In the Straw Man propaganda technique you misstate your opponent's position and then argue vehemently against it. Lets take a look at how Straw Man has been deployed in response to Michael Moore's SiCKO! and then what things you might say when this comes up.

The Straw Man is that Moore is advocating "socialism". Note that the word "socialized" is arguably more appropriate but "socialism", being a system of government, suggests Liberals want to replace the free market with socialism. The fact that socialism and communism are often associated has not been overlooked by the propaganda factory at GOP HQs.

Definitions of socialism always include

* Collective ownership of the means of production by the people or the government
* Centralized planning and control of the economy by government
* More equal redistribution of wealth

The definition is generally understood to apply to an entire economy. Some public ownership may be termed "socialist" but no one, not even Michael Moore, has suggested we replace our free market with socialism.

In fact, all modern democracies have government control of crucial parts of their economies -things that are inherently unprofitable and/or crucially important. Western democracies provide police and fire protection and postal services for businesses as well as citizens. The military protects citizens and businesses (in fact it is increasingly single payer as it outsources more and more formerly military jobs). The courts make it possible for businesses to trust their contracts will be honored and their intellectual property and patents are protected. Public roads allow businesses to transport goods. Public schools provide businesses with trained workers. Government tax policy favor's investment in business. (These considerable government subsidies undercut, to some extent, the notion of the "self made man"). Government also regulates many parts of the economy keeping us safe from bad food, drugs and unsafe products (among other things). Few would seriously argue we'd be better off without any of this.

In the black and white world of right wing propaganda, however, anyone advocating government control of any part of the economy is advocating a slippery slope to an overthrow of the free market. By cleverly mischaracterizing Moore's position this way, right wingers evoke the underlying Conservative frame that Liberals hate entrepreneurship and wealth and advocate socialism (or communism!) over laissez faire capitalism.

So What Can You Say?
The question here, as it is with many issues, is not either/or, but where you draw the line. Adding health care to the list of services the government provides -or at least pays for- will not in any replace or even endanger our free market system. Universal coverage is simply making sure everyone has health insurance. Single payer removes insurance companies and HMOs from the picture and removes the profit incentive which, in practice, encourages greed to trump the judgment of doctors. HMOs may argue that if they do not deny coverage then they can't make a profit -all the more reason to consider health care like roads or the military and socialize it! Our goal must be to provide every American with quality health care.

None of this, by the way, requires the government to own hospitals and doctors. Does NASA own Lockheed? Does the Army own Halliburton? Should we look at government ownership of health care? We already have it in the VA, in military hospitals and in government and military research institutions such as the CDC, the NIH and the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, among many others. Like other government agencies, they are not nearly as wasteful or inefficient as they are made out to be. (Sidebar: how "efficient" was Enron?).

And how economically efficient is it to discourage people from seeking medical attention until they are dragged in for expensive emergency care? How efficient is it to bankrupt families who are denied coverage? How efficient is it for almost 50 million Americans to have no protection at all? The fact is that we are already paying for these inefficiencies in the rising cost of health care. The only thing guaranteed is that the insurers and HMOs will have profit no matter how high those costs go.

Workers have only recently seen their coverage shift to high deductible plans; at skyrocketing rates of increase, how long will it be before the deductibles are so high that we all, in effect, will be uninsured and the whole system collapses? Exposing the propaganda should help out the next time you get into a discussion of health care.
For those interested in framing, the underlying Liberal frame is that Liberals , at their core, are collaborative, Conservatives are competitive. Liberals are "one for all and all for one", Conservatives are "every man for himself". Liberals believe that there are situations where collaboration is preferred over competition. For Conservatives, the free market is self correcting.

The theory that free market incentive (profit) guarantees the greatest good for the lowest cost works only if people are generally altruistic. The deadly sin of greed however can cause the free market to do things that damage society. Regulation is a way to guard against this danger. Socializing some sectors of the economy also makes good sense: Would paying judges directly for their services keep justice blind? Would we prefer all roads be toll roads? Would it serve America's strength and security to educate elites better than everyone else?

Permalink-view this post with all comments 0 Post comment