Maybe If We Just Avoid Talking About ObamaCare, People Will Like It

Two weeks ago, Politico broke the news that a major coalition of liberal supporters of the health care overhaul was telling activists not to mention deficit or cost reductions when attempting to sell people on the bill. Now, Politico reports, another major liberal health care activist group, Health Care for America Now, has an even better strategy for helping out the politicians who voted for the bill: Maybe just avoid talking about the law entirely!  

The progressive coalition Health Care for America Now fought hard to pass health care reform. Now it’s fighting hard to help reelect lawmakers who voted for the bill — even if it means not talking about it.

While polls show that health reform has become slightly more popular since passage, it’s still a polarizing issue, particularly in districts where Republicans and conservative groups have bombarded voters with negative ads.

Now, HCAN’s field crews are finding that the best way to support reform-friendly lawmakers is to talk about something else: jobs, the economy or other issues likely to resonate more with voters.

The article goes on to note that “what HCAN describes as a tactical shift, reform opponents see as proof that the law is unpopular, a loser for Democrats in a tough election cycle.” Hmm, I don’t know. Which could it be?

I’ll just note that one of the few polls to show an uptick in support for the law over the summer just reported a seven-point dip in favorability during the month of August, dropping support levels back to where they were in May.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • kilroy||

    Oh that image definitely makes you a racist.

  • Abdul||

    Sadly, I do not hear the opposition talking about repeal either.

    Without repeal, Obamacare will become an entitlement.

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    And like Social "Security" before it, the majority of society will eventually have trouble imagining life without it. People will have one more thing they think they deserve from life at "no cost" to themselves, and the easier it gets to not work at Wal-Mart and McDonalds and other "menial" jobs, the more people will do it. Why? Because fuck it, that's why. Frankly, this country will deserve to look like Somalia, if it doesn't already. Burn motherfucker, burn.

  • Abdul||

    Somalia is a long way off. I'm thinking more like the UK, where people are more patriotic about the mediocre NHS then they are about the things that used to create wealth and prosperity for the Island.

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    Yeah Somalia is more of an endgame Idiocracy-like scenario and I will probably be long dead to witness the glorious righteousness of comeuppance that state of affairs would symbolize. Unfortunately, our witless perma-child descendants will have to pay for the sins of their dumbfuck ancestors. Oh well, they'll be too dumb and misinformed to know how fucked over they will be.

    In related news, where the hell are my sleeping pills and/or shotgun?

  • ||

    But Social Security is different. It really does hand out checks. And it also keeps people from having to support their parents, which gives it support among the young and old. A large and concrete group of people benefit from Obamacare.

    Who benefits from Obamacare? I can't see how anyone does. Until you can show me how a large portion of society directly benefits from Obamacare, I am not buying the whole "its an entitlement it will last forever" argument.

  • ||

    make that benefit from Social Security.

  • Someone retiring in 40 years.||

    But Social Security is different. It really does hand out checks.

    LOL.

  • ||

    It hands out a lot of checks right now. And that is why it is popular. Obamacare doesn't do anything like that. And that is why it is not going to get more popular as time goes one.

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    You're right John. Social Security does have the benefit of enabling people to 1)Not give a shit about their Parents/Grandparents and 2) Not give a shit about planning for your golden years (ie: Not buying 4 Mercedes Benzs throughout your life as opposed to 2 Toyotas, Not wallowing in the debt of an overpriced house etc). These are severe and subtle distortions that Social Security has wrought. Some humorous scenarios below:

    What? Grandma is old? And SHE SMELLS? I should take care of her? Fuck that, off to the home with you. Have fun living off of 5 bucks a day (or whatever the hell SS pays out).

    And...

    Are you shitting me? I get paid how much? I should invest that? Fuck it man, cigarettes, nightclubs, and hookers are more important that caring about how I am going to afford to eat in 50 years.

    Personal relationships with parents and grandparents are PRIVATE matters. Personally, I will do my best to take care of my parents and not let them subsist on the paltry handout from their own stolen money. If that money wasn’t stolen in the first place, they would have it ALL right NOW and when they die they could have had it dispersed as they pleased. However, if you were an asshole who beat your kids, cheated on your wife, etc. don’t be surprised when you die in the street because you were a miserable piece of shit who ALSO didn’t plan for retirement/old age. Thanks a lot SS. You are keeping miserable assholes alive.

    Did I mention, I think orphans should be used as fuel for furnaces instead of coal? Less orphans = Less people = Eventually Less traffic. Sounds like a win to me, and the progressives should jump on board when they see how environmentally friendly it will be.

    Regarding Obamacare, it only needs to benefit some people so the overlords can scream "BUT YOU CAN"T TAKE IT AWAY. ALL THESE POOR MINORITIES WILL DIE IN THE STREET AND BE SOLD INTO SLAVERY WITHOUT THEIR FREE(sic) HEALTH(sic) CARE(sic)." If it works for 5% of the population and fails the rest of us, it will be considered a success.

    90% of this is not directed at you John. Just venting.

  • ||

    I was mostly with you until you revealed your program to systematically eliminate orphans.

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    Pobody's Nerfect.

  • kilroy||

    I like the orphan part the best.

  • ||

    I dunno, I kinda liked the eliminating orphans part the best. :)

    So environmentally friendly.

  • Anne of Green Gables||

    Who doesn't like us oar-fins?

    *voice cracking*

  • ||

    Screaming about the five percent only works if the costs to the other 90% are hidden. Things like teacher pay and welfare are paid for by taxes people never see in their checks. That is how they get away with doing it. But the costs of Obamacare are not hidden.

    No one knows for sure, but I think Obamacare is going to nothing like Social Security and Medicare. Maybe it won't be repealed. But it will never be invulnerable the way those two are.

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    Your cautious optimism disturbs me. Tell me John, crystal meth or crack cocaine?

  • Jonas||

    Where's the remaining 5%?

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    The 5% and 90% reference different things. Should have went for vague words like "small" and "most" instead.

  • JEP||

    But Social Security is different. It really does hand out checks. And it also keeps people from having to support their parents, which gives it support among the young and old.

    One of the things that I learned in 8th grade government/econ class is that as you soon as you start drawing a significant pay check, you should take 10% and put it in an IRA, savings account, etc. By the time you want to retire, you'll have a decent amount of money saved up.

    I don't understand why people are ok with the government taking a percent of their income and "safe-guarding" it for them for when they retire.

    At best, social security is just a poor substitute for what people should be doing anyway - putting away a small amount of money each month instead of going into debt.

  • ||

    I am not saying it is a good thing. I am just saying that is why people like Social Security. And the fact is that the government has been taking 15% of people's income for a very long time. I can totally understand why someone who is in their 40s or 50s says fuck you when the government comes and says we are not going to give you or we are going to cut your Social Security. They already took the damn money for God's sake.

  • JEP||

    Right, but just like it's going to be a pain the ass to get rid of social security because a significant voting block (senior citizens) is benefiting from it, Obamacare is going to be difficult to get rid of because another significant is voting block will be benefiting from it (people of a lower socio-economic status).

    You can't get rid of it because too many people will be benefiting from too small a group. This is what's annoying about a minority of people paying the majority of taxes - they can be run over by shear numbers of votes.

  • ||

    That is the thing. I am not convinced the lower socio economic groups are going to benefit from Obamacare. I have yet to see it explained how they will. And also, don't kid yourself, the poor don't mean shit in this country. Social Security and Medicare are middle class entitlements. That is why they have so much support among voters. Even if Obamacare benefits the poor, it won't matter because the poor don't vote, the middle class does.

  • robc||

    That is why you repeal in 2011 before it gets started.

  • Slut Bunwalla||

    My dad keeps saying that the republicans are going to win big in November and they'll repeal Obamacare. I keep telling him that, yes, they might win big, but they're not going to repeal it. They're going to want their turn playing with it, for better or for worse.

  • ||

    If they repeal it--and yes, they probably could if they won both houses--they'll have done something new and wonderful. It's unlikely, but it is just possible.

    For those thinking Obama would just veto a repeal, keep in mind that a popular movement that returned power to the GOP would affect how the Democrats behave, too. And if the GOP had the balls to do it, they could basically slow government to a crawl by insisting on the repeal before voting on any other administration-initiated legislation. Obama doesn't have the political cojones to engage in that kind of fight.

    Of course, I expect even a resurgent GOP to screw us when it gets in power and to adopt neo-socialism as the status quo.

  • ||

    If the Republicans win big, it will be interesting to see how the 20 Democrats in the Senate who are up for re-election in 2012 act. My guess is people like Ben Nelson will make Ron Paul look like a big government apologist.

  • Attorney||

    Of course, I expect even a resurgent GOP to screw us when it gets in power and to adopt neo-socialism as the status quo.

    Alas, yes.

  • ||

    Probably and sadly so. Although there is a small chance they might do the right thing for the wrong reasons. I think it is dawning on a few of them that this might be there last chance to govern before a third party comes and destroys them.

  • ||

    If they repeal it--and yes, they probably could if they won both houses--they'll have done something new and wonderful.

    The closest thing I can think of is, hmm, the new 1995 GOP Congress repealing the federal speed limit.

  • Republican Sockpuppet||

    Demoncrats want your MEDICARE! They hate OLD PEOPLE! GROUND ZERO MOSQUE!

  • Pro-War Protestor I Met Once||

    DON'T you CARE about THE TROOPS YOU FUCKING PUSSY FAGS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (FOAMING AT THE MOUTH WHILE WAVING A BIBLE IN THE AIR LIKE A TIBIA WRENCHED FROM A CANNIBALIZED ENEMY.)

  • ||

    We have to pass it so we can sweep it under the rug.

  • Ragin Cajun||

    In this, Democrats are like Linoge: Give us what we want, AND WE'LL GO AWAY!

  • ||

    Don't mention the law. I mentioned it once, but I think I got away with it all right.

  • ||

    The current Journolist talking point is that the Democrats are going to get killed this November not because they passed unpopular God awful health care bill. But, wait for it, they are going to lose because of the Greek financial collapse. No kidding. Jonathan Alter:

    "The collapse of the Greek economy, by contrast, is an example of something real, not hyped by cable news, whose reverberations first spoiled Obama's PR plan for a "Recovery Summer" and now could sink the Democrats in the midterms."

    http://www.newsweek.com/2010/0.....-lies.html

    Even if that were true, it never occurs to Alter, or maybe it does and he is too dishonest to admit it, that the Greek crisis only resonated in the US because Obama and the Dems are running a one and a half trillion dollar budget deficit. If we had a balanced budget, I doubt anyone would care about the Greek crisis.

  • ||

    One of us! One of us! Gooble gobble, gooble, gobble!

  • ||

    Whoever paid that dollar for Newsweek paid too much.

  • cynical||

    I would pay a dollar for Newsweak if it meant I got to impose onerous, soul crushing work conditions on those tools. I'm thinking like a booby trapped gauntlet to run on the way to and from the office, $50 pay toilets, no smoking signs on their cigarette breaks, daily meetings with extensive use of powerpoint, etc.

  • ||

    ObamaCare won't be around forever. In fact, I doubt it will last 5 years after it begins.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Sad to say, I'll take that bet.

  • ||

    No, it will morph into single-payer before it lasts that long.

  • BakedPenguin||

    SugarFree, that's even more disturbing than most of the things you write...

  • CatoTheElder||

    Like the HMO legislation enacted in the 1970s, PPACA was designed to fail.

    People seem to have forgotten that Ted Kennedy was the chief sponsor of legislation that created HMOs. His objective wasn't to improve the private market for medical care goods. Instead, he favored a UK style system and understood that the market had to be wrecked first.

    In a few years, PPACA will complete the work of the Lion of Senate.

  • cynical||

    But then it will morph into government bankruptcy, after which the surviving healthy Americans will probably go back to more or less free market healthcare.

  • ||

    But, but, but, the doughnut hole and healthy young adults on their parent's policies! We have to tell our voters what they're getting for that 500 billion in new taxes.

  • ||

    Free, unlimited health care! For everybody!

    Yay!

  • ||

    I know a lot of liberals who really thought that is what this bill meant. It is amazing how they oversold this thing to themselves.

  • ||

    Don't talk about it.

    Don't refer to it as Obamacare.

    Don't think about it.

    But it's a great law.

  • Tolly||

    Sadly true. It's amazing that as long as the money is taken away by the govt and funneled into what promises to be a huge, inefficient bureaucracy, no one seems to mind. It's only free in that it lacks the price controls or swift oversight of a more nimble private enterprise.
    Never mind all the exceptions written in for unions, etc. If this is such a bold, wonderful plan, wouldn't everyone be rushing to enroll, rather than carving out exemptions?

    It's enough to make you ill - the process, the haste to pass it and the troubling new revelations that seem to surface every other day. Never mind the already rampant fraud present in Medicare: http://www.npr.org/templates/s.....=123568789 .
    Depressing stats from that article:
    '...last year alone, his lawyers prosecuted nearly $1 billion in fraudulent Medicare claims.'
    '...Medicare operated largely on the honor system.'
    'Some estimates put Medicare fraud at $60 billion a year, and some experts consider that a low number.'

    I wonder what all the laws' ardent supporters think will prevent
    the same fraud, waste and corruption by doubling down on "free" care for everyone?

  • ||

    Take the money being spent now and cap the expenses at inflation plus population growth. Give everyone over the age of 65 a voucher to buy insurance. Get rid of the entire bureaucracy that administers it. Just send out vouchers and let the insurance companies and charities do it.

  • Colin||

    The first rule of Obamacare is that you do not talk about Obamacare.

  • Ragin Cajun||

    Third rule of Obamacare: if someone yells "stop!", goes limp, or taps out, too bad.

  • ||

    You know... I liked Fight Club, but they sure did have a lot of rules for a bunch of anarchists.

  • ||

    In real fight clubs, when the nominal leader stands up and says, "First rule about Fight Club. . ." he gets slugged before finishing his statement.

  • Ragin Cajun||

    Anarchists? I thought it was a BDSM club. Thus the need for safewords.

  • ||

    That is what I thought to. I always thought it was about the gayest movie of the 00s. NTTAWWT

  • ||

    True story: It was originally called Bate Club, but the marketers felt that Americans were more comfortable with violence.

  • ||

    The violence allowed straight men to get off on the fantasy of being beaten up by Brad Pitt without having to question their sexuality. Hollywood knows its market.

  • ||

    Yeah it was pretty homoerotic. The guy who wrote the novel is gay.

  • The Gobbler||

    Vannemann wrote it?

  • Bill||

    The premise of Fight Club made absolutely no sense. If Ed Norton and Brad Pitt's characters were really the same guy, then how in the hell could a group of guys have been watching them fight? And if he was punching himself in the face, why in the hell would a bunch of people follow him as a leader if he was obviously bat-shit crazy?

  • Brett L||

    I think your last clause is quite realistic.

  • JEP||

    That was actually the point. It's a "you can't escape the Matrix" thing.

    Tyler Durden comes along and says "rebel against the system and don't have any rules." But all he offers is his own system with its own rules to follow. Thus, whenever you reject one system, if you're rational, you reject for a reason/s. That reason is the source for the new set of rules that you follow.

    Good job catching the actual point of the movie. The large majority of people didn't.

  • ||

    Having had some time to consider it, I think a much better illustration for this post would have been three monkeys fucking a football.

  • ||

    That should replace the Masonic pyramid on the back of the dollar bill.

  • CrackertyAssCracker||

    The fact that they could ever, even for a tenth of a second, say that this gigantic pile of crap was going to reduce the deficit and not get laughed at right to their face shows what a bunch of lap dogs most media fuckers are.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement