alexandraerin | Reframing the debate.

Here's the question we should be asking all public figures who are against a public option or other form of national health insurance:

"[Senator/Congressman/Pundit], how long have you believed that France is better than America?"

It's fairly easy to point to the failings in the Canadian health care system... a system, incidentally, that neither President Obama nor the Democrats in the legislature are looking to as an example... but France, which has a system closely resembling the much-denigrated "public option", has the top-rated healthcare system in the world.

France can manage to provide quality health care to their entire population and we can't? And it would be too expensive for us to match the feat, when they do it while spending less money per person than we do?

I'm sorry, I don't buy it.

I'm sure the reason that the supporters of the public option have been pointing to France is... well... as I've said before, liberals have a real problem with sitting back and allowing their opponents to frame debates. "Speak softly and carry a big stick" worked fine for Teddy Roosevelt, but it wouldn't have worked so well for his cousin Frank, who had to speak loudly and often just to make himself heard. If we pointed to France and said "We want our country to be more like that.", the right would jump on it in an instant... I mean, we're talking about people whose response to half of the things our president does is to say "arugula" like they've made some great and telling point about policy.

But with France using the public option and not just making it work but making it work so well that they have the best medical care in the world, consider the implication being made any time somebody says that the public option wouldn't work in America or that it would result in worse care for most people:

America is less capable than France.

In my previous post on the subject, I framed things in terms of goodness vs. greatness. Well, let's talk about greatness. As I said, we put a man on the moon. Is there any reason we couldn't take the number one spot away from France if we wanted to?

A lot of our political representatives and media figures seem to think so. Let's put them on the spot and ask them why that is.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

And yes, it would be silly to suppose that any of them really do think France is better than America. The point of all this is to call attention to the fact that what they're claiming is impossible for Americans to achieve has already been done elsewhere. I don't expect this technique would change the hearts and minds of the loudest and shrillest, but I do think it could diminish their ability to sway the middle.

I really don't think they're claiming it's impossible though. If that was the center of the opposition's argument I would have just nodded my head while I read your post and never replied. The arguments I've seen put forward have been in either the "We can't trust the government" or the "It will be devastating for health insurance corporations" camps. The former argument seems to ignore the fact that the government we're all ever so afraid of trusting has been the product of the very people making that argument in the first place, and the latter I thought was addressed nicely by Rep. Weiner.

For what it's worth I do think it's a really good spanking story :)

I think that's a load of needless hair-splitting, though... you're just highlighting the specific objections being put up as reasons why we supposedly couldn't manage it. The answer is still: France manages it.

Well, fuck the hair splitting then.

I think you're trying to bring up a list of reasons to back up your position in a debate supposedly being had in good faith, and the opposition is not interested in having a good faith debate at all.

You have some really good points but in the end France isn't America, and I don't think facts or reasoned arguments will win the day. The other side is arguing emotionally, until our side does the same - or just passes the damn thing and, after a few years of success, makes the opposition look insane - it's all yelling at a wall.

I really like the way you think and the stories you write. Are you sure you want to be screaming at this wall?

You're just listing the reasons I think people need to be making this kind of "silly", "ridiculous" comparison. France does it, why can't we? isn't actually a reasoned argument, for the reasons you list... it's an appeal to emotion, and one that's aimed not at the blowhards at the other extreme but at the people in the middle of the debate. A rhetorical bankshot, so to speak.

Okay, fine, but as an emotional appeal I still think it falls flat. Those who would be influenced by daring them to make their country better than France are already your opponents on this issue. Still, if you reach one person who can be swayed I'll concede your victory. Hell, sometimes that bankshot can interrupt a big ol' level 9 Summon Republican Shitstorm. Here's hoping.

........

I should be trying to persuade my allies?

Depends. Do you consider Baucus an ally?

Reframing the debate.

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject