Opposing Nationalized Healthcare

The Obama administration is planning a federal takeover of America's health system. Stopping this is one of the most important issues of our time.

President Obama recently declared that "If we don't get [nationalized healthcare] done this year, we're not going to get it done." I believe it can be stopped -- but it won't be easy.

The renowned Republican consultant Frank Luntz has extensively researched the very best ways to persuade the public to reject the federal takeover of our healthcare system.

First, Luntz says it is vitally important to acknowledge to your listeners that there truly is a serious problem with healthcare in America. Failure to acknowledge this, and failure to be for some kind of serious reform of the current health care mess, will lead your listener to ignore everything else you say. Fully 70% of Americans, according to Luntz's research, feel the current system is seriously flawed and needs reform. Libertarians certainly agree!

However, you must point out that turning this huge and vitally important industry over to the government will make things far worse for them and their families. Government, in this area as in others, is not the solution -- it is the problem.

Says Luntz: "The arguments against the Democrats' healthcare plan must center around 'politicians,' 'bureaucrats,' and 'Washington' ... not the free market, tax incentives, or competition. Stop talking economic theory and start personalizing the impact of a government takeover of healthcare. ... [Citizens] are deathly afraid that a government takeover will lower their quality of care -- so they are extremely receptive to the anti-Washington approach. It's not an economic issue. It's a bureaucratic issue." Even more than limits on their own care, Luntz says, Americans are strongly oppose limits on the care of their children or elderly parents.

Here are some of Luntz's talking points that I've found useful. (I've made a few minor modifications to some of his language.)

* Refer to the proposed plan as "a federal takeover" or "a government takeover" of our health system. Describe it as a "politician-run system" or a "Washington-run system."

* Point out that federal healthcare means federal control and rationing. "In countries with government run healthcare, politicians make YOUR healthcare decisions. THEY decide if you'll get the procedure you need, or if you are disqualified because the treatment is too expensive or because you are too old. We can't have that in America."

* "The federal takeover of our health system will deny people treatments they need and make them wait to get the treatments they are allowed to receive."

* "This will lead to politicians setting standards of care, instead of doctors who actually know what's best for you, the patient."

* "This will lead to the government rationing care, making people stand in line and denying treatment -- like they already do in other countries with national healthcare." (Luntz says: "Nothing will anger Americans more than the chance that they [and their loved ones] will be denied the healthcare they need for whatever reason.")

* "They want to put politicians and Washington bureaucrats in charge of your healthcare and your children's healthcare."

* "One-size-does-NOT-fit-all." Luntz notes that the idea that a "committee of Washington bureaucrats" will establish the standard of care for all Americans and decide who gets what treatment based on how much it costs is offensive and abhorrent to Americans.

I don't agree with everything Luntz says in his study. He is writing for Republican politicians in a highly partisan manner. Regardless, there is much libertarians can learn from this.

As always, with this issue and every issue, honesty and sincerity are crucial. Liberty works. The facts are friendly to freedom.