"Little words can mean death or life to someone."
-Electra, in Sophocles’ tragedy, Electra.
People die who could be saved. People suffer who could recover. Those are the consequences of the private insurance-based health care system in America today.
We can reform the system at little cost and no risk to our own health, saving hundreds of thousands or millions of lives and medically treating millions more who go untreated.
I can’t write it any plainer than that. The facts are not in dispute. The U.S. ranks last in measurements of citizen health among the six top industrialized nations. So how do insurance industry hirelings (otherwise known as conservative Republicans) make their case against health care reform? How do they justify this inhuman, deadly status quo?
Conservative propagandist Frank Luntz tells them how. Lie. Am I overstating it to claim that such lies, if successful, will cause death and harm to millions? No.
In the ancient Greek tragedian Sophocles’ play from which the epigram above is drawn, Orestes justifies a deception with these "little words":
Can a mere story be evil? No of course not – so long as it pays in the end.
Is there a more concise way of defining the anti-ethic that seems to drive so much of our American political life? Is it not how the mainstream media assesses candidates and officeholders? Is it not how politicians assess themselves? Is it not what makes it possible for a nation to promote death and suffering to enrich and empower a few insurance executives and the politicians they keep in their servants’ quarters?
The story Orestes told himself – that mere stories can’t be evil – is itself evil. That’s tragic irony, of course. I believe it’s fair to label Luntz’s stories evil, without irony or exaggeration.
This last week, my colleagues, George Lakoff and Eric Haas, wrote about Luntz’s health care lies and made recommendations for framing the principles of reform. You can read that here.
Luntz suggests that opponents of reform humanize their language about health care to avoid humanizing health care. He recommends raising unfounded fears of treatment delays in a system in which government simply plays its moral role of citizen protector. He says it should be argued that bureaucrats would destroy the patient-doctor relationship. He suggests conservatives argue for, "A balanced, common sense approach that provides assistance to those who truly need it and keeps healthcare patient-centered rather than government-centered for everyone."
As Lakoff, Haas and I argued, an American Plan will recognize that health care is part of the moral mission of government. It will cost less and do more to save lives and keep Americans healthy. Private health insurance runs administrative costs of 15 to 20 percent, with most of those costs stemming from the effort to deny treatment. An American plan can reduce that overhead to three or four percent.
Perhaps the most important difference between our approach and Luntz’s is that our principles are true. They are honest expressions of progressive values. You can read policy recommendations our values might produce in Jacob S. Hacker’s report, "Healthy Competition."
Luntz’s talking points are based on lies. The "true" value motivating Luntz and his followers is, "Profits matter more than life." They don’t dare say that, though.
At the center of the insurance industry’s argument is the claim that a national health care plan will have government bureaucrats destroying the patient-doctor relationship. In other words, we are being told to beware of bureaucrats by the completely unaccountable and invisible private insurance bureaucrats who have for decades been denying payment for sound medical care because it falls on the wrong side of their spreadsheets full of numbers.
HMOs and other private insurance schemes are governments. We just don’t get to elect them. Since the insurance industry first waded into the health care business less than a century ago, they have managed to use the government we do elect to eliminate their risks, guarantee their profits, and legalize what is nothing more than accountant-managed euthanasia.
Yes, Electra, little words can mean death or life. It is evil to use the words of life to promote a world of death.
I hope Frank Luntz will think about that. I hope the media that covers the health care debate will think about that. Winning is not a measure of morality. It can’t justify an evil story. Truth really is the best medicine.



69 Comments












Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
It is very worrisome, but this isn’t 1994, the whole atmosphere is different. On May 30th there will demonstrations all over the country in favor of Medicare for All
http://www.healthcare-now.org/…..of-action/
Nothing like that happened in 1994.
You’re right, but the industry also knows it’s not 1994. For instance, I think the industry industry has welcomed, if not instigated, a lot of the extremist “socialism” babble from the Right as part of a pre-emptive campaign on health care reform.
There’s is no question that the crisis is far worse. People won’t be fooled as easily, but they might still be fooled.
Thoughtful. Thank you, Glenn.
I really wish that a class action false advertising suit could be brought against the vulture insurance industry.
Thanks. The framing war on health care reform will be intense. Just hoping we’re all prepared…
While it would be better than what many people have (nothing), as a Medicare recipient I can tell you it is no panacea. Also not cheap to people on fixed incomes. My Medicare premium eats up nearly one fifth of my monthly disability income. Also, Medicare is nearly as likely to deny services when a patient doesn’t meet certain criteria as private insurance companies.
I s’pose the first amendment protects lies as well, though I think the industry’s scare-words come close to shouting fire in a movie theatre. I mean, if legal precedent says such words are not protected because they might cause people to die, then it oughta apply to Luntz, ’cause people sure will die.
Here in CO we have a state plan before the legislature. They had a program on PBS to which the single payer advocates were not invited. After raising caine they had a second show featuring single payer.
The republicans are liars through and through. I wrote here about the lies they spread about bankruptcy cramdown. Luntz and his ilk have been lying so long there isn’t a breath of truth left in them. Your hope that he will understand the evil he pushes is vain: he is a Myrmidon.
Was that national or local PBS affiliate? Are there links to reports on that CO controversy?
OT The Dalai Lama is on Fareed Zacharia – OMG his arm is bare
Must mean Michelle Obama is a secret Buddhist. Now we know…
selise in particular has been very good and very consistent about pointing out the human cost of policy decisions.
Think about how morally dead most of our politicians, Republican and Democrat, are. The need to bring healthcare to all Americans has been around for decades. The British began a series of national healthcare systems after WWII which were consolidated in the late 60s. Canada began a national system in the late 60s as well. That’s 40 years ago. Clinton tried partial limited moves in the early 90s. These were shot down mostly by Republicans and since then there has been nothing.
During those 40 years, you have to wonder how many millions of Americans died unnecessarily, had their lives shortened, or the quality of their life destroyed because politicians in this country preferred selling out the health and lives of Americans to insurance companies, HMOs, Big Pharma, and other lobbies?
As I said above, both parties have done this on many issues. We have millions of Americans who have lost and will lose their homes through foreclosure. Millions have lost jobs. Tens of millions are struggling with debt. Yet where have all the trillions gone? Not to these, but precisely to those who engaged in massive frauds and pushed the economy over the edge purely out of greed.
The real pain and lives lost out here don’t mean a damn thing to our leaders, Republican or Democrat. Their only use for us, their victims, is as stage props. Soldiers standing behind Bush, or as those anecdotal references that have become de rigueur at the end of vacuous speeches: “John Doe who died fighting for his country in …, Emily who lost her job or healthcare or home because… blah, blah, blah.” Then they go off and vote for more wars, more money for banks as if the Johns and Emilys of this world never existed because for our nation’s leaders they don’t.
Then maybe we’re finding their Achilles’ heels. You were right on cramdown. There’s nothing uglier in history than efforts by the economic elite enforce class barriers. The great lie: that since their wealth is deserved then the poverty and economic suffering of those below them is deserved, is their fault. They can’t abandon the latter without abandoning the self-deception at the center of their empty selves.
It was one of the local PBS stations. I will try to find a link.
Where are you, Selise?
Hugh, you’re right, and that’s why the framing has to avoid abstractions and stay with the flesh-and-blood. Overly rationalistic systems talk has plagued progressive efforts of the past.
from your link:
the problem is that not that dems aren’t doing a good job of describing what they are proposing. first, i haven’t seen a proposal – so let’s be clear that they haven’t actually propsed anything yet. but more importantly, it’s that that the dems are trying like the dickens to make sure is that what we really need – some kind of single payer system – can not be discussed.
for crying out loud – just look at the so-called health care reform hearing last week. corporate representatives at the table while the option most favored by the american public thrown out of the room. remember the protesting doctors being removed and bacus saying that more police were needed?
Here is a link – best I could find
http://www.rmpbs.org/stateofmind
That was a bold (assholic) move by Baucus, and was only possible with explicit & implicit cover from the entire Dem caucus.
i agree there are lots of problems with medicare – and fixing them should be a high priority.
Thanks.
That’s the first I heard of it.
a last resort.. could we eliminate the over-generous health coverage we give our congresscritters and their families …
would that make a point ??
with RA being one of six specifically excluded “pre-existing conditions” .. i can’t even buy health insurance ..
as long as the insurers can opt to only insure the healthy .. their guaranteed profits will continue ..
and where’s the “morality” in making “health” a for-profit venture in the first place ..
it sucks ..
thank you Glenn …
After 8 years of Bush trying to prove that anything the government does is done badly is there any surprise there are problems
I agree. The Dems refuse to see that the real-world problem IS insurance industry profits. Those profits are earned from the denial of care. The insurance industry waited a long time to get into health because everyone gets sick, everyone needs a doctor. Property insurance is a better bet, ’cause not everyone’s house burns down. When they figured out that government would protect a system with no risks for them, a system that allowed exclusion of coverage and denial of benefits, well, that’s how they generate their profits.
So Dems are, I fear, trying to avoid political war with the insurance army by looking for some kind of moderate compromise. But you can’t compromise with death, so to speak.
that’s why i think the dems need first and foremost a new approach to health care reform policy and not just better framing for a shitty policy.
Thanks. That’s a revealing dust-up.
Newt is a disciple of Luntz. Today in Newt’s choice of words on Fox this was on bold display as was the damage this abuse of language does to political discourse.
Examples: “Nuts,” “Crazy,” “put allege terrorists on welfare,” “voted to protect abortionists to kill babies still alive,” “weird pattern,” “[Obama’s lawyers] prepared to take huge risks with Americans in order to defend terrorists” and “a bitter partisan attack on Bush people, as much as we have seen since the McCarthy era.”
This is the state organization
http://www.healthcareforallcolorado.org/
To date, the government solution to controlling Medicare costs has been to crack down on providers and insist that they deny service to individuals who do not meet predetermined requirements.
For example, last winter when my aunt had a badly broken left arm and a dislocated right shoulder, the hospital refused to admit her because Medicare designates both injuries as only requiring outpatient treatments. The fact that she was 85-years old and could not use either arm were not deemed relevant factors.
No doubt.
Someone with high approval ratings (I wonder where we’d find somebody like that) needs to take that number out not just for test drives, but a real spin. Elbows are in order, and the high-approval guy is devoted to throwing them only while delivering a comic speech. It is disheartening.
Shows the need for an extensive educational campaign
Bullseye. Thank you.
Honest framing isn’t spin, it should be an honest expression of deep frames/values that make us progressives.
Dems should advocate for the whole enchilada. Do I think we’re going to first go to a competitive government option? Yes.
They also have a table of what they will pay for certain things that varies across the country.
if you think there is no compromise with death, then why are you trying to help sell what the dems are doing? why not just call them on it and use your skills to help move the debate to include single payer?
i wouldn’t be so pissed off if there was an honest debate and the american public in the end made a choice i didn’t agree with. what has me really furious is that there is so much effort – especially by dems and some of their allies – going into not having that honest debate.
this isn’t a small policy issue. this is like war and peace. thousands of lives are on the line.
tell me about it…..
Ron probably has diabetes. He has to have one last test to determine if he does. No insurance. No money. He sleeps about 50% or 60% in a 24 hour period. Can’t find work under these circumstances. He doesn’t qualify for medi-cal. Private insurance would be around $2400 a month. Will my husband die before this is taken care of?
Fuckery.
The oligarchy wants to kill off as many boomers as possible. We are a real liability to their bottom line. They are doing a efficient job of it, too.
Yes and don’t think that doesn’t result in lots of unnecessary deaths too. It’s not that doctors and hospitals refuse to provide services they know they will only receive bottom dollar for, it’s that they substitute mediocre service and basically don’t try very hard.
I’m trying to influence — in the direction you and I share — what the Dems are doing.
We can’t avoid war with the insurance industry. I do believe the war will be fought in two stages, the first involving establishment of a competitive government plan. But Dems should be articulating the ultimate goal, and the value that accompanies it.
thanks.
the dems have no excuse now. and that makes them afraid – how are they going to give the insurance companies what they want while keeping our support? better framing?
I think doctors are overwhelmed trying to figure out how to care for their patients under these circumstances. My docs spend a lot of time finding free meds, etc. And our pharmacy has been wonderful. Can you imagine turning people away everyday knowing they could be helped??
and, yes, I do know there are asshole docs out there, too.
why?
what makes a government plan competitive? have you read hacker’s report? the regulation required for “fair competition” will make geithner’s bailout plans look simple and transparent. do you really think it’s not going to be gamed to make the public option fail? do you really think the insurance company lobbyists are not going to write the regulation?
they won’t do it unless we do it first. damn, they won’t even let single payer be discussed.
if you want the dems to advocate for the whole enchilada, then imo that’s what you need to be doing. and you’re not
When you have to choose between healthcare and military might, we see where the priorities of our elected officials lie. I resent the fact that my daughters don’t have healthcare, whereas the daughters throughout Europe and most of the western world do. But, I suppose they have Blackhawks and drones.
Often there is assistance available if you turn over enough stones. I went for several years without prescription meds for my RA but was finally pointed in the direction of a Christian health center staffed (one evening a week) by volunteer doctors and nurses from area providers. They could write prescriptions that the pharmacy at one of the local hospitals would fill for one tenth of the full price. It was enough help to tide me over until I was approved for disability and Medicare.
Good luck to your husband (and you). I was a caregiver for my mom who was type-1. I’m pretty familiar with the trials and tribulations of diabetics.
Geez, mary. Is there a county program? University?
selise – while we share the goal of single-payer (and I hate to fall back on Dr. Dean’s argument about the art of the doable), the realm of the possible is not to be ignored. We cannot pretend that politics are not involved, and all conscience arguments will win because merit triumphs always and immediately.
Is Baucus going to just step aside and let it happen? No, and neither are the rest of the Senators.
How exactly do you propose we do this? The mechanics I mean.
masaccio is upstairs!
Learning from the Cramdown Fight: Progressive Ideas Need Help
That’s the ultimate rub. The for-profit, insurance-based health care system we have can’t be saved. Profits cause the crisis. The profits are based on the denial of care.
Framing is a word that derives from cognitive science and sociology, and it’s a shame that it’s come to mean simple spin or manipulating rhetoric.
Real framing requires deep introspection and understanding of how our values are alive in our actual neuronal networks. Physically embodied. It’s a pretty clear articulation of those values to say that the insurance-based health system is killing people and making them suffer.
Trouble is, nowadays your noble, well-intentioned primary physician is typically forbidden from directing your treatment if you are hospitalized. Resident doctors are put in charge and they are the ones (in my observation) who don’t try very hard.
education and advocacy would be a start.
i understand that in the end compromise will define the legislation. what i don’t understand is the argument we are supposed to stand aside and pre-compromise.
Exactly right. If you have a chance check out the work we did at Rockridge some time ago.
http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/health.html
Beginning with compromise is an error. And, like I’ve said before, the last thing we need are for advocates such as yourself to stand down.
And it took Democrats 30 years of sitting on what they thought was a lead to fuck it up. As disgusting as it feels to be an incrementalist about this, what are the actual elements of a win on this, and how are they implemented, and how long/how many election cycles are necessary?
The alternatives, it seems, are:
•Work what we have into a workable system over time
or
•Scream into the void for another 30 years.
yes, it is.
but i read your article and it didn’t say that. in fact you didn’t mention the word “insurance” at all.
politicians have different roles than we do. imo, it’s our role to educate, advocate and organize – and scream into the abyss if necessary.
but that’s not what politicians do. they do what will get them re-elected.
i can live with that, so long as we don’t confuse our role with theirs.
nixon didn’t give us the epa and osha because he thought they were great ideas. he did it be cause other people – who thought they were good ideas – had convinced enough of their fellow citizens to make it in the politician’s best interest to go along.
our job is making the case: educating, advocating and organizing. not pre-compromising and supporting what ever weak tea (or worse) the dems in gov serve us.
my 2 cents.
No argument.
My $0.02 is that I think health care is no less a right than national defense, and should be as much of the social compact as clean air and water, and safe schools, and representative democracy.
We let it slip, and we had it coming. I was fooling around in Youtube today and found this – Justice Souter – example of how we educate. We have a long way to go, and I for one am not willing to let the system slide further into disrepair until it reaches critical mass.
thanks for the link, i will watch it later today (on my other computer).
a couple of years ago, the progressive blogosphere was out in front explaining single payer. the subsequent virtual stand down has been a v big disappointment. i keep hoping that will change. fingers crossed.
As we all know, electoral survival (or lack of) is the one and only thing that will drive ‘them’ into our corner. Right now that means money, and we cannot compete there.
The video is abstract but coincidental to this discussion – it is Justice Souter’s thesis on civics education, and addresses the broader challenge, not dissimilar to our conversation about health care advocacy.
Single Payer!! Modeled after the VA systems with some improvements!!
emptywheel to the front page!
Why Is Pat Roberts So Quiet?
It is Mother’s Day which is the archetypal day to celebrate nurturance and loving care, which is also one attribute of medical care.
Mr. Smith, thanks for attacking the lying tactics of the anti-reform GOP insurance company hacks.
Selise, thanks for your passionate advocacy for those who suffer every day because of the corrupt policies of health insurance companies. Someday health care will be a Right and not a commodity.
I think of my mother who complained to her HMO doctor for two years of abdominal pain and was shushed away and dismissed. She died of ovarian cancer, diagnosed at Stage IV.
Selise, I have said this before, but my worst fear is that the liar’s club will create a federal HMO like the one that murdered my mother.
I will do everything I can to promote HR 676 and to educate those I meet about single payer and its advantages over existing plans.
Usually, you can make yourself non-teaching.
maybe things are different now, but in the past i’ve even been able to have the designation of non-teaching for certain procedures and teaching for others. but in my (limited) experience, it’s never been the primary physician who has been the attending when i (or a family member i’m responsible for) has been hospitalized.
glenn – i think the crux of my problem with what you’ve written is that while you identify the lies the republicans are telling about healthcare reform, you don’t do the same regarding the lies the democrats are telling. instead, the impression i get from your huffpo piece is that you are confused. you seem to think the dems are doing something they just aren’t. they are designing an insurance centered reform and trying to sell it to us by calling it a people centered reform.
i think we agree on the values, i just don’t think your policy recommendations are in line with them.
if you think a private/public plan can work, why not make that argument clearly? tell us what it is, how it would work, how it would lead to single payer. let’s have the discussion/debate out in the open. have you actually read hacker’s report? can you explain the regulation he says a public/private insurance based system would need? can you explain how the insurance company lobbyists would not capture such a complicated and opaque regulatory regime?
here’s what don wrote about luntz’s report:
i think he is exactly right.
(((tom)))
We criticize Dems for botching the debate, and, like you, I’m ultimately hoping to persuade them to a more progressive plan than has so far been vaguely described.
The framing of any progressive plan needs to point to the cause of the crisis, which is the insurance industry.
Ultimately, Republicans are the enemy. Any Democratic elected official who agrees with the framing of this piece and the Huffpost piece should be moved toward a more progressive solution. I’m not over-estimating the impact of the pieces. I simply mean Democratic contact with these or similar thoughts from others should help.
I believe my own thoughts are more persuasive with Dems when I tone down the criticism of them. And I am referring to tone only. This, obviously, doesn’t and shouldn’t apply to everyone. It’s just a matter of my judgment and temperament. Maybe I’m wrong.
Finally, I believe there are significant problems with private/public plans. I think I over-simplified the clause referring to Hacker (I just noticed the link wasn’t live). While consistently saying that the insurance industry profit motive is the cause of the crisis, I reluctantly believe we will politically have to move in stages.
How exactly do you propose we do this? The mechanics I mean.
if by “we” you mean us, you and me, we don’t. we aren’t in a position to have much influence on the outcome. not in the Senate, especially. Democratic Senators don’t have to care what voters think – or at least don’t believe that they do.
Is Baucus going to just step aside and let it happen? No…
that’s actually the only hope i see for getting something that minimally qualifies. not Baucus himself, but by doing exactly what he and the other Dunnocrats are doing: being willing to sink the entire bill. that’s the source of their power in the situation. the leadership is not with us on this, they just want The Deal, contents unimportant. only a threat to The Deal will get a response.
i think we are only still talking about even a neutered public plan because House progressives have been making noises like that. i think all we – you and me – can do is encourage them to continue. if there’s anyone in the Senate who will do the same, that would be nice too.
this is a pretty slim hope, though. it’s not a comfortable tactic because there is a real risk of ending with no bill at all. in every similar situation in the past, ultimately the progressive side has caved because of their desire to do something at least. that’s why they’re in Congress in the first place after all. i guess we’ll see.
Why 20% when the entire health care industry’s share of GDP is only something like 16%. In a program for the poor it is amazingly perverse to charge them a higher percentage of income.
I didn’t know Medicare denied coverage that way. Maybe that needs to be done away with in the same way the insurance company’s ‘doctor’ needs to become unemployed.
*terrorist knuckle bump* Heh
The goals are to provide health care to anyone who needs it, improve care through better review and application of “best practices” and to limit & reduce costs everywhere possible.
Of course, there are various ways these can be achieved.