If everything is so great, why does the Obama administration have to market it so heavily? The question is, are we subjected to media pressures that use gentle coercion to guilt us into accepting policies? Is this illusion insinuated through a constant barrage of media? Do we prefer to live in an illusion instead of reality?
TOXIC ILLUSION #1: HEALTH CARE
(Remember, whoever argues for this the loudest will likely benefit the most.)
Is it the American citizen who is clamoring for the Health Care Bill? The American citizens protested. They do not want the government to run healthcare. They do not want the government to sponsor healthcare. They do not want the government involved in healthcare. And they do not want a public option healthcare. The media has repeatedly alleged that these are not genuine protests and distorted the reporting to reflect ALL protesters in a negative light. Reality check: The majority of Americans do not want the government to run, control, or manage healthcare. Because the majority of American have a dissenting opinion, it is now seen as nothing more than an obstruction to getting health care “reform” passed.
"I think attacking citizens in our country for expressing their opinions about an issue of this magnitude may indicate some weakness in their position on the merits," McConnell said.” --Senator McConnell on Democrats attacking town hall meetings.
LET THE ILLUSION BEGIN: “President Obama yesterday rolled out the red carpet-and handed out doctors’ white coats as well, just so nobody missed his hard-sell health-care message. In a heavy handed attempt at reviving support for health-care reform, the White House orchestrated a massive photo op to buttress its claim that front-line physicians support Obama.” “The physicians, all invited guests, were told to bring their white lab coats to make sure that TV cameras captured the image.” --NYPost.
The question: If the Health Care Reform Bill is so fantastic, why is Obama marketing it so perniciously? Well, here is one part of the equation. The bill writer himself actually finds it necessary to market his bill! (This marketing campaign began with Obama’s presidential campaign!) “Sen. Max Baucus and the Center for American Progress Action Fund are announcing a new group on a conference call later this morning: Doctors for America, which is a reincarnation of Doctors for Obama, an arm of the Obama campaign that boasted more than 10,000 members.”
With all this time for advertising, surely it’s a great bill that we can get a chance to read, right? NO, we don’t get the chance to read the bill. According to Senator Baucus himself, “...even though President Obama promised us transparency there was an opportunity in the Senate last week that they put this bill online for 72 hours. Did you hear what Max Baucus' response was? 'He said, Well, it would take me two weeks to get the bill online.'”
Has a war been launched through the media to allocate more power to the government? Why is the government using advertising campaigns to advance their agendas when they are elected officials who are responsible to represent the citizens? Should we question how close this compares to brainwashing? "The application of a concentrated means of persuasion, such as an advertising campaign or repeated suggestion, in order to develop a specific belief or motivation". (Definition of brainwashing, American Heritage Dictionary.)
TOXIC ILLUSIONS #2,#3,#4,#5,#6,#7……..AND ON AND ON: THE STIMULUS PACKAGE, THE BAILOUT PACKAGE, THE CASH FOR CLUNKERS PACKAGE, THE HOUSING CREDIT, THE MORTGAGE WRITEDOWNS…. etc
Stimulus is branded as protection and empowerment for those in need. The Bailout Package was branded as “Financial Armageddon”, The Cash for Clunkers Program was branded as “Help the Economy”, The Housing Credit Crisis was “We have to, or your home will lose its value”, The Mortgage Writedowns was “The Home Affordable Program”. The American people are now being conditioned to think they're going to receive gifts from the government as in "where's MY bailout?"
If the government asks you to work for 100 days of the year and then give them the money you made so they could spend it in a way they deem fit without your approval, would you do it? Would you think that is unreasonable? Most citizens laugh at this question, but that is the current American way. We currently work 100 days of the year and give that money to the government for our individual share of the tax burden. (And this was BEFORE our current 12 trillion dollar debt. See usdebtclock.org) The government takes your earnings to redistribute the way they see fit. The government money is actually your money. When the government comes up with all these programs like paying for health insurance (for some), giving stimulus checks (for some), etc., the government knows people would revolt if they raised taxes more, so policies are branded and marketed as “cure all” packages for America’s woes. We are lulled into security by assurances like, “The government will take care of it.” The government IS taking care of it…by “stealing” trillions of dollars and indebting its citizens and future generations. When you do not pay through taxes, you are forced to pay through inflation.
Where are values of thrift, hard work and independence? These ethics are stealthily being replaced as the government uses the media to rebrand government spending and market it as their assurance to pay for "security and success for ALL". The problem is the current public policies are beneficial to one set of citizens at the expense of another. (For example, the Cash for Clunkers giveaway benefited the recipient $4,500, but cost the rest of the taxpayers $20,000! Remember, as a country we are broke so these “give-aways” cost substantially more when paid back.) There is no utopia--no matter what the government promises. The question is: What are the long term effects of these programs?
It appears this administration has a special talent for marketing their vision to the American citizen. If you don’t like what they sell the first go around, it comes out repackaged and rebranded. The fight is on now to persuade the American citizen to buy the “new American dream”. The “new American dream” will cost YOU nothing; the “new American dream” will always cost “the other guy”.
What if we begin to realize...we are the other guy?
Sources: Newt.org, NYPost, 10/06/09, Politico.com, Ben Smith
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Wow. Now that you put it this way...I can totally see the relentless "marketing" campaign!!
Respectfully, I'd like to ask for a correction to this post. Max Baucus did not start Doctors for America. In fact, the sum total of Max Baucus's interaction with Doctors for America has been to appear on one conference call together.
While a number of the physicians volunteering their time to advocate for health reform previously endorsed the Obama health plan over the McCain health plan in the election, Doctors for America is a 501(c)3 organization with no political affiliations.
Lastly, I would suggest you consider the results of the study published recently in the New England Journal of Medicine (http://healthcarereform.nejm.org/?p=1790). This study finds that a majority of physicians really do support health reform of the kind being considered by Congress. This is consistent with the fact that the seven largest medical societies have all endorsed the House Reform bill.
Dear Anonymous,
Yes, you are correct, Max Baucus did not originate Doctors for America . (This error has been corrected .) However, you missed the point of this post. The subject is to illustrate that this administration, as well as Max Baucus are using marketing techniques to sway the public interest into "buying into" their policies. The government is "selling" to the people instead of representing the people.
This administration is heavily marketing numerous policies. Is the government betraying the citizens when it "campaigns" policies?
Also, I found it interesting to see the comment section used with the intention of influencing health care reform opinions, since this post was not about health care. In response to your recommendation to read the New England Journal of Medicine's report inferring doctor's support health care reform. This article is a survey that questions the general support of health care reform. It does not define specifically what doctors will support and makes no mention of the Max Baucus bill. The Baucus bill does not define all aspects of how health care will be changed. Therefore, I do not see this article as an endorsement for this bill... how can anyone endorse what they have not read?
So one is left with the question, "Why is the health reform bill heavily marketed and why did it need to be 'rebranded'?" Maybe because the citizens don't want it, maybe because it will end up costing the citizens more:
According to Tony Fratto, on CNBC Guest Blog, 10/13/09,
"AHIP, the health insurance lobby, released a long overdue study this week demonstrating that health insurance provisions in legislation scheduled for a vote in the Senate Finance Committee today will result in higher premiums for Americans across the board.
1) Insurance reforms mandating coverage of sick people at below-actuarial rates will raise premium costs for healthy people buying the same insurance - especially if the individual coverage mandates allow some young and healthy people to evade the mandate; and
2) Premiums will also rise as taxes on insurers and health care providers are passed through to beneficiaries."
Unfortunately, at this point there are too many unknowns regarding how health care reform will impact health services as well as health costs.
5minutepolitcs.com
Post a Comment