General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSorry I've just got to say it.....A Public Option would have avoided most of this crap
I'm in favor of single-payer universal coverage. A basic coverage plan based on an affordable percentage of income for everyone.
That's what most of the civilized world does now.
Not perfect, but a huge improvement over allowing the health care system to be submerged in the shark tank of private-insurance pirates we have now.
But since that was not even considered, the "public option," seemed to be the best alternativ e available. Give younger people the option to buy into Medicare coverage, while allowing the private insurance market to also function.
That would have given people the choice. It would have also set a public-insurance benchmark that the private insurers would have to compete with -- which would hopefully cause them to act somewhat more reasonably in order to keep customers.
But noooo. Instead we got stuck with this beast that combines the worst of all worlds. It has the "mandatory" coverage that conservatives hate, while continuing to allow the "markets" to hold us hostage.
As a nation we collectively screwed the pooch on this one. We refused to implement a very modest compromise step in the right direction by simply opening up the option of public social insurance while also allowing "the market" to continue to operate for those who want that.
Because of this, in my opinion, the loony left has every right to say "We told you so."
Brigid
(17,621 posts)It is not your fault you're right.
Skinner
(63,645 posts)...but it would not have avoided any of this crap.
-- Even if there were a public option, the website still would not work.
-- Even if there were a public option, people with certain health plans would still not be able to keep their plans.
The inclusion of a public option would have had no effect on the two biggest problems we've faced since launch.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Yes, the technical website issues might have been an issue. But if it had been phased in by adding it to the present infrastructure of Medicare (and hopefully improving the whole thing in the process) a lot of these issues involving private insurance would not have been involved.
Yes the private insurance would have continued to plunder and pillage. But with a public alternative as competition, the forces of "the market" might have cleaned up their acts simply out of the need to compete and survive....Maybe they wouldn't, but there would have been an escape hatch for us consumers.
AND if people did lose private coverage, they would have someplace to go with a public option. That's an important difference.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)And still we have the issue of getting the votes out of Congress.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)As the old saying goes: "If you lie down with dogs you wake up with fleas."
The dogs are the insurance crooks. The current mess are the fleas.
WowSeriously
(343 posts)You get up with Republican flees.
treestar
(82,383 posts)the web site has nothing to do with insurance - any web site can have glitches. Insurance companies likely have smoothly running ones.
WyLoochka
(1,629 posts)do not all run smoothly. That is actually one of the problems with the gov website. It needs to interact with 1500 different private, proprietary carrier websites to load data into those systems, which in turn need to crank data and generate the 'quotes' and get them back to the gov website to present to the applicants.
I work with insurance websites all day long. Many are just plain terrible as far as functionality and efficiency goes. They are all extremely quirky when it comes to cranking out the ratings. Many lock-up or totally crash unpredictably. The proprietary, fussy nature of all of them is one of the primary problems that is bogging down the programming of the gov website that needs to communicate with each these different, balky systems flawlessly.
questionseverything
(9,631 posts)when did we have the discussion about what percentage of gross income is affordable and where are the peer reviewed studies backing up this number?
premiums plus out of pocket (especially for 50 plus) run from 25-33% of income
to be fair lets use 25% for healthcare
then 20% taxes
then 25% housing
thats 30% left for utilities,transportation,food,clothing.......is that what all you folks think is acceptable?
no one needs any1s personal info to verify this....just use the aca calculators and play with different number sets
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Similar to how taxes are supposedly calculated.
The impact of 25 percent of income is a whole lot different if you're living on say $25,000 a year than if your income is $200,000 or more.
A formula that takes that into account could be used to lessen the impact on people with modest incomes by charging somewhat more for those with higher incomes.
DJ13
(23,671 posts)A set tax rate based on income (with no cap) would have reduced the cost for everyone down to a reasonable level.
questionseverything
(9,631 posts)it would be 20% cheaper just because the "profit" would not be necessary
and it could further reduce costs by negotiating prices as the biggest provider of healthcare
no one would care about there crap insurance being cancelled if there was great low cost insurance to replace it
and if these policies offered were a great deal people would buy them by calling and snail mail if they had too
MyNameGoesHere
(7,638 posts)Telling people they could keep them in unequivocal terms was the problem. It was either a failed political message or severe incompetence.
One of the easiest resolved problems too. I am waiting to see how they handle it. Or not.
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)as it is, that's true.
But if there were a public option, more like Medicare, it wouldn't have needed to be so complex perhaps. Because we are signing up people on Medicare in freakin' droves while all this is going on - the numbers are 10 times or more from what I have seen.
As far as that last point in your post, however, if those with hi-deductible insurance had been left alone, there would have been a few thousand who wanted to be obstinate and pay more for less, but they wouldn't have had THIS to blame for their troubles. It wouldn't have made a nickels worth of difference in the overall economics of the bigger plan, as opposed to the cost of all this hoohaw, to just leave them alone and publicize the crap out of the benefits of the new law.
By the time the next year rolled around (which we may well see before the current web disaster gets a passing grade), a few more of them would have left their plans, and the insurance companies would raise prices on the remainder and tell them it's because of Obamacare. But the insurance cos in the exchange would be running ads saying "If YOUR INSURANCE CO isn't giving you the value you deserve, WE can", maybe with some funny old guy swinging around a dollar on a fishing pole. That would take all the wind out of their sails.
But we are where we are.
And while all this is going on, good jobs are still being replaced with crappy ones, and perfectly healthy people able to work are increasing the numbers of those not in the work force. sigh... our priorities are screwed up.
WyLoochka
(1,629 posts)If we had a public option to buy into medicare the website would have likely worked for that option from the first week.
It would still have had the same problems with programming to use with many simple awful private carrier websites.
But, people would be signing up for the public plan by the millions while those bugs presented by the proprietary carrier systems were still being worked out.
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)not have been needed in its present form. And a lot of this could have been avoided.
But that's all moot, for right now. And several million people are still without funds to get insurance, with no provision for them, at all, while people argue about other things and forget that those people are still out in the cold.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)I know because I am on it.
It is true though, that if the age was lowered to include all people they may have to had hire a few more people to handel the increase in people, but that in my opinion is a good thing to put more people to work...and probably could have done that with less then they paid for that failed website.
And with more younger and healthy people it would have made the program less expensive.
Medicare does not need a new website nor does it need navigators because it already exists and is simple compared to having to shop around on the so called free market.
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)keeping a flood of people from hitting it all at once. The infrastructure is already there, it would have been easy to expand.. This whole issue is as stupid as the War On Drugs. There is an easy workable solution. Problem is insurance companies would lose a fortune and we can't have that! Better to have financially stable insurance companies than a healthy populace.
Sgent
(5,857 posts)the un-subsidized cost of Medicare for 2013 is $960 / person / month. In addition, its got huge holes in it with an unlimited out of pocket expenditure and deductibles that are essentially unlimited as well.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)I have medicare, and it works out to be about 10% of my income...at that rate 960 would be with an income of 9k a month...or over 100k a year...what subsidies are you talking about?
I am talking about Medicare part A. not medicare advantage.
Sgent
(5,857 posts)The correct word would have been "fully realized costs"
Medicare Part A premium costs $426 / month.
Medicare Part B premium costs $104.90 / month. + 314.70 Subsidy from General Fund
Medicare Part D Subsidy from general fund - 69.30 + premium (can vary)
Fully realized cost = $914.90 / month + Part D premium
Also keep in mind that Medicare only pays 80% of most Part B costs, has a $1,184 hospital deductible, a $147 Part B deductible, a $296 / day coinsurance for more than 60 days hospitalized, and $592 / day for 91+. In addition, there is a lifetime maximum of 365 days of hospital care, and mental health is only covered at 50%
http://www.medicare.gov/your-medicare-costs/costs-at-a-glance/costs-at-glance.html#collapse-4811
Note -- Medicare Part A premiums are only paid by a small group of people who haven't paid in the required number of years, are returning from disability, etc.
Medicare Part B is 25% paid by premiums, 75% by general fund subsidy.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)And you could then consider that cheep when you consider the pool you draw from consists of people over 65 who have the most health problems....which is the reason to make it for all so that "fully realized cost" could be brought down...same argument for ACA.
And by the way I know what they pay, I recieve Medicare and spent a week in the hospatal and am now recieving treatment reglary...and without it I would be dead by now...because I would have run out of money and resources long before my treatment was over...I know what the co pays are...without it I could not aford to continue to live.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)complaints.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)...we still would have every single Republican working their asses off to undermine every single aspect of the program, giving their darned best to ensure failure and lack of participation (which would aid towards failure)
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)The issue of course is convincing a large enough percentage of the general population that implementing it doesn't mean the commies are going to jump out from under their bed and get them.
Until that happens good luck getting politicians to make a serious push to implement.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)I realize "principled politicians" is an elusive breed these days. That's OUR fault as a nation for electing too many jerks.
sharp_stick
(14,400 posts)someone come up with a way that a public option would have passed the House and or Senate.
Shit, the ACA barely passed the House and Senate, a public option would have gone nowhere just about as quickly as a single payer system.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)If more Democrats had shown more backbone and actually ;pushed for it, and a few reasonable republicans had open minds, it could be passed.
While it is good that we at least tackled the problem, we surrendered before the battle even started.
sharp_stick
(14,400 posts)republican sighting in years.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)But they are being smothered by the bat-shit ones.
However, that's something their side has to hash out.
DissidentVoice
(813 posts)...a Democrat with REAL BACKBONE in years.
questionseverything
(9,631 posts)when dems started talking about using reconciliation to pass it(we easily had 50 votes) the following happened....
http://www.salon.com/2010/02/23/democrats_34/
Tuesday, Feb 23, 2010 11:24 AM UTC
The Democratic Partys deceitful game
They are willing to bravely support any progressive bill as long as there's no chance it can pass
By Glenn Greenwald
Democrats perpetrate the same scam over and over on their own supporters, and this illustrates perfectly how its played:
.... Rockefeller was willing to be a righteous champion for the public option as long as it had no chance of passing...But now that Democrats are strongly considering the reconciliation process which will allow passage with only 50 rather than 60 votes and thus enable them to enact a public option Rockefeller is suddenly inclined to oppose it because he doesnt think the timing of it is very good and its too partisan. What strange excuses for someone to make with regard to a provision that he claimed, a mere five months ago (when he knew it couldnt pass), was such a moral and policy imperative that he would not relent in ensuring its enactment.
The Obama White House did the same thing. As I wrote back in August, the evidence was clear that while the President was publicly claiming that he supported the public option, the White House, in private, was doing everything possible to ensure its exclusion from the final bill (in order not to alienate the health insurance industry by providing competition for it). Yesterday, Obama while having his aides signal that they would use reconciliation if necessary finally unveiled his first-ever health care plan as President, and guess what it did not include? The public option, which he spent all year insisting that he favored oh-so-much but sadly could not get enacted: Gosh, I really want the public option, but we just dont have 60 votes for it; what can I do?. As I documented in my contribution to the NYT forum yesterday, now that theres a 50-vote mechanism to pass it, his own proposed bill suddenly excludes it.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)completion of a pet project.
Politics 101.
A no brainer.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)But now, in light of Arkansas, nobody should ever be willing to utter that again with a straight face. Back when Lincoln was threatening to filibuster health care if it included a public option, the White House could obviously have said to her: if you dont support a public option, not only will we not support your re-election bid, but well support a primary challenger against you. "
http://www.salon.com/2010/06/10/lincoln_6/
Other Presidents have known how to make offers that can't be refused.
Can you imagine what would have happened if Joe Lieberman had reared up on his back legs and told LBJ he wasn't going to vote for Medicare?
brooklynite
(93,857 posts)Clearly Single Payer would have obviated the need for all these gyrations.
HOWEVER, a Public Option would have prevented none.
The Public Option would one of the items in the Health Exchange which wouldn't be easily reachable because of the software bugs.
And however attractive the PUblic Option was, there would be those who insisted on keeping their existing minimal coverage who would be getting cancellation notices because the plans didn't meet the minimum threshold.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)1) The software bugs came from setting up this baroque "exchange. A public option could have been added to the existing infrastructure for Medicare, by adding to the allowed age range....Not easy, but a lot simpler than this mess.
2) You can't stop people who prefer to be bilked and screwed by private insurance plans. But with a decent public alternative, over time many of them would choose to go with a decent public plan .
brooklynite
(93,857 posts)Again, we are not talking about Single Payer. The Public Option is an OPTION: a choice among it an private plans.
As to your second point, the problem is not that people don't, in general, like the options they have available and can save money with them; it's that the President promised "You can keep your existing plan" with no apparent provisos.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)At least it offers another choice. A step in the right direction.
The issue of the President's promises are a political issue....shooting oneself in the foot comes to mind
brooklynite
(93,857 posts)You claim that having the Public Option would have prevented the problems ACA is experienceing now. It wouldn't
Armstead
(47,803 posts)SpartanDem
(4,533 posts)the P.O was always going to be it's own separate insurance plan sold on the exchange.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)not
Armstead
(47,803 posts)That includes Congress.
cali
(114,904 posts)uponit7771
(90,225 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Dems like Baucus were against it.
Now people have questions for you:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4008185
And you never answered.
Not holding my breath.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)used this Bully Pulpit to get it bashed over the Congress people's heads that this public option was what poll after poll showed we in America wanted, perhaps then we would have gotten it.
But instead of a FDR-style President, we had a man who pretended that he had to distance himself from using the Bully Pulpit, because of the Constitutional requirement about the separation of powers. (Notice how he didn't feel there was such a provision when he wanted to take this nation to war against Syria recently.)
And Obama pretended that Rahm Emanuel and Liz Fowler were not receiving Big Time Big Insurance people in meetings held a block down from the WH, or inside the WH basement itself.
As a reward for his efforts to write up the exact legalese for legislation on the ACa that the Big Insurers and Big Pharma wanted, Rahm Emauel easily secured a lot of campaign monies, and now he is "da Mayor" of Chicago.
And Liz Fowler almost immediately garnered an impressive, cushy and lucrative job inside the Biggest of the Big Insurers..
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)You can't start negotiations in the middle and expect to get anything close to what you wanted.
Of course, many wonder if Obama ever wanted a PO in the first place.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)There were a number of Senate Dems who were never going to vote YES for a PO ... but even if we pretend that the President cold some how get all of them to vote YES, Lieberman was never going to provide that final vote.
1) Lieberman campaigned with McCain against Obama.
2) Lieberman was not running again.
3) Lieberman was known as the "Senator from Aetna".
Lieberman wanted to be SecDEF or SecState. McCain would have given one of those slots. Obama screwed that up. And Lieberman is a vindictive turd.
Not so long ago, Lieberman left the Senate and took a conservative think tank job ... which was his payoff.
He was never going to vote yes. Even if you could flip the others, he wasn't going to jeopardize his golden parachute out of the Senate.
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)get the red out
(13,459 posts)But our country was so propagandized against it that I'm still amazed that anything was done at all.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)zeemike
(18,998 posts)The mandate is what the insurance industry wanted and they got it...the rest they can and will change by buying it in the congress.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)Medicare for All plan? It wouldn't pass, but if you frame it as a choice between going backward and doing absolutely nothing (the GOP) and going forward with the negative effects of the current ACA implementation, maybe people will be more receptive to the message of single-payer. At the very least, it shifts the debate in the Democrats' direction, and ups pressure on insurance co's to stop being utter assholes if they want to survive.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)Republicans knew all of their attempts to repeal Obamacare were not going to result in the repeal of Obamacare--they did it because it kept the law in the news as a BAD THING WE DON'T WANT. Democrats can stand up for single payer as a GOOD THING WE ALL WANT, over and over again, until it becomes the accepted framing.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Hopefully the mess will revive the public option at some point.
Rex
(65,616 posts)The actual policy we ended up with, does not change the fact that the website has some serious flaws that must be fixed by programmers.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Ideally it could have been incorporated into that, while also improving the Medicare system in the process.
Rex
(65,616 posts)If they would have picked a better company then CGI to build the infrastructure needed to handle the site and the servers, we would not be having this conversation.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)that we were basking in the success of adding a humane alternative to the swamp of private insurance, and the benefits would have helped more people would come to accept the concept of public insurance as a good thing
Rex
(65,616 posts)to create the for-profit insurance industry. Crooks writing policy is a bad idea and it shows all these decades later.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)But only an ACA props up the private health insurers.
We need universal single-payer, such as the civilized nations have.
uponit7771
(90,225 posts)PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)(and those that support the current filibuster rules)...
From October, 2009:
Public option would lead him to filibuster, key senator says
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/27/health.care/
Armstead
(47,803 posts)tblue
(16,350 posts)Thank him for continuing to make deals with McConnell and the party of sabotage.
solarhydrocan
(551 posts)which, not surprisingly, is almost completely forgotten
Baucuss Raucous Caucus: Doctors, Nurses and Activists Arrested Again for Protesting Exclusion of Single-Payer Advocates at Senate Hearing on Healthcare
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/5/13/baucus_raucus_caucus_doctors_nurses_and
If a Republican had done that this board would have been outraged. And have never forgotten it.
lostincalifornia
(3,639 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]
Armstead
(47,803 posts)That's how the opposition continues to win. Too many of us are dead-end cynics and give up before things even begin.
randome
(34,845 posts)But I think Obama, being on the political front lines and being a very smart individual, is better qualified to know what was possible and what was not.
Single payer was never going to happen and is even less likely now. That's just reality, IMO.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]
Armstead
(47,803 posts)I am convinced (call me naive) that if there had truly been an effort to push a Public Option as simply OFFERING PEOPLE AN ADDITIONAL CHOICE, the majority of average people would have seen it in a more positive light and supported it.
lostincalifornia
(3,639 posts)And rejected.
Until more progressives are elected, cynical or not, it just won't happen
questionseverything
(9,631 posts)Tuesday, Feb 23, 2010 11:24 AM UTC
The Democratic Partys deceitful game
They are willing to bravely support any progressive bill as long as there's no chance it can pass
By Glenn Greenwald
Democrats perpetrate the same scam over and over on their own supporters, and this illustrates perfectly how its played:
.... Rockefeller was willing to be a righteous champion for the public option as long as it had no chance of passing...But now that Democrats are strongly considering the reconciliation process which will allow passage with only 50 rather than 60 votes and thus enable them to enact a public option Rockefeller is suddenly inclined to oppose it because he doesnt think the timing of it is very good and its too partisan. What strange excuses for someone to make with regard to a provision that he claimed, a mere five months ago (when he knew it couldnt pass), was such a moral and policy imperative that he would not relent in ensuring its enactment.
The Obama White House did the same thing. As I wrote back in August, the evidence was clear that while the President was publicly claiming that he supported the public option, the White House, in private, was doing everything possible to ensure its exclusion from the final bill (in order not to alienate the health insurance industry by providing competition for it). Yesterday, Obama while having his aides signal that they would use reconciliation if necessary finally unveiled his first-ever health care plan as President, and guess what it did not include? The public option, which he spent all year insisting that he favored oh-so-much but sadly could not get enacted: Gosh, I really want the public option, but we just dont have 60 votes for it; what can I do?. As I documented in my contribution to the NYT forum yesterday, now that theres a 50-vote mechanism to pass it, his own proposed bill suddenly excludes it.
lostincalifornia
(3,639 posts)Are, I don't see it happening soon
questionseverything
(9,631 posts)reconciliation was just not used
with the last huge dem betrayal(no public option) we will probably never be in as good a position again
Rilgin
(787 posts)You do know that the House passed the ACA with a public option included months before the Senate passed the Baucus drafted one. Even before Baucus had a plan drafted.
Obama instead of supporting the House bill which had already been passed and pushing for its passage in the Senate, dismissed it and said he would support what came out of Baucus's committee (which guaranteed it would be weak and without a public option) months later. He gave that support when the Baucus bill was not even written.
Also know that Baucus's committee was NOT the only Senate Committee to have input on the Senate Bill and Obama could again have supported some other senator and committee to write the Senate Bill.
Now maybe with Presidential support and activity the House Bill or a Senate Bill not written by Baucus would have failed the Senate vote. Obama lovers seem to simply assert this as fact rather than opinion. We will never know but lots of bills and laws would have withered on the vine if presidents just assumed that they had no ability to influence a congressional vote that initially looked bad and it may not even be fact that it initially looked bad.
As people have pointed out, his negotiation strategy was not conducive to obtaining the public option from conservative democrats as a compromise. His starting position was giving it away rather than giving away a direct government health care role for public insurance role as the compromise.
However, a public option ACA might have failed no matter what but it is also not FACT that this would not progress us to a better health care system then a passed kludged inadequate ACA. We have seen that gun bills fail but the issue does not die. If the ACA failed, the health care issues would not have disappeared and the pressures for solutions would have continued and increased in intensity.
The main defenses of the ACA lovers are based on two assertions labeled facts that are not facts. They are mere assertions and opinions issued without any supporting evidence (other than just saying certain senators initially said they would initially not vote for a bill with the public option (i.e. Lieberman)). Please notice that recently, republicans said they would never pass the continuing resolution without budget cuts but ended up passing it anyway. Politics is a process not static. Saying a senator said something publicly at the beginning of the process says nothing about what will actually occur in the process. As proof note that Obama said at the start of the process that to obtain his signature, the ACA had to have a public option but he ended up signing the ACA without a public option.
My personal belief and opinion is that with presidential and public pressure Obama could have pealed off sufficient moderate Republican Senators and kept the democratic senators together to pass whatever ACA he really wanted. My second opinion is that the ACA is fatally flawed since it is a small bill that just modestly reforms the private insurance market for individuals without really solving our health care system problems and that its solutions impose real costs on the young and healthy that would be better paid for by taxes than by forcing people to take the time to buy insurance then subsidizing those purchases for some of them.
The beauty of a medicare for all plan versus forcing people to buy things they are not currently using is that the benefits of the system become clear at the time of utilization and the system does not require costs and time before then other than opening an envelope to receive your national health care card.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Many Democrats did support a public option to varying degrees. It was frustrating that Obama and the corporate "center" squashed that.
go west young man
(4,856 posts)Welcome to DU.
go west young man
(4,856 posts)On double check I see that you have been here for quite a long time. The low post count threw me off. Just goes to show that some DU'ers who post relatively infrequently have great things to add. Cheers.
Rilgin
(787 posts)No need for an apology but thank you for your belated welcome. I actually dont think I got one on my first actual post.
I am pretty quiet for as long as I have been here. I mostly lurk and only occasionally post.
I actually use DU and other message boards for getting news and facts. I find that I digest facts better in the context of arguments although being the internet I reserve judgement on how much certainty on the fact.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)and pressed for at least the public option, that would have made a big difference.
Some did, but too many wafflers and opportunists are in Congress at the present time.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)Harder than the one we have now?
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)that could be looked to for guidance. The real reason they didn't pursue it is (a) Insurance Companies donate huge sums of $$$ to our career politicians making their easy job even easier, and (b) the insurance industry is 1/6 of this nations economy. Single payer would put the health insurers OUT OF BUSINESS as a for profit middleman between you and your doctor, and would eliminate a major cash cow for congress critters campaign kitty. I think when you ask yourself WHY, the best bet is to look at the obvious that cannot be spoken publicly...aka campaign contributions and graft.
Iggo
(47,487 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)But I am sorry for the nation that we screwed this all up.
Iggo
(47,487 posts)We're saving corporations over people, and there's no sugarcoating it when it comes to the health-care/medical-insurance debacle.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)I have so many unanswered questions about this clusterf\/(k. One of the excuses as to why it couldn't go into effect until 2014 was in order to have time to get it up and running. If I were the Prez, I would sign an executive order stating that all those people who were cancelled could buy a Medicare policy for the same price as their canceled junk policy until all the kinks in the exchanges are worked out.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Apparently they are allergic to straightforward in Washington
libodem
(19,288 posts)One good thing about the ACA, I contend, is that it put our foot in the door, for expansion. The more Republicans and Insurance 'scorpions', bitch the more we should push back with this idea.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)The public option is a policy on the exchange. It has nothing to do with insurers complying with ACA and exploiting that claim to cancel policies.
If there was a public option on the exchange, those who got cancellation letters could do what they can do now: shop the exchange.
The problem is the insurance companies weren't directing people to the exchanges. They were simply canceling policies and dictating the new policy and price, and refusing to let people know they could shop the exchanges for a better plan.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)A) Insurance companies are obviously doing what they want to do under the current ACA system, just as they would without it.
B) If there were a public option, at least the people who get mugged by private insurer would at least have somewhere else to go for guaranteed affordable coverage
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)Are you serious considering the disaster that this implementation has been so far that we start telling the people that if we had gone to Single Payer, things would have been better we swear it? They wouldn't vote us out of office so much as laugh us out of office. We'd be lucky to maintain our seats in San Francisco, Seattle, and New York.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)The effin' politicians can say whatever they want.
There's more to life (and death) than partisan politics.
In this case the political system failed to perform adequately, and pressure from outside the partisan straightjackets are needed to deal with a basic social pfroblem.
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)You can stand on the street corner from now till you die of extreme old age shouting that we need single payer. But you aren't going to get it without politicians voting to make it happen, and you're not going to get that if the Republicans win in 2014, and worse, 2016.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)The problem, frankly, is that there has become too much of a division between those advocating positions that actually benefit people, and the behavior and high-handed arrogance of too many of the politicians who get elected by pretending to be more ,liberal than they show themselves to be once in office.
Bill Clinton is a classic example. Listening to many of his speeches or interviews it still seems like he really "gets it." But his behavior in office often ran counter to his professed ideals.
So it requires people "standing on the street corner" to create the attitudes that will elect more of the good ones like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders et al. who really would make a difference if there were more of them in DC....and then to make sure they stay honest once they get there.
scheming daemons
(25,487 posts)And... it would've been impossible to pass the ACA with a public option in it.
Had zero Republican votes without it... and with it would've lost those + some Democratic votes.
This was the best bill that could get passed.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)"As a nation we collectively screwed the pooch on this one. "
We all screwed up, from the average person up to the White House.
I don't give a shit about the petty political games that were involved. It was one of those situations where the entire political framework failed us all for a combination of reasons.
cbdo2007
(9,213 posts)Everyone here is delusional if they think any large scale implementation like this could go off without a hitch.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)Then we would not need a new web site or navagators...the system was already in place and working.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)That took a while to work out the problems. It's very amusing to go back to Captain Orange's comments about that, and compare them to his comments about the ACA.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)I was not suggesting creating a new program for Medicare, just letting people on the one that now exists
jeff47
(26,549 posts)That large of an expansion of the program would likely exhaust the existing server capacity if nothing else.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)It was not nessesary...and I did not have to shop around and chose a plan...it was strait forward and simple.
But sure when you scale things up things can go wrong, but not like creating something from scrach...especialy when you hire an incompetent company to do it for you.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)You chose the default one.
And while you did not have to enter that choice into a computer, someone else did. And when you go to the doctor, they gotta enter your information somewhere in order to get paid by HHS. And so on, and so on.
Medicare-D was a relatively small addition to Medicare - For example, the people were already "in the system" instead of having to sign up. It still went wrong for a while, just like all new programs do. Medicare did when it was first rolled out. So did Social Security.
In any sufficiently complex endeavour, something will go wrong. Right now, there's some people blowing up the problems the ACA is having for political gain. But they won't tell you that the sign-ups are going at about the same rate as in Massachusetts when they rolled out their system.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)which was my point.
Scaling it up is far more simple than creating a new one.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)It's quite possible that there are plenty of hidden land-mines in any legacy system. There could be something buried in their code that gets very upset when someone is entered into "regular" Medicare yet is younger than 65.
Point is even with "Medicare for all", something would get screwed up. And the same people shouting about Healthcare.gov would be shouting about it. They would portray it as just as large a disaster.
We aren't dealing with the "reality-based community" here.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)They would scream about anything that was done.
But the fix would not cost half a billion dollars to fix any glitch in the existing system...I am sure any IT guru could find and fix it in a day or so.
jazzimov
(1,456 posts)He's the one who blocked it.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Including us supporters who gave up and didn't press hard enough for it
1000words
(7,051 posts)We need a public service, not a consumer product.
Yes, a public service for a critical human right versus a consumer product.
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)would also have avoided these problems. Of course, neither would have had a snow ball's chance in hell of passing the senate in 2010. But please proceed.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)You're making false comparisons.
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)But I am am talking about fighting for what is needed beyond the transitory political structire of any given year.
We need as a nation to press for relief from this oppressive health system. Ideally the Democratic Party should be championing real reform too.
Once there is enough public sentiment for a system based on common sense and common decency, the political hacks will have to go along.
In other words, I am very familiar with the political obstacles, but that does not mean we should just roll over and surrender on this or any issue.
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)and necessary political force to make that happen.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Sometimes its hard to take "yes" for an answer on DU.
Clear Blue Sky
(2,156 posts)pnwmom
(108,925 posts)us Medicare for all.
So?
You're preaching to the choir here. What DUer wouldn't have supported a public option -- as an option.
But it wasn't an option because we had Joe Lieberman, Independent from Connecticut, home of the largest insurance companies in the world, asserting his independence and refusing to join Democrats in supporting a public option. So it wasn't passable. We needed 60 votes for cloture and we didn't have them. And then Sen. Kennedy died and replaced by a Republican and we weren't even close.
We didn't screw the pooch as a nation. Lieberman screwed the nation.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)then we all screwed up.
Excuses based on temporary situations are simply rationalizations for giving up and not working on the bigger picture.
Our side makes too many excuses too often.
1000words
(7,051 posts)Who "screwed the nation," again?
thesquanderer
(11,954 posts)I thought it was originally their idea. Unless you mean the libertarian ones.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Obama gave conservatives what they had originally asked for, and they still turned against him.
There's a lesson there about the mistake of giving up at the beginning in hopes of winning hearts that won't be won.
karynnj
(59,475 posts)but, it would not have helped the two biggest problems - the web site not working and people getting the rejection letters.
What it would have done would have been to compete with the other plans - likely leading to price containment.
xchrom
(108,903 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)quinnox
(20,600 posts)DissidentVoice
(813 posts)Not with this version of the Democratic Party, nor with ANY version of the Republican Party.
Bill Clinton caved in 1994.
Barack Obama caved to Max Baucus.
JEB
(4,748 posts)Finally received paper application but when I called for assistance filling out form and answering questions for complicated choices I was referred to Insurance sales person. I don't think he knows any more than I do. Feels a bit like Russian roulette and time is running out. And Oregon is supposed to be one of the better ones. My current plan is just fill out the application as best I can, send it in and see what happens.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)Well put. Recall how many defended the president when he took single payer off the table without a fight.
Now it's come back to bite us in the ass.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)AndyA
(16,993 posts)I remember protestors being escorted out of the committee while committee members sat there and laughed about it.
I still believe the public option is the way to go.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)who were too cowardly to support a public option. That was the problem from Day #1.
There were never enough votes for the public option because even though Democrats had the majority in the House and a short-term majority in the Senate, the Blue Dogs held out over the public option. We were never going to get one.
Cry over spilt milk now, but our job is to elect more progressive Democrats to office in the House and Senate next year. That's the only chance left to have the public option that we really want.
wiggs
(7,788 posts)GOP, Americans for Prosperity, Freedom Works, Dick Armey, and the Koch Brothers started to piss all over it 24/7.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)had little to do with it.
Borchkins
(722 posts)We told you so.
B
ReRe
(10,597 posts)... but I was willing to go on and not say "I-told-you-so," because I remember the time I did not have insurance and needed it desperately. That uninsured people are getting insurance is the very reason we need to hold our tongue. I just hope and pray this rough spot passes soon. Let the stupid brain-dead zombies who can't add and subtract and has money to burn... let them have their junk insurance. Who are we to worry about their money for them? Huh?
Boehner says "Let's scrap this law." Fuck you, John Boehner. The debate is over. It's the Law!
Armstead
(47,803 posts)But now many people who need it are finding that insurance is just as unaffordable as it ever was....Many people are still falling through the cracks still -- and now that private insurance is mandated they also have to worry about the penalty for not buying something they can't afford.
It's a damn mess -- and one that could have been avoided.
ReRe
(10,597 posts)I thought if you could not afford it, that it would be subsidized. Where did I jump the track? Do they have to cough it up along the way (each month) and then get it back at the end of the year? I have two sons who work low-wage jobs and they are going to apply for it. Guess I'll find out about it when they sign up.
Look it... we should have single payer. But we don't. We have what we have for now. And we have to move on. Life goes on and we will fight like hell to have single payer as soon as we can get a President who will lead the way.
When I was a kid, when I was dirt poor, my Mama would tell me to count my blessings. I couldn't do it, as I didn't see the blessings. There's just no blessings to be found when you're dirt poor. Now that I'm all grown up, I have learned how to count blessings.
SpartanDem
(4,533 posts)and let's remember the p.o was going to be it's own separate non-profit insurance plan,it had nothing to do with medicare. It was only going to be sold to exchange and today the website that would be selling it, isn't super functional.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Medicare, private plan...whatever. the principle would be the same.
yes any rollout is going to have issues -- but IMO the insurance industry monster that we have now only makes the implications worse.
The Wizard
(12,482 posts)would have caused more Democrats to come out and vote in 2010 rather than stay home in disgust. Remember, single payer was the goal and the public option was the compromise position. Taking it off the table at the onset of negotiations was an absolutely idiotic capitulation that set the tone for Obama's first term making him appear weak and fearful of the minority.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)If conservatives hate something, it is on the right track.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)A national-level public option would be a very tough political battle right now.
A California-level public option? Not very hard. Vermont? Already planning to go single payer in 2017.
The battle for public option/single payer in the blue states is much, much easier. So we will be doing that. Public options, without the need to profit, will do a pretty good job out-competing the insurance companies. As the private company's risk pools are devastated, they'll be forced to pull back from public option states.
The successes of these "blue state" programs will destroy the FUD about such programs - no giant piles of dead bodies will make it hard to argue such programs will result in a pile of dead bodies. That will let us push on into the "purple" states. Victories there will let us pick off a few red states, and return to the national battle in a much stronger position - against a devastated health insurance industry.
Just because the ACA passed doesn't mean the job is done.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)DireStrike
(6,452 posts)We had to push a more neutral approach in order to avoid being tarred and feathered as Marxists!
Hang on... I'm being told that the ex-republican plan called Obamacare or the ACA, pushed by the Democrats in 2009, is being called "big government" "not market based" and "socialism".
And they didn't provide us with one vote despite nearly a year of politicking to get their support! And they are now saying that it was rammed through undemocratically despite a year of politicking to get their support!
WHO EVER COULD HAVE SEEN THIS COMING?! Certainly not President Obama. He only plays N-Dimensional chess. You need to play Quantum Vulcan chess to realize that the republicans will run hard right and oppose every Democratic initiative. Damn, we need a smarter guy next time! Next time this won't happen! Definitely not! If only we had 80 Senators instead of 60! Wait, 99.
Better make it a hundred. Then maybe you can get your pony, firebagger.
DissidentVoice
(813 posts)If it isn't hardcore Reaganist/Randism, it's automatically Communism.
I am very disappointed with President Obama not pushing for single payer.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)In elected office, we would have had the public option.
If it had not come about originally, it could have come about through reconciliation:
http://election.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x524410
questionseverything
(9,631 posts)a good bill had passed the house
the senate just needed to go to reconciliation to bypass the filibuster
there,"where are the votes people" drive me nuts
we had them,then
TBF
(31,922 posts)But now I think we have to work on salvaging what we've got. We do not need to be wiped off the ballots in 2014 - the states have become reactionary enough and especially in Texas this is hurting folks on a daily basis.
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)what benefit private health insurance confers upon society that public insurance wouldn't confer for much less money.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Going off to the Big Financial Firms, or all our Federal monies going to MIC-Surveillance programs does.
In other words, as long as a person is part of the One Percent, it is all of great, great benefit.
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)Of course, now I need an explanation of how running a country for the benefit of a fraction of the people benefits all of the people, unless pay to play politics, invisible hands picking their pocket and corporate capitalism benefits them in some way I can't fathom due to its complexity and my own intellectual limitations.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)I do:
http://www.humortimes.com/21509/thats-rich-humor-times-cartoon-report/
(Of course, a few are so real they are sad rather than funny.)
IronLionZion
(45,259 posts)Look backwards too long and you'll trip.
Meanwhile here is a state implementing single payer http://hcr.vermont.gov/timeline/gmc
Botany
(70,291 posts)It would have gone nowhere with Baucus and Grassely. Both of them were and
are still owned by the insurance companies, big Pharma, and the for profit health care
companies.
Sometimes you have to do what you can get done knowing that it is not all that you want to
get done.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)muntrv
(14,505 posts)nonoxy9
(236 posts)2banon
(7,321 posts)to transition to. As Michael Moore pointed out to Congress back in 2009-2010 (when Dems had the House majority) - All that had to be done is make an already existing system, with an existing billing structure etc. simply cover everyone. TA DA! Could be a good moment to make it so.
Change has come
(2,372 posts)the minute "Health Care Reform" changed into "Health Insurance Reform".
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)He's either clueless, the worst politician ever, or a corporate whore
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)I think Obama tried to go halfway with healthcare reform. I believe this was the only way he was going to get Democrats (and some Republicans) to support ANY reform.
I remember when he told the liberals that we weren't going to get everything we wanted. I trust that single payer was his ultimate goal, but there is no way in hell he could start with that. The health-insurance lobby is just too powerful.
The problem is--Obama (and probably many of us) underestimated the mean-spiritedness and the vindictive behavior of the Republicans. They will do anything to sink Obamacare. They are dissuading people from signing up, so the numbers are low and they can call it a failure. They are working 24/7 to ensure that this thing fails in spades.
I just had a conversation with a friend in California who called the exchange to buy a healthcare plan. She was told that the prices for the various plans won't be revealed until December. So, the frickin health-insurance companies aren't disclosing the plan prices for a few weeks. My friend didn't sign up of course, without the prices. Who the hell would???
There are many forces working against us.
area51
(11,868 posts)of Obama & congress adopting a completely republican plan -- mandatory private insurance, no public option -- that was dreamed up by the Heritage Foundation and Newt Gingrich. They should've known better than to take that Trojan Horse.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)valerief
(53,235 posts)srican69
(1,426 posts)...what a sordid mess !!!
louis c
(8,652 posts)Single payer, public option.
We should have held out for that.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)That's why the Democrats had to kill it.
Remember, ZERO Republicans voted for the ACA. Zero. We could have had a public option. We could have had Medicare for All.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)in 2014 and I'm sure they will put a public option on the table.
Mass
(27,315 posts)People could keep their plans if they wanted or they could go to the public option or add a new plan.
May be the transition would have been slower, but without the corporate overheads, it would have been less expensive and gotten plenty of people in. Why do you think the insurance companies wanted Obamacare (and oppose any plant to change it) and did not want the public option.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)It would not have gotten into the mess of mandatory coverage, and also the fact that it offered an additional choice would have been accepted more redily by the public
jimlup
(7,968 posts)the conservatives would have had a conniption fit 10x larger than the huge one they are already having.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)The whole channel is branding this watered down, conservative corporate inspired health plan as socialism, liberalism run amok, dangerous, a takeover of the economy thorough the health care system, etc.
They coudn;t have said anything worse about a public option than they have already said about this little tweak.
jimlup
(7,968 posts)they couldn't act worse than they already are so we might as well have gone the whole way rather than this appeasement to the Holy Grail of "capitalism."
BlueJac
(7,838 posts)a simple no brainer! Just do it!
paparush
(7,964 posts)A simple slogan.
People are familiar with Medicare.
People like Medicare.
The Dems should have united around this simple slogan, repeated it a bazillion times, and let one of the most gifted orators of our time deliver the message.
Estevan
(70 posts)is just lazy thinking. Unless you have the memory of a housefly you should know damned well the public option was blocked by blue dogs like Lincoln and Baucus and Lieberman. You swallow all the media hyperbole about "the huge mess" of the ACA. Just think for yourself for once...Sheeesh..
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Politicub
(12,163 posts)I don't know if anyone who is progressive disagrees with you.
We need to get dems elected so we get to shape the law - not the GOP.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)blackspade
(10,056 posts)doc03
(35,148 posts)fadedrose
(10,044 posts)Orsino
(37,428 posts)...would be a very different one.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)..although I also disagree with your characterization of single player as a virtual impossibility.
Wouldn't take a different planet. Just some readjustments in the political situation and a smarter way to communicate it to the public.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)"Socialized medicine!"