Nate Silver Explains How to B.S. America on Obamacare
As we’ve discussed in the past, Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight.com has proven himself to be a political prognosticator of extraordinary skills since his debut on the scene. This may only come in second to his abilities in scoring major league baseball. Of course, when he wanders off into other areas, such as global warming, his platform as an analyst can go a bit pear shaped, but we shouldn’t hold that against him. That’s why I was looking forward to reading his analysis of how Democrats have been flunking the health care sales pitch.
I’d like to take a look at this article with you today mostly because of the amazing approach it takes to this contentious subject. Nate lays out a five point plan which seems to not be designed to explain why the Democrat’s so called “public option” plan is good, but rather ways to trick people into ignoring all the flaws and backing it anyway. This incredible scheme is pretty much the same as trying to sell a used car which you know is a lemon, but rather than fixing the car up so somebody might actually want it, you figure out a better way to write up your classified ad to find a sucker.
Nate begins by noting that, despite optimistic efforts at cheerleading in various places, including right here at TMV, a solid majority of Americans now oppose the expected direction of the Democrats’ plan for health care reform, while supporters hover in the low 40′s. He then moves on to the specifics of his five point sales plan.
1. Voters need to hear clearly what changes health care reform will bring. Never losing health insurance when you lose a job or get sick, power shifted from insurance companies to people, reduced costs for you and your family, business and country.
I don’t understand this particular complaint, because it seems as if I’ve heard nothing but the trumpeting of how all these wonderful changes will come to pass. What’s been lacking is a lucid explanation of exactly who is going to pay for it, how that will be accomplished, and what the long term effects on the economy and various industries will be.
2. Build a narrative around taking power away from the insurance companies and giving it to people.
There’s been some of this from rank-and-file Democrats, but very little from Obama, who seems strangely resistant to populist rhetoric. I’d thought, frankly, this was one of the real advantages that Democrats had going into the legislative process: big business is very unpopular because of the economic collapse, and there might even have been some way to parlay negative sentiments about AIG — an insurance company — into skepticism about the motivations of insurers in general.
My hat is off to Nate on that one, if only for the blatant honesty. If you want to sell a destructive plan like this which a majority of Americans have already caught on to, you need to employ “populist rhetoric” and “build a narrative” which will get people angry at one of the few profitable, successful industries we have left and convince voters to want to punish them. That’s a heck of a plan.
3. The president and reform advocates have to explain concretely the changes that will mean lower costs.
There’s been a lot of assertion of this, but then, there’s that key modifier, “concretely”. And the Democrats don’t seem to be winning this argument. I know the Rasmussen polls have been pretty bearish on health care reform (and most other Democratic initiatives) in general, but their numbers on cost control are especially poor — only 23 percent expect the cost of health care to go down under the Democratic proposals, versus 53 percent who expect it to go up.
And I wonder why a majority of people feel that way? Maybe because experts in the industry have repeatedly told us that it will eventually lead to higher costs and reduced availability of care? That will be a good trick selling that one, Nate.
4. Show all voters and seniors that there are benefits for them, including prescription drugs.
This probably has to count as another failure. Plans for health care reform are not very popular with seniors. Obama has talked in passing about closing the Medicare Part D “donut hole”, but it hasn’t been a central focus of the debate, nor is it clear if this will be addressed in whatever bill ultimately comes out of Congress. Having some kind of “prize” to show to seniors could be a big help.
Translation: For God’s sake, stop the plebes from wondering what this is all going to cost and dangle something shiny in front of the seniors who vote in the highest per capita bracket. If we festoon the tree with some sparkly items, they may still go for it.
5. All of these points should be made with the dominant framework that continuing the status quo is unacceptable and unsustainable.
This is the argument we’ve heard most frequently from Democrats and one that they’re probably winning. Indeed, all the Republican talk about the need for “bipartisan” reform somewhat reinforces this point: there are very few people will to go on record describing the status quo as acceptable.
This is one point where Nate hits it out of the park, while probably not intending to do so. He mentions that there is a very solid majority who want something done, but that the Republicans have failed to craft complete legislation in a responsible fashion to counter the Democrats’ self-immolating march to the sea. I’ve complained about that here myself in the past. Enough information is being provided right now to get a substantial number of Americans very concerned about the economy crushing plans currently being pushed by the Democrats, but if you want to win the long battle, you have to offer them something better.
All in all, I would suggest that people who are concerned about our current trajectory towards a very high cliff under the Democratic majority’s leadership on domestic issues read Nate’s article and keep your ears open. This sounds like exactly the approach which will be taken to try to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes on this important issue. And remember… it doesn’t matter who wins big in the 2010 elections. Once the money is gone, it’s gone. And no waving of wands or stuffing rabbits back into hats will make it return. And further, once a government entitlement program is summoned into existence, it never, ever goes away. January of 2011 will be too late to start looking for paddles in the middle of crap creek.
19 Responses to “Nate Silver Explains How to B.S. America on Obamacare”
Silver has his opinion, you have yours.
He thinks he's right, you think you're right.
I have the idea that you do think all those uninsured people are a problem. If so, maybe you be pushing alternatives instead of just complaining.
Can't pull the wool over my eyes, Heck with all the global warming it is too hot for wool in July
This health care initiative was rejected from the start by the more intelligent, and that won't change now.
Since the start, the Dems have been dishonest as well as incompetent, and in particular their deliberate evasion of the costs (never mind undertaking yet another rashly pursued harmful measure during an economic slump while claiming to need to revive the economy at the same time) have contributed to the ever-growing public concerns about this latest Washington Dem “adventure” (the correct context in which it should be judged — along with also-stupidly-rushed measures like the non-stimulative “stimulus,” takeover of GM, the “climate” legislative nonsense in defiance of open public opposition, and so on).
In fact, their incompetence, and rushing to cobble together _something_ that involves this and that additional change or addition of formerly-neglected details only serves to add to the concerns.
There is no need to “sell” this on anybody, nor for anything, Something, ANYTHING! to be done this year.
Actually, George, I linked in the second to last paragraph to precisely where I discussed alternative options which the GOP and the moderate Democrats should be pushing for and fully crafting into legislative proposals. They include the co-ops currently being discussed by the Gang of Six (which certain voices here seem to feel would be the equivalent of high treason) and the 5K stipend for people who meet a means test for poverty levels allowing them to purchase many currently available plans. But hey, why let facts interrupt a good attack meme, eh?
Bollocks to you Jazz! What's $1 trillion dollars among friends, eh?
And you have to admire the creators of this health care initiative for their technical savvy. They've taken a Windows OS approach to health care: just keep the bloat coming. Once they add the slick Aero interface to the health care plan, it's as good as CLICKED!
You know, Jazz, maybe you should go back and read that comment of mine. I don't see any terribly harsh language. You might even note that I give you credit for seeing that a problem exists. All I see is disagreement.
I'm not shocked that you consider disagreement to be an attack.
Here's a post from last week where you called people who disagreed with you lemmings.
It also true that recently (in the post you linked in the second paragraph from the end) you agree there's a problem and you seem sincerely unhappy that no one is looking out for your point of view.
Then again, in this very post of yours that we're commenting on, you're calling Silver a BS'er.
Who's the attacker?
Hey, George, do us a favor and take the passive aggressive crap elsewhere. What do you call this?
“If so, maybe you be pushing alternatives instead of just complaining.“
I'm assuming that's just a poorly formed sentence which lacks only a “should” after the word “you.” And in this case, you're claiming that I'm doing nothing but “complaining” after I put a link in the original post doing exactly what you were bitching about. I have been proposing alternatives in addition to highlighting what I see as flaws in the current House and Senate versions getting foisted by the Democrats. You just don't like being called out on the fact that your accusation against me was false, as usual and, again as usual, want to change the subject and pull your typical passive aggressive BS. Peddle it elsewhere. I'm all full up, thanks.
If anyone cares, I stand by both my previous comments in this thread.
Sorry about the poorly formed sentence.
Jazz: Of course, when he wanders off into other areas, such as global warming, his platform as an analyst can go a bit pear shaped…
Oh really?
Okay, I realize it's not a central point, but at the same time the only reason that is apparent to me as to why you think he's “pear shaped” as an analyst on global warming is because you can't wrap your head around the evidence suggesting he's right. I'd be a little more lenient and suggest that you just weren't aware of it, but that's exceedingly difficult considering that in the comments of the link you provided to your own topic I outlined two of the main reasons why Silver's bet is not “a crap shoot” (or as you refer to it now, “pear shaped”. And if you want further evidence, check out the new study published in the Geographical Research Letters discussed here. Again I say, there is every indication that Silver knows what he's talking about. In contrast, your argument depends on the assumption of lack of evidence. And given that numerous lines of evidence do indeed exist, your argument is de facto erroneous.
If I have time I'll try to comment on the main point of the present topic, lol! But I just couldn't let this one pass.
My hat is off to Nate on that one, if only for the blatant honesty. If you want to sell a destructive plan like this which a majority of Americans have already caught on to, you need to employ “populist rhetoric” and “build a narrative” which will get people angry at one of the few profitable, successful industries we have left and convince voters to want to punish them.
There is another point of view on this subject, Jazz. Nate is not advocating that Democrats sell a destructive plan. Nate is advocating that Democrats sell a constructive plan that will start to fix many of the most intractable problems we have with health care delivery in this country. Similarly, Republicans and conservative Democrats (as well as conservative bloggers) have been working very hard to persuade Americans to oppose a pubic option by telling them all the terrible things it will do to them — largely untrue, in my view. But by the same token, you feel that Nate Silver's sales points are largely untrue, and that he knows he is selling snake oil, and that he is no better than a crooked user car salesman.
Isn't this demonizing the motives of people who view the health care reform issue differently than you do? Just as some people here have accused supporters of a public plan of doing?
Nate Silver is not “showing blatant honesty” (meaning dishonesty) or using false selling points to win some kind of p.r. battle for public health care, Jazz. He is suggesting that liberals and Democrats might want to stand up and fight for the plan they believe in — just as conservatives have so effectively been doing to fight against the plan they don't believe in.
and the 5K stipend for people who meet a means test for poverty levels allowing them to purchase many currently available plans.
Hey Jazz — are you aware that millions of middle-class Americans whose incomes and assets put them well above the poverty line cannot afford private health insurance?
Hallelujah, someone who can extract a proper lesson from poll results! As Nate shows, polls indicate…well, usually they indicate the phrasing of the question, but the best of them indicate how effectively the public is being sold on an idea. I've been trudging through so many claims that that “because x% of people support it, it must a good idea” that I can barely see straight. That's utter nonsense, it's simply not what a poll measures. Kathy, I hope you're taking notes.
The other thing I like about Nate's post is its pragmatism. I can't tell from his post whether he thinks the car will run or not, he's purely critiquing the sales process. I'd grade the democrats higher than he does, but I've been exposed to so much leftish hyperventilation on here, I'm probably not representative.
I do give Obama credit for not stooping to demonize insurance companies as Nate recommends; not that I think they're adding a ton of value, I just don't support the moralizing. They're rational actors in a complex economic system, exactly the same as us, the nurses, their unions, the government, and so on.
The bottom line is that if you use propagandist techniques to sell something, the product you are selling becomes suspect. If Silver and Dem strategists and politicians really believe in the superiority of this plan, then sell it honestly based on an explanation of its true merits.
To a degree it is difficult at this point for us to have a clear debate on the issue since we do not know what the ultimate bill will look like. But there certainly are problems with the current proposal which need to be addressed before the public will support it.
As discussed in another post, the support now versus the support a month ago has changed greatly, reflecting the fact that people may support a general concept but not specifics.
It will be interesting to see what the real plan will end up like.
There’s been some of this from rank-and-file Democrats, but very little from Obama, who seems strangely resistant to populist rhetoric.
I have to disagree about the lack of populist rhetoric after the pep rally, er, town hall meeting today. He sounds like he's still campaigning.
I think everyone can agree this has been the worst selling job so far by Obama and Co. Health care reform is good right? Status quo is untenable, right? But somehow they've been off tune all summer allowing the Republicans free reign to ah, um, “muddy” the waters with their BS. Fiscal discipline! CBO! Racist! Birther! Michael Jackson! Remember the Alamo! In the meantime, rank and file Democrats remind us that THEY get benefits from corporations, too, and they don't want their fun ruined. Even with infinity seats in Congress, the Democrats couldn't get anything done (aside from massive stimulus and bailouts to selected financial institutions…really amazing how quick that passed, eh?).
The other funny thing is that there's always time to be a fiscal scold when it comes to citizens actually getting, y'know, benefits FOR their money. Military adventurism, corporate welfare, subsidaries, and pork are completely fine though. After all, what's a 2 trillion dollar war among friends, right Jazz? Also, that last link was interesting since it put you in the unusual position of complaining about yourself, since you've now decided to rebut Nate for selling a bad idea, then proceeded to offer a whine for fiscal responsibility, a disguised paean to the status quo if I've ever heard one. That's your “alternative plan?”
Speaking of passive agressiveness, what about yours in this post, Jazz? Slamming Nate Silver excessively in a post seems to be more a fishing expedition for some conservative cred. What did he ever do to you? We get it: You don't want to pay for healthcare reform.
I'm just really astonished that THIS is the line in the sand for you guys. Healthcare reform is the big cliff. Not the military industrial complex, not the police state, not the runaway government and bureaucracy, and certainly not the nation's Death Pact to Cthulu on Raising Taxes. Nope. Healthcare reform.
jazz – unrelated to this post, but I was wondering if you, as an editor, would be intererested in bringing this up to the front page. Given all the posts about the politicizing of the Justice Department under Bush, the radio silence on this has been deafening:
<a href=”
http://jonathanturley.org/2009/07/30/obama-poli…>
http://jonathanturley.org/2009/07/30/Obama political appointees overrule career justice officials in dropping charges against New Black Panther party for voter intimidation/
The bottom line is that if you use propagandist techniques to sell something, the product you are selling becomes suspect.
That is true for selling against something too, right?
If Silver and Dem strategists and politicians really believe in the superiority of this plan, then sell it honestly based on an explanation of its true merits.
This statement would appear to suggest that “Silver and Dem strategists and politicians” (a huge group, obviously) haven't been “selling it honestly.” Do you have any objective evidence for this notion, or do you just disagree because you oppose a public health care option? With regard to Silver specifically (since he was the individual on whom Jazz based his criticism) do you have any objective evidence that when Silver talks about “selling” the Democratic plan, his meaning or intention is to propagandize?
“The bottom line is that if you use propagandist techniques to sell something, the product you are selling becomes suspect.”
You mean like the Iraq War?