Dems should frame debate 'Do you want INSURANCE COMPANIES making medical decisions for your family?'

[blm]

'Do you want INSURANCE COMPANY BUREAUCRATS coming in between you and your doctor's best advice?'

Republicans always make their debate points PERSONAL even when they are as full of shit as they can be and clear cut LIES. Cue the dangerous music....'Do you want the GOVERNMENT coming between you and your doctor?' 'Do you want the GOVERNMENT making your family's medical decisions?'

Why can't the lefty Dems...the REAL Dems.... make the TRUTH sound as simple and as personal?

[Swede]

1. The perfect comeback.

[dmr]

48. Or, do you want your medical insurance to decide to DENY you medical care?

[SoCalDem]

60. I quit going to my shrink, because once i had gone for the maximum "allowed"

appointments, he asked me to sign a form that wold allow him to send my history of treatment to the insurance company so they could "determine" if I would benefit from more therapy. I said no thanks, put the rocks back in my pockets and never went back.

Just the thought of some pimply-faced 22 yr old sitting around a table, "discussing" my gut-wrenching sessions, was enough to turn me off..completely. I did not want my misery to be coffee-break "entertainment".

[nvme]

66. Do you want the person who makes a fortune denying your coverage

to make medical decisions for you?

[FiveGoodMen]

53. It really is.

Do you suppose they just never thought of it, or ...

[SandWalker1984]

95. 2nd Ques: Do you want senators tied to the industry rewriting health insurance?

article:
Key Senators Involved with Health Care Overhaul have Industry Ties

by LARRY MARGASAK and SHARON THEIMER |


WASHINGTON — Influential senators working to overhaul the nation's health care system have investments and family ties with some of the biggest names in the industry. The wife of Sen. Chris Dodd, the lawmaker in charge of writing the Senate's bill, sits on the boards of four health care companies.

Members of both parties have industry connections, including Democrats Jay Rockefeller and Tom Harkin, in addition to Dodd, and Republicans Tom Coburn, Judd Gregg, John Kyl and Orrin Hatch, financial reports showed Friday. .

snip


The article is posted on Huffington if you want to read the entire laundry list of who's making what off of the health care industry. That's NOT including the lobbyist donations.

Every one of the so called overhaul plans being discussed so far have MANDATES for everyone to have health insurance, something Obama campaigned against when proposed by Hillary Clinton.

Does Congress not understand that the millions of people without health insurance are due to (1) cannot afford the premiums or (2) cannot get insurance due to pre-existing conditions? Do you see anything in any of the 6 plans being proposed to address these critical issues?

It appears to me and many others that Obama stopped caring about our needs and wishes once the Washington insiders and big corporations sat him down to have a chat in January.

Our only hope to to keep pressing all of our representatives in Congress for a single payer option or 2nd choice, a Medicare option based on income for all of us that don't want private plans.

[Gormy Cuss]

2. or "Do you want INSURANCE COMPANIES to continue to come between you and your doctor?"

because that's what they're doing now -- ask anyone who's ever had a procedure or medication challenged.

[Romulox]

3. The Dems are debating forcing every American to purchase for-profit insurance.

How is that going to get insurance companies out of our lives? :wtf:

[blm]

4. That's part of my point - they don't know HOW To win the debate simply and roll over automatically

towards the RW frame.

[Romulox]

7. One more time: the Dems seek to INCREASE the influence of insurers with their present proposals

not decrease them. That's not a RW frame; that's reality. :shrug:

[blm]

10. Yes, I KNOW. Because too many Dems gave IN to the RW frame about universal healthcare long ago.

The true LEFT Dems need to fight the RW frame AND the centrist Dems who long ago capitulated to that frame and the insurance companies.

[Romulox]

13. I've no idea who these "true LEFT Dems" are at this point.

Ted Kennedy is known as "the Liberal Lion", and he is spearheading this thing. :puke:

[blm]

17. there is no real strength on the left BECAUSE Dem party's 'strategists' are still corporate tools

and they provide lawmakers with BULLSHIT polls that always seem to accept the RW frame on this issue.

It's the strategist class in DC that still has far too much pull in our party.

[Romulox]

21. There is no strength on the Left because our representatives are bought and paid for. nt

[Enthusiast]

70. Bingo! nt

[kenfrequed]

50. Problem

This isn't merely a problem of PR Framing. This is a problem of policy reality. There are a number of blue dog jerks that have, by moving to the middle of the see-saw have gifted themselves with undue and excessive influence over the direction of policy.

Because of this and because the healthcare issue was grabbed onto hard and fast by the finance committee (a committee that seems chock full of corporate democrats) there will be a mind towards helping the insurance industry.

[Hannah Bell]

76. Pardon me for saying so, but this is delusional. Do you think the Democratic

leadership couldn't think of the "insurance cos making decisions" line?

They have professional speechwriters & think tanks. Of course they could. You're not the first to have thought of the line. It's the obvious response to the winger line.

They don't want to get rid of insurance companies. The debate they're engaging in IS the debate they want to have.

[blm]

80. That's acknowledged in above posts pointing to the party strategist class who are corporate tools

paid to divert the debate.

The point you missed is that those in the party on the TRUE LEFT need to stand with a simple message that cannot be answered by the opposition. And must do so LOUDLY and INSISTENTLY, right into the faces of the Dem watercarriers.

[Romulox]

8. Dupe. nt

[bvar22]

32. Dems "on the payroll" don't WANT to win the debate.

THEY make $MONEY$ when the Corporations WIN.
Then they go back home to The VOTERS and whine "but I tried...." laughing all the way to The Bank!

[blm]

49. Sad truth about those Dems joining the GOP fascists to protect corporate thugs instead of us.

.

[bread_and_roses]

78. You are way too kind

The Dems are as deep in the pockets of the insurance vampires and rapacious big pharma as are the Rs. They know how to frame the debate, they know the truth, they choose not to use it because it's too powerful. They also know that for years polls have shown that a majority wants some sort of gov't provided health care insurance. They pay no attention to that either. They are quisling traitors, they are not on our side, they are on the side of campaign $$.

[Gold Metal Flake]

5. Just take Luntz's talking points and sub "insurance co" for "goverment"...

...and "beancounters" or "minimum-wage clerks" or "some guy in India" for "bureaucrat". Instantly, it changes Luntz's lies to actual, modern truths. It is stupefyingly simple.

[blm]

6. Bingo.

.

[T Wolf]

9. How about insurance company ACCOUNTANTS? That really nails down the difference.

The insurance makes money by denying medical care. That is their reason for existing.

[blm]

11. heh...Insurance Company BUREAUCRATS making your family's medical decisions for you.

.

[T Wolf]

15. No. I like accountants better because that term points out the financial priority the corporations

have.

The pukes will use the term bureaucrats to reference government workers. And with the way they have demonized government and the people who serve in it, I just think it would weaken the argument.

But there should be a counter-offensive to put that "insurance company" meme into the discussion.

[blm]

19. oh, I like your accountant use, too. I'm just ADDING to the possibilities.

They are definitely out there.

[duhneece]

12. Thanks.

I just used it on a local forum.

[John Q. Citizen]

14. How does subsidising insurance companies keep them from making decisions exactly?

I would think that would empower insurance companies.

That may be part of the problem, though. The Obama, Dean, Move-on, SEIU plan is hard to defend.

They are now attempting to portray it as "anti-insurance company," yet they have been working with the insurance industry hand in glove since December.

[WeDidIt]

16. Insurance companies are in business to make a profit

Do you want an insurance company making medical decisions for you based upon their profits?

[blm]

20. that's an even better way to frame the debate....

salute

[anonymous171]

18. Agreed nt.

[RufusTFirefly]

22. Under the current system, THEY make money when WE get sick

Much as we like to think "Nah, they wouldn't want that," it's an actual incentive. Money talks. Money corrupts. And in far too many cases, money can kill.

With single-payer, it's the opposite. It's in the general interest to keep everyone healthy.

What a concept!

[WHAT]

36. Drs are successful when they heal...

insurance cos are successful when they are paid for treating people unrelated to the outcome of treatment...payment more important than outcome

I am working on a letter, now. It is really hard to do but I wanted to send it to my senators and Obama. It goes back 41 years when my sister was killed. Simply put (and it's so much more complicated than that), my sister was denied care at a regional hospital because my mother could not prove she was insured under my father's plan (parents divorced, father in another part of the state). She was diverted to a county hospital about 30 miles away. She died just when they arrived there. My little sister (9 at the time) said she kept saying "I don't want to die" on the way to the county hospital.

I still feel it with more outrage, after all these years, than I do my personal experience with medical care. It is just an immoral and inefficient system and I don't see how it can stand. The problems must be thousands of times worse now than they were 40 years ago. The present system evokes rage and disgust and it will only get worse if continued.

I want to email the government but I just can't say it right.

[REACTIVATED IN CT]

40. Don't try to write it in "final" form right off.

Do a draft. Put it aside for a few hours then go back to it. I'm sure if you post it on DU, folks would be happy to help edit it.

[JDPriestly]

64. Your story is so compelling. Just tell it in a very simple way and

send it off. Be sincere and you will be effective.

[Enthusiast]

72. How very sad. The truth is

the insurance industry and their enablers *are* horrible people. Like someone else said, I don't believe in hell, but if there is a hell, there is a special place there for turncoat Democrats and filthy Republicans.

[Enthusiast]

73. But you have said it right!

It is an immoral and inefficient system.

The problem is much worse now, you are right about that. By abusing their subscribers, the wealthy insurance industry has effectively killed the goose that laid the golden eggs. Treated equitably the American consumer would have plodded along like so many fat beef cattle destined for slaughter. Instead the greedy insurance companies fought every claim and cost lives. Now the American healthcare consumer has been awakened.

[Ocracoker16]

23. Who wants an insurance co. bureaucrat denying needed health care to save his or her co. money

[blm]

26. People already KNOW this is happening, yet, RW frame prevails because too many Dems LET IT prevail.

Get rid of the Dem 'strategist' class and the Dem party can find its true strength and regain its mission.

[Octafish]

24. Excellent suggestion, blm.

In rhetoric, nothing works like the truth spoken plainly.

[The Magistrate]

25. Exactly, Ma'am

They do so already, and the decisions are often calamitous for people who are seriously ill.

[madfloridian]

27. Dean has been doing that.

But now that the public option is not acceptable at DU much anymore....he is being ignored.

He has framed it that way many times lately.

[blm]

29. We all know it has to be a coordinated effort from a Dem TEAM organized to get the message out.

I am damning the Dem 'strategist' class who will not allow this simple frame as part of the debate.

They fuck us over at every turn and will let those trying to make a difference, like Dean, get muted.

[Sunnyshine]

65. Exactly! Similar comments came up in local meeting. Why do they allow GOP to falsely frame debates?

Always. They're not even trying to counter Repubs chosen words. Dems silent on this serves what purpose?

[Orangepeel]

28. better: do you want a BIG INSURANCE CORPORATION making medical decisions for your family

[slipslidingaway]

30. Dems getting media attention still want to keep the for profit

insurance companies in the picture, our tax dollars will be used to subsidize for profit companies as well as a public option.

:(

[applegrove]

31. Bingo!

[Triana]

33. YES. Why don't they? PLEASE send this to whitehouse.gov

Or I will!

[blm]

35. We ALL need to step up, REPEAT IT insistently, and DEMAND Dem pols and their staff do the same.

Or it WONT happen.

[Triana]

37. SENT to whitehouse.gov and to my.barackobama.com n/t

[blm]

42. Salute to patriot citizen and follow through....

that may sound corny to some, but, I don't think real citizenship can be heralded enough these days.

[KittyWampus]

34. No kidding! However, I've YET to see one tv ad to counter the multiple ads the insurance leeches

have run on national tv.

[Joanne98]

38. Who do you want to buy insurance from? The government or AIG.

That's how I'd frame it.

[blm]

41. y'know, J....we could fill a thread for a week with BETTER ways to frame the debate than DC Dems.

.

[harun]

44. From these responses I agree, 100%. Brilliant.

[Solly Mack]

39. K&R

[LWolf]

43. K&R nt

[glitch]

45. Any lefty Dems saying this would be drowned out by the corporate Dems.

The last thing the corporeate Dems want is an effective argument for single payer.

[Enthusiast]

74. +1, glitch! nt

[blindpig]

46. Can't talk shit about the boss. n/t

[ljm2002]

47. Excellent, excellent point...

...and then it should be backed up by noting that the primary and often only motivation of the Insurance Company Bureaucrat is to minimize or deny care, in order to help the bottom line of the insurance company.

[jillan]

51. Thank you - I've been wondering the same thing.

[Wednesdays]

52. K&R

:kick:

[backscatter712]

54. Great frame! Also, say that insurance companies do not want you to have choice!

Think about it. Do you have choice today as far as insurance companies go? If you're like me, you're either unemployed or working a crappy low-paying job, so what are your insurance options? Zero - they're all unaffordable. You stick with the folk-remedies unless you're really sick, then you go to the ER and then file for bankruptcy. That's all the choice you get.

If you're sick, what are your choices? If you have insurance, you have to keep it, because no other insurer will accept you because of pre-existing conditions. If your insurance company fucks you, you can't give them the finger and move to the competition. If you're unlucky, you don't even have insurance, you can't get insurance, so you have to muddle through trying to find free and charity care if its available. You have no choice. Maybe if you're poor and sick enough, you can get on some sort of disability benefit or Medicaid, but that's one choice if you're lucky.

If you work in a better job, what choices do you have? You get maybe a half dozen plans from the one insurer your employer has a deal with. Don't like that insurer or can't afford it? Too bad. You take what you're given, or you get nothing. You have no choice.

And the Rick Scott groupies claim that the Obama plan takes away choice? You never had choice to begin with! It's only if you're filthy fucking rich, that you can choose to pay for Cadillac insurance, or you can afford to pay medical bills out of pocket. They're the only ones that get something resembling choice, but that's because they own this corrupt system and get to screw the rest of us by taking away our choices.

[Thickasabrick]

55. Brilliant!! n/t

[chill_wind]

56. And it should resonate soundly. Because it is undeniably true. K & R.

[caraher]

57. Yup

That's what I always say - do you want your health care decisions made by a faceless official employed by someone with a profit motive to deny you care? That's what most of us have right now - who have health coverage.

[kcass1954]

58. You already have a bureaucrat making your medical decisions.

He works for your insurance company, and he has a financial motive to deny your coverage. If his company denies enough claims, he'll get a big-ass bonus again this year.

[NorthCarolina]

59. They probably would frame it that way if they actually were for Single Payer

Kucinich regularly frames it that way...but of course he truly IS for single payer. Most other Dems...not so much.

[OwnedByFerrets]

61. WHY??? Their MASTERS wouldnt appreciate that wording much.

There are only one or two REAL dems in the democratic party, and the best of them all isnt even a dem at all. Bernie Sanders is an independent.

[LuckyLib]

62. The insurance companies have ALWAYS determined medical care

for us. Bureaucrats are forcing physicians decisions on a regular basis, together with fear of malpractice. The patient? Caught in the middle.

[progressoid]

63. Sure. Problem is that too many Dems don't want to piss off the insurance companies.

Apparently they are more important than we are.

[DFW]

67. Absolutely! Turn their Frank Luntz tactics right back at them! n/t

[Sunnyshine]

68. K&R - Yes, they should.

There are a few great Dems out there trying to break up the fiction and bring clarity to the issues. Need more Dems doing the same.

[Jeep789]

69. Exactly! Why are we so bad at framing common sense? nt

[Enthusiast]

71. When would you hear it if they did?

If they DID frame the debate like that where in the fuck would you hear it? Such discussion has almost been entirely stamped out. NPR, yesterday, for example. A caller challenged the guest host for suggesting only 41% of the American People wanted single payer. The guy said he googled it and a far higher % was present in every poll. She basically told him to shut the fuck up, they were not going to discuss single payer and Obama felt the same. You might check out the NPR archives but I'm afraid they have hidden that ugly exchange since otherwise we might find out how one sided they have become, lol.

[B Calm]

75. Bumper sticker mentality will get the cons attention. Can you shorten

it a little bit?

[liberal N proud]

77. ExaCTLY

[dhpgetsit]

79. Bingo!

Do you want insurance company burocrats telling you and your doctor what to do?

[barbtries]

81. that is a keeper

so simple, so right.

[pleah]

82. K&R

[Wizard777]

83. The devolution of freedom in health care

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SDdq59WPCI">Freedom of choice is what you got. Freedom from choice is what you want?

[BlancheSplanchnik]

84. Agreed, 100%.

This applies to the abortion debate too, IMHO--- it's beyond "just" choice, which the rw has twisted to make it sound frivolous... it's a woman's life or death decision.

[The Wizard]

85. As long as corporate media

protects and defends against the people's will the corporate oligarchy dictates. Democracy is a pipe dream sold to us by a media that only serves the wealthy elites.
There is class warfare, and the money class is winning because they make the rules, are the referees, and keep score.
When they say they don't have the votes to pass the public option they really mean they've balanced the number of votes they'd lose as opposed to the dollars they take as bribes disguised as campaign contributions, and the ultimate losers are the citizens.
The media is using the frame that depicts the vast majority as on the fringe. It was reported by one of these shills that Democrats were being pushed by the left wing to bring the public option to the table. When 60% constitutes a minority, the language has transformed into something of a cudgel to beat propaganda into our brains.
I want health insurers pushing shopping carts filled with empty cans and bottles.

[customerserviceguy]

86. Here's where that argument fails

People want their doctors, in consultation with specialists, lab technicians, and themselves to make their decisions. That should be plainly obvious.

The choice we offer versus the Rethugs is : Do you want a set of insurance company paper-pushers making decisions, or your government making those decisions? There are many insurance companies, and we have the option of choosing a different set of bureaucrats, but we don't have that option with government.

People know the difference between working with a bureaucracy that has at least nominal competition, as opposed to working with one that has zero competition. Six months ago, I went to work part-time for a utility company that has no competitors, and I simply cannot believe how some of my co-workers treat customers on the phone. I get a lot more compliments on my ability to understand and sympathize with them, even if an official policy prevents me from doing exactly what they want.

[Uncle Joe]

88. The primary competition; health insurance corporations have, is how they can make

the biggest return for their shareholders and upper management.

The goal here isn't to give maximum coverage for minimal price to the most people, its' how much blood money can they squeeze out of their customers and the medical infrastructure during emergencies?

Single payer universal national public coverage wouldn't have those competing interests of representation regarding client versus customer or consumer, in every transaction the client's predominant interests will win out; over the customer or consumer, or by law it should, the long term cumulative effect of this dynamic to the nation's health and well being is devastating.

[customerserviceguy]

90. Part of being able to make a company money

is to be able to attract and retain customers. Government and monopoly institutions (such as the utility that I work for) have no such incentives. They have to be legislated in.

You can pass laws saying what everyone has to cover, but you cannot effectively pass laws on exactly how the services are to be provided. That's what the public fears.

All I've said is that arguing that "our set of bureaucrats is better than your set of bureaucrats" is just a losing case. There are much better reasons to advocate for a public option, and even better ones to advocate for single-payer. If we match the right wing on its rhetoric, they get us down in the gutter where they want us, and where they have experience in winning a fight.

[Uncle Joe]

94. This only works to a certain extent and has major limitations.

"Part of being able to make a company money is to be able to attract and retain customers."

When industries become monopolized or gain out sized power, they have the ability to manipulate government into passing laws which primarily benefit those trusts, attracting and satisfying customers becomes a second or third tier priority. The public good means nothing to them in the pursuit of profit, people with pre-existing illness means no coverage, sometimes policies are canceled. This isn't attracting or retaining customers. The only industry I know of which turns customers with good credit away is insurance, because the bet is against the people.

One major advantage of government bureaucrats over corporate bureaucrats is the elimination of the share holder/upper management profit motive, and that is an important dynamic with the potential for large savings. A single public coverage entity would also have the ability to negotiate lower drug prices with the Pharmaceutical Corporations and if every one were covered there wouldn't be any un or under-insured liability passed on to the rest.

Another major advantage being the government is responsible for representing the best interests of the American People, corporations are not. The people can hold the government accountable, but when corporations dominate an industry, they hide behind or dominate government from or over the people making accountability that much more difficult.

Apparently the vast majority, if not the entire rest of the industrialized world have government run coverage, our current for profit coverage system has us ranking near the bottom in spite of massive spending, so who's making all this money?

You can call this rhetoric if you like but I see it as reality.

[blm]

98. CorpoDems....the ruination of the party.

.

[customerserviceguy]

99. Clearly, there are excesses with corporate bureaucracy

and I'm not defending them. But fighting on a level of "choose our bureaucrats because they're not out to make a profit for some bigwigs" is just not going to work. When you have a monopoly industry, including government agencies, the employees become the shareholders. They do things to maximize pay and minimize work, and providing service to customers (called 'citizens' if we're talking about government) just does not do anything to increase those goals.

People working in government or monopoly industries merely get the money that would go to stockholders in a private corporation, and that especially applies to the management chain in such organizations. I see it every day, well-paid muckety-mucks getting paid to do nothing but go to an occasional meeting to listen to seminar-speak. And they are not going to be held responsible if the company doesn't meet its profit targets, they don't have any competitors to outrace in market share.

Arguing that health insurance run by the DMV is better than health insurance run by AIG is just a losing argument. People expect that they're going to encounter some resistance when they navigate through a bureaucracy, arguing which form of that bureaucracy is better is like arguing that "Moe is the smart Stooge". There are other reasons to push for public option, and even more to push for single-payer.

Your reasoning that "the government is responsible for representing the best interests of the American People," fails on so many levels that it's laughable. I sure hope that it doesn't become part of this debate, the stakes are too high.

[Uncle Joe]

102. If you don't argue the bureaucratic issue, it will only be fought in one direction.

I'm a believer that the best defense is to stay on offense and to allow the claim by right wingers that government bureaucracy as being an impediment to getting good health care totally gives them a free ride on the issue of corporate bureaucracy as being a major culprit in our current dysfunctional health care system of today.

People working in a government health coverage bureaucracy would not get the money going to "me only" profit motivated share holders of "health" insurance corporations and the government wouldn't have the same short term vision; live by the quarter, mentality motivating their actions as a publicly held corporation. Their salary would be based on other equivalent bureaucracies working in the government and in the final analysis would come from no longer needed premiums going to feed current corporate bureaucracies, I imagine many in the private sector would transfer to working for the government. If taxes need to be raised on the wealthiest to cover short falls, so be it, tax rates on them are at historically low levels and nothing like they were in the 60s.

Regarding government's role as to who and what they are supposed to represent I will leave you with this.

"We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America.

While Government has certainly not always lived up to that Preamble, they are the most responsible entity for such and if they don't serve by their contractual obligations, it's up to us; the people to hold them accountable. Now I challenge you to find any equivalent declaration of fiduciary responsibility from a health insurance corporation or any corporation for that matter to the American People?

[customerserviceguy]

106. Corporations have fiduciary responsibility to their owners

that's the shareholders, and nobody else. More that granting you that, I feel it's the basis by which they are motivated to do the best thing for everybody else. It just breaks down in certain instances, and health care has been one for quite awhile.

That is the argument we need to be taking to people, not simply a clever comeback about faceless insurance company paper shufflers. The public also has the perception that government consists of a bunch of faceless paper pushers, as well. Feeding government bureaucracies is no more appealing to voters than the care and feeding of insurance company bureaucracies.

We need to make the case on other arguments, the most reasonable of which is, "You're already paying for the people who are uncovered, anyway."

[Uncle Joe]

107. That is a basis separated by one and as such is diluted in regards

to it's positive effectiveness in leading to actions and decisions effecting the nations' or peoples' best interests. While the adverse effect may not be immediate; although in some cases it is, over the time the malignancy can become devastating to the overall good.

"Corporations have fiduciary responsibility to their owners that's the shareholders, and nobody else. More that granting you that, I feel it's the basis by which they are motivated to do the best thing for everybody else. It just breaks down in certain instances, and health care has been one for quite awhile."

I agree with your last sentence, but regarding the previous argument when the bureaucracy of the government is fallaciously attacked by the right wingers as an entity coming between you and your doctor, the case is obvious that insurance corporate bureaucracies are already doing that and to not bring that point home cedes an argument to the right wingers of which they don't deserve and I believe hurts the overall cause.

[customerserviceguy]

109. As I've said before

clearly, insurance company bureaucracies are already doing that, but not everybody with insurance sees it yet. If you are a person who takes out less from insurance than you and your employer put in for your account, then you probably don't perceive this unless you know of somebody else's horror story, and are actually moved by it.

Calling attention to the argument by citing bureaucracy just diverts us from making the best points about single payer and/or public option. That's all I'm saying here.

Like any political battle, there are three sides, the progressive side, the conservative side, and the folks in the mushy middle. The latter group determines what happens by whatever side they swing to. They don't bother to even think about who to vote for until the weekend before an election, and they really don't have solid opinions about most controversial matters in this country until there is a clear tipping point that has been reached. They were for the war in Iraq before they were against it.

The mushy middle wants to feel comfortable more than anything else, and that's how the wingnuts motivate them. A debate over private vs. public paper-pushers will either bore them or confuse them, maybe both. They know that they don't like to wait in line to get a driver's license, and deal with a surly clerk. Their health insurance bureaucrats are not as well known, and they just pay their little co-pays, and wait for the insurance to reimburse the doctor eventually. It's an invisible process to them, and they really want to keep it that way.

Besides, the thinking is, hey, if I don't like ABC Insurance at my work, I'll just go with XYZ Healthcare Company, and since I'm a new customer, they'll maybe kiss my ass to keep me. Those folks will probably drift first to a public option company, and the private healthcare insurance companies will indeed put on a show of ass-kissing to get them back.

[Uncle Joe]

115. Then attention must be brought to bear, so the people do see it.

Surely, the ridiculous premiums that people are already paying for health insurance can be tied to the adverse effect of health insurance corporate bureaucracies via expanding the un and under-insured by their selective coverage, sky high premiums and on their interference between doctor prescribed treatment to their patients.

"As I've said before clearly, insurance company bureaucracies are already doing that, but not everybody with insurance sees it yet."

"Calling attention to the argument by citing bureaucracy just diverts us from making the best points about single payer and/or public option. That's all I'm saying here."

The opposing side, and their corporate media allies will always cite the bureaucracy argument, you can't hide from that and attempting to do so only reflects weakness in your own overall argument. This in turn leads to the "mushy middle" feeling comfortable with the dysfunctional status quo, thus you play in to the hands of anyone opposing serious reform.

Therefore the issue of bureaucracy must be confronted, bureaucracy is an inescapable fact, so the question becomes whose bureaucracy do you want to control the coverage of your health and in turn life?

1. The government; which swears a contractual oath to represent the best interests of the American People and to whom you have the direct power of effect via vote, protest or the running for office.

2. The for profit health insurance corporate bureaucracy which swears no oath and has a fiduciary responsibility to make the maximum buck for the shareholder, if they're not corrupting the process by giving outlandish bonuses to upper management based on stock price and short term quarterly results.

In the final analysis it makes no difference whether you as a "consumer"/"customer" use ABC or XYZ "health" insurance corporation, they are tied to that same fundamental dynamic of equating personal/corporate profit over health.

Finally if you have a public government option and a private "health" insurance industry, the private insurance corporations will only tighten their restrictions, taking only healthy people, probably focusing on the young while shoveling middle aged, older and people with preexisting conditions off to the government plan, which will only drive up the costs while also denying overall savings from not having two bureaucracies.

[shimmergal]

111. That's the theory

(corporations have fiduciary responsibility to ..the shareholders) but that's not even working anymore. Most companies' upper management, and some high level bureaucrats as well, simply operate to maximize the money they can rip off for themselves. The shareholders don't get much more consideration than the customers or the general public. Our model of corporate governance is obsolete.

Even Alan Greenspan admitted this in one of his recent comments about the banking crisis. Funny, it took him this long to realize what mere employees have observed for years!

[customerserviceguy]

113. Agreed, it's not been working

Muckety-mucks serving on each other's boards, is just a giant circle jerk. But after the meltdowns we've seen in the last year, shareholders are probably paying more attention than ever before.

I do thank you for helping to make my point. I've been reading here that "shareholders have been forcing insurance companies to rip off policy holders," when the reality is that the fatcats have been doing the ripping off. And government agencies have their fatcats, as well.

[blm]

97. The point is for the line to RESONATE more with public than GOP line that is 100% fullofashit.

.

[customerserviceguy]

100. The public has had it's share of dealing with government bureaucracies

Anybody that has had to wait in a line for a driver's license, or car plates knows all about it. Comedians can make jokes about the DMV and everybody laughs, because everybody gets it. Arguing about one sort of uncaring guaranteed-a-job functionary over another is exactly where the Rethugs would like this debate to go.

[Uncle Joe]

103. Check out the wait in hospital emergency rooms; where many of the 40+ million

uninsured Americans go as a treatment of last resort, some hospitals are even dropping emergency rooms as a means to stay financially afloat.

Not as many comedians make jokes about this because there's nothing funny about it.

[customerserviceguy]

105. What does that have to do

with "insurance bureaucrats are worse than government bureaucrats" which is what I thought was the subject of this topic?

[Uncle Joe]

108. The "health" insurance bureaucracy

inevitably leads to those tens of millions of un or under-insured Americans in the first place.

Follow the money, that's what it's all about.

The for profit "health" insurance bureaucracy's prime directive in one form or another are working to a make a buck for their shareholders as your post #106 acknowledged, you can't serve two masters.

[customerserviceguy]

110. Ok, that's a stretch, though

I guess my point is, when someone parrots a right wing talking point with, "So, why should I put government workers in charge of my healthcare?" your response would be, "Private company healthcare bureaucrats are causing lineups in the emergency rooms because of all the people they won't cover."

My response will be, "It doesn't matter if it's government workers, or anybody else pushing the keys on a keyboard, the present system needs to be replaced, because you're already paying for the healthcare of the uninsured, twice. You pay by having to wait in an emergency room because that is the doctor's office for the uninsured, and you will pay more for your bill (or your employer will have less money to pay you) because those expensive emergency room charges have been added to your bill."

My point is get to the point.

[Uncle Joe]

116. My point is, there are many points.

If you want the "mushy middle" of which you posted above to not feel so comfortable, all points must all be brought to bear.

Don't just pick one point out of a multitude, hit them on every logical point to shoot down their argument.

For profit "health" insurance bureaucracies leads to selective non-coverage leads to swamped emergency rooms leads to hospitals in financial distress leads to escalating medical costs leads to escalating premiums leads to more people not being able to afford insurance and the cycle feeds on it self.

The argument for full universal single payer coverage and the elimination of for profit corporate "health" insurance is a multi-faceted diamond.

[customerserviceguy]

119. The problem with the mushy middle is that they have a short attention span

You know that old saying, "If you're not angry, then you're not paying attention,"? Well, it applies perfectly to people who could be swayed by either political party, when the difference between the two is so very glaring.

You have to hit them with the best point, first, and maybe you can get to a second or third one before you see the eyes start to glaze over. Once you catch sight of that, you've become in their eyes a complicated kook who is promising to shove something on them that they know they'll never fully understand, and they then are prey for the simple bumper sticker slogans of the right wing. The wingnuts have known how to manipulate these kind of people for seven of the last eleven Presidential elections.

I know that you think that arguments that work on thinking people can and should be used in this case, but we're dealing with people who prefer to watch "Dancing with the Stars" over any Sunday morning talk shows. They're far more interested in what Britney Spears or Paris Hilton think about the issues than what Ted Kennedy or Dennis Kucinich have to say about them.

[Uncle Joe]

87. Exactly! Who the hell would want a for profit cold blooded gambling corporation

coming between them and their doctor?

"Health" insurance corporations are government sanctioned legal casinos profiting from the American Peoples' inevitable illness and injury. The whole damn thing is a scam funneling money; to bribed political "leaders" supposedly representing the people to look out for corporate interests instead, and to investors willing to bet the house will profit over the customers. Vegas doesn't have shit on these people.

I see no practical reason; for a health insurance corporation to exist, but a slew of negative ones.

Thanks for the thread, blm.:thumbsup:

[debbierlus]

89. The real dems already do! The problem is that those who hold the majority of power

In the democratic party are in league with the insurance companies and drug companies...

They aren't VESTED in helping the people, they are bought and paid for politiicans that do not represent us.

Don't expect the dems to fight this battle for you. They won't.

[OmahaBlueDog]

91. What you need is someone who is not Michael Moore doing what Moore did in "Sicko"

Put HMO horror stories into short, personal stories that fit in advertising time frames.

Maybe use Moore is you could get him to be one of a series of ad creators. Get directors like Spike Lee or Ron Howard to tell stories as well.

[rockymountaindem]

92. It's too late for that

1) The Republicans have gotten out in front with the opposite claim about "government bureaucrats"
2) People have been letting the insurance companies make decisions for them for so long, they think it's normal

[AlbertCat]

93. True

Perhaps a better line would be...

"Don't you want the same coverage as your Congressional Rep? Your Senator?"

[blm]

104. Kerry said exactly that in almost every speech in 2003 and 2004. Corpmedia would NOT further that

aspect of his campaign, and the bigname Dems were nowhere to be found for back up during the daily news cycles.

[Mark D.]

96. DEBATE POINTS

I have some advice. I win debates on this easily, I put a lot of the classic one-liner points they lob at me to rest, then they just stop debating rather than admit they are wrong. Some tips. First, an advantage I have, I have worked for insurers. Next time you hear someone beat up on Michael Moorer as a liar in the Sicko movie, you tell them that everything he said is true. An insider told you. They DO deny claims for the sake of profit. They DO reward and promote those who deny more and put those who approve too many on warning or into jobs where they're not decision makers there.

I am one of those people who think there's more than meets the eye to our history and who's really in control. Watch George Carlin's classic "the real owners" video to see my view on a lot of things. But I'm not tinfoil hat paranoid. But it's obvious to many who don't have their head in the sand that lobbyists for corporations exert a lot of control in D.C. Further, there is an elite class, partially hidden, that does call a lot of the shots. I tell all the anti-govt types, what they want is DIRECT control by the corporations when they call to privatize everything. vs, with the buffer of government.

I'm a Kucinich / Nader thinker. I side with the working people, the bottom 99% and the idea that government should be cut only where the cuts don't hurt them. I debate "Paulists" (Ron Paul fans) all the time on this. They prefer us directly in the fire, vs. being in the frying pan that is the government (heated by the corporate fire). That pan can be lifted from the flames. There's no hope if you turn it all over to them. They say 'competition' fixes the market. Ron Paul even said the late 1800's was America at its best, in terms of next to zero regulation, and the best period for growth.

Growth of who? Not us. JD Rockefeller, who's Standard Oil was financed by JP Morgan, was on his way to being the richest man ever. JP Morgan controlled over 90% of US business. The company he helped form, GE, still controls our power (1/4 of the world's power) with the less talked about fossil fuel coal driving the engine. Destroying nature, putting arsenic and mercury into the environment and fish. The govt. was near collapse financially around that time, and was bailed out, at a very high interest rate (sound familiar) by JP Morgan, TWICE. Who really called the shots back then.

Oh sure, Ron Paul. Child labor. One man controlling almost all business. Robber barons who paid almost no taxes, while the massive underclass, devoid of any real middle class (largely created, thanks to FDR, years later) paying the massive bulk of taxes. Limited or no rights for women and minorities. Sure Dr. Paul, point to the time before Teddy Roosevelt clamped down (a little anyway, not much) on JP Morgan (and was shot by a 'crazed lone gunman' and almost died from it after a speech, after leaving office) and was the first to float the idea of universal health care, after that 'ideal time' of Dr. Paul.

I remember some idiot lady on TV saying Ron Paul being a doctor meant he could 'fix health care'. How's that? Eliminate ALL ENTITLEMENTS? Yeah, that'll fix everything. Privatize everything and lift almost all regulations, except 'fraud laws' the Corporate Liberaltarians hide behind which don't address most of the problems we face or that created the massive nightmare that Morgan, Goldman Sachs and others manufactured for their own profit. And they sure don't insure everyone. All the while, he and many of his followers maintain they are Christian, and separate church and state.

That's fine, but their so-called morality should drive what they support on a grander scale. It does not. Matthew 25:40. Their view is any assistance to victims of the massive move of capital from the bottom 99% to the top .01% primarily (which happened a lot under Bush) enables victimhood. I remember an interviewer flat out asking Dr. Paul what they would do about the massive poverty, those without health care, etc., in lieu of no govt. programs. His response? I quote him: "Oh, I dunno, charity". Yeah right. That's how they buck their responsibility, and prove their non-Christianity.

Hide behind the ruse logic that abandoning the poor, and letting those who wanna help give to charity is bullshit. They know it. The idea that a few thousand in tax savings for middle class by eliminating everything but defense and infrastructure (the last, very limited) would cause a boom in charity is not borne out in history. In times like the late 1800's, this was largely proven a fallacy. But they cling to it. Too enthralled in the lure of a few thousand for them, while the rich elite get billions more from such a plan, helping on the continued path to a feudalistic state they want.

All disguised as 'free market capitalism'. Any utterance of helping the poor outside of 'charity' is slammed as Marxist Communist Socialism. They'd rather have bars on their windows, and ammo in their huge collection of guns to shoot those trying to get what's 'theirs' when massive numbers of them appear beyond what's out there now, in a new 'everyone for themselves' state they want to create. The model of them giving a little more in taxes to eliminate the need to even lock their doors doesn't sit well. Why should they have to help anyone, if they don't want to. That's the core of it all.

In the 18th century, in Europe, there was actually a massive movement against charity. I'm not kidding. They saw it as enabling the poor. If they knew there was a church or charity they could go to, they'd have no reason to pull up their own bootstraps. That was the logic. But why? Charity is voluntary. The idea is simple. If they DON'T give, they 'look bad' (ie. greedy, which is what they are anyway) so they have to give to help others, which again, goes against their moral code (ie. they are self-centered sociopaths) and that's not good. Look it up, I'm not kidding, it happened.

The largest health insurer is AETNA. They were formed in the early 1800s by JP Morgan's grandfather. In the massive fire on Wall St. in 1835, they were very involved after, suspicious as that fire was. It burned 600 buildings. The Morgan family profited from it, and bought stuff for pennies on the dollar thanks to it. They were off to a good start. AETNA is now the leading voice against Single Payer. They also administer Medicare. Who writes the checks for Medicare claims? JP Morgan Chase. You can see who's still largely in control and wants to retain that control as we move forward.

Folks so paranoid about higher taxes for it. When in fact, conservative estimates are that it would save us over the 2.2 trillion we pay now. A plan with no copays, deductibles, or premiums. Medical, Dental, Vision, Long Term Care, all medical tests and hospital expenses. 100%. The typical US family pays 12-14 thousand a year for all of that now. You want a stimulus? Imagine what 12-15 thousand a year would do for all those families? Who'd benefit the least from that? The affluent who can afford to pay whatever for premiums anyway. It's really a battle between the rich and poor in some ways.

Just ask them, the pro-corporate, deregulate everything Libertarians and far right wingers. Who's side are they on? Especially those who see some NWO plot unfolding. How is empowering the people, making life drastically better for the bottom 99% at either no expense, or a little expense to the top .01% that saw their wealth TRIPLE under Bush, a problem? Who are they really working for when they cry for this rule-free world of private everything, allowing those who did so much damage to have an even more unchecked orgy at our expense? It's easy to win the debate with those types.

Further, there is Scandinavia. Boy, they hate that place. They can't call it fully socialist, they have as many if not more rights to own guns. But they also have the 100% single payer type plans, a year of maternity leave for women, among the lowest poverty rates, teenage pregnancy rates, abortion rates, longer lifespans, better health, higher IQs, far lower crime rates, among the lowest murder rates. Every measurable number is better. Because they invest in themselves. Education, health care. Not defending the Wall Street status quo of the haves and the have nots that we live under.

I recall one idiot trying to say it was doomed to fail. Oh really? In the last decade as we declined worldwide in every measurable number almost, Scandinavia's numbers just got better. They've largely had this system of well regulated capitalism with just enough socialism to help people without burdening them, for decades, a century even. Show me how it's doomed to fail. Call their bluff. They are full of shit and they know it. Many who defend their view are living off their affluent parents a lot of times. It explains the rise of 'Libertarians' among the younger generation today.

The economy would massively benefit. The health of people, in general and also in reduced stress over bills, bankruptcy, keeping jobs they can't stand just for benefits. Leaving jobs, leaving hometowns and loved ones, in pursuit of jobs with 'benefits' like health insurance. The every rising cost of premiums, co-pays and deductibles making it so few ever use their insurance anyway (that's the idea!) and if they do, they get denied, and often only get claims paid on appeal (counting on many not appealing, so they don't have to pay those claims). It's a system, they've got us. We need to end it!

[moondust]

101. "...when their main concern is to make as much profit as possible?"

[Cal33]

112. Ins. Co. bureaucrats, you, your M.D.

Congressmen can be influenced by lobbyists, and the Insurance companies have
the money to pay the lobbyists to do their will. So, they have been winning
more and more in the past decades. Let your congressman know how you feel
about this - and in very clear terms! The monied minority has been beating
the middle-class majority over and over again. No doubt about that.

[kenny blankenship]

114. Their job is to funnel MORE money to the insurance companies

They could try framing the debate as you say. It would be easy to do so - as someone else suggested just take the GOP formula and substitute insurance companies -which most people already hate- where the GOP formula says "government".

They could do that, but then they would be pissing off their real constituency, which is the financial-insurance industry. The fact that they never issue even a peep by way of criticism of the insurance co. parasites shows where their loyalty lies.

[Cleita]

117. The Dems don't want to do that because they are part of the problem

and want insurance to win this battle. Go to Open Secrets and look at who are many of their main campaign contributors.

[bertman]

118. Great question, blm. I think there's a two-part answer: 1) they already have GREAT coverage;

2) They are getting paid good money to NOT frame the debate that way.