General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsObamacare is the greatest social program this country has seen in 50 years.
But he's a total failure.
amirite?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)all of our personal ponies.
Or because we're just pissed off and he's as good a target as any.
OTOH, if this is best we could do in 50 years it doesn't say a whole hell of a lot for us.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)
Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)are a total failure, but nevermind them; they don't exist. Obama is a king, but he's just a lazy ass, weak warmonger who doesn't wanna' do shit.
Brother Buzz
(39,900 posts)
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Brother Buzz
(39,900 posts)there are a whole bunch of cubes hidden in that glorious block of gubment cheese.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)The Third Way corporitist, terrorist supporter, coup instigator, Social Security and Medicare cutter, insurance reform "piece of shit used car salesman."
And those are criticisms from the left.
The list is so much bigger than that though. There are dozens of more things, Bush got us out of Iraq, the Republicans ended DADT, etc, etc.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)
ucrdem
(15,720 posts)Forgot about that one. From Scahill the genius reporter no less. Priceless. Alternate version: Assange did more to end the Iraq war than Obama.
Number23
(24,544 posts)Only on DU could half wits construe this sentence:
"The truth of the matter is that my policies are so mainstream that if I had set the same policies that I had back in the 1980s, I would be considered a moderate Republican."
to mean:
President Obama: "Shit yeah, I'm a Republican! A Moderate one, but a Repub to the bone!!1
Go elephants!! Go gray ears! It's your birthday! Get busy!!" ((Electric slides out of the room))
Cha
(319,086 posts)
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Do I need the sarcasm thingie.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)It's pretty good, but it doesn't fit the definition of a social program.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_programs_in_the_United_States
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)It provides a tax subsidy to a great deal of Americans so they can afford healthcare reform. That's the definition of a social program.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)from for-profit companies.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)Because I don't remember having the option to not pay into it.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)But to humor you - Medicaid was expanded in a great deal of states by the ACA. Millions of Americans will now be covered under government-funded insurance. So, yes, even under your absurd definition, it's a social program.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)I came of age during the Great Society, when social programs were, in fact, *social programs*, run by the government to help the disadvantaged and disabled. They were not programs that were designed to line the pockets of corporations. The bottom line is that forcing people to buy insurance from private corporations, and guaranteeing those corporations a profit, is NOT a social program.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)You're wrong. Opinionated, yes, but just because you want to define what a social program is doesn't make it so.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Those are run by risk taking private insurance companies.
Heck, regular Medicare is pretty much run/administered by insurance companies, under federal guidelines and federal money. So is Medicare in most states. How about student loans? Shoot, you have to use food stamps at for profit stores.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)The NDSL that I got directly from the government, at a greatly reduced interest rate (or none at all if I paid it off within 9 months after leaving school) definitely was a social program. Student loans that are offered by private banks at nearly usurious rates are not social programs, no matter how they are packaged.
When President Johnson signed the Medicare Bill in 1965, it was designed to provide *government* medical assistance to people who were largely shunned by the private health insurance industry-- that is, mostly people 65 and over. The government played the leading role in managing this system, at least in its infancy. It was never designed to make a profit to placate Wall Street investors. It was a social program in every sense of the word.
Today, government is only playing a subordinate role in ACA and is allowing private, for-profit corporations not only to take the leading role, but to profit handsomely from what should be a non-profit undertaking if it were truly a social program.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Last edited Mon Mar 31, 2014, 09:36 AM - Edit history (1)
nowadays.
Since at least the early 70s insurance companies have paid Medicare claims, credentialed providers, handled beneficiary claims, even determined medical necessity.
Truthfully, I do not think the government could have managed the ACA. Heck, they could not even design a web site to sign folks up efficiently, damn near wrecking the whole badly needed social program. And that cones from someone whose first real - and favorite - job was working on the startup of a state Medicaid agency in the 1970s. Nowadays insurance companies handle the majority of administration of Medicaid too, even taking risk. Would have never thought that would happen, but governments just weren't willing to invest the money in systems when they could essentially finance it by hiring private companies to pay the freight.
Today, 30% of Medicare beneficiaries voluntarily choose to use Medicare Advantage programs because they get more than through traditional Medicare, including a cap on out-of-pocket expenses. The elderly would still be going without prescription meds, or cutting them in thirds, if the Part D Medicare program had not been enacted in 2005 and run by private insurers. Right or wrong, the government would not have passed it otherwise.
Single payer, with government handling everything and taking the initial risk, didn't have a chance passing this Congress. I'm glad we got a chance to start this important social program after years of doing nothing following defeat of Hillarycare, even if a few insurance companies make a buck or two before the government ratchets down on them. Beats doing nothing.
Finally, the people griping the loudest now, would still gripe if by a miracle the government had enacted a public option because the premiums, or taxes to pay it, would not have been much cheaper (7 or 8% according to Congressional Budget Office). Somehow, I don't think premiums, or equivalent taxes, of $460 a month rather than $500 would have quelled the Obama bashing.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)can have a truly social program for the health of its citizens, that the USA cannot do the same thing? That the profit-driven private sector, which is responsible for the mess the US health care system is in, can somehow provide better insurance than the government, just because someone in the government couldn't design a freaking web site?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)the infrastructure necessary to handle the Admin of the program when they could farm it out to insurers and let them take the risk for the time being. Surely, you don't really believe this Congress was going to give Obama billions of dollars for that? Go back and look at what happened to us after they defeated Hillarycare, which was a good system.
They hate Obama even more, and probably knew he would be bashed/weakened (even called a POS) by Democrats if things didn't go just as they naively wanted.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)when that interest starts accruing from the time the loan is taken out, and the loan is for tens of thousands of dollars with a payment plan that is practically guaranteed to keep the student deep in debt for years and years after graduation. The interest on my NDSL was 2%, and it did not start accruing until 9 months after I left school. And that was at a time when bank interest was around 5%, so I could put the part of my loan that I did not have to use immediately into the bank and collect interest from that, which helped to pay for some daily expenses like food.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)to ensure I paid it back.
RandoLoodie
(133 posts)you pay taxes, you get social benefits, all contributions benefit the common weal.
Now, you pay taxes, you pay monthly payments to a private, for profit insurance company, then you get a "benefit?"
Sounds like double dipping to me.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Sorry.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)Did you even read the link you posted?
Social programs in the United States are welfare subsidies designed to aid the needs of the U.S. population
What the hell do you think the subsidy is?
progressoid
(53,179 posts)The government provides tax subsidies to Boeing, Northrop Grumman , Ratheon, et. al. too. So making bombs is a social program?
ucrdem
(15,720 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)But forcing people to buy corporate for profit insurance is NOT a social program.
ucrdem
(15,720 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Which is not true, and not in 'the link'. The op would be accurate if it said, "The increases to Medicare and Medicaid contained within the ACA...". The ACA itself is not a social program.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)...a mandate to purchase corporate, for profit insurance is a "social program".
Thanks in advance.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)Don't have to thank me in advance. I'm sure you knew this.
Social programs in the United States are welfare subsidies designed to aid the needs of the U.S. population.
That was from the link you posted. The ACA offers a subsidy that is designed to aid those who can't afford health insurance on their own. The link you posted does not state anywhere that the only way it can be classified as a social program is if it doesn't involve for profit insurance.
ucrdem
(15,720 posts)Was it Noam or Chris or maybe that font of Libertarian wisdom Assange broadcasting from his Knightsbridge studio?
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)Because I'm pretty sure the way it's set up forces seniors to buy supplemental insurance.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)And I did not qualify for medicare or medicaid. I qualified for corporate insurance under Obamacare. Corporate for profit insurance is not a social program, sorry.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)And subsidies are not social programs either. The oil industry is subsidized.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Thus, by your logic the oil industry is a social program.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)Food stamps shouldn't be considered a social program, either, since that goes to pay for corporate goods and not government-run food banks.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Indeed!
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)They are also a subsidy to big food, which is not a 'social program'.
But I do not consider the NFL a social program. The NFL, after all, receives subsidies.
Corporate tax cuts are also subsidies. As are a million other things. Are tax cuts to the rich a social program?
You should have more accurately stated that aspects of the ACA are social programs, but the core of it isnt, it is a mandate.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)Is that what you're trying to say?
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)You have spun yourself right off the rails...
Which would not be necessary if the OP were accurate.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)The NFL receiving a subsidy is in no way like average Americans receiving a subsidy to purchase affordable healthcare.
eridani
(51,907 posts)Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)If I didn't think to include 'em, I would've gone back to Social Security in the 30s.
eridani
(51,907 posts)Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)If I wasn't going to include those two programs, why would I just abruptly end at around the time they were passed?
eridani
(51,907 posts)--you'd think that would be relevant.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)programs strikes you as a negative. Medicare and Medicaid were great Democratic achievements and the ACA builds on that foundation to make still more progress, again a purely Democratic achievement. Without Medicaid, ACA would be something entirely different than it is. Without Medicare we'd certainly need ACA to address elder and disabled American's needs in greater specificity.
It's not like LBJ is running against Obama, they are both our legacy as Democrats, it is fitting and proper that the one program incorporates, expands and makes use of the other.
Maybe it's that I'm sober that I don't see the fighting words you seem to see.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)and the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act of 1973
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Employment_and_Training_Act
Nanjing to Seoul
(2,088 posts)blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)
area51
(12,693 posts)Yes, definitely the ACA is a republican construction. Who else would've conceived of/executed a plan to enrich the insurance companies, without a public option which had a chance of phasing them out over time? 
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)You guys would still gripe if there were a public option because the premiums would only be slightly less than the average private plan. And, the way the public option would achieve that is cutting payments to health care providers - - So says the Congressional Budget Office.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)ACA would not exist as it does Medicaid being a major component of ACA and the component that is directly helping the most in need without asking them to buy a private product.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)the evidence to support the claim is there. Obamacare not only ushered in universal health care, but also is providing the impetus for single payer.
A Brief History: Universal Health Care Efforts in the US
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024755799
From the article posted here. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024757591
<...>
Robin Lunge, Vermont’s director of healthcare reform, said that Vermont’s goal is to move the issue of healthcare completely away from the employer. Vermont’s single payer system, she said, would be similar to the one state employees are already on. It would be financed through an employer and individual tax as well as the premium tax credits and subsidies provided through the exchanges.
<...>
The state’s Medicare, Medicaid and Veteran’s Administration programs would continue to operate as usual under a plan similar to Vermont’s. In Vermont’s potential single payer system, the system would act as a supplement to government insurance and cover everyone who is uninsured or part of the current state health exchanges.
Vermont single payer move has been fully funded by Obamacare.
By Laura K. Grubb, M.D.
The New England Journal of Medicine, April 4, 2013
In May 2011, Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin signed legislation to implement Green Mountain Care (GMC), a single-payer, publicly financed, universal health care system. Vermont's reform law passed 15 months after the historic federal Affordable Care Act (ACA) became law. In passing reforms, Vermont took matters into its own hands and is well ahead of most other states in its efforts to implement federal and state health care reforms by 2014. The Supreme Court decision last June to uphold most of the ACA left many states scrambling, since they had postponed reforms pending the judgment. Although Vermont is a small state, its reform efforts provide valuable lessons for other states in implementing ACA reforms.
<...>
Finally, Vermont policymakers are maximizing federal financing and have projected cost savings. In January 2013, the state released a 156-page financing plan for its single-payer arrangement; the plan outlines federal financing sources and the anticipated generation of savings. Vermont has been awarded more than $250 million in federal funding for its state exchange — the fifth-highest amount among the states, although Vermont has the country's second-smallest state population. “We feel strongly that the exchange is not the answer to all of Vermont's health care problems,” Shumlin remarked, explaining that “the exchange is helpful to Vermont to bring us federal dollars to achieve our single-payer goal.”3 In fact, state exchange development will be 100% federally funded.4
- more -
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2013/april/lessons-from-vermonts-health-care-reform
For everyone who has a problem with ACA--
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024747402
The linked to at the top also mentions the VA and drug pricing.
Obamacare improved the Medicaid drug rebate program, which is one of the best.
<...>
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
The ACA increased the Medicaid rebate percentage.
http://www.medicaid.gov/AffordableCareAct/Timeline/Timeline.html
<...>
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 reality is the massive expansion of Medicaid, a single payer system, along with the option for states to replace their exchanges with a single payer system will speed the arrival of single payer in this country.
When Vermont's system is up and running, I expect the dominoes to fall, finally.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)demwing
(16,916 posts)But nice try
greatauntoftriplets
(179,008 posts)
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-obamacare-deadline-20140331,0,2827199.story
Obamacare has led to health coverage for millions more people
At least 9.5 million previously uninsured people have gotten health insurance since Obamacare started, surveys and reports show.
By Noam N. Levey
6:57 a.m. CDT, March 31, 2014
WASHINGTON—
President Obama's healthcare law, despite a rocky rollout and determined opposition from critics, already has spurred the largest expansion in health coverage in America in half a century, national surveys and enrollment data show.
As the law's initial enrollment period closes, at least 9.5 million previously uninsured people have gained coverage. Some have done so through marketplaces created by the law, some through other private insurance and others through Medicaid, which has expanded under the law in about half the states.
The tally draws from a review of state and federal enrollment reports, surveys and interviews with insurance executives and government officials nationwide.
The Affordable Care Act still faces major challenges, particularly the risk of premium hikes next year that could drive away newly insured customers. But the increased coverage so far amounts to substantial progress toward one of the law's principal goals and is the most significant expansion since the creation of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)the Democrats have fully gone to the other side. BCBS and other private insurers are now a main part of the Democrats social programs. Next up, privatizing SS. There is a social program for us to get behind and after the enormous transfer of wealth you will then be able to claim it as our newest and biggest social program. Fundamentally backwards from what a social program should be.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)Right, because it's not helping millions of people...
progressoid
(53,179 posts)But that's a drop from his paltry $48,075,614.00 the year before.