We had a very frank conversation with Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz on The Young Turks. We talked about whether it makes sense to reach out to Republicans or if it's a poor strategy, we talked about corporatism inside the Democratic Party and we talked about the state of the health care bill in Congress.
She had several newsworthy things to say about the health care bill. First, she was very clear on how the House intended to proceed in regards to the Senate:
"There is no way that we are going to trust them. No way. I mean, the Senate bill is dead, DOA as a stand alone bill. We are not passing that in the house. The speaker has said that. We are not passing the Senate bill without making sure that the Senate passes that reconciliation bill."
She was also pessimistic about the idea of including the public option in the new proposed reconciliation bill in the Senate:
"We don't have the votes for the public option in the Senate."
Now, remember we were told earlier that the Senate easily had 51 votes for the public option but that we needed 60 votes in the Senate because of the big, bad Republicans. Now, all of a sudden we don't have 50 votes. If it only needed 40 votes, or 30 or 20, we still wouldn't have it. Why? Because the corporations run the place. The rest is all smoke and mirrors.
Even outside of the newsworthy elements of this interview, I think you're going to enjoy the brutally honest conversation we had here with Rep. Wasserman Schultz. I don't post very many interviews here, part of the reason I'm posting this one is because I think it's enlightening in several ways about how Congress works.
Watch More TYT Interviews Here
Follow Cenk Uygur on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TheYoungTurks
To those on this thread who are casting aspersions on her and resorting to cliched labeling and name calling, you are just as much a part of the problem as Lieberman, Blue Dog Dems and intransigent Republicans.
Wasserman clearly lays out the moral imperative of insuring as many as possible, fair coverage for women, pre-existing conditions, etc. Progressives who are determined to kill the bill are willing to toss these people under the bus to make an obvious point that we all already understand and deplore. Corporate corruption of the process is a given, but we shouldn't let that stop us from doing as much as can be achieved in this round. It is not the end if we pass a bill, only the beginning.
It appeared to me that Schultz became HONEST with herself for the first time when it came to the major flaws in this plan. She seemed at the end quite panicky and confused to me. And her retreat and bail didn't look so confident either---sorry. The point is is that we could avoid this gamble Schultz and her ilk are taking with our lives through a simple public option. She's the one playing poker and speculating, not us. This plan = too much guess work, IMO.
The "we want to throw people under the bus" red herring is ridiculous. That's like if "our" side were to say of "your" side that you want corporations to have even more power so that more poor people will die in the long run. Please, bring down the "you are evil" theatrics.
Progressives don't want the middle class enslaved to insurers, all in the name of more crap insurance that nobody will probably be able to use. How complicated is that?
Or, as Greenwald (as always) put it so succinctly: progressives oppose the Senate bill because we *don't think it will make things better*. How hard is that?
What is really ridiculous is the armchair analysis that Wasserman "became HONEST with herself for the first time..." If you really think she isn't completely conversed in all of the pros of cons of the bills in their current states I don't know what to tell you.
Finally your "you want corporations to have even more power so that more poor people will die in the long run" is a logical fallacy with absolutely no basis in merit or fact .
"You are evil theatrics" indeed.
With the Senate bill, which still needs to be scrubbed, you have a plan that doesn't impose a brand-new national healthcare plan, that does a decent job of spreading out the costs of the bill to all people, and does so in a way that CBO not only says is able to pay for itself in the ten year budget window, but also shows data that leads CBO to seeing the bill cut costs over the following ten years by $600 billion- $1 trillion dollars.
I maybe thinking to far ahead, but many of the reasons that people in the Democratic caucus used to vote against the House bill, are addressed in the Senate bill. If the left of the caucus doesn't hold this thing hostage, I don't see why the Senate bill can't pass the House, with the Senate following through with the patch.
But then again, this is also the same House Democrat Caucus that has been trying to bring back the "public option" fight, so you never know.
Yes, Nelson, Lieberman, Landreiu, and Lincoln were all for sure, no votes for a public option. Still right under those 4 Democrats, there was a coalition of about 7-9 Democratic Senators who were "squishy" votes against the public option, as a consequence of Medicare rates in their states and communities being so far below the cost of health services that their local hospitals would be severely hampered with any kind of policy that would take the below-market rates for care for senior citizens in the Medicare system, and take those to impact the entire insurance market. By any decent count, that's a pool of 11-13 Democratic Senators who would be inclined to oppose a "public option" in any form.
Hate to say i told you so.
Now, if those were liars, well, we can't help it if Senators are mostly crooked sacks of sh*t. But you can't say we didn't have enough votes to pass a PO through reconciliation. We did, and we do. It's just that, as Cenk slyly points out, the "we don't have enough votes" charade was always the pretense to be used to make sure Our Friends in Insurance got the sweetheart deal that Rahm promised them earlier this year.
The House is less so, but the Senate health care bill was *always* just a kabuki show -- outcome predetermined -- designed to give Rahm *exactly* the deal he worked out with PhRMA and AHIP earlier in the year; 30 million new customers *mandated by law*, and no real meaningful reins on what they can do (let alone a real public option or, god forbid, single payer).
That is why the Senate bill, in its current form, must die. There must be a real political cost to Rahm and Obama for trying to ram this piece of corporate shillery down our throats and call it "reform." In the meantime, while we wait and hope for a less corrupt White House and Congress, we can pass incremental Medicare/Medicaid improvements (through reconciliation, if need be) to help the poorest and most vulnerable in our society -- without making wage slaves of the entire middle class.
In the US for-profit health care system , this surgery costs $20-30,000. Checking out prices in Canada and Mexico the same surgery costs $5 -15,000 including travel costs. She needs the surgery and will spend her combined emergency fund and life's savings on it . she may also be forced to take out a loan to cover the rest. She has two small children.
My neighbor will not the first American to travel abroad for surgery. Check the web for ads for people seeking affordable medical treatment abroad. The fact is, it's working class Americans who are forced to travel abroad to receive affordable health care.
Joe Lieberman, Harry Reid and the other Democrats along with Republicans in the Senate who let them get away with putting insurance corporations first just don't care about the American quality of life. Voters need to send every single one of these corporate parasites packing.
This is NOT progressive legislation; it is a handout to the insurance companies, pure and simple.
It apparently was written decades ago, yet still has direct relevance to the situation today. We're it not for the word restraints imposed by Huff, I would just cut and paste it here. Since that can't be done I urge people to google it, and read it for themselves.
or the updated version is here http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=454
Seems like nothing changes.
Sadly, it also underscores the sorry state of affairs in Congress as to health insurance reform: A Democrat in the progressive mainstream doesn't see that without a public option, the legislation now under consideration is of no value whatever to the average American. If un-cancelable insurance that can't be withheld because of a pre-existing condition isn't affordable, it's of no earthly use. And without competition--the very bedrock of actual capitalism--there's no earthly reason for our health insurance to magically become affordable--and remain affordable.
I can't believe that DWS doesn't see that--but I'm glad, Cenk, that you do!
Uygur, who deserves his own prime-time television show, underscores the fallacies of the measure, especially its cost-containment failure, and leaves Wasserman Schultz grasping and then beating a hasty retreat.
The truth of America's for-profit health insurance system is that 30 percent of our health care premiums go straight into the coffers of big insurance companies, who deliver not one band-aid, not one aspirin, not one ounce of actual health care.
We need government-run, single-payer, universal insurance. We need to treat medical coverage as a right, not a privilege. We need to eliminate the profiteers.
The most telling part of Cenk's interview was the exchange in which he infers we've been punked by the more moderate Senate democrats when they claim they have 51 votes but not 60. On this point, the Congresswoman acknowledeges there aren't 60 Senate votes but never really responds to Cenk's point about the 51.
Here's another sad truth: There isn't really even a simple Senate majority in favor of a public option. Among the 57 or 58 who would ostensibly support such a measure are at least a few merely using Conservadems for cover. They're every bit the corporate shills that Max Baucus and Joe Lieberman are.
This failed legislation brought to you by the Democratic wing of Big Insurance.
Thanks, Cenk. Great interview.
By the end I think Schultz was frightened by a sudden epiphany she had---realizing how deluded and full of cognitive dissonance her mind is. How her entrenched, hypnotically induced political tunnel vision is blocking very important realities from her mind.
She tried to counter with, "After this is all over, Cenk, I'll come back on your show so you can apologize." Cenk then replies, "I'll make a wager with you Congresswoman---if my insurance premiums go down after 2 years, I'll pay for your coverage. However, if my insurance premiums go up---you have to pay for MY coverage."
Shultz had a melt down and said, "Well, I have to go now, Cenk."---scurrying away.
This would be funny, if wasn't true---just check out the video above. Our system, quite simply, is broken.
This interview is at the very least---BRILLIANT!
Unless the Dems somehow improve the economic situation and quickly, it will be a very sad next election day. As sad as the 2008 election day was happy or worse.
The one thing I did agree with in Rep Wasserman Schulz's interview is her contention that if Obama keeps publicly trying to get the Rs on board and they continue to rebuff him (which they will), that will at least give the Dems something to run on in November. But that is just a shortsighted diversion. Obama and the Ds will have to accomplish much more of Obama's campaign pledges especially health care and fix the economy or the Ds will lose power for a very long time.
If Obama spends the coming year trying to make nice to Repubs instead of exorcising some muscle, nothing will get done this year either.
Progressive?
another Liar Pants on Fire