Just The Facts, Ma'am
Tomorrow's health care meeting between President Obama and the leaders of both parties in Congress will be an important one, no matter what the result. While important, though, I refuse to call this meeting a "summit," since Democratic and Republican politicians squabbling simply does not reach the heights of two nuclear powers tensely sitting down to talk about missiles. But no matter what you call it, tomorrow's meeting will likely be either "when health reform legislation became inevitable" or "when Republicans finally killed health reform." And while there is no shortage of advice out there today from pundits, I'd like to suggest Democrats take a page from the fictional Sergeant Joe Friday. Whenever the star of Dragnet was confronted by an emotional outburst from a witness or crime victim, he would supposedly utter his signature line (Note: like the line "Play it again, Sam," this line was never actually uttered on the show), in a plea for non-emotional rationality: "Just the facts, Ma'am." Democrats should do the equivalent tomorrow.
This will be easy enough for President Obama to accomplish, since he's probably the most Joe-Friday-ish of the bunch. But he should be backed up by Democrats who have the facts close at hand, in detail and in great number, from unimpeachable sources. If Democrats counter Republican rhetoric with hard, cold facts, it may not guarantee success for their objective; but it certainly will go a long way toward showing who is serious about fixing the problem, and who is not.
To borrow another television catchphrase, the truth is out there. Facts and figures which make the Democrats' case for them abound. Many people have devoted much time to assembling these facts in a desperate bid to get Democrats to start using them in their arguments (see: the entire Lefty blogosphere for the past year). Democrats, sadly, have been woefully inadequate to the task of presenting these facts to the American public. Tomorrow may be their last chance at being able to do so in any meaningful way, which is why it'll be an important meeting.
I'm not going to try to assemble a complete list of facts for Democrats to use, but I will put forth a few that should be major themes for Democrats to hit tomorrow. Republicans have made it easy, since they've already leaked their biggest talking point: leave it to the private sector, because government screws up everything it touches and the glorious Invisible Hand of the Free Market (genuflect towards Wall Street when saying this) will solve the problem, as it always does so magically.
Seriously, that's what they're going to lead with. It's like Republicans are handing a shotgun to the Democrats and beckoning them towards a barrel filled with thrashing catfish. All Democrats need to do is pull the trigger, and make sure the gun isn't pointed backwards.
Here's the ammunition for that gun: "thirty-nine percent."
Here is how to use it:
REPUBLICAN: We firmly believe in the powers of the Free Market... blah blah blah... marketplace solution... blather blather... no big-government takeover... blahbitty blah... private sector best at solving problems... rabble rabble rabble... government needs to get out of the way... flim flam flim flam... (with bowed head and hushed voice) the great Ronald Reagan himself... blah blah blah blah endless blah.
DEMOCRAT: So you're OK with an insurer raising their rates thirty-nine percent in one year? Because that is how your vaunted "private marketplace" is solving the problem, sir. Let's see, if I spend $1,000 on health care this year, with that rate of increase, in ten years I will be paying $19,370 -- and in twenty years I will be paying over a half-million dollars per year on health insurance. That is what the system we have in place today has delivered, ladies and gentleman, and that is the problem we are trying to fix. Private companies exist to make money. And the laws we have today allow them to do this. We want to change the health industry in this country so that our children aren't faced with half-million-dollar health insurance costs in two decades. Because that is the path the private marketplace is on, and if you succeed in killing any health reform that is precisely where it will lead us. That, in other words, is the status quo "free marketplace" that you are defending.
REPUBLICAN: But... but... private market, dammit!
DEMOCRAT: I ask you again -- it's a simple yes-or-no question -- are you OK with an insurer raising their rates thirty-nine percent in one year? Because that's what your vaunted free market just delivered, so I'm sure your constituents would like the answer to that question.
Republicans have been used to speaking in front of crowds of people who agree with them on basic issues. They are not used to being confronted by facts which don't fit their world view. They are used to audiences which cheer and give adulation, instead of facts and questions. This was their downfall when President Obama went to visit them recently, and this can also be their downfall tomorrow. They are sharpening up their talking points, and expect their rhetoric to carry the day in front of television viewers. All Democrats need to do is to present actual facts and figures to contradict their conservative viewpoint. The Congressional Budget Office (C.B.O.) folks will be sitting at the table as well, as referees to the great debate, so Democrats should come armed with reams of figures from the C.B.O. and defy Republicans to explain them. The C.B.O. is seen as neutral, and if Republicans blatantly try to cast their figures as false, it won't help their cause at all. Facts are facts, and they're hard to deny. Just the facts, Sir or Ma'am, pesky as those facts may be to your argument.
Democrats should have these facts and figures ready to go. "Thirty-nine percent" is just the beginning. There are other equally potent facts to make the political argument, such as: 44,000 deaths each year due to lack of insurance. That's a big fact that should be used in response to the Republican's "there's no reason to rush this" perennial line of blarney. Or: 45,000,000 uninsured people in America. That's another good fact to toss around to make the Democratic case. It's an easy message to frame: Democrats care about the tens of thousands of needless deaths per year and the millions without insurance, and Republicans don't. The facts back this argument up. So use it.
When Republicans think they've got a winner of an idea, return again to the facts. Tort reform? You want tort reform? Well, the C.B.O. says that'll fix maybe two percent of the problem. We trust the C.B.O.'s figures. Two percent. So let's talk about the other ninety-eight percent of the problem after we talk about the two percent, OK?
When Republicans bring up the polls (as they are all but guaranteed to do), answer it with a naked threat. "You say the House and Senate bills aren't polling well with the American people? So you support the concept that we should write this bill to contain what polls well among the American people? Is that it? Well, then, we'll have to put the public option back in, since it consistently polls at sixty percent approval or better. Since you say you're all for giving the American people exactly what the opinion polls say they want, you'll doubtlessly support this effort, right?"
Republicans will likely gnash their teeth over the prospect of reconciliation being used to pass a Democratic bill. Luckily, the facts are on the Democrats' side on this one as well. "Since 1981, reconciliation has been used 19 times, by one count. Fourteen of those were when Republicans used it to pass things over Democratic objections. At the time, Republicans -- including a few sitting around this table today -- called reconciliation 'the normal rules of the Senate.' If Republicans continue their unprecedented and historic abuse of the filibuster and cloture -- using it hundreds of times in a single congressional session instead of the handful of times it had been used in the past, I might add -- then we simply have no choice but to use the same tactic Republicans have used over and over again. This tactic is called democracy. It is called majority rule. It has been called -- numerous times by numerous Republicans -- an 'up or down vote.' That is all we are asking for now -- an up or down vote."
This stuff isn't hard to come up with. And I've barely touched upon the oceans of data which make the case for Democrats here. All they have to do is rationally explain, over and over again if necessary, that the sky actually is blue and the sun is actually yellow. Here are the facts. Present the case to the American people, with numbers to back it up. The contrast between one side wishing to score political points and one side wishing to get something done will become crystal clear to viewers.
Actually, that's naive and optimistic. In any political debate (such as a presidential debate, for instance) the punditry leaps in the second the debate ends with a secondary debate about the debate: who "won" and who "lost." Few people will have the luxury of watching the whole hours-long meeting on C-SPAN, after all, so most people will hear about it from some "expert" who will spin it one way or the other. Three seconds of soundbite will replace four hours of meeting, with the key question "which three seconds?" perhaps determining how the public ultimately views the event.
But that is the nature of such things in the political world. That is the risk that both Democrats and Republicans run by attending the meeting in the first place. But instead of scoring points on the campaign trail, this debate will likely influence the outcome of President Obama's major legislative goal for the past year, and perhaps set the stage for the entire rest of his presidency, as well. His leadership skills are on the line here, in a very tangible way.
Of course, the best outcome for Barack Obama would be Democrats rationally trying to discuss solutions, and Republicans coming off as a youngster who was allowed at the Thanksgiving "adults" table a few years too early (who just can't resist shouting at inappropriate moments and tossing his food at his sister when he thinks no one is looking). That's the best-case scenario, in other words.
Democrats can help set this metaphorical table. And they can do it best by stating the facts. Over and over again, if need be. If they can manage to present their case as a problem which they intend to solve, and allow Republicans to present their case that all they care about is politics and the bottom line of giant corporations, then Democrats will score a political relations victory tomorrow.
All of them -- led by the cool, calm, and collected Obama himself -- need to channel a little Joe Friday tomorrow. Just the facts, Ma'am.
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
-- Chris Weigant
since Democratic and Republican politicians squabbling simply does not reach the heights of two nuclear powers tensely sitting down to talk about missiles.
Are you sure???
Things seem pretty toxic these days...
or "when Republicans finally killed health reform."
Awww, com'on CW!!
Republicans have had little to do with CrapCare.. You can't blame it's demise on the GOP...
This is all the fault of the Democrats...
If Democrats counter Republican rhetoric with hard, cold facts, it may not guarantee success for their objective; but it certainly will go a long way toward showing who is serious about fixing the problem, and who is not.
And if Republicans counter Democrat rhetoric with hard cold facts???
What then?? :D
because government screws up everything it touches
Considering this is the same thought that 90% of Americans think, how far off can it be??
I ask you again -- it's a simple yes-or-no question -- are you OK with an insurer raising their rates thirty-nine percent in one year? Because that's what your vaunted free market just delivered, so I'm sure your constituents would like the answer to that question.
Oh seriously..
This is ONE myopic instance that was approved by the STATE GOVERNMENT of California...
Democrats bring up this and the GOP responds with...
TORT REFORM!!
Watch the Democrats scurry after THAT little bombshell, eh?? :D
When Republicans think they've got a winner of an idea, return again to the facts. Tort reform? You want tort reform? Well, the C.B.O. says that'll fix maybe two percent of the problem. We trust the C.B.O.'s figures. Two percent. So let's talk about the other ninety-eight percent of the problem after we talk about the two percent, OK?
Ancient history...
Tort reform will bring a LOT of quality doctors back into the field..
With an over-abundance of QUALITY medical persons, costs will go down..
ESPECIALLY if said medical persons don't have to carry a gazillion dollars in mal-practice insurance to stay in business..
Citing the old (very old) CBO study is a red herring..
Democrats won't address TORT REFORM because trial lawyers won't let them..
So much for NOT being beholden (IE enslaved) by special interests, eh??
.' That is all we are asking for now -- an up or down vote."
Seems a far cry from all the rhetoric that Democrats spewed in 2005 when Republicans exercised reconciliation..
The difference between then and now is that the GOP used it for issues as it was intended..
Democrats are using it as an end run around the will of the people...
This Kobuki Theater was supposed to be an attempt at BI-PARTISANSHIP....
But Democrats have made it clear that it is nothing but an attempt to ramrod legislation thru, "by hook or by crook" that the American People have already said "HELL NO" to...
This time tomorrow, Democrats that support CrapCare will be eviscerated...
Hay...
Waitaminute...
I thought we all agreed that CRAPCARE was...well.. crap...
Now ya'all WANT this abomination to pass???
Michale.....
I am hoping that we can get back to the basics with this "summit" and finally understand that people need to be able to take care of themselves when they are sick. People need to have access to doctors and hospitals etc. without having to worry they will go bankrupt. If the only way to start that process here in America is to pass a bad healthcare bill then so be it!
...Stan
How, exactly, will passing a bad healthcare bill help Americans have access to hospitals and doctors without going bankrupt??
A BAD healthcare bill (which is what CrapCare is) will simply make things worse than it already is..
Are ya'all so blinded by partisanship, so intent on a Democrat "win" regardless of the cost to every day Americans, that you cannot see this??
As always, it comes down to the age old question..
Are ya'all Democrats first or Americans first??
Michale.....
So you're OK with an insurer raising their rates thirty-nine percent in one year? Because that is how your vaunted "private marketplace" is solving the problem, sir.
And it is at that point that the rebuttal goes along the lines of "Ah, but there is no truly open and free marketplace at the moment" and trumpet the benefits of Congress actually doing its job and regulating interstate commerce, telling the states to get out of the way and let companies do trade across state lines freely.
Only when that occurs can you accurately talk about a "free market".
Let's see, if I spend $1,000 on health care this year, with that rate of increase, in ten years I will be paying $19,370
Assumes facts not in evidence. There are no cold hard facts that prove that this rate will remain the same (and past performance is not a reliable indicator of future results). Your assumption may be valid, but it's certainly not factual.
It's also a sweeping generalisation of the industry as a whole.
Private companies exist to make money. And the laws we have today allow them to do this.
And it's these same private companies that make money that provide the jobs that the country so badly needs right now. That's a fact, not rhetoric.
If the laws in place today didn't allow companies to make profit, America would not be the superpower it is, a superpower that actually outlived the country that gave the world an ideology (Communism) that vilified profit.
We want to change the health industry in this country so that our children aren't faced with half-million-dollar health insurance costs in two decades. Because that is the path the private marketplace is on, and if you succeed in killing any health reform that is precisely where it will lead us.
Are there CBO figures to back up that half million figure? Otherwise we're back to rhetoric again. If there are then fine, but extrapolation isn't "cold hard facts".
That, in other words, is the status quo "free marketplace" that you are defending.
Again with calling the status quo a free marketplace when it isn't. And when it was clearly the intent of the Republican proposals to free up the marketplace to ensure proper competition (rather than "creating" competition via exchanges).
You can't accurately call what exists at the moment a free marketplace.
They are not used to being confronted by facts which don't fit their world view.
So far you've yet to put forward any facts that don't fit in with this "world view".
Incidentally, may I ask, do the Democrats not have a "world view"? Isn't that a nice rhetorical way to make an ideology sound scary? And Democrats seem to show no greater love of facts that dispel their notions of how the world should be either.
They are used to audiences which cheer and give adulation
Maybe because they're right?
Democrats should come armed with reams of figures from the C.B.O.
So was that earlier half million figure a CBO one?
Besides, the CBO were the ones who pointed out that whilst HR 3962 would save $109 billion from the deficit, HR 3961 would increase it by $210 billion, meaning the House bills were far from "deficit neutral" as originally claimed.
Yes, the Senate bill is estimated to save $127 billion, but how much of that will remain once the House democrats insist on "fixes" through reconciliation?
The C.B.O. is seen as neutral, and if Republicans blatantly try to cast their figures as false, it won't help their cause at all.
The CBO initially underestimated the effect of Tort reform by a factor of ten. Nobody's calling their figures "false", but "inaccurate" is certainly fair.
I mean, call me old fashioned, but I see a big difference between $5 billion and $54 billion. It's a mighty shame my bank doesn't make mistakes like that. ;-)
45,000,000 uninsured people in America.
Counter-fact; that's less than 15% of the population.
You want tort reform? Well, the C.B.O. says that'll fix maybe two percent of the problem. We trust the C.B.O.'s figures.
Trust them. Their figures say Tort reform will save $54 billion from the deficit. Sure, if the Senate bill goes through unscathed it'll save $127, but we're hardly talking about chump change here. Besides, the CBO has revised its earlier stance:
tort reform would lower costs for health care both directly, by reducing medical malpractice costs, and indirectly, by reducing the use of health care services through changes in the practice patterns of providers...Previously, the agency had found that tort reform would lower health care costs only by reducing medical malpractice costs, and it had estimated significantly smaller effects of tort reform
The main reason tort reform proponents have kept on it hasn't been to reduce the cost of medical malpractice, but to try and put an end to "defensive medicine".
At the time, Republicans -- including a few sitting around this table today -- called reconciliation 'the normal rules of the Senate.'
They are. Just like their use of the filibuster, which you termed "abuse", is also well within the "normal rules of the Senate". There are no limits placed on how often the filibuster can be used, precisely because it may be required more often.
This tactic is called democracy. It is called majority rule.
Majority rule wasn't actually something the founding fathers wanted. The point of the electoral college, for example, was that it ensures that the largest states don't dominate and that the smaller states get to have a say in nation-wide elections.
I don't have a problem with Democrat use of reconciliation, but let's not posit "majority rule" as a core concept of the US political system, because it's not.
The will of the people does not equate to the will of the majority.
At the time, Republicans -- including a few sitting around this table today -- called reconciliation 'the normal rules of the Senate.'
And, at the time, Democrats called reconciliation an abuse of power.
"What I worry about is, you still have 2 chambers of Congress in the House & Senate, but you have complete and absolute authoritarian rule of the majority and that's just not what the founders intended."
-Senator Obama, 2005
"{Reconciliation} is a bridge too far, Mr President. We can't go there. You have to restrain yourself, Mr President."
-Senator Clinton, 23 May 05
"We are on the precipice of a Constitutional Crisis. The checks and balances are about to be evaporated by the nuclear option. Checks and balances that say that if you get 51% of the vote, you don't get your way 100% of the time."
-Senator Schumer 18 May 05
"The right to extend debate is never more important than when one party controls Congress and the White House. In these cases, the filibuster serves as a check on the power of unlimited government."
-Senator Harry Reid 18 May 05
We need to sit down with each other and work things out. That's why the rules exist. That's why we're here. Why have a bicameral legislative body? Why have two chambers? What were the framers thinking about? They understood that there is a tyranny of the majority.
-Senator Dodd 18 May 05
If Republicans use the nuclear option, the US Senate becomes ipsofacto, the House Of Representatives where the majority rules supreme and the party in power can dominate with absolute power.
-Senator Dianne Feinstein
"{Reconciliation}.. is a fundamental power grab. I say to my Republican colleagues, you may own the field right now, but you won't own it forever. I pray God when the Democrats take back control we don't make the kind of naked power grab you are doing."
-Senator Biden, 2005
Maybe ole Joe should have prayed a little harder.. :D
Michale.....
Watching the "Summit" now...
"No one from the Democrat side has mentioned 'reconciliation'..."
-Senator Reid
Where is Joe Wilson when you need 'im!!?? :D
Whoaaa!!!!
Alexander just interrupted Obama! Woot!!! :D
Sounds like Obama is getting pissed...
Michale...
"We have tried to include EVER option that the CBO said would reduce costs."
-President Obama
Tort reform, Mr President... Tort reform...
Michale.....
Is it just me??
Every time a Republican puts forth an idea that Democrats don't like, Obama makes some grandstand play about scoring political points etc etc etc...
President Obama needs to understand that people can disagree with him on the issues, not just because of political grandstanding..
Michale.....
"A Majority Vote makes sense"
-President Obama, 2010
" {A Majority Vote}... that's just not what the founders intended."
-Senator Obama, 2005
Another Joe Wilson moment...
Michale.....
Love the line about tort reform fixing 2 percent of the problem, Chris.
Can we get back to the other 98%?
-David
If Democrats are against Tort Reform because it's a small percentage of the problem (which is demonstrably not true) then I could at least respect that..
But the FACT is, Democrats are opposed to Tort Reform because the trial lawyer associations are forcing Democrats to oppose Tort Reform..
In other words, I can respect a position taken in principle...
But I will NOT respect a position taken because a special interest group FORCES that position taken.
If Democrats truly want a bi-partisan approach to CrapCare, then they need to tell the Trial Lawyers to "frak off" and do the right thing with regards to tort reform..
And THAT will happen when pigs fly... Because Democrats are much MUCH worse than Republicans when it comes to doing the right thing for the American people.
Michale...
Hahahah. That's funny, Michale.
It's just as easy to argue that the only reason Republicans are for tort reform is that they want to choke off money to Democrats.
Politicians will be politicians. Haven't we been through this before?
It's just as easy to argue that the only reason Republicans are for tort reform is that they want to choke off money to Democrats.
Perhaps it is..
But at least THAT coincides with the needs of the American people...
I have a LOT less problem with a position not taken in principle if it coincides with the needs of the many...
I can live with that...
Can you live with the opposite??
Michale......
President Obama ended Thursday's daylong White House summit with a bang, threatening to push for passage of health care reform without Republican support if a bipartisan agreement remained out of reach.
Hmmmmmmmmm
"Do things my way or else we will do them without you."
How exactly, is this "bi-partisan"???
Anyone??? Anyone??? Beuhler???
Michale.....
Love the line about tort reform fixing 2 percent of the problem, Chris.
The CBO themselves have come out and revised their earlier estimate upwards.
Their figures of $4 billion in savings and $1 billion in added revenue were adjusted to $43 billion in savings and $13 billion in added revenue; ten times as much.
Under the Pareto principle, it's likely that 80% of the costs are attributable to only 20% of the problems. There's a point of diminishing returns on federal spending.
The number of uninsured Americans equates to 15% of the total population; reform that involves throwing out the baby with the bath water is clearly a bad idea.
Tort reform will save money without diminishing the quality of patient care at all. This is because a lot of malpractice claims are filed where there was no evidence that medical errors have caused the injuries the patient suffered. That's from the CBO themselves. It's a reform that could help the 15% without hurting the 85%.
Democrats are opposed to Tort Reform because the trial lawyer associations are forcing Democrats to oppose Tort Reform..
And yet Anthony Weiner had the audacity to claim that the Republican Party is "a wholly owned subsidiary of the insurance industry". If the Democrats are so sure they're right, then what's the need for the mudslinging? It was Howard Dean who admitted that his own party are appeasing the trial lawyers over Tort reform.
President Obama ended Thursday's daylong White House summit with a bang, threatening to push for passage of health care reform without Republican support if a bipartisan agreement remained out of reach.
And that after Reid said:
No one from the Democrat side has mentioned 'reconciliation'...
If that's not reconciliation Obama's talking about, what is it?
(Again, not that I have a problem with it, but be straight about it.)