Why I Defend Obamacare and Plan To Fight For It As Hard As I Can
It's all about the pre-existing conditions. It always has been and it always will be. Like the young mother who was told most people with pre-existing conditions brought them on themselves, I also have a son with pre-existing conditions, and those conditions would, under the system we have today, make it impossible for him to pursue his chosen career or possibly even to function.
The Past
In the summer of 2009, our college-age son suddenly became ill. At first we thought it was just a case of the flu, but it went on for weeks, and came with rapid weight loss. He's not really a towering giant to begin with and always had difficulty keeping weight on, but he lost nearly 40 pounds in six weeks. I had been laid off from my job in December, 2008 and our COBRA payments were $1700 per month for our family. My husband was self-employed and we were unable to get any insurance from any insurer anywhere. It was then that our COBRA administrator notified us that our coverage was canceled, claiming they'd received my payment one day late.
There we were with no insurance, a very sick son, and little in the way of resources to help him.
After draining a chunk of my 401k for doctor bills, he was diagnosed with ulcerative colitis. It's a horrible disease with genetic causes. There is no lifestyle change he made that "brought it on himself." It's autoimmune and genetic. Worse yet, the medications for ulcerative colitis caused him to become diabetic. While it's likely that he may have already had unknown glucose tolerance issues, the medications exacerbated it to the point where he was forced to inject insulin to keep his glucose levels in check. He was nineteen years old, a musician majoring in jazz studies with hopes to move on to a career in music education and performance once he finished school, wrestling with life-threatening chronic conditions.
Musicians are self-employed as a general rule. His medications were $600 per month, plus test strips and syringes for the insulin. And no hope for insurance.
That was 2009. Since January of 2010, the ulcerative colitis has been in remission, he's regained his lost weight and managed to wean off the colitis medications and with it, the insulin injections. Also, my spouse had gotten a job with health insurance that would at least cover catastrophic illness with an attached health savings account.
Because of the Affordable Care Act, we were able to keep our son on our policy and are grateful that we'll be able to through 2014, when he will be able to get his own insurance. But it doesn't end there.
The Present
As I said, things were definitely moving in the right direction. Having insurance of any kind is way better than having none, particularly with kids in or heading to college and one of them uninsurable under today's standards. Since the rest of us only needed routine checkups and no expensive medications, we were able to sock the maximum into the HSA and just use it for glasses or doctor visits.
Then the ulcerative colitis flared up just before Thanksgiving. Because he knew what the problem was this time, he immediately made an appointment with the gastroenterologist, got new prescriptions for the medications, and paid a visit to our general practitioner along with a few visits to the lab. That sucked a couple of thousand dollars right out of the HSA, because our deductible is high and hadn't been met. The price of the meds had gone up since 2010, so we were looking at about $700/month for the UC and diabetes, and then another couple of hundred for medications to treat the skin eruptions, a side effect of one of the medications.
The deductible rolled on January 1st. We had just hit the 2011 deductible at the end of December when it rolled, so all of the January expenses hit under the new deductible. Also, this time around the glucose levels were not stabilized well at all, causing our family doctor to recommend a continuous monitoring system, which one can obtain for the low, low price of $1,800 if, and only if, the insurance company approves it, which they did.
In two short months, the money we'd managed to put away was rapidly depleted, and we were getting to a point where we would be putting money into the HSA at a slower rate than it was coming out, at least until all deductibles were met.
He's an adult. We didn't spare any details on what the expenses are, and as you might imagine, he was pretty frustrated at the idea that two years' worth of savings were being drained in two months. Frustrated, and he felt badly about it too. In one conversation, we asked him what he would do if he weren't on our insurance. His answer? "I wouldn't take the medications."
That's unacceptable. Not taking the medications means death or hospitalization, not to mention the serious worry and grief we as parents would have over him. He's our son. What parent wouldn't do whatever they could to make sure he stayed healthy?
It was in that conversation that I realized how important the future was to all of us, how absolutely different things would be once 2014 was here and the full provisions of the Affordable Care Act took hold.
It is literally the difference between life and death, dependence and independence.
The Future
In 2014, he will be eligible for his own policy under the Affordable Care Act. He's working now while finishing up his degree, but it's critical that he maintain his health if he ever hopes to either have a performance or teaching career. Fortunately he also composes and transcribes music, so he has been able to keep some money coming in even when he's dealing with the flare, but those are not his life's ambitions.
I imagined what it would mean in 2014, assuming his income level is similar to what it is now, or even just starting out on a career path.
- Instead of paying exhorbitant rates for insurance, he will be able to obtain it at a subsidized rate. If his income is where it is now, he'll be able to be covered under the Medicaid expansion with very little monthly outlay.
- Instead of paying $2,500 up front before any part of anything is covered, he will be eligible for reasonable copayments and much of those will also be subsidized until he is earning a salary that allows him to pay more himself.
- Instead of feeling guilty about chewing through his parents' medical savings, he will be able to get the care he needs as a matter of course along with the medications he needs to control the disease.
- Instead of limiting himself to a career in whatever job he can get with health insurance, he can consider being self-employed or pursuing those dreams he's had since he was very young without worrying that he will find himself unable to pay for health care.
- Instead of putting our savings toward maintaining his health, we can begin to consider putting some toward retirement, or our health, or just socking it away for a rainy day.
That's change I can believe in. You bet. In fact, as I was considering how different life would be and walking through that list with him, tears of gratitude welled up.
It's not perfect, Obamacare, but readers, it's a damn sight better than what we've got right now, and insurers know it. Republicans know it. That's why they're so committed to destroying it. It's the pre-existing conditions. When those go away and policies actually have to cover things that keep people from living full lives, it begins to change those lives and through that change, progress happens.
Whatever you may think about President Obama or the Affordable Care Act, please consider my story to be only one of millions out there. The story I've told here is only mine, but it's not the only one. There is Susie Madrak, who is insured (or will be) because of the high-risk pool bridge to 2014. There is our son. There are others -- many, many others -- who have the same kinds of stories to tell. These aren't trivial. They're life or death stories. They matter. We matter.
This is why I will defend the Affordable Care Act and Barack Obama, and work as hard as I can to re-elect him. I cannot imagine a world where we regress back to a time where people were denied the right to health care without going bankrupt or worse. It's not perfect, but it's worlds better than what we have today, or yesterday.
Crossposted to MOMocrats.com
I am sorry you have to go through this. It is every parent's nightmare. It seems like you are coping. I don't know if I could.
I know you would be fully behind Obama Care without your problems. What unfortunately is needed is for Right Wingers to have to go through this and understand how it works and helps people who would be crewed without it. Then those Right Wingers have to pass along the information they have and relate to other Right Wingers and anybody who thinks Obama Care is bad that it is literally (Not in the Rick Perry sense) a lifesaver and a home saver and a family saver etc.
I am sorry Capt. but I think you are wrong about if Right Wingers had to go through this they would have a better understanding. Most of the Right Wingers I have met over my lifetime feel deserving of all the government and non government programs they have received, BUT, they feel that they are not the same as all of the other people that have received the same benefits. They worked hard and deserve all they got, the others were given benefits they did not work for. Everyone else if scamming the system and they are paying for it. When ask how many people at those Tea Party events had to admit they were 100% living off the government but still thought everyone else should be cut off?
You're right Ray . They are morally and ethically superior ( in their stupid and ignorant minds ) .
Insanity , it is what it is , there is no understanding it .
When the Affordable Care Act was being diluted by the very people who first proposed it, I got into a screaming match in the foyer at my church.
A woman who I love dearly was telling me that America didn't need European style socialist medicine. She couldn't understand why she or other contributing members of society should help people who wouldn't work get health care.
She asked me what I would call someone who lives off of other people's labors.
I told her that I call them military spouses.
Guess what she was.
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Well played.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
given how Jesus never clarified what his exact position on helping the less fortunate was.
CTHULHU 2012 "Why vote for a lesser evil?"
See Mark 14:3-9
As far as the authors of the synoptic gospels can be trusted, and they're the best we have, Jesus was a very sharp guy with his heart in the right place but he was also a self-important jerk sometimes.
It's all about the pre-existing conditions. It always has been and it always will be.
No, it's all about affordability. Under the "Affordable" Care Act, people who can afford health insurance can get it despite having a pre-existing condition. Poor people are still fucked. They made room at the big person table for a couple more chairs. That's all.
buy insurance in the AHC act. If there were not they'd be in exactly the same position as before wouldn't they? So poor people are not quite so fucked as they were before. The other provisions that eliminate rescisssion, or make insurance for pre-existing conditions impossible to obtain and the constraints on medical loss ratios are what make this a winner. If it weren't the Republican would not be making the reversal of this act the central feature of their presidential platform. AHC is a huge step forward. Not huge enough for many but still well worth it. They call this progress. I'm not sure why it offends so many people who call themselves progressive.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
The guidelines for poor people getting help through ACA vary from state to state. Here in Illinois, it works this way:
Who can receive free or reduced cost care through the Hill-Burton program?
Eligibility for Hill-Burton free or reduced cost care is based on a person's family size and income. Income is calculated based on your actual income for the last 12 months or your last 3 month's income times 4, whichever is less. You may qualify if your income falls within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services poverty guidelines or, at some facilities, if your income is as much as twice (or triple for nursing home services) the poverty guidelines. For complete information on the Hill-Burton program, including the list of facilities obligated to provide it and a link to the poverty guidelines, please see the Hill-Burton Web site.
You have to be practically indigent to get it for free. The working poor are hosed.
that there is a long way to go on this BDM but I still think it was a huge step forward. I respect your opinion about what was achieved as much as I disagree with you about what was achievable given the makeup of congress at the time the bill was passed.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
"...given the makeup of congress at the time the bill was passed."
And therein lies the rub. Strong Democratic majorities, but with "Democrats" like Evan Bayh, whose wife is an executive at WellPoint, and Blanche motherfucking Lincoln and Mary motherfucking Landrieu, etc. etc. -- people who can't pass an 8th grade civics exam.
The majorities meant nothing if the conservative wing of the Democratic party was part of them and they were. A big part. Remember Baucus? Remember Stupak? They weren't the only ones either. I'm not sure why the progressive wing of the Democratic party came to think that they were in charge and the more conservative members were obligated to follow the progressive lead. It wasn't the progressive's party and it still isn't.This was one of the most protracted and painful negotiations ever to take place with a party caucus and the fact that anything was accomplished at all was amazing given the solid obstructionism of the Republicans and the composition of the Democratic caucuses.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
Read it again.
I'm still not sure why you think conservative Democrats had an obligation to support the progressive wing of the Democrats. If the constituencies that elected those conservadems had wanted progressives they would have elected them. They didn't.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
The fact that so many members of Congress in both parties are beholden to their corporate benefactors is why "health care reform" became "health care industry welfare."
am an idiot for not seeing that. The next evolution in health care reform in the US will require a political shift to the left and a large one. That might take a while or it might not. Once the current bill is fully implemented then people might decide they quite like it and be predisposed to continue. Or it could satisfy enough people to remain static for a while. We'll see. And sorry for missing your point.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
.
...and states will have to conform to receive Medicaid funding.
Due to a workplace injury that resulted in a permanent condition, I wasn't able to work for about 3 years. Now I can't get a job at all. I have no income other than food stamps. I cannot get on Medicaid. It's just flat out not available to me. My condition has flared up and is getting progressively worse, and I can't do a damn thing about it because there is NO health care option for me.
Medicaid is not the solution most people seem to think it is. It's restricted to a very specific chunk of the population, and nobody else can get access to it. What we need is UNIVERSAL health care - accessible to EVERYONE, regardless of who they are or what their problem is.
There's always free cheddar in the mousetrap, baby. - Tom Waits
Follow the links here.
The ACA definition is somewhat different. It subsidizes insurance 100% for anyone earning less than 133% of the poverty level. In other words, people like Excelsior who do not qualify under current Medicaid definition would qualify under the ACA subsidies.
Because for many everything is black or white , it's all or it's nothing . Completely unrealistic .
Insanity , it is what it is , there is no understanding it .
How is that fucking them?
133% of poverty level will have fully subsidized health insurance and copayments. That's helping, not hurting them.
. . . and Medicaid is dying on the vine as we type. States can't afford their portion of the financing and fewer health care providers are accepting it every day.
Worse still, both parties seem quite willing to make further cuts to Medicaid.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
If you make $8 per hour, you're above the poverty level. Therefore, minimum wage earners do not qualify for free or I don't think even reduced coverage. Plus, you have to wade through a mountain of paperwork and wait for someone to review it and all that crap.
Who can receive free or reduced cost care through the Hill-Burton program?
Eligibility for Hill-Burton free or reduced cost care is based on a person's family size and income. Income is calculated based on your actual income for the last 12 months or your last 3 month's income times 4, whichever is less. You may qualify if your income falls within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services poverty guidelines or, at some facilities, if your income is as much as twice (or triple for nursing home services) the poverty guidelines. For complete information on the Hill-Burton program, including the list of facilities obligated to provide it and a link to the poverty guidelines, please see the Hill-Burton Web site.
Basically, what you are saying is ACA helped you, so no criticism is valid. It's a shitty diluted Republican plan.
What I am saying is that it helped, is helping and will help me and millions of others, despite its imperfections. What I am saying is that it is a step forward, even if it's not a big enough step forward for everyone.
What I am saying is that repealing it would cause a great deal of harm to me, my family and many others.
That is what I'm saying.
That's what I'm saying.
I'm not saying it's perfect but dammit, if they succeed and repeal this it's going to be hell on wheels for way too many people.
Susie's insurance will go away. Ours will, too, and our son will have to manage the best he can. That's just two out of millions.
the people who opposed the Iraq War simply because they had a kid in the military as opposed to opposing the war on principal. It affects them personally, so they're against it. Makes me think their opinion would be different if not for their personal connection to it.
and FTR, I opposed the Iraq war because it was an invention of Dubya to put troops into a place we had no business being. I opposed Afghanistan, too, because I had enough knowledge of that region to know it was chasing after the wind and wouldn't do anything but cost lives and more lives.
I'm not special. There's nothing special about me at all, or my family. Nothing unique. I can point to my neighbor's house down the street and they're affected. My best friend from childhood is affected. The total stranger in the supermarket is affected.
This is what I'm saying: Millions will be better off because of this. Millions. My story just personalizes what will be true for millions of others.
I think it's still settling for the wheelbarrow when you were promised a pickup truck. A few people will be able to make due with it and be better off than they were before, but we are still 50 fucking years behind every other Western industrialized nation, just like with gays in the military and vacation time and a bunch of other shit. It's a fucked state of affairs and nothing to defend or celebrate.
So what you are saying is that if you can't have everything, you shouldn't have anything? Why try at all? That's ridiculous. Very few things change overnight. Nationwide changes take years.
Brave Lady Liberty who carries her forever-lit torch of enlightenment, freedom, and hope. "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me."
luckily strawmen are instantaneous, right?
CTHULHU 2012 "Why vote for a lesser evil?"
had been passed.
One should be very careful when playing the appeal to emotion argument game...
CTHULHU 2012 "Why vote for a lesser evil?"
that is illogical. You are suggesting either that the staus quo is preferable to an imperfect change that benefits millions, or that what passed made millions worse off because the bill was not "real reform." Neither is the case.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
where you tell people to be careful about using illogical language, and then you proceed to use language that is completely void of logic anyway.
CTHULHU 2012 "Why vote for a lesser evil?"
I doubt Karoli's views would be any different even if none of her own were helped by it . It's not helping me or mine one little iota right now but I'm glad we made some progress , and it is progress , a whole lot of people are going to benefit from this as it is , it's a beginning hopefully .
Insanity , it is what it is , there is no understanding it .
We have to remain unified. If we do what the Dem party always does, we're screwed. We start here. We start now. We all have disagreements. And that's ok. That's who we are. But, we have to get past the disagreements and unify to accomplish the objective of getting universal healthcare. We can always discuss the pro's and cons of legislation. But, we need to be unified 100% to change the healthcare in this country.
Cause we all know, if we don't, it ain't gonna happen.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
I second kreskin and mudshark. I want universal health care, but we gotta start somewhere.
I third what Kreskin, Muddy, and Sierra Matt said. It is a start. Now we must focus on the next small step.
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
man , you got that right . You have to be living under the freeway for all practical purposes , I found that out . On the other hand , I know a family of free loaders , old friends of mine from the hippie days ( they never grew out of it ) , working for a living ( working for the man ) has always been out of the question for them , almost no employment record between them , they get WA. state provided medical which is quite good , get assistance with telephone and electric , food stamps , have no kids , are all healthy adults , own the house they inherited , I don't stop in but maybe twice a year these days but it seems that they can afford wine and pot , eat better than me and my wife can afford to . Go figure . I don't know how they do it , pays to know the ropes I guess ? I imagine they subsidize what they get from the state with dope sales , I dunno , I don't want to know . Needless to say it's a really screwed up system .
Insanity , it is what it is , there is no understanding it .
Please point out where this fully subsidized plan is, because I really need to get on it. And keep in mind that I can't pay ANY co-payments, because I have NO income at all other than food stamps.
There's always free cheddar in the mousetrap, baby. - Tom Waits
and actually, it's 138% of the FPL. http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/8168.pdf (PDF)
as poor as it is I had to go to a CashforGold place the other day to sell stuff for 30% of it's worth - that and I almost had my license suspended for lack of insurance (no money - what can you do?). Yeah, I can't wait to pay for a mandate that will meet some type of "minimum" requirement - or get fined.
That works out real well. No matter how you look at it, we are still 50 years behind the rest of the other industrialized nations.
but this still moves the piece closer to the goal.
Sucks, doesn't it? Having to chose between eating and making sure State Farm/Geico etc can continue to lobby against you?
Hang in there man.
"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
Just the other day someone came into the office and was moaning about the state of affairs and I said "Hey, what am I going to do, close and go home? I don't think so."
We'll keep fighting till things turn around or I die. Whichever comes first. The good news is we sold our first load of manufactured product just yesterday - but I have to wait for the check to clear thus the CashforGold scam.
I'm stoked for you.
I know all about getting those kind of checks. I'll tell you some horror stories sometime and how i dealt with them. You'll crack up. ;)
What is your conceptual, continuity?
I appreciate it.
all of us here are pullin for ya bud.
You're not the only one livin on the razors edge.
In fact, I go back to work on Monday. I just got the call.
BEER TIME!!!!!! ;)
What is your conceptual, continuity?
Have one for me,man. Just coughed my last $65 to Motel 6 for tonite's rent and no work this week. Filing for UI tomoro.
"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
In fact, I just did. And I'll do it again. Just for you bud. ;)
now, where did I put that pipe? ;)
What is your conceptual, continuity?
;)
"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
Hang in there.
I'm guessing that if I tell my boss I'm gonna file, he'll find some cash to cough up... Been down this road before, and it never gets paved...
"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
(even if it's just a little bit) every time someone files a claim. Getting some cash would be a good option.
Have one for me.
I've always found it's good to get to know a local pawnbroker. Even if it's just taking something small/cheap in, pawn it and pay it off quickly. It helps to get a face-to-face relationship with that kind of guy when you may need to pawn something bigger. High rates? Sure, but at least it's a personal relationship (unlike c. card companies).
My pawnbroker in West Palm Beach was a good guy. I'd take my company's equipment in on a regular basis. He was always saying, "Well, let me guess-- they didn't pay you again..." LOL...
"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
.
The good news is we sold our first load of manufactured product just yesterday - but I have to wait for the check to clear
Great news and hope the cheque does clear.
far left loon >.<
Your article brought a tear to my eye. We are going through much of the same thing. My husband is 61 and has had MS for about 30 years.As far as we can tell, he did nothing to bring it on himself. We are currently on Cobra as his company shut it's doors back in March. Our Cobra is extremely high but at least we have it. When Cobra runs out we will be paying for our own insurance. Again, we expect it to be very expensive but thanks to the new health care we WILL be able to get it. He one weekly shot would be over 60,000 per year without insurance.
The healthcare law is not perfect and I have to admit I was very disappointed in it at first. Further reading brought the discovery of just how clever it had been written. Basically, it is going to bring about a single payer system. Yeah.
I, too, will be working to re-elect President Obama.
You and your family are in our prayers.
MS isn't something lifestyle brings on either, and treatments are horribly expensive. I can't wait until you don't have to choose between your life savings and treatments.
Many hugs.
I was under the impression that this federal legislation applied the same to all states. That the "standard" coverage would be the same whether one lived in California, New York or Alabama. According to this article from the Los Angeles Times this past Tuesday, this is not the case:
http://www.latimes.com/health/la-fi-lazarus-2...
Rather than have the federal government guarantee that certain standards for policies and pricing are met nationwide — ensuring that all Americans receive equitable coverage no matter where they live — the White House says it's content to let each state call its own shots.
"Our approach will protect consumers and give states the flexibility to design coverage options that meet their unique needs," said Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of Health and Human Services.
I was also under the impression, when the law was finally passed, that without a "Super Majority" of votes in the Senate, the law could NOT be changed in ANY way for ten years. Yet it seems that Obama has unilaterally changed it.
I think we should all be very clear that the standard of care through any for-profit insurance "exchanges" will NOT be the same in Alabama as in New York.
"The US has an army of 90,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and is spending $100bn a year, but has still been unable to defeat 20,000-25,000 Taliban who receive no pay at all." - Patrick Cockburn
The idea is to give states some leeway in setting the benefits for specific conditions that may be more common in their state. They still have a baseline, and the national option still exists for anyone looking on the exchanges.
I think we should refrain from using right wing slurs like "Obamacare". It's the Affordable Care Act.
Otherwise, great post.
That motion. I'm sure that Frank Luntz came up with the term in one of his republican wet dreams and we don't need to repeat it here.
agree
I 2nd that emotion.
We don't need to help Frank "the Toupee" Luntz in his efforts to slander anything that smacks of fairness or justice.
. It is the Affordable Care Act.
That was also a Luntz machination. It's global warming.
...maybe Luntz had something to say about the popularity of this term among Repubs, but my understanding was that "climate change" came from the computer models predicting greater variability in weather patterns in the near future: more tornadoes, floods, hurricanes, droughts, severe heat, and severe cold spells. The immediate impact of increasing greenhouse gases appears to be greater weather volatility,. The steadily increasing global temperatures will go largely unnoticed relative to the crazy weather.
But I could be wrong about that...
Beware of anyone promising a future full of yesterdays.
But Luntz was the one who pushed for using it in place of "global warming."
"'Global warming' suggests something more cataclysmic," he explains in this clip. "'Climate change' suggests something more gradual."
Luntz is a "language guru." He studies how to use deceptive wording as an alternative to flat-out lying.
My sister and brother-in-law are professors in the UArizona geosciences dept. focused on paleoclimatology and climate change (that's enough to Google... go ahead) and they have both long preferred "Climate Change" because it is objectively a better description. The aggregate global change is increased energy retention and hence aggregate mean temperature increase, but the most important feature is that while some places see almost no mean temperature increase, almost everyplace will see radical changes in weather. Some places are likely to net out cooler, at least for the first few decades.
The problem with "Global Warming" is related to the way that it is a cue for idiots to mock the concept when a part of the phenomenon turns out to be an increased tendency for massive snowstorms in places that a lot of people live. It sounds like an assertion that everyplace is heating up, when in fact no serious scientist believes (or says) any such thing.
... you consider the act to be a bad thing. The GOPers coined the term to tie two things they don't like together hoping that one would taint the other or that the combination would be worse than the individual parts. Throwing it back in their faces might be the best response.
This is such a huge step forward, the first in 50 years, that I think this designation would be one I would proudly display if I were the president. The only thing wrong with the ACR, in my opinion, is that the implementation timetable was too slow for everyone to see just how much of an improvement it is. Unless the Republicans can kill it before the full effect of all it's terms come into play the same thing will happen that happened in Mass., people will like it. And the Republicans can't have that.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
...because he deserves credit for this. He ought to wear the term Obamacare like a badge of honor, not something to be ashamed of.
Beat you to it. It is a badge of honor. And while we're reclaiming terms the next, I think, should be Welfare. It is used as an insult but the welfare of the citizenry is the only excuse for the existence of the nation state that exists.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
Bingo !
Insanity , it is what it is , there is no understanding it .
We oughta take the term and run with it .
Insanity , it is what it is , there is no understanding it .
President Embraces ObamaCare Label
Corruption favors the wealthy.
to hear your son is doing better. 2009 was a year from hell for me. Starting in 2008 I began loosing huge amounts of weight. I dropped from 200-down to 125 in the space of 8 months roughly. The doctor here could find nothing, Thankfully I got a referal to a GI in Calgary and she discovered I had severe Celiac disease. Our single payer system is not perfect but it does work and you won't face bankruptcy because of a severe illness
What does the Canadian healthcare system amount to ? Like it or no ? Just curious .
Insanity , it is what it is , there is no understanding it .
Which is not to say we don't have our own problems on cost control. It doesn't matter if you are rich or poor, employed or not, if you get sick you get treated. I hope your system evolves to that degree some day soon.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
Man , that's great Peter . It only seems right that a modern civilized society provide that much for it's people .I guess the key word is civilized , we are not .
Insanity , it is what it is , there is no understanding it .
Neither would I.
It would be nice if we could expand it to include dental, even basic dental, like in Europe.
far left loon >.<
What does the Canadian healthcare system amount to ? It amounts to people getting health care. I don't mean to sound trite Kreskin but that's it, in a nut shell.
The first casualty of republicanism is the truth.
Party politics are not only undemocratic, they are antidemocratic.
Even if you're homeless and don't have a dime.
far left loon >.<
I am a US and Canadian citizen. I lived in the US until 2004.
I have been very pleased with the system here in BC. The system varies somewhat from province to province. My husband and I live in a semi-rural are north of Vancouver. We pay $109 monthly.
Being an old geezer, I've had to make use of the system several times since we've been here. I've had two surgeries and a cataract removal. I have no complaints about my treatment. It's been great.
It's a single payer system. Doctors/hospitals bill the insurance (the govt) and the insurance pays them.
By the way, Medicare (the Canadian term for the overall system) started out in just one Province and was fought tooth and nail by the medical establishment. It was not perfect then or now. Medicare, the US medical insurance for old folk, was NOT perfect when it was passed and it's changed a lot since then. I just remember being so relieved when it passed that my grandparents would have medical insurance. (Believe me, pre-Medicare in both countries were grim times.)
This is a building block. We build on it. It's not perfect, but it's one step closer to universal health care. The trick is, not to be so bummed that you take your ball and go home. We keep fighting. That's the only way we'll get universal healthcare. Or, if you take your ball and go home, you might as well vote GOp. Because you're effectively acquiescing.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
I agree. Unfortunately, Democratic voters screwed us all bigtime in November 2010 by staying home instead of running full tilt to their polling places to vote Democratic straight down the ballot. Last year and this year were the years Obama should have been standing next to what FDR, JFK and LBJ had on their side from day one to pass the historic pro-American legislation they got passed; an even greater Democratic majority in the House and 65-73 Democratic seats in the Senate.
Instead, thanks to the primarily Democratic/former Obama voters staying home for those critical midterms we've been paralyzed against the Republican't attacks on The Affordable Care Act and lost invaluable ground on preventing their erosion of any popular support for it and our achieving any improvement of it. And it was so predictable that would happen, too.
Consequently, this November, when Obama squeaks through with a second term win and the Senate majority falls squarely into Republican hands the best we'll get out of the next 2-4 years will be presidential vetoes of attempt after attempt to do even more damage to healthcare reform if not outright elimination of The Affordable Care Act altogether and a massive loss in the political will or popular interest in doing anything with regard to healthcare in the USA but let the health insurance companies charge whatever the want to whomever they want without the slightest challenge or push back.
The only way that won't happen is if the Democratic voter turnout and support is so overwhelming this November we undo the horrific damage we did to ourselves in 2010 and actually vote in the sizable Democratic House majority and 65-73 Democratic Senate seats FDR, JFK and LBJ had from day one. But I honestly don't see much chance of that happening. Not after what Democratic voters did to themselves and the rest of the country in November 2010.
We need super majorities. And I mean real super majorities. 60+ in the Senate.And at least a 60% majority in the House. Plus, the people we hire/vote for/elect, need to be willing to fight like there's tomorrow for UHC(universal healthcare). Because, for some people, there is no tomorrow. Not voting says that they are not willing to fight.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
Whenever we hear Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell tell us that "Obama and the Democrats had super majorities in Congress for two years and got everything they wanted!", which he does at every opportunity, we need to remember that Mitch McConnell is a complete liar. He knows better than anyone else that Obama and the Dems did not have super majorities for those two years and did not get "everything they wanted".
But McConnell tells that lie because he knows it works to suppress the Democratic vote from voters who buckle under that easy-to-debunk lie and buy the nonsense that "See, it doesn't matter which party is in control so why bother to vote". That lie worked beautifully for Republicans in November 2010. So they will keep repeating it this year, too. Ask the union members in Wisconsin, Ohio, Florida, etc. if it matters which party is in control.
If Obama had actually been standing next to what FDR, JFK and LBJ had on day one of their presidencies, a huge Democratic majority in the House and 65-73 Democratic seats in the Senate, and still didn't get a full foot if not an entire leg into a Single Payer healthcare reform program before the end of that first year, I'd be shrugging him off, too. But that is so far from what Obama had and what Obama could have done in that first year with everything else crashing in around our ears (which he reversed and recovered) it isn't even worth debating anyone who suggests otherwise because they're too ignorant of today's political reality to support a lucid conversation about it.
We need at least 70, because we've seen what happens when we get to 60 - all it takes is a couple of Blue Dogs and we're screwed. We need to be SURE we won't get hijacked by obstructionists, and that takes bigger numbers than the squeak-under-the-wire we've had in the recent past.
There's always free cheddar in the mousetrap, baby. - Tom Waits
Exactly , so many progressives just don't get it . The last election gave the Republicon enough power to stop , block and sabotage everything and anything that Obama and the Democrats try to accomplish . People need to learn about the legislative process , Obama is not all powerful , not the great decider . Gotta remember , Bush and the Republicons had a virtual dictatorship going for six years , the Republicons had the White House , the Senate and the House , the Democrats were locked out and pretty much helpless , Obama has never had that kind of power available to him .
Insanity , it is what it is , there is no understanding it .
can have that power, second-term, if the WE he addressed in every campaign speech and since meet our responsibilities and convey super-majorities, local, state and national, both in 2012 and 2014.
Even more important about what happens when Republicans gain presence in our government, particularly when they occupy the White House and control much if not all of Congress, is that...it isn't what they DO or what legislation they get PASSED that matters. It is that they don't DO or PASS anything of significance at all. And they certainly won't pass something that is urgently needed in order to prevent the inevitable Great Republican Depression or Great Republican Recession that is sure to occur on their watch.
That is what is so infuriating about Dems who parrot the pro-Republican meme that the "stead-fast, arm-twisting, principled, spines-of-steel Republican majorities don't need super majorities to get their way" while the supposed "spineless, weak Democrats can't get what they want even with super majorities".
We must remember, the Republican agenda is that this government of, by and for the People CAN'T DO anything. Consequently, their legislation DOESN'T DO anything. They only try to pass pastry tray nonsense like "tax cuts for everybody!" and otherwise allow regulations to fall away without a vote being brought to the table. They DO NOT try to pass difficult but necessary legislation like Democrats do. Healthcare Reform, Financial Reform, etc. You won't see those "spines-of-steel" Republican majorities do anything about those issues. So they want to take credit for their "leadership" in doing nothing in office but piddling time and money-wasting legislation that is easy to find political support for because it makes their re-election easier, not harder.
And the infuriating thing is too many Democratic voters actually buy that crap and denigrate Democratic pols for it.
The only truly challenging reform legislation put forth by a Republican in the past half century was George W. Bush's self-described "mandate" in the outcome of the 2004 election to reform Social Security AFTER he got an even greater Republican majority in Congress. And how did those "spines-of-steel" Republican majorities do on that "mandate"? The whole idea was dropped in a New York minute for lack of resolve and support for it.
It sure sounded interesting during the 2004 election. By god those great "spines-of-steel" Republican reformers almost sounded like populist Democrats. But after the election? Not so much. That great "mandate" died the minute Bush went out on the trail to sell it.
"Even more important about what happens when Republicans gain presence in our government" , BINGO ! That's the deal , it's not that I am high on Obama , although he does not get enough credit for what he has accomplished , it's the friggin Republicon and what will happen if they get control . They will make Obama look like Bernie Sanders ! That's where I am coming from .
Insanity , it is what it is , there is no understanding it .
When the GOP has a majority, super majority or even a super minority (i.e., 40 votes in the Senate) they are able to wield its power almost without fail even if the margin is razor thin. The Democrats can't seem to even come close to matching that. With 60 votes in the Senate the Dems were unable to reliably block filibusters. That's what is so disconcerting for Democratic voters. Worse is that the various Democratic campaign groups are out there wasting money to help reelect the saboteurs rather than working to purge them.
They sure don't , you're right . If there is a rake laying on the ground somewhere the GD Democrats are sure to step on it .
Insanity , it is what it is , there is no understanding it .
Wield their power to do "what"? There is no example of a Republican congressional majority leading the charge and successfully passing much needed, but complex and politically risky legislation. That isn't what they think their job ought to be when they are in office. They think their job is to do nothing. And that's what they do when they are in the majority. It is also what they do everything in their power to effect when they are in a super minority, as you put it.
There is nothing Republican majorities have ever passed to be impressed about. At least not in the past Century or so. They wouldn't have the slightest idea where to begin if for some bizarre reason they suddenly took a notion to pass legislation that the country really needed badly in order to avoid a Great Depression but that was complicated, complex and carried with it serious political risk.
Healthcare Reform? When did a Republican majority ever propose and shed blood to get something like that passed? Financial Reform? The New Deal? The Civil Rights Act? Medicare/Medicaid? A near-billion dollar Stimulus Bill in the midst of another major Republican economic disaster?
You can NOT name a piece of legislation that this supposedly "superior" Republican leadership has promoted and passed that was not blissfully EASY to pass because it was designed to help them and other worried politicians get re-elected rather than what is good for the country and their political fortunes be damned.
. . . the Senate and the house for only 4 of Bush's 8 years in office.
Dems took control of both for 2007 and 2008, and Dems held the Senate for 2001 and 2002 (except for the first six months of 2001).
Corruption favors the wealthy.
yeah , a total dictatorship for " only " four friggin years , that's basically one full term .Obama's been in office roughly three years and has faced nothing but opposition ... even from within his own party .
Insanity , it is what it is , there is no understanding it .
. . . but has had full agreement on others: The Patriot Act, record military budgets, extending tax cuts for the wealthy, and more.
The opposition only seems to come up on certain issues. Priorities of the .01% seem to go through without a hitch.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
I think we're speaking about healthcare.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
In the health care reform debate, it wasn't Republicans that kept single payer off the table. It was the Democrats.
In the house, H.R. 676 (single payer) was never even allowed to be debated in the 111th Congress. It wasn't scored by the CBO though it assuredly would have have far better cost savings numbers than the ACA as it has had in the past. It was simply buried in committee. Only the Democrats in the House - specifically Democratic leadership - had the power to do that during 2009-2010.
In the Senate, the White House and Democratic leadership threw their early and full support behind Max Baucus's Finance Committee's bill (drafted by Wellpoint exec Liz Fowler). When single payer advocates (doctors) tried to complain that single payer was not even being allowed into the debate, Senator Baucus had them arrested.
To argue that Republican opposition is why single payer was impossible is to ignore that Democratic opposition is what kept it off the table.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
we both know it was blue dogs that betrayed this.
Obama had to have seen this coming and planned accordingly to get something.
Like I said, this is a building block. The bigger issue here now is, getting more real Dems elected. If you don't have the votes, you don't have the votes. If the cats won't be herded. then you need new cats.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
And keeping single payer out of the debate is what I was arguing. This came from the top of Democratic leadership including Pelosi and Obama.
Even without making the case for single payer in public debate, Medicare for All has, and is, quite popular. It wins over alternatives by virtually every measure especially on cost and quality of coverage provided.
That was a major reason it had to be kept out of the debate. They wanted an insurance industry plan. That's a tough thing to sell in an honest debate. So we simply didn't have one.
All the ACA had to prove was that it wouldn't require grandma's execution. How tough is that?
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Single payer/universal healthcare would have stood a chance?
Do you really think that would have passed?
Remove all the dems who screwed this up. Just for conversations sake. Do you really think this would have passed?
And, the blue dogs were in a position to hold this up.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
And I think there were major gains even if it were defeated.
Larger segments of the public would have been made aware of the tremendous cost savings and coverage benefits available through single payer. That would result in some significant problems for those, both Republican and Democrat, who voted against it. As it is we have plenty of Democrats who still claim to be in favor of single payer yet can take health insurance cash without having to go on the record as to which they'll vote for when it comes down to it.
It would also have been a valuable idea in other debates. Most importantly, in the bipartisan debate over how much we need to cut Medicare. Just how well would this austerity proposal fly after the public has been informed that Medicare for All would not only lower their own insurance costs and increase their coverage, but would also strengthen our current Medicare program to the point where we could be talking about improving Medicare coverage at lower cost.
As always, muddy, it's been a pleasure. But I have a cold beer and a game of Jeopardy waiting for me. I'll check back later.
Peace.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
You'll have to forgive me from time to time. I'm an eternal optimist. When ever the glass is half empty, I choose to see it as half full.
peace. be well.
I do have to say, that a few of the blue dogs that got in the way of this, retired. They must know that people will be reminded of their actions. It's all about filling those seats with real Dems.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
You ask for single payer, then settle for the public option. You don't ask for the public option and then settle for a watered down version of the Heritage Foundation plan.
were those single payer advocates charged with "illegal attempt to complain"?
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
that's what happened.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Since Obama took office the opposition comes up on nearly every issue . Off the top of my head I can't recall the years / dates when Bush / Repugs had full and total control but they did have it for quite a while , and there was a period when Cheney had the tie breaking vote . Point is that Obama has never had that power . Has a President has ever faced such absolute strong opposition ( to the point that the opposition party are quite literally saboteurs ) that Obama has ? None that I know of , not in my life time , that is for sure . The chronic bitchers and bashers don't get it .
Insanity , it is what it is , there is no understanding it .
From 2009-2010 the Dems enjoyed a far larger Senate majority than W ever had. They still have a majority that doesn't require Joe's tie-breaker.
And plenty of consevative friendly legislation was passed during that time. Indeed, it's difficult to come up with a conservative priority that was in any way stymied during 2009-2010 when Democrats held all of Congress and the White House.
But I think mudshark was right, I'm getting a bit off the topic of health care reform. I tried to steer back above.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Didn't Dick Cheney have the tie-breaking vote in the Senate for those two years?
With a Republican majority in the House deciding what gets voted on in the first place, a Republican in the White House who suddenly found his veto pen and the nerve to threaten using it, and Republican VP Dick Cheney standing by to cast the tie-breaking vote in the Senate in order to make sure nothing the Dems want done that might have somehow slipped through the Republican House gets done, I can't see where you could consider the Senate a "Democratic Senate" for even a minute of those two years.
Sure, it was a "Democratic Senate" as long as the Senate never proposed, put up for a vote, or passed anything of significance, complexity, political risk or merit and for all practical purposes behaved like a typical do-nothing Republican Senate.
If you want significant, complex, politiclally-risky but much needed legislation passed of the kind FDR, JFK and LBJ got passed, you've got to have a Democratic president with an overwhelming majority in the House and at least 65-73 Democratic seats in the Senate, which is what those presidents had on day one of their presidencies.
And you don't even create that ratio because Dems are lovable and deserving of it. No, you do it because that's the only way you can corner them into making good on their decades-long campaign talking points. You've got to give them so much leverage to do it they have no excuse for NOT doing it. This 47-53, 53-47 bit or the 59-41, 41-59 bit when you need 60 in the Senate goes nowhere while politicians on both sides simply use the closeness of it to whip up more campaign donations to beat the bad guy on the other side of the fence.
The idea is to make that fence so thick and so insurmountable, there is no reason for them to spend 90% of their time looking for checks from lobbyists instead of passing the legislation they've been promising all those years.
Do you know how many senate democrats voted to imprison American citizens without trial, recently? It's really cynical to use something like this as an excuse to defend keeping those people in power.
Agree Mud , you're right on . People keep ragging on Obama because we didn't get single payer , they are not being realistic , there is no way that Obama could have got single payer , he was barely able to get this passed . At least this is a start , it's more than we had before .
Insanity , it is what it is , there is no understanding it .
Just look how long it took the Civil Rights Act. We have to take what we can get, and come back and go at it again.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
because he negotiated from a position of weakness.
Look, if I'm selling my boat and I'd like to get $5,000 for it but I'll settle for $3,000, I don't start out by asking for $3,000. Obama should've started out demanding single payer and made the insurance lobby talk him down. Then, maybe, we'd at least have a public option. Instead, Obama started out with the Heritage Foundation's plan and let the Repukes dilute it even further. He's either a moron or One Of Them.
Then again, look what happened to the Clinton initiative. They got nothing.
I'm not 100% happy with this either. And I loath that this is from the Heritage foundation in part if not all. But, it's still a step in the right direction. We go back at it, and build on it. Just gotta be tenacious. And not give up.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
that's how i've looked at it. we need to start somewhere. i don't believe anyone was going to come to the table of negotiation if Obama started with a universal health care plan. one of the most important elements of this legislation was to instill competition you know "free market" which big business doesn't always like. they talk about it ,but they really don't like competition.
She's had the health insurance industry's dick up her ass for decades.
Clinton did not support single-payer; she resolutely stood against popular legislation led by Sen. Paul Wellstone, Conyers and Rep. Jim McDermott, then one of two "doctors in the House."
http://www.alternet.org/environment/47556
And what happens when no one buys your boat? Just because they want to mess with you? And they obstruct anyone else from buying it? You're left with your boat. Which at the point of no return, is worthless now. So, you're stuck with it.
As for HRC, they hated her with a vengeance. That was crystal clear to anyone who was paying attention.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
is unlikely. Unlike a boat, there is massive demand for health care, even among conservatives. Anyone who was paying attention would've noticed the TeaTards yelling "keep government out of Medicare" during the health care town hall meetings. So they like the socialist program even if they're too fucking dumb to realize that's what it is. And among Democrats, it's almost unanimous. From the Alternet article I linked to above:
"A show of hands in almost any roomful of Democratic activists will produce the same result: they want a single-payer 'Medicare-like system for all Americans.'"
As for HRC, they hated her with a vengeance.
That's just part of the Punch-and-Judy routine. The "they" in your statement includes HRC.
It's worthless. As for it's likelihood, that depends on a number of factors.
Economy. A over abundance of boats for sale. Or, someone messin with ya and blocking anyone from buying it. (which is unlikely)
And yes, there was a massive demand for healthcare reform. There still is.
Sometimes you have to take what you can get, or walk away with nothing.
As for HRC (Hillary Rodham Clinton) I doubt she hates herself. But when she attempted healthcare reform, all the long knives came out. They hatred was something else. I think that's the first time I really noticed how vile the GOp were. JFK got a lot of hatred. Johnson, more from the left for Viet Nam.
Nixon, he got off light. Ford, blase. Carter, not no where near as much as HRC got. But it did surface to a point. Reagan? That's when the real shit started. And they loved him for it. The left? They didn't figure it out fast enough. GHWB, he got a pass.
Clinton, this is the point where the hatred escalated to extremes.
And HRC getting involved in the healthcare initiative took it to entirely new levels. To an extreme.
W, got a pass. Even with the left sounding off about him. But the right wouldn't listen. Their own hatred blinded them.
Obama, Clinton redux x 10.
If you can't sell that boat, it's only worth something to you.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
is irrelevant to this discussion. Lack of demand for a boat is plausible. Lack of demand for health care is implausible. Try again.
And, again, HRC (Hillary Rodham Clinton) has been a health insurance puppet for decades. Her plan was for show, as were the "long knives." Please stop taking political rhetoric at face value. Read between the lines. Do some research.
And if you're not going to bother looking at the link I provided, then this discussion is pointless.
It was your scenario.
As for the demand for healthcare, I said there is a big demand.
All the more reason to go back and try again.
As for HRC was for show. That's someones opinion , and should be taken as such.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
Your scenario is about demand for a boat.
And the HRC for show is an informed opinion based on evidence.
Health-care sector, once a critic of then-first lady's plans for reforms, now lavishing contributions on senator.
According to Center for Responsive Politics, a non-partisan group that tracks campaign finance filings, Clinton has received $781,112 in contributions from the health-care sector during the current election cycle, which makes her the No. 2 recipient of funds from that sector, behind only Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., who received $977,354.
Mine was also about negotiating. And the result.
Opinion, is still opinion. That woman made no friends trying to reform healthcare. As for taking contributions? Now, we're talkin campaign finance reform.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
That woman made no friends trying to reform healthcare.
Right. She made the friends by opposing real health care reform and supporting a horse shit plan instead. That's why she's the number two recipient of insurance money in the Senate.
The Clinton health care plan was a 1993 healthcare reform package proposed by the administration of President Bill Clinton and closely associated with the chair of the task force devising the plan, First Lady of the United States Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Bill Clinton had campaigned heavily on health care in the 1992 U.S. presidential election. The task force was created in January 1993, but its own processes were somewhat controversial and drew litigation. Its goal was to come up with a comprehensive plan to provide universal health care for all Americans, which was to be a cornerstone of the administration's first-term agenda. A major health care speech was delivered by President Clinton to the U.S. Congress in September 1993. The core element of the proposed plan was an enforced mandate for employers to provide health insurance coverage to all of their employees through competitive but closely regulated health maintenance organizations.
Opposition to the plan was heavy from conservatives, libertarians, and the health insurance industry. The industry produced a highly effective television ad, "Harry and Louise", in an effort to rally public support against the plan. Democrats, instead of uniting behind the President's original proposal, offered a number of competing plans of their own. Hillary Clinton was drafted by the Clinton Administration to head a new Task Force and sell the plan to the American people, a plan which ultimately backfired amid the barrage of fire from the pharmaceutical and health insurance industries and considerably diminished her own popularity. By September 1994, the final compromise Democratic bill was declared dead by Senate Majority Leader George J. Mitchell.
The Clinton health plan required each US citizen and permanent resident alien to become enrolled in a qualified health plan and forbade their disenrollment until covered by another plan. It listed minimum coverages and maximum annual out-of-pocket expenses for each plan. It proposed the establishment of corporate "regional alliances" of health providers to be subject to a fee-for-service schedule. People below a certain set income level were to pay nothing. The act listed funding to be sent to the states for the administration of this plan, beginning at $13.5 billion in 1993 and reaching $38.3 billion in 2003.
This wasn't perfect either. Had this passed, we would have built upon it as well.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
Criticism :
Starting on September 28, 1993, Hillary Rodham Clinton appeared for several days of testimony before five congressional committees on health care.[15] Opponents of the bill organized against it before it was presented to the Democratic-controlled Congress on November 20, 1993.[15] The bill was a complex proposal running more than 1,000 pages, the core element of which was an enforced mandate for employers to provide health insurance coverage to all of their employees through competitive but closely regulated health maintenance organizations (HMOs). The full text of the November 20 bill (the "Health Security Act") is available online.[16]
Opposition to the Clinton plan was initiated by William Kristol and his policy group Project for the Republican Future, which is widely credited with orchestrating the plan's ultimate defeat through a series of now legendary "policy memos" faxed to Republican leaders.[17] Conservatives, libertarians, and the health insurance industry proceeded to campaign against the plan, criticizing it as being overly bureaucratic and restrictive of patient choice: The conservative Heritage Foundation argued "the Clinton Administration is imposing a top-down, command-and-control system of global budgets and premium caps, a superintending National Health Board and a vast system of government sponsored regional alliances, along with a panoply of advisory boards, panels, and councils, interlaced with the expanded operations of the agencies of Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Labor, issuing innumerable rules, regulations, guidelines, and standards."[18]
One key turning point against the Clinton plan was a televised town hall meeting in April 1994. During the event, President Clinton was challenged by businessman Herman Cain on the resulting effects on small businesses.[19]
The effort also included extensive advertising criticizing the plan, including the famous Harry and Louise ad paid for by the Health Insurance Association of America, which depicted a middle-class couple despairing over the plan's complex, bureaucratic nature.[20][21] Time, CBS News, CNN, the Wall Street Journal and the Christian Science Monitor ran stories questioning whether there really was a health-care crisis.[22] Op-eds were written against it, including one in The Washington Post by University of Virginia Professor Martha Derthick that said:
In many years of studying American social policy, I have never read an official document that seemed so suffused with coercion and political naivete ... with its drastic prescriptions for controlling the conduct of state governments, employers, drug manufacturers, doctors, hospitals and you and me.[23]
They brought out the long knives big time against her.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
The HRC plan, as with Obamacare, was an attempt to address rank-and-file Democrats' longtime desire for comprehensive health coverage without achieving it. Paul Wellstone introduced a single payer bill, which HRC opposed. She offered her plan as an alternative.
The exact same thing happened with Obamacare. Kucinich introduced a single payer plan, which Obama et al. opposed in favor of the Heritage Foundation's plan.
I repeat: smoke and mirrors. It's a way of assuaging progressive desires without really accomplishing anything. If we get single payer, what will they campaign on next time? This way, it's a promise they can make election after election after election, like getting tough on crime or creating jobs. Blah, blah fucking blah.
That's how the game is played BDM. I don't like it. But that's the way it is. Nothing gets accomplished with a in and out dem/gop admin.
Nothing. It's a long term goal. In order to get any thing at all, there needs to be a strategy . Many won't like that strategy.
Believe me, I want single payer/universal healthcare.
But it'll never happen if the GOp regain the White House.
Gotta take the good with that bad, and capitalizing on the good when we can. It's up to us to make the opportunities come election time. If people say they won't vote is so wrong. All that accomplishes is being a defeatist.
I'm not implying you have ever said you won't vote. I'm trying to make a broader point.
Have a great day BDM. Thanks for the conversation. We're all on the same team here. Hey, we're all democrats. We'll never agree on everything. ;)
What is your conceptual, continuity?
.
You mean Hillary " corporations are people too" Clinton ? That Clinton ?
Insanity , it is what it is , there is no understanding it .
Obama started by telling the GOP he'd take whatever they offered.
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." -- Robert E. Howard
full of it and don't think it smells when it is laid on the table.
"He negotiated from a position of weakness....should've started out demanding single payer"
I sincerely hope you have never accused Obama of breaking any campaign promise, because throughout the campaign Obama kept saying that under his health care proposal: "If you’ve got health care already, and probably the majority of you do, then you can keep your plan if you are satisfied with it." He also made it clear that while his plan did not have a mandate, he would not rule one out if it could be made affordable.
What finally emerged from Congress is remarkably similar to the plan Obama campaigned on throughout the 2008 primaries and general election. If he had started with single payer in 2009 he would have started from a position of misprepresenting himself throughout 2008.
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Publications/...
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
He also made it clear that while his plan did not have a mandate, he would not rule one out if it could be made affordable.
Wrong.
"If a mandate was the solution, we could try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody buy a house. The reason they don't have a house is that they don't have the money."
If he had started with single payer in 2009 he would have started from a position of misprepresenting himself throughout 2008.
Wrong again.
"I happen to be a proponent of single payer universal health care coverage."
I sincerely hope you have never accused Obama of breaking any campaign promise...
Well, hate to burst your bubble, but I have indeed accused Obama of breaking campaign promises. Here's one broken promise:
"Any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange including a public option to increase competition and keep insurance companies honest."
Nice to see you again, ricky.
context in which they are delivered and think they prove their point.
Yes Obama said he was a proponent of universal single payer coverage, as a candidate for the US Senate in Ilinois in 2004. He never advocated it as a candidate to get nominated or elected President in 2008.
Yes Obama said mandates were not the solution to the health care problem, but the
bill he signed has far more to it than mandates, which he never ruled out.
And yes he advocated for the public option, both during the campaign and as president, as shown in the July clip from 2009 you link to. Which proves he kept his promise. He advocated for a public option. That has nothing to do with the point you made, but it sure refutes the point often made by others around here that he sold the public option out from the beginning. You seem to say advocating for something ("any plan I sign must have") is the same as promising to veto something that doesn't have that provision in it when it finally passes is the same thing, but I could be taking you incorrectly.
I am however, proud to see you think it is OK for Obama to break one promise you think he made (not acceptiong a final bill without a public option) but not another (you can keep your private insurance). You prove my point. You are full of it.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
It's a marvel to behold. Don't stop now...unless of course you're exhausted, which is perfectly understandable.
I can't wait until we go to war with Iran so I can see you rationalize that one.
must [muhst]
auxiliary verb
1. to be obliged or bound to by an imperative requirement: I must keep my word.
2. to be under the necessity to; need to: Animals must eat to live.
3. to be required or compelled to, as by the use or threat of force: You must obey the law.
4. to be compelled to in order to fulfill some need or achieve an aim: We must hurry if we're to arrive on time.
5. to be forced to, as by convention or the requirements of honesty: I must say, that is a lovely hat.
"Any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange including a public option..."
--Barack Obama
"Anytime a job is lost, it's a tragedy." -- Mitt Romney
See the difference?
Either do I.
Do you have a link for the time and place Obama said that?
I'm not saying he never said it, but PolitiFact put that topic into their database and never found it, which surprised even them since it seems to have become 'common knowledge' that he did say it. My doubts about him ever saying it are bolstered by the fact that I have not seen a clip of him making that supposedly un-kept promise on a constant loop over at Fox:
We add the public option to our campaign promises database
Updated: Wednesday, August 19th, 2009 | By Angie Drobnic Holan
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promi...
And fuck Politifact. They have proven themselves untrustworthy.
Ok. The date of that clip was 7/17/09, so it wasn't a campaign promise. Nobody voted for Obama on the expectation that he would veto healthcare reform without a public option since, as PolitiFact points out, there never was such a campaign promise. It's a matter of opinion whether that clip constitutes a "promise". It looks to me like one of those "shoot for the stars and accept the Moon" moves that so many wanted from Obama. He got the exchanges he demanded out of Congress but not the public option.
Which then begs the question, if Obama had told Congress via such a video clip that any healthcare reform bill he signs "must" include Medicare-For-All, would his critics now be saying he broke his promise because we only got exchanges with a public option but not Medicare-For-All?
If we're going to consider such an outcome a "broken promise", then that kind of kills the whole "ask for $10,000 and accept $5,000" principle of negotiation doesn't it?
Then claimed that it was ok because he never claimed it was a deal breaker.
Nobody has a problem with Obama not vetoing his own insurance industry written health plan. That foolishness assumes he was against it in the first place.
He wasn't. He delivered what he wanted (and was paid) to deliver.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
How do we know Obama "killed the public option" and didn't just have to settle for reform without it for now? If that is true, then he also killed it in Nancy Pelosi's mind as well because she saw the writing on the wall about it not having a prayer to pass and dropped it in a hot minute, too.
Under the circumstances it was a miracle that any healthcare reform got passed. Republicans didn't want any healthcare reform passed by this president even if every word of it was written by the healthcare industry and aimed at enriching the Republican Party exclusively for the next 100 years.
Meanwhile, it has become clear that some voters will find a "broken promise" even in the supposed "shoot for the stars and accept the Moon" negotiation method they don't think they ever got from Obama but appears they did.
The Senate never even voted on it.
We know Obama killed the public option because hospital lobbyists let it slip:
And what we ended up with was hardly after a "shoot for the stars" approach. It was the plan the health insurance industry, the Heritage Foundation, and right wing conservatives had endorsed for decades. That wasn't an "oops."
Bill Clinton actually thanked the health insurance industry for their lobbying in support of Obama's plan.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Here he is criticizing the idea to tax so-called "cadillac" insurance plans, an idea he later embraced.
Here he is campaigning on the public option.
Lawrence O'Donnel and Ezra Klein have more.
Comments are closed on this entry