The Experts below are selected from a list of 89280 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Richard A Daynard - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
tobacco industry use of Personal Responsibility rhetoric in public relations and litigation disguising freedom to blame as freedom of choice
American Journal of Public Health, 2015Co-Authors: Lissy C Friedman, Daniel Givelber, Mark A Gottlieb, Andrew Cheyne, Richard A DaynardAbstract:We examined the tobacco industry’s rhetoric to frame Personal Responsibility arguments. The industry rarely uses the phrase “Personal Responsibility” explicitly, but rather “freedom of choice.” When freedom of choice is used in the context of litigation, the industry means that those who choose to smoke are solely to blame for their injuries. When used in the industry’s public relations messages, it grounds its meaning in the concept of liberty and the right to smoke. The courtroom “blame rhetoric” has influenced the industry’s larger public relations message to shift Responsibility away from the tobacco companies and onto their customers. Understanding the rhetoric and framing that the industry employs is essential to combating this tactic, and we apply this comprehension to other industries that act as disease vectors.
-
the origins of Personal Responsibility rhetoric in news coverage of the tobacco industry
American Journal of Public Health, 2014Co-Authors: Pamela Mejia, Lissy C Friedman, Mark A Gottlieb, Andrew Cheyne, Lori Dorfman, Laura Nixon, Richard A DaynardAbstract:The tobacco industry consistently frames smoking as a Personal issue rather than the Responsibility of cigarette companies. To identify when Personal Responsibility framing became a major element of the tobacco industry’s discourse, we analyzed news coverage from 1966 to 1991. Industry representatives began to regularly use these arguments in 1977. By the mid 1980s, this frame dominated the industry’s public arguments. This chronology illustrates that the tobacco industry’s use of Personal Responsibility rhetoric in public preceded the ascension of Personal Responsibility rhetoric commonly associated with the Reagan Administration in the 1980s.
Lissy C Friedman - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
tobacco industry use of Personal Responsibility rhetoric in public relations and litigation disguising freedom to blame as freedom of choice
American Journal of Public Health, 2015Co-Authors: Lissy C Friedman, Daniel Givelber, Mark A Gottlieb, Andrew Cheyne, Richard A DaynardAbstract:We examined the tobacco industry’s rhetoric to frame Personal Responsibility arguments. The industry rarely uses the phrase “Personal Responsibility” explicitly, but rather “freedom of choice.” When freedom of choice is used in the context of litigation, the industry means that those who choose to smoke are solely to blame for their injuries. When used in the industry’s public relations messages, it grounds its meaning in the concept of liberty and the right to smoke. The courtroom “blame rhetoric” has influenced the industry’s larger public relations message to shift Responsibility away from the tobacco companies and onto their customers. Understanding the rhetoric and framing that the industry employs is essential to combating this tactic, and we apply this comprehension to other industries that act as disease vectors.
-
the origins of Personal Responsibility rhetoric in news coverage of the tobacco industry
American Journal of Public Health, 2014Co-Authors: Pamela Mejia, Lissy C Friedman, Mark A Gottlieb, Andrew Cheyne, Lori Dorfman, Laura Nixon, Richard A DaynardAbstract:The tobacco industry consistently frames smoking as a Personal issue rather than the Responsibility of cigarette companies. To identify when Personal Responsibility framing became a major element of the tobacco industry’s discourse, we analyzed news coverage from 1966 to 1991. Industry representatives began to regularly use these arguments in 1977. By the mid 1980s, this frame dominated the industry’s public arguments. This chronology illustrates that the tobacco industry’s use of Personal Responsibility rhetoric in public preceded the ascension of Personal Responsibility rhetoric commonly associated with the Reagan Administration in the 1980s.
Lindsay F Wiley - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the Personal Responsibility pandemic centering solidarity in public health and employment law
Social Science Research Network, 2020Co-Authors: Lindsay F Wiley, Samuel R BagenstosAbstract:The Personal Responsibility ethos that has driven the US response to the coronavirus pandemic has been ineffective, atomizing, and unjust Restrictions on publi
-
access to health care as an incentive for healthy behavior an assessment of the affordable care act s Personal Responsibility for wellness reforms
Indiana Health Law Review, 2014Co-Authors: Lindsay F WileyAbstract:Underappreciated provisions in the Affordable Care Act encourage third-party payers — employers, private health insurers, and public Medicaid programs — to take a more active role in reducing health care costs by conditioning the terms of coverage on individuals’ compliance with recommended health behaviors. Champions of this approach, which I call “Personal Responsibility for wellness,” argue that it could help halt rising health care costs and turn the tide against some of the most pressing public health problems of our time. Employers exhibit enormous enthusiasm for programs that condition financial rewards and penalties (typically in the form of premium discounts or surcharges or differential cost-sharing through deductibles, co-pays, and co-insurance) on individual participation in wellness programs ranging from health screenings to weight loss counseling. At the same time, Medicaid programs in politically conservative states have been experimenting with applying the corporate wellness program model to their Medicaid populations, with mixed results. Critics of these programs are concerned that they may simply shift health care costs from third-party payers to individuals without resulting in better health outcomes. Given that there is often a lapse of decades between behaviors like tobacco use, unhealthy eating, or physical inactivity and the health care costs associated with them, and given that Americans frequently move from one form of health care coverage to another over the course of a lifetime, third-party payers’ interests may not be entirely well aligned with sound prevention policy. Elsewhere, I have argued that Personal Responsibility reforms reflect cultural biases that exaggerate the extent to which ill health is attributable to the Personal failings of unhealthy individuals and that they serve as a political distraction from less punitive measures aimed at making our communities, workplaces, schools, and marketplaces more conducive to healthy living. Here, I assess ongoing agency implementation of the ACA’s Personal Responsibility for wellness reforms and find cause for hope. I argue that in implementing these provisions, the Department of Health and Human Services appears to be taking an appropriately skeptical stance toward Personal Responsibility for wellness measures that use rewards and penalties to encourage, but not necessarily facilitate, healthier behavior. I conclude by arguing that recent agency actions are a step in the right direction, but continued vigilance is necessary to ensure that third-party payers do not use wellness reforms to undermine the ACA’s goals with respect to health care access and disease prevention. I also suggest that public health advocates should continue to seek the support of third-party payers in their efforts to transform our workplaces, communities, schools, and marketplaces to make them more conducive to healthy living.
-
who s your nanny choice paternalism and public health in the age of Personal Responsibility
Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics, 2013Co-Authors: Lindsay F Wiley, Micah L Berman, Doug BlankeAbstract:In June 2012, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced his plans for a ban on the sale of sugary beverages in containers larger than 16 ounces. Shortly thereafter, the Center for Consumer Freedom took out a full-page ad in the New York Times featuring Bloomberg photo-shopped into a matronly dress with the tag line “New Yorkers need a Mayor, not a Nanny.” On television, the CATO Institute's Michael Cannon declared, “This is the most ridiculous sort of nanny state-ism; [i]t’s none of the mayor's business how much soda people are drinking.” And in newspapers around the country, editorial pages featured headlines such as “Gulp! Yet Another Intrusion of the Nanny State.” Just like that, the public debate about this measure became focused on government overreach, while the public health problem of obesity (and of overconsumption of soda in particular) faded into the background.
-
who s your nanny choice paternalism and public health in the age of Personal Responsibility
Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics, 2013Co-Authors: Lindsay F Wiley, Micah L Berman, Doug BlankeAbstract:A belief that the government does (and should) have broad authority to protect and improve health, coupled with an understanding that collective action is often necessary to address public health challenges effectively, is central to the public health mindset. But many are questioning whether this vision of a strong government role is applicable to non-communicable disease threats and the social determinants of health. Arguments about public health paternalism are playing a role in political opposition to new law and policy interventions and in legal challenges aimed at striking down existing public health laws. This article explores the forces behind the cultural and political resonance of concerns about public health paternalism, “Personal Responsibility,” and the “nanny state” and attempts to outline a potential path forward from here.
Andrew Cheyne - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
tobacco industry use of Personal Responsibility rhetoric in public relations and litigation disguising freedom to blame as freedom of choice
American Journal of Public Health, 2015Co-Authors: Lissy C Friedman, Daniel Givelber, Mark A Gottlieb, Andrew Cheyne, Richard A DaynardAbstract:We examined the tobacco industry’s rhetoric to frame Personal Responsibility arguments. The industry rarely uses the phrase “Personal Responsibility” explicitly, but rather “freedom of choice.” When freedom of choice is used in the context of litigation, the industry means that those who choose to smoke are solely to blame for their injuries. When used in the industry’s public relations messages, it grounds its meaning in the concept of liberty and the right to smoke. The courtroom “blame rhetoric” has influenced the industry’s larger public relations message to shift Responsibility away from the tobacco companies and onto their customers. Understanding the rhetoric and framing that the industry employs is essential to combating this tactic, and we apply this comprehension to other industries that act as disease vectors.
-
the origins of Personal Responsibility rhetoric in news coverage of the tobacco industry
American Journal of Public Health, 2014Co-Authors: Pamela Mejia, Lissy C Friedman, Mark A Gottlieb, Andrew Cheyne, Lori Dorfman, Laura Nixon, Richard A DaynardAbstract:The tobacco industry consistently frames smoking as a Personal issue rather than the Responsibility of cigarette companies. To identify when Personal Responsibility framing became a major element of the tobacco industry’s discourse, we analyzed news coverage from 1966 to 1991. Industry representatives began to regularly use these arguments in 1977. By the mid 1980s, this frame dominated the industry’s public arguments. This chronology illustrates that the tobacco industry’s use of Personal Responsibility rhetoric in public preceded the ascension of Personal Responsibility rhetoric commonly associated with the Reagan Administration in the 1980s.
Mark A Gottlieb - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
tobacco industry use of Personal Responsibility rhetoric in public relations and litigation disguising freedom to blame as freedom of choice
American Journal of Public Health, 2015Co-Authors: Lissy C Friedman, Daniel Givelber, Mark A Gottlieb, Andrew Cheyne, Richard A DaynardAbstract:We examined the tobacco industry’s rhetoric to frame Personal Responsibility arguments. The industry rarely uses the phrase “Personal Responsibility” explicitly, but rather “freedom of choice.” When freedom of choice is used in the context of litigation, the industry means that those who choose to smoke are solely to blame for their injuries. When used in the industry’s public relations messages, it grounds its meaning in the concept of liberty and the right to smoke. The courtroom “blame rhetoric” has influenced the industry’s larger public relations message to shift Responsibility away from the tobacco companies and onto their customers. Understanding the rhetoric and framing that the industry employs is essential to combating this tactic, and we apply this comprehension to other industries that act as disease vectors.
-
the origins of Personal Responsibility rhetoric in news coverage of the tobacco industry
American Journal of Public Health, 2014Co-Authors: Pamela Mejia, Lissy C Friedman, Mark A Gottlieb, Andrew Cheyne, Lori Dorfman, Laura Nixon, Richard A DaynardAbstract:The tobacco industry consistently frames smoking as a Personal issue rather than the Responsibility of cigarette companies. To identify when Personal Responsibility framing became a major element of the tobacco industry’s discourse, we analyzed news coverage from 1966 to 1991. Industry representatives began to regularly use these arguments in 1977. By the mid 1980s, this frame dominated the industry’s public arguments. This chronology illustrates that the tobacco industry’s use of Personal Responsibility rhetoric in public preceded the ascension of Personal Responsibility rhetoric commonly associated with the Reagan Administration in the 1980s.