This message was self-deleted by its author

[lostincalifornia]

This message was self-deleted by its author (lostincalifornia) on Sat Aug 2, 2014, 08:55 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[tridim]

1. The FACT that it is working is not known by most people.

Because corporate media doesn't bother to mention it.

Thus another crap poll result to ignore.

[merrily]

3. Agree, but I don't agree it's 100% the fault of corporate media.

Democrats need to focus more on messaging.

And Democrats never should have given up on things like the Telecommunications Act, the fairness doctrine, allowing mega-mergers in news media, etc.

All those are neo-liberal, New Democrat moves as well as Republican moves, but Republicans have better messaging. So much better and more pervasive, in fact, that the quality and quantitiy of the disparity both make me wonder. Especially because I think Democrats are, on the whole, much smarter than Republicans, on the whole.

[merrily]

2. Is Medicare as popular as ever? If so, the solution seems obvious.

Though I bet the Republicans will come up with something ugly, if they do ever come up with that mysterious "Republican health care plan" they claim they'll propose once they repeal Obamacare. Not holding my breath.

Obama's own approval ratings are down, too, this time over foreign affairs, as though the Ukraine, Gaza, etc. were his fault. Republicans attack his handling effectively; Democrats don't respond as effectively. So, the ratings go down.

None of it is good news for those on the mid-term ballot, maybe 2016 as well.

[RKP5637]

4. Democrats have never been good at getting good messages out. I'm not sure

why, but democrats have a history of deplorable messaging.

[rurallib]

5. Who owns all the media including NPR?

had an official (democratic) tell me once that he couldn't get a message out in the media no matter what he tried. Yet the same media always fawned over the republican he defeated.

The Dems have great messages. I will say Obama needs to learn to brag.
But here we have a case of - if a tree fell in the forest and there was no media to cover it, would we ever know?
But if 10 teabaggers and 10 janitors show up up for a rally to bring down the gummint it is reported as millions.

[RKP5637]

8. All good points! We live in such a propagandized country controlled by several

media outlets. And then conservatives scream about the liberal media, like WTF. Just at home, for example, AM radio is nothing but right wing garbage and the christian taliban.

[merrily]

14. Mmmmm. Please see Reply 3.

[merrily]

9. Which slogans and other messages from the Democrats are the media failing to convey?

You are conflating quite a few things. One is messaging, which is not the same thing as as having a message. Another is your own efforts in getting that messaging to the public. The help you get from corporate media is another thing.

So, let's start with the messaging--the slogans and other punchy ways of saying things that the Republicans seem to trump Democrats at. Where are they? Where are the Democrats own efforts to get that messaging to the public. MSNBC is there for them; at least after noon,; and I bet most national Democratic politicians could figure out a way to get air time on other major outlets if they really put their minds to it. For that matter, there's always fliers (flyers) an emails. I must be on every Democrat's email list. I haven't received any great messaging. And emails are free (so far, anyway Maybe Wheeler will fix that);

For that matter, where were Democrats putting an end by law and regulation to mega-corporations, like Disney, controlling just about everything we see and hear? (Please see also Reply3)

Where was the Democratic encouragement to big Democratic donors to start acquiring some FCC license and some broadcasting outlets of their own?

Every time Democratic voters make every excuse in the book, it sounds like learned helplessness to me.

[RKP5637]

12. This, is the one I have never really understood, and many democrats are extremely wealthy. Wealth

has never been exclusive to republicans. "Where was the Democratic encouragement to big Democratic donors to start acquiring some FCC license and some broadcasting outlets of their own?"

[sendero]

17. Since my first post in 2002.

.... was on this very subject, I have to weigh in. Part of the reason Republicans have the success they do is their willingness to get passionate about something. Even if they are wrong, the public responds to that IMHO. Democrats come off as reasonable, too reasonable usually. If you don't believe in something enough to defend it with passion, do you really believe it?

This problem is endemic to Democrats with only a very small handful (Grayson, Dean at one time, maybe a few more) of exceptions.

Obamacare us suffering in the polls because there are a thousand vociferous, passionate detractors and damned few passionate defenders.

[merrily]

23. And maybe also partly because it was a 2000 page bill and Americans

don't necessarily understand what it can do for them, except maybe for those directly affected by some pre-existing conditions and kids under 26 who need to stay on their plan. I don't think holding individuals to 2014 while granting employers an extension helped much, either.

You seem to be replying to my Reply 9, yet you implicitly dismiss everything I said in Reply 9 implicitly and say something else is to blame. Given that, I am not sure why I am taking the trouble and time to reply, but here goes:

Politicians in office can't control detractors or limit their numbers without violating the First Amendment. So, blaming it on detractors is something of a cop out on behalf of politicians, among other things. But, politicians sure can do their part better. And, btw, detractors are not unique to Democrats. In any event, given the first amendment, I think claiming it's all the fault of detractors gets Democrats nowhere. It's only politicians who can even try to fix this and only by modifying their own behaviors not by crossing their fingers and hoping detractors (aka citizens) will shut up.


Please see also Reply 3.

Every now and again, we mention holdiing politicians accountable for their acts and omissions, but it seems to me we''d rather rationalize and excuse. In any event, either Democratic politicians come up with a way to fix the problem that does not include silencing detractors or Republican messaging will continue to be more successful that of Democrats.

[sendero]

27. I'm not sure ..

... what you took from my message but I'm pretty sure it was not what I said. Democrats should GET OFF THEIR ASSES, GET IN FRONT OF A CAMERA and VOCIFEROUSLY AND PASSIONATELY DEFEND the laws they worked so hard to get passed.

When Dems complain that they can't get media time it MIGHT BE because no one wants to listen to Joe Milque Toast blather on like a doddering judge in a dank courtroom. Bring some passion and you might get some airtime.

[merrily]

38. You said Democrats lacked passion, then you said,

Obamacare us suffering in the polls because there are a thousand vociferous, passionate detractors and damned few passionate defenders.

I addressed the issue of many detractors and also the issue of Democratic politicians not doing their part to counteract them.

You did say those things, no?

And I also addressed the issue of those who make excuse after excuse for Democratic politicians, including the kinds of excuses made on this very thread.

[pscot]

64. People will follow the guy who makes the most noise

Regardless of what he's saying. If you pound a drum you get to lead the parade. Republicans have figured this out. Democrats worry about message. Republicans concentrate on volume, because it works.

[merrily]

67. I don't know if I agree that people follow someone simply because of the most noise.

I think it has to resonate first. Nor do I agree that Republicans focus only on volume, though they focus on that as well. Climate change vs. global warming was not only about noise.

[merrily]

7. Yes, that is pretty much what I said in my Reply 3. We were probably

typing very similar things at about the same time.

[RKP5637]

10. I think one thing I see is ... democrats IMO are more intellectual and hence some of their

messaging is aimed toward reasoning at a higher plane of understanding/thinking. Often IMO republican messaging is aimed toward the gutter with short messages that are stupid and seem to resonate with their base. In the big picture, I think the short messages seem to have staying power. Maybe it's human nature to cling to short stupid messaging ... because it requires no effort.

[merrily]

13. Republican messaging does require effort. They do testing, etc.

They pay people to come up with wording that people like and remember. Then they all get on the same page.

You can call it stupid, while saying it works better, but I don't think you can say it requires no effort.

What Democratic messaging are you talking about? Getting on TV and blabbing until the host calls time doesn't qualify as messaging in my book. And, if something doesn't work, how intellectual is it, really, not to try something else? Especially when at least one model that works a lot better is right in your face.

[RKP5637]

16. Oh, I mean on the part of the receivers, not the creation of the republican messaging. I think

republican messaging is often quite crafty, clever, targeted and very well done. Democrats need to learn the same.

[merrily]

20. Whether I benefited from them or not, I had quite a few years in school.

And, as far as grades go, anyway, I did fairly well.

Still, by the time Kerry finished a sentence during the 2004 debates, I did not always have a clue what the finish had to do with the beginning, let alone with the question he was asked. So, I don't know if Democratic voters are the reason Democratic politicians don't message well. It would be nice to think that they think that much of my intelligence and the intelligence of all other Democratic voters, but I can't believe that is the reason. Among many other things, I'm sure Democratic politicians would not mind picking up a few votes from Republicans and others who are not intellectually gifted.

Advertisers, who create ads for 100% of the population and not only for Republicans, get paid big bucks to come up with short, memorable messages. That is how to sell a product, a service or a concept. Or a candidate.

None of this is news to anyone. It's probably been known for as long as anyone has tried to sell anything to anyone

[RKP5637]

24. Similar here ... and also I've take a number of courses in

"Effective Presentations," etc. ... and I've often remarked while listening to some politicians that they appear to have no concept of how to get their message across. Yes, Kerry IMO was a prime example of that ... it was like a stream of consciousnesses than a message that would stick. One eventually got lost in trying to follow him.

They must have coaches that help them? ... maybe they don't listen to them, or possibly the coaches just aren't that good. Whatever, it is a distinct problem many democrats have.

I think you mentioned it in one of your earlier replies? Alan Grayson to me is one of the few democrats I've heard that knows how to get a message across. And, I think he appeals to a large range of political views.

[merrily]

32. I had to give a presentation on a specific topic to people in my field.

And when I say "had to," that is exactly what I mean. Like most people, I did not raise my hand to get up in front a large hotel room full of of my peers and "teach" them. Even though I was not going to be on TV, I hired a media consultant, and out of my own pocket, too. Didn't even ask the company for reimbursement because I was ashamed I felt I needed a consultant.

As I sit here typing, I cannot remember a single thing she said, but I remembered and practiced long enough to give that presentation in accordance with what she said. So, yes, I am sure that, since Nixon refused makeup for his TV debate with Kennedy, they have mucho consultants. They've eve parsed it down to how many camera shots show the two candidates in such a way that viewers can compare their height. (Even before TV and movies, even before photos, the taller candidate almost always won the Presidential, so they don't like us to be able to compare height except very seldom and very briefly.)

And, on top of that, they try to get politicians who've debated the other guy before to stand in for the other guy during debates. Gore did not do so great against Bush The first time, Gore came off as impatient and arrogant. Then, he got such criticism for that, he over-corrected to too deferential. So, maybe Kerry did not ask Gore for help. But, surely some actor and/or politician was available to play Bush for Kerry's benefit in the mock debates.

Anyway, yes, all the help they could possibly need is there for them, both from volunteers and from people they can pay from the hundreds of millions they get in campaign donations. There is zero excuse for any career politician to do badly in a Presidential debate.

[RKP5637]

35. Agree!!! Well said!!! n/t

[merrily]

53. I think they do what they think benefits them most.

Elections take money and the vast majority of Americans don't donate in the amounts that corporations can donate, including hospitals and health insurers. By the same token, they know they won't lose many votes, no matter what because our only realistic choices are them or Republicans and we're not going to vote Republican, no matter what. As they say, "The left has nowhere else to go."

That's is not cowardice. It's "enlightened" self-interest.

[trumad]

6. Change the name for Obamacare to Affordable Health Care and the numbers will be different.

[merrily]

11. That is the name of the act. Democrats, who invented the name "romneycare" were careful

to say "Affordable Care Act," while Republicans were saying "Obamacare," until Obama said he liked the name Obamacare.

[KoKo]

25. I thought that was a big mistake. "Affordable Health Care Act"

is the proper name and speaks to needs of the people--"Obama Care" made it partisan/personal and took the emphasis off "helping those who needed care" to focus on a President that the Repugs wanted to drive out of office.

I never understood why Obama caved like that. Maybe he just had a bad day.

[merrily]

34. He did not cave. He said he liked it. No one forced him to say that.

Surely, Obama knew that Democrats had come up "Romneycare" to deride the program and not to flatter Gov. Romney?

[treestar]

44. That is a good point

They decided to co-opt that name, thinking it would be a good thing, but there is the downside. People like the program itself and don't like Obama and thus it becomes "unpopular."

Obamacare threw me onto Medicaid, which is the best system ever. Why people don't want it to be like that is beyond me. Even people with a lot of money, just pay your taxes and forget about worrying about medical bills. My medical bills, which were just for the recommended tests, and the premiums, were so stressful and I'm "dreading" making "too much" and being thrown back into the market, but at least the premiums shouldn't be as bad under Obamacare.

Are they really that worried about "socialism" or so concerned that those who don't make as much just not get medical care as their just desserts for not working hard enough? They could still have an event and big medical bills. And trying to figure it all out with the insurance company. A single payer system would benefit them, and they don't seem to get that.

[jamzrockz]

57. Very true

Obamacare popularity will go up and down according to Obama's popularity. So not matter what you think of Obama, you want to decouple the act from Obama so citizens can truly judge it on its merit without connecting it to Obama the Man.

I will put a $1000 on Obamacare popularity increasing again when all the issue in eastern europe, middle east and North and central Africa is resolved.

[Rex]

15. Oh boohoo...got to be scared it could lead to...socialism!!

[merrily]

18. There is little danger that the feds will take ownership of hospitals, clinics and other

kinds of medical services delivery.

Speaking of messaging, one of the failures of Democrats in the propaganda wars is to remain silent when wingers call things socialism when said things have nothing to do with government ownership of the means of production. Every government program that benefits someone who is not a corporation does not equal socialism.

[Rex]

19. Yeah they have trigger words, their base has the collective intelligence of an average dog.

Okay, maybe below average. Way below average.

[merrily]

21. We can say that the success of their messaging techniques is due to

their stupidity and the stupidity of their base all we want. However, it works better than our messaging, even with us.


People used to talk about global warming. Now, even Democrats talk about climate change. How did that happen? Republicans found out climate change was a term that people accepted more than global warming. Stupid? Maybe. But, ignoring success and continuing down the less successful road is not all that bright, either, in my opinion.

[Rex]

22. Well they do have great propaganda masters.

As much as I hate Karl Rove, he is good at getting the GOP message out there. Even if it is a fantasy wrapped in a fantasy. His dumb base just believes what they are told...whereas our base always likes to ask questions.

[Rex]

29. Did my dog whistle attract some attention!?

It is amazing how stupid Republicans are...you just say the word 'socialism' and they come crawling out of the wood work.

[In_The_Wind]

33. I hate it when this happens:

fourteen14 (1 post)

DU Home » Latest Threads » Error
That jury is not accepting votes. This is likely because the post has received the necessary votes or was deleted.

[merrily]

36. I always miss the action here. Never saw the post.

Anyone I might have known, or was it a newbie? From the speed of the banning, I am guessing a newbie.

[clarice]

51. I sure as hell hope not. nt

[KoKo]

28. The article also says that People who use it (60%) Like It

and don't want it repealed. They just want Congress to fix some issues with it.

Even as many people expressed negative opinions about the Affordable Care Act, the poll also found that 60 percent of Americans don't favor repealing it (the GOP's standard take when it comes to the law). Instead, people said they want Congress to improve the law. These views also fell along party lines.

[merrily]

40. Good point. People didn't even like the "doughnut" hole in Medicare, but no one

was begging for repeal of Medicare, except people like Peterson and whichever politicians he bought.

[YarnAddict]

30. Like just about every law

it benefits some, while it is detrimental to others.

I know self-employed people whose premiums and deductibles went sky-high. They hate it. I know people who lost their private coverage due to the ACA. They hate it. I know young, healthy people who are suddenly required to purchase health insurance. They hate it.

But I also know people who are benefitting from it, who think it's the greatest thing ever.

[treestar]

43. This did not happen, they are blaming Obamacare with no basis

It would help self employed people, who otherwise had to pay the market value. Like me. I had a high deductible and a high premium. With the same thing subsidized when I don't make a lot of money, it can only be a better position than before.

Why shouldn't young healthy people have insurance? Things can happen to them too. That's what insurance is for. Then they'll have it when older and things start to happen.

You mean people shouldn't have to pay for insurance until they might get sick? That's not insurance. Then they can pay the full medical bills then.

Then discharge them in bankruptcy, since that's what happens.

[YarnAddict]

45. Um, no

The self-employed man whose premium and deductible went up astronomically gets no subsidy. He is also now paying for medical services he will never need--like maternity coverage, drug/alcohol treatment, etc. He is a cancer survivor. He was able to deal with the deductibles and co-pays, but has said that if he gets a recurrence, his choice will be death or bankruptcy.

Serious things do happen to young people. But, not to very many. The vast majority of young people are now paying for something they won't use, for many years. (That, BTW, is how insurance works: The healthy pay with no or little return, so that their premiums can pay the bills of those who need it.) A lot of those young people would rather have an I-phone, or cable. My son's g.f. has neither; instead she has something she doesn't want and doesn't need.

I haven't been without insurance since I graduated from college 35 years ago. And I sure wouldn't want to be at this point; however, the few years between coverage under my parents health insurance and obtaining my own through employment, I didn't need to see doctors, or have tests, or anything like that.

This law is helping a lot of people--but, not everyone. So don't expect everyone to love it.

[treestar]

46. Your first guy just doesn't believe in insurance

Because that's what you are doing! Paying for things others get but paying because you might one day need treatment yourself! It is ridiculous to say only the sick should have insurance, as that wouldn't be insurance. It'd be more like a single payer system. And then everyone's taxes would be going to other people's treatment, and then when you needed it, others' taxes go towards yours.

Almost sounds like he'd rather just pay for the cost of the treatment. It's expensive and that's why people insure the possibility they will need medical treatment.

If he had enough money before then he is not prejudiced by Obamacare and might get a subsidy if he doesn't.

[YarnAddict]

47. Where did you get that idea?

He had insurance. He had a plan that covered the things he needed or anticipated could happen. He now has a much more expensive plan that includes things he will never need, and is more costly.

To imply that you are either rich, rich, rich, OR qualify for a subsidy is nonsense. He is a normal, middle-class, middle aged guy, who makes too much to qualify for a subsidy, but too little to go without insurance.

And--I never said that only the sick should have insurance. Actually, I believe that everyone should have it, but I don't necessarily believe that people should be forced to buy something they don't want or feel they need.

[merrily]

52. People may not want insurance, but they have no clue whether they need it or not until they NEED it.

That is the very nature of insurance.

We don't say people whose homes are not already on fire don't need fire insurance. By the same token, no one sells it to them after their home is a pile of ashes.

[YarnAddict]

55. Uh, yeah . . .

but people can choose to take the risk and not have fire insurance. A mortgage co. may require that they obtain it as a condition for getting a mortgage, and if they were against fire insurance on principle, then they could choose not to buy a home.

People, especially young, healthy people should be able to gamble and not buy health insurance.

[merrily]

59. You just moved the goalpost.

Your prior post said it was something they didn't want OR need. I refuted the need portion of your statement, I did not dispute the want portion.

Lenders aside, people can choose to do without health insurance only because no law says otherwise. No law says otherwise because, again, removing lenders from the equation, the only one who suffers financial loss when a home burns down is the person or persons who paid for the home.

When an uninsured person who cannot afford to pay for health care gets very ill, the uninsured person is not the only one who bears the financial loss. Rather, that financial loss is borne by everyone who does buy health insurance for themselves or pay for their own medical care out of their own pockets. Excessive use of emergency rooms also raises the costs of health care and hospitals pass that differential on to the rest of us as well. And people who go broke paying for an unexpected illness become eligible for Medicaid and other assistance; and every taxpayer pays for that. So, home insurance and health insurance are not comparable at all.

Another difference is that this law also requires health insurers to cover pre-existing conditions. Supposedly, what makes that fair is requiring all of us to have health insurance, even if we don't feel we need it yet.

Does getting health insurers to cover a kid with a malignant brain tumor or a woman with breast cancer or someone born without a healthy heart valve mean that some of us are forced to buy insurance when we don't think we need it? Yes. That is the kind of thing decent human beings do for other human being in a human society.

I pay for the military when I don't think we should have gone to war after WWII ended. I pay for traffic lights and traffic cops though I don't own a car. I pay for cops, though I've never committed a crime, don't intend to commit a crime, or had one committed against me. That's how being a member of a society works. We all pay for the benefit of us ALL.

I would have preferred by far medicare for all, wherein taxes paid by all of us would have covered all of us. However, that was supposedly impossible to pass. Given a choice between buying insurance and letting really sick people die without medical care, I'd buy health insurance.

[merrily]

61. We all pay for medical services we will never need or ever need again. And we all bear the cost

financial of people who go broke and/or declare bankruptcy, too, be it in services to them or in the higher cost of getting loans. For that matter, we all pay the cost of people who die before they should and leave widows, widowers and minor children unprovided for. A sixty year old woman does need maternity care or viagra but she going to pay for both. For that matter, so will every woman who does not become pregnant.

[bigdarryl]

31. This poll is BULLSHIT because if you asked these igorant people polled

Do they like there state healthcare exchange they would say yes.The name Obama is what they hate.

[merrily]

37. Very true. How you phrase poll questions greatly affects outcomes.

So does how the poll sample is selected.

[treestar]

42. People who chose to stay with the plan they had

with their employer, will blame anything going wrong with that on "Obamacare."

I was just talking to someone whose weight loss surgery is not going to be covered after all because his employer changed health care plans. Other people immediately blamed that on Obamacare.

[TheKentuckian]

58. Staying with the employer plan isn't much a choice as a functional requirement of the law

Exchange ramping is intentionally piss poor to hamstring as many people as possible to stick with whatever shit the company is offering.

Don't like it then as always try your luck on the individual market unsubsidized.

[treestar]

65. Wel your employer's plan could be good or bad before the ACA

It's not the ACA, it's the pre-existing "wonderful" system that would have been at work without it.

If people wanted to not mess with insurance companies, they should elect a Congress that will pass single payer. But no. Obama rightly realized it would not go through if scaredy cat people who didn't want anything to change didn't have the option of keeping what they had. They got that. Now it's not the ACA that makes it what it always was.

[TheKentuckian]

66. Pretty far afield from your own point and my response.

You stated a choice where there is none PER THE LAW, which means that the preexisting situation isn't the cause but the law as it specifically addresses and maintains the situation as an intentional design feature. Not an option of keeping what was had but a systemic requirement that you do.
That isn't choice by any rational definition.

Further, even within that supposed "choice", it isn't true because the employer isn't mandated to maintain what was had nor the carrier to provide it. It is just a part of a sales pitch and untrue on about every level when yes the law could have just as easily made it true in a combination of ways but willfully maintained the status quo and if it is a source of consternation because folks don't like it then perhaps it should be a consideration that the tea leaves were misread about what was really wanted (since you want to insist the design is popularity driven).

And as always, it never was simply a choice between the Profit Protection and Wealthcare Act and single payer because to say that ignores other possible health care funding and delivery systems as well as (and I think most willfully deceivingly) that this is the only possible permutation of a heavily market based reform which is flatly false. In fact, one could use the same template and come out with very different outcomes with might seem like very small differences in some cases to folks accustomed to looking at things in a vacuum or not very closely.

[WI_DEM]

48. One of the problems of the Obama administration is its unwillingness

to use the bully pulpit and tout its accomplishments. We can't depend on the MSM for that.

[Arkana]

50. Please tell me you don't actually believe this.

While it may have been true at first (and especially during the health care debate before the law was passed), it takes a REAL stretch of the truth to say that the administration doesn't trumpet its accomplishments. Come on now.

[Arkana]

49. It's amazing what misinformation does.

Too damn bad. It's law and it isn't going anywhere.

[merrily]

54. Speaking of messaging, Obama on TV now, speaking on the economy, immigration, etc.,

saying how Republicans are obstructing eveything. He is into Q and A now. I think he's doing very well, too. Yeayyyyy!!!!

[Reter]

56. I started disapproving it as soon as I tried to sign up

I made roughly $26,000 last year. The cheapest health plan I found was $307 a month. No chance I'm paying more than $40, so I didn't sign up.

[Quantess]

60. So you're going without insurance, I take it?

Don't you have to pay a fine? I am curious, as I do not live in the states.

[Reter]

62. The fine will be a lot cheaper than $307 a month

Probably $200. It'll probably automatically come out of my taxes next year. The ACA isn't what many who support it think it is. It may be good for the very poor (making $14,000 or less per year), but it sucks for the regular poor and the middle class.

[jamzrockz]

63. This years fine will be paid

next tax return.