In her
most recent post , Rebecca discussed the role of the town hall disrupters as it fits in with a pattern of dishonest tactics repeatedly used by the right. In this post, I'd like focus solely on the most recent, healthcare-related scare tactics, and why they're founded on, for the lack of a better word, bullshit.
Before I begin, let's try a little role-playing. Pretend that you're a member of congress. You're informed that a bill is about to be put up for a vote. (It doesn't necessarily have to be a healthcare bill. It just has to affect an issue that matters deeply to you.) After some research and analysis, you've figured out how you're going to vote on this bill. However, you soon realize that many constituents in your district don't like your opinion for this issue, threatening your chances of reelection. To improve your image, you have to convince the voting public that your view is right. In order to accomplish this you have 2 options: You could either try to persuade those that are familiar with the politcal situation or you could try to persuade those with who are unfamiliar with the politcal issue and the bill itself. Which group would you try to persuade?
I don't know about you, but I'd definitely go with the group of voters who are unfamiliar with the situation on the grounds that they'd be the easiest to convince of my perspective. If they aren't well-informed, chances are that they have less evidence to back up their opinions, essentially making them blank slates. Additonally, if they've accessed less relevant information, they are probably more susceptible to being persuaded by a sound bite. This is advantageous for a politician since it's easier to write one catchy line than it is to produce a complete, logical argument for one's position. But perhaps the biggest advantage of trying to convince these people is that they can't tell when someone is stretching the truth.
Now, don't get me wrong. I don't think that everyone who opposes the Democrats' healthcare proposal is uninformed about the issue. Rather, it is clear that there are people on both sides of the debate who could stand to learn a thing or two. Additionally, there are plenty of legitimate questions that must be answered before any final decisions are made. That being said, there have been plenty of examples of politicians, particularly Republicans, who have used the public's ignorance to their advantage, and have resorted to using arguments that are incomplete, flat-out wrong, or instances of fear-mongering. These tactics are getting in the way of more democratic forms of debate.
One of the most common complaints I've heard relating to this healthcare issue is the notion that the government will "ration" coverage. Some critics of the healthcare bill argue that if the government gets involved with health insurance, some people won't be able to get the money necessary to fund their medical needs. Such a complaint rarely seems to come with any specific evidence to dispute, but, even if it were completely supported by evidence, it has one major flaw: Private insurance companies are notorious for "rationing" healthcare. The current system has the exact weakness that Republicans are claiming exists in the proposed healthcare system. Private insurance companies are, obviously, private companies. Their goal is to make a profit, and you don't make a profit by spending money on patients' preexisting conditions or any other medical issues that one can avoid paying for. In fact, it is common practice for private insurance companies to jack up prices or even cancel coverage when someone gets diagnosed with a disease that's expensive to treat. Clearly, the current system does not address this problem even remotely.
Another complaint often goes like this: "I and millions of other Americans like the private insurance I'm on right now. Why should we have to switch insurance plans just because a small percentage of the country is uninsured?" (Sometimes this is also mixed in with a complaint about the government doing this to accomondate illegal immigrants, but such a claim is untrue since the bill specifically says so on p. 143. More details
here ) The problem with this claim is that it's based entirely on misinformation. The current proposal is for an
option to switch to a government plan. Such a switch would not be mandatory. It would just provide an additional choice for a health plan. Some have argued that the government's intervention would force competitors into bankruptcy, but it's certainly possible for a private and a public option to coexist. (It works for the U.S. Postal Service and UPS.) Besides, if expanding the role of the government is as ineffective as Republicans always claim it is, the insurance companies are in good shape.
Yet another idea that's been circulating is the belief that the proposed healthcare change would be an example of socialism. However, as I just explained, the government would not be taking over an industry, as would be expected of a socialist governmental system. Rather, government is just providing an optional alternative. As long as the capitalist coroporations remain in business, it's really a stretch to characterize this as socialized healthcare, much less a plan to socialize the entire economy. (Then again, at this point, nearly everything Obama does is compared to socialism or even
facism/Naziism.)
But perhaps the most bizarre accusation is the one that the government healthcare plan includes a provision for "death panels", described as groups of government agents who go around and decide whether someone's life is worth as much as their health coverage. And if someone is not deemed valuable enough, that person supposedly not only gets dropped from the government's insurance plan, but also dies. No, I'm not making this up. Some people actually believe that Democrats want to kill people. Even
Sarah Palin has written about this, claiming that the purpose of these panels is to convince people to deny themselves decent healthcare. Obviously, this is just a scare tactic, but some people are actually taking these kinds of claims as truth. (If you actually need proof that this is bullshit,
here it is. The gist of the explanation is that citizens would be entitled to consult with government insurance-funded professionals to assist them with services, such as living wills.)
These kinds of claims are scary. By saying that not only is the healthcare proposal flawed, but it's also going to kill people brings this debate to a whole different level of crazy. Suddenly, people start to form their opinions based on their emotional responses to sound bites, rather than actual facts. Not only that, but there is a danger with people falsely thinking their lives or the lives of their loved ones are in danger. It's like yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, in the sense that
someone could get hurt from a false belief in such outrageous claims. We saw it before when Dr. Tiller, the infamous abortion doctor, was assassinated following a frenzy of violent propoganda and false accusations, and we're seeing it again here. Otherwise uninformed Americans are being told that the Democrats are evil enough to want to kill people and that they're going against God's healthcare system. And what do I mean by "God's healthcare system"? Take a look at this message from the
Minnesota Family Council:
In very simplistic terms, the ultimate issue and question is who do we trust or put our security in, God or government? Some may ask what does God have to do with our health care system. For one, He's created the government as an institution in society to do certain things. When we reject His design for government, in a sense, we're rejecting Him. And second, who do we look to for our ultimate security in life, to provide for us, God or the government. Here Jesus' words come to mind about not worrying and trusting God to meet our basic needs. Or if we believe it all depends on us, we'll look to government.
That's right, some are making the argument that Obama is directly defying the will of God. (Isn't it weird how God always agrees with whomever is interpreting his message?) Clearly this is not an appeal to logic. It's just a way to scare people into opposing healthcare. (Ironically, God's record as a physician isn't all that great, as you can see
here.) And bad things happen when thousands, if not millions, of people can be convinced that the consequences will be so dire if they don't get their way.
So, what's the status of the country after all of these scare tactics? Most people know not to become hysterical the second anyone demonizes his or her political opponents. However, there are always a few on the fringe who take things a little bit further. Enter FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity, two organizations that are getting involved in the debate by disrupting the debate. Remember all the videos in Rebecca's post depicting protestors yelling at politicians? As it turns out, those weren't the kinds of grassroots operations Republicans made them out to be. Rather, they were organized by the aforementioned political organizations, who not only transported protestors across the country, but they also taught them
deceitful tactics for intimidating political adversaries.
The town hall disrupters have done more than just reveal that what democracy needs now is calm, logical debate. They have also shown us how dishonestly politicians can behave. Rather than
taking on the challenge of making their own healthcare proposal, many Republicans are trying to make Americans scared of change and afraid of Democrats. If they truly cared about their constituents, they would come up with their own solutions for the problems that exist in our current healthcare system, and "quit makin' stuff up" about the Democrats' proposal.
(This post refers to the "America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009", which can be viewed
here.)
Read More......
