Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 3:31 PM ET, 01/14/2011

War of the talking points!

By Greg Sargent

Yesterday I reported here that House Dem leaders have settled on the phrase they will use to brand the House GOP's push to repeal health reform: "The Patient's Rights Repeal Act."

But some Democrats in the House -- being Democrats -- are already beginning to question this talking point, House aides tell me. They are circulating another idea: "No Care."

With both sides gearing up for a major, protracted standoff over repeal that could drag on for months or even years, some rank and file House Dems have been talking among themselves about whether "Patient's Rights Repeal Act" is snappy enough to compete with GOP talking points, aides say. The three chief Republican descriptions of the Affordable Care Act -- "job killer," "government takeover," and "ObamaCare" -- all enjoyed amazingly successful media traction.

Hence the idea of "No Care," which is only two syllables long and is very descriptive, even if it doesn't quite pack the emotional punch of "job killer" or "government takeover."

"There's a general sense that we need something short," one House Dem aide said. "We need something succinct -- one or two words, like Republicans always use. Their messaging strategies work."

A second aide confirms that "No Care" is being given serious consideration in the offices of some House Dems.

Here's a thought: What about something that captures how health reform, you know, saves lives?

Or, as David Kurtz put it yesterday, "are there no Democrats anywhere on Madison Avenue who can help with this stuff?"

At any rate, what say you, readers? "Patient's Rights Repeal Act," or "No Care?" Or something else entirely?

By Greg Sargent  | January 14, 2011; 3:31 PM ET
Categories:  Health reform, House Dems, House GOPers  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Poll: More want health law expanded than fully repealed
Next: Happy Hour Roundup

Comments

The GOP

Care For The Healthy And Wealthy Only, act.

Where is the DNC publicity campaign to defend The Health Care Reform bill, and when is the revamped White House Communications operations, going to start communicating.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 14, 2011 3:36 PM | Report abuse

I'm for the Comprehensive Repeal of Acrimonious Partisanship bill.

Posted by: bsimon1 | January 14, 2011 3:38 PM | Report abuse

Jiminy cricket! Are they that stupid? "The Patient Rights Repeal Act"??? And they're finally figuring out that something that fits on a bumper sticker might be the way to go?

This is just plain political malpractice.

Posted by: CTVoter | January 14, 2011 3:38 PM | Report abuse

How about calling it the "Republicans don't care" act?

And every time a Republican objects, just keep repeating it.

Posted by: CTVoter | January 14, 2011 3:40 PM | Report abuse

They really do need something else entirely. They might want to consider consulting a professional for help. This task is not well suited to a bunch of Hill staffers.

Posted by: bsimon1 | January 14, 2011 3:40 PM | Report abuse

Not only is "no care" lame it plays to Republican talking points.

"Well, my Democratic colleagues don't realize how true their refrain of "no care" is and it's way we must repeal this law. Because that's exactly what you'll get once Obama's death panels have their way. [insert sinister laugh, gently pet evil cat]"


Posted by: NoVAHockey | January 14, 2011 3:41 PM | Report abuse

The GOP wants to characterize health care reform as Obamacare? Fine.

Let's see the Dems characterize the GOP vision as "Republicare". What's Republicare?

-Denying coverage to children and adults with pre-existing conditions
-Depriving small businesses of tax breaks that allow them to provide health insurance to employees
-Letting seniors fall back into the "donut hole" when it comes to prescription drugs
-Denying the states the funding to experiment with medical malpractice reforms
-Etc.

Posted by: jesteinf | January 14, 2011 3:42 PM | Report abuse

Oh Jeebus, this just keeps getting worse.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 14, 2011 3:43 PM | Report abuse

How about asking what effect repealing ACA would have on the care and treatment of the mentally ill in the U.S.?

Posted by: wbgonne | January 14, 2011 3:45 PM | Report abuse

The Let Them Die Act.

The Barter For Rabbits Act.


The Pay Your Bills, And Lose Your Home Act.

The Sick People Make Us Sick Act.

The Government OF The Greedy, By The Greedy Act.

The Heartless Bastards Act.

The Act So Evil, That It Does Not Make John Boehner Cry.

OK. I will stop now. It is like shooting ducks in a rain barrel.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 14, 2011 3:46 PM | Report abuse

Greg:

"At any rate, what say you, readers?"

I say thank goodness we are focused on substantive things.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 14, 2011 3:47 PM | Report abuse

Totally O/T: I am looking for books about Thomas Jefferson's thinking and writing. Thanks in advance for any recommendations.

Posted by: wbgonne | January 14, 2011 3:48 PM | Report abuse

OT:

@cao: If you show up to this thread (if not, I'll post you later), paste this into your icab to load the icab version of TrollHunter:

icabmodule://www.wooteam.com/wapotroll.icabmodule

No "http", and that's only for iCab.

Works fine, the caveat being I've turned "autorun" off (it's an attribute you can set in the module preferences of iCab) because it runs too early, and you usually end up seeing no comments at all. That means you have to automatically trigger the script when you want it to run.

This may not be necessary on an iPad, I don't know. You should be able to turn on "autorun" in the preferences (and restart iCab, possible necessary, was at some times but not at others for me) and see if it works for you.

In any case, to use it, you have to trigger it (puzzle icon at the bottom of the screen, presents a list of module buttons, one of which will have the corner of the WaPo 'W' in it, that's the Troll Hunter. Have to fire it off when viewing a page first time and, if you press ignore or hilite, you have to fire it off again to make that decisions stick. So its:

Go to page
Puzzle Icon
Run WaPo Troll Hunter
Find commentor we want ignored
Press "Ignore"
Run WaPo Troll Hunter
Commenter is added to Ignore List.
Go to another page. Run WaPo Troll Hunter again for ignore list and other features to be honored.

If you can get it to work on autorun for you, I'd love to know.

Thanks!

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | January 14, 2011 3:49 PM | Report abuse

"No care" is better then the "patients rights repeal act" however they need something that will hit viscerally.

What does Schumer think? He seems to be tuned into better messaging.

The White Houwe at this time will be no help for they are going to be all about JOBS and the ECONOMY after the SOTU. That is what they will be focusing on. It will be up to the Congress to take up the mantle of going after Republicans on health care.

Posted by: maritza1 | January 14, 2011 3:49 PM | Report abuse

The Jesuscare Repeal Act

Posted by: bernielatham | January 14, 2011 3:50 PM | Report abuse

"They might want to consider consulting a professional for help. This task is not well suited to a bunch of Hill staffers."

Amen Bsimon! And not only Hill staffers but bloggers and posters as well. :-)

With all due respect this seems like a really weird story to me. Are we to believe that the Dems do not have the equivalent of Frank Luntz. They're not getting ambushed or caught of guard here.
They known R plans since November are we REALLY saying the Dems have no professionals who could have run dozens and dozens of choices past dozens and dozens of focus group. I'm not an opinion poller and with all due respect to Frank Luntz and his fellow professionals it doesn't really seem like rocket science to me.

Stop all the freaking fun, games and conjecture...get PROFESSIONAL HELP!!!!

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 14, 2011 3:50 PM | Report abuse

I think No Care is moving in the right direction. It's good to know that somebody is beginning to realize that messaging matters.

How about "Abolish Care" -- it has a linguistic counterpoint to ObamaCare, and it more accurately describes the fact that repeal would take something valuable away from the American public.

Posted by: elscott | January 14, 2011 3:51 PM | Report abuse

The Making Death More Likely Act.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 14, 2011 3:52 PM | Report abuse

You'd think George Lakoff might be available for some part-time consulting.
.

Posted by: jprestonian | January 14, 2011 3:55 PM | Report abuse

OT: Update to WaPo Troll Hunter

There are a few big changes under the hood that nobody will notice (they were done in part to try and getting the same code running with iCab mobile, if it breaks it for anybody, let me know, but it works in Firefox and Safari so I'm assuming it's probably all right generally). I almost moved the "Comments Removed" bar (the one with the clear Troll List buttons) above the WaPo toolbar at the bottom of the screen. Hope this doesn't bother anybody, but, again, that was trying to get it formatted better on iCab. I'll mess with it if it's problematic.

Also, changed blockquotes (again).

""I just can't make up my mind what it is I want.""

But now it's double quotes (regular quotes). Doesn't require anything fancy, just ""double quotes on each side"".

And that's it. It's mostly about the blockquotes.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | January 14, 2011 3:56 PM | Report abuse

Since they're keeping the work "killing" in their repeal bill how about we go with something equal like KILL CARE? Too over the top for Democrats?

Posted by: lmsinca | January 14, 2011 3:57 PM | Report abuse

How about "Yes to NHS". Short, snappy, rolls off the tongue. And brings to mind that wonderful and well regarded health care system of the UK.

Run with it, Greg.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 14, 2011 3:58 PM | Report abuse

Darn it!
Michael Steele quit.

Now they are going to elect Tim Kaine's Doppelgänger.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 14, 2011 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Reconstruct Afghanistan Before Americans Act.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 14, 2011 4:01 PM | Report abuse

The GOP

Ethanol Subsidies Before Sick People Act.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 14, 2011 4:03 PM | Report abuse

Curl Up and Die

Posted by: shrink2 | January 14, 2011 4:03 PM | Report abuse

Health Scare

Posted by: Papagnello | January 14, 2011 4:05 PM | Report abuse

""Shut up and Die Care""

Posted by: shrink2 | January 14, 2011 4:06 PM | Report abuse

The GOP

Screw Sick People, Act.

I think that is short and pithy enough, while capturing the essence of what The Weeping Boehner, who never weeps over sick people, is about to do.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 14, 2011 4:06 PM | Report abuse

Could someone please tell me how to do this blockquote thing.

""When I do double quotes on each side, it just shows up as double quotes""

Posted by: lmsinca | January 14, 2011 4:10 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, I was looking in preview and didn't see it, I guess because it won't show up there, duh!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: lmsinca | January 14, 2011 4:11 PM | Report abuse

Just Reload, ooops, I meant, you have to reinstall the TH.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 14, 2011 4:11 PM | Report abuse

We Don't Care

Posted by: Papagnello | January 14, 2011 4:13 PM | Report abuse

Alan Grayson made it easy for us -

"The Drop Dead Act."

Posted by: filmnoia | January 14, 2011 4:13 PM | Report abuse

I'm not sure what the best wording ought to be here but it's important for Dems to get as bright about language as the Republicans are (Lakoff and Weston have been arguing this for years).

But even if I don't good wording for this instance, it seems to me that what that wording must do (aside from being catchy/memorable/evocative) is to make absolutely clear the difference between the two philosophies. I'm going to paste a bit from Benen...

" Rhetorical excesses matter, as does the right's politics of paranoia, but to appreciate at a more fundamental level why the parties are so starkly at odds, one need only to remember that modern Republicans reject the legitimacy of much of the government. "When people talk about partisan differences, they often seem to be implying that these differences are petty, matters that could be resolved with a bit of good will," Krugman added. "But what we're talking about here is a fundamental disagreement about the proper role of government."

In 1954, President Dwight Eisenhower (R) wrote a letter to his brother. "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history," Ike said. The president acknowledged in the letter that there are some who advocate such nonsense, but added, "Their number is negligible and they are stupid."

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2011_01/027535.php

What the language must do, here and elsewhere, is to clarify this stark and growing difference between the two parties. Obviously to any thinking person, the modern Republican party has become something which Eisenhower found unimaginable.

More broadly too, the events of the last week have helped to demonstrate some real and profound differences between the parties' values as regards civil society and our social contract (thus the defensive attempts to insist on equivalences).

Whatever words are used must underline that one party perceives "empathy" as a moral failure while the other perceives the lack of that as the moral failure. Jungle versus warm hearth, if you will.

Posted by: bernielatham | January 14, 2011 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Greg,

I have come up with many suggestions, but this one is my preference, so you might want to run it by your contacts:

The Pro-Death Act.

Think about it. It captures the callousness of going back to letting the Insurance Panels decide who should live and who should die, while at the same time it directly challenges the GOP branding; that they are Pro-Life.

The Pro-Death Act.

Run it by them.

Tell them not to be afraid of the frank words. The Republicans never are.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 14, 2011 4:17 PM | Report abuse

I think people not using TH will still get the fact that we're quoting someone else Kevin because of the double quotes, good idea. I don't know why I worry about that but I think we need to keep the site looking WaPoish for people just dropping by. Thanks

Posted by: lmsinca | January 14, 2011 4:18 PM | Report abuse

OT: Continued . . . I meant "also moved" not "almost moved". That sounds weird.

http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/89140

And I didn't include the URL. So there that is.

And I'll finish up with my OT musical interlude, Fly In The Machine:

http://www.wooteam.com/music/anytown_usa/Fly_in_the_Machine.mp3

I did it several years ago, but I was listening to it a minute it ago, and it seemed appropos to me, given all the heated (and coded) rhetoric stuff. But that may be entirely in my head. ;)

My music is often over produced and/or ponderous. You've been warned.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | January 14, 2011 4:22 PM | Report abuse

@Bernie & Ike-

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history," Ike said. The president acknowledged in the letter that there are some who advocate such nonsense, but added, "Their number is negligible and they are stupid."

Sorry Ike, they are not negligible. As to the second part...

Love to hear what our conservative commenters here would say to ol' Ike.

So, I guess Ike was triangualting? To his *brother*?

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | January 14, 2011 4:23 PM | Report abuse

Despite this confirmation:

I think it would still be advisable for Rush to stay in his Panic Room for a couple of years, to make sure that The Unity T-Shirts are no longer a threat to him.

"Wednesday, conservatives found themselves up in arms about T-shirts that were given out during the Tucson memorial for victims of last Saturday's shooting.

Some said the T-shirts, which read "Together We Thrive: Tucson & America," were an inappropriate political statement orchestrated by the White House, since President Obama spoke at the memorial.

TPM reported Wednesday that the memorial, including the T-shirts, was organized by the University of Arizona. Now, the school confirms that it was responsible for the T-shirts.

"It was our idea to do the T-shirts," a university spokeswoman, Jennifer Fitzenberger, told Fox Nation. "

Posted by: Liam-still | January 14, 2011 4:29 PM | Report abuse

It won't make it To the senate act

They don't have a plan act

Republicans are lying act

Elderly pay more act

FAmilies go broke act

Why are we even discussing how to frame this? Why not just play to what makes dems stay dems. Our base is students minorities and women. pick anything that goes at those three.

Posted by: osmondbrinson | January 14, 2011 4:30 PM | Report abuse

"Sorry Ike, they are not negligible."

They were THEN, though, even with the top marginal rate @ 91% -- and very little pining for Somalian paradises, even.

They took that letter to heart, they did... and cultivated the crazy for the next five decades.
.

Posted by: jprestonian | January 14, 2011 4:30 PM | Report abuse

It won't make it To the senate act

They don't have a plan act

Republicans are lying act

Elderly pay more act

FAmilies go broke act

Why are we even discussing how to frame this? Why not just play to what makes dems stay dems. Our base is students minorities and women. pick anything that goes at those three.

Posted by: osmondbrinson | January 14, 2011 4:31 PM | Report abuse

maritza1 writes
"they need something that will hit viscerally"


Dems don't do visceral. Its the inverse condition of not doing nuance.

Posted by: bsimon1 | January 14, 2011 4:31 PM | Report abuse

It won't make it To the senate act

They don't have a plan act

Republicans are lying act

Elderly pay more act

FAmilies go broke act

Why are we even discussing how to frame this? Why not just play to what makes dems stay dems. Our base is students minorities and women. pick anything that goes at those three.

Posted by: osmondbrinson | January 14, 2011 4:31 PM | Report abuse

Oy. "triangulating". Sorry.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | January 14, 2011 4:32 PM | Report abuse

It won't make it To the senate act

They don't have a plan act

Republicans are lying act

Elderly pay more act

FAmilies go broke act

Why are we even discussing how to frame this? Why not just play to what makes dems stay dems. Our base is students minorities and women. pick anything that goes at those three.

Posted by: osmondbrinson | January 14, 2011 4:32 PM | Report abuse

Oh my, you are a brave man Kevin.
Don't let any psychiatrists hear this.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 14, 2011 4:32 PM | Report abuse

It won't make it To the senate act

They don't have a plan act

Republicans are lying act

Elderly pay more act

FAmilies go broke act

Why are we even discussing how to frame this? Why not just play to what makes dems stay dems. Our base is students minorities and women. pick anything that goes at those three.

Posted by: osmondbrinson | January 14, 2011 4:33 PM | Report abuse

""Pay as You Go""

Posted by: shrink2 | January 14, 2011 4:35 PM | Report abuse

"Love to hear what our conservative commenters here would say to ol' Ike."

I like Ike!

The people pushing for abolition of Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, Labor Laws, etc, are still vanishingly small (so small as to be non-existent). The folks pushing to curtail some of those benefits and safeguards, or reign in their growth, are quite a bit larger.

Which may be a good or bad idea, depending, but might as well tackle them for what they're actually advocating.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | January 14, 2011 4:35 PM | Report abuse

Bernie:

"What the language must do, here and elsewhere, is to clarify this stark and growing difference between the two parties. Obviously to any thinking person, the modern Republican party has become something which Eisenhower found unimaginable."

It is not obvious to me, so I guess that renders me a non-thinking person?

Anyway, perhaps you could provide some evidence of this "stark and growing difference" in which Republicans are attempting to abolish social security, unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws. I checked the Republican Party platform and couldn't actually find this among the things they are attempting to do. But I'm sure you wouldn't have made such an outlandish charge without firm and solid evidence. So please, pass it on.

BTW...if you are right, then Ike was obviously wrong. In case you hadn't noticed, far from "not hearing from that political party" ever again, a whole lot of R's were just swept into office.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 14, 2011 4:35 PM | Report abuse

@Kevin-

Bingo! Give that man a donut.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | January 14, 2011 4:36 PM | Report abuse

I can't believe nobody likes the Comprehensive Repeal of Acrimonious Partisanship bill.

Posted by: bsimon1 | January 14, 2011 4:37 PM | Report abuse

"Brit Hume: Native American Blessing 'Most Peculiar'"

You tell them Brit. Those Native Americans should be deported back to where they came from.

Mr. Fume, I mean Hume: You are a Great American, unlike those Native Americans who should never have been allowed to settle in you country.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 14, 2011 4:37 PM | Report abuse

Start Raising Chickens For Barter Act.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 14, 2011 4:39 PM | Report abuse

@bsimon-

CRAP! I just got it and I like it.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | January 14, 2011 4:39 PM | Report abuse

OT

Michael Steele is done at the RNC. (Boo-hoo, I miss him already.)

From Benen:

"Announcing his departure, Steele told his party, "And now, I exit stage right." He then proceeded to exit stage left. It was that kind of chairmanship."

Posted by: suekzoo1 | January 14, 2011 4:39 PM | Report abuse

Kevin:

"...but might as well tackle them for what they're actually advocating."

But that would hardly allow for the invocation of Republicans past for the purposes of condemning Republicans present, would it? Nor would it create the apocalyptic fear factor that propagandists so love.

That would really put a crimp in Bernie's style, you know.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 14, 2011 4:40 PM | Report abuse

Hmm.

Let's start wit Utah Republican Mike Lee: http://www.youtube.com/user/mikelee2010#p/u/8/mrkZKgol0Wc
.

Posted by: jprestonian | January 14, 2011 4:41 PM | Report abuse

seriously, my Comprehensive Repeal of Acrimonious Partisanship bill don't stink...

Posted by: bsimon1 | January 14, 2011 4:42 PM | Report abuse

"The people pushing for abolition of Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, Labor Laws, etc, are still vanishingly small (so small as to be non-existent). "

That was true 30 years ago. it isn't true today.

"The folks pushing to curtail some of those benefits and safeguards, or reign in their growth, are quite a bit larger."

More to the point, this category now includes many Democrats, including -- I suspect -- the president of the United States. Also, the line between "reformation" and "abolition" is often unclear. What do you call it when you set something on a path to destruction?

Posted by: wbgonne | January 14, 2011 4:43 PM | Report abuse

Some Are Not Worth Saving Act.

After all: If John Boehner isn't weeping, they can't be worth saving.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 14, 2011 4:45 PM | Report abuse

@wbgonne: "That was true 30 years ago. it isn't true today."

Well, I suppose we're all constrained by our perspective. I just haven't met any of them, or read about them. Who is trying to abolish Social Security? Not "effectively" abolish--but actually get rid of it? Or Medicare? Any politicians with that as a platform? If so, I've missed them.

"What do you call it when you set something on a path to destruction?"

A matter of opinion? Unless you're psychic?

Unless that's actually the stated intent, it's hard to say that there is a political party (or a significant number of people) arguing for the abolition of SS, Medicare, labor laws, etc.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | January 14, 2011 4:48 PM | Report abuse

@chuck - I've quoted that Eisenhower letter quite a few times previously. I've yet to see a careful or honest response to it and what it demonstrates about the incredible shift in what the GOP has come to stand for. And Krugman's piece really makes the same point, of course.

The fundamental problem, clearly, is that very few conservatives are properly educated re the history of their own country and party. More correctly, they have been quite purposefully mis-educated and thus Eisenhower's letter and sentiments/philosophy seems to most of them as the anomaly - the weird thing that doesn't fit.

A fundamental believe held by movement conservatives is that their version of the philosophy is the version most true to an imagined original (this is a feature of most/all break-away groups in politics or in religion). Eisenhower's statements stand as direct evidence that this modern fundamental believe about conservatism is flat wrong and so the thinking closes down and Ike is forgotten.

Posted by: bernielatham | January 14, 2011 4:48 PM | Report abuse

Vernichtung lebensunwerten Lebens Act

Rolls off the tongue nicely.

[clank!]

Posted by: shrink2 | January 14, 2011 4:50 PM | Report abuse

The truth is this:


Obama and the democrats just spent the last 2 years trying to convince people that their version of health care is the way to go.


The country has said NO.


Now, we have been over this issue, over and over and over and over


AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER

And Greg the answer is still NO.

Thank you


Now would you just stop annoying the country?


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 14, 2011 4:51 PM | Report abuse

Did Lakoff or someone of his ilk weigh in, or is this just shoot from the hip?

I personally would like the name to refernce somehow the overlords who fund the campaigns of those seeking repeal.

Or reference the EFFECTS of the repeal.

Or both, like this . . .
The Raise Health Costs to benefit Insurance Companies Act.

Posted by: smd1234 | January 14, 2011 4:51 PM | Report abuse

"I can't believe nobody likes the Comprehensive Repeal of Acrimonious Partisanship bill."

I do.

Posted by: bernielatham | January 14, 2011 4:54 PM | Report abuse

The Raise Health Costs to benefit Insurance Companies Act

I wouldn't go there, that is going to happen in any case...unless and until we decide we are not going to do that anymore.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 14, 2011 4:54 PM | Report abuse

"Who is trying to abolish Social Security? Not "effectively" abolish--but actually get rid of it? Or Medicare? Any politicians with that as a platform? If so, I've missed them."

Ever heard of the Tea Party?

"Unless that's actually the stated intent, it's hard to say that there is a political party (or a significant number of people) arguing for the abolition of SS, Medicare, labor laws, etc."

Sometimes people don't tell the truth. That is particularly true of politicians. You would place us at the mercy of their semantics.

Posted by: wbgonne | January 14, 2011 4:55 PM | Report abuse

Troll Hunter


Remember that none of know Kevin - and there could be script in the program which allows him to access credit card numbers on your computer.


In addition, there could be hidden script which allows Kevin to read ALL the files on your computer.


Fair Warning to all.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 14, 2011 4:55 PM | Report abuse

Sybil,

Your way with words is the envy of us all. Well said, and so concise.

You Are A Great American, and A Wordsmith for the ages.

Where can we send for your autograph?

Posted by: Liam-still | January 14, 2011 4:55 PM | Report abuse

@bernie: "The fundamental problem, clearly, is that very few conservatives are properly educated re the history of their own country and party."

Yes, clearly, that's the problem. Obviously, even. Indubitably. Undoubtedly. Unquestionably, without a doubt.

You and your propagandistic use of adjectives as narrative framing devices!

I like Ike. He fits. He's what they would call a RINO today.

But compared to Richard Nixon, Ike was Ronald Reagan. So, if you're looking for things that "don't fit" in the GOP narrative, you might go to the wage-and-price controls of Richard Nixon. The COLAs for Social Security. Quotas for Affirmative Action legislation. The creations of OSHA and the EPA. Surrender with Dignity in Vietnam.

You wanna find the Republican Odd Man Out, there ya go. Mr. "Run to the Right", old Southern Strategy himself.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | January 14, 2011 4:57 PM | Report abuse

Or this . . .
The Help Insurance Companies and Destroy Patient Rights Act.

Or, along the line of the original, BUT MUCH MORE EFFECTIVE, this . . .
The Destroying Patient Rights Act.

Posted by: smd1234 | January 14, 2011 4:58 PM | Report abuse

On the 'civility' issue... Yglesias makes a similar point one I was arguing the other day but rather more succinctly, of course...

"The problem here isn’t really about “civility” or being nice, it’s about accuracy and not treating your audience like you respect them. Beck thinks of his audience as marks, which is just plain wrong, and some day I’m afraid the con may lead someone to do something equal in craziness to the yarn Beck is spinning."

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2011/01/changing-the-tone/

Posted by: bernielatham | January 14, 2011 5:00 PM | Report abuse

The Democrats can come up with all the messaging attempts they want, but they will fail compared to the Republicans, because the Republicans messaging reinforces what the voters already believe anyway, to wit you can't do all three of these at the same time:

1. Cover everyone
2. Reduce costs
3. Everyone who likes what they have currently gets to keep it.

The sentiment of the majority of people who have health insurance now is to first get costs under control, then extend coverage. The approach of the Democrats is the opposite, extend coverage first, then worry about costs.

The other thing that the Democrats overlook is that the last great round of entitlement programs were enacted in a much more optimistic economic period, i.e. the 1960's where there was more faith in government expertise and a belief that these programs were affordable. Neither is the case now.

Posted by: jnc4p | January 14, 2011 5:00 PM | Report abuse

Liam

I have to communicate in order to make sure your small liberal minds can comprehend.

I know it is difficult sometimes - that I miss the mark.


Do you know how much the deficits are going to be for Obama's health care plan?

Do you know how much Obama's plan is expecting each State to pay ADDITIONAL for health care???


What are the additional taxes going to be???


Answer those simple questions - then we can have a reasonable discussion about health care.


At this point, NOT ONE DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSMAN OR DEMOCRATIC SENATOR has answered those questions - they haven't even read the bill, and they don't really understand half the provisions.


The whole thing is a crony-filled nightmare.


And you think that I don't understand things?


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 14, 2011 5:01 PM | Report abuse

-The "Sick & Bankrupt" Act.

Republicans will repeal this, replace it with nothing, and leave us to duke it out with the insurance companies when we're sick and bankrupt.

-The "Unlimited Profits" repeal.

Republicans did nothing as insurance prices increased 200% when they were in charge. They want to go back to unlimited profits, unlimited rate hikes. It's your money or your kid's life, why don't you just negotiate better?

-Republicare: tax breaks & bigger deficits

No solutions, just partisan sour grapes. From healthcare to the economy, every problem can only solved with tax breaks for the wealthy and special interests, and bigger deficits. Anything that isn't tax breaks and bigger deficits is socialism or a death panel or a job killer. Their healthcare plan is to have no healthcare plan. Just...tax breaks and bigger deficits. Cut and spend, cut and run.

--Banana Republican Healthcare Act

They want to give us the same healthcare system as Brazil. The rich get whatever they want, the rest of us get zilch.

Posted by: theorajones1 | January 14, 2011 5:03 PM | Report abuse

I still say that the:

Pro-Death Act

is the best branding of what the Republicans are doing, since they claim to be Pro-Life, but are about to pass an act to let Insurance Companies pass death sentences on many sick people.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 14, 2011 5:03 PM | Report abuse

So Greg -


Your reasonins is this: renaming a leech will make the deficits lower, and the taxes lower.


Renaming the Leech Health Care Bill will make more Americans like it.


Renaming the Leech Health Care Bill will immediately close all the deficits in the bill, and PAY for everything that Obama is trying to pay for.

Yes, Renaming the bill will fix everything.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 14, 2011 5:04 PM | Report abuse

Jeez, when Glenn Beck's head finally explodes, perhaps Ailes can replace him with out-of-work actor Mel Gibson...

"And then there was tonight's episode, the theme of which was that the 20th century should be seen as "the era of the big lie." According to Beck, during the past 100 years a loose association of shadowy figures who believed themselves to be the "intelligent minority" infected the country with their notion that the people are "animals" who can be controlled through propaganda. He further warned that this same elite was leading the modern progressive movement and would similarly seek to manipulate the masses in the twenty-first century.

So who are these nefarious figures from government, finance, media, and academia who believe they can and should control everyone's choices, "not just in politics, but everywhere"? In tonight's episode, Beck singles out nine of them. One is AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka. Here are the other eight:

Propagandist and ad man Edward Bernays, who revolutionized 20th century public relations.
Sigmund Freud, the father of psychoanalysis, who was Bernays' uncle and influenced his method.
George Soros, who Beck claimed shared Freud and Bernays' philosophy that people are "animals" who can be "experimented with."
Cass Sunstein, who Beck insisted "is Edward Bernays" and has called "the most dangerous man in America."
Former SEIU president Andy Stern, who Beck said is part of a self-proclaimed "intelligent minority" of powerful men trying to manipulate the "bewildered herd" of America.
Walter Lippman, a prominent columnist of the mid-20th century, who Beck accused of viewing government "as a way to control people."
Frances Fox Piven, professor at CUNY, who Beck accused of "sowing the seeds" of revolution.
Ed Rendell, the governor of Pennsylvania, who Beck said thinks of himself as "one of the elites that are there to guide the herd."

Eagle-eyed readers might notice what all eight of these people have in common. Yes, eight out of the nine villians Beck identified tonight are Jewish."

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201101140003

Posted by: bernielatham | January 14, 2011 5:06 PM | Report abuse

Deadicare.

Posted by: SteveCanyon | January 14, 2011 5:07 PM | Report abuse

@jnc4p: "The approach of the Democrats is the opposite, extend coverage first, then worry about costs."

Correct - and therein lies the problem. The only way to control costs is to battle well-financed lobbies. That battle won't be won. In the meantime, we still have expanded coverage. Expanding coverage, without reducing costs, was/is foolish (and the common folk understand this).

In other words, "Now that the government has made promises it can’t keep, it will eventually need to deal with real cost control, or cut services." (FDL)

And since it can't deal with real cost control, most of us are pretty sure we know what's gonna happen.

http://www.mckinsey.com/mgi/rp/healthcare/accounting_cost_healthcare.asp

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/13/AR2007021301149_pf.html

Posted by: sbj3 | January 14, 2011 5:09 PM | Report abuse

Sue quotes Benen....

"Announcing his departure, Steele told his party, "And now, I exit stage right." He then proceeded to exit stage left. It was that kind of chairmanship."

....and while exiting stage left he said, "And I would once again like to quote another passage from War and Peace.....it is a far, far better thing that I do than I have ever done..."

Sorry, couldn't resist. :)

Posted by: elscott | January 14, 2011 5:10 PM | Report abuse

@wbgonne: "Ever heard of the Tea Party?"

Yup. I don't remember them talking about getting rid of Social Security and Medicare. Perhaps I was ill that day?

"You would place us at the mercy of their semantics."

And syntax. Yes, yes I would.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | January 14, 2011 5:14 PM | Report abuse

OK, I have settled on my choice, which is not surprisingly my own formulation:

The Destroying Patient Rights Act.

Posted by: smd1234 | January 14, 2011 5:15 PM | Report abuse

@jnc4p

Canada, for example, has better outcomes and lower costs than does the US. In fact, that's true pretty much across the boards comparing the US and other western nations that have some form of universal or government-managed health care.

And as I've noted before, it is the case in every one of those countries who have put such programs in place that there is effectively no constituency to get rid of their programs and hew back to a system such as the US had.

If you think about this in consumer-satisfaction terms, the citizens of those other nations are happy consumers of nationalized healthcare (at least happy enough to refuse to elect any party that would remove them).

Posted by: bernielatham | January 14, 2011 5:17 PM | Report abuse

"The only way to control costs is to battle well-financed lobbies. That battle won't be won."

Why is that? Crony Capitalism? Citizens United? Pay to Play? Yeah, it's all that. So don't worry about repeal, it is all posing, hitting your marks and choreography...as the money, sorry, the "free" speech flows into the Capitol. It used to be called the spoils system. None dare call it health care.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 14, 2011 5:17 PM | Report abuse

wbgonne: "Ever heard of the Tea Party?"

kw: Yup. I don't remember them talking about getting rid of Social Security and Medicare. Perhaps I was ill that day?

Kevin: What happens if the Supreme Court accepts Conservatives' argument that the federal government is prohibited from acting in all spheres other than those specifically delineated in the Constitution?

Posted by: wbgonne | January 14, 2011 5:18 PM | Report abuse

Give Death A Chance Act.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 14, 2011 5:19 PM | Report abuse

so much for civility.

Let me sum up most of the comments here:

the democrats should call thier response "the republicans are evil and want you to die and shut up about"

that should quite clearly display the new found civility of the left.

Oh my. A liberal is a liberal is a liberal. their hatred simply knows no bounds

Posted by: skipsailing28 | January 14, 2011 5:21 PM | Report abuse

All, these are really great. Thank you. I've actually let a House Dem leadership aide know that they should scroll through these.

Posted by: Greg Sargent | January 14, 2011 5:21 PM | Report abuse

Bernie,

That Glenn Beck list was spot on, except I do not understand how he could have left out two of the biggest shapers of what America has become.

No such list is complete without including Snooki and Ronald McDonald.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 14, 2011 5:23 PM | Report abuse

@bernie: In Canada the government imposes a budget on health care spending. In the US, Medicare does not abide by a budget. Isn't that why costs are lower in Canada?

Posted by: sbj3 | January 14, 2011 5:24 PM | Report abuse

"exit stage right"

My god. That's perfect.

We'll be a far duller world without Michael up front. As I've said before, I actually kind of like the fellow. He seems to be without that cold and sterile cynicism
of the DeMints, Bachmanns, Gingrichs, McConnels etc of the party. He struck me as being animated by far better angels.

Posted by: bernielatham | January 14, 2011 5:26 PM | Report abuse

this is simply wrong:
==============
Canada, for example, has better outcomes and lower costs than does the US. In fact, that's true pretty much across the boards comparing the US and other western nations that have some form of universal or government-managed health care.
==============================

It is simply not true. It is not supported by any valid study I have reviewed. And since bernie didn't bother to cite a source I will just assume its a myth he's passing on. Sorta like "sarah palin is responsible for the tragedy in Arizona"

Posted by: skipsailing28 | January 14, 2011 5:28 PM | Report abuse

The Death with Bankruptcy Act

Posted by: shrink2 | January 14, 2011 5:29 PM | Report abuse

In America; The Republican passed a bill, which forced Medicare not to negotiate bulk prescription drug discounts,

so we end up paying far higher prices for them, than people in Canada do.

See how simple that is SBJ.

Your Right Wing Tools of Big Pharma put in the price fix for them, so that contributed to higher health care costs here in the USA. However their display of lapel flag pins make up for they ripping off the tax payers, on behalf of their Big PHARMA masters.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 14, 2011 5:31 PM | Report abuse

@shrink: "Why is that? Crony Capitalism? Citizens United? Pay to Play?"

I'm just wondering, if we do someday try to impose cost cutting measures by radically reducing medical professional salaries, pharmaceutical profits, hospital corporation profits, insurance company profits, and so on - what happens to our economy?

I'm opposed to repeal but it seems to me that we have about three or four years to fix ACA so we don't hit the point where services eventually have to be suddenly and radically cut. I'm gonna be mad as hell if my company decides to opt for the penalty and let me use credits and I end up with the same amount of pay but weaker coverage (or less income for the same coverage).

Posted by: sbj3 | January 14, 2011 5:32 PM | Report abuse

"It is simply not true."

who.org, my friend.
.

Posted by: jprestonian | January 14, 2011 5:37 PM | Report abuse

@liam: The Dems just did the same thing for PhRMA (and the insurance companies) with ACA!

Thus the point that we never will be able to reduce costs (both patties are beholden to the special interests) so adding more people to the broken system will inevitably lead to cuts in services. Or, I suppose, ever-increasing taxes, a new VAT, and so on.

Posted by: sbj3 | January 14, 2011 5:37 PM | Report abuse

I hear you SBJ. You got your coverage, so let all those millions that do not just crawl away and die.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 14, 2011 5:43 PM | Report abuse

Probably not apropos for the current task, but I can't tell you how many years I've waited for the Democrats to compare and contrast FDR's New Deal with the modern GOP's Raw Deal. So House aide, if you're reading, jot down "Raw Deal" - short, punchy, accurately descriptive with historic overtones - and bound to come in useful within the next couple of years.

As for labelling the repeal effort, "The Protecting Unlimited Profits for Our Corporate Masters Act" isn't all that snappy, but it is a quick summation of who really stands to benefit.

Posted by: JennOfArk | January 14, 2011 5:45 PM | Report abuse

@liam:

Go death!

Posted by: sbj3 | January 14, 2011 5:46 PM | Report abuse

The GOP

Death Is Cheaper Act.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 14, 2011 5:48 PM | Report abuse

@sbj - " In Canada the government imposes a budget on health care spending. In the US, Medicare does not abide by a budget. Isn't that why costs are lower in Canada?"

Well, first of all, let's note that costs are lower not just in Canada but in all those other countries too.

I'm really not expert enough to contrast the two systems in the way you are requesting. Your best bet might be to do a careful read here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_health_care_systems_in_Canada_and_the_United_States

But off the top of my head, I'm not sure your question makes a proper distinction. The Canadian provinces get funding from the Federal government thus must budget from that (further budgeting down the line of course, each district, each hospital, etc).

But a private system will operate on budget constraints too though set by the business entity which runs the show.

Further, if per capita costs are lower and if key outcomes are better (or even equal), then the exact specifics on budgeting seems to me rather beside the point.

Posted by: bernielatham | January 14, 2011 5:51 PM | Report abuse

Survival of the Fit Act

or

Republican Kill the Ill Act


Posted by: AllButCertain | January 14, 2011 5:57 PM | Report abuse

Contract on the Sick Act

Posted by: AllButCertain | January 14, 2011 5:58 PM | Report abuse

"@liam: The Dems just did the same thing for PhRMA (and the insurance companies) with ACA!"

I was waiting for that response.

Posted by: wbgonne | January 14, 2011 5:59 PM | Report abuse

@bernie: "The exact specifics on budgeting seems to me rather beside the point."

It's rather central to the question of the cost of health care. See Ezra:

"Medicare does not abide by a budget. It is not run like the Canadian or British healthcare systems. Instead, it pays whatever is deemed "reasonable and necessary." Because of that, costs are shooting through the roof: The Congressional Budget Office estimates that Medicare spending will more than triple by 2050."

And now we've just made millions more eligible for Medicare without reducing costs... No politician is willing to impose a budget on Medicare the way the Canadian system is forced to abide by a budget. At some point the bill must be paid. We either ration services drastically (the longer we keep propping up Medicare) or we need much more revenue.

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/apr/07/opinion/oe-klein7/2

Posted by: sbj3 | January 14, 2011 6:01 PM | Report abuse

All, Happy Hour Roundup posted:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2011/01/happy_hour_roundup_166.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | January 14, 2011 6:03 PM | Report abuse

@Steve-

"Deadicare"! Ding-ding! I was trying to think of something off Medicare.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | January 14, 2011 6:14 PM | Report abuse

The GOP Act to:

Increase The Organ Donor Supply.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 14, 2011 6:20 PM | Report abuse

@sbj - OK, gotcha now. Sorry, I'd missed the stipulation of "medicare" (we use, or used, that term as title for our full provincial program). And obviously, you are better off getting your data from Ezra than me as I don't know enough about your medicare program to say anything particularly bright. In Canada, of course, there's no distinction in delivery or insurance based on age which has some obvious consequences here.

Posted by: bernielatham | January 14, 2011 6:21 PM | Report abuse

"I'm just wondering, if we do someday try to impose cost cutting measures by radically reducing medical professional salaries*, pharmaceutical profits, hospital corporation profits, insurance company profits, and so on - what happens to our economy?"

You mean, what would all these parasites do if they didn't suck money out of health care?

*that was just a joke, right?

Posted by: shrink2 | January 14, 2011 6:27 PM | Report abuse

@shrink: "You mean, what would all these parasites do if they didn't suck money out of health care?"

I mean, how much would my taxes go up to subsidize all of the unfortunate under-employed?

Posted by: sbj3 | January 14, 2011 6:36 PM | Report abuse

skipsailing28 flees from reality again, right back to rightwingnutistan.

----
skippy says: this is simply wrong:
==============
Canada, for example, has better outcomes and lower costs than does the US. In fact, that's true pretty much across the boards comparing the US and other western nations that have some form of universal or government-managed health care.
==============================

skippy concludes: It is simply not true. It is not supported by any valid study I have reviewed.
------
Well first, it is indisputable that US health care is 2-3 times as expensive as canada, or the developed countries of the EU, even though the US has 40 million people with out access to basic health care (not emergency room access).

Read it and weep

"While U.S. life expectancy is at or
below the average in comparison
with that of other developed
countries, findings from research
that has adjusted mortality to
account for deaths not related to
health care (so-called amenable
mortality) show the United States
to be among the worst performers"

"Among 19 countries included in a
recent study of amenable mortality,
the United States had the highest rate of deaths from conditions that could have been prevented or treated successfully"

"In certain cases where
U.S. quality appears low relative to
that of other countries — in the
areas of prevention and care for
chronic conditions, for example —
access barriers experienced by the
uninsured and the underinsured
may contribute to the results seen. "

"A significant share of the academic
research studies comparing the
outcomes and effectiveness of
health care across countries
consists of U.S./Canada
comparisons, perhaps reflecting
policy interest, data availability or
other factors. Although studies
findings go in both directions, the
bulk of the research finds higher
quality of care in Canada. "

"In the light of the fact that the
United States spends twice as
much per person on health care as
its peers, those who question the
value for money obtained in U.S.
health expenditures are on a firm
footing"

http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/411947_ushealthcare_quality.pdf

Plenty of references to studies for you skippy...

Posted by: srw3 | January 14, 2011 6:41 PM | Report abuse

"I'm opposed to repeal but it seems to me that we have about three or four years to fix ACA so we don't hit the point where services eventually have to be suddenly and radically cut."

We have not time to fix it. Services already are radically cut and they will continue to be because this country can not afford the ACA.

Well, it could, but we'd become a health care culture, the first in human history. We're close, we already spend more, measured in gdp terms than any other culture in history.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 14, 2011 6:53 PM | Report abuse

The Republican Go-It-Alone Healthcare Act

Posted by: AllButCertain | January 14, 2011 7:46 PM | Report abuse

"Boehner's Brutal Repeal Act"

Posted by: tapgirl | January 14, 2011 9:32 PM | Report abuse

"Ruthless Republican Repeal Act"

Posted by: tapgirl | January 14, 2011 9:37 PM | Report abuse

Insurance Before Patients Act

Posted by: caothien9 | January 15, 2011 5:21 AM | Report abuse

The Care Cut Act

Posted by: dannykx | January 15, 2011 6:36 AM | Report abuse

patient-killing corporate takeover act

Posted by: chase-truth | January 15, 2011 9:55 AM | Report abuse

"The Make Youth Pool & Pay For Mine Act"

I'm in my early fifties, want to retire and consult part-time. Need you to force all the young healthy ones into the scheme to keep my premiums down. Thanks!

Posted by: TominColorado | January 15, 2011 10:41 AM | Report abuse

~ Or, as David Kurtz put it yesterday, "are there no Democrats anywhere on Madison Avenue who can help with this stuff?" ~
-------------------------------------------

From DK's lips to god's ear. Democrats need to stop trying to DIY this stuff and hire top talent the way Republicans do. Where's our Frank Luntz? Forget the unfairness and general sleaziness of it all. Liberals can't just go on unilaterally disarming in the PR wars and blindly hoping that anyone will be inspired by our example. We've seen for the last two decades how well that works.

Posted by: CalD | January 15, 2011 2:19 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company