sell. As a Liberal I have
a difficult time buying Republican lite.

[BeFree]

12. Yes, well

The republican heavies were sailing the hijacked ship of state on
'what will this cost us'. So, we have fought fire with fire.

Now their ship of state has taken a big hit and is floundering. The liberal
sharks are licking their chops, watching as the rats go overboard.

Their ship is going down. Even their captains have abandoned the ship
to the chief petty officers beck and baugh.

The pirates of a public HCR are sinking the fleet of insurance corporations
which was once considered as an invincible armada.

AArggghhh!!

[jotsy]

13. Caught a couple of PBS Frontlines last night on how our costs compare globally.

Suffice it to say we didn't stack up too well, no one is looking to emulate the model we employ. Most of the world understands profit and free market principles applied to the practice of medicine is a decidedly bad idea. I miss the days when we were the ones to set the trend of how a free society is supposed to work.

When I read the threads title, I had hoped to find a mirror of some of my own quiet notions, an enlightening read, as always, none the less, tyvm.

In the process of assessing who should pay how much, I find myself reflecting on two primary questions. First, if claims for auto insurance, over the course of a life, are comparable to what is paid in claims for medical services, and my guess is those numbers aren't too far flung from one another, then why such a gap in costs to the consumer? Secondly, how many health issues can be traced back to corporate polluters, and why aren't they made to part with a percentage of their profits to pay for their practices being part of the problem?

[Peacetrain]

17. Everyday folks, Politicians, Chat Room Philosophers.. all love their own version of the facts

Truth be damned.. as long as they can do an I told you so.. even if it is built on sand

Good Op!

[ProSense]

18. Obama made health reform an economic issue from day one

"Obama’s budget...included language allowing for the use of...reconciliation...to pass health care"

[Cha]

19. I got it..why didn't they?

And, I went on to tell that to family and friends..it was a huge point.

Selective memory from the "media" or are they not as able to remember things as when they were younger?

[earth mom]

22. Obama should start thinking about the "cost" to his re-election campaign because it's not looking

good. :thumbsdown: