Narrative technique


Framing: framing the current long-term health care in a financially problematic way; only a quick response can solve the problem.

Fitting facts: using specific data to support the narrative (estimations of the future healthcare costs per family).


Framing: framing the implementation of the WLZ in a problematic way for the organizations involved; only postponing WLZ implementation will solve the situation.

Means-to-aims: while the problem in the disaster-narrative is affordability and the solution is a quick implementation, in this narrative the focus is on the means, that is, the timing and pace, which is problematized.


Framing: framing both current long-term health care and the WLZ in a problematic way for the receiving party: the patients. The WLZ is framed as an additional budget cut.

Scapegoating: the government is to blame for the inhumane situation and should stop economizing on health care.


Framing: framing the current situation in health care facilities is caused by the management in these facilities.

Omission: to counter the shit-narrative, key elements of the shit-narrative, like the WLZ and budget cuts, are omitted; the current inhumane situation is uncoupled from the healthcare reforms.

Scapegoating: the management at the facilities―not the government―is to blame for the inhumane situation and should be removed.