Health Care’s No Win Messaging Scenario

St. Augustine wrote, “Lord, grant me chastity and continence, but not yet.”  As President Obama again took to the town hall format to reassure people that no, health care reform will not mean your care will be rationed, Grandma will be executed, or sink our federal budget into an ocean of red ink, you could almost hear in the questioners a sense of, “Grant me transformational change and fiscal responsibility, but not yet – and not if it changes my benefits at all.”

Jon Cohn points out something fascinating about the turn our national debate has taken, pointing out that reformers suddenly have the problem explaining the benefits of reform “in no small part, because conservatives have been making two separate arguments--arguments that cut in completely opposite directions.”  On the one hand, you have people criticizing the health reform bills by saying they “won’t do enough to change the way we get medical care and, as a result, won’t do enough to reduce the money we’re spending on it.”  On the other, you have often the same people argue “that health reform will put the government in charge of medical treatment and that, as a result, we’re on our way towards harsh rationing of care.”

Cohn is right, but he hasn’t taken his theory far enough.  After all, we were told that the public option would be a government takeover and that people would flee private insurance in droves, but we were also told that government is incapable of managing anything this complex and it was foredoomed to failure.  We were told a government bureaucrat getting between the decisions made between you and your doctor was a terrible thing, and then asked where the hell were these government bureaucrats to clamp down on waste, fraud and abuse.  Finally, a self-professed "just say no" fellah who “turned myself in” by emailing the White House about his opposition, asked Obama why he didn’t “chastise Congress for having two systems of health care -- one for all of us, and one for them”, despite the fact that the plan Obama advocates is designed “to make sure that you are getting that same kind of option [members of Congress are.]”

(And don’t get me started on how you can possible be a socialist and a Nazi at the same time.)

Despite this mass of contradictions, ever single one of these is a concern for somebody.  It's like pellets from a shotgun.  All those sticking up for the status quo need to do is hit the right key and shazam, you’re feeling anxious about change.  Those on the attack receive no penalty from the contradiction – only one of these items needs to be true to scare the bejeesus out of you.  Those on defense, like the President and some impressive members of Congress like Sen. Claire McCaskill need to reassure everybody, simultaneously.  It’s a no-win messaging scenario – to really reassure Peter on his particular issue, you run dangerously close to freaking out Paul all over again.

No wonder why our debate no longer resembles an argument and instead represents a game of whack-a-mole.

(Photo credit:  The Official White House Photostream on Flickr.)