Damn good advice for the Dems over at LiberalOasis :

The main principle of the current strategy is that ?There Is No Crisis,? meaning that there is no pressing need to cut a bad deal with people who can?t be trusted to protect Social Security.

A secondary argument has been that Medicare is clearly closer to crisis than Social Security and we should be talking about that instead.

That?s been said largely to sharpen the point that Social Security isn?t in crisis.

But why not take that argument to the next logical step? To be specific:

1. Declare the Social Security debate over, as the public has clearly rejected privatization and is not demanding any immediate action.

2. In turn, announce that Dems will no longer participate in any Social Security hearings on Capitol Hill, or any Social Security debates in the media.

3. At the same time, unveil a comprehensive senate plan (or perhaps, multiple plans) to control the skyrocketing cost of health care and to prevent the Medicare trust fund from becoming insolvent in 2020.

4. Announce a series of senate-led hearings on Medicare, with an open invitation for Republicans to participate if they like.

When doing something this bold, I think the Democrats would do well to choose their words carefully. Sure, declaring the President’s Social Security plan dead is a good start, but it would be a mistake to state that they will “no longer participate” in the SS debate. A far better way of describing this action is that the Democrats will stop wasting time on plans that the public has now twice rejected¹ and instead refocus on more important priorities.

I’d also be careful about focusing on Medicare. As awful as Bush’s Medicare bill was, it was supported by 11 Democrats. The bipartisan nature of this bill make the Democrats look as bad as the Republicans. Since Medicare is in much worse financial shape than Social Security, here’s two suggestions :

Bring up the fact that the Bush Administration lied about the cost of the bill and threatened to fire their Medicare actuary for telling the truth. It’s a good excuse for any Dems who want to sneak back onto the right side of this issue, but we all know how well the “Bush lied to us” excuse has worked in the past…

Get some Republicans on board. While the Medicare giveaway passed with 11 senate votes, there were also 9 dissenting Republican votes. Partnering up with some of those GOP senators like Trent Lott, John McCain, Lincoln Chafee, and Lindsey Graham could give Medicare reform the bipartisan cred it needs to stand out ahead of Social Security. Then again, the chances of finding common ground with those Republicans on Medicare is very slim.

When all is said and done, I think Medicare is too much of a political minefield to really provide Democrats the political shelter they’d desire. Since they’re not really in a position to push through policies anyways, I think they’d be better off approaching the idea of universal healthcare in broad terms.

The worse that can be said is that they are addressing tough issues for political purposes (and they can always throw Karl Rove?s favorite quote back in his face: ?Good policy is good politics.?)

And all that keeps Dems on the offensive and the GOP on the defensive.

The key to this strategy is having the guts to put a comprehensive health care proposal on the table. As Matthew Yglesias has noted, it?s ?genuinely hard to figure out what we should do.?

That?s why, instead of proposing one plan, it may be easier to propose a few plans from across the Democratic party?s ideological spectrum, then use the makeshift hearing process to air out the pros and cons.

While the hearings should have the ostensible purpose of finding the best plan, I think that should be secondary to making the case to the American public that our current health care system is broken. For the Dems, this means treading in some unfamiliar waters, since appealing to the public requires more style than substance. But there’s plenty of ways to approach this :

Have CEO’s testify about how much their corporations spend on health care costs for their employees each year. Use this to push home the point that universal healthcare would be good for business.

Subpoena the heads of HMOs, hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies and make them reveal under oath the amount of healthcare costs that are wasted in administrative costs, lobbying efforts, marketing, and figuring out new ways to deny sick people the care they need.

Bring in some average citizens to tell their stories about how a loved one died of a preventable disease because our country doesn’t provide health care for all of its citizens.

Invite the health care ministers from France, Britain, Canada, and Germany to talk about the specifics of their country’s health care plans. Use this to debunk urban myths about long lines, poor coverage, etc. Additionally, have officials from the OECD or the UN discuss how the United States compares with other industrialized countries in terms of protecting its citizens.

Have the heads of Medicare and Medicaid testify about how much taxpayers already pay for healthcare. Compare this against the healthcare expenditures for other countries.

Granted, this may seem like a wonky series of hearings, but all the Dems have to do is throw enough sugar in there to get the media to show up. If CEOs are testifying, make sure to invite Donald Trump or Bill Gates. If you have a bunch of doctors testifying, throw Dr. Phil into the mix. Yeah, it’s vapid, but it’ll get people to pay attention.

The unavailability of heath care is the most pressing problem our country faces today. Not only does it constitute a crisis in terms of our country’s overall health, but it poses significant moral and economic problems as well. If the Democrats ever want to break out from the pack and be seen as the party of visionary ideas again, they need to make the case to the American public that the direction our country is headed is unsustainable. The first step toward this goal is to stop wasting time on the President’s pet project and start setting the agenda.

^{1 : This is an important point to hit. The current debate is about a second plan. Bush’s first idea was to divert money from Social Security into private accounts and add trillions to the national debt to make up for the shortfall. The new idea is to drastically cut the benefits for the majority of SS beneficiaries and transform it Social Security from a form of social insurance to welfare. The public has rejected both of these plans by a wide margin.}