Maybe it's because the CBO had said this reform is going to bankrupt the country, despite the gigantic savings we can extract from the astonishingly huge "30% or more" of our premiums?

And because the majority of Americans who heard this have health insurance and do not think that kind of cost doesn't justify this particular version of reform?

Or because people have no clue what Obama means when he says that the status quo is not an option, but everyone can keep status quo if they like it - at the same time.

Or because nobody can convincingly explain how it's possible to have current Medicare bursting at the seams, then enroll 50 million or more people and yet somehow reduce overall costs - at the same time. Perhaps it sounds too much like "up is down" for people?

It could be because he didn't explain the purpose of the Health Benefits Advisory Committee (aka Death Panel) - but did suggest that a pill could be better than surgery, that doctors rip out tonsils for pure profit and promised that we will have "a difficult democratic conversation" when someone reaches end of life.

Or it could be because they trumpet comparative medicine while Rahm's brother writes an article where he said that in case of scarce resources they should be allocated to the young at the expense of the old?

All that or a dozen other things...

Look at Congress! I'm just livid at my latest spam response from Senator Amy who took an entire page to tell me that she wants healthcare to be "more accessible". Whoopee! "more accessible".

At least the Republicans can come up with some killer sound bites. We have wonks who write voluminous tomes of garbage in order to be 100% beyond a shadow of a doubt certain that their Senator can be held accountable for NOTHING.

You want healthcare to be "more accessible" Senator Amy? More accessible than where Somalia? Darfur?

Make a damn commitment! Stick your damn neck out! Take a risk! Go for broke! Stand for something!

My own impression is that Obama is doing a good job, and that a robust reform bill will pass.

One problem for Obama, though, is that there's no single bill to tout, but rather several different bills with different features, so he can't say exactly what it is he's promoting. I expect that will change in September.

Many have expressed disappointment that the message so far has not been cogent enough to fully counter the misinformation circulated by reform opponents. Indeed, there is some truth to that, partly for reasons I cited above.

To those, however, I would ask - given Republican charges that the reform bills would ration healthcare, encourage euthanasia, raise taxes, and lead to a government takeover of medicine, and also given that a defensive argument is never as effective politically as an aggressive and positive promotion, and given that the argument must be phrased in a few brief sentences, which few sentences would you use when addressing seniors scared that Medicare would be yanked away from them, and then they would be euthanized?

Remember, you can't spend all your words on defense, and you don't have too many words to spend - maybe just a few dozen.

It's easy enough to articulate a defence of health care reform that creates affordable health care for all, or at least moves in that direction. The bill working its way through the system does not do this. Hence the problem of articulating a defence. It's a huge windfall for insurance companies with (i) the inclusion of an insurance mandate and (ii) no public option constraining their pricing power (iii) an utterly hollow minimum benefits package. Its a huge windfall for drug companies with no negotiation power for Medicare. It's a load of crap, and THAT is hard to defend. Golly, one wonders why.

http://www.businessweek.com/print/magazine/content/09_33/b4143034820260.htm

It's easy enough to articulate a defence of health care reform that creates affordable health care for all,

That may be true, Obey, but I'm not sure it's easy in a 30 second sound bite. In fact, I don't believe "defense" is a good sound bite strategy, because being on the defensive tends to work poorly in politics.

The challenge, in 30 seconds, is to express a focused, emotionally compelling argument that convinces the majority of Americans who already have health insurance that they're in danger if we don't reform the system, that reform will improve their lives and enhance their choices, and that reform is not a road straight to euthanasia along with a government takeover that would allow bureaucrats to decide whether granny lives or dies.

PoliticalTruths, I liked your use of contrast in the second ad. But it is too much information for the passive viewer to absorb -- especially if they have a bias.

Can you come up with a series of 15 second ads using your contrast technique? Each ad would address one of the points you raised in your second ad.

In a world of money, audio versions could run on radio for a week, then videos would follow up on television the second week. Videos would run on the web continuously. Follow that up with a 30 second green eye shade ad like what Fred's talking about. That might make for an effective campaign.