The "public option"

I had lunch with David Fenton on Monday.  We had a great conversation about his role as a movement photographer in the 60s and 70s to the work of the communications industry in general.

Of everything he said, one of the things that particularly struck me was the complete failure on the part of Democrats to frame the “public option” part of the health care debate well.  Why would anyone choose to call it this?  ”Public” sounds like socialist and big government.  ”Option” is just that — an option.  The phrase itself makes you think that a health care guarantee is just more big government that isn’t really necessary at the end of the day.

After years of cognitive psychologists and political professionals talking about the importance of the frame in political messaging, why did we mess this one up so badly?

Makes me think more highly of Anthony Weiner and his explicit commitment to always talking about the “public option” as extended Medicare.  That’s a lot less scary to a lot more people.

1. artislovely liked this
2. natkg liked this
3. whencever liked this
4. quyenhuynh liked this
5. klickhere liked this
6. laurakelly00 reblogged this from texturism
7. seaneldridge liked this
8. fullcredit liked this
9. texturism reblogged this from chrishughes
10. adamiss liked this
11. david liked this
12. feinsodville liked this
13. thedeadline liked this
14. john liked this
15. funsize reblogged this from saucy
16. caro reblogged this from chrishughes
17. saucy reblogged this from chrishughes and added:

    tumblr friend Chris Hughes. Your voice...missing here. We’re happy

18. chrishughes posted this