The President needs to take off the gloves, fight back, name names, draw lines in the sand with the VETO, and stop being so damned rational. If he loses this health care debate, he will lose his base, which is all the opposition cares about.

::::::::

Even when Obama was running, I had the disquieting feeling that his desire for a rational, honest debate of the issues, was not going to be met by the other side. They simply don't think that way - it's not just that they disagree, it's that they just don't process facts the same way, their brains work differently, whether through training or genetics, it doesn't matter. Jonathan Hari, writing in the Huffington Post yesterday, made the point it may start with religion, leading to a faith-based everything view of the world. I wouldn't disagree with that, though some of my best friends are religionists.

Obama STILL thinks he can reconcile with the opposition if they'd only see the logic of arguments. He's got to stop believing this, and soon, or he will go down as a failed president, maybe equal to Bush, who didn't even get what he wanted. Obama has to fight down and dirty, like LBJ getting Medicare and the Great Society programs through by arm-twisting, shouting, making back-room deals while keeping the principles intact, like FDR threatening to pack the Supreme Court with sympathetic justices (there is no constitutional limit to the number of justices on the court.) if he didn't get his way.

In the modern age, he's got to name names, go public with them and accuse them of conspiring to kill 18,000 people a year by maintaining a system of health non-care that kills that many a year. Go to the edge of the lie. Put the Republicans on the defensive - for a change - reframe the debate. At the same time, draw a line in the sand with what he will accept and what he will VETO. Blame the Republicans and the DINOs (Democrats In Name Only) if no bill is passed. Take the damn gloves off, Mr. President, or you will find yourself without a base, out there on your own.

Here are some examples of this fight-back philosophy for the Health Care debate:

1. The opposition has no plan so they must support the status-quo.

a. The status-quo kills 18,000 people a year who can't afford health care. Republicans are for that.

b. The status quo means 7 million people will lose coverage between the beginning of 2008 and the end of 2010. Half of these will be children (is it less than that? Does it matter in this liar's debate?). Some will get sick and die.

c. The opposition is anti-competitive and anti-business. By continuing to tie health care to employment, they encourage job lock and the failure of small businesses who can't afford to insure their workers. They insure that our companies can't compete against companies that are in countries where health care is covered, like G.M. which would not have had to seek bankruptcy if it didn't have some of the highest health care costs in the world (don't believe that? Prove it).

The opposition will say they support the Free Market for health insurance. Really? Ok, ask them:

Are you willing to deny care to someone who can't afford it?

If not, how can you claim it's a free market? If I fail to buy a car, and then I need to drive somewhere, no one is going to loan me a car for free if I can't afford one. No one will even loan me bus fare, unless a friend or family. Why should it be different for health care if you really believe in the Free Market? Oh, and yes, our parents should use up their life savings paying for Junior because he was too irresponsible to buy health insurance before he got hit by a bus. That's rugged individualism, you see.

We buy all kinds of insurance because we know no one will cover our costs if we don't - that's the moral hazard. Sink or swim. That's the Free Market, baby. Wait until a few people die on the sidewalks of a few hospitals because they couldn't pay to get care inside. THAT'LL teach people they'd better carry insurance! Otherwise, where are the teeth in the Free Market insurance?

What's that? You would never kick sick people to the curb? Then, you must think health care is some sort of Right. In that case, why not cover it like we cover legal rights? You're entitled to a lawyer, but not a doctor? What's the difference? Surely, you're not going to say one's in the Constitution and the other isn't. Shortly after the Constitution was written, George Washington died of leech's blood-letting. Who would have wanted to guarantee the right to that kind of treatment; we've come a long way since then.

Another point: the people voting against health care today voted against S-CHIP coverage for children, against Medicare balancing, against increase in care for Veteran's health under the V.A. (are you listening John McCain? Even if they didn't vote that way, they won't dare say that, lest they be called to explain why they supported all those things while not supporting expansion of Medicare for all now).

Lines in the Sand: Violate these and the President will veto the bill:

1. A way to cover every American (not illegal aliens).

2. Basic level of care equal to Medicare

3. No deductibles or co-pays that require supplemental insurance, or any other gimmicks that essentially strip away Universal Health Care through the back door. Deductibles and Co-Pays should be affordable.

4. The right of the government to negotiate costs, just like the big insurers do. This is called a Level Playing Field, or the Free Market, for those Socialist Republicans who never heard of those.

The President needs to outline a specific plan - we didn't elect Nancy Pelosi to be President, or a Congressional Committee. Here's the best plan I've heard so far, but this is just a way to keep the debate from spinning out of control on ridiculous issues like death panels and rationed care:

Make Medicare available to everyone under 65, but charge them a premium so it is revenue-neutral. This could be paid for by payroll taxes, or directly, or even by using up the Medicare contributions that people have already made, with the commitment to pay them back later when the recipient gets another job (this won't work out perfectly, but then, it doesn't work out now, either, and there's Medicaid for the truly indigent), but the price should be the same either way. (Fortunately, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) already know the true cost of Medicare Insurance.) It is Medicare that should have the clout to hold down costs, not a particular company - this will eliminate job lock. We already know what to expect from Medicare, so that is an informed choice. Why reinvent the wheel?

OK, maybe this is not the best plan, but the point is, it's a foundation so the wild-eyed crazies who are framing the debate don't get to continue. As Barney Frank was forced to counter to a woman at a Town Hall meeting who compared Obama to Hitler, "Talking to you would be like talking to a dining table." We should not be talking to blockheads like that at all, or if we must, we should attack hard, with no holds barred, and even distorting their distortions - since a minus and a minus make a plus.

*** UPDATE ***
White House Draws Line in the Sand according to HuffPo. But, what line is this? It is a line that says the President will oppose any bill that taxes those making under $250,000 for Health Care Reform. That's right, the only line the President has drawn is not over something positive, like a public option, but over a negative - something that won't happen, like taxing the majority of Americans for Health Care that Obama has said was a right. Thanks a lot, buddy. This sounds like yet another sellout to Republicans. Next you'll be hearing the White House say, "well, we never said we'd be taxing those making OVER $250,000 either..." This is not the way to reframe the debate. First, establish what health care reform MUST have, THEN figure out how to pay for it, or maybe at the same time, but this is ridiculous. Pretty soon, they'll be talking about what health care they'll leave us with, instead of how to get health care to those who don't have it and improving it for those who do.

Authors Website: http://newthinking.blogspot.com/

Authors Bio:

Scott Baker is a Managing Editor & The Economics Editor at Opednews, and a former blogger for Huffington Post, Daily Kos, and Global Economic Intersection.

His anthology of updated Opednews articles "America is Not Broke" was published by Tayen Lane Publishing (March, 2015) and may be found here:

http://www.americaisnotbroke.net/

Scott is a former and current President of Common Ground-NY (http://commongroundnyc.org/), a Geoist/Georgist activist group. He has written dozens of articles for Common Ground's national publication, GroundSwell, and has advocated for the Georgist Land Value Tax to public and political audiences.

A complete list of his publications can be found here:

Click Here

He is also New York State Coordinator and Senior Advisor for the Public Banking Institute

Click Here, which seeks to promote Public Banking. The PBI is chaired by another OEN blogger, Ellen Brown.
Scott has appeared on TV/Radio and in in-person Presentations to explain the principles of Georgism, Greenbacking, and State Banking. These may also be found on his personal blog: http://newthinking.blogspot.com/

Scott has a dozen progressive petitions on Change.org which may be found here:

http://chn.ge/10nUAmJ

Scott was an I.T. Manager for a major New York university for over two decades where he earned a Certificate for Frontline Leadership.

He had a video game published in Compute! Magazine: Click Here

Scott is a graduate and adjunct faculty of the Henry George School of Social Science in New York City.

Scott is a modern-day Renaissance Man with interests in economics, science and all future-forward topics.

He has been called an "adept syncretist" by Kirkus Discoveries for his novel, NeitherWorld - a two-volume opus blending Native American myth, archaeological detail, government conspiracy, with a sci-fi flair http://amzn.to/10nUoDV

Scott grew up in New York City and Pennsylvania. He graduated with honors and a Bachelor's degree in Psychology from Pennsylvania State University and was a member of the Psychology honor society PSI CHI.

Today he is an avid bicyclist and ride co-leader in a prominent bike advocacy organization.

Technorati code: a72h4zxgud