"Booming all-caps header: HEALTH INSURANCE REFORM, right there, front and center."

- Give him just a couple of days..

I'm not sure what caused a delay with focus groups, but it seems that Obama and the Democrats finally settled on a storyline they can exploit for all its worth.

The weapon of choice?

The same as always - pitchfork populism, tried and true.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/30/AR2009073001547.html?hpid=topnews

Democrats will lie through their teeth during the entire August, painting the insurance companies as un-American bloodsuckers and the public option as a "free market" solution.

Meanwhile, if the economy goes from "straight into the toilet" free-fall to a slow decline, they will spin it as an intended impact of Porkulus (that was ALWAYS supposed to be a 2-year plan, but nevermind the little details) - under the calculation that it will help dupe the fawning public into swallowing the massive deficit, that someone else will have to deal with 20 years from now.

I have a feeling it will be a fun August.

Have you noticed that Obama looks really bad? Sick and tired, and his color is off. Maybe he has some health issues that have put his fire out for now. I've been pretty pissed at him, but when I saw him on a clip this morning, I felt sorry for him.
August will be a real pip.

They'd better have a populist message. The Republicans have been winning with one for decades. The Dems have too many ivory tower wonks who'd rather bore folks to death with the details of their CV. They need to hire some of those clunker pitchmen.

Leadership is lacking period. We are not mobilized and take as much action as we could if there were real leadership.

I think that congress and the administration have done a pretty good job at shuffling single payer out of the conversation for a majority of people and have sold them the notion that we must have a 'public option' even though it was initally presented as the ability to buy into medicare for insurance and to assist and subsidize those who could not afford it. Of course a lot of people thought that was fine because how far would that be from single payer?

The president definitely made a strategic error in starting from the position of bargaining for a public option. What is the term for someone who haggles? I can't think of it but if your selling, you don't show up to haggle with your low price. A haggler isn't going to be satisfied until he's won something and gets your price (or position) lowered.

I mean all of the BS and objections to Sotomayor was so much prima dona acting out for political gain but they knew full well that if she did not get approved, the next candidate was likely to be far more liberal than she.

You have to start with your highest, over-priced position before you start bargaining with hagglers. They never pay ticket price.

We don't really know what this 'public option' will be or even if it will ever get enacted when the political games are played with it.

I expect that the next elections are going to be tough when we see tons of health insurance and pharma dollars spent trying to help republicans to take back the house and then the presidency.
Hopefully it won't work and the reforms will get enacted and things will work out great.

Once an effective message is developed, I would leave it to the media professionals to figure out how best to pitch it. Developing a single, coherent, powerful message is a daunting challenge, however, even if the professionals can find ways to counter Republican spin. One reason their spin has gained some traction is that they are speaking to an electorate that is already sympathetic to many of the points they make.

More Americans have health insurance than do not. Those that do may have some unease about their insurance, but they are sufficiently satisfied to be even more uneasy about dramatic changes that they fear might make their circumstances worse. Slightly exaggerated - those who like the status quo outnumber those who don't. It is hard to sell change to those peoople.

The truth we recognize is that the status quo is unsustainable, and those who are satisfied today will ultimately be more and more penalized by increasing costs and decreasing health care availability. However, scaring satisfied people about future harm, even if justified, is politically very difficult. Unless the scary future can be personalized in some way, many voters are unlikely to buy it.

In a positive step, the House Energy and Commerce Committee has approved a bill with many desirable provisions. As I interpreted the news item, these include a public option that is probably similar to the one negotiated a few days ago, but gives the government new authority to negotiate Medicare drug prices; it also includes higher subsidies for low income earners than the bill of a few days ago. Some details are at

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-naw-healthcare-house1-2009aug01,0,4832534.story

Could it be Obama's simply not interested in selling what you want him to sell?

Wilson - We don't yet know what we're talking about? Defined proposal that fits on one piece of paper? Are you smoking crack? I'm sorry but you either need to read the House tome or rely on partisan blogs to tell you if it's good or bad.

Try reading the House bill, unless you don't want to become scared shitless.

It's never wise to proclaim victory prematurely - we still have a ways to go - but it now looks increasingly likely that this nation, through President Obama's leadership, will be the beneficiary of a transformative moment in our society that find affordable healthcare extended to almost all Americans, with insurance subsidized for many low income earners, and insurers forbidden to exlcude any applicant or apply discriminatory rates on the basis of illness or medical history. Whether what prevails is the House version, which includes a public option combined with government authority to negotiate Medicare drug rates, or a Senate version that will have some type of public presence (either direct or through oversight of non-profit cooperatives), the final effect is likely to finally move us toward a system that begins to emulate all the other industrialized democracies, which now cover more people at lower cost and with better health outcomes than ours. Regarding the exact mechanisms utilized elsewhere, a minority are single payer, while the majority are various public/private hybrids or combinations. These perform equally if not better than single payer (e.g., the French hybrid system, but all perform far better than what we now have, but which hopefully will soon change.

Thank you for this post, Eric.

I've long lamented the lack of any kind of message strategy for health care reform.

One reason we haven't seen anything from the White House may well be the fact that they have been in disaster management mode since taking office. Obama and his administration simply inherited too many issues that have required their near undivided attention. Since health care reform was a campaign promise, it was introduced, but without requisite backing.

The other reason the administration hasn't used resources at their disposal could be that they don't want to be accused of spending tax payer dollars on promoting their agenda. They instead have relied up to now on poorly informed, ill-equipped, grassroots efforts.

Hopefully this will change during the recess.