How the Media Reports Debate and Why Single Payer Advocacy Matters

[Joanne98]

What frustrates single payer advocates the most is how they have been sidelined from the national health finance reform debate. People who support single payer, or enhanced and improved Medicare for All, have long waited for the chance to present their case to the American people for real health care reform via a single payer method. With the ever increasing cost of care, and the growing number of uninsured and under insured Americans, single payer advocates view inclusion of proposals that support a one payer system for financing health care an essential part of the debate. How surprising to the single payer movement when in light of the newly elected super majorities in Congress, and a Democratic President in the White House, single payer proposals in Congress were taken off the table at the outset. More surprising, and equally disappointing, was the quick dismissal of Democratic grassroots groups and popular progressive bloggers of the single payer concept who instead embraced an undefined, amorphous policy called the "public option".

For most of the debate, it's been as though there were only two sides. The Democratic side, with or without a weak public option, and the Republican batsh*t, crazy side of "No!". The Left has largely moved to silence single payer advocates by disinviting them to speaking engagements, ignoring single payer editorials, news stories and advocacy groups like the California Nurses Association, and PNHP, focusing fundraising initiatives on public option advocacy only, and using their front page blog space to promote public options, while not exploring single payer proposals. Some say single payer isn't "politically possible". Some call single payer advocacy "kabuki". Some argue "serious" politicians have said it's off the table so why discuss it? Barney Frank, a long time single payer supporter, went as far as calling advocacy for the plan he supports, "suicide". As a result of the single payer blackout, the media has focused on the only two vocal sides of the debate. Because of this coverage, the entire national debate has taken place within the center/right to batsh*t, crazy right side of the spectrum, but what happens to the debate via media coverage when single payer advocates make themselves heard? It shifts Left:

Via David Swanson:


What Happened When Single-Payer Was Uninvited

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By dswanson - Posted on 27 August 2009

I blogged earlier about astroturfing on the left and a healthcare rally at which AFSCME chose to uninvite anyone supporting single-payer. The result was a rally at which half the crowd had single-payer signs, and the local TV stations reported on a debate between single-payer and the public option, as if no other position (such as nuts screaming about death panels) existed. TV reporters just need two sides, they don't care which two sides or whether they're leaving out a third or fourth side. Keeping single-payer in the debate makes public option the rightist choice. Channel 29's clip did this. Here's a follow up article by Brandon Collins that includes video from Channel 19.

Even if you prefer the Congressional proposals with or without a public option to single payer, if liberals and progressives want to move the debate and the policy left the greatest tool at their disposal is broadening the debate leftward

http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/7596

Corporations raise prices and reduce services. This always happens. I don't know why the fundalmental point is getting lost. There's tons of evidence this is true.