Uh... we should be thanking *Bernie Sanders and Ron Wyden* for single payer in America.

[MannyGoldstein]

Last edited Mon Nov 25, 2013, 10:48 AM - Edit history (2)

ObamaCare, as originally written, forbade single payer in states.

Bernie and Ron added a provision for states to be granted a waiver starting in 2017.

Can States Set up Their Own Single Payer Systems under Obamacare? - YES

But there's no guarantee they'll get the waiver in 2017. There could be a sensible adult reason to stop it, of course. Or, God forbid!, a Republican president.

AFAIK, there was no barrier to single payer prior to ObamaCare.

Thanks Bernie and Ron!

Note: corrected to add Ron Wyden thanks to DUer joshcryer's admonition.

[MADem]

1. Ah yes, Bernie--Hillary Clinton provided financial support to his campaign.

As for VT, I doubt that the Supreme Court would allow a prohibition against states running their own programs to stand.

After all, the Defense of Marriage Act prohibited same sex marriage. That didn't stop Massachusetts or a number of other states for giving them the big Eff U.

Pot is still illegal at the federal level. There are a few states who are already telling the feds to pound sand.

That said, good for Bernie.


AFAIK, there' s no barrier to single payer NOW.

It's just not going to happen at the federal level....yet.

A journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step.

[MannyGoldstein]

2. Obamacare makes single payer illegal

But you can ask for a state waiver.

[MADem]

20. No, it doesn't. Pathetic attempt at spin, there, Manny.

Not up to your usual malodorous efforts.

It must take a lot of energy to hate so much.

[scheming daemons]

25. False. The whole premise of this thread is a lie.

[nikto]

39. If the whole premise of this thread is PROVEN to be a lie...

Then perhaps the thread's author should receive a physical beating?

Well, at least a CYBER one.



















Deception seems to have no cost anymore.
Can that be good?

[joshcryer]

61. I think I did an OK job debunking it.

But anonymous internet people can get away with lying, cause, well, they're anonymous.

[rhett o rick]

193. If the OP is a lie, then please expound. Simply calling the OP a liar isnt very politically liberal

Manny has a very pointed point of view and if you think he is misleading us, then state your case. Usually calling people liars means that you have no other point.

[joshcryer]

50. Your OP is a lie, there was no bill that passed.

Please link the bill that they were working on and when it passed. I cannot find it, therefore your OP is a fabrication.

[JaneyVee]

131. Can't we just thank all of them?

[randome]

142. No. One size fits all!

[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[MADem]

191. Noooooooooooo!!!!! Because....unnnnh....unnnnh ..... Obama BAAAAAAAAAAAAD!!!!!!

Never mind that Obama supported a waiver before VT even signed the legislation into law!!!!!

http://vtdigger.org/2011/03/01/obama-backs-waivers-needed-for-vt-%E2%80%99s-single-payer-system/

March 1 2011

President Barack Obama told the National Governors Association on Monday that he supports waivers for states that want the flexibility to pursue new health care programs.

The announcement could pave the way for congressional approval of changes to the health care reform law enacted last year.

Vermont’s Democratic Gov. Peter Shumlin was elated by the news, which he said would make it possible for Vermont to more effectively pursue a plan for a single-payer health care system. Shumlin, who took office in January, has made single-payer his No. 1 initiative.

The OP's agenda is painfully obvious.

[Luminous Animal]

4. Groovy. If Vermont is denied we can look forward to...

decades of litigation.

[MADem]

14. Yeah....like the "decades of litigation" when MA decided to embrace equality?

Funny how I disremember those "decades of litigation," but that's just me.

States' Rights is a two-edged sword. I think it's lovely that progressives are using the other edge, for a change.

[Luminous Animal]

18. It was decades of federal and state litigation prior to any equality given to anyone anywhere.

Just because one individual state didn't experience it, doesn't mean the country as whole didn't experience it.

[MADem]

28. I'm talking about the decades of litigation that did not happen AFTER the law was passed.

Isn't that what you're crying about here, direly? You aren't crying about decades of litigation that already happened. Your crying is purely, dare I say, eagerly, anticipatory.

And it will be GROOVY, as you said, because....because...well, you'll have something to cry about IF it happens. IF!!! Obama BAD!!! IF a waiver that was in the law he signed is somehow not approved! And gee...how GROOVY is that?

Yeah, the guy that signed the law that ensured VT had a provision to go their own way is somehow responsible for not allowing single payer in VT....only, that's not accurate. He signed the law that paved the way for them to obtain single payer.

This sounds like a bald-faced, right wing argument to me. That might not have been your intent, but this is the kind of stuff that Limbaugh and Beck tout--any hook to dis the POTUS, even a silly absurd one--like he signed a law that was changed before he signed it to permit VT single payer. Sort of like the GOP voting down ObamaCare four dozen times, and then whining that the website wasn't working well enough to allow people to sign up fast enough.

Here we've got Obama signing a bill into law that allows VT to have single payer, and you and Manny are racing to blame him for signing the law that ALLOWS it, and not signing the first draft that did NOT allow it.

Very curious.

But hey, let's get back on track--anyone reading this thread can read what you wrote. Here--let's preserve your remarks for posterity:

Luminous Animal (19,671 posts)
4. Groovy. If Vermont is denied we can look forward to...

decades of litigation.

Look FORWARD to decades of litigation. That was your point--not past litigation about equality.

[randome]

82. Damn, you're good.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[MADem]

181. I am fine with valid critiques.

It's when people invent 'em out of whole cloth for purposes of disruption/divide and conquer/demotivation that my back gets up!

[Maedhros]

200. Manny's point is that the ACA, as drafted by Obama's team, forbid states from enacting Single Payer.

Then, Bernie Sanders and Ron Wyden amended the ACA to allow states to apply for waivers letting them enact Single Payer systems. If not for the work of Sanders and Wyden, the ACA would have been signed into law with the original prohibition on Single Payer intact. The fact that Obama signed the ACA after Sanders and Wyden amended it is not in any way proof that Manny is "lying."

Trying to pass off the ACA as Obama's clever means of paving the way for Single Payer is not consistent with the facts. If Obama wanted to pave the way for Single Payer he would not have had his team draft the bill with a prohibition in the first place. He might also have asked for it it in his opening negotiations, or at least a Public Options. He didn't, so it's disingenuous to give credit for Vermont's implementation of Single Payer to Obama.

[MADem]

221. That is not a "point." It's bullshit.

Obama supported a waiver for VT BEFORE VT even passed their SP legislation. That was back in March 2011. The governor didn't sign the bill into law until MAY of that year. Scroll through this thread, the proof -- via links -- is out there.

This VT SP law didn't happen yesterday--it happened YEARS ago, and Obama has consistently been behind allowing states to get creative. For our notorious thread starter to even hint that POTUS wasn't onboard with VT's goals stinks on ice, and is typical of his approach to issues.

Enough with the divide and conquer. By his words we shall know him, and his words are inaccurate at best, and deliberately so at worst.

[Maedhros]

228. He didn't say that Obama wasn't onboard...

...just that he has been very passive in his approach to Single Payer compared to (e.g.) Bernie Sanders.

[MADem]

236. Which is bullshit.

Obama was talking about this--not passively, either, he was strongly supportive of the concept--before SP even became law in VT. He talked about it in front of all the governors in the US, in Mar 2011.

I don't know what your definition of "passive" is, but that doesn't describe Obama wrt the waiver issue. And to suggest that he was passive in any way is a blatant falsehood.

[Maedhros]

246. My definition of "passive" is paying lip service to Single Payer

but preemptively excluding any discussion of Single Payer or the Public Option from initial negotiations for the ACA. Obama met with Big Pharma behind closed doors, then took Single Payer/Public Option off the table before the process even began.

Talk is cheap. If Obama was serious about Single Payer, he would have actually pushed for it.

[MADem]

249. Your definition of "passive" is apparently colored by bias.

You seem to not 'get' that Obama publicly supported the waiver. He's not the guy who gets down in the weeds and nitpicks the language. He's the frigging POTUS. By endorsing "experimentation" via the waiver process, he is saying that he'd like to see SP become the paradigm down stream.

What you also seem not to "get" is that he got the best deal that would pass. So shoot him, Anyone who believes that SP as a first option has a chance in hell of being realized, with the current Congress, in the near term, is high.

The road to SP runs through the ACA. Why is it that people with a foot in the real world, like Bernie Sanders get this, but people who post on the internet don't?

Feh.

[sheshe2]

197. +1!

[joshcryer]

60. Heh. Vermont won't implement it until 2017.

Unless we win back the House and keep the Senate so that VT can implement it sooner.

[merrily]

100. What would prevent Vermont from implementing it, no matter who wins?

[joshcryer]

101. Tax hike.

They need ACA subsidies and Medicaid expansion to get it off the ground running.

Otherwise they need to raise employee taxes.

[merrily]

103. Are you assuming that Republicans could and would repeal Obamacare, if they got a simple majority?

[joshcryer]

125. No.

I'm saying that single payer in Vermont wouldn't be easily achieved without the ACA's help.

[merrily]

127. Yes, but ACA is already a law. You said it had something to do with Democrats winning next time.

That was why I asked about repeal.

If you are not implying repeal, why does Vermont's ability to use the waiver it already has depend on who wins the election?

[joshcryer]

130. If the Democrats win they can change the date.

As it stands now Vermont has to do the stupid exchange thing until 2017 when they can ask for a waiver and get rid of the exchanges and force everyone to use the state run health care insurer.

It's not about repealing it's about changing the date that the waivers become active. It won't pass in the current Congress but it might pass under the 2015 Congress. That's a two year head start.

[merrily]

133. "Can" doesn't mean they will.

I am not even sure they can, if the filibuster rule remains in place.

[joshcryer]

136. Duh.

[merrily]

140. Well, this was your original statement.

Heh. Vermont won't implement it until 2017.

Unless we win back the House and keep the Senate so that VT can implement it sooner.

Sounded very much as though a Democrat win would equal the ability of Vermont to implement single payer sooner.

Apparently, that is not a statement you can support.

[joshcryer]

143. "can"

not "will"

[merrily]

154. Vermont can = Vermont will be able to. No guaranty of that.

"Congress can, not will" is a different matter.

[joshcryer]

155. Congress can / will enable Vermont to do.

OK have your little internet point if you want, I don't care.

[merrily]

161. IOW, a win by Democrats does not = Vermont being able to move up the date.

[joshcryer]

163. Duh.

[joshcryer]

59. This is a good point, the 2017 waiver deadline is folly.

But it'd take 3 years anyways for the suit to find its way to the SCOTUS, so that point is moot.

Vermont will not have single payer until 2017.

Thanks Bernie!

[MADem]

65. Heh, heh! nt

[merrily]

99. The Defense of Marriage Act did not prohibit same sex marriage.

It was about feds refusing to recognize the marriage. It was also about other states not having to recognize the marriage, though that part of it is questionable under the Full Faith and Credit clause of the U.S. Constitution.

[MADem]

183. States' Rights--like I said, it's a two-edged sword.

DOMA effectively prevented large swathes of the population from either exercising a right available to others or receiving benefits that would accrue as a consequence of matrimony; e.g. the military (DADT--marriage was regarded as a "tell" in that equation), federal employees who couldn't avail themselves of benefits available to married people (e.g. health benefits, overseas housing, etc.). It was, in effect, a prohibition.

Now, we know damn well that the federal government can't "prevent" a state from doing whatever the hell they want in this regard (what are they gonna do? Send in the troops to the "Green Mountain State?" Hold doctors hostage unless they demand insurance cards?) but they CAN withhold dollars, and all this waiver does is stop that "dollar foolishness" from going down.

[Luminous Animal]

3. Thank you for this.

I was just about to embark on my own research because I remembered Sanders but not the specifics.

[MannyGoldstein]

5. You're welcome

I expect to be vivesected for this OP - wish me luck...

[Luminous Animal]

6. I have your back.

We live in a bizarro world that credits a man who enabled a system that prohibits single payer and giving him credit for creating it.

[bananas]

40. Thanks because I wasn't aware of this.

Good luck, dude.

[joshcryer]

52. The OP is a lie.

Last edited Mon Nov 25, 2013, 12:47 PM - Edit history (1)

edit: read the edits, potential jurors, etc

[cantbeserious]

7. Thank You Bernie Sanders For Pushing The Envelope

eom

[MADem]

8. No, we should be thanking "VT Lawmakers"...if you want to get technical.

And the Governor of VT who signed the bill into law.

And, as you've been told elsewhere--in the OTHER thread you started (how many are you going to start, Manny? On this same subject? Launching barbs and digs at POTUS, as you do?) there was no barrier to single payer AFTER ObamaCare either--because there is a provision in the law, proposed by the VT Senator, and signed by the POTUS, to ensure that.

So thanks VT lawmakers, thanks VT Governor, thanks Sen. Sanders, and thanks, POTUS.

Because without all of them, VT wouldn't have their single payer system.

[joshcryer]

58. VT still won't get Single Payer until 2017.

Giving for profit insurance three years to screw Vermont over.

If anything one could criticize Sanders for failing to make the waiver happen in 2014.

BTW it seems you got mixed up by the OP. The "provision in the law, proposed by the VT Senator" is non-sense. Waivers are always, always part of administration law. If anything what was unusual was that the waiver was pushed to 2017 rather than freaking 2009.... that's the weird part, imo.

[cali]

63. actually, there are no for profit health insurers operating in Vermont

[bvar22]

134. Oh No!

Surely you don't mean that the "de-bunker" posted his own false information while attacking the OP for posting "Lies" ???!!@!!

[joshcryer]

151. Oh my lord.

That shitty scam company UnitedHealthcare operates in Vermont. It was just too precious of a statement I just let it go.

As if there exist any state that isn't tied to the for-profit health industry.

(Now the exchanges, yeah, they might be all non-profit, that's how they are in CO, but I wasn't talking exclusively about exchanges.)

[MADem]

64. It's not for lack of trying. Obama supported the 2014 waiver as well.

http://vtdigger.org/2011/03/01/obama-backs-waivers-needed-for-vt-%E2%80%99s-single-payer-system/

The thread starter has a visceral hatred for all things Obama, and he spends most of his time here tearing down either POTUS or former SecState Clinton. He uses childish "versus" tricks--in this case, Bernie Sanders/GOOOOOD vs. Obama/BAAAAAD. In other efforts, he drags out Elizabeth Warren/GOOOOOOOOD vs. HRClinton/BAAAAAAAAD.

He is a one note wonder--negativity, divisiveness, all day and every day--and it is getting tiresome.

He doesn't care about accuracy, either, and that is ... troublesome.

As for VT, they will survive under the less-than-optimal single payer plan for now. Their hospitals are already non-profits, and they have the smallest number of uninsured citizens after Massachusetts.

[joshcryer]

71. But Obama! Third Way! OMG OMG

Oh, forgot, we're in a thread talking about how Obama doesn't deserve any credit for single payer being enacted in a state!

Which, btw, a lot of us ACA advocates said would happen. While people like the OP said things like ACA would destroy our chances to have single payer at all!

[MADem]

73. +1,000 !!!!

Good Old King Obama--he rules at the federal level, he rules at the state level! I want him to come to my community and do something about these doggone property taxes!

It's only a matter of time before we see single payer creep across the land, like ivy! The only places where it won't grow well is where GOP jerks refuse to water the damn plants! I think it's great that VT is serving as the test bed for this process--they are far enough ahead in their infrastructure and their number of insured people that they are best able to try it out and work out the kinks. Anyone coming after them will learn from any issues that arise as VT implements.

[joshcryer]

77. You should see my post #76.

Manny makes it too easy.

[MADem]

184. Game! Set! Match!

Announcer Voice: ....and, ladies and gentlemen, after a long fought volley where joshcryer totally dominated his opponent, he emerges once again as champion!

That was perhaps the best clock cleaning I've seen in awhile--and right on point, too.

[Number23]

207. You guys are OWNING this thread. Manny should have to pay you and josh rent

DAMN the ass whupping has been highly visible, irrefutable, and incredibly enjoyable to watch.

[SidDithers]

212. Agreed...

They're drinking Manny's milkshake.



Sid

[MADem]

223. It brought all the Dems to the yard, I guess! nt

[MADem]

220. Thank you, my dear!

I am getting sick of the bashing of our POTUS. It's one thing to criticize if he's made a misstep, but making shit up and trying to pit people who like Warren against people who like Clinton (or who like both of them), or trying to pretend that Sanders and Obama have a difference of opinion wrt a waiver for Vermont, that's just shit stirring and I've had enough.

[Number23]

226. Well, his dwindling fan club gave it 128 recs, far from the glory days

And it made it to the Greatest Page for a little while, which is the OP's sole goal it seems, so he should be happy.

It's so interesting the folks that are accusing you and josh of spreading misinformation when you guys have quoted every reputable source, including government links and there is no question that it's the OP that is distorting this issue. Shocking, I know.

I just want you to know that what you guys did was SEEN. Not just seen, it was SEEN (as in "I SEE you&quot and I for one really appreciated what you and josh did.

[MADem]

237. I hope it's part of his permanent record, such as it is.

I'm tired of this crap, if you know what I'm saying, here. We're coming up on 2014 and we need all hands on deck, not carping, sniping, snide bullshit and "divide and conquer" games. I'm not going to be silent or play the "HIDE THREAD" card when I see shit like this.

The ones who are trying to muddy the waters? Well, we'll know them by their words, too!

[JoePhilly]

119. +1

[VanillaRhapsody]

178. To some folks around here...the man doesn't deserve credit for ANYTHING he has accomplished

hmmmmm it does sound familiar though...like dejavu almost!

[Marrah_G]

91. ^THIS

[merrily]

166. Vermont was always free to go single payer before Obamacare.

After Obamacare, Vermont needed to get a waiver from the feds before going single payer.

I am not sure that is an improvement from the perspective of Vermont, though Obamacare is an improvement in other respects.

[VanillaRhapsody]

179. Does Vermont need the help from Obamacares? I'd say yes....

so yeah...it falls under that purview doesn't it?

[MADem]

185. What do you mean, "free to go?" They DID go--BEFORE Obamacare.

But they can't PAY for it by themselves.

Which is why they have not implemented it.

Check out this link. Check out the date. And note that VT's governor did not sign the SP legislation until MAY of 2011.

http://vtdigger.org/2011/03/01/obama-backs-waivers-needed-for-vt-%E2%80%99s-single-payer-system/

They need federal money, and this waiver--which OBAMA SUPPORTED back in 2011, BEFORE VT even passed the SP law, allows it.

I am starting to get the impression that not everyone understands that VT passed Single Payer waaaaaaay back in 2011. It didn't happen last week, and "Bernie" didn't do it, though a lot of people--including a guy named OBAMA--have supported VT's efforts in this regard for a few years, now.

[jazzimov]

9. I thank Sanders, AND Obama, AND the Vermont

Legislature.

[Luminous Animal]

12. Why thank Obama. Single payer is illegal unless a waiver is granted.

And Sanders is the reason why the option of a waiver exists.

[VanillaRhapsody]

180. and you blame Obama for that....right yeah....cause everything is his fault I am sure!

[MADem]

186. Keep making stuff up! Do your homework.

Sanders is the reason, you say? Check out the date of this article:

http://vtdigger.org/2011/03/01/obama-backs-waivers-needed-for-vt-%E2%80%99s-single-payer-system/

[Douglas Carpenter]

10. there you go again Manny - spreading the ugly stench of reality

Why can you just leave people alone and let them pretend?

[MisterP]

33. there's a Russian poem for this

The winter's passed,
The summer's here.
For this we thank
Our party dear!

[ConservativeDemocrat]

167. Spreading the ugly stench of lies.

FTFY.

But, you know, haters are going to hate. Liars are going to lie. It's the way of the world.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[Cali_Democrat]

11. LMFAO, Manny

The provision in the ACA, also known as Obamacare? The bill which Obama signed?

Or are you referring to another piece of legislation?

Obama gets no credit for a provision in Obamacare?

[Luminous Animal]

13. No he does not. Sanders gets credit.

[Cali_Democrat]

15. Is the provision in the Obamacare bill?

[Luminous Animal]

16. Did Obama create that provision? No he did not.

[Cali_Democrat]

19. You don't even know how legislation works

Executives don't create legislation. They sign or veto legislation passed by Congress.

I propose we change the name of the bill to BernieCare.

[Luminous Animal]

23. Hahaha!!! Then why is it called ObamaCare... Near the entire thing originated

from the executive office. It is Obama's signature legislation and it excluded single payer as an option.

Senator Sanders was the force behind including that option for the states. Without him, ObamaCare didn't even consider the option.

All the credit belongs to Senator Sanders.

[Cali_Democrat]

26. The media coined it Obamacare and that's all she wrote

Its actually called the Affordable Care Act. Once the Obamacare name kept being used he just went with it, but that's not the actual name.

It's funny, everything bad that happens gets laid at Obama's feet, but if there's good the credit goes to someone else?

LOL.

Executives sign the whole bill or they don't and legislators can insert any number of provisions.

Like I said, your post above proves that you don't know how government functions.

I'm wasting my time with you.

[nikto]

42. I wonder...

If ObamaCare became extremely successful and popular over time,
would the media stop calling it ObamaCare, then?




I bet they would.



Ain't our media great?

[merrily]

106. No, the reason it was called Obamacare was that Obama campaigned on it and the WH did a lot of

the negotiating. Also killed the drug reimportation bill because it was inconsistent with those negotiations.

Yes, Congress made revisions and had to vote yea or nay before Obama could sign it, but this was his bill.

[merrily]

105. The Executive does initiate some legislation, but only Congress can pass it.

The White House definitely negotiated Obamacare with health care providers, health insurers and pharmaceutical companies before it ever got to Baucus, probably beginning before the inauguration.

[merrily]

110. The White House often initiates legislation. Yes, Congress has to pass it (or not), but

saying Executives never create legislation ignores reality.

[sabrina 1]

171. Sometimes, a politician whose vote is needed to pass legislation, holds up their vote

until they get something THEY want. That is what happened with Bernie Sanders and the provision for states to eventually provide Single Payer.

Since the bill was not going to get a single Republican vote despite all the concessions that were made for them, every vote became critically important. Bernie used that power to get something he wanted.

I wonder if they had had just a few Republican votes, would Bernie's provision have been accepted?

That we'll never know but it wasn't in there until Bernie proposed it.

That is how good Legislators operate. They see an opening and they take advantage of it.

[pnwmom]

22. Presidents don't "create" provisions in laws.

They either sign them or they don't; support them or they don't.

He supported the ACA and signed it when it came to him.

[Luminous Animal]

27. You must think I and other DUers are stupid.

The executive branch stomped all over this legislation.

[MADem]

31. You must think we are, if you want us to buy that steaming pile you are shopping.

Obama doesn't sign shit--pardon the expression--until 100 Senators and 435 representatives have commented on it via their vote, and by their comments, allowed it to proceed to the desk of the POTUS.

That's "stomping all over this legislation."

But hey, never mind that inconvenient fact. If you are unclear on how a bill becomes law, you might be a bit muddled on that score.

We get your argument, let me sum it up...Obama BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD!!!!!! Because.....uh....because!!!!!

[MADem]

32. But they do in Luminous - Manny World!

Whassamatta with you? Obama BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD!!!! That's the theme here!!!

Why aren't you cooperating? Outrage! Ire!!!! Fist shaking!!!!



He's bad because he signed a law that could have had a prohibitive provision in it....only it didn't!

I've gotta say, this is the lamest attempt at POTUS-disparagement I've ever seen on DU. It's pathetic, and it is stupid, but worst of all, it's OBVIOUS.

[merrily]

107. Of course they do. They cannot do it alone. But they initiate legislation all the time.

[MADem]

188. It doesn't become operative until 535 people have their way with it, and POTUS signs it, though.

Obama supported waiver legislation before VT even passed their single payer law--way back in 2011.

[MADem]

29. Who signed the bill into law? Santa?

There would be no law with that provision without the signature of ..............?

Go on, fill in the blank--I know you can do it!

[woo me with science]

34. That's what I kept telling people when Obama signed

the sequestration bill, the Monsanto Protection Act, extension of FISA, NDAA/indefinite detention, ACTA assaults on civil and digital rights, food stamp cuts, reversal of the STOCK Act, robosigning immunity, gutting of Dodd-Frank regulations on the big banks...

[MADem]

35. We're talking about the ACA here. You know, the bill that Obama signed into law, with a provision

that allows states like VT, HI and CT waivers to go a different way.

If you really want to revisit those pieces of legislation, in their full context, you DO know that there's no charge to start a thread on them, I trust?

[woo me with science]

48. Nope, I'm commenting on your broad argument here about what "Presidents" do,

which you use to support your claim that Obama approves of what Sanders added to the bill.

You argued that Presidents either sign something or not, depending on whether they support it or not. You were not just talking about the ACA, as your own words clearly show:

Presidents don't "create" provisions in laws.

They either sign them or they don't; support them or they don't."

It's a very simple argument, drawing on what all Presidents do - either support it or not, and sign it or not. You even repeated the argument, with a flourish of condescension:

Who signed the bill into law? Santa?

There would be no law with that provision without the signature of ..............?

Go on, fill in the blank--I know you can do it!

You *should* be happy; I was backing up your use of this argument that signing something implies endorsement of it. Now you seem to want to backtrack and deny you made it. Now you start to complain about the need for "full context" in order to discern whether a President supports something he signs. Yet you showed no interest whatsoever in "full context" when it came to Bernie's contribution. All the evidence of support you needed was that signature!

Let's apply your own argument to these other things Obama signed, using YOUR words:

Who signed the bill into law? Santa?

Who signed NDAA/indefinite detention into law? Santa?
Who signed the sequestration bill into law? Santa?
Who signed the Monsanto Protection Act into law? Santa?
Who signed extension of FISA into law? Santa?
Who signed the gutting of more financial regulations into law? Santa?
and etc., etc., etc...


Nite, nite.

[MADem]

51. Comment all you'd like--it's obvious you have no game WRT the subject matter, so you are engaging in

a tactic called "deflection."

You are getting petulant and cranky, though, so perhaps "nite nite" is a good idea for you.

[99Forever]

74. That left a mark.

WTG, Woo, keep keeping it real.

[MADem]

238. Yes, the skid mark of "No Argument Relative to the Topic."

The stain of pure, desperate distraction. Huge fail.

Keeping it real? Like Chapelle keeps it real, maybe.

[99Forever]

240. Ahh... the petulent child response.

Isn't that special?

In case you didn't notice, you are very much in the minority. VERY much.

[MADem]

241. If you're going to try to be didactic, at least use spell check.

It's "petulant," not "petulent" and I am not in the minority, not even slightly.

But that is what a petulant child might say.

[99Forever]

248. Oh noes!

You're a Spelling Cop too?

How oh so very impressive.Gonna write me a citation, OffiSIR?

[MADem]

250. Ha--talk about a "petulant child response!"

Great illustration of the concept, there!

I guess whoever smelt it most certainly dealt it!

Names will never hurt me, pity for you as you're plainly trying to hit a target. Go on, then... snark some more if you must--it looks like you have a real need to lash out at someone.

It does make some feel better.

[99Forever]

257. Keep it up.

You're doing Pee Wee Herman proud.

[MADem]

258. Look in the mirror, pal. nt

[99Forever]

259. Bwahahahahahahah....

... sure "pal."

Keep digging.

[MADem]

260. You're the one with the shovel. nt

[99Forever]

261. "I know you are, but what am I?"

"I know you are, but what am I?"
"I know you are, but what am I?"
"I know you are, but what am I?"

[MADem]

262. Let's see, who lit off this petulant and childish exchange?

Who jumped into a conversation with a gratuitous, unhelpful, and shit stirring comment? Who behaved in disruptive, goading and baiting fashion--and is proud of it?

Who, I wonder, who?

http://sync.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4089258

By your words we know you...pal. Maybe you should do a little less of that petulant, childish snarking and head banging, and work on being a bit more thoughtful in your conversations. You're not acquitting yourself well at all.

[99Forever]

265. Who's "we?"

You and the turd in your pocket, "pal?"

[MADem]

266. Kiss your mama with that mouth, pal? nt

[Bodhi BloodWave]

267. MADem was likely refering to other posters grounded in reality reading this thread like me n/t

[joshcryer]

81. Sanders didn't add it. Ron Wyden did. Sanders helped.

And Obama endorses Sander's desire to move it up to 2014 as opposed to waiting 3 years and forcing Vermont to set up an exchange system.

I don't know why Sanders is taking credit for it. There are only 4 mentions on the entire internet and they are all on Sander's site. I can find an article where it says that Sanders worked with Wyden on it, though, on his own site, no less.

Sanders as a politician wants his cake and wants to eat it, too. Wyden got the ball rolling on the waiver and if you know squat about administrative law there had to be some kind of waiver language in there (an administrator would otherwise have their hands tied if they couldn't waive something).

[Phlem]

195. +1000

There are some real ssholes in this thread. I'm with you and Manny unfortunately the children here can't have a pleasant rapport when they disagree, it's reduced to name calling, childish smileys, offending remarks.

oooooo OBAMA Bad.......

yea in areas he is, he's not a saint like people purport him to be, he is human and can do really stupid things as your comment shows.

What fucking nonsense and noise, just like children.

one of the few irritating things about DU.

-p

PS..Who's trying to fast track the TPP again, Oh yea, I remember.

[woo me with science]

214. +1 This thread is an excellent example of what we face in terms of the

deliberate swarming, disruption, and disinformation that pervade every place where citizens try to gather and gain momentum for taking back our country from the corporate authoritarians who now run it.

You're right. The posts are disruptive, period. They do not aim to convince anyone of anything or to make logical sense. They insult, spew non-responsive/nonsensical vehemence, and serve merely to pollute and derail discussion. That is their goal: to prevent places online where real discussion and organization can occur.

DU is not alone. This is happening to discussion places across the internet.

States that build surveillance machines also build propaganda machines.

The goal of the propaganda assaults across the internet is not to convince anyone of anything.*
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023359801

It will continue to get worse
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3189367

[Phlem]

217. I loves my friend woo!

-p

[joshcryer]

230. The OP is what was disruptive because it was a lie.

The OP's edit history is easy enough to look at. It's clear that each time they got caught they edited to "clarify."

[Phlem]

245. Riiiiight

And you speak the truth always and never lie? OK then.

So your basically calling the OP a liar indirectly. And you've been what?

" I've been extremely civil."



-p

[joshcryer]

231. I've been extremely civil.

Even as you exchange insults with Number23 below.

I call it like I see it, and I would hope I'm not included in your "just like children" generalization.

[Phlem]

244. So glad your here.

What would DU ever do without your immense knowledge and vision!??????



-p

[Number23]

208. That was tired. Even for you.

[Phlem]

218. While this took an enormous amount of energy to write.

You know like what comes from the sun!!!!



-p

[Number23]

225. God, you are so well named. A sentiment that seems to get posted to you daily.

[Phlem]

227. 3,2,1

Cue the disparaging name calling and pious remarks.



-p

PS.. your like clockwerk my friend.

[djean111]

87. Oh, for those - he had no choice, his hands were tied. Get with the program.

[Luminous Animal]

43. Some one else did the work to make this happen...

Obama did not.

[MADem]

45. Oh....so if he doesn't get any credit, he can't get any blame either!

The unintentional hilarity on this thread is something else! I think you might want to quit while you're far, far behind....

[Luminous Animal]

46. Remind me again when Obama, in office, advocated for single payer.

No. He gets no credit.

You see, Vermont could have passed single payer, with or without ACA. Now, unfortunately, they have to ask the Feds pretty please. Thanks to Bernie, at least the states have that.

Indeed. You are hilarious.

[MADem]

47. Could have? They did. And they did it a long while ago. Two and a half years ago, actually.

You apparently don't realize that they didn't pass this the other day.

Bernie didn't have a crystal ball, he was aware of what the VT legislature and the governor of that state did back in 2011--with staged rollouts ending in 2017. That's why he inserted the waiver provision into the bill, to accommodate a state law that was signed by the governor in May 2011 and has been in the implementation pipeline for two and a half years, now.

But don't let facts get in the way of your little hate-fantasies about the POTUS.

Keep digging that hole, now! Put some wellie in it!!!


And while I'm at it, I gotta save this post of yours, just so you can't backtrack and make it go poof....

Luminous Animal
46. Remind me again when Obama, in office, advocated for single payer.
View profile
No. He gets no credit.

You see, Vermont could have passed single payer, with or without ACA. Now, unfortunately, they have to ask the Feds pretty please. Thanks to Bernie, at least the states have that.

Indeed. You are hilarious.

How embarrassing for you!

[joshcryer]

89. Do you know anything about administrative law?

This had to happen.

Even Sanders suggests that for-profit insurers could be allowed by the waiver. As long as they have standards that meet the ACA / HHS guidelines.

Now we both know that's practically impossible, so the waiver becomes something we get to use against them. It's one reason Warren left the CFPB and went on to be a Senator. They were tying her hands. If the HHS didn't have the power to wave something like this, then its hands would be tied too.

[merrily]

109. I thought Warren left because Obama nominated someone else?

[joshcryer]

112. Nope, read that link I posted.

Whoever told you that was being misleading. The CFPB was and still is being pounced upon by Congress. It's the only administration that actually has to report to congress or something like that, if I recall correctly.

Warren is a Senator now and you don't make that judgment lightly. She'd been planning it for months. She might have pushed to stay on the CFPB if it wasn't neutered but I doubt it.

[merrily]

115. No one told me. That is my recollection, which is supported by her wiki.

CFPB

Warren was an early advocate for the creation of a new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). The bureau was established by the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act signed into law by President Obama in July 2010. In anticipation of the agency's formal opening, for the first year after the bill's signing, Warren worked on implementation of the bureau as a special assistant to the president. While liberal groups and consumer advocacy groups pushed for Obama to nominate Warren as the agency's permanent director, Warren was strongly opposed by financial institutions and by Republican members of Congress who believed Warren would be an overly zealous regulator.[32][33][34] Reportedly convinced that Warren could not win Senate confirmation as the bureau's first director,[35] Obama turned to former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray and in January 2012, over the objections of Republican Senators, appointed Cordray to the post in a recess appointment.[36][37]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Warren

She left in plenty of time to decide whether she wanted to run and to prepare her campaign, giving that Obama and the DNC were backing her. Also, I assume that Obama would have given her a head up about
nominating someone else before that info went public.

I also recall that, after she left D.C., she met with the DNC and other Democrats to assess the feasibility of running. I am sure if you google, you will find articles to that effect.

[joshcryer]

120. I addressed that stuff in my link.

Just go to that other thread. It makes no sense for Warren to run for Senate two weeks after the appointment unless she was well aware of it ahead of time, I'm talking months. The decision was not a spur of the moment thing.

Go watch the hearings and how they belittled her.

She didn't want the job in the end and is a Senator now with more power than she would've had at the CFPB.

[merrily]

126. Your post is not the final word. Lots of sources and my own recollection are to contrary.

As I said in my earlier post, I would expect Obama to have informed her before nominating Cordray and discussing her alternatives with her.\

I never debated that Republicans gave her a hard time, so I am not sure what watching the hearings would resolve.

I try to stay away from mind reading. I don't believe we have any way of knowing what she wanted. Maybe Obama did not want the fight and they came to a mutual agreement about her running for the Senate against Brown, which surely was not a sure thing for her, given his incumbency and favor from Massachusetts media. We don't know and probably never will.

[joshcryer]

128. She did not want the job.

She wanted to be a Senator.

Sorry if you think she wanted to be the head of a neutered organization, it really suggests to me you have a low opinion of her.

[merrily]

129. As I said, I try to stay away from mind reading, esp. with people I've never spoken with.

What I said was that we have no way of knowing what happened. That does not say anything about my opinion of her one way or another. That's a posting game you're playing.

[joshcryer]

132. History tells us what she wanted.

The speculation is contrary to what happened in reality.

[merrily]

135. It may, or it may tell us what her second, third or fourth choice was.

Just because someone does something, it doesn't mean it was their first choice.

[joshcryer]

139. I don't believe her first choice is to be head of a neutered CFPB.

If you think it was, even her second choice, I would think you had a low opinion of her and her intellect.

She's not going to stop throwing rocks!

[merrily]

141. Continuing the posting game of putting words in my mouth. You're on your own.

News flash: What you believe she wanted does not necessarily equal what she actually wanted.

Not everyone would pretend they know the motives and inner desire of someone they've never met, let alone saying my refusal to pretend I'm a mind reader means I have a low opinion of her.

[joshcryer]

144. Whew.

No more pointless notifications, I hope.

[merrily]

145. Well, you still haven't replied to Post #116. When did the CBO rate single payer?

But the notifications were no more pointless than required by the posts.

[joshcryer]

146. In 1993.

[merrily]

149. Single payer was not on the table then. Billarycare was.

Besides, 1993 is not 2009. Things change.

[joshcryer]

150. Single Payer has never been on the table.

[merrily]

158. Parsing words. It has been introduced in every Congress since 2003, but has

never come up for a vote.


Weiner got a commitment that the House would vote on it. However, Pelosi told him that she thought voting on single payer might interfere with getting Obamacare passed. So, she reneged.

So, it all depends on how you define "on the table." However, I never said that single payer had been on the table. My post was about the CBO having rated single payer in connection with Billarycare in 1993.

[joshcryer]

160. Right, it wasn't on the table for Billarycare, or Obamacare.

I am not sure what is so controversial.

You expect the CBO to look at something off the table? I suppose that's a possibility, however remote.

[merrily]

164. Again, that depends on how you define "on the table." It was introduced.

The point was not what I expect of the CBO. The point is that the context in which the CBO rates something is relevant, as is the date.

[joshcryer]

165. I define it as you with regards to Billarycare.

If you wish to move the goalposts, you may do so.

[MADem]

187. I don't mean to be rude or anything, but it is self-evident that it is much better to

be the Senator on the Banking Committee that has OVERSIGHT over the conduct of the Director of the CFPB, than be the Director, constrained by legislation and directive coming out of Congress.

EW--my senator--is all about making change. A lot of us worked very hard to get her elected, and no, it wasn't a cake walk.

[merrily]

108. Caving on a provision because he needed the vote of every Senator in the Dem Caucus

when his bill originally said the exact opposite is a reason to give him the credit, rather than the Senators who insisted on the provision?

[MADem]

224. Caving on what provision?

VT will get their waiver, the very waiver that Obama told the governors of every state in the union that he supported...way back in 2011, before VT had even passed their SP legislation.

[joshcryer]

56. No, and it was a shitty dated provision.

Allowing insurance companies 3 to 4 years to screw over states that were heading to single payer.

You are misreading the OP because the OP is, typically, misleading.

Sanders did not get a 2014 provision enacted, Vermont still can't implement single payer until 2017-2018.

Section 1332 is what Sanders wanted to amend to change the date.

The ACA has always had a provision for states to implement their own single payer.

[merrily]

111. Isn't that better than forbidding states to enact single payer?

Also, do we know that Sanders, and not the White House, negotiated for 2017?

Maybe that was a compromise, given that Obamacare originally forbade single payer entirely.

[joshcryer]

113. The CBO said the numbers didn't work.

Bernie Sanders reluctantly agreed with their numbers and signed off on 2017.

Obamacare never forbade single payer. The Senate Majority Leader even contradicts that.

The goal has always been single payer.

[merrily]

116. When did the CBO ever rate single payer?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michele-swenson/blue-dogs-should-demand-c_b_245083.html

[merrily]

159. Actually, it seems the CBO said a lot of things about single payer in the 1990s, but little lately.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/06/23/746091/-CBO-Analysis-How-Much-Would-Single-Payer-Cost-updatex2#

[joshcryer]

162. That's... what I said.

[merrily]

169. No, it isn't. But this is boring. So, I'll leave it at that.

[joshcryer]

170. Post #146...

[MADem]

70. He supported it two months before VT even passed their SP legislation--back in 2011.

OOOOPS...

This is right from Sen. Sanders' webpage. Read it and learn:

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/release-president-endorses-state-waiver-proposal

[merrily]

117. Obviously, he supported the waiver or Vermont would not have it.

[MADem]

189. He supported it BEFORE VT passed their law--almost three years ago.

Which makes the stinking bullshit that is this OP even more malodorous!

[joshcryer]

55. Sanders was instrumental in making the waiver deadline 2017?

I don't know what you're saying because there was no legislation passed by Sanders allowing states to have a waiver by 2014.

[merrily]

118. Of course not. Sanders has no power to pass legislation on his own.

[joshcryer]

124. The poster said he gets credit for the waiver.

Apparently he voted for the 2017 deadline.

So I guess we're both right.

[merrily]

137. As I stated, that may have been a compromise on which he condititioned his ACA vote.

If so, he would deserve credit, IMO.

However, again, we have no way of knowing what went on behind the scenes.

[joshcryer]

138. He now wants it moved to 2014.

With a Congress, as you pointed out, that won't do that.

[joshcryer]

84. So I found why Sanders agreed to 2017:

Ezra Klein: You worked hard on getting the original version of the state waiver into the legislation. Why? Liberals aren’t usually associated with federalist approaches.

Bernie Sanders: As a single-payer advocate, I believe that at the end of the day, if a state goes forward and passed an effective single-payer program, it will demonstrate that you can provide quality health care to every man, woman and child in a more cost-effective way. So we wanted to make sure that states have that option, we wanted it to be available when the bill gets implemented in 2014. But we ran into the most insane objections from the Congressional Budget Office.

Ezra Klein: Is that why it got pushed back to 2017?

Bernie Sanders: Our argument was we don’t want any more money from the federal government. When the bill is implemented, let the states use the money the federal government would already be paying to implement single-payer. The CBO came up with one of the weirder counterarguments we’ve ever heard. The CBO said we think the states are smarter than the federal government and they’ll outmaneuver the feds to get more money. So we were forced by the CBO -- not by anybody in the Congress -- to push it back to 2017. And I agreed to that very reluctantly.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/11/sen_bernie_sanders_vermont_sta.html

Most progressive member of Congress is fucking more pragmatic than some more radical types. That's saying something if you ask me.

Wonder when we throw Sanders under the bus for voting for something just because the CBO said to?

[merrily]

121. "the most insane objections" from the CBO. Gee, I wonder why.

[joshcryer]

123. He still voted for it.

Guess he didn't find them too insane.

[merrily]

147. I take him at his word. As stated twice before, the day may have been a compromise.

We don't know. We have no way of knowing. You apparently think you can ascertain motives. I don't think either of us can.

[joshcryer]

153. Erm, he pretty much laid it out.

I mean, it doesn't get any clearer than what he said.

If there was a compromise I don't see evidence for it.

[merrily]

156. He said the CBO's reasons were the most insane.

You replied to me that he could not have thought them insane. I said I take him at his word that he did find them insane.

[joshcryer]

157. ie, acceptably insane.

I said too insane to vote for, ie, acceptably insane.

[MADem]

17. Yeah....Obama gets blamed because he didn't sign a law that prohibited single-payer. It's rich.

Instead, he signed a law that allows it...

Everyone, grab a torch or a pitchfork!!!






So pathetic...! I guess the "manufactured outrage" factory is suffering from a shortage of raw materials.

[Cali_Democrat]

24. It's pathetic

but hilarious at the same time.

[bearssoapbox]

37. "Everyone, grab a torch or a pitchfork!!!"

I'll bring dessert.



Does anybody really believe that he didn't know that piece of legislation wasn't in there?

Kudos to President Obama and Bernie Sanders.

[MADem]

38. Mmmmmm mmmmmm good!

I love me some punkin pi(e)!!!

What a GREAT carving!!!!

[joshcryer]

57. Yup, the ACA always had a single payer provision.

The OP is trying to mislead people by suggesting that Sanders put it in there, because Sanders is fighting for the date to be moved from 2017 to 2014.

However, the Sanders-Leahy-Welch amendment has not passed since it was introduced, and it will not pass in this Congress.

[treestar]

68. Yes it's because someone did another thread

giving Obama some credit and we can't stand that!

[MADem]

69. What do all of the "Half Truth Posts" have in common?

They attempt to pit people against one another who are actually supportive of one another. They paint one as good, the other as bad, and seek to create chaos and discontent amongst the uninformed readers here.

In this case, we see Obama, who supported the waiver process all the way back in Feb 2011, three months before VT's governor even signed the SP legislation into law, being pitted against Sanders, who wanted the waiver so his state could speed up their implementation of SP.

Get a load of this two and a half year old link, from Bernie Sanders' website--it is a federal document, belonging to "We, The People" so there are no copyright restrictions on it:

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/release-president-endorses-state-waiver-proposal

Release: President Endorses State Waiver Proposal
Monday, February 28, 2011
Vermont Delegation and Gov. Shumlin Hail Obama Endorsement of State Health Reform Waiver Legislation


WASHINGTON, Feb. 28 - The Vermont congressional delegation and Gov. Peter Shumlin today hailed President Obama's endorsement of legislation allowing states to provide better health care at a lower cost starting in 2014.

At a meeting of the National Governors Association Monday morning, Obama announced his support for amending the Affordable Care Act to allow states like Vermont to seek a federal waiver to the new law three years earlier than currently allowed. States would be required to design plans that are at least as comprehensive and affordable as the federal model and cover at least as many people

Last month Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) introduced in the Senate and Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) introduced in the House legislation that would advance the date waivers would be accepted from 2017 to 2014. The three joined Gov. Shumlin at a Montpelier press conference to announce the legislation, which would provide Vermont the flexibility it needs to adopt reforms Shumlin is pursuing.

Leahy said, "This is a wise decision that keeps in focus the goal of continually improving health care in America. I applaud President Obama and Secretary Sebelius for supporting efforts by Vermont and other states to go above and beyond what the Affordable Care Act requires. They know that the federal government does not have a monopoly on good ideas, and innovations by the states will prove - and improve --- the benefits of health insurance reform, on the ground, and in practice. While some in Washington want to turn the clock back and repeal the new health reform law, Vermont and other states want to move ahead. Vermont has already been working hard to improve the state's system of health care, and passage of the delegation's waiver bill will move our state one step closer to that goal."

Sanders said, "At a time when 50 million Americans lack health insurance and when the cost of health care continues to soar, it is my strong hope that Vermont will lead the nation in a new direction through a Medicare-for-all, single-payer approach. I am delighted that President Obama announced today that he will, in fact, support allowing states to innovate with health coverage models sooner rather than later. I worked hard to draft and secure the waiver provision in the health reform law and I am very pleased the president now agrees that we should make it available in 2014 as originally intended. While there is a lot of work to be done, I look forward to working with Sens. Leahy, Wyden, Inouye, Brown and others in the Senate and Rep. Welch and others in the House to get this done as soon as possible."

Welch said, "President Obama's support for allowing states to innovate sooner is a good news for Vermont and all states looking to tailor health care reform to individual states' circumstances. This legislation will give Vermont a green light to lead the nation in providing quality health care at a lower cost. I'm hopeful that Democrats and Republicans alike will support this practical step to give states flexibility to achieve progress their own way."

Shumlin said, "I was excited to learn about this today during a visit to the White House. All along officials from Health and Human Services have expressed a willingness to work with us, as long as we don't compromise standards under the law. I think this is an excellent example of how we can work together to control skyrocketing health care costs and implement meaningful health care reform as soon as possible."

[pnwmom]

21. Of course there was a barrier prior to Obamacare:

COST.

That's why it hadn't happened yet.

But thanks to Obamacare much of the cost will now be borne by the Federal government through its expansion of Medicaid.

And of course Vermont will get the waiver. All they have to do is show they'll provide people with the same minimum coverage as through the ACA.

But it isn't true that some mythical version of the Bill forbade single payer. The ACA was a work in progress till the day before it was passed.

[MADem]

30. "The ACA was a work in progress till the day before it was passed."

EXACTLY.

Some days, though, like just now, I wonder if one of Boehner's acolytes didn't kidnap the admins here and take over the website, when I see fact-free convolutions like this. It's Limbaugh-like thinking, and it is willfully misrepresenting the reality of what is happening in VT. and what the ACA is all about.

[Luminous Animal]

44. Single payer has nothing to do with ACA. Vermont could have passed single payer

without the ACA. But now, no thanks to ACA, they have to beg for a waiver.

[MADem]

49. Well, they DID pass it--back in 2011. Before the Supreme Court ruled on it, too.

So what are you whining about with the "could have" business? You are making it pretty clear that you don't know your subject matter, with comments like that!

There's no begging for a waiver. Bernie put the waiver in the bill because VT had ALREADY PASSED THE LAW. Keep up with the hate fantasies, though!

And let me save this 'fact free' post:

Luminous Animal
44. Single payer has nothing to do with ACA. Vermont could have passed single payer
View profile
without the ACA. But now, no thanks to ACA, they have to beg for a waiver.

[pnwmom]

192. Vermont couldn't have paid for single payer before the ACA.

That's why they didn't do it. The Medicaid expansion and other funds has made all the difference.

And getting the waiver will be easy, since all they will have to do is show that their coverage will be just as good.

And isn't that the whole point?

[joshcryer]

233. This point is highly overlooked in this thread.

Vermont would've had to raise state employment taxes to 11% to pay for single payer.

In fact, the OP's lie that the ACA forbids single payer is the single biggest lie in this thread.

ACA enables single payer!

[pnwmom]

235. Right. The ACA was a critical part of the package that made it possible.n/t

[ProSense]

152. States needed an ERISA waiver, which was being pushed by Kucinich. n/t

[liberal_at_heart]

36. Bernie is the best.

[MADem]

53. He took care of his state, as a good senator does.

See, they passed this VT single payer law WAAAAAAY back in 2011.

He knew they did this, and he made sure that the ACA would accommodate their "experimental" program.

VT is a good test bed for this program, because they have a small population, most people in VT are already insured, and they have a non-profit system of hospitals. Even at that, they won't be fully online with it until 2017.

As MA was the test bed for ACA, VT will likely be the working example for SP to creep, state by state (see HI and CT, they might be next) across the country, slowly but surely...with only the right wing red states being slow to slide into what will hopefully become a new paradigm.

[joshcryer]

54. The OP is an outright lie.

The first link is to the ACA (edit: from 2010), allowing states to get a waiver in 2017 (and set up single payer).

The second link is to a page (edit: from 2011) talking about how Sanders, Leahy, and Welch wanted to move that waiver deadline to to 2014, because, obviously, it makes no sense to set up a private exchange and then tear it down three years later to enact single payer.

As it stands now Vermont's single payer will not go into effect until 2017.

Bernie Sanders did not magically make that happen, sorry. The mandates are what are going to make single payer happen.

[MannyGoldstein]

66. First off, you're rude. Didn't your parents teach you manners?

Second, was it not Sanders who inserted the 2017 provison, as stated in the second article?

Please point out the specific part of my OP that is incorrect.

[joshcryer]

76. Ron Wyden was the author of 1332. Your OP is a lie.

Practically all administrative acts require waivers in one form or another. Please think. 1332 was, in fact, rather typical waiver language. What was special about it is that it required whatever waived plans to meet ACA standards or be better.

“The federal government doesn’t have all the answers,” explains Sen. Ron Wyden, the author of Section 1332. “If states are exasperated or frustrated with one provision or another, this is a safety valve. It gives them running room.”

Even the Senate bill’s most cheerful supporters will grant that the legislation is imperfect. There are places where it doesn’t go far enough. There are places where it goes too far. There are places where it’s poorly worded. The problem is that it’s hard to say in advance what those places are.

Wyden’s contribution allows states to wiggle out of the consequences of those imperfections. Rather than having to go back through the Congress and the Senate to change a part of the bill, a state that finds the bill’s language inefficient for achieving the bill’s goals can simply petition the secretary of Health and Human Services for a waiver. No new legislation needed. No filibusters or holds to evade. No national agenda to contend with.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/12/the_case_for_moving_forward.html

But oh no, far be it for Obama to get any credit whatsoever for putting in a poison pill to the ACA that would make it pave the way for single payer.

b) Granting of Waivers.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may grant a request for a
waiver under subsection (a)(1) only if the Secretary determines
that the State plan--
(A) will provide coverage that is at least as
comprehensive as the coverage defined in section 1302(b)
and offered through Exchanges established under this
title as certified by Office of the Actuary of the
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services based on
sufficient data from the State and from comparable
States about their experience with programs created by
this Act and the provisions of this Act that would be
waived;
(B) will provide coverage and cost sharing
protections against excessive out-of-pocket spending
that are at least as affordable as the provisions of
this title would provide;
(C) will provide coverage to at least a comparable
number of its residents as the provisions of this title
would provide; and
(D) will not increase the Federal deficit.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ148/html/PLAW-111publ148.htm

The real irony is that the most hated Obama defender here predicted this outcome: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002482074

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002888869

As did I, of course in this thread with our favorite disruptor: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002476222

All the while ratfuckers continue to shit on Obama and the Democrats. (Note to jury, please click the Wikipedia link, "ratfucking" means dirty tricks by imposters.)

Regardless the US is run administratively. There was always going to be a waiver.

[MannyGoldstein]

80. Ok, let's take my OP one step at a time - if you dare

"ObamaCare, as originally written, forbade single payer in states."

Is that statement a lie?

[joshcryer]

83. It's a weasel statement more than anything.

Obamacare passed on its first vote, as originally written, with the provision that in 2017 states could enact single payer with a waiver.

I don't think it "banned" single payer since Vermont is forging ahead with Green Mountain Care, which will look very much like single payer, with some caveats, until 2017 when it can fully roll out.

But sure, it made things more complicated than they needed it to be.

[randome]

85. Thanks for the facts and links.

It's not necessary to be either an Obama Worshiper or an Obama Hater to get a gist of how this truly happened.

When all is said and done, none of us was privy to the details of this legislation. But the fact is this is happening because Obama got the ball rolling and this is what the history books will record.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[joshcryer]

86. Gay marriage, marijuana, and single payer.

They'll all happen in 10 years tops, at a federal level.

ACA bashers keep trying to shit on it but us defenders know the inevitable outcome.

For profit health insurance can't compete.

[MannyGoldstein]

88. So we agree that it's *true*. But you say it's *weaselly* because...

Vermont will essentially have single-payer anyway before 2017? Which, presumably, proves that ObamaCare as originally written essentially supported single payer?

Interesting.

OK, help me understand how I'm being weaselly here.

1. What are the trivial differences between Vermont's health insurance program pre-2017, and in 2017 and beyond? All Vermont residents will have health insurance in 2017. Will they all have it in 2014?

2. Between now and 2017, how will Vermont's health insurance laws look different than those of other states that participate in the exchanges?

[joshcryer]

90. The only difference is Green Mountain Care will have to compete.

That is it.

Really, Manny. That is the caveat.

Green Mountain Care will have to compete on the exchanges.

To answer the latter question, rates will probably go up, but if people are sensible they'll just get on the Green Mountain Care exchange and be done with it. So it's negligible at best.

In 2017 they'll ask for a waiver to not use exchanges anymore.

In 2017 all Green Mountain Care competitors would be ousted (they'd still exist, but as supplementary insurance, not primary) and Green Mountain Care would be the sole single payer mandated provider of health care in Vermont.

Few tens of millions if not hundreds of millions wasted and insurance CEO's pockets lined. But that's what we signed up for, unfortunately.

[MannyGoldstein]

92. So 100% of Vermonters will have health insurance in 2014? That's fantastic!

Are you sure of that?

There are some other aspects of Green Mountain Care that we should explore, too, but this is the most interesting one of course.

[joshcryer]

95. Not without the young and healthy paying into it.

Thankfully we got the mandate there to persuade them!

Just like in 2017 when Green Mountain Care becomes mandated (unless you already have a primary insurer and want to keep them) a lot of people who aren't paying, young and healthy with above poverty income, will have to keep paying! And the ones that don't? Well, they go to jail for tax fraud, unfortunately.

Pretty neat how it works, huh?

Sarcasm aside they expect the uninsured rate to drop from 7% to 4% in 2014 (pp13) much of that, of course, due to the expansion of Medicaid. It will be down to 2% uninsured by 2017 when everyone gets covered (Ibid).

But really the competitive nature of the markets is the problem, the GMC isn't going to magically cover everyone overnight, because people need to enroll in it and be accounted for and their health situation accounted for so that they can determine rates and whatnot. They have been on that trajectory for awhile now.

[MannyGoldstein]

96. So we agree: Vermont won't have universal coverage until 2017, and only

if they get a waiver.

And do we agree that, in 2014, the number of insured people in Vermont will be basically the same as if Vermont had gone the way other states have?

[joshcryer]

97. If they had a waiver today...

...I don't see them covering everyone for several years, so it's a moot point. Having to compete on the exchanges will slow their trajectory but if they didn't have the ACA expanding Medicare I don't see the rates dropping so quickly either.

So, no, I disagree that the number of uninsured will basically be the same as if Vermont had gone the way other states have. Vermont has an insurmountable head start with the GMC.

I keep seeing this dumb idea that the ACA is forbidding states from giving people free health care. It's non-nonsensical. What the ACA does is set minimum standards for health care and mandates that people pay an insurer on an exchange to get it. In Vermont's case it was proposed to raise the employer tax rate to be able to draw out the GMC / single payer plan early, that would've worked but it would've been damn unpopular. Vermont would prefer that the state gets the Federal subsidies, Medicaid expansion, and mandated buying of insurance (hopefully GMC), as opposed to raising taxes!

[MannyGoldstein]

202. "much of that, of course, due to the expansion of Medicaid"

That's what you wrote.

So why will the expansion of Medicaid in VT look substantially different than the expansion of Medicaid anywhere else?

[joshcryer]

211. The national average is 17%, VT is 7%.

Medicaid will bring it to 4% in 2014.

That is substantial.

[MannyGoldstein]

216. So how is that different than the change that would have occured in another 7% state?

I think you're playing games at this point.

[joshcryer]

219. Um, the others don't have a GMC single insurer?

There are only several other states, in the same range as Vermont, with similar provisions, Hawaii for example has requirements for employers to cover all employees, etc.

[MADem]

239. It's pretty clear that the individual who started this

thread does not have his facts in order. That doesn't stop him from pressing on with half-truths and mischaracterizations.

[Number23]

206. I can't tell you how much I've enjoyed watching you and MADem chop this OP to ribbons

Not that his seal-clapping fans will notice, mind you. They'll still rush to rec as they do everything else but it has been an enjoyable read for the rest of us. Please, please keep it up.

[joshcryer]

234. Thanks. I think it's sad.

That so many people actually believe that the ACA forbids single payer when it's clear that the ACA enables single payer as many ACA advocates predicted it would.

[MADem]

190. What's rude about the truth? And speaking of rude, isn't it rude to make up stories and pass them

off as truth? Isn't it rude to try and create chaos and disharmony by throwing these untruths out in an effort to play a divide-and-conquer game?

If anyone has written the book on "rude, disruptive, hurtful, etc." it most certainly is not joshcryer. All he's doing is correcting some serious misrepresentations, here.

[MannyGoldstein]

199. Mr. Cryer has pointed out zero untruths

OTOH, he spun a few of his own in the process.

Perhaps you'd like to give it a shot?

[joshcryer]

213. Your OP edit history proves otherwise.

People can see the timestamps.

[MannyGoldstein]

215. And which edit would that be?

Please be specific. I'm getting tired of long-winded answers that avoid answering my questions.

[joshcryer]

232. The one that included the actual author of the legislation?

[MannyGoldstein]

243. Please refer to the article that I linked to at that time,...

Taken from Sen. Sanders' site:

Vt. Lawmakers Push for Health Care Waiver

Perhaps you can share with us what the third paragraph states regarding the origin of the legislation in question?

I assumed that this was correct. However, after your kvetching, I did another search and found the DU article currently linked to on the OP:

Sanders & Wyden put it in the Senate bill: "SEC. 1332. WAIVER FOR STATE INNOVATION"

Perhaps you should petition the admins that Sanders' site, and DU itself, are now unsuitable to be used as supporting evidence.

[MADem]

222. I already have. You need to check yourself before you wreck yourself, as they used to say back in

the day.

[cali]

62. Actually, thanks for single payer in Vermont should go even more to Shumlin

who ran on it and the Vermont legislature that worked on and passed it.

[L0oniX]

104. +1

[pampango]

67. And we should thank Putin for Syria deal, Hassan Rouhani for the Iran deal, ...

I guess the only credit Obama deserves is that he is not as good at blocking progress as Bush was.

Or credit for liberal progress is sometimes a complicated calculation. In this case Bernie does deserve major credit. He did not attach this provision to a Bush health care reform but to the ACA.

[Autumn]

72. I hope that what the great state of Vermont is doing

sweeps the nation like a storm.

[merrily]

168. Amen. (Best post on the thread, IMO!)

[Laelth]

75. Quite. Thank you Senator Snaders.

I argued back in 2009 that the reason the insurance and pharmaceutical industries came to the table to negotiate in 2009 was because it seemed likely California would pass single-payer on its own after they elected a Democratic governor (which they did in 2010). I suspected that the ACA was intended (by them) to prevent single-payer by heading it off at the pass.

Here: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Laelth/39

Senator Sanders theoretically kept the door open for single-payer a little longer, but the ACA slowed down the process, even if it didn't eliminate it altogether.

-Laelth

[Fumesucker]

93. It seems obvious that the health insurance industry would do everything they could to stop SP

And considering that the health insurance industry was treated as a "stakeholder" in the negotiations while the American people were not so privileged I think what you wrote is probably very close to the truth.

[Laelth]

94. Thank you. That's what my gut tells me, in any event. n/t

-Laelth

[SidDithers]

78. Keep trying, Manny...

Sid

[JoePhilly]

79. And another manufactured outrage widget hits the shop room floor ... THUD.

[SidDithers]

102. This one, however, had to be run through the outrage press 7 times before it was done...

I wonder if this is the final version, or if more edits are on the way.

Sid

[joshcryer]

98. Holy shit look at the edits on this one.

[scheming daemons]

114. So a thread that is false gets 80+ recs

Gotta love DU.

[Bobbie Jo]

177. They don't care.

As demonstrated time and time again.

Faux News has nothin' on this crew.

[Phlem]

196. ....

-p

[Bobbie Jo]

204. and?

[Phlem]

205. I think you've got it handled for me.

Last edited Mon Nov 25, 2013, 08:25 PM - Edit history (1)

There's nothing else I can add to that. But I sure am glad to know your here with all the answers and insights no one else can possibly see.

-p

[rhett o rick]

194. Maybe you dont belong in a "politically liberal" DU. Just sayin. You dont seem happy here.

Last edited Mon Nov 25, 2013, 11:31 PM - Edit history (1)

On edit:

This post got an alert because someone tried to make out like I was dictating who should be here and who shouldnt. That's a bit ironic because I rarely alert, unlike the conservatives here that alert all the time especially on SoP.

I dont care if the poster stays or not, but because he thought it was necessary to post, "Gotta love DU." in a disparaging manner, it has to make one wonder why he is here.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/JAQing_off

[Capt. Obvious]

209. AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

At Mon Nov 25, 2013, 07:21 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Maybe you dont belong in a "politically liberal" DU. Just sayin. You dont seem happy here. nm
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4091616

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

When did we elect this poster to dictate who is and is not welcome here and who is and is not liberal? People can disagree with this OP without being told that they don't belong here. What a nasty, needless response.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Nov 25, 2013, 07:28 PM, and the Jury voted 1-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: scheming daemons is not a real liberal. What's the point of this alert?
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: It's near the top, but not over. Lots better than "get out" and not all that insulting. Leave it.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[JVS]

122. How dare you not include Rahm Emanuel?

[ProSense]

148. Single Payer movement in the era of Obamacare

Single Payer movement in the era of Obamacare
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024090281

FYI

[a2liberal]

172. This.

The revisionist history that the cheerleaders ate trying to sell its amusing.

They're even crapping on this thread with so much weasel wording because having the truth known scares them (and no, I don't intend to engage you so don't bother... You know exactly what you're twisting and others are pointing it out quite well up-thread)

[ProSense]

182. "The revisionist history that the cheerleaders ate trying to sell its amusing."

The OP confirms that Obamacare is responsible for "single payer in America."



http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022853977

Medicaid for the Homeless
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024090692

[valerief]

173. Thank you, Bernie and Ron! nt

[merrily]

174. Bottom line, Vermont will have single payer and that is a great thing for Vermont and America.

[justhanginon]

175. Okay, Sens. Sanders. Warren and Wyden are all Gods!

I can accept that as long as we make sure that President Obama gets no credit for any thing good coming out of Washington in the last five years and the blame for anything, we in our infinite wisdom, as being bad. (sarcasm)
Jumpin' Jebus what the hell do you want from the man? I know I personally have solved many of the world's problems from my sofa given my extensive knowledge of what all the political ramifications of any given position are and what will actually pass congress. I don't agree with everything the President has done but on balance and given some rather trying circumstances he has faced, I am very happy I voted for him. It would be nice if just once in a while we could see a little credit thrown his way with no caveats.

[JoePhilly]

176. Clearly, "credit" is a finite resource which must be rationed.

Scorn however, as the OP proves, is a renewable and infinite resource which is to be applied "liberally".

[Phlem]

198. I know and it's always directed at Saint Obama!

...

-p

[JoePhilly]

201. Hardly a Saint, but certainly on the demon

some seem to think.

[Phlem]

203. Not at all.

Some here are just really frustrated with how he handles things. Like bipartisanship, what kind of brick thinks that's going to go over well with Republicans. Etc....

I think he did great with ACA, even with the website issues.

Fast Tracking the TPP on the other hand, WTF?

He's certainly no demon to me but the "watch this hand with my ACA accomplishments, and don't look at this hand while I turn the TPP into fruition" is getting really old.

It's like you have to watch him like you have to watch the Republicans, I don't think we should have to do that with someone we overwhelmingly elected.



-p

[Skittles]

229. careful

you will invite their wrath

[Phlem]

247. It's OK, I've had the wrath before. My doctor prescribed some ointment.

-p

[hughee99]

210. Repukes should be applauding this

If single payer is the disaster they claim, this will demonstrate how it's not workable without implementing it nationwide.

[ProSense]

242. LOL!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024094372

[dionysus]

251. Bernie, who I trust immensely more than you, said the Dem senate, and i quote;

Manny : "AFAIK, there was no barrier to single payer prior to ObamaCare. "

(...if you don't count the blue dogs and Lieberman Manny, and I know you know how to add.)


http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/sanders-single-payer-never-had-a-chance
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) reminded the progressive media gathered on Capitol Hill today that single-payer health care reform was dead before it started in the Senate.

"It would have had 8 or 10 votes and that's it," he said, addressing a topic central in the minds of many who the bloggers and left wing talk show hosts gathered for the 4th annual Senate Democratic Progressive Media Summit in Washington reach everyday.

so once again, Manny, nice try their sport.

bless your little heart.

[MannyGoldstein]

252. Which in no way contradicts what I wrote.

You drunk?

[dionysus]

253. not at all. but it does dispense of the commonly overused meme that we'd have single payer or a

public option if it wasn't for that mean ol dem admin that gave it away.. even though they didn't because it didn't have enough support.

and that argument is used all the time.

[MannyGoldstein]

254. Well it's certainly true that they didn't try

And worse.

[dionysus]

255. it's a sad situation but it wasn't hard to count up to 60 Manny.

[MannyGoldstein]

256. Read up on LBJ and the Civil Rights Act

You might find it enlightening.

[MADem]

263. +1,000 -- I love how Bernie's view mirrors mine!

Sanders said it was still possible for single-payer to come to the U.S. eventually -- but he said the road will not begin in Washington. If a state like California or Vermont ever instituted a single-payer system on its own, Sanders said, it would eventually lead to national adoption of universal coverage.

The way I put it is, "The road to Single Payer travels through the ACA."

[dionysus]

264. and he's right, because he's a very smart man. he realizes their aren't 50 of him in the senate.

bern is awesome.