Luntz to GOP: How To Oppose Obama’s Health Care Plan

“Are you happy with the insurance industry setting standards of care, instead of doctors who really know what’s best?”
—“Are you happy with the insurance industry rationing care, making people stand in line and denying treatment?”
-“The republicans are satisfied with the insurance bureaucrats in charge of healthcare. I want to put the medical professionals in charge, and I want patients as an equal partner.”
.
Luntz is so last century.

Luntz has succumbed to the fatal flaw that all pollsters know they must vigilantly guard against and that is trying to find the best way to frame their own assumptions instead of finding out how best to frame the public’s perceptions. By starting from his own assumptions, Luntz has failed to account for a decrease in the public’s trust of corporate America and an increase in trust in an Obamanized government. Clearly, the GOP still believe government is the problem and private industry is always better. Obviously, that was the dominant sentiment of the past, but in a post economic crisis/madeoff world no so much.

The Republicans have NO credibility with 60% of the electorate only because of the gullibility of 40% of the electorate who fail to see that the “poster child” of Republican social policy is the bastard grandchild of Sarah Palin. Otherwise the Republicans would have 0% credibility.

By the way, my use of “bastard” is NOT an epithet but a precise technical use of the term. Republicans also have trouble associating words with their actual meanings like “Weapons of Mass Destruction” or “torture” or “civil liberties.”

Dee: Interestingly, though, he tells them to call this a government “takeover” of health care, not government “run.” and he says they shouldn’t complain about the cost to the government, because people WANT the government to help them with their bills. this to me sounds like a shift in their argument. they want to raise the scary prospects of rationing and of a government board telling your doctor what treatment you can and cannot get.

Health care in this country reeks. Luntz is providing legislators who benefit from not fixing it with excuses for not fixing it. Meanwhile, “the rich stay healthy and the sick stay poor.”

“they want to raise the scary prospects of rationing and of a government board telling your doctor what treatment you can and cannot get.”
.
KT-how is that different from what people are actually experiencing NOW with their insurance companies?
.
That is the flaw in his “argument”. Scaring people about (supposed) poor delivery service for less money than the (actual) poor service we are already spending a lot on.

I think that what he is saying is very much in line with what you are hearing in these rick scott ads that are all over cable.

government board telling your doctor what treatment you can and cannot get.
.
KT, I know you know this – doctors already don’t have the final say on treatment, unless you can walk in with bags of money. P-NNTO is right on target here.

Both parties are entrenched with the insurance industry lobbyists. Unfortunately, most of our mainstream press wants to protect the establishment and the status quo. (See Evan Thomas of Newsweek.)

The Republicans can use whatever wording they want and the Democrats can be frightened by their “scary” rhetoric – but the reality on the ground – the reality for people across America – is our system is broken. Only people in Washington think highly of the for profit healthcare system.

Unfortunately, I don’t see a change unless the populace gets off their butts and make their elected representatives do the right thing.

P-NNTO: Agreed. But someone has to make that argument, and also to reassure people about what this proposal WOULDN’T do.

My train just got stopped (outside Philadelphia) for “police activity in the area.”

Never mind. We are moving again.

I would hope that the Democrats can make that rather simple point.
.
“police activity in the area.” That’s sounds ominous.

Insurance companies are viewed as the enemy by many patients. People have seen their co-payments rise over time. Unless the Democrats completely drop the ball.
.
For many patients, health care is already being rationed. I think many will trust an Obama run system over the insurance companies they are dealing with now. Harry Reid should not be the point person to deliver the health care message, he could screw things up.
.
“Health care professionals” are going to be adversely affected whether corporations or the government is paying the bill. At the end of the day, “professionals” will be delivering more care for less economic return.

Thanks, KT. I just got a horrific vision of two police cars parked athwart the tracks, with loud music blaring, a few bear kegs and half-nekkid cops frolicking amidst spent Dunkin Donuts boxes. Not pretty. Not pretty at all.

Harry Reid should not be the point person to deliver anything but cover for The Club.
.
Fixed. (Sorry for the derail)

They’re trying to scare people that are already scared (and broke) because of the current system. The RW spin machine used to be the best. They were the undisputed masters. Their problem now is that they have lost the trust and respect of most of the voters. It’s going to come to the question of “who do you trust?”.

Too bad Luntz couldn’t give advice like they should accept reality instead of play games with language and rhetoric.
.
Looks like Chris Matthews gets it:
.
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/05/05/pence-evolution-global-warming/

KT — Yes, he is acknowledging the public’s desire to spend government funds on health care, but the core value of the GOP is still that government is the problem. That government doesn’t work and the private sector is better. We now know that not to be true. The short sightedness, and in some cases of outright stupidity of some of these captains of industry makes it evident that the private sector doesn’t have all of the answers. Moreover, they are currently witnessing what effective government looks like and rather than coming away with the perception that Obama is trying to do too much, they are left with the impression that this guy can walk, chew gum, and juggle his way out of our problems.

They’re trying to scare people that are already scared (and broke) because of the current system
.
Yes! Thanks for that.

Here’s a clue.
.
Anytime anyone uses the phrase “it could lead to” in a sentence they’re making s4!^ up.
.
Not that I’m immune from using ‘slippery slope’ arguments myself but I think the argument that people who have power and no accountability will abuse that power is safer than the notion that DC bureaurocrats want to micromanage your relationship to your physician in a way that Insurance bureaurocrats don’t.

I’m a physician and between the insurance companies, mega-pharmacies, etc. I have NEVER been in charge of the care of my patients. I fill out 10-15 pieces of useless paper daily because some insurance company wants to switch their patient to a different (i.e. cheaper) medication. And I also see the inequities of this system daily in my practice, with denial . I’m SO ready for a change.

So will the objective media examine these canned lines with the same scrupulous eye they’ll apply to a Democratic plan? Or will they be content to describe the plan, quote uncritically any and all hysterical claims in opposition, and let a tragically uninformed public reach random conclusions?

On a broader note-Almost everything benefits from checks and balances, that’s why the current state of the republican party isn’t healthy for the country, what should the “check” be on physicians?
.
The current system is so economically based that the care decisions are skewed towards the bottom line by the insurance industry.
.
Would, for lack of a better word, unfettered decisions made by healthcare professionals work? Or even be desirable?

spinmd, I feel your pain. In an academic setting, we often see the patients who wont be treated by other hospitals.
.
Here is the AMA’s take on the situation:
.
2009 National Health Care Policy Agenda
.
The American Medical Association (AMA) believes that all Americans are worthy of a fair and affordable health system.
.
Today, Americans are faced with a fragmented health system. Millions don’t visit a doctor until their illness reaches a serious stage. As a nation, we can and should do better.
.
At the center of the AMA’s vision is the concept that every American, regardless of means, has health insurance. And every patient maintains the freedom to choose his or her own doctors and health plans, and maintains control over his or her own care. For a senior, this includes having ready access to doctors in the Medicare program. For a pregnant woman, it means finding a physician who hasn’t been forced out of business by high liability insurance rates. And for everyone, it means receiving the best care possible. Specifically:
.
* The AMA urges lawmakers to implement a system of tax credits to enable individuals to buy health insurance. We have a detailed proposal for this system.
* Under current law, Medicare will make deep cuts in payments to doctors every year until 2015. This policy erodes patient access to care and is a barrier to practice innovations. Congress and the next Administration need to permanently replace the flawed payment formula.
* Medical lawsuits are driving up health costs for everyone and making it hard for many to find a doctor. The AMA seeks reasonable limits on the noneconomic damages juries can award so that doctors aren’t forced to move, cut services or go out of business.
.
Physicians and other health providers must work with government and private payers on strategies to restrain rising health care costs while maintaining quality of care. Medical science and technology have moved forward at a lightning pace. Patients are ready for the American health system to follow suit. The AMA is committed to:
.
* Finding new ways to enable doctors to use promising new technology
* Pioneering new methods to measure and improve the quality of care
* Preventing errors by studying ones that have happened, without the threat of lawsuits
* Directing more resources and effort toward disease prevention
* Helping Americans lead more healthful lifestyles
* Eliminating gaps in care, particularly for racial and ethnic minority patients, the elderly, and low-income families
* Preparing better for large-scale health care emergencies
.
Today, patients are forced to endure miles of insurance company red tape and piecemeal policy attempts to solve one problem or another. America’s patients will be best served when our country eliminates the disproportionate influence of insurers and government into medical decision-making. These important decisions must be placed in the hands of the patient and the physician.
.
Our nation needs a well-trained medical work force, and more doctors in primary care. We must make sure our medical education stays the best in the world, and make paying for it less burdensome. So too must we address the barriers that threaten the viability of many physician practices, such as:
.
* Payments that fail to reflect the true cost of providing care
* Health insurers’ deceptive business practices
* Antitrust rules that restrict doctors from negotiating with health insurance companies
.
As physicians and medical students, we see firsthand every day how urgently our patients need a better health system. Together, we can shape one America truly deserves.

Besides KT the most important thing is whether you media types let the GOP get away with this. If the decision of the media is simply to repeat these talking points whenever they are given will probably have to make Democrats work a little harder, but if the media decides to make them support these statements with facts then this nonsense will be exactly that nonsense.
.
Of course Luntz also fails, or at least it appears from what is written here, to inoculate against the more obvious responses of health care advocates that include brining more competition to the industry by fashioning a public option — clearly the GOP would never be on the side of anti-competition would they?

When will Republicans stop trying to just win the argument and actually try to solve the problem? Maybe the answer to that is when all this slippery slope hypothetical rhetoric (like, “it could lead to socialism”) stops being so effective. Not holding my breath, but at least the last election showed that more and more Americans aren’t buying it.

I’m afraid the coverage will be Democratic plan = blah, blah. Republican response = All of Luntz’ points and more. A prime opportunity for he said, she said journalism to flourish.

KT,
Interesting post, but you say above in response at comment #10, that:
“But someone has to make that argument, and also to reassure people about what this proposal WOULDN’T do.”

Now, I know you’re not an advocate for either side in this story, but shouldn’t you, in your role as a reporter who knows a lot about this issue, point out exactly what the plan would and would not do? Simply posting what Republicans are going to say about the plan is useful, but what would be more useful would be for a knowledgeable reporter to give readers the information they need to either affirm or debunk talking points, especially if you can see that these so-called “powerful arguments” are not entirely forthright. Almost none of the statement presented by Luntz are true on their face, yet you leave them there unchallenged. Journalists should strive to present to the public a story that takes into account the actual facts and debunks false statements.

“When will Republicans stop trying to just win the argument and actually try to solve the problem?”
.
The answer is never! The GOP’s only strength has been the ability to win elections. The disastrous state of our country is because governance requires a skill set that we should have never expected from a crew that doesn’t believe in government. Thank God, we finally have a crew that was better than they are at winning the campaign and are prepared to govern effectively.

………..Would, for lack of a better word, unfettered decisions made by healthcare professionals work? Or even be desirable?
.
Paul, one of the aggravating things that happens is that the primary care physician or specialist is communicating with a person who 1). Is not seeing the patient and 2). May have no special training in the area under discussion.
.
I previously mentioned an experience with a health care plan who wanted to wait and see if a patient who arrested and was revived threedays after a heart attack would arrest again. They were reluctant to implant a defibrillator. Luckily the patient was still in the hospital when he had a second arrest. That patient was lucky, the second event could just as likely have happened a year later. His chances of surviving an out of hospital arrest would have been in the 5-20% range without a defibrillator.
.
When the government decided to require second opinions before a pacemaker could be implanted, the practice was halted in short order because 1). The majority of patients wound up receiving pacemakers (the initial MD made the correct recommendation) and 2). The cost of the second opinions made the total cost of the procedure skyrocket.
.
Unless an MD is a sociopath, they are not doing procedures for pure profit. MDs make most of their money through investments, not the practice of medicine.

From rmrd’s AMA post-”Medical lawsuits are driving up health costs for everyone and making it hard for many to find a doctor. The AMA seeks reasonable limits on the noneconomic damages juries can award so that doctors aren’t forced to move, cut services or go out of business.”
.
From the Harvard School of Public Health
.
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/354/19/2024
.
“The great majority of patients who sustain a medical injury as a result of negligence do not sue.” Indeed, the New York Times reports, although “recent studies have found that one of every 100 hospital patients suffers negligent treatment, and that as many as 98,000 die each year as a result . . . only a small fraction of injured patients — perhaps 2 percent—press legal claims.)
.
“Just 1.1 percent of all doctors accounted for 30 percent of all malpractice payments made between 1990 and 2002, while only 5.2 percent of doctors were responsible for 55 percent of all payouts.” A very small group of doctors are losing or settling malpractice lawsuits, but they are losing big.
.
“Eighty percent of claims involved injuries that caused significant or major disability (39 percent and 15 percent, respectively) or death (26 percent).”
.
This is a little dated but I’m not sure things have changed.

The system doesn’t need tweaked or adjusted. It needs a full fledged overhaul. Most people realize that they are just one major illness away from financial catastrophe. The republicans don’t seem to understand that most people don’t recieve the best treatment at the best facilities. Of course they don’t want to see the system changed, it’s working for them.

@ 32,
The interesting thing about the malpractice lawsuits is that KT reported, on this very blog, that Obama came to the Republicans to offer a compromise on that front and they offered…nothing in return.
I don’t know if one could say that Obama is operating 100% in good faith, but the Republicans are certainly acting in bad faith.

Excellent information rmrd, thanks. I was hoping you would weigh in.
.
“MDs make most of their money through investments, not the practice of medicine.”
.
Isn’t true of insurance providers too? As the market goes down premiums go up and/or coverage goes down? Or is that an Urban Myth?

Yeah uvasig, that episode had a few interesting parts to it.

Your country can have the best medical care in the world…but if you can’t afford to pay for it then it doesn’t really matter to you does it? Millions of people have lost their jobs in this country. Many thousands more have either had their hours or wages cut or are still fearful that they will. I think most American’s understand at this point that insurance companies are the ones who control health care in this country. Not their doctors. And I think most American’s understand that those insurance companies could give a squat less what happens to the random patient. As long as the almighty bottom line is protected. With so many people now without insurance or afraid of losing it, I think the majority of people out there are ready for a change. And GOP fear mongering isn’t going to change it.

.
Um, this is what the Republicans always say when healthcare reform comes up.
.
Luntz gets paid for this?!

I have a post up on my blog about Luntz’s arguments. What it boils down to is this, he just gave us the biggest gift ever. Now that we know how many if not most Republicans will be attacking the Democratic plan for universal healthcare we have the opportunity to build Democratic messaging around significant pushback. One of the biggest pushback’s in my mind would be to use the word freedom early and often when talking about the public option. As in “Democrats want you to have the freedom to choose which health care plan is best for your family. Republican’s want to restrict your choices and thus your freedom” As we all know Republicans want to won “freedom” in our public discourse. Well this is an opportunity to use it against them. If the messaging that comes out is that Republicans along with the health care industry wants to take away people’s freedom to choose, we win. Just a thought.

Barnacle this morning on Morning Joe nailed (Cantor, I think. I was listening out of one ear while I was doing something else). Cantor was playing the usual “government run” line, and I could only wonder why Republican elected officials aren’t constantly challenged to give up their government run health coverage in favor of private insurance they’ll have to pay for. At any rate, Barnacle wanted to know what Cantor’s plan was, and of course he didn’t really have one.
.
I think Luntz is very astute and if the Republicans had listened to him more in 2008 they would have had more success.

Paul, The obvious problem with insurance companies and profits is that they maximize profits by diminishing care. As spinmd noted, physicians are caught in the middle.
.
Physicians face decreasing reimbursement from government plans. Private insurers will likely follow suit. No one is really happy with the current situation.
.
I have never been sued, but I can tell you that buying medical practice insurance does add significant costs to the practice of medicine. Certain groups like neurosurgeons and obstetricians face a major burden.

sgw: Tie republicans to big business? That just might work! How about “There’s a small group of bitter, angry people that don’t want you to get the medical care you need. They’re called republicans”.

Luntz:
.
How To Fart Loudly In A Crowded Room
.
Another suggested GOP strategy that will work every time!

Did you all see this map of where the uninsured live, courtesy of sully?

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/05/where-are-the-uninsured.html

rmrd, you mentioned that MD’s make most of their money through investments, my suspicion is that is true for the insurance companies too.
.
If that is the case and there is a down market then the profit center turns to the patient.
.
I don’t know that I am disagreeing with you, you would certainly be more expert than I on this, but while tort reform/malpractice insurance is certainly a real issue it seems to me that it is lower down the list.

The public is not stupid enough to fall for the talking points except for those watching Fox and listening to Rush.
The democrats who will loose nerve is, as always, our politicians. they seem to buy the myth that this is a center right country.
The people themselves stopped listening to republicans except for a good laugh or to shake their heads at the childishness.

kathy:
.
It looks like a map of Red states and Blue states.
.
Naw! It couldn’t be…
.
BTW, FYI:
.
Americans shouldn’t feel bad. We’re not the only country who has problems with GOP extremists:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8035114.stm

what is the point of this kind of uncritical reporting on proposed “talking points”, Karen?
_
The utter intellectual dishonesty of what Luntz is pushing here demands exposure by the “mainstream media” — “journalism” isn’t presenting two sets of talking points and letting the audience pick which bets suits their prejudices, its telling the audience how those talking points relate to objective truth.
_
In this case, Luntz is advancing talking points that have nothing to do with objective truth — and nothing to do with the real debate on health care reform. Why not just tell that truth — because while we know that you know what’s really going on, much of your audience in dead tree Time (and on the cable gabfests that you increasingly show up on) deserve to be told the truth about how this debate is being dishonestly manipulated by Luntz and his ilk….

What makes this a losing issue for Republicans is that everybody with first-hand experiences know that Insurance companies are just as infuriatingly inflexible and impersonal as the Republicans claim that Government agencies are.
.
They are suffering from what I like to call a ‘reality problem’

53-3 I noticed that. Which makes it doubly crazy that Republicans think “their” constituents don’t really want affordable health care.
.
This reminds me that the Republicans have created another epithet for themselves as the “no-empathy party.” Can you believe it? “Who would want a justice of the supreme court who has empathy for the downtrodden. we don’t!”

vwcat: Never ever underestimate the stupidity of the public. I draw your attention to the last eight years. I draw your attention to the fact that Fox is the number 1 rated cable news channel. I draw your attention to the public electing the likes of “diaper boy” Vitter and believing Rush speaks nothing, but the truth.

Is the Times now trying to become political consultants for the GOP?
.
First, we have JNS advising how Sessions can make it hard for Obama on SCOTUS, now we have KT on how to scuttle health care.
.
Isn’t there better ways for the pundits of Time to make our country a better place to live? Like maybe planting trees or something, or cleaning the oil of shorebirds?
.
Maybe they can teach the GOP how to fart these talking points. What could be more appropriate?

kathy:
.
I gotta check this out! This is a GIS analysis problem!
.
I’ll get back…

Paul
.
There is actually a slightly higher degree on the government to roll back an unpopular idea. I gave the example above of a relatively quick turn around on second opinions.
.
The government also, for a limited period, wanted the defibrillator lead (wire) and defibrillator to come from the same manufacturer, even when circumstances indicated that a mix and match procedure was the best option. The government backed off of that position as well.
.
Insurance companies tend to be really rigid in some cases.

kathy:
.
Already been done. You probably saw this, but here is the analysis he linked to:
http://www.themonkeycage.org/2009/04/health_care_reform_and_the_geo.html

As soon as I stop laughing at Mike Allen opening his story with “Dr Frank Lutz”, I’ll go read the piece as a serious bit of political journalism. I promise I will. What a sad little tool Mike Allen is.

So basically, Luntz is trying to come up with new arguments for why the GOP should continue to oppose any change in the health care system?
.
I like this item: “Nothing will anger Americans more than the chance that they will be denied the healthcare they need for whatever reason.” Because that never happens with private insurance!
.
Also this:
.
You can’t blame it [high costs of health care] 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.
.
So even though the government does not control health care now, it still caused the high costs? That’s not even internally coherent.

How long before they form a government in exile?

“These could indeed be powerful arguments, as anyone who has watched previous battles over health care reform can tell you.”
.
Yes, their fear-mongering lies have been quite effective in the past. If only people had some way of finding out the truth…

Sorry, plukasiak @48 thoroughly beat me to it.
.
What say you, Karen, about the media’s responsibility for uncritically repeating GOP lies?

Aren’t Luntz and Allen usually punch lines in jokes. I am almost shocked by the suggestion that they are authoritative on anything other than snake oil.
*
Then I saw a post over at Balloon Juice:
*

Fighting health care reform, Luntz-style

Dr. Frank Luntz, a top Republican consultant on the language of politics, is warning the GOP that the American people want health-care reform and that lawmakers need to try to avoid directly opposing President Barack Obama.

[....]

Here are some suggested arguments for Republicans that Luntz calls “clear winners”:

—“It could lead to the government setting standards of care, instead of doctors who really know what’s best.”

—“It could lead to the government rationing care, making people stand in line and denying treatment like they do in other countries with national healthcare.”

-“President Obama wants to put the Washington bureaucrats in charge of healthcare. I want to put the medical professionals in charge, and I want patients as an equal partner.”

http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=20793#comments
*
Powerful, indeed. The cries of socialism at the tea-bagging parties have been clear winners too.
*
Anybody catch that Mike Pence is unwilling to say he believes in evolution. I can’t wait for him to be the mouth-piece for Luntz’s talking points.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/White-House-puts-UAW-ahead-of-property-rights-44415057.html
.
And these guys are gonna run healthcare?

KT:
.
Do “people stand in line” in “other countries with national healthcare”?
.
Is the answer to that question an objective fact, which is either true or false?
.
If it is indeed a matter of fact, should journalists report claims like “…making people stand in line and denying treatment like they do in other countries with national healthcare…” without letting their readers know whether or not this is a true or false description of reality? What would happen if journalists simply reported what each side of this debate claimed…would such reporting tend to influence public perception in a way that benefited one of the sides in the debate?
.
Thanks for considering this, KT.

[...] Read the original post: How the GOP Will Oppose Obama on Health Care (Time Magazine) [...]

[...] Read more from the original source: How the GOP Will Oppose Obama on Health Care (Time Magazine) [...]

Anyone think Republicans will push a plan like Romney’s in Mass. ?

I’m going to say something, and it’s going to be crude, but I am running out of patience on this matter:
.
F–k Luntz in the ass with a fork.

apollyon07 Here’s one view of what Romney and his aides and some critics say about Romney’s plan.
.
CNN’s King drops medicine ball during Romney health care interview
.
During an interview that aired on the May 3 edition of CNN’s State of the Union, host John King asked former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney whether “the Massachusetts [health care] approach that was passed under Governor Romney” is “a good model for the nation.” Romney replied: “Well, I think so, but I’m not going to impose necessarily my view on the National Council for a New America.” King did not mention that, when running for president in 2007, Romney said the Massachusetts health-care system would not work — and should not be applied — in all states.
.
As Media Matters for America documented, while Romney stated during an August 24, 2007, speech before the Florida Medical Association, “I like the plan we came up with in Massachusetts,” he also said that “what works in Massachusetts probably won’t work in Texas. It’s going to need a different plan.” Romney later added: “A one-size-fits-all national health care system is bound to fail. It ignores the very dramatic differences between states, and it relies on a Washington bureaucracy to manage. You think about this. I do not want the guys that ran the Katrina cleanup running our health care system.”
.
Additionally, during an October 21, 2007, Republican presidential debate, Fox News White House correspondent Wendell Goler said to Romney, “[W]e have an e-mailed question from Kendrick of Oakland, California, who says the health care plan you left in Massachusetts, which required people to get their own insurance, amounts to Hillary Care. You say it was the result of a Democratic legislature. I want to ask you: If a Democratic Congress placed such a plan on your desk in the Oval Office, would you sign it? And why was the plan good for Massachusetts and not good for the nation?” Romney replied that the Massachusetts system is “a model that other states can adopt in some respects,” and again advocated allowing the states to “create their own plan”:
.
ROMNEY: I’m very proud of what we did in Massachusetts, and I think it’s a model that other states can adopt in some respects. … For Democrats, they want to have government take it over. And I don’t want to have the guys who did the cleanup at Katrina taking responsibility for health care in this country. … But Hillary [Clinton] says the federal government’s going to tell you what kind of insurance, and it’s all government insurance. And I say no, let the states create their own plans, and instead of government insurance, private, market-based insurance. “
.
On July 6, 2007, The New York Times reported that Sally Canfield, then the policy director for the Romney campaign, also distinguished the Massachusetts plan from what Romney would favor nationally:
.
On the Republican side, few candidates have been better prepared to deal with the issue than former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, who helped push through that state’s health plan with bipartisan support. But Republican primary voters tend to be leery of new government requirements, and, arguably, of Massachusetts as a role model. Mr. Romney, on the campaign trail, talks generally about getting “everybody inside the health care system,” through “market reforms” state by state to make private insurance cheaper and more available. But not, he says, “with a government takeover.”
.
Sally Canfield, policy director for the Romney campaign, says that Mr. Romney is proud of his record, but “the Massachusetts plan was crafted for Massachusetts,” and that a national plan would be different. For example, aides said he did not support a federal version of the Massachusetts requirement that individuals obtain insurance.
.
And on August 24, 2007, the Times reported that Romney had just then unveiled a health-care plan that “departs significantly from the universal health care measure that he helped forge as governor of Massachusetts”:
.
Mitt Romney, an architect of Massachusetts’ universal health coverage plan, is unveiling his proposal for overhauling the nation’s health care system, calling for a state-by-state approach that he says will help millions of uninsured in this country gain access to affordable medical coverage.
.
The proposal, which Mr. Romney will detail today before the Florida Medical Association, departs significantly from the universal health care measure that he helped forge as governor of Massachusetts, reflecting the conservative audience he must now appeal to in order to win the Republican presidential nomination. It relies on federal incentives for market reforms, tax deductions and other changes to encourage people to buy health insurance and drive down costs.
.
“He’s run away from the Massachusetts plan,” said Stuart Altman, a health economist at Brandeis University who worked in the Nixon administration and has helped advise many politicians since, including Senator Barack Obama, a Democratic presidential contender.
.
The Massachusetts plan, which went into effect this year and is still being watched closely to see how it will fare, was Mr. Romney’s signal legislative accomplishment as governor but has elements that trouble many conservatives, most notably a mandate that everyone who can afford it must buy health insurance or face penalties.
.
Mr. Romney often promotes his health care bill in Massachusetts on the campaign trail, holding it up as a private-market-based solution to the problem of the uninsured, as opposed to “socialized medicine,” or “Hillary-care,” as he often says. But he almost never mentions the requirement that individuals buy coverage.
.
There is no individual mandate in Mr. Romney’s plan for the rest of the country. Instead, it concentrates on a “federalist” approach, premised on the belief that it is impossible to create a uniform system for the entire country. Along these lines, the federal government would offer incentives to states to take their own necessary steps to bring down the cost of health insurance.
.
From the May 3 edition of CNN’s State of the Union with John King:
.
KING: Health care is another big issue that’s going to come up this year. You got beat up in the campaign a little bit by fellow conservatives who said, you know, your approach had too big of a government role. Is the Massachusetts approach that was passed under Governor Romney, is that a good model for the nation?
.
ROMNEY: Well, I think so, but I’m not going to impose necessarily my view on the National Council for a New America. We’re going to exchange ideas, listen to people; I’ll put forward my own perspectives. My own view is pretty straight forward — and that is that we can get Americans insured. We can get virtually every American insured with health insurance, without having to have government take over health insurance.
.
KING: The president’s going to try to move his plan while you’re having this national conversation, and he has put in place the rules that will probably allow him to do it. Is he going to get his way on health care?
.
http://www.thehollywoodliberal.com/2009/05/04/cnns-king-drops-medicine-ball-during-romney-health-care-interview/

“…I am running out of patience on this matter:
.
F–k Luntz in the ass with a fork”
.
The trouble is, Luntz (like most professional Republicans) is a professional liar and propagandist and owes whatever undeserved credibility he has to people who report on what he has to say credulously and without reporting on the accuracy of his rhetoric. I am running out of patience with that sort of craptastic “journalism” and, judging by the rapid decline of many traditional news sources, so are many other discriminating news consumers.

I see, this clears up a lot of questions that I had. Thanks!

Take Luntz’s three statements and substitute “insurance company” for “government” or “bureaucrat” and you have an exact depiction of today’s health care system.

shepherdwong – I also would like to see KT at least ask if any of Luntz’s points make the slightest bit of sense.

What P-Luk and SZ said. KT should respond to both. And Stuart, in “oooh Socialist” Japan, no one waits for medical care. Given Karen’s family situation, one would think that she’d be all the more motivated to report reality and objective truth. B/C K/T, if you can only report two sides of an issue, one of which is made up of utterly sick lies, don’t you feel rather, umm, impotent, that your job is, well, umm, meaningless. In all honesty, what role are you providing to your readership, repeating what he/she said!? If that’s your definition of journalism, good luck to you and yours.

Just read Luntz’s advice and I think it would be unwise for any GOPer to follow it. He makes the point that people want healthcare reform, so Republicans shouldn’t talk against reform, instead effectively make the point that the Republican plan is better. If they were to do this they are going to draw themselves into another “alternative budget” farce, because as it stands the GOP does not have a plan for healthcare reform.
.
Also, the old argument about European social medicine restricting choice is rubbish. I live in Germany at the moment and belong to a Government-regulated health Insurance Fund. This gives me a card in my wallet that enables me to see any primary care Doctor (they are all obliged to see patients with public insurance), the cost is then charged back directly from the Doctor to the Insurance Fund. The Funds are all independent, but are regulated by Government so that they all provide a consistent level of cover. The Funds can all set their own charges based on a % of salary, and the Government sets an upper limit, so that people earning above average wages aren’t priced out of the system. I’ve only needed to use the system once (for an ear infection last December), but it worked very efficiently and I was able to see the Doctor recommended by a friend the day after I requested the appointment.

I agree with Luntz. There are enough stupid people (Republican voters) in your country who can be convinced that public health care will have lower standards of care than current care and will lead to rationing. What conerns me is that those people are probably the ones that cannot afford private health coverage, so at this stage are uninsured in any event.

Surely even if the standard of care was decreased and rationing occurred people who are currently uninsured will still have both a higher level and volume of care than they are currently getting. Oh but hang on, that would be like looking out for others… we can’t do that.

Oh, by the way, I am still in Australia. We have both public and private health care… it works fine. I get to see a doctor whenever I want and if I am really sick I can go to hospital and get treated – no questions asked.

“shepherdwong – I also would like to see KT at least ask if any of Luntz’s points make the slightest bit of sense.”
.
She can’t and sometimes I feel bad about busting her on it. It is absolutely verboten to discuss the media’s effect on the public understanding (it’s one of the tells) or even contrived industry conventions, e.g., “he-said-she-said/we-report-you-decide”. That’s another tell.

Karen Tumulty Says:
Wednesday, May 6, 2009 at 9:26 am
My train just got stopped (outside Philadelphia) for “police activity in the area.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Not to worry, KT….just another day in the City of Brotherly Luv…

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/Body_found_on_SEPTAs_Market_Street_Line.html?cmpid=41144277

[...] From TIME Magazine: http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/ 05/06/luntz-to-gop-how-to-oppose-ob amas-health-care-plan/?xid… [...]

if not for the fact my family lives in the usa still I would just say yeah let the american health care stay as it is so people can die. I would say better yet just bomb the usa and make the world safer but, my family is there so they need health plans that work like what Obama is trying to do for usa.
If not for my family I would say no so that more americans can die faster with health care as it is. The more americans that die the safer the world is.
http://www.iraqvideos.net