RE: Health Care Reform Talking Points
Dana C. Iorio
terminology from the term "single payer" to some other term that will
inevitably gather "negative images" from conservatives, that will be "clearer" to the general public, and that will satisfy the whims of health care reform advocates. And to do this, I am recycling statements I previously made on this subject.
Shiela Keuhl's bill SB 840 is titled "California Health Insurance
Reliability Act". I don't see the term single-payer in the title. Nor do I see the term single-payer in the text of the bill. Nor did we have it in our WA State bill I 245 or I - 725, or SB 5756 or HR 1886. In fact, in none of the single-payer bills I've reviewed, do I see the term single-payer in the title or text, yet they are absolutely single-payer bills.
We use this term mainly to describe it to fellow universal health care
supporters, as Ms Davis alluded to, because WE ALL KNOW WHAT IT MEANS. And so do most of our legislators, whether they support it or not. Does anyone really think that if HCFA - California, and the media and other opponents chose NOT to designate Kuehl's bill as single-payer that Schwarznegger would have signed it into fruition?
Opponents of single-payer plans are not stupid. You can describe your bill as a "universal health care bill", "Medicare For All", "publically financed universal health care coverage", "health care for all", "health care as a right", "single-payer health care", or "cheapest most efficient and best health care plan that covers everybody", WHATEVER, the usual opponents, ie the media, insurance industry, AMA, drug companies, hospital industry, and big
business, albeit incomprehensibly, will try to shoot it down.
The bottom line is, whatever our plan , the voters must know what it is
and it must be explained to them. Do health care reform advocates actually think the "Health Insurance Partnership", "Guarenteed Health Security for WA", "WA Health Partnership" are bills the public will understand without EXPLAINING the respective bills to them? "Single-Payer" works when it is explained and it is the EASIEST concept to explain.
Hence, it is fruitless to debate the use of the term "single payer" as it has been around for 2 decades, is well-understood by and accepted by other health reform organizations. It is easy to explain to people and we shouldn't waste valuable time, including mine, discussing this non-issue.
Dana Iorio, ARNP
Treasurer, Health Care For All - WA
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008, Larry Kalb wrote:
> Linda,
>
>
>
> As promised, Health Care for All - Washington has completed its Statement of
> Values and we are sending them to you for distribution to the Washington
> Health Security Coalition.
>
>
>
> We believe that this Statement captures the true essence of what we
> Americans truly want from health care reform. It respects the "Land of
> Opportunity" while at the same time honoring the best-known phrase in the
> Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that
> all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with
> certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the
> Pursuit of Happiness."
>
>
>
> The HCFA-WA Statement of Values also applies the cherished "Golden Rule"
> which is widely accepted across time, cultures and circumstances.
>
>
>
> HCFA-WA's Statement of Values establishes a moral minimum constituting the
> ethical minimum necessary for the well-being of our society.
>
>
>
> We are proud of our Values and want to share them with the single-payer
> community in this state of Washington.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Larry Kalb
>
> President, HCFA-WA
>
>
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From: Linda Sternhill Davis [mailto:legis...@wahealthsecurity.org]
> Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 1:38 PM
> To: Dwight McCabe; Edie Koch; Chris Toal; Kent L. Davis; Linda Sternhill
> Davis
> Cc: Terry Gardiner; Garry Gideon; Larry Kalb; Donald Mitchell; Paul and Mary
> Margaret Pruitt
> Subject: Health Care Reform Talking Points
>
>
>
> Dear Friends,
>
>
>
> Attached are proposed talking points which Kent and I have drafted. We
> would appreciate your review and feedback at your earliest opportunity.
>
>
>
> As many of you know, our Washington Health Security Coalition (WHSC) Board
> will be sending these or similar talking points to our WHSC members in
> advance of next Thursday's first Healthy Washington Coalition (HWC) Health
> Care Caucus. (Please see attached flyer for additional Caucus information.)
>
>
>
>
> Since none of the proposed HWC Values (see attached) to be voted on by
> attendees at each of the seven Health Care Caucus meetings relates to
> single-payer health care reform, per se, we would like to furnish some
> helpful talking points so single-payer advocates will feel comfortable when
> publicly speaking during the one-minute-per-person open mic period planned
> at each of these town hall meetings.
>
>
>
> We have based our proposed talking points on Herndon Alliance research and
> recommendations and on special (and much-appreciated!) input from Terry
> Gardiner. (Thanks, Terry!)
>
>
>
> As Terry has so aptly and helpfully pointed out, those of us who advocate
> for single-payer health care reform should seek to use a term other than
> "single-payer". The term "single-payer" itself is a "policy term" or an
> "insiders" description. Legislators and health care advocates may know what
> we're talking about, but the general public does not. Single-payer is a
> good short-hand term for progressives to know what health care reform plan
> is being discussed; however, the term does not help most residents know what
> we're talking about. Also, unfortunately, the Conservatives have
> successfully given a negative image to "single-payer" as well as to
> "universal health care." We, therefore, want to carefully craft the language
> we use so we can have an effective and successful outcome.
>
>
>
> Thanks, in advance, for your reviews and feedback. We'd like to send our
> final version to our WHSC members by Monday morning, June 16th.
>
>
>
> Warmest regards,
>
>
>
> Linda
>
>
>
>
Dana C. Iorio
My point is that it doesn't matter what terminology we use to get what we
want, which is a single payer system. Our goal will always be labeled as
"socialized medicine" by the vested interests in the current non-system
regardless of terminology. "Medicare for all" raises the same hackles that
single payer does with many of those same vested interests and won't be easy to sell to them, not that we care.
Does the public accept Medicare for All over the term single payer? I don't think so as Medicare has become to be viewed in a less than positive light with high copays, denial of claims, Medicare D, provider distaste for Medicare, etc.
Framing is another matter altogether and includes other aspects besides
terminology. Whatever term we use needs to be explained in the simplest of
terms to the public. "Single payer" provides that opportunity and has been around for two decades. The meaning of words make a difference and we shouldn't get caught up in the right wing spinning of our issue/terminology.
Dana
On Tue, 17 Jun 2008,
Chris Toal-H wrote:
> Dana --
>
> You make some good points, but as David Domke and George Lakoff have
> illustrated with their research, framing does matter and often determines
> the outcome of a public debate. Our opposition is very good at this and we
> are not (yet). That's why it's easier to sell a term like "Medicare for
> all" than "single payer." Words make a difference.
>
> Chris Toal
Dana C. Iorio
single payer health care as long as we're speaking about the same concept,
regardless of term used, ie, government financed non-profit universal health
care without private insurance cos participating in the same field .
I think my fellow travelers should display the same deference to the term
single payer but is still widely used and understood. "Publically
funded-privately delivered" will incur the same stigmatic lies and contortions
that "single-payer" has which mainly has "negative association" with business,
the media, drug companies, AMA etc. This will occur when we go forward with
this, OR ANY designated term.
Dana
On Tue, 17 Jun 2008, Linda Sternhill Davis wrote:
> Dear Dana and All,
>
> Quite a few single-payer supporters are still very passionate (like Dana)
> about continuing to use the "single-payer" descriptive. However, since
> studies have shown that these words often have a negative association, Kent
> and I, when we drafted the WHSC Health Care Reform Talking Points, used the
> statement "publicly-funded/privately-delivered" to better describe the
> system we're advocating. Perhaps this or something similar can catch on and
> be adopted.
>
> 'Hope this is helpful!
>
> Warmest regards,
>
> Linda