I didn’t get the sense that Dio was upset, per se (feel free to correct me if I’m mistaken, Dio). I’ll refrain from speculating further on his internal drivers, and simply give my own take on why this can be seen as a PALATR moment.
You speak of marketing, and point out that it is always, in the end, a matter of playing on your potential customers’ fear of an undesirable outcome, and how the marketer’s product or service represents the best or only means of avoiding that outcome. Let’s skip over the debatable nuances and proceed fom there. I think it likely that only a minority of marketers actually view their potential customers as “marks,” whose presence is justified only to the extent that they are available to be fleeced. And even a smaller minority actually speak of their customers (actual and potential) in terms that suggest, to the unauthorized observer, that the customers are viewed that way.
The RNC training materials revealed in the OP quite clearly show the RNC speaking of their potential donors in such terms. This suggests that the RNC views potential donors as only valued for their donations. Further, the wording in the materials suggests that the RNC are aware that they are marketing a product designed to avoid an outcome that is based on a chimerical, rather than a reality-based, fear (for the purposes of this characterization, I intend for the word “chimerical” to encompass not only fears that are manufactured out of the whole cloth, but those that are overstated beyond the realm of plausible reality).
Hundreds of thousands dead, and hundreds of billions wasted all through the GOP’s cynical fear campaign. Your fear-marketing isn’t just a little iffy, it’s a proven killer.
Are you willing to live with consequences like that again, just so the GOP can regain a little bit of it’s lost power? Why? How do you justify that? Or do you just rest on your ‘the dems do it too’ laurels regardless of any actual moral issues? I keep hearing how conservatives are supposed to be better than that, but from the pushback I’ve seen on this issue, it looks to me like it’s all just talk. kaylasdad99:
This is standard marketing fare. I’ve been in dozens and dozens of meetings where language just like that which you cited is used. I was in a meeting today where terms like that were thrown around. It’s just identifying groups, identifying their behavior and looking at the motivations for that behavior.
If you knew what you were talking about you’d know that any marketing effort of any size (anyone who can pay for the research) does this. Nike, Converse, McDonald’s, Burger King, Toyota, Honda, Reps, Dems…
If I have a hangnail and a large co-payment, I’ll get out the toenail clippers. If I have a hangnail and a zero copayment, I’ll hie myself to the podiatrist.
Then let’s have UHC with co payments. The point being we can design it to help promote personal responsibility while still making health care more accessible and affordable to more people. Just saying SOCIALISM SOCIALISM BAD BAD, BE AFRAID! VOTE US BACK IN. Isn’t problem solving.
So a $10-50 co-pay is the only thin veneer of restraint that is keeping you from being a full-blown hypochondriac? The absence of a copay is not some magical elixir that would transform someone who hates going to the doctor regardless of the cost or lack of cost into someone who will camp out at a doctor’s office because they had the chills and now think they have H1N1.
You only need look at the military for proof of this. Through Tricare, I don’t pay a dime whenever I go to the clinic. But because I don’t particularly like getting physicals or other kinds of treatments or invasive check-ups, I am only going to go if I am absolutely required to do so by my medical readiness status. And this can only be further underlined since unlike most other kinds of government or private sector workers, I would not have to take sick time or vacation time in order to get out of work and go to the clinic.
Really? Honstly? You would? I realize that there are people with mental disorders, such as hypochondriasis, who go to doctors and hopsitals for no medical reason, but if you are one of those, you should be up front about it rather than imply that people without such mental disorders do as you do. Let’s have your honest answer, for I expect that you are just talking out of your hat, and that you would not go out of your way to make a needless visit to your podiatrist even if it did not cost you a penny.
Where I live, in Ontario, we have socialized universal health care with no deductible or co-payment, and I have never heard of anyone going to a podiatrist for a hangnail that could be properly dealt with by toenail clippers.
Your statement is a good example of an attempt to spread fear of socialized universal health care by falsely associating it with financial mis-use.
Well, you sure showed me. No, honestly, if by honestly you mean literally.
OK. Let me retract my obviously illustrative and not-at-all-meant-to-be-read-ultra-literally statement.
In it’s place, I will say the following:
Not true. It is easy to imagine the absence of any cost associated with doctors’ office visits and medical tests causing patients to demand extensive testing, and make more office visits, than they would under other circumstances. Indeed, it’s my understanding that this is a major function of the nominal co-pay requirement most insurance policies have; they place a small stopgap in costs by creating an incentive for the policyholder to exercise rational restraint in his consumption of medical care.
One of the good things about socialized universal heath care is preventitive medicine. There is no financial impediment to a person getting a check-up, a prostate exam, a breast exam, etc., so as to catch and deal with medical problems early on, or to getting medical advice on how best to handle changes in life such as ageing so as to avoid medical problems in the first place. This helps Canadians (when compared with people who live in the USA) on a per capita basis to live in a healthier condition for longer years, and ultimately live longer. Yes, there is a financial cost to providing such medical services, but there is an even greater financial savings, for it reduces the amount of money spent dealing with serious medical problems that could have been mitigated had the problems been identified and treated early on, which is why (when compared to people who live in the USA) on a per capita basis we pay less out of our own pockets for health care, and our government pays less out of the public purse for health care. http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5456070&postcount=10
So Bricker, if you lived up here where we have socialized universal health care, yes you could go to a podiatrist with your hangnail problem wihtout it costing you a penny. If you are a diabetic, that could be tremendously important to your avoiding diabetic foot infections that could lead to amputation. The podiatrist would refer you to a foot care clinic where you would receive counelling appropirate to your medical condition. In short, better health for less cost.
If you do not have any medical issues, other than a mental disorder that drives you to visiting podiatrists for hangnails, the podiatrist would refer you to a mental heal practitioner, who would help you deal with your disorder, including getting you to the point that you no longer waste the taxpayers money in needless doctor’s visits. Again, better health for less cost.
You are actually on to something here. Healthcare is generally inelastic for high-cost services but is quite elastic for the hangnail problem. There was an interesting article published in the Journal of Health Economics a few years ago that you can find here. It is formal, so skip most of it if you don’t feel like wading through equations and proofs. But here is the abstract, with my emhpasis:
Bricker, most people do not like to visit the doctor. They don’t like dealing with unknown potential problems. They don’t like losing pay from taking time off work. The don’t like sitting in waiting rooms while urchins blow infected snot on them. They don’t like having a finger shoved up their nether region, or shitting into a jar, or saying how often they have sex, or having a needle take blood out of them, or any number of then many things that are just plain unplesant when it comes to visiting a doctor. Tacking on a small deductible will not make any significant difference to an alreadly unplesant experience.
If a large deductible is added, then you run into the problem of the working poor not being able to access appropriate medical care even if they have coverage.
Whether a deductible is small or large, it will not encourage preventitive health care, and therefore will not help reduce major health care costs that could have been mitigated had the medical conditions been caught early on.
