Democrats are preparing a campaign to sell the American people on their health care reform bill after it passes. To put it simply, this is going to be a painfully difficult job.
Lacking allied voices and faced with unflinching GOP opposition, the burden on the White House and congressional Democrats to sell a completed health care package is undoubtedly steep. But a strategy is already materializing. A Senate leadership aide tells the Huffington Post that a five-pronged video series is in the works to be released shortly after the bill is signed into law. The big push is to put people who will immediately benefit from the legislation on center stage. Expect Facebook groups and community-centered events, sources said.
Among the policy provisions that Democrats feel are easiest to pitch are the funds set to go to preventive care, the elimination of the practice of discriminating against pre-existing conditions and the benefits of the overall package for small businesses. Lawmakers, meanwhile, will be provided with tailor-made bullet points to use when they are back home or on TV — with the benefits of the bill broken down along lines of income, gender, age and other subsections.
The fact that the bill will have pissed off union members and progressives who would normally be defending reform is really just the start of the Democrats’ problems with the sales job. The biggest obstacle is that, basically, there will be nothing to sell. A few small improvements are made relatively quickly, but 98% of the bill does not go into effect until 2014. For example, the ban on excluding pre-existing conditions does not take effect for four years! Selling vague and distant promises is a nightmare.
Let’s pretend the bill were progressive enough for me. Let’s pretend it has a robust public option, a national exchange with super tough regulation, true community rating, standardized high-quality low cost sharing plan design, generous affordability tax credits, drug re-importation, etc. Even if the bill did all this, I would still find selling this bill, which I strongly support, to be extremely difficult because it would not help almost anyone for four years. “Just trust me, everything will be great sometime half-way through Obama’s second term,” is a terrible sales slogan.
The easiest way to sell people on something is to have them feel and see it working. Selling even a great bill with its benefits delayed for years would be a huge uphill battle, selling this deeply flawed bill without support from the base seems like an impossibility.
Democrats only hope for salvaging some popular support for the bill rests in their ability to rally the base by making improvements and, most importantly, front-loading as much relief as possible. For example, starting the exchange early only for small businesses, and stronger, better-subsidized, longer-lasting COBRA coverage (to bridge the gap until 2014) seem like two relatively cheap but important relief measures. If Democrats can’t put more immediate relief in this bill, they should be working diligently to quietly slip as much immediate health care relief as possible in every single bill between now and the 2010 election. If Democrats are going to try to run on passing a big bill labeled “health care reform,” voters damn well need to see a lot of people’s health insurance getting better.



11 Comments








Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL Action
We’ll fix it
in conference, I meanin 2011in the 22nd century.As Eric Massa said, this mess will be like wet cement that will be it will be impossible to get out of.
Edit would be my friend if I weren’t having connection problems.
As Eric Massa said, this mess will be like wet cement that will be impossible to get out of.
The biggest single problem is the individual mandate, especially since there’s no public option. It’s morally and politically offensive to be required to buy some private company’s defective product, and dubiously constitutional (another problem: it will be in litigation for Years.).
I’ve seen the point made that it’s a tailor-made talking point for the Republicans, but it is for the left, too. Trust me – the Green Party will use it, too. They’ve been pushing single-payer all along; instead, we’re going to be FORCED to pay some evil insurance company?
It gets worse: it’s complicated to explain, but because the penalties are actually less than buying insurance would cost, in reality it’s a super-regressive tax for being too poor to afford health insurance.
It’s also, and I can’t repeat this enough, an invitation to a resistance campaign: just don’t buy, and don’t pay the penalty, either. How many collections can they carry out?
See what I mean? One lawsuit after another. And a bonanza for the Greens.
I agree enforcement of the mandate is going to be a problem. I’ve seen this point made in numerous forums, and I’ve yet to see anyone even attempt to rebut it.
The fave talking point of HCR supporters is so jaw-droppingly naive I can’t even believe they truly believe it:
1. Whatever gets signed by the President will be the final product. It will be the best thing that can come from a Democratic President with Democratic majorities (that we probably won’t hold onto) so it has to be a good as possible because it’s the best we’re gettin’.
2. If you’ve indicated that you’re willing to pass anything now, then you have ceded any leverage you had to get something better.
I agree the mantra is insane. It is not even “we can try to fix it at the state level,” just fix it later. Later being 2047 when Democrats again have the Presidency and super majorities in both chambers.
In terms of 2010 elections, I’m beginning to entertain the heretical proposition that the Democrats might be better off if the HCR bill goes down in defeat. (I’ve been convinced of this for Progressives for some time.)
Obama and Pelosi could point to the issue of 60 votes in the Senate and claim the compromises required to get to 60 simply can’t be reconciled with a majority vote in the House. This would beg the question of the filibuster and reconciliation, but that would be a good thing for Democrats at this point. It would show they’re actually willing to fight for something substantive. Passing a much stronger bill with 51 votes may in fact be the better choice politically at this point, given how watered down the Senate bill is. Setting the stage for the filibuster rule to be changed at the beginning of the next session would also win them back some of the approval rating votes Obama has lost since it became obvious the administration sold out the progressives in the HCR legislation process. Alas, wishful thinking at best.
Change “might” to “will.”
The problem is that this isn’t something that should need to be “sold” at all as it should be self-evident what people did and did not get with reform. People didn’t need to be “sold” on the need for healthcare reform as well as what needed to be reformed as they figured it all out on their own, so they certainly can figure it out on their own if this is what they bargained for or not. The whole idea of having to sell it shows that it isn’t good and they’re just trying to scam people.
If you need a big sales pitch to sell a product, it is probaly complete shit, and you’ll discover it is only when your thirty day trial is over.
Please don’t ask us to vote for these buzzards in 2010 and 2012. We need to look at a different way.