« Why do we need health care reform? How do YOU explain it? | Elizabeth2's Blog | Anyone have a primer on Medicare? »
Public Option: How do I explain it to Aunt Mary?
I posed this first in a response to the Robert Reich column but the focus there seems to be on other facets, so I thought I would try this group:
My Aunt Mary isn't a screamer or even a very good Republican (hates Cheyney - smart lady) but she **does** **not** **like** the idea of a public option - not a thing about it - and says (and means it, at least for the moment) that she will work and vote against anyone who supports it.
Why? Very simple. She believes the following: (1) that having the option of a government plan will run the private providers out of business because the pool will be bigger so it could have much lower costs, etc., etc. and (2) that after the private providers have closed up shop and left town, the government option will stop being so efficient and will be operated in a way that takes costs into the stratosphere -- that it will wind up like the Dept. of Defense when it paid $800 for hammers and $200 for a toilet seat.
"But, Aunt Mary, that's not going to happen. It's going to be set up and run by smart people who are dedicated to the public interest and determined to bring about good quality, affordable health care for all our citizens."
"Yes, dear, I know and it could be a fine thing -- I think that nice young man probably would do his best to run it right. And maybe he would succeed. But once it's there it's there, and once the competition is gone, they're gone. THEN what happens if we wind up with another namby-pamby Bush and crazy-insane Cheyney and Cheyney's best buddy is in the business of selling medications, or fetal monitors, or things like that? Don't you know we'd wind up with the most costly, inefficient medical care system in the world? We'd all be trapped."
Did I mention that Aunt Mary is not a very good Republican? In fact I convinced her to vote for that "nice young man" last November. (smile)
So --- how do I convince her that she shouldn't be afraid of the public option, so afraid that she is (politely) calling and writing to her Representative and Senator and convincing them that they'll be voted out of office if they support it? (And yes, I did suggest that perhaps we should simply not be so stupid as to elect a Bush and Cheyney again ... but she just gave me "a look" and snorted -delicately, of course.)
Take away the screaming and shoving and cries of "death panels" and the like, I think Aunt Mary's fear - a not entirely irrational fear, to be honest -- is at the heart of this strong push against the public option. And I think most of our Congressmen and Congresswomen know enough to discount the irrational screamers but that they do listen to the Aunt Marys in their districts.
Sometimes I think she and I are afraid of exactly the same thing -- being at the mercy of powerful, impersonal <entities> that care about the money in their pocket and don't really give a damn for my, or others, health or well-being. My fear is directed toward the big insurance companies that are now engaging in what I think is criminal behavior; Aunt Mary's fear is a government that has a total monopoly in an area that is, literally, life and death.
My Aunt Mary isn't a screamer or even a very good Republican (hates Cheyney - smart lady) but she **does** **not** **like** the idea of a public option - not a thing about it - and says (and means it, at least for the moment) that she will work and vote against anyone who supports it.
Why? Very simple. She believes the following: (1) that having the option of a government plan will run the private providers out of business because the pool will be bigger so it could have much lower costs, etc., etc. and (2) that after the private providers have closed up shop and left town, the government option will stop being so efficient and will be operated in a way that takes costs into the stratosphere -- that it will wind up like the Dept. of Defense when it paid $800 for hammers and $200 for a toilet seat.
"But, Aunt Mary, that's not going to happen. It's going to be set up and run by smart people who are dedicated to the public interest and determined to bring about good quality, affordable health care for all our citizens."
"Yes, dear, I know and it could be a fine thing -- I think that nice young man probably would do his best to run it right. And maybe he would succeed. But once it's there it's there, and once the competition is gone, they're gone. THEN what happens if we wind up with another namby-pamby Bush and crazy-insane Cheyney and Cheyney's best buddy is in the business of selling medications, or fetal monitors, or things like that? Don't you know we'd wind up with the most costly, inefficient medical care system in the world? We'd all be trapped."
Did I mention that Aunt Mary is not a very good Republican? In fact I convinced her to vote for that "nice young man" last November. (smile)
So --- how do I convince her that she shouldn't be afraid of the public option, so afraid that she is (politely) calling and writing to her Representative and Senator and convincing them that they'll be voted out of office if they support it? (And yes, I did suggest that perhaps we should simply not be so stupid as to elect a Bush and Cheyney again ... but she just gave me "a look" and snorted -delicately, of course.)
Take away the screaming and shoving and cries of "death panels" and the like, I think Aunt Mary's fear - a not entirely irrational fear, to be honest -- is at the heart of this strong push against the public option. And I think most of our Congressmen and Congresswomen know enough to discount the irrational screamers but that they do listen to the Aunt Marys in their districts.
Sometimes I think she and I are afraid of exactly the same thing -- being at the mercy of powerful, impersonal <entities> that care about the money in their pocket and don't really give a damn for my, or others, health or well-being. My fear is directed toward the big insurance companies that are now engaging in what I think is criminal behavior; Aunt Mary's fear is a government that has a total monopoly in an area that is, literally, life and death.
Advertisement
Ask Aunt Mary if she wants the Health Care Industry running this country. We know she doesn't want the reverse, but this thought might be scarier.
I'm breaking a covenant with myself for being here now. There will be folks along to flesh out what I'm trying to say
September 3, 2009 8:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the best way to describe her concern here (my analogy, not hers) is that if it's the government, there's going to be one big shark surrounded by minnows, while with the health care industry, there are a lot of medium-large sharks. While they aren't going to be any more concerned about her than the government, maybe less so, they will at least be competing for her business and fighting each other, so that as she put it, "the consumer sometimes gets a break."
This led to a discussion of how consumer-friendly airlines like JetBlue and SkyBus, etc. wind up being run out of business by the combined medium-large sharks of the airline industry (or so it seems, anyway). But she points out that at least there are some good bargains for a while and there's always the threat of *something* (another competitor) to keep the private providers on their toes.
It really does seem, often, to come down to the basic difference between us: she has a lot more faith in the 'capitalist system' than the government and I have more faith in government that I do in big business and the capitalist system. Which, I suppose, may explain why she's a Republican and I'm a Democrat.
September 3, 2009 9:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tell your aunt what congress did for the HC Corps last week:
The House on Tuesday voted 242-181 to approve an operating rules package (H Res 5) that eliminates the Medicare trigger, which requires the president to submit a plan to contain Medicare costs if they reach a certain level, CQ Today reports. The trigger was approved as part of the 2003 Medicare law. Under the law, if 45% or more of the program's funding comes from general tax revenues for two consecutive years, the president must submit to Congress legislation that would slow spending over a seven-year period and make the program financially stable. The trigger went into effect for the first time last year !
Which WOULD have protected costs for seniors!
September 4, 2009 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is Aunt Mary afraid of Medicare?
September 3, 2009 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, I at least thought to ask her that one! She likes the coverage she gets but points out that she still has to have supplemental policies and is very unhappy about getting insulin covered but not needles (or vice versa). I'm a bit unclear if it's Medicare or her supplement that causes the disconnect, but in any event it costs her a good bit of money that by logic she shouldn't have to pay. ----------- Her biggest concern, however, is that if a government program for everyone is run the way Medicare is, the country would be bankrupt in short order. It actually sort of goes along with her concern about the medical equivalent of $800 hammers.
September 3, 2009 9:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe Aunt Mary was around when all the great Democratic "reforms" were sold to voters, like social security and progressive taxation.
SS was packaged as "social insurance" during the New Deal - only for seniors below poverty rate. It went on to become one of the biggest government program of income redistribution, under the guise of mandating coverage to all seniors whether or not they are in need.
Progressive income tax was implemented in 1913, with a marginal rate on top incomes of 7%. That seemed small enough, so it passed. Then it went to 73% in just 8 years. And so on.
Aunt Mary may have enough life experience to know that whenever Democrats attempt to solve a problem, any solution will have a built-in component: income redistribution under any guise. It always starts small. Just like the innocent "public option".
Or maybe she is one of those few people left in this country who believe that our Constitution was written to protect "individual liberty" from coercion by others (government) and as a consequence everyone is entitled to exactly EQUAL treatment under the law.
Good luck with your brainwashing.
September 3, 2009 9:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I don't think so -- she's really much more reasonable and realistic than that. Thanks, anyway.
September 3, 2009 10:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess I offered a possible explanation of why she believes (1) and (2) that you wrote about. And there is nothing unreasonable about what I said either - these are all easily verifiable facts.
Our government is once again trying to push through a program of coercion by a monopoly. And just as it happened with Social Security, so it will happen with the public option - a single payer system within a decade or less.
September 3, 2009 10:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Given the huge concentration of wealth, sensible conservative (Burke, for instance) recognize that redistribution is necessary to maintain social stability.
September 4, 2009 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Once the socialists push through one policy or another, most conservatives eventually accept it as dogma. In that, the only difference between the two is time.
September 4, 2009 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
whenever Democrats attempt to solve a problem, any solution will have a built-in component: income redistribution under any guise... Or maybe she is one of those few people left in this country who believe that our Constitution was written to protect "individual liberty" from coercion by others (government) and as a consequence everyone is entitled to exactly EQUAL treatment under the law.
Absolutely, Lalo - Down with income redistribution. Equal treatment for all.
Actually, the French author and social critic of a previous century, Anatole France, anticipated your sentiments exactly with his famous statement about equality in France:
"The law, in its majestic impartiality, forbids rich and poor alike to steal bread, beg in the streets, and sleep under bridges."
It's hard to be more equal than that.
September 3, 2009 10:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
It would be interesting to argue about the difference in "individual liberty" in the French and American constitutions at the time of France's life and writing.
In the meantime, I give you an American, Loius Brandeis, a "militant crusader for social justice":
"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in the insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding".
September 3, 2009 10:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
OLMSTEAD v. U.S., 277 U.S. 438 (1928)
The case was a wiretapping case involving Bootleggers out in Washington. Brandeis lost.
The issue was one of strict construction of the constitution, which the majority supported. Brandeis argued for a generous interpretation of the constitution.
So I guess accepting Brandeis' argument means that one has to accept the idea of an evolving constitution, and also concede that Bush broke the law with his illegal wiretapping.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=277&invol=438
September 4, 2009 9:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
"So I guess accepting Brandeis' argument means that one has to accept the idea of an evolving constitution, and also concede that Bush broke the law with his illegal wiretapping."
- Evolving doesn't mean going away from its original intent and spirit, does it?
- A government spying on a group of citizen is a classic example of an arbitrary and coercive act of government. Note Obama's repudiation of the Patriot Act.
September 4, 2009 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
It sounds like Aunt Mary and you should discuss the various options the real problems existing today. Perhaps she has some alternates to the "public option". Or maybe she will discover that the "public option" isn't a bad solution to these problems.
Allow her to convince herself. Because unless she is happy with the status quo, she might find out that some reform is needed.
Baby steps.
September 3, 2009 9:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
>>>It sounds like Aunt Mary and you should discuss the various options the real problems existing today.
Are there some words missing there? Do you mean "options 'in connection with' the real problems"?
One thing she did say was that the optimal solution, in her opinion. would be for the government program to be truly an "option" - i.e., to exist side by side with the private plans, so that they could 'keep each other honest' and provide some permanent competition. Unfortunately, everything she has heard - from people supporting the option, who see it as a positive - is that the advantages of a gov't program are so great it would drive the private provider out of business.
The one really good argument (I think) that I came up with in this regard was to point out that the US Post Office (gov't program) hadn't kept UPS and FedEx (private providers) from developing and thriving. So why should we automatically assume that creating a public option would inevitably lead to the monolithic monopoly she fears?
She is thinking about that one (semi-success!) and I'm not sure it isn't a good, i.e. reassuring, analogy to use for those who share her fears. But I'm not sure that comparing the proposed public option to the USPS is exactly, well, alluring.. Still -- everyone DOES have mail service, even if they can't afford or get access to UPS or FedEx, which is pretty impressive when you think about it.
Let me know what you meant with your suggestion, CT -- I'll try any approach! (But, hey, she's no longer balking on the need for reform in general or on having it be mandatory ... so there's been a good bit of progress).
September 3, 2009 10:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's try this again:
It sounds like Aunt Mary and you should discuss the various options FOR the real problems existing today.
There. That looks better.
My point is that if Aunt Mary is into having a real conversation, then the issue would be to discuss what's wrong with today's healthcare. For her. Personally. (No points for saying it isn't equitable for her neighbor. ;-))
Once the problems are identified, you can discuss options. You never know: she might make you think just as hard as you will make her think!
As for the USPS v. FedEx / UPS. I never understood this example. USPS is mandated to go everywhere. FedEx / UPS can go where things are merely profitable. That leaves out some rural / low population density areas.
This is the brilliance of LBJ using the USPS as a place to register to vote in the 1960s Voting Act. Every town has a post office -- and it's a Federal place!
Frankly, I find the "can't afford it" line of reasoning to be really unconvincing -- especially for the mail service example. "Not having access to it" is more powerful in my notion of fairness. After all, I might want to send packages that FedEx / UPS routes simply don't cover -- even if I have all the money in the world.
(I don't think that there is a strong analogy for this use of "government must cover everyone" for healthcare, but maybe someone clever can think of one.)
September 4, 2009 3:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
D'oh. I'm always for stick to facts and get specific but never took that approach. Thank you!! I'll give it a try. ------ Of course, it's a little iffy since she's on Medicare so it may be hard to argue that a public option will cure the problems she is directly experiencing. But she does have children and now-grown grandchildren and she knows the specific challenges they face in this area, so I'll work from there. --- It should be interesting. (But not so wonderful if it turns out that Medicare is responsible for the coverage of needles but not insulin - or vice versa. THAT one gets mentioned in every conversation!)
September 4, 2009 9:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think this is worthy of a totally separate post. We keep hearing how Medicare is great and fantastic. What problems is she experiencing on it? Does she have good reason to fear the government screwing something up?
These inputs from her will no doubt help your thinking as well!
September 4, 2009 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, it's also *very* important to ask -- is she on Medicare (Dis)Advantage, or real Medicare? Her experience will be very different.....
September 4, 2009 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Forgot to add -- actually, the FedEx/UPS example IS (so far) the argument that's working best. Her concern - logical or not - is lack of competition, and the success of those companies is reassuring. It also allows me to say things like "So why can't I have MY preferred choice, which is something that may be slower or bulkier or less fancy but does the job and covers everyone? You want competition and I want the government to be one of the ones competing -- those aren't mutually exclusive."
September 4, 2009 9:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's true that there would be private insurance companies which could compete with the public option.
However, they'd have to be a lot different from the bloated corporate leeches of today. You can tell her that new, entrepeneurial start-ups could compete fairly with the public plan, although the current gorged-on-high-profit-margin companies would likely not survive.
September 4, 2009 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sometimes I think she and I are afraid of exactly the same thing . . . . Elizabeth2
Sometimes I think you and your Aunt Mary are two aspects of one and the same person -- your rational alter ego, perhaps?
September 4, 2009 12:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hah! Well, she would like to think that she had so much influence on my upbringing that your statement is essentially true! But, no, very much her own person (tho her name isn't Mary). She blames my dad, however, for the fact that I wound up a Democrat.
September 4, 2009 9:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
You ask very basic, direct questions that require those of us on ALL sides to reconsider their basic assumptions. That is never a bad thing.
I think the best thing I can suggest for your Aunt is to try to think in 'cognitive behavior' terms: In EVERY aspect of everyday living, there is an unavoidable element of risk. Life itself is something of an inherently dangerous miracle. Neither I, nor her, nor anyone else can know with absolute certainty ahead of time whether or not our diagnosis of ANY problem is absolutely correct, or whether or not our solution will work exactly as expected on the first try.
In fact, it's reasonable to believe it WON'T work precisely as expected, and that we will have to pledge ourselves ahead of time to a process of ongoing eveluation and continual course correction. To be willing to take that step requires a fundamental faith in ourselves and in our institutions - a faith that accepts that the WORST possible outcome rarely happens, that good will and hard work give us a decent chance at a good outcome, and that we will prove ourselves capable of persevering thru all obstacles to something better (I don't think there's ANY attitude more 'American' than that).
The best we can do as ordinary mortals is to try our best in good faith, and HOPE for the best. I know that's not directly answering the 'public option' question (others can do that better than I can), but I think that will help your Aunt to construct a way to think about it.
September 4, 2009 12:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is helpful. >>it's reasonable to believe it WON'T work precisely as expected
Yes! The only thing we can predict with any confidence is what a continuation of the status quo would be, and that ain't pretty! As a lawyer, I can go on and on about unexpected consequences and she'll get that.
>>>>and that we will have to pledge ourselves ahead of time to a process of ongoing eveluation and continual course correction.
That's the bottom line of everything, really, not just health care. A democracy works only when there is an educated, diligent electorate. -- On Nov. 2, 2004 I almost gave up my faith in America. But you're right, if we stop doing that, everything is lost - not just our health, and if we do continually evaluate and correct, her feared result isn't so likely. Thanks!!!
September 4, 2009 9:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is a possiblity that public health care for all could have an *overly* chilling effect on private health insurers and put them out of business. Not a strong likelihood, and not for awhile--those fat cats could diet for quite awhile before we'd have to worry about them!
If by some chance we did end up with just one program, and it was a government program, well, at least we could yell and scream at our reps about it and vote them out of office if they didn't fix it.
(I know the $800 toilet seats were bad, but Aunt Mary probably knows that when we tried to outsource military activities to Halliburton and Blackwater, the results were not good.)
Health Insurance/Health Care are always going to be difficult and expensive--that's not going away. The public option has a good shot at making it more efficient, fairer and cheaper by making it available to everyone.
You might also want to point out that the US Govt already foots the bill for 46% of the Health Care in the country. My understanding is that some of that money goes to hospital subsidies to cover the costs uninsured people who go to the emergency room for care then can't or don't pay the hospital's bill. Having a public option will move those people into clinics (cheap) instead of emergency rooms (expensive) and we'll all get more for our 46% that way.
September 4, 2009 1:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fantastic points - all of them! Thank you!
September 4, 2009 9:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, I hope you are sending your work straight to David Axelrod for inclusion in Obama's speech.
September 4, 2009 1:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you and Aunt Mary should visit a homeless shelter and talk to some of the kids and their moms who have to stay there. At the very least, you should see the conditions at your local shelter (if there is one) and talk to the volunteers and staff about the effects of the budget cuts to shelter programs in your state. If there isn't a shelter in your community, then you should try to find out which churches provide shelter to the homeless. I am guessing this research is going to be eye-opening.
Because the reality is, we pay for not having a public option one way or another. Check out the rest of this site and talk to them too.
September 4, 2009 8:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am sure the intent is good, but it conjures an image of some type of a curiosity show.
It seems unlikely that the people in a given shelter would be happy to talk about their predicament with random people who wander in to see how "those people" are doing. Perhaps actually volunteering for a couple nights might be better received.
September 4, 2009 9:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sure Aunt Mary should not volunteer at a homeless shelter, especially overnight. I'm assuming her age and lack of experience would make it extremely risky if not downright dangerous for her.
She should physically go to a shelter, however (making arrangements beforehand, of course, rather than just showing up), and see the situation with her own eyes. That is the best teacher. Besides, it's part of her community. Some shelters house only women and children, and I don't think it would be a problem to ask to speak to someone. If it is a problem, the staff will say so. Then she could direct her questions to the staff instead. There is no harm in asking, and I'm guessing Aunt Mary looks pretty harmless.
Are homeless people entitled to some privacy? The irony of that question is lost on anyone who has never stepped foot in a shelter. If they are entitled to privacy (which they are), then they are entitled to a home.
The point is to get out of the realm of theory and into the realm of reality. Health care is not a discrete issue; it is connected to other issues (like housing and homelessness) that we all deal with whether those connections are obvious or hidden from view.
Do the research about homeless shelters where you live. Find out the statistics of how many people stay monthly. Find out how many women and children stay there at any given time. Find out what the state budget cuts did to the number of shelters in the last year. Find out how the statistics have changed since the recession. Find out the number of foreclosures in your community and estimate the repercussions, in human terms, on your community.
Then ask yourself what someone can do about their own health care when they have no place to live. Really think about it in practical terms. Chances are, if you don't need the services yourself, you don't even know where the shelters or services are located in your community.
Now, take some time to read the links I provided, Karl, because you couldn't have done that adequately in the time between my post and your response.
September 4, 2009 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was not in any way contradicting your point, nor that seeing for oneself would be revelatory; just expressing a feeling that just wandering in like some tourist is...obscene?
September 4, 2009 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are so many mitigating factors that I can't address (like rules and regulations for specific communities), but in general, I'd argue it's similar to other social interactions: If you approach someone with respect and real interest in learning something, you rarely offend. It's amazing how far respect can take you.
My idea has to do with moving Aunt Mary outside of her safety zone (without actually endangering her) in order to challenge her assumptions. Lots of people still think it's the 1970s out there in the world of the poor. It's closer to the 1930s for so many people because support systems that were in place in the 1970s are now completely nonexistent. I think the situation pretty shocking myself.
September 4, 2009 10:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure the best way to persuade or have a meaningful conversation with a person who is afraid is to make them more afraid. Fear blocks rational thought -- and if she, or anyone, is too afraid they are more likely to escape by just shutting it all out. I want her to be rationally convinced to the point she will call her representative and say "I've changed my mind." -- I think we all know, in our hearts, that what you describe exists (also agree with K.the M. about the value - and decency - of volunteering rather than observing).
September 4, 2009 9:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
You can't convince her rationally. She doesn't have enough facts.
Most shelters are in really bad neighborhoods. Volunteering is not an option for someone like Aunt Mary. You would have to go with her in the daylight hours. If she is afraid, then find a church that provides assistance (shelter or food) to the homeless. Arrange to speak to the pastor about the program and what he/she deals with on a weekly basis.
I'm not talking about "observing" people, by the way. I'm talking about talking to people. I'm talking about treating people like they are fellow human beings, not like they are scary freaks. That's exactly why I'm suggesting doing something so difficult, something so out-of-the-ordinary, and yes, so extreme for Aunt Mary and the rest of us. The crux of the problem is, if we can't see other people as fellow human beings, then we can't convince anyone that everyone should have health care. My guess is that Aunt Mary does have the capacity to see people in need as fellow human beings. If she doesn't have that capacity, there is nothing you can say that will change that.
Yesterday I was trapped on a crowded bus with a crazy woman who literally chased another woman off the bus because she believed that innocent person had wronged her and her baby 16 years ago in Puerto Rico. "I never forget a face!" she yelled, along with "Get off the bus, bitch!" Never mind that 16 years ago, the person she chased off the bus would have been about 4 years old.
Even after the altercation, the crazy woman would not calm down. I sat 2 seats away from her and decided to ask her a question about the baby she had mentioned, as if what had just happened was perfectly normal. My intent was to distract her from her rage by talking about someone she cared about. I didn't know if it would work, but it did: I was able to get her to talk about her daughter. I managed to slip in the idea that now that she had chased the younger woman off the bus, they were "even."
"Yes," she agreed, "we're even."
No one could have predicted the situation would have escalated to such an extreme, although we knew the woman was mentally ill. My point in telling this story is not to raise the specter of crazy homeless people (the woman was not homeless, in fact), but that the woman is clearly not being treated for her mental illness. She was all by herself, on her way to the courthouse, for who knows what horrible reason. We all were subjected to a total stranger's lack of proper health care.
I realize I'm asking you to try something very difficult. My first instinct was to tell you that you can't convince Aunt Mary. I still think you can't convince Aunt Mary rationally, because she has made an emotional decision. The amount of facts you will need to counter that emotion and tip the scales is prodigious. It would be more efficient (and effective) to counter the emotion with a real-life experience rather than with a rational argument.
September 4, 2009 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are proposing arguments that would work for you.
You are already convinced. It's logical that the first approach to convincing someone to spring to mind is to "follow the path that led me here".
But Elizabeth2 needs arguments to convince Aunt Mary.
These are bad economic times. People are very insecure about the future. They are going to see a homeless shelter and say that health care reform is about charity -- taking what money I have and giving it to the less fortunate.
That's not going to work in hard times.
By the way, there is a hidden bias in your commentary. You specifically choose to discuss women and children in the shelters. To make it less threatening? That doesn't support your argument about unniversal healthcare for all -- and reinforces the idea of healthcare reform be viewed as charity.
September 4, 2009 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I said, I have no advice for a rational argument because I suspect strictly "rational" is going to fail to convince Aunt Mary. This is not a rational topic for most people, although everyone thinks they are being perfectly rational.
Sometimes "seeing is believing" is the most powerful of arguments. If I'm remembering correctly, Elizabeth2 is a lawyer, so she can probably think of examples of how "seeing is believing" proved to be true.
If you actually talk to real people, you will learn that they really don't want charity. They want a chance to be productive citizens.
It's not a hidden bias, it's a deliberate one. It's a suggestion based on what I thought Aunt Mary could handle. A high percentage of men in homeless shelters are veterans (40%). Veterans are often homeless when they don't receive treatment for mental health issues (in addition to their physical disabilities). I don't think Aunt Mary could handle those guys in that setting.
As for women and children in shelters, some of these statistics are rather daunting:
Hey, even Barabara Bush was moved by the Katrina refugees in Houston, even though she stuck her foot in her mouth about it. And she's as Republican as they get!
September 4, 2009 11:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Complete sidenote:
For someone who talks of empathy and kindness in these stories you certainly play taunting, instigating, and rough games here.
Maybe you just feel more secure behind a keyboard?
I can handle you either way - its only your inconsistency I note.
September 4, 2009 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Off point, but...have you seen Toque_Deville's post?
Would be interested in your, Jason's and Blow's feedback on it.
September 4, 2009 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
sorry, link:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/tocque_deville/2009/09/choose-progressive-change-or-d.php
September 4, 2009 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've weighed in. It should be an interesting thread, but doesn't look like it will have enough rec's to get the required attention of ignition.
September 4, 2009 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Medicare is run by the government -- and has been for over 30 years. It has 3% overhead. The private plans have 30% overhead, including both bureacracy and profits. Medicare is consistently rated by patients as giving better service than the private plans, *even under Bush and Cheney*, who tried to dismantle it. The VA medical system has been run by the government for much longer than that, over 70 years. It has also been consistently rated by patients as getting better service than the private plans, and it also has low overhead, like Medicare, and it is also rated by independent observers as giving better results than private plans. *Even under Bush and Cheney*, who tried to trash it.
Tell me again why you're concerned that the government plan would stop being so efficient and well-run?"
September 4, 2009 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
You write:
The government's assessment isn't as rosy as yours:
and
September 4, 2009 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, neroden, concerns about the government plan are not a bit issue of mine. I work for the government and know that we do some things very well -- and fairly. They are a big issue with a bright, sensible, reasonable elderly relative, someone who (I think) represents a lot of the people who are quietly and peacefully convincing their representatives that they won't support *them* if the representative supports the public option.
Facts and figures such as you give are helpful, and I thank you. Eye-opening experiences to the ills of the current situation are well and good, but not something she's going to be getting her buddies to do and, in any event, the things you describe, RTBG, are not something new to her: she was a teacher for decades in one of the poorest areas of the South. And she does agree (THANK GOODNESS!!!) that the current situation MUST be changed: it's unfair, way too costly, and worst of all in her mind, it's too uncertain -- it's hard for anyone to feel secure.
What I'm up against, I'm deciding, is a deep-seated core American belief that capitalism/competition is what works best and what will ultimately provide the citizens with the best possible life - both in services/products they get and in growing a strong economy. It was planted in the psyche, especially of the older generation, very early own and isn't something that's going to be budged on dry fact or emotional appeal. They need to feel that any other way of doing things will, or at least could possibly, work.
Since I started this, the argument/analogy that has made the most headway with her is the USPS/FedEx and UPS one. Or as neroden above said so much better - getting her to understand that a public option wouldn't block all private companies but that the ones that rose up to compete with it would be, would have to be, far superior to the bloated and very uncaring providers we have today. (Since FedEx is in our home state and looked on locally as a great company and great employer, that was not a totally foreign idea.) She's starting --- just starting -- to believe that maybe it (public option) wouldn't be quite such a danger as she thought. It feels like a major break-through (at least to me) and I thank all of you who helped me wedge my foot in the door, so to speak.
Obviously this is an issue that goes way beyond Aunt Mary, or it wouldn't be worth taking up your time. A post some days ago (destor's I think) suggested that we stop fighting the Limbaughs and Becks and instead address the arguments and concerns of the sensible conservatives. He was talking about conservative leaders and thinkers, I think, but it gave me the idea of really focusing on the subject with my aunt, a moderate-conservative voter.
I'm sure all of you have aunts, or friends, or co-workers who are more like Aunt Mary than they are like the person waving banners and shouting obscenities. And if you can do so respectfully and with an open mind, maybe it would be a good idea to delicately begin a conversation with them. We could learn something about the concerns of sensible opponents and maybe start changing their view of these issues a bit. Journey begins with a single step and all that....
The ONLY way Obama is going to get a government option through -- immediate or triggered -- is if there are enough people in Congress who can vote for it without feeling like they are committing political suicide. And it's the folks like Aunt Mary - the steady voters, workers and envelope- stuffers - who get a lot of attention when they are moved to speak (or write their carefully worded, polite notes - always exhibiting excellent penmanship)
The elected officials know full well that the paranoid folks screaming about this today will probably find some other issue to be paranoid about by election time and see them as the deamon or perhaps not even vote because they are so angry. They make a lot of noise but don't really carry a lot of weight. But the Aunt Marys, carry a lot of weight, and, trust me, can be quite formidable when they all get together and worked up about something.
I don't know if I'll be able to talk to her much this weekend, but I've told her to make a list of actual, concrete health care situations that she's having problems with or has concerns about for herself or immediate family. Should be interesting! (Thanks for pushing in that direction, CT - and I'll check out the Youtubes when I get to my other computer where I can play them.)
Well, this blog is probably going to disappear, but I'll check back from time to time. I very much appreciate the thoughtful and very helpful comments.
September 4, 2009 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Elizabeth2, here are some additional points to make:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCNs7Zpqo98
September 4, 2009 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink