Cenk Uygur: How the Democrats Should Have Handled the Health Care Debate

It is an axiom of American politics that the Democratic Party will negotiate from a position of weakness and the Republican Party will proceed from strength. The number of seats they hold in Congress is irrelevant to this paradigm. The Republicans could be down to five senators and they would still charge into battle. And the Democrats would, from the outset, assume that the Republicans are right (and mainstream) and that since their own position is too extreme they must concede as soon as possible to remain politically viable. There is no Republican talking point that won't scare the bejesus out of the Democratic Party.

Now, let us imagine for a moment a world where this axiom was not true, a world where the Democrats proceeded from strength. Here is how the health care debate would have unfolded instead.

1. Before introducing any legislation the Democrats hold hearings on the state of health care in this country. They bring in the top health care industry executives and ask them to answer for these grave injustices and in efficiencies:

a. The practices of denying people care through rescission and denying people coverage because of pre-existing conditions. Rescission is where insurance companies will let people die because of a technicality. As soon as you have a serious, life-threatening condition (in other words, an expensive one, the kind you bought insurance for), they will go back over your original forms and see if there is any way they can deny you coverage. They have been known to deny treatment for cancer because someone didn't report they had acne -- literally.

Then the Democratic congressmen and senators would get on all of the cable shows and pronounce that they are shocked to find out that private health care insurance companies kill people for a profit in this country. Of course, the reality is that they do. In fact, it is their fiduciary responsibility to do so. They must maximize profits, and in health care, one way to do so is to deny coverage for the most expensive treatments and conditions.

b. Then the Democrats would ask the CEOs of these companies how much money they make. The CEO of UnitedHealth Group would have to concede that he has three quarters of a billion dollars in stock options. Then a Democratic congressman would lean in toward his microphone with great gravity and ask, "You mean to tell me that you deny people the life-saving procedures they need because it costs too much money while you personally are set to make over $750 million?"

c. Then you bring out family members of people who have died because they were denied insurance coverage either for pre-existing conditions or because an insurance company executive had found some technicality in their forms. Ask them how it feels to go on without their loved ones and how they felt about the practice of rescission. Finally, ask them how they feel about the millions of dollars the CEO of the company that denied the coverage makes.

d. Bring out the private insurance bureaucrats who deny people coverage on a regular basis. Not just the people who practice rescission or find pre-existing conditions, but also the people who decide what procedures you can and cannot get based on your coverage. Have them explain what bureaucratic standards they use to get between you and your doctor.

e. Bring out the accountants of these private health care companies and have them explain how much money they spend on overhead, advertising and executive salaries. Ask them how much they have increased premiums over the last ten years -- the answer is a stunning 119%. Ask them to repeat how much money they spent on advertising and executive compensation.

f. Bring back the CEOs and show them pictures of the people who died because their companies wouldn't cover their medical expenses, as they had promised. Then show them pictures of their own houses/mansions and yachts and jets. And ask them, one simple question: "Was it worth it?"

After the hearings announce with serious concern and appropriate gravity that something must be done about this! The problem is undeniable and there has to be something that Congress can do to help protect the American people.



Read the rest here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/how-the-democrats-should_b_263919.html

The point is, little one, that Democrats CAN come from a place of power, if they so choose, and IF WE demand it.

self-destructive.

Today's Democratic Party isn't made up of FDRs.

Maybe some day it could be again, but the crop we have in there now are only looking out for themselves and are quite happy to side with corporations against the rest of us.

I do agree that we should demand better of them, but I'm not sure we'll get anything better until we've had some very serious turn-over within the party.

Primaries are all we've got now. Get rid of the Blue Dogs -- even at the risk of losing seats to the other side.

have more problems than a few Blue Cross Dogs.

edited to say: Obama sold himself as an FDR type... all this stuff about hope and change.

Some of us were skeptical, but went along.

Now we know our skepticism was right.

No more bullshit!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

doesn't mean we can get all we want.

:wtf:

and THAT'S "the" understatement of the moment, isn't it!

:thumbsup:

Instead, we went the typical touchy/feely route of saying how great it would be to cover all Americans instead of hammering at the insurance companies. We have to get past the idea that non-Democrats care about other people the way we do instead of talking to people in terms that they care about and understand. We lose the argument because of this every time. This is our biggest failing.

That alone would have been enough to stir up support for single-payer or the public option.

It's such a simple and direct approach, I wonder why the Congress didn't do it in the beginning. It's never too late. They should do those hearing now and attack those CEOs for conning, sniveling, scums they are.

let alone "at the table"...!!!

Don't EVER forget - we had to BEG to get the COMPROMISE "public option" mentioned at ALL - while SINGLE PAYER is/never is STILL allowed to be part of the debate, as is SOUNDLY riciculed and DEMOCRATS bend over backwards to tell people at EVERY OPPORTUNITY that "national government provided health CARE" is NEVER going to be in ANY bill...

quite SICKENING isn't it?!!!

damned thing will improve.

They are doing a great job for their true masters.

So, the advice to be smarter will only work if their goal was a good one.

:applause: :patriot:

to be the new health care czar. Good post! K&R! :kick:

;)

The more information people have,
the better.

People who paid into their insurance policies
should not be denied care while the insurance
execs are making high six figure salaries.

Expose the vampires for who they are.

K&R and

Welcome to DU!

:hi:

Let's chat, I'm going to log in now...

:kick: & R

...a fantasy show in which Democrats actually cared about doing their jobs and leading America.

I've never watched that show. Not that I wouldn't, I just haven't.

And Big Pharma wanted them to.

Right now, my opinion of Obama is that he is trying to top Bill Clinton's title of "The Best Republican President we ever had." Except he won't ever get that title, as under CLinton we had people employed, and under Obama we have a Recession/Depression, with hyper inflation awaiting in the wings.

If Jon Stewart, who has no chance of every occupying the Oval Office (in normal reality) can come up with very quick, concise and appealing retorts to the inane comments that Obama responds to in that stutter-y manner of his, I guess I have to wait for an alternate reality to descend in order to see SIngle Payer Universal Health Care.

It wasn't that hard, Obama. You had sixty two percent of the vote when you came into office. Seventy six percent of us wanted Universal Single Payer HC and IT WAS FRIGGIN' CHEAPER! You certainly have the IQ to read that off the teleprompter, Mr Prez!

How hard do you have to go out of your way to put this baby in the ditch!

"How hard do you have to go out of your way to put this baby in the ditch!"

You know, that is soooo right on target... that's all that need be said.

:applause:

A big :hi:

Parma have asked him to do. It has been A very sweet, Vichy Dem style ride on this issue.

President Obama apparently is trying to rival Bill Clinton in his role as "The Best Republican President we ever had." But it is gonna be rough - under Clinton, people had jobs, and the economy hadn't bubblized and tanked that many times yet. Obama cannot bring us out of the Recession/Depression, due to the jobs having gone away, and when hyper inflation hits it will all be over.

How hard would it have been to Obama to just stick with 3 facts, and use those facts to hammer away at Opponents. "When I arrived in the Oval Office, sixty two percent of the populace had voted me in. (Your side lost!) And seventy six per cent of all Americans wanted Single Payer Universal Health Care. And that style HC is cheaper!"

And if they threw shit at that remark, he could remind them that 18,000 people die each year for lack of insurance. With an equal number dying due to insurance coverage not allowing for their treatment or because they stall their treatments, or advise them to have cheaper non-effective treatment.

I trust Cenk isn't holding his breath waiting to be invited to the White House for drinks, though.

Obama, maybe Cenk could at least get a drive-by visit?

:kick:

Sadly

Awesome!

would like to be.

Tom Daschle was the poster child for this, going from Senate majority leader to major whore for the health insurance industry.

If serious reform fails in this case rather than only ripping Obama and the Dems in Congress, I say we make the primary focus campaign finance reform. Because the real culprit here is the corrupting influence of money, not any particular individuals.

Corruption completely, most offices would be lucky to have one person running for them.

I'm just saying that we can try to make something positive out of terrible situation if the reform ends up being the sham many of us expect.