August 25, 2009
Let's take a look at some of these universal health care bill proposals from a PR perspective. Whenever a group finds something in one of these bills they're against (the possibility of a doctor making an end-of-life decision for the patient, federal funding of abortions), they go into an uproar. And the White House always responds with, "Oh, that's just a misinterpretation of the bill." I have yet to hear an advocate of these health care proposals say something to the effect of, "Of course there's going to be some limitations if you sign up for the government-run plan. We don't have infinite dollars, so there are unfortunately going to be some situations where a physician will have to choose not to prolong life by 'all means necessary'. It's a limitation of this plan, but for the millions of people who can't afford any health care at all right now, it's a much better situation to be in." IF I heard this response, I would not only accept this, but be pleased to learn that these people aren't living in a fantasy world. Until them, I'm not sure what to think. Now, it's very likely they do understand this, but are being told NOT to offer any sound-bytes that detract from the infallibility of the plan, due to the leverage this would give detractors. But, how dumb do they think we are? From a strict PR standpoint, in order to win over the majority of Americans, do you play it straight and argue the advantages of universal coverage, or play dumb, and deny any and all downside?