Frank Luntz Tells Them What to Say — Health Care Edition
Everyone who has paid attention to politics since Bill Clinton knows the name of Frank Luntz. He is a GOP pollster whose specialty is messaging. As in finding the words that either make it easier for people to emotionally engage on a position. Key to this effort is that truth or accuracy or anything near it is not crucial. Nor is it crucial to use language to educate people about the terms of the debate. Putting up slogans — often misleading as to their actual position is the game.
Yesterday morning I had one of those rare chances to listen to Al Mascitti for abit in my office. And who calls in? Mr. Shallow Bench who is telling Al that Luntz has done some amazing polling on what a health care plan needs to look like. This amazes me, because Luntz doesn’t do this kind of polling, so I went back to look at the Luntz findings, and it is still not a real poll on what people want or even their attitudes on an issue. These polls are designed to produce honest-to-god Talking Points. So take a good look at the Talking Points you’ll be hearing ad-infinitum from repubs for the next few months (and have been hearing already):
(1) Humanize your approach. Abandon and exile ALL references to the “healthcare system.” From now on, healthcare is about people. Before you speak, think of the three components of tone that matter most: Individualize. Personalize. Humanize.
(2) Acknowledge the “crisis” or suffer the consequences. If you say there is no healthcare crisis, you give your listener permission to ignore everything else you say. It is a credibility killer for most Americans. A better approach is to define the crisis in your terms. “If you’re one of the millions who can’t afford healthcare, it is a crisis.” Better yet, “If some bureaucrat puts himself between you and your doctor, denying you exactly what you need, that’s a crisis.” And the best: “If you have to wait weeks for tests and months for treatment, that’s a healthcare crisis.”
(3) “Time” is the government healthcare killer. As Mick Jagger once sang, “Time is on Your Side.” Nothing else turns people against the government takeover of healthcare than the realistic expectation that it will result in delayed and potentially even denied treatment, procedures and/or medications. “Waiting to buy a car or even a house won’t kill you. But waiting for the healthcare you need – could. Delayed care is denied care.”(4) The arguments against the Democrats’ healthcare plan must center around “politicians,” “bureaucrats,” and “Washington” … not the free market, tax incentives, or competition. Stop talking economic theory and start personalizing the impact of a government takeover of healthcare. They don’t want to hear that you’re opposed to government healthcare because it’s too expensive (any help from the government to lower costs will be embraced) or because it’s anti-competitive (they don’t know about or care about current limits to competition). But they are deathly afraid that a government takeover will lower their quality of care – so they are extremely receptive to the anti-Washington approach. It’s not an economic issue. It’s a bureaucratic issue.
(5) The healthcare denial horror stories from Canada & Co. do resonate, but you have to humanize them. You’ll notice we recommend the phrase “government takeover” rather than “government run” or “government controlled” It’s because too many politician say “we don’t want a government run healthcare system like Canada or Great Britain” without explaining those consequences. There is a better approach. “In countries with government run healthcare, politicians make YOUR healthcare decisions. THEY decide if you’ll get the procedure you need, or if you are disqualified because the treatment is too expensive or because you are too old. We can’t have that in America.”
(6) Healthcare quality = “getting the treatment you need, when you need it.” That is how Americans define quality, and so should you. Once again, focus on the importance of timeliness, but then add to it the specter of “denial.” Nothing will anger Americans more than the chance that they will be denied the healthcare they need for whatever reason. This is also important because it is an attribute of a government healthcare system that the Democrats CANNOT offer. So say it. “The plan put forward by the Democrats will deny people treatments they need and make them wait to get the treatments they are allowed to receive.”
(7) “One-size-does-NOT-fit-all.” The idea that a “committee of Washington bureaucrats” will establish the standard of care for all Americans and decide who gets what treatment based on how much it costs is anathema to Americans. Your approach? Call for the “protection of the personalized doctor-patient relationship.” It allows you to fight to protect and improve something good rather than only fighting to prevent something bad.
(8) WASTE, FRAUD, and ABUSE are your best targets for how to bring down costs. Make no mistake: the high cost of healthcare is still public enemy number one on this issue – and why so many Americans (including Republicans and conservatives) think the Democrats can handle healthcare better than the GOP. You can’t blame it on the lack of a private market; in case you missed it, capitalism isn’t exactly in vogue these days. But you can and should blame it on the waste, fraud, and abuse that is rampant in anything and everything the government controls.
(9) Americans will expect the government to look out for those who truly can’t afford healthcare. Here is the perfect sentence for addressing cost and the limited role for government that wins you allies rather than enemies: “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.”
(10) It’s not enough to just say what you’re against. You have to tell them what you’re for. It’s okay (and even necessary) for your campaign to center around why this healthcare plan is bad for America. But if you offer no vision for what’s better for America, you’ll be relegated to insignificance at best and labeled obstructionist at worst. What Americans are looking for in healthcare that your “solution” will provide is, in a word, more: “more access to more treatments and more doctors…with less interference from insurance companies and Washington politicians and special interests.”
Any of this sound familiar? I’ve heard them on the news I hear. And it is the biggest puzzle to me how it is that the official GOP Talking Points on this thing can be published far and wide and I can still hear repubs saying this stuff on NPR and the reporters don’t push back on it. I mean, the reporters know already from reports like this that there is a bunch of made up crap to get into the conversation, so how is it that they don’t use this as a road map for pushing for something real?
In any event, take a good look at the scope of the arguments that will be mounted. And always remember that they don’t even own their own words. Frank Luntz crafts them up, their radio handlers broadcast it and the minions repeat it as if it were gospel. It will be content free, certainly, and you won’t get much official journalistic effort to get behind this crap. But since you can see the whole of the talking playbook, you do have a better chance at countering this stuff. And counter it you will have to. There won’t be anyone else to do it.
Tags: Health Care
I don’t know which is worse. That empty headed Republican fools confuse talking points for policy – or that weak Democrats let them ge away with it.
IMO, Democrats are getting their asses handed to them in the communication department and support for a public option still stands at 75%. Democrats should listen to Luntz and Lakoff and start communicating with the public. A chance for real healthcare reform will die if they don’t start doing this. According to people who’ve been calling Congress, the calls into Congressional offices are overwhelmingly against. We don’t want the 21%ers killing good programs. We need the 75% out there to feel passion about the issue too.
Seriously I have a hard time believing that Democrats are going to cave on real healthcare reform after listening to Insurance CEOs talk about recission and how they will keep on doing it.
HOLD ON ONE GOD DAMNED SECOND!@
MIKE PROTACK IS WRONG!@?????
Now my day is ruined!
DV,
Didn’t you get the memo? It’s Mike Protack, leader of the Delaware Republican Party now.
I was wondering where Michael D. Protack, leader of the Delaware Republican Party got phrases like “patient-centered”. Personally, I am gearing up to do battle over rising personal medical costs. Wish me luck. At this point, I think I owe 3K out-of-pocket.
Thanks Harry and Louise.
BTW, currently a google search for “Protack Republican” ranks Jason’s post last night as the 10th hit.
ha
Why should we be for a non-single-payer “reform” plan?
LG (#6):
I saw that…as well as what I sent you in the email. DEEPLY disappointed that my earlier-in-the-week rant that inspired your spirit-crushing of my registration card isn’t even anywhere near the top of a google search.
I’m not saying I agree or disagree with the GOP talking points. What I would like to address is the author’s inability to make a logical argument for or against. What proof is there to the statement “Key to this effort is that truth or accuracy or anything near it is not crucial”? Then as the only argument to the talking points he exclaims “I mean, the reporters know already from reports like this that there is a bunch of made up crap to get into the conversation” Then ironically exclaims “It will be content free, certainly, and you won’t get much official journalistic effort to get behind this crap”. Is this really the way the Liberal message is to be debated?
inthemiddlebutnot charges that I can’t make a logical argument, when he apparently has real reading comprehension issues.
This post is intended to highlight the actual terms of the Talking Points being rolled out by the GOP on the health care issue. It presumes that you know something about how Talking Points are crafted and used — but I do understand that there are folks who will swallow this stuff whole without thinking too deeply about it or its provenance. This post is not about the Liberal message — but the fraudulence of the conservative one fueled by these pre-tested, but content-free messages.
Geezer asks a very good question, which I’ll get to abit later…..
And if inthemiddlebutreallynot has been reading DL he/she knows that we’ve been writing about health care for quite some time.
The topic of Cassandra’s post was quite clear, and deliberately ignored.
I agree the talking points are without content. But what talking points are with content? You mention the post is intended to highlight the actual terms. The term you highlight is that you disagree with the person who crafted the Talking Points. Why not discredit the points individually versus the one who came up with them. Is this your idea of proving the fraudulence of the conservative message? I’m not defending the conservative message, I just want to see reasonable and honest debate.
No, I’m sorry I’ve missed prior conversation. I am new to DL.
I’m not defending the conservative message, I just want to see reasonable and honest debate.
You know, like on Fox News.
Talking Points don’t exist to be debated.
And there isn’t going to be a reasonable and honest debate when repubs come to the table with a set of instructions on how to be manipulative.
These talking points exist to create a unanimity of message — whether the message is wrong or right is not their point. They exist to give people easy cut and paste responses to what are typically serious questions. And, frankly, if you’d read the bits of Luntz’ message to repubs that I copied above, you’d see the open manipulation. It is an exhortation on how to be in the game — not a coherent or fact-filled (no references certainly) debate.
Reasonable and honest debate does not come with a prepackaged set of manipulative language.
Point well taken. But aren’t there talking points on all sides? Let’s be honest, all sides are guilty of “prepackaged sets of manipulative language”. When we can eradicate it from our own side, we have more validity in our attempts to demonstate it in the other.
“I’m not defending the conservative message, I just want to see reasonable and honest debate.”
Then go somewhere else. “Debating” right-wingers means trying to talk some sense into them. Not interested, thanks.
“Why not discredit the points individually versus the one who came up with them.”
Most people here don’t need to review their “How to Debate” textbook. The point of the post is that Frank Luntz, and Republicans in general, are interested in killing any proposal, not putting forth one of their own. It’s easier to play defense than offense.
What part of all this don’t you understand, or rather, are you pretending to be too undecided to understand?
Inthemiddlebutnot, start here to catch up on our healthcare posts.
Inthemiddlebutt.
Bottom line on a few aspects.
I have supported a smart way to universal care for years.
The public option does none of things the great majority of Americans desire for health care, it is DOA.
Unlike the folks on this site I gave attribution to Mr. Luntz and also told the show host I would email the document to him which I did.
Dems are in power and they profess to care about people but they can’t seem to do a thing about health care which makes any sense. Sad.
Mike Protack
Geezer, are you saying you don’t want a reasonable and honest debate. I understand this may not be the forum for debate. However, I see the same thing on both sides …“Debating right-wingers means trying to talk some sense into them”. It is prudent to assume both sides have some sense to them, for which both sides should be seeking.
I understand the GOP has not offered a substantial resolution for the health care crisis and I agree you cannot “kill any proposal” without offering a substitute. Even talking point 10 points out the fact that they don’t have a solution.
Pandora, thanks for the link.
Anonone, there is a reason for the name I chose and your response only justifies it.
You’re welcome, inthemiddlebutnot. Did you read them?
“I agree you cannot “kill any proposal” without offering a substitute.”
It worked for Nancy Pelosi on Social Security. She was even killing alternatives on her own side.
Hmm… given how much you guys hate Pelosi, dont you have anything better. Or is your plan simply saying “No.”