General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThere were a whole bunch of progressives who were against the ACA
here at DU. Don't buy any revisionist history saying DU was united in this thing. And the public option was shot down without hardly any consideration, and President Obama bragged about it on Fox news. Don't believe me? He has a famous interview talking about it, during this time period. He said "I rejected all kinds of things 'the Left' wanted." This was made in a conversation with the Fox news host about his health care plan.
So, number one, me and a bunch of other good progressives at the time were always against this giveaway to the for-profit insurance companies. And I know this for a fact.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)on the ACA.
it was a fringe kook tiny minority who wanted to kill the bill
generally the same crowd who vote third party, same ones who would take away coverage from millions out of their quest for ideological purity because that's what matters, not the welfare of human beings to them
we got them on the left as the Republicans have their crazies on the right
they ain't progressives, they're rejectionists
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)The ACA was about saving health insurance companies. They provide no value in the delivery of health care. They are private corporations participating in programs with guaranteed profits.
These policies are not portable, progressive and provide less than the benefits a same priced program offered through the private sector.
The real success if there was one, was in the Medicaid expansion. Otherwise these plans allow the rapacious health industry continue its rapacious ways.
Defenders of these programs should go on the record to say if they actually are consumers of them or just marketing for them. The voices that matter are the CONSUMERS.
Arkana
(24,347 posts)who has insurance on their parents' plan at 24 or got coverage despite a preexisting condition because of the ACA, and try to tell them how horrible it is.
Go ahead. I'll wait. The ACA isn't the best bill. In some respects, it's not a great bill. It doesn't address everything that's wrong with the healthcare system in this country. But it helped--and is STILL helping--millions of people. That is how it will be judged 50 years from now.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)all of the arguments for the ACA include the assumption that guaranteed annual 12-digit profits for Big Insurance are part of health care. They're not. That is uniquely American
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)that's the only way we would have gotten republicans, Blue dogs and Liebermann to vote for a public option.
BTW, if the P/O is so all and all the answer, why has only one (maybe, two) jurisdiction(s) taken advantage of the ACA provision that allows states to create they own P/O?
cui bono
(19,926 posts)let alone single-payer.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)President Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, all can count votes ... they all been doing it for a FOR REAL living; as opposed to those of us that only play doing so on the internet.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)There was no real push for it in the public sphere. No use of the bully pulpit. And all the while the R's were having a field day lying about it, and elected officials were lying about it, knowingly, at their town halls and there was hardly any push back from Dems.
Let's face it, Dems suck at messaging. If they had gotten behind single-payer maybe we could have ended up with the public option. But they didn't even get behind the public option. If the people had been educated on it more they would have demanded it and then the vote counting may have had a different outcome.
And that's not even talking about the back room deals that were lied about until they had to admit it, and Baucus heading up the authorship of the bill... they didn't take a serious stab at it. We have to fight fire with fire. But Dems are either too afraid to be strong willed and to take their fight to the people or they actually want to please the insurance companies.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Fact: a President can ask, beg, or threaten a legislator to do this or that (i.e., make use of the bully pulpit) but it is the legislator's vote ... Period, and Democrats seem to have suddenly developed a pathological need to prove their independentness.
So regardless of "Dems suck(ing) at messaging", messaging would not have gotten blue dogs to support the P/O or a S/O.
The back room deals are what salvages/moves forward us to where we want to be.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Back room deals that only involve one side - the corporate side - and are kept secret from the public until they can't be denied anymore are NOT what salvages/moves us forward to where we want to be. Unless you are saying you wanted this to be more beneficial to insurance companies than it should have been.
Fact: Obama didn't message this very well and did NOT use the bully pulpit. He did NOT fight the R's he kept cowtowing to their complaints.
Proof: People are still very confused about the ACA.
If the public had understood it better they would have demanded the public option. If legislators heard from the public they would have had to think twice about what they would have voted for. And Baucus was not the person who should have been the architect of the bill, he didn't want the public option.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)"projecting" what?
So the ACA, even without a P/O, is not better than the system of healthcare financing that preceded it?
Proof: People are still very confused about the ACA.
I will concede that no one messaged the ACA well. But the bully pulpit is just "pretty speech" fodder from a long gone era when Democratic politicians did not feel the need to run away from their leadership.
It was not the republicans that kept the P/O out of the ACA, it was Lieberman and Democrats serving in conservative districts.
"If the public had ..." The public doesn't get to vote on legislation.
mike_c
(37,051 posts)There were, and remain, a lot of us on the left who have always viewed the ACA as thin reform sauce at best, with guaranteed profits for the misery-for-profit health insurance industry as its primary side effect. Single payer universal health care for all Americans is the only solution. The sickness-for-profit industry has to go. We need to dance on the grave of the health insurance industry.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)that the ACA failing in 2010 would move us closer to single payer.
If it had failed, no President, and no Congress would have gone near comprehensive health care reform for another 20 years. The lesson would have been "it's electoral suicide, and nothing will pass if you try, so don't bother"
The only stuff that would have passed would have been tort deform and selling across state lines.
Now we have Medicaid expansion plus the idea has set in people's minds that the government has an obligation to help people get health insurance.
Republicans aren't even publicly arguing against that idea anymore.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)I don't think any progressive wanted the ACA. They wanted single payer. But knowing we were no where near getting that, and that change sometimes has to be incremental, we knew that the ACA was a better option than no option, as it would help millions who needed insurance now, and could not get it. I know a number of people personally who were saved by the ACA. Friends who had family members who needed insurance but could not get it because of pre-existing conditions. And while it may not have resolved all health issues (like the one Will Pitt is dealing with now) it saved many more. I have a friend whose daughter had Krohn's disease and getting back on her parent's health plan allowed her to get treatment until she was in remission. I have another friend whose wife has MS and the ACA helped her too. I have also lost friends who could not get insurance or the health care they needed before the ACA.
I also know that it is not the answer for everyone or every disease, and it is still too expensive for many people who may now have insurance but still not use it because of the copays and deductibles being too high for them. That is wrong and single payer will help fix that.
Instead of harping on how wrong it was to go with the ACA, we should be thankful that we at least are moving in the right direction, and now concentrate on moving closer to single payer, until we actually have it.
I really feel for the people who still cannot get what they need, and/or have to fight for it. I understand their anger, because it's based on the fear of losing someone they love (or their own life). I get that. It's OK for them to vent. I too have been affected negatively by it, but that doesn't make me mad that we got it. I'm just one person. There are so many who have been helped by it, I can't hold myself up as a reason for hating it. It makes me want to fight harder to fix the problems and push for single payer.
Control-Z
(15,686 posts)It would make a great OP, imo.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)
But I think it's just as relevant here. My starting a new thread would probably just be the kiss of death.
Plus, too many threads on the same topic mean too many potential missed messages.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)to discuss single payer. With the push for single payer the righties would have been tickled to death to accept the lesser ACA. Bad, horribly bad strategy.
TheKentuckian
(26,314 posts)ability to get closer to the goal.
Yes, no question a tar paper shanty is better than some scraps of newspaper but no it isn't any sort of proper house with little means to get one.
I continue to maintain that the upward pressure of inflation and the downward pressure of the stupid "Cadillac Tax" will lead us to bronze nation for the masses.
I believe far, far to much was given to the pharmaceutical industry that is a cost time bomb.
I believe that for the most part there has been no systemic reform at all but rather (and this is a good thing but it is bound to fail to meet expectations because this was never the agreed upon goal of the reform movement) standardization of the industry by bringing the individual market more in line with large group coverage.
I believe many of the mechanisms within the law are wrongheaded and accept industry positions as cost drivers.
I believe WAY to damn many TeaPubliKlan poison pills were accepted without gaining a vote that will have adverse effects on people over time.
I see the insurance cartel as being strengthened and made a Too Big to Fail institution rather than collared and brought to heel in any way.
I believe the hodgepodge of efforts to increase coverage under the existing system has created bizarre logical conflicts like the fact that a 24 year old with parents willing to cover them is in desperate need of help as the establish themselves in a competitive labor market while the 24 year old who's parents died young with nothing is a deadbeat that can well afford to pay almost 10% of their pretax to support the cartel when both work the same job but the former has the support of their parents so they actually are in much better shape. To codify such a concept is abhorrent to me even though I'm glad the former can get some help.
I don't begrudge the young person who has parent willing and able to lend a hand getting relief but I'm not inclined to tell the other young person already without a net to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and met their Social obligations. In fact, in many cases I bet the kid with better of parents makes more money than their less blessed comparable person due to the benefits of the privileges they subtly but consistently would have throughout life but they need assistance more???
There are important improvements, I do not think we got fair value for them and I think that for all the heavy lifting and high costs that we haven't really even moved the needle from big picture.
I think the only real avenues for structural change are over weighting right wing honesty about being frugal because they are not at all.
Related to this too much stock put in way over matched state regulatory systems. Too many comparisons with five provinces with the complexities of fifty states (some tiny, some sparse) in a substantially different environment for my taste too but I "get" the idea.
I think without future Congresses being on it with the subsidies, which are like the trapdoor on the gallows. If they fail to keep up with costs over time then things get real onerous real quick. I think this is a dicey place to be.
I think too much of the little weight put into cost control was again shoved onto the "consumer".
I think an MLR on the purse holder without one on producers is a structural encouragement to increase system wide cost because it is how you make more money. In turn, this is the hope for folks like Will here, eventually payers will be forced to pay more claims in order to get their cut of something rather than all of nothing.
The shanty is better than the newspaper, a half million better with 30% interest it isn't holistically no matter if it is individually a life saver. I hope I am terribly wrong.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)but the part that is missing is how to get dems out to vote to take back the house. Until we control the house and senate this is the best we can expect. Tiny incremental steps.
I hope I'm wrong. I hope a black man for President is what has made the republican'ts what they have become, but I am afraid they are our future if we don't fight to get more people out to vote.
The apathy of dems is as responsible for this as anything is. They don't feel like their vote counts. but it counts a lot more than they think. By not voting we get this.
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)Is how great it is to get adults onto their parents private sector non ACA plans. The irony is, if this ACA was really was a fix, this young adult could buy their own affordable plan.
What happens when this sick person turns 26? Let's pray her crons stays in remission, because if not she'll no longer have access to her parents insurance and will be an actual consumer of an ACA subsidized plan....scary isn't it. 
Medicaid expansion and pretending adults up until the age of 26 are children is a sideshow to the core of the Public Private partnership that is the ACA.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)and will be signing up for ACA. Without the ACA, she would be forever under her parents care with or without insurance, because she was too sick to work.
I agree this is all being done back assward. But it is better than nothing. Without the ACA we would have gotten nothing. And as mentioned above, it is getting people's minds wrapped around the concept that having medical insurance is something that isn't just a want, but a need. Everyone should be covered. We can't afford to continue with uninsured people in this country. The cost is too great. And the advantage of having everyone covered, is that then everyone has skin in the game and many will realize that we need to fix this and will vote for people who support single payer.
change does not happen fast. But it is happening. The internet is helping to educate a lot of people, but it takes a long time to get people to really wake up and do something. And until the people are mad enough to make enough noise, nothing is going to change, so lets keep the pressure on.
But in the meantime, I'm glad for even small incremental change that is helping many people.
brush
(61,033 posts)The ACA is the first one. If we work at it, a public option can be the second one on the way to single payer (Medicare for all).
It took just about one hundred years since Teddy Roosevelt (not FDR, that's how far back presidents have been trying) came out for health care reform. Obama and the dems managed to get the first step passable in Congress made towards universal healthcare, the ACA, in 2009.
As Joe Biden's comment summed up the significance of it: "This is a big fuckin' deal."
Now before you dance, there's work to do, and it ain't gonna happen easily because big insurance wants to keep raking in their huge profits.
They make a lot less than what they were before with NO LIMITS at all. At least with the ACA they are limited to only 15-20% of the money coming in, and that includes their administrative cost as well as their profit.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)
TBF
(36,669 posts)we were not for the ACA. We wanted single payer. We were told over & over it would not pass (and that is likely true - we need much more protesting in the street in this country to even begin to get legislation like this).
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)the ACA passing or the ACA going down in flames?
TBF
(36,669 posts)That is why it was supported. But it was not what progressives really wanted.
I'm holding out hope that as folks get care via ACA they will demand more & then maybe we do have a shot at better legislation. But folks are going to have to get a lot louder than they are now.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)that it's taken as a given that the government has a duty to make sure people get access to at least health insurance.
Even Republicans argue that--they don't talk about death panels and gubmint takeover and socialism--they talk about people losing their insurance.
ratchet it up from there
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)The football metaphor kinda breaks down when applied to a complex piece of legislation. Maybe you could say that we moved the ball forward but our halfback was injured on the play, so it's not clear whether we're better off or worse off.
The ACA is providing health care to some people who otherwise wouldn't have it. It's also entrenching two of the biggest problems of the current system: the role of the private, for-profit health insurance companies, and the assumption that most people will have coverage through their jobs, with anything else being just an add-on to fill in the gaps.
For better or worse, though, our side is probably now stuck with it. If the ACA had been defeated in 2010 because some liberal Democrats voted against it over the lack of a public option, then one possible next step would have been to try to get the few additional votes needed for an ACA-type plan but with a public option. The debate would have continued. Now, however, the repeal of the ACA would not put us in the same position. There would probably not be any serious effort toward any kind of reform for some years.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)liberals" because the lack of a public option was not the source of opposition.
The opposition was from Blue Dog conservatives in the House, and the problem in the Senate was DINOs like Ben Nelson and Joe LIEberman.
The debate would have been over. No politician in a district less than 60% Democrats would have been willing to touch it with a ten foot pole.
And we would have gotten even more of an ass-spanking in the fall. I would have sat out if it had failed.
What it did do was increase the regulations over insurance companies to bring them one step closer to being public utilities. Insurance companies were already responsible for 100% of health care insurance administration--including for Medicaid and Medicare.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)First, we're talking about two different hypotheticals. I said, "If the ACA had been defeated in 2010 because some liberal Democrats voted against it over the lack of a public option...." So your assertion about the source of the opposition doesn't address my point. You're right about the real world, because all the liberals decided to go along with it (with varying degrees of enthusiasm), but I'm considering the question of whether they should have dug in their heels.
Second, my point was that, in that hypothetical, Obama might at least have explored restoring the public option while leaning on the DINOs to go along with that version. The left could have helped him by generating popular pressure on the targeted legislators. The main push, though, would have been Obama going on TV and bashing the insurance companies. A campaign with a theme like "Let's keep them honest" would have appealed to the widespread distrust of big corporations.
I'm not saying it would have been a sure win -- only that, on that scenario, we might have ended up with a public option. In the real world, however, where the liberals accepted the compromise and the ACA passed with no public option, there's no chance of public option or single payer anytime soon.
treestar
(82,383 posts)So you thought it would? Just who was going to vote for it? And why didn't those legislators bring it out of committee then?
Wow that sounds so passive. "We were told" so you didn't even check it out for yourself?
TBF
(36,669 posts)Is your sole purpose on this site is to piss off folks who vote for democrats? Attack mode every single day on every single thing regarding Obama.
I'm beginning to look at "the Bog" with a different eye when I read a post like that. And the words "wow so transparent" are what come to mind.
treestar
(82,383 posts)At least Obama cheerleaders are enthusiastic and got him elected and try to support him and other Democrats. They don't say "well, we were told" they at least go and do it. So does Obama himself.
That is a proper use of the passive voice. "I am passive, I was told that single payer couldn't pass. So I am a victim of those "cheerleaders" and the people who got elected. But I shouldn't have to do anything about it, they should just do what I want and when they tell me they aren't, it's because they are morally bad people. God forbid I should be called a "cheerleader" and support anything other than complaining that other people aren't doing enough for me."
And how is pissing off people who are complaining so much about the Democrats a bad thing? People who say they aren't going to vote. These people keep demanding that we cater to them. And they are never going to be happy. There will always be some reason they are unhappy. Trying to "earn their vote" is pointless; it can never be done. Trying to convince actual voters and not pissing them off is more effective for making progress of any kind.
Rex
(65,616 posts)nt.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)They also post photos of Obama.
TBF
(36,669 posts)but I don't understand the constant attacks against progressives. How does that help anything? We need people to vote in 2014. Maybe I feel it stronger because I live down here in Texas. We have a shot (granted long shot) - but it is a shot at electing a dem governor with such a week opposing republican governor. If I worked directly for POTUS I would want to be nice to people rather than attacking them.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)If Dems lose - liberals fault.
If Dems win - won in spite of liberals because there were sensible grown ups running things.
SammyWinstonJack
(44,316 posts)
uponit7771
(93,532 posts)
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Because otherwise the comment makes no sense. 
BlueJac
(7,838 posts)I knew it was a sellout when they went with ACA, it might be more affordable but has little to do with good health care as long as an insurance company is present to get their, more than fair share, of the prize. I'm not fringe and I'm not a kook. I am an American that wants what is best for Americans, not what is best for some over profit corporation that is going to cost us all more money!!!!!!!!!
NOW THAT"S AMERICAN!
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Quite the opposite.
G_j
(40,569 posts)that the poster of the OP is allied with the Tea Party and Koches.
If not, then who on god's green earth are you talking about?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)actively coordinated their efforts with the Tea Baggers to try to kill the bill. Jane Hamsher at Firedoglake being the most prominent.
Jane Hamsher being the person who threatened Democraticmembers of Congress with primary challenges for voting to pass the ACA instead of with the Republicans. Including . . . Bernie Sanders 
There was certainly room for reasonable disagreement during the back and forth over the bill when it was in its drafting stages.
But, when the choice was between passing it and killing the bill at the final vote, there was no room for reasonable disagreement.
G_j
(40,569 posts)anyone who was not for the ACA from the beginning, is allied with the Koch brothers, Jane Hamsher and... Attila The Hun?
You're not tired of that sort of non sequitur?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)to be upset about during the drafting, that many of its provisions and many of the things that didn't get put into it are reasons for grave disappointment.
I am talking about on the eve of the March 21, 2010 vote, there were people on the left actively coordinating with those on the right trying to send the bill to a fiery death and whipping against it.
https://washingtonindependent.com/79406/tea-partiers-working-with-firedoglake-on-hcr-whip-count
THOSE people are those about whom I am talking.
G_j
(40,569 posts)I think pretty much every progressive/liberal wanted universal health care.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)
Lydia Leftcoast
(48,223 posts)There was a LOT of resentment at the way the ACA turned out.
The first alarm bells went off when Obama refused to meet with advocates of single payer and then met in closed-door session with the insurance companies. No one has yet explained why it was OK for Obama to meet in closed-door sessions with the insurance companies while everyone on DU knew that it was horrible for Cheney to meet in closed-door sessions with the oil companies.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Alarm bells were going off throughout the process.
I think we can argue that the Republicans would have been more than happy with the ACA if the nation had heard a real discussion of single payer. That is why they went to such lengths to prevent such a discussion with Baucus leading the way. Those bells are still ringing in my head.
It is as if the process was designed to fail. Imagine that.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)The latest and greatest reincarnation of Nixon's NHIPA was shit to anyone progressive with a brain
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)Party".
SOME of us wanted insurance companies OUT OF THE EQUATION.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)uponit7771
(93,532 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)a Public Option?? That's news to me. And since when did a majority of Democrat, I'm following your logic here, OPPOSE Singe Payer or a Public Option?
This should be interesting.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)At least that is the only way to read the comment you made. Democrats by a huge majority have always supported Single Payer, and no, it has never been a small, radical group as you stated.
And no, a majority of Democrats did NOT change their minds, nor have they even now. And the sole job of the phony, specially created Teabag contingency is to STOP Democratic policies, especially Social Programs like HC and SS from succeeding and to pass all Public Funds for those programs into private hands. And Dems have to FIGHT those Right Wing plans and they WILL.
Maybe you should find another way to express what you are trying to say because when you attack Democrats on a Dem forum, it rarely goes over very well.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)aligned with the fake Teabag Org. That means to me that both wanted the PO.
Or are you saying that Democrats got what they wanted, the PO, and the corporate 'teabag' phonies didn't get what they wanted, NO PO?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)I did not say--or even imply--that only Teabaggers and radicals wanted the public option.
Go ahead and quote the comment where I said that. You can't because it doesn't exist.
So, until you can start telling the truth, you get the last word, honest or otherwise.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)to the vile, anti-Democatic Teabag morons. YOU need to stop lying about Democrats. People here, and I know this for a fact, probably a majority of them, are sick to death of coming to THIS Democratic forum and seeing that kind of attack on Democrats.
Now you don't like it when someone points out the fallacy of the ridiculous claim you made.
The easy not to get yourself into that position is to STOP ATTACKING DEMOCRATS on this forum at least.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)The left is not crazy people. The left is for SS, single-payer, regulation, etc., etc., etc...
The right are birthers, screaming socialism, and constantly lie about everything to get their way. They're racists, bigots, sexists...
Please don't equate the left with that, it's not even a close call.
Marr
(20,317 posts)In fact, my own perception was that a majority had very serious misgivings, but it was early in Obama's term, and the cheer squad's now-sad urges to "just wait, he's only had X months in office" still carried a little weight.
Skinner
(63,645 posts)Thankfully, it became law anyway.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)with no public option, or anything to control costs in it. And I still think it needs a huge over-haul to try and fix it, if possible.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)there are indisputably cost control provisions in the ACA, and in fact the ACA is succeeding in controlling costs.
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/08/20/2498391/growth-in-health-care-costs-continues-to-decrease-since-passage-of-obamacare/
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/obamacare-health-care-costs-report-100130.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/29/opinion/krugman-obamacares-secret-success.html?_r=0&gwh=C585FC61D94955D8D9D59E5FC22CBF42&gwt=pay
Obamacare’s Secret Success, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times: The law establishing Obamacare was officially titled the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. And the “affordable” bit wasn’t just about subsidizing premiums. It was also supposed to be about “bending the curve” — slowing the seemingly inexorable rise in health costs. …
So, how’s it going? … Has the curve been bent?
The answer, amazingly, is yes. In fact, the slowdown in health costs has been dramatic …. Since 2010, when the act was passed, real health spending per capita … has risen less than a third as rapidly as its long-term average. Real spending per Medicare recipient hasn’t risen at all; real spending per Medicaid beneficiary has actually fallen slightly.
But, maybe you and Americans For Prosperity and Charles and David Koch and John Boehner are right and Paul Krugman is wrong.
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)Are people spending more on premiums?
One could say we're spending more and getting less.
Healthcare costs are down, premiums are up up up, even if subsidized.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)One would be regurgitating nonsense one heard in a Koch Brothers ad then,
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)want. Everyone here wants better health care. And to say otherwise is low.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)of the ACA.
They're not saying it doesn't go far enough, they're saying it's just plain bad and implying it should be repealed
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)think it was good to pass it as it stood with no public option, or anything to control costs in it. And I still think it needs a huge over-haul to try and fix it, if possible."
That sounds like a legitimate response, even if you dont agree. It doesnt deserve your response of: "Please stop spreading Koch Brothers/AFP lies about the ACA." That is rude and divisive.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Sorry, it's not a matter of opinion, it's a flat-out lie.
There certainly has been debate over whether those cost-control provisions were succeeding, or whether they were worth any cost reduction.
But no one who's paid the slightest bit of attention to the ACA would say that there was nothing in there intended to control costs.
Anyone who has any doubt on this needs to do their homework.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)And you accuse them of pushing Koch Bro lies. Controlling costs could mean a number of things.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)the ACA is the worst thing since slavery concede that it has measures to control costs, they just say those measures don't work or that they do more harm than good.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1006571
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/07/cost_control_and_the_aca.html
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3702
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)that they make statements like, "It's not a matter of opinion, it's facts" as if they are the one God lets determine fact from fiction. I call it the audacity of certainty. And because they think that they are the fact decider, that gives them justification for disparaging others.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)The matter is not in controversy amongst the informed.
Independent Payment Advisory Board
the much hated "Cadillac Tax"
electronic records requirements
Medical loss ratios
those things are all introduced with the explicit purpose of controlling costs
Now, they may or may not actually control costs. But to say they aren't in the bill, or that they aren't there to control costs, is pure ignorance
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)It's like jr high. You dont belong to the "informed". I just ask that you consider that maybe, just maybe you dont know everything like you claim. Keep an open mind. Once in a while say, "I think....." or "I believe....." and not always "I know for a fact, and everyone else must be on the Koch Bro side"
The audacity of certainty.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)the substance?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)in the slightest reflect unfavorably on Pres Obama. That's not the behavior I would expect from a "politically liberal" DU poster.
There is no use for further discussions with you. Self-righteous pomposity is too much for me.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)try to fight those that are so divisive. They say they want to win in 2014 but disparage all that doesnt toe their line.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Maybe that is the objective all along.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)up to expect an authoritarian leader to take care of them. They think they can rely on the D vs. R to determine good vs. bad. They dont give the PTB enough credit to have figured that game out. Whistle-blowers try to speak out against the authoritarian power structure and our friends reaction is to disparage the whistle-blowers. Their hatred for Snowden is beyond logical comprehension. They think if they punish Snowden sever enough, it will negate the revelations that the NSA and CIA are not under control of our government.
Logic would lead one to believe that good intentions arent enough to prevent the spy organizations from crossing the line. It's wishful thinking to the point that "The Group" will disparage all those that try to use reason. They so want Obama to be their savior that they believe that the moment he became president, all the spy agencies immediately changed from their Bush spy methods to good and honest spy methods. And they think that Congress, that cant tie their shoes and chew gum at the same time, have oversight control over spy agencies that carry out their business in secret, even from Congress.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)I appreciate you explaining your position. I believe you are on to something.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)stood with no public option, "??
Schema Thing
(10,283 posts)The rise in premium cost has slowed, not increased.
And what one gets for those premium cost has increased greatly, so it is a lie to say we are "getting less".
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)Do share the name of this land of make believe where premiums have actually gone down.
Maybe your one of these math wiz's who thinks a "subsidy" means the insurance company has been reformed and is taking in less money.
In fact the law guarantees insurance corporations a profit, possibly directly from the taxpayers.
They are making more than ever as parasitic middle men in a broken system. The lie if there is one, is that ACA is about healthcare, when it's all about insurance
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)still kind of a mixed bag.
I was at DFA candidate training in March 2004 and Howard Dean was talking about the bill and how it was not very good, concluding with something like "but if I was in Congress I would vote for it, because at the end of the day, I know what team I am on".
The feeling was that failure to pass something would damage the party like it did in 1994. I agreed with that at the time.
But we got clobbered in 2010 anyway, even after passing ACA.
It looks to be a bit of an albatross for 2014 as well.
At our picnic last fall a doctor explained how it is doing many good things.
Gotta say though, even after listening to his talk, I still don't understand it. I could not write a letter defending it.
And I am still NOT happy about either the mandate or the lack of a public option.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)forget....there is no magic wand. It has to pass both Houses....good luck.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)People who aren't really interested in governing, just opposing because that's what makes them feel good about themselves
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)thanks for reminding me Walter!
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #3)
truebrit71 This message was self-deleted by its author.
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)I think I remember that being the case at the time. I may be wrong though.
bigbrother05
(5,995 posts)Until we have a base that will crawl through broken glass every election cycle to vote a RWNJ out of office, we'll be deadlocked on the least common denominator.
With a Speaker that won't call a vote unless it can be passed with only R votes, we can't get to a common middle ground.
kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)could get through that rat-bastard Congress? What we really need is to vote in a Congress that will work with the administration to make the fixes necessary to the ACA or one that will insist on expanding it until it becomes universal, single-payer health care system. All the angst against the ACA by progressives and Dems will only insure that more Kock-controlled GOPers will be elected and then all bets are off.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Single Payer Healthcare....its just about their hate...that is all. (They also think we don't notice this).
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Polls show high support for raising the minimum wage and raising taxes for the rich too...
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)and...
...Republicans...
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)But we DO have something we can improve upon now....Let's try to keep the ground we have made while we do...shall we?
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)"Progressives".
treestar
(82,383 posts)or "used the bully pulpit." 
These people were all looking for a Messiah in the Presidency, a common Republican criticism, which has validity in some cases.
They don't bother with who is in the House and Senate, and then simply blame that on the party for not getting more progressives elected, like from Montana and Nebraska - just run them and spend money on them and they would win, miraculously, the local Democrats do not know what they are doing, is the apparent argument.
politicaljunkie41910
(3,335 posts)Going from nothing is always the hard part. Once the ACA was law, the kinks could always be worked out, including the deals that we made with the Devil to get the bill past.
Autumn
(48,962 posts)were not crazy about it and we were told off about our reservations about it time and time again. A lot of good DUers and progressives were disappointed but were shouted down. But it can and will be fixed. It may take a while.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)but when the question was whether we were better off with it failing or passing, there was virtual unanimity amongst the reality-based community
Autumn
(48,962 posts)we are tea partiers and a fringe kook tiny minority. 
I'm not happy with it but I sure as fuck don't want it killed. That's fucking reality.
By the way when Candidate Obama was in Pueblo CO I got to shake his hand and talk to him. About the public option, his words to me? we're going to get it.
That's reality.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Those who were disappointed that there was no public option were right to be disappointed.
But, as you pointed out, anyone living in reality wanted it to get passed because that was better than nothing.
Autumn
(48,962 posts)Now we go on, work together and make sure we keep it and fix it and not tear each others throats out because we don't like some one else's opinion.
Autumn
(48,962 posts) VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)those that did the supposed "shouting down" were bad?
Bobbie Jo
(14,344 posts)and it continues.....
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)sound like sore losers to me!
quakerboy
(14,868 posts)that so many posts and posters spend so much time trying to divide democrats, and yet are not considered disruptors.
pnwmom
(110,261 posts)And who blamed Obama instead of Joe Lieberman, the anti-public option hold-out, the former-Dem-turned-Indie from Connecticut, home to insurance headquarters around the world.
His vote was the one that prevented us from overcoming the Senate filibuster -- unless we gave up the public option.
Autumn
(48,962 posts)reservations and were indeed shouted down. The ACA has problems and it was not what I had hoped for but it sure as hell is better than nothing.
one_voice
(20,043 posts)Parts not so good that still need work. I still think we should be moving toward/for universal health care.
That being said, I'm still glad we have it. I think it helps more people than not. I don't want anyone sick because they can't afford, access etc health care. We fail as a country if this continues.
quick question this:
Good progressives?
Am I not a 'good progressive' because of my view/support for the ACA.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)We're not bad progressives for criticizing the ACA.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)And you don't "know this for a fact". You, nor DU, hardly represents the majority of liberals and progressives in this country. You are part of the stubborn purist minority that, if left only to your devices, we'd never accomplish anything while dealing with centrist America, which is something you have to deal with, whether you like it or not.
Lydia Leftcoast
(48,223 posts)And that requires purchase of a commercial product that may or may not make health care affordable because of the accursed deductibles that are still allowed.
Basically, the only way you can get a low-deductible health policy (what used to be standard here, while NO deductible is the norm in most of the world), is to be so affluent that you could afford to pay out of pocket for everything non-catastrophic.
If you can't afford to pay much per month, even with the subsidy, you're stuck with such a high deductible that your policy is good ONLY if you have a catastrophic event. Routine injuries and illnesses that don't meet the deductible may take months to pay off, because no matter what, the bloodsucking insurance company is going to take 100s of $$ out of your bank account every month.
Such a deal! A customer base that is forced to buy your product, and you hardly ever have to pay out! You make money off the rich people paying huge monthly premiums, and you make money off the middle class by not giving them any benefits!
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)There is no way around that. Its indisputable that the ACA is saving lives and getting people medical help that they couldn't get before. Indisputable.
Lydia Leftcoast
(48,223 posts)That is THE problem.
All because of the damned deductibles, which should have been totally outlawed or restricted to a tiny amount.
People who are required to buy insurance but still can't afford care are going to feel that they've been had.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)I don't believe the system would be sustainable without deductibles. Even so, that's not a good enough reason to be against the ACA. Its a good reason to be FOR improving the current system and pushing more toward single payer. But to be against the ACA because it isn't perfect and doesn't 100% alleviate health cost burdens for everyone is not a sufficient reason to oppose it. Thats like opposing giving everyone a free lunch because they aren't also getting a free dinner. Or opposing giving everyone half off of lunch and dinner because they aren't getting it all for free.
Its very simple for me. No ACA = a lot more untreated sick Americans than with the ACA. Better is better, even if better isn't best.
Lydia Leftcoast
(48,223 posts)Why were deductibles small or absent twenty and thirty years ago? And don't say it's because of medical advances. Most people never need the most advanced medical technology.
A $3000 deductible can be a fortune, especially if a person has to pay insurance premiums as well. And the premiums do not count against the out-of-pocket costs, which consist of deductible plus co-pays.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)As for the deductible amount, a silver plan is around 3,000 so I take it that's the example you are using. I'm pretty sure though that the doctor and specialist visit coverage is outside of the deductible. So if you plan only requires you to pay 30 bucks for a doctor visit or 60 bucks for a specialist visit, you don't have to meet the deductible first in order to get those benefits. The same goes for birth control coverage and prescription drug benefits. Those benefits exist outside of the deductible. The deductible applies to serious medical treatments. So if I get cancer and my deductible is 3000 and my out of pocket cost is capped at 6000, that means I'm gonna spend that year getting chemo, radiation, surgeries and all that crap that you go through to try and beat cancer. I may have to come up with 3 grand before the coverage kicks in and I may have to spend up to 6 grand before I don't have to spend any more money at all... but you are talking about spending that much for procedures and treatments that run into 6-7 digit price tags.
So while it would be a whole lot better to be able to get all that without paying anything, its still a damn good deal when you consider that 6000 max out of pocket is a mere fraction within a fraction of what the care you are getting would actually cost if you had to pay for it all entirely out of pocket (which, unlike coming up with the deductible, actually WOULD be impossible for almost everyone).
Deductibles exist because healthcare is too expensive. Doctors get paid a lot of money. Equipment is obscenely expensive. Certain medications have grotesque price tags because the company that makes it owns a patent and get away with charging that much. The only way to fix that is for the government to truly socialize healthcare itself, which would mean doctors and hospitals become completely regulated by the federal government, costs, salaries, everything... and that's not even remotely legislatively achievable in this current time and the American public would be very much against it, even if its better for us in the long run. Its hard enough to simply regulate the insurance industry, as the ACA does, without the public getting pissed and voting Dems out of office (see November 2010). So considering political realities, I put the socialist pipe dreams aside until our politics change and America truly changes the way it thinks about this kind of stuff. Right now, we work with the country we got, not the country we wish we had.
Lydia Leftcoast
(48,223 posts)They count toward out-of-pocket costs, but they do not count toward the deductible.
I recently had treatment for an injury incurred due to snow and ice. I received a slight discount on the Urgent Care and orthopedists' bills ($1300 as opposed to $2000), but I have a $3,000 deductible, so I'm responsible for all of it. I do pay a flat fee for generic prescription drugs, so there's that, but as recently as 2003 (before moving to Minneapolis), I had co-pays but no deductible at Kaiser Permanente.
However, now even Kaiser has deductibles.
This is something that insurers are doing because they're specifically allowed to get away with it. There isn't even a no-deductible option for any price in the ACA exchanges.
Somehow, other countries, even those like Germany and Switzerland, which rely on private insurance, manage to not have deductibles.
Insurance companies are also specifically allowed to charge me three times higher premiums than they charge someone who's under 50.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)That's what I was talking about in my previous post about the 6000 amount. I would pay 3000 bucks, then I would pay up to another 3000, in co-pays, then I wouldn't pay another dime the rest of the year.
All I'm getting at is when you are talking about seriously life threatening illnesses that need aggressive treatments or surgeries, those things literally cost hundred of thousands to millions of dollars, just for that years treatments. So we now have this guarantee that you can get the option to have a healthcare plan, regardless of your pre-existing conditions, that will allow you to access those obscenely expensive treatments for no more than $6000. I realize that some people will have real trouble coming up with that $6000, or whatever the amount is for their plan type and theres no guarantee that a small fraction of people won't fall through the cracks, some folks will still be in need, theres no doubt about that. But that's still a good deal compared to the situation before the passage of the ACA. It isn't just a little bit better, its significantly better. Its not "single payer" better, but still, a whole lot better. Its saving lives.
There actually are some zero deductible plans, almost half of the platinum plans are.
http://www.healthpocket.com/healthcare-research/infostat/2014-obamacare-deductible-out-of-pocket-costs#.Uyu4EJVOWbg
Regardless of the average deductible amounts recorded for the different metal plans, some health plans examined in this study had $0 deductibles. These $0 deductible health plans were most prevalent among platinum plans and statistically absent among bronze plans.
For individual enrollees in Affordable Care Plans, HealthPocket found:
•0% of all Bronze plans had a zero deductible
•3.18% of all Silver plans had a zero deductible
•5.78% of all Gold plans had a zero deductible
•41.35% of all Platinum plans had a zero deductible
•4.67% of all Bronze, Silver, Gold, or Platinum plans had a zero deductible
For family plans, HealthPocket found:
•0% of all Bronze plans had a zero deductible
•3.05% of all Silver plans had a zero deductible
•5.82% of all Gold plans had a zero deductible
•41.35% of all Platinum plans had a zero deductible
•4.66% of all Bronze, Silver, Gold, or Platinum plans had a zero deductible
I strongly believe that the ACA did almost everything that was legislatively achievable at the time. Theres some strong arguments that a small public option program could've made its way in (but would only be available to people who literally had no other options) and that we could've done something better with prescription drug negotiations between ourselves and other countries (though that has the downside of people buying drugs that are possibly subject to less regulation and oversight as far as production goes). But aside from all of that, I think it went almost as far as the political realities and congressional math at the time would allow it to go.
Lydia Leftcoast
(48,223 posts)thanks to the insurance companies having express permission to charge people. over fifty three times what people under fifty pay.
There should be no deductibles for ANYONE.
The 80% medical loss ratio is ridiculously generous. It used to be 90%, according to Wendell Potter.
I am so glad that I am old enough that I can see Medicare just over the horizon.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)In the 1990s, depending on the insurance company, the average loss ratio was anywhere between 60% to 110%. But that wasn't due to any kind of federal mandate. The ACA mandates 85% for larger companies and 80% for smaller companies and mandates that the companies pay rebates for anything they don't spend up to those ratio ceilings. So now there is a standard that mandates loss ratios with a stipulation for paying rebates. That's much better than any previous situation.
I understand those 0 deductible plans could be too expensive for some folks, but you said there weren't any 0 deductible plans at all when in fact there are and that's all I was getting at when pointing that out.
Wendell Potter's position on the ACA, by the way, is pretty much the same as mine.
pnwmom
(110,261 posts)Last edited Wed Mar 19, 2014, 03:54 PM - Edit history (1)
Once Kennedy died and was replaced by Scott Brown, a public option was doomed. In order to overcome the Senate filibuster, we had to have the vote of Joe Lieberman, then an Independent representing the national capital of insurance companies, the State of Connecticut, and he opposed the public option.
So a "bunch of progressives" are blaming Obama for something he had no control over, and apparently wishing that we hadn't gotten any health insurance bill passed, rather than the imperfect one that is already helping millions.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)according to some!
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)and I really do not think this is anymore about being a Democrat in the sense that you are with us or against us. I believe completely that it comes from a rather unhealthy infatuation with one President Barack Obama. I suspect if HCR was out president instead that there would be a lot more in the critical of ACA column then there is presently. I like our president and still consider him to be a very good president, but I am not in love with him, nor feel that criticism of his policies or his administration equates to an all out rejection of him.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)is beyond bunk.....
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)pnwmom
(110,261 posts)about the ACA and acknowledging its strengths and weaknesses.
My personal preference would have been Medicare for all. But at least the ACA will fund Vermont in its trial of single payer. Let's all hope they lead the way, just as they have done with other human rights.
Arkana
(24,347 posts)Replacing him with Scott Walker? Good god.
pnwmom
(110,261 posts)
Feral Child
(2,086 posts)But it's well known I usually want the unlikely.
The ACA is a step in the right direction. Perhaps it will help the public realize that "socialized medicine" isn't an evil, but rather a necessity.
Autumn
(48,962 posts)people throwing a fit for "socialized medicine", what is going to get them there, is the subsidies.
And Yes.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)Last edited Thu Mar 20, 2014, 06:21 AM - Edit history (1)
It is a tragedy that some prominent Democrats like Evan Bayh and Joseph Lieberman threw their whole political weight of their long political careers into crippling meaningful healthcare reform. It is unfortunate that President Obama did not use the powers of his bully pulpit to advance the changes that he was elected by a mandate to carry out like Reagan did when he was elected with a mandate for change some decades ago.
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)thinks its a joke and an American ponzi scheme for medical insurance companies.
It was a mediocre fix at that, but a fix.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)
iandhr
(6,852 posts)True progressives like Berine Sanders said:
"Today is a good day for millions of Americans who have pre-existing conditions who can no longer be rejected by insurance companies. It is a good day for families with children under 26 who can keep their children on their health insurance policies. It is a good day for women who can no longer be charged far higher premiums than men.
"It is a good day for 30 million uninsured Americans who will have access to healthcare. It is a good day for seniors who will continue to see their prescription drug costs go down as the so-called doughnut hole goes away. It is a good day for small businesses who simply cannot continue to afford the escalating costs go down as the so-called doughnut hole goes away
"In my view, while the Affordable Care Act is an important step in the right direction and I am glad that the Supreme Court upheld it, we ultimately need to do better. If we are serious about providing high-quality, affordable healthcare as a right, not a privilege, the real solution to America's health care crisis is a Medicare-for-all, single-payer system. Until then, we will remain the only major nation that does not provide health care for every man, woman and child as a right of citizenship.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024689831
A true progressive understands that something is better then nothing.
When I finished school I was one of the millions of young people who benefited from the law. After graduation I needed five surgeries on my ankle. The ACA enabled me and millions of people like to have coverage. Think of that when you bash the law.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)that counts as progress is getting 100% of what they want.
And if they can't have that ... nothing for anyone else.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)typical of the Turd Way
Until this abortion passed, Bernie was "very disappointed" that the president reneged on his PROMISE to include a strong public option. When it became clear that he and the rest of the actual representatives had been abandoned and Heritage Care was all we were going to get, he put on a good face. That's it.
iandhr
(6,852 posts)I am glad you were able to get the care you needed. Ok that tells me all I need to know about you.
CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)but when I see references to self-appointed "good progressives", "true liberals" or similar terms, I always wonder what the agenda is.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)Sorry if that disturbs you.
CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)and I'm the self-appointed busybody making a point about that!
quinnox
(20,600 posts)
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)And while we could not get anything better, it's because the system does not serve the people.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)No it definitely doesn't, not how it stands.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)I need to keep reminding myself this. Sometimes it is easier to act as if certain individuals did not work in the manner in which I would like or did not work hard enough towards a goal. It is easier to aim for a person than the "system". While we have to work within they "system", so do politicians.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"There were a whole bunch of progressives who were against the ACA"
...there were a "whole bunch" who wanted to kill the bill, which would have denied 17 million people from gaining access to Medicaid.
In fact, counting the people who are discovering that they were eligible prior to the law, it's likely more than 20 million people will benefit.
Kill all the other benefits.
STUDY: Average Obamacare Plans Are Cheaper Than Employer-Sponsored Ones
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024415004
CBO: Guys, We Didn't Say Obamacare Would Cost 2.5 Million Jobs
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014723823
Obamacare boosting household income and spending
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024606074
It turns out that there has, in fact, been no such rush to reduce work hours. Indeed, numbers released last week reveal that precisely the opposite is taking place.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the number of part-time workers in the United States has fallen by 300,000 since March of 2010 when the Affordable Care Act was passed into law. What’s more, in the past year alone—the time period in which the nation was approaching the start date for Obamacare—full-time employment grew by over 2 million while part-time employment declined by 230,000.
And it gets even more interesting.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/03/18/1285643/-Every-Democrat-who-wants-to-win-should-memorize-Rick-Ungar-s-piece-on-the-FACTS-about-Obamacare
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024689041
Under Obamacare, Disney World Will Promote Its Part-Time Workers To Full-Time Status
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023767654
Obamacare also improved the Medicaid drug rebate program, which is one of the best.
<...>
The Medicaid Drug Rebate Program is a partnership between CMS, State Medicaid Agencies, and participating drug manufacturers that helps to offset the Federal and State costs of most outpatient prescription drugs dispensed to Medicaid patients. Approximately 600 drug manufacturers currently participate in this program. All fifty States and the District of Columbia cover prescription drugs under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, which is authorized by Section 1927 of the Social Security Act.
The program requires a drug manufacturer to enter into, and have in effect, a national rebate agreement with the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in exchange for State Medicaid coverage of most of the manufacturer’s drugs. When a manufacturers markets a new drug and electronically lists it with the FDA, they must also submit the drug to the Drug Data Reporting (DDR) system. This ensures that states are aware of the newly marketed drug. In addition, Section II(g) of the Rebate Agreement explains that labelers are responsible for notifying states of a new drug’s coverage. Labelers are required to report all covered outpatient drugs under their labeler code to the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program. They may not be selective in reporting their NDC's to the program. Manufacturers are then responsible for paying a rebate on those drugs each time that they are dispensed to Medicaid patients. These rebates are paid by drug manufacturers on a quarterly basis and are shared between the States and the Federal government to offset the overall cost of prescription drugs under the Medicaid Program.
http://www.medicaid.gov/Medicaid-CHIP-Program-Information/By-Topics/Benefits/Prescription-Drugs/Medicaid-Drug-Rebate-Program.html
The ACA increased the Medicaid rebate percentage.
http://www.medicaid.gov/AffordableCareAct/Timeline/Timeline.html
<...>
Best Price. A third argument is that it makes sense for Medicare to receive the best price available for prescription drugs, just like Medicaid and the VA. In Medicaid, the drug manufacturer provides the federal government discounts for drugs, which are shared with the states. The discount is either the minimum drug amount or an amount based on the best price paid by private drug purchasers, whichever is less. Current law requires drug companies to charge Medicaid 23 percent less than the average price they receive for the sale of a drug to retail pharmacies. Drug companies also must provide another discount if a drug’s price rises faster than the rate of inflation (Thomas and Pear, 2013)...Medicaid rebates, if applied to Part D, would save the federal government money. According to a 2011 study conducted by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Medicaid rebates were three times greater than the discounts negotiated by Part D for 100 brand name drugs. In 68 of these drugs, Medicaid rebates were twice as high as rebates granted by the drug companies for Medicare drugs (OIG HHS, 2011; Hulsey, 2013). Similarly, a 2008 study of drug pricing information by the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform found that Part D paid, on average, 30 percent more for drugs than Medicaid (Hulsey, 2013).
- more -
http://www.ncpssm.org/PublicPolicy/Medicare/Documents/ArticleID/1138/Issue-Brief-Medicare-Drug-Negotiation-and-Rebates
Kill the bill was and is a stupid idea when there is significant life-saving progress being made.
Obamacare “How many people will die if the Affordable Care Act is repealed?” Sanders asked at a hearing he chaired Thursday on what would happen if Obamacare is repealed. The hearing came on the 10th day of a government shutdown forced by House Republicans insisting that any deal to reopen the government defund the health care law. Watch excerpts from the hearing, Read Greg Kaufmann’s piece in The Nation
<...>
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/recent-business/the-week-in-review-101113
Two of my favorite posts about Obamacare:
Obama just launched single-payer in America
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024088437
Uh... we should be thanking *Bernie Sanders and Ron Wyden* for single payer in America.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024088636
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)And now I feel like an asshole.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)attack you for it. Its shameful.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)People were calling him out for saying this: "Fuck you, Mr. President, you piece of shit used-car salesman."
The President has nothing to do with his "situation."
All the information and advice presented to clearly show that is simply ignored.
CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)As the great philosopher Bluto Blutarsky once said..
"Over? Did you say OVER!!! Nothing is over until we say it is! Let's go!!!"
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)And he was set straight, whether he wants to admit it or not.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)He'll never go near your sacred cow again.
theboss
(10,491 posts)Jesus Christ, Will.
I sympathize. And I helped you on the other thread but I need to say this.
Your wife has MS. She was able to buy an individual insurance policy that provides medication to cover her MS.
I know it is not the medication she wants, but she has MS and was able to buy an individual policy that provides medication.
This was impossible a year ago. Utterly impossible.
Under the old system, she would have had to maintain COBRA until she got another job. Once COBRA was dropped, the clock would begin ticking. Once the time period was up, she could be denied coverage for anything remotely related to MS until she qualified for Medicare.
I honestly don't know what you fucking expected.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)them how you wish it had never passed now and how the ACA is responsible for insurance companies denying coverage.
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)hundreds of thousands of healthy kids from their plans.
I was against it because of the initial costs that were being quoted in my state (they were wrong).
I am grateful that I can actually now go to a doctor.
Schema Thing
(10,283 posts)1000words
(7,051 posts)I lurked during DU's initial ACA "debate." It was as ugly as it gets.
Bobbie Jo
(14,344 posts)You've certainly made up for years of lost "lurking" time.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)We need to stop trying to bring it along as we work towards improving this Nation and the World.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)
riqster
(13,986 posts)No "good progressive" would be against the many reforms the ACA contained, the huge number of new Medicaid enrollees, the controls on profiteering, and in general the increased access to health insurance (and thus care) for millions of others.
Being against those things is not "progressive".
Whisp
(24,096 posts)wah wah wah, wahwahwah
tularetom
(23,664 posts)Single payer was never in the game and once the president threw in the towel on the public option the ACA was the best we were gonna get.
Then when republicans whined about it, the originally proposed ACA was watered down until we got the sorry product we now have.
Many of us were opposed to the fact that nothing other than the ACA was ever under consideration but hey, it's better than nothing.
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)stages of ACA were instituted and tried to call attention to the fact that this was a loophole to get out of covering kids. I was told to shut up.
I am middle of the road. I am grateful to have what I have with ACA... That's it.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)and voted for it.
Progress is better than nothing.
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts) Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts) ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)I don't think we can pigeonhole people or politicians.
That's a major problem we have here. It is why I don't feel as comfortable here as I once did. What with having to constantly pick a side.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)You don't agree with him on most of these issues?
http://www.ontheissues.org/FL/Alan_Grayson.htm
Which ones specifically?
Lydia Leftcoast
(48,223 posts)They were told that they had to be "good team players" and "give the president a victory."
Starting with single-payer on the table as an option was (or so we were told/scolded at the time) "a non-starter",
"unrealistic"; "impossible." Those who insisted on at least discussing a single-payer or public option (Medicare for all) were called "retarded"; "extremist"; "purists"; "leftist wack-a-doodles"--and worse.
Then--in the middle of the debate--terms changed. "Heathcare reform" morphed into "insurance reform"--and I knew the fix was in. (The behind-the-scenes deal w/ Big Pharma and the for-profit insurers to keep a public option off the table if they didn't fight so-called "reform."
So here we are. A series of incremental improvements to the system have been made, to be sure. So . . . yay?
Welcome to the United States of "Meh".
And pundits, journalists and social commentators of every stripe wonder with a straight face why "da general public" seems so disengaged from politics . . .
quinnox
(20,600 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Good one!
BUT! The insurance industry, the for-profit health care services industry and pharmaceutical industries don't think of it as Meh.
They were allowed to preserve their undeserved parasitic gravy train.
Schema Thing
(10,283 posts)Things that are big, grand, exciting, and save lives are not "meh".
Eliminating the words "pre-existing condition" from the American vernacular is not "meh", it's a BFD.
Eliminating the practice of rescission is not "meh", it's a BFD.
Eliminating yearly and lifetime spending caps is not "meh", it's a BFD.
Expanding Medicaid to 20 million people is not "meh", it's 20 million BFDs!
And so on.
cer7711
(612 posts)Last edited Thu Mar 20, 2014, 07:35 PM - Edit history (2)
Proposed solutions that are hopelessly compromised from the beginning, that fritter away a nation's focused energy and resolve "to do Big Things" to fix urgent problems during a moment when paradigm shift is possible--along with slick changes of terminology in the middle of a ferocious fight--aren't emblematic of resounding victory but of cringing fear, weakness and defeat.
I agreed that incremental changes to for-profit insurance policies was a step in the right direction. But it seems to me we've wasted an opportunity to do so very much more.
Now--as you must be aware--we're finding out that some terminally-ill patients are being granted the "gifts" of a diagnosis and office time but denied healing medicine and surgical care.
Fail.
The larger picture in the U.S. is this: increasing poverty, hunger and disease. Falling literacy (cultural and scientific) and the hijacking of the political process by the 1%. Regulatory capture of agencies that were ostensibly created to serve and protect us all.
Where is the passion to match the oratory? We need more of the fire-in-the-belly types: an FDR or Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren; people uncowed and unafraid to take the fight to anti-democratic forces with their boot pressed against the throat of the working and middle classes of this country. People unafraid to tell the predators: "Enough is enough."
People who won't fall quietly in line like docile sheep when they're told, "Single-payer is off the table."
People who will re-visit the issue when the newly-emergent status quo shows the on-going bankruptcy and moral turpitude of the existing system.
Yes, progress has been made. We inched forward. The fight goes on.
But to the public-at-large? The people working three jobs sweating out how to pay their bills before late fees and crippling penalties further erode their financial standing?
Meh.
ctsnowman
(1,904 posts)like republican ideas from the 90s anymore now than I did then.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)He's trying to get it repealed.
taotzu
(44 posts)I too would have loved to have had single-payer health care but we have to start somewhere. We as a country needed this law to pass and begin to heal those that are out here dying each and everyday. Nothing says that we cannot make it to single-payer health coverage in the future but this needed to be done at this time in history. We can always tweak it till we have the health care that we all deserve. I agree that at some point we must delete the for profit health insurance and Pharmaceutical corporations out of the law and with persistence and drive we will get this done. We have to stay vigilante and hold our ground and arouse the people and they will gather beside us and demand that which is best for the whole of America. We cannot be divided in this effort or we will be defeated and defeat is something that I do not know anything about. We may get knocked down but we will always get back up and hold true to what America wants and needs.
When I first came to DU I was checking things out and making sure I understood everything. I understand as Independents and Democrats that we both can be very stern in the ways we do not want to give in but negotiations are a part of life not everyone gets everything they want. I am not one of the ones who needed to have this law enacted but are those in my family who do need this law and that is why I am so adamant about seeing it evolve. Grass roots is where this movement needs to headed. Those of us who want to see the changes become fruitful must grab the hand of those next to us and bring them along through all the communities of this country and let all know that there are better things in store for us and that hope does exist even when things seem to be overwhelming.
Phlem
(6,323 posts)Also when someone provided any assessment of the President's performance leaning even mildly to the critical got shamed, and humiliated because we didn't understand the eleventy seven multi-dimensional chess game he was playing with the right.
Under the bus was not a good place for the masses who just voted him in, especially on Fox News and boy was he spot on listening to Rahm.
what a fuckin mess.
-p
MisterP
(23,730 posts)single payer but the GOPSTRUCTIONIST NAZI NAZI NAZI NAZI NAZI NAZI NAZI
*reboot*
didn't let Him!"
FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts)We could have done better.
At the very least, we could have tried to do better.
And by 'we' I mean those in a position to legislate.
rtracey
(2,062 posts)
The ACA is exactly a republican invention. And the democrats fell for this Trojan Horse.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)There's a big difference and I've said so all along and I don't care if some cheerleader doesn't like what I said.
dilby
(2,273 posts)Having healthcare means if I walk into a hospital and they have a solution to my problem they will give it to me. Having health insurance means, the hospital might accept my insurance, they might not. If they do accept my insurance then it will come down to if my insurance will pay for the solution.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts) 
Recursion
(56,582 posts)That's all it is. It's not health care. You still have to actually get health care.
treestar
(82,383 posts)and boringly gets repeated, and is meaningless.
It will have to be paid for even under single payer. That won't give us health care, just taxes. Jesus H. Christ, why do so many progressives think they have some kind of slam dunk argument here?
The public option wouldn't give us health care, just a public insurance policy. Jesus, people, stop with this utterly STUPID "argument."
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)If you can't handle a simple statement. Going into battle against Republicans with that? Jesus H. Christ, this is the stupidest meme on the board. It is inherently whiny. Why aren't we being given something without having to pay for it! Talk about playing right into Republican hands (as they are always claiming we are lazy people who just want them to give us their hard earned money).
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)But that doesn't take away from the utter stupidity of the meme of how we aren't being "given" health care instead of a way to pay for it.
We as a society have to pay for it somehow. A single payer system would still pay doctors and so on so we wouldn't be "given" that without having to pay taxes. Money will change hands. No insurance companies, fine, but that's not the issue. We still would have a bureaucratic system to pay for it, and it still wouldn't pay for everything we want right off (it would have some restrictions).
It is the stupidest meme there is. It is a whine masquerading as an argument. The real argument seems to be "I want a system without insurance companies." Which won't be happening just by whining over and over that it hasn't been "given."
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)But insurance is no good if some things aren't covered or the copay is astronomical.
I would willingly pay a tax that would cover mine and others' health CARE knowing that I could walk in and get treated without first being questioned about ability to pay, who your provider is, worrying about being in or out of network, etc.
Something that is done in civilized countries but I've never believed that the US is all that "civilized" at times.
I have the right to criticize any action by our leaders-especially if I think it's not right. But I have yet to see a denizen of the bog be anything but a cheerleader.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
-- Theodore Roosevelt
treestar
(82,383 posts)the "care rather than insurance" is not of equivalent things. It's care and how to pay for it.
And cheerleading the ACA is the best way to get the country's voters to want single payer. Making sure people think it works well and that government involvement is not horrible as they now tend to think. This lame argument does nothing and has no effect other than to make it seem that no one wants even the "socialist" ACA and how to get from there to single payer without going backward?
That the ACA covers things that were not covered before is great and use that to say and if we had single payer, you wouldn't have to worry about premiums and insurance companies and payment and deductible and copays at all, but just have a bit higher taxes and those are somewhat progressive. There are people who have not dealt with insurance at all - it's too "socialist" even that - how are they going to vote for more progressive people when their confirmation about our whining we are not given anything is confirmed for them to use that to claim we are lazy and want the government to take care of us, thus getting more votes for conservatives?
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)...the private system has here. You can't fix EVERYTHING 100%. Mankind doesn't fucking work that way.
Look at Medicare. Its the biggest driver of our deficit because of the cost of services, drugs, doctors, equipment and so on. Some folks refuse to acknowledge that "public" isn't perfect. It cuts down SOME costs because the profit motive is removed. But beyond that, you are dealing with a lot of the same exact issues.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)phleshdef
(11,936 posts)OR they do understand that and just don't want to admit it. Insurance is when you have people get together, pay into a pool and spread the costs of risks between one another to cover whatever it is you are insuring. Whether that pool is privately or publically administered doesn't alter whether or not its considered a form of insurance.
Single payer is health insurance.
Single payer is health insurance.
Yes, single payer is health insurance.
Its a smarter kind of health insurance because it cuts out the element of profit.
But its still health insurance.
derby378
(30,262 posts)It tells us we have to pay for health insurance, either as a premium or as an annual tax. Just what the insurance companies wanted.
A few people might qualify for subsidies, but we've got a long way to go before health care is a human right in America.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)That's not nothing.
derby378
(30,262 posts)This whole process is still in its infancy. And it looks like Will Pitt is finally getting some much-needed help, but I'd keep my eyes open if I were you.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)But generally speaking it is no longer life threatening and financially ruinous.
I seriously doubt that Will's situation would have been any different even with a public option or even single payer. Any insurance company being asked to approve $5000 monthly meds is going to push back and exercise some due diligence.
What's ridiculous in Will's case is that it costs so much to begin with.
I think that the government should exercise eminent domain over intellectual property the way they do it over real property.
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)Single Payer would not be free, you would be taxed accordingly for your share of the healthcare costs, and for those unable to pay for themselves.
No free lunches, either way someone pays.
Schema Thing
(10,283 posts)and then schedule an appt with a dermatologist at a reduced rate, with reduced rates for prescriptions....
I'll be getting health care, along with my first-time-in 28 yrs health insurance.
It still sucks compared to Canada.... but it sucks much less than the previous status quo.
Response to quinnox (Original post)
1monster This message was self-deleted by its author.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)Last edited Wed Mar 19, 2014, 06:22 PM - Edit history (1)
One group didn't want the ACA. They felt it didn't go nearly far enough, was too entrenched in the existing for-profit system and that if it passed, too many people would accept this as a "good enough" solution and there wouldn't be the push for real reform.
One group wanted the ACA. They felt that we need to "get the ball rolling" on health care reform and the ACA would do it. Even if it wasn't perfect, it was much better than the old system and would provide a stepping stone for another round of reforms.
Then there were the always present cheerleaders and trolls, neither of which seemed all that interested in the legislation itself. The cheerleaders felt no compromise was too big as long as the President could still call this a victory, and the trolls felt that no compromise was too small to prevent them from calling this a defeat.
Lydia Leftcoast
(48,223 posts)I was in the first group. I felt that those who were advocating the ACA or were willing to settle for it were trapped in the tyranny of low expectations.
Obama compromised with the Republicans before he had to. The Republicans are bullies--we all know that. It's also obvious to anyone who was ever on an elementary school playground that trying to compromise with a bully is like wearing a "kick me" sign on your butt.
Obama could have played to the Progressive Caucus and told the MUCH SMALLER Blue Dog Caucus to be "good team players" and "give him a victory" (which is what he did to the Progressive Caucus) and allow a public option. He could have gone on TV, explained the plan, including the public option (opening up Medicare to the general public gradually would have been the easiest), and urged them to contact their Congresscritter if they liked the idea. (That's how Reagan got things done, even though I didn't like what he did. But he did know how to rally public support.)
In the 2008 primaries, I didn't like either front runner, and I liked their avid supporters even less, what with the Obama supporters accusing the H. Clinton supporters of being racist and the Clinton supporters accusing the Obama supporters of being sexist. I slightly favored Hillary Clinton, but only because I KNOW that she's a corporatist and will always do what's best for the Fortune 500. Obama at the time was a big question mark, because even though he knew how to make people cheer for him, his speeches were just a bunch of vague platitudes strung together. People I knew who met him came away dazzled, as if they'd just met a movie star, but there was no THERE there.
I said at the time, "We need an FDR, but I'm afraid we're going to get a Tony Blair."
I was right. Just like Tony Blair, he didn't make any serious attempts to undo the wrongs of the previous administration, and he added other things that pissed people off.
We are lucky only in the Republicans pick such unattractive candidates. That is all that has saved us from the Tea Party.
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)When we can stop having to defend the ACA from Republican attack?
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)put through the sausage grinder for almost a year before being passed.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)"Okay, obviously this isn't single payer, but if we have the Public Option it can eventually morph into what we want."
Then no public option. You know the rest.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)since it too, didn't cover everyone initially.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)100% of what they want or the highway.
Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)and that is why universal healthcare isn't a reality when you have so called progressives making false accusations.
uponit7771
(93,532 posts)
adirondacker
(2,921 posts)Apparently I was wrong. But hey, I CAN blame the 33% of Connecticut Third Way/Pragmatic Democrats that voted for the Rogue for setting us back another decade.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)I remember many who were.
Skittles
(171,713 posts)I realized SOMETHING needed to be done but was dismayed it never really addressed costs and left the same blood-sucking insurance companies as major players
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)The accepted narrative was, if you do something against the wishes of the left it makes you reasonable and pragmatic. But it doesn't, it only makes you wrong. Hear that, Mr. Obama? Wrong!
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)And that all attempts to compare it with automobile insurance were specious at best.
*Waits for the Infallible-SCOTUS posts while remembering December 2000.*
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)Without the public option and with mandates. That's what happens when you elect a junior senator with no governing experience. The mandate was required by OMB to "reduce deficit" (oh, let me remind you that said junior senator ran on deficit reduction). The public option didn't have the votes because Ted Kennedy was on his death bed and Al Franken was being railroaded. The ACA required Lieberman's vote. It wasn't going to have that public option.
TBF
(36,669 posts)I think many of us hoped with Joe Biden guiding behind the scenes (he is very experienced) we might be able to do better. But whether a junior or senior senator it is still a rough fight against the insurance lobby.
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)I was infuriated.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)and still am. This isn't health care, it's health insurance. Two ENTIRELY different things.
Niceguy1
(2,467 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024695722
LWolf
(46,179 posts)I'm still not a big fan of the ACA, and I'm not going to pretend to be to project some sort of impression of faux "unity" that isn't authentic. Democrats who want unity in November need to find something more authentic to unify around.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024695694
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)But it really was never an option as we and some good elected Dems found out. You are correct.
BklnDem75
(2,918 posts)You must be thinking about Single Payer. The Public Option was removed only to get Nelson and Lieberman on board. It was the final sacrifice to get ACA through the Senate to appease right leaning Democrats.
Lydia Leftcoast
(48,223 posts)the members of the Progressive Caucus were?
(It was bad enough that the Dem establishment supported Lieberman's re-election over the candidate endorsed by the Democrats of Connecticut...)
BklnDem75
(2,918 posts)With conservatives holding the line, it was a situation made worse with so called 'allies' making demands. It sucked, but it was literally an all or nothing situation.
Lydia Leftcoast
(48,223 posts)they don't kowtow to their dissenting members. That's why they get what they want while the Dems think their job is to not offend the conservatives.
BklnDem75
(2,918 posts) B Calm
(28,762 posts)than nothing.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)for people, but never really expect to get it because of corporate ownership of government.
So any step forward that helps people is generally welcome, even when we know we still have a long way to go.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)vociferous defenders of the ACA ... live in countries with universal health care, not the US.
Blue_Tires
(57,596 posts)Eventually I edged over the "something is better than nothing and I want a political victory just to tell the republicans that they can all go fuck themselves in the ass with a rusty icepick" -line
bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)The first bill the House passed had a PO, but Joe Lieberman was being a stubborn asshole and would not grant cloture on a bill with a PO, so it had to be taken out to appease him at get to 60 votes.
One night all the Democrats went into a closed door meeting and yanked the PO out. I remember there was much anger on DU.
Bernie2016
(28 posts)But since it's what we have now, we have to make the best of it.
Single-payer is still the solution, though.
killbotfactory
(13,566 posts)F U Obama!
LannyDeVaney
(1,033 posts)I don't remember, honestly.
However, I sure as heck supported it from beginning to end. We had to do *something*. I live in the reddest of red states and I get encouraged by *any* progress. I've seen too many single mothers struggling to make ends meet - with NO insurance. It was crazy - they were one serious accident from financial ruin. My son had to have a corn kernel removed from his ear as a toddler (...uh, kindergarten...the call from the teacher...thank goodness we can laugh about it now) - that would have been 5 figures of debt for folks without insurance.
In my opinion, it was a pretty big step towards a bigger solution. A much bigger step towards a true solution than anything else that has happened since we became one step away from a theocracy.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)Hell, who didn't????? I sure did! I still do!
But I'm not living in a fantasy world. I realize that in order to undo the right wing damage done by right wingers over the course of decades, it first requires getting rid of the right wing assholes who are still holding our govt hostage, and to CHANGE THIS COUNTRY'S MIND. Or were you asleep, like Rip Van Winkle, when the country's ideology went right wing?
In order to go from neo-con beliefs in this country and govt, you first have to change the country's mind, and then get rid of the assholes that hijacked our govt and make change NEAR-IMPOSSIBLE.
To be honest, I think it's one hell of a miracle that President Obama has been able to do anything at all, given the shitty circumstances he stepped into. It's like stepping into a giant lake of dog shit. But hey, none of that matters! Because a few here want INSTANT CHANGE! PRESTO-CHANGE-O! Magically!
The few that want President Obama to be magician, king & dictator all at the same time, and to say, "HENCEFORTH, I WILL HAVE TO DEAL WITH NO ONE! I AM THE LEADER HERE, AND I SHALL CHANGE MULTIPLE LAWS BECAUSE I AM SUPREME LEADER!" should be writing fantastic sci-fi fiction. They are quite creative. (But they would make miserably delusional and bad leaders).
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)Your own take on the history of the public option is a little different from mine.
The house and senate worked separately on different approaches to health care reform. The house debated several different approaches and approved of legislation that included a public option (which was the approach favored by the president). The senate advanced a bill out of the Finance Committee -- the "Baucus Bill" -- which had been under consideration in the senate finance committee as early as 2007. The committee published an early draft of the bill in November 2008, just days after Barack Obama's election. By that time, the senate had been holding hearings on the bill for more than a year. This was the bill that eventaully became law.
I'm not going to recount the entire series of procedural steps that eventually led to passage of the senate bill. Suffice it to say that up until right near the end, the house continued to fight for its legislation and the senate continued to push for its bill to be adopted. With time running out, house leader Nancy Pelosi conceded and brought the senate replacement bill to the house floor for a final house vote.
The house approved of the senate changes and when asked by the press about the vote, Pelosi said with resignation and I'm sure no small amount of frustration that she hadn't read the bill. Her entire energy had been focused for more than a year on passing the house bill. She hadn't read the senate bill.
As it was, the health care reform law passed without a single vote to spare -- including all 58 Democrats and both independents (Lieberman and Sanders). Robert Byrd had to be wheeled onto the senate floor in his wheelchair to cast his late-night vote for cloture to move the bill for a full vote.
The Democrats had a 60-vote majority in the senate for only a short window of time -- between the time when Sen. Al Franken was finally seated and the time when Scott Brown won the special election to replace Ed Kennedy.
President Obama favored the house public option but made the decision for a number of very good reasons to keep largely out of the legislative process.
It's easy to call the health care law a disappointment, but it could have just as easily fell short by one or two votes and died -- just as the DREAM Act did.
We would have completely blown any opportunity to make any positive change. Insurance companies would be free to continue dropping policy holders when they get sick, denying coverage to the very people who needed it the most, etc. There's no telling when, if ever, there would be another opportunity. Certainly not now and not in the near future either.
It's easy to call it a failure when you're not the one counting votes in the senate and weighing chances for winning or losing while the window for action is closing.
The only way to improve the law is to elect progressive Democrats.
Rex
(65,616 posts)And your biggest critic seems to be in Timeout.