Rockridge Institute published a set of articles (and a video ad) that I found quite interesting about the way to frame health care. See for yourself:
Framing for Rockridge is about the honest expression of the progressive moral view based upon empathy and responsibility for oneself and others. It is about recognizing government’s role to protect and empower citizens. In other words, we want to communicate our moral view as directly as possible. We want to make sure the moral view is not lost in the fog of complex policy proposals.
Most health care reports advocate a policy, describe it, and argue for it. We take a different approach. In this paper, we describe the logic of the overall debate over the U.S. health care system –the assumptions, the arguments, who makes them, and why. We do come out of this process with recommendations, but not of the usual sort.
George W. Bush doesn’t want you to think of a sick child. Not Graeme Frost. Not Gemma Frost. Not Bethany Wilkerson. Not any of the real children affected. He wants you straining your eyes on the fine print of policies, puzzling over the nuances of coverage — whether you can afford premiums for basic, catastrophic, comprehensive or limited health insurance.
The initial web ad in the Rockridge Institute’s campaign for health care security is intended to make a simple, emotional point: today’s profit-first, private, insurance-based health care system forces Americans to choose to exclude millions of Americans from adequate health care.
For those in U.S. House or Senate inclined to sustain a presidential veto of a bill that will provide basic health care to more than 3 million additional American children, ask yourselves this question: Are you willing to explain your decision to a schoolroom of fragile young children who cannot afford treatment for whooping cough or measles, leukemia or juvenile diabetes? Are you willing to explain this to them, human to human?
When is a twelve-year-old boy with brain damage a threat? When he exemplifies the good a government program can do when it provides health security to middle-class Americans.
The House on Thursday passed a modified version of the SCHIP bill, with a vote that was seven votes shy of a veto-proof majority. There were 142 members of Congress who voted against extending health care to more poor children. Behind their rhetoric, their intentions are clear: they want to protect the health insurance market and the huge profits that go with it.
A Rockridge Nation member recently asked how we can reframe mental health as being necessary for health. We explore a key cognitive bias in how health is conceptualized to pave the way toward an effective alternative.
Rockridge Nation members recently asked about the phrase “socialized medicine” and raised the deeper question of how to overcome resistance to an expanded government role in funding healthcare, prompting our response here.
You may not agree with the Lakoffian analysis, but reading these articles SHOULD make you think about the way you talk about health care.