THE G. O. P. ATTEMPTS  TO

 

 

MURDER REPRESENTATIVE

 

 

DEMOCRACY

 

 

 

 

 

(THE CYNICAL REPUBLICAN CONSPIRACY TO OVERTURN THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE IN FAVOR OF HEALTH CARE REFORM–AND ITS LONG TERM RAMIFICATIONS)

I. THE FRIGHTENING CONTEXT

 

           As each day went by during the initial “Health Care Debate” in 2009 during the 111′th Congress, I became more and more frustrated over how the “game” was being played in Washington, on K Street and on “Main Street.”  I saw that the Democratic Party represented in the House and in the Senate, as well as the Administration, had set forth well-defined and directed proposals to address the problems with Health Care and the reforms that I personally felt were necessary in the public interest, although I would have personally preferred that somewhat more be done. 

 

          All of the opinion polls of the electorate at that time were consistent in demonstrating that a majority of the People recognized the need for such reform.  Then I began to become frustrated, but even more, “puzzled,” as everything began to fall apart during last years’ fall Congressional recess for no reason which even remotely addressed or refuted the Democratic proposals or which offered alternatives. It was almost a surreal “world” that took over what had previously been a one-sided “debate” and substituted in its place the anger of Americans at Washington, the fear of Seniors of losing their Medicare, fear of that “new President” turning their beloved America into a “socialist state”…and a dozen or more other nonsensical positions, not arguments, that revealed what had become a true “mob mentality.”   

 

          And I am now seeing precisely the same pattern beginning to unfold on the Republican move toward “repeal” of the just passed health care reforms; and it also may yet get back upon that wayward track with respect to the Democratic effort to achieve Financial (”Wall Street”) Reform.  I feel this is true despite several recent days of conciliatory pronouncements by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Minority Leader John Boehner to the effect that they will actually work with the Democrats to come up with a bi-partisan reform package on financial reform. 

 

          Those last referenced Republican announcements are impossible to believe because I have finally stumbled across the fact that the Republican Party has already begun effectuation of its Plan to destroy the effort to reform the financial sector of the economy and to protect the People from the predatory practices of “Wall Street”–just as it has been attempting to do with respect to Health Care Reform.  It mirrors the plan to destroy Health Care Reform…which, as noted, may still be successful.  As with the Health Care reform, it is clear that a majority of the Electorate recognize that major reforms of how the financial sector conducts business are needed to protect the public interest.  This is because, of course, the People fully recognize the real pain of the greatest recession in history from which we are just now beginning to pull ourselves out. The problem here, of course, is that the same “Wall Street” interests (whose recklessness, and likely criminality, caused the recession which reached around the entire world,) demand that nothing be changed!  This is, or course, in order that they, the huge investment banks, be allowed to continue to “reap the whirlwind” of the profits of: i.) a voracious rapacity for low-leveraged risk taken with consumer dollars, and, ii.) self dealing, under-the-table, proprietary trading –despite the devastating danger to each and every one of the rest of us.

 

          The health care “debate”, which did narrowly, very narrowly, lead to the ultimate enactment of the “Affordable Health Care and Patient Protection” and the “Reconciliation” Acts, was a lesson in politics at its absolute worst.  There was no real debate on any issue.  The Republicans and “Blue Dog” Democrats in both the House and Senate simply said “No” on every proposition for reform, without assisting in the drafting process–despite innumerable pleas from the Democratic leadership that they do so.  They even railed, again and again, about how many pages of text (!) there were in the proposed bills and drafts therefor.  At one point late in 2009, the G. O. P. tried to make points with the People on one of the Nationally-televised “open forums” when House Minority Whip Eric Cantor made an ugly, arrogant, ostentatious display of each page of every draft of each bill which had been discussed in each pertinent committee of the House and Senate to that date!  They continued this disruptive, negative campaign with television ads and with the tactic of openly disrupting Democratic “town hall” meetings during the last Congressional recess in an attempt beginning in May 2009 to effectuate the precise plan drafted by Dr. Frank Luntz, a frequent contributor to, consultant and tutor of the “talking heads” of Fox News. 

 

          That plan, purchased or commissioned by the Republican Party for the aforesaid purposes, can be seen in full at:

 

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/frank-luntz-the-language-of-healthcare-20091.pdf

 

for sake of reference, if desired.  It was expressly designed to deceive the American people and subvert their will to have real and responsible health care reform–which Dr. Luntz and the Republican National Committee knew a significant majority of Americans believed from the outset was needed.  And in order to achieve the desired objective, they openly lied to the American People that they had a “better” plan–when in fact, THEY HAD NO PLAN, and their only object, paid for by the health care, insurance and pharmaceutical industries, was to have no new laws passed in accordance with the desires of their financial contributors, i.e., the health care, insurance and pharmaceutical industries! 

 

          The effect of this tactic, if it is ultimately successful, will be to render our representative democracy as a form of government irrelevant and unworkable.  That is because every issue would from this point forward be determined by whichever interest group has the most money to promote the spreading of the propaganda, the “Big Lies” with the linguistic techniques of Dr. Luntz and persons such as he to drown out the voice, thought processes and the actual will of those of the majority of the People.  It would settle the issue of who is really in charge and confirm the most dramatic power grab in the history of civilized society.  This is because the success of the Republicans would reveal once and for all that a government which the common man had since 1787 believed was a representative democracy was, beyond all dispute, nothing more than an oligarchy governed by only the very rich. 

 

 

II. THE CONSEQUENTIAL RULES

OF THE “GAME”

 

          The 2009 and early 2010 health care issues, I suppose, have been much more frustrating to me than many of the others I have fought for or against, because I spent the majority of my professional life as an insurance and healthcare attorney–both within the insurance industry and in the public regulation thereof.  I have lived with its problems, the horrendous pain it has caused the general public, and perhaps worst of all, the arrogance and contempt of the boards of directors of the major insurers held for the “man on the street.”  As a consequence of this experience, I know that I have understood these issues with more immediacy and insight than some.  Nonetheless, in the recent and current “debate” thereupon I have been and am still struck by the enormous and disparate impact of the vastly different “rules” by which the respective sides were playing the game–which I only recently discovered was because of the impact of Dr. Luntz and his  teachings in creating the Republican strategy.

 

          The Democrats were at a huge disadvantage from the “get go” because these issues on health care posed by Public Law 111-148 (the “Affordable Health Care and Patient Protection” Act) and Public Law 111-152 (the “Reconciliation” Act) are EXTREMELY COMPLEX AND DIFFICULT TO EXPLAIN…by any standard.  And, worse, the Administration and the Democratic Party was facing a somewhat hostile audience because the provisions of the two laws do affect two facts of life in America, i.e.

 

(i) tens of millions of Americans have become dependent upon Medicare and are naturally wary of any “meddling” with it by this new government; plus,

(ii) Americans hate “Washington”–especially in an era when Washington has often not served them well, e.g., getting the Nation trapped in two simultaneous wars; choosing to rescue the Nation’s fractured economy, as the People said, by “bailing out” Wall Street, while Main Street was losing millions of jobs. 

 

          The Administration and the Democrats in Congress had the burden of truthfully explaining the intricate workings of the system, no matter the great advantages it would give to the People–as summarized below.  And they had to do it honestly and accurately; that is, they did not have the luxury of simply haranguing and obstructing. 

 

          There is also a significant segment of society that is more subject to being swayed by politics in the manner of Dr. Luntz.  There are, and we have to admit it, millions of undereducated Americans who will simply lie back in their recliners and absorb the negativity–without investigating or reading anything.  And by doing so, they are simply allowing their hatred and prejudices (being played to by Dr. Kuntz, certain “talking heads” on television and the G.O.P.) take over. 

         

A.  RULES APPLICABLE TO PROPONENTS

OF HEALTH CARE REFORM

 

          Naturally, the Obama Administration determined (as required by law, ethics rules and propriety) to “play it straight” and simply tell the Country the truth, that is, what the problems now are and what the law will do to address those problems  once fully phased in.  They could clearly have done a more effective job of “selling” the truth (even truth must sometimes be sold); and many pundits and political experts believe that President Obama made a mistake by merely advising Congress of four or five “yardsticks” by which he would measure its ultimate product and by not being more actively involved in the actual creation of that product.  I am certain he had his reasons; but, clearly, the results and the drama the G. O. P. was able to create demonstrate those reasons were not good enough.

 

          The major points of Public Law 111-148 and Pubic Law 111-152, were well described to the Public and the Media but not at all in a manner to generate enthusiasm; those changes can be summarized as follows:

 

(1) Universal Care/Subsidies:

 

          (a) the new law will cover those citizens not now covered by any form of health care–over 34,000,000 individuals;  

         

          (i) the Federal Poverty Threshold (FPL) is the “yardstick” by which the need for “affordability credits” or subsidies is determined; so, for sake of reference and example, the Federal Poverty Threshold for 2009 as set by the United States Bureau of the Census is:

          -One individual: $10,952

          -Two individuals: $14,001

          -Four individuals: $21,947, and, just for example of how the ‘”sliding scale” works:

 

-those who live below 150% of the applicable poverty threshold will be fully covered under an expanded Medicaid program which does away with asset tests except for long term disability coverage;

-those who live at 200% of FPL will have a premium limit of 3% of income and an annual out-of-pocket cap of $1,000;

-those who live at 300% of FPL will have a premium limit of 10% of income and an annual out-of-pocket cost limit of $8,000;

- full Federal funding for this coverage will be provided beginning in 2013;

 

(2) Funding: the key funding component is the assessment of an income tax surcharge of 5.4 % of adjusted gross incomes in excess of $500,000 (single) and $1,000,000 (joint).

 

(3) Insurance Practices: prohibit all carriers (insurers) from;

 

          (a) non-renewing or cancelling health coverage because of the mere fact that someone has become sick with a deadly or long-enduring (and expensive) illness and have exceeded so-called “lifetime limits”; or

          (b.) providing waiting periods of more than ninety days; and

          (c.) denying claims by reason of “pre-existing conditions;”

 

(4) Bend the “Cost Curve” on Health Care: bring the cost of health care in total (now approximately one-sixth of the Nation’s GDP…and spiraling ever upward) under control by several different methods–including:

 

          (a.) payment of physicians based upon results over time and not simply the numbers of patients seen and tests ordered–which is presently often a system handled precisely as if doctors–working with both proprietary and supposedly non-profit hospitals–were being forced to see just how many “cattle” they can push through the chutes in eight hours or so;

 

          (b.) reduce waste and fraud in the Medicare and Medicaid systems which is into the several billions of dollars per year–practices with which I am intimately familiar from both professional and personal perspectives–by expanding the capacity and power of the Medicare Fraud Division of the System; and,

 

          (c) increase efficiencies in the handling and processing of claims in Medicare, and, over several years, reduce the Medicare Advantage subsidized payments for the very wealthy by $14 Billion by shifting those payments toward benchmarks in Medicare services that will vary from 95 per cent of fee-for-service rates in high-spending states, to 115 percent of those rates in low-spending states.

 

(5.) Make Different Levels of Coverage Available: make available for all citizens more options for coverage by mandating systems in each state whereby citizens would be able to choose from many different carriers and from different plans–”Platinum” 10% co-pay, “Gold, 20% co-pay” “Silver 30% co-pay” and “Bronze 40% co-pay” levels of coverage and co-pay responsibility, as well as lowering maximum annual deductibles for  individuals to  $2,000 and for families to $4,000; 

 

(6.) Prohibit Anti-Trust Practices of Insurers: destroy the current “exclusive market” system of health carriers whereby they assign certain states to certain insurers and agree not to compete with one another in such states–or even certain cities and counties–giving rise to the ability of such carriers to charge whatever premiums they wish in many states which do not have the power of rate review or approval–much to the financial detriment of the consumer; (this simply involves a repeal of the anti-trust exemption that insurance companies have enjoyed since at least 1934;

 

(7) Allow Retention of Own Insurance and Physicians: allow individual citizens to continue with their current health carriers and keep going to see their current doctors if they so wish–or switch if they wish;

 

(8) Scope of Required Coverage: provide that everyone is required to obtain commercial coverage, subject to a number of exemptions, including those living below 133% of the “poverty line,” those working for religious organizations, those under age thirty, etc., and even those who can afford coverage but who decide not to do so are only forced (presumably with their income taxes), a penalty maxing out at $695.00 per year;

 

(9) Small Employers:  require that employers with FIFTY OR MORE “FULL TIME” EMPLOYEE EQUIVALENTS (fifty employees at thirty hours per week or more) provide “minimum essential coverage” for employees or pay $2,000 for each “employee equivalent;” [NOTE: this means that small employers with less than fifty "full time equivalent" employees are fully exempt from the Act's mandate];

         

          (a.) FOR EXAMPLE, if an employer has eighty part time employees (i.e., equal to forty “full-time equivalents”) and forty true full-time employees, he would meet a so-called “threshold” of fifty and be required to PROVIDE coverage for ONLY the forty full-time employees–with the OPTION of covering the rest OR paying a penalty of $2,000 for TEN employees per year for a total of $20,000–since there is a credit of thirty for this particular calculation to, hopefully, give an incentive to employers to provide coverage instead of paying penalties; but

          (b.) it has to be remembered that if any employer meets the threshold and fails to cover his employees and dependents, the penalties to be paid are more significant and complex to calculate depending upon precise circumstances,

         

(10) Incentives for Small Employers: INCENTIVES ARE PROVIDED to small employers with twenty five or less “full time equivalents” if they voluntarily provide coverage, as they will receive income tax credits on a sliding scale basis up to 35% of premiums paid calculated upon the income of the particular employees;

 

(11) Closing of “Doughnut Hole”: from the perspective of Medicare recipients, these Acts provide special relief from a cynical deal struck by President Bush and the Pharmaceutical industry in creating the “doughnut hole” in Part D prescription drug coverage; the new laws will provide a $250.00 supplement or reimbursement payment to anyone who ends up in that “hole” in 2010; a reduction of the percentage of cost (co-pay) paid for “name-brand” drugs (tier 3) to a maximum of 50% in 2011;  and, thereafter, the percentage of cost borne by beneficiaries will be reduced over the years on tier 2 (”preferred” or some name brand drugs), and tier 1 (generic) drugs until by 2020 all of the latter co-pays will stand at a maximum of 20% ; and     

 

(12) Reduction of Deficit; or not?  the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that in the first decade of 2010 through 2019, the combined effects of these Acts, the above provisions and many others including certain other tax increases upon the pharmaceutical and insurance industries will be to reduce the deficit by 143 Billion Dollars, and in the second decade from 2020 through 2029, the deficit will be reduced by 1.3 Trillion Dollars. A new report issued by the United States Department Health and Human Services on April 22, 2010, estimates that instead of decreasing costs as the above “best guess,” the plan might actually increase annual spending by one per cent. 

 

B.  RULES APPLICABLE TO REPUBLICAN AND “BLUE DOG” DEMOCRATIC MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, TEA PARTIERS, VISCERAL CONSERVATIVES, K-STREET LOBBYISTS AND OTHER OPPONENTS OF REFORM

 

1.  No Rules.  In short, these persons and interests have not and do not have to play by any rules other than when sworn by a court or Congressional Committee.  These people may lie to the Public, misrepresent and play upon individual or group prejudices.  Members of Congress may lie to the Public and to other members of Congress at any time for any reason–with total impunity.  Members of Congress also often take campaign contributions (cash) or trips to places such as Boca Raton or Palm Springs in return for their votes–all of such being funded, in part, by the Pharmaceutical, Insurance and Medical lobbyists.

 

          The manner of such campaigns affecting some major player’s financial interest in a particular bill is always so predictable: the moneyed opponents have someone or some persons refer to the proposed bill on television or in a news column as fraudulent or “bogus“–but always without having to back up what they say.  An acquaintance of mine recently used a phrase which stuck with me, and which I will steal and use here to describe such so-called experts, i.e., they are “…those who live in a ‘bizzaro’ anti-Obama Universe!”

 

          Thus, during this year long “debate,” or battle, including last summer’s Congressional recess and the appearance on the National Stage of the Tea Partiers, we had to again endure the silly and stupid remarks we all heard during the 2009 Presidential election as well as those directed at the legislation, i.e., that:

 

          (i) our now new President, the Man who wants to take our health insurance away from us, is not a citizen of the United States, i.e., he was born in Kenya or Indonesia, or anywhere but in Hawaii as he claims and, therefore, he is not even eligible to be President;

 

          (ii) he is an “Eastern intellectual” and therefore not to be trusted;

 

          (iii) he is “not like us”–an indirect reference to his mixed race;

 

          (iv) he is a “socialist,” with most of the audience not having any idea what socialism really is, and even so, the only so-called “evidence” of such was that the President once attended a neighborhood political rally in Chicago which was also attended by a man named William Ayers, who was once in the period of 1970 to 1974 a member of the “Weathermen Underground” who is now a Distinguished Professor at the University of Illinois-Chicago; and,

 

          (v) he is a Muslim and not a Christian–implying and sometimes directly stating ignorantly that all Muslims are “Terrorists.”

 

          But the most fascinating and important story is the power of the “Big Lie” and the campaign orchestrated by Dr. Luntz.  If you wish to see all of the lies, obfuscations, misleading references, and truly “slick” argumentative techniques that Dr. Luntz has provided to the Republicans to defeat any health care law passage,  go to the “link” to his entire plan set out above.  But here is a brief thirteen point “taste” of the talking points and the tactics involved:

 

1. “You simply MUST be vocally and passionately on the side of Reform.  This is because the status quo at present is that the People want reform and you cannot turn the debate not to one of President Obama is on the side of reform and Republicans are against it.”

 

2. “Republicans must be for the right kind of reform that protects the quality of healthcare for all Americans.  And you must establish your support of reform early in your presentation.”

 

3. Instead, Republicans must warn against a “Washington takeover” of healthcare and insist that patients would have to stand in line for their medical care with the hated “Washington Bureaucrats” in charge of healthcare.

 

4. You must often use the phrase: “One size does not fit all….”

 

5. “It could lead to the government setting standards of care, instead of doctors who really know what’s best.”

 

6.  ” It could lead to the government rationing care, making people stand in line and denying treatment like they do in other countries with national healthcare.”

 

7. “President Obama wants to put the Washington bureaucrats in charge of healthcare.  I want to put the medical professionals in charge, and I want patients as an equal partner.”

 

8. ” Humanize your approach. Abandon and [strike] ALL references to the
“healthcare system.”  From now on, healthcare is about people.  Before you speak, think of the three components of tone that matter most:  Individualize.  Personalize. Humanize.”

 

9. “Acknowledge the crisis or suffer the consequences.  If you say there is no health care crisis, you give your listener permission to ignore everything else you say.  It is a credibility killer for most Americans.  A better approach is to define the crisis in your own terms. ‘If you’re one of the millions who can’t afford healthcare, it is a crisis.  Better yet, ‘If some bureaucrat puts himself between you and your doctor, denying you exactly what you need, that’s a crisis.  And the best: “If you have to wait weeks for tests and months for treatment, that’s a healthcare crisis.”

  

10.  “Time” is the government healthcare killer.  As Mick Jagger once sang, “Time is on your side.”  Nothing else turns people against the government takeover of healthcare that the realistic expectation that it will result in delayed and potentially denied treatment, procedures and/or medications.  “Waiting to buy a car or even a house won’t kill you.  But waiting for the healthcare you need–could.  Delayed care is denied care.”

 

11. “The arguments against the Democrats’ healthcare plan must center around politicians, bureaucrats, and Washington…not the free market, tax incentives, or competition.  Stop talking economic theory and start personalizing the impact of a government takeover of healthcare.  They don’t want to hear that you’re opposed to government healthcare because it’s too expensive (any help from the government to lower costs will be embraced) or because it’s anti-competitive (they don’t know or care about current limits to competition).  But they are deathly afraid that a government takeover will lower their quality of care - so they re extremely receptive to the anti-Washington approach.  It’s not an economic issue.  It’s a bureaucratic issue.”

 

12. “Americans will expect the government to look out for those who truly can’t afford healthcare.  Here is the perfect sentence for addressing costs and the limited role for government that wins you allies rather than enemies.  Say that you want, “A balanced, common sense approach that provides assistance to those who truly need it and keeps healthcare patient-centered rather than government-centered for everyone.”

 

13.  “WASTE, FRAUD, and ABUSE are your best targets for how to bring down costs.  Make no mistake: the high cost of healthcare is still public enemy number one on this issue - and why so many Americans (including Republicans and Conservatives) think Democrats can handle healthcare better than the GOP.  You can’t blame it on the lack of a private market; in case you missed it, capitalism isn’t exactly in vogue these days.  But you can and should blame it on the waste, fraud and abuse that is rampant in anything and everything the government controls.”

 

(All language set forth immediately above in points one through thirteen is that of Dr. Frank Luntz.  The emphasis is judiciously added by the undersigned.  I underline portions of his work, frankly, to point out both the hypocrisy and the grave danger works such as the foregoing display of Dr. Luntz’ s twisted genius pose to a representative democracy when placed in the wrong hands, but WHEN AND ONLY WHEN the People be not sufficiently educated to understand and rebuff such drivel.) 

 

III. CONCLUSION

 

          We are this early in the Administration of President Obama, dealing with a truly grave, perhaps the most grave concern a Republic can face.  For if the People are not capable of governing themselves, those who are more well-educated (generally the more wealthy of the society) will gladly assume that role.

 

          There are a number of famous quotations of Thomas Jefferson upon the inextricable link between education and the right and ability to self -govern.  These include:

 

          “It is an axiom in my mind that our liberty can never be safe but in the hands of the people themselves, and that, too, of the people with a certain degree of instruction. This is the business of the state to effect, and on a general plan. –Letter of Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1786; and,

 

“If a man expects to be ignorant and free, [and in a state of civilization], it expects what never was and never will be. –Letter of Thomas Jefferson to Col. Charles Yancey 1816.

 

          And that, I fear, is the drama that is now playing itself out in the United States.  The general educational system of the United States has been in chaos for so long that I know not the ability of the People, collectively, to protect themselves–even acknowledging the individual genius of so many of our people–which I believe is “despite,” not “because” of the system through which they were forced to proceed.  If the “Grand Old Party” succeeds in these efforts regarding healthcare and financial reform to defeat the will of the People, it will obviously be the fault not only of the failure of the Administration to persuade–but of the inability of the People as a whole to understand.

 

Don Switzer

Rogers, Arkansas

WWW.PoliticsandWhimsey.Com

(c) April 23, 2010

 

P.S.  If anyone is interested in reviewing the Luntz–G.O.P. “playbook” for defeating financial reform, he or she may find it at:

         

http://www.scribd.com/doc/26496557/language-of-financial-reform