General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe individual mandate, a Republican idea which shows how far to the right the Dems have gone
Yes, we all know that the Affordable Care Act has deep roots in the plan put forth by Republican Mitt Romney. Some of the more historically astute among us might even know that the ACA can trace its beginnings back to another Republican, Richard Nixon. But it gets worse. It turns out that the most contentious part of the ACA, the individual mandate, originated with George H. W. Bush. Yep, the individual mandate is the child of Pappy Bush.
"The idea of an individual mandate to control health care costs, however, is not new. It goes back to 1989 and a man named Mark Pauly. An expert on health care policy, Pauly was part of a group of academics brought to the White House by President George H.W. Bush.
The group's task was to fix health care; its solution was to let the marketplace solve it and create an individual mandate. Pauly tells weekends on All Things Considered host Guy Raz that, at the time, many Republicans, including the president, loved the idea.
"Legislation was drafted, but never made it as a bill because the word from the Democrats in Congress was [that] it would be dead on arrival," Pauly says."
http://www.npr.org/2012/03/31/149767228/how-did-the-health-care-mandate-get-here
I think that last quote is telling. Democrats in Congress at the time overwhelmingly opposed the individual mandate, for good reason.
Let's compare that to today. Democrats, from the president on down, have embraced the individual mandate as an essential part of their Nixon-cum-Romney-cum-Obamacare.
Let me spell that out for you. Democrats of today are embracing a Republican policy that their predecessors roundly rejected just twenty three years ago. Worse, they are embracing this mandate under the rubric of a health care reform policy whose own origins lie deep within the Republican party.
This starkly shows how far to the right the Democratic party has moved. What once was a Republican policy that Democrats rejected has now become the cornerstone for a law that is essentially a Republican attempt at health care reform. This is not progressive, not by any stretch of the imagination. Rather, it is quite regressive, and signifies another rightward shift of the Democratic party.
I know, I know, this post will be swarmed by people defending the ACA and the individual mandate. Remember though, those defenders that you see, both in this thread and elsewhere on this board, are defending a Republican idea, defending a policy that Democrats once rejected. What they are defending, in essence, is the ongoing rightward shift of the Democratic party, where yesterday's Republican policies are now today's Democratic laws.
How sad is that.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
some discussions on DU are trending towards the right too. I used love being in the discussions here but lately it feels like I'm talking right wing Mormon father in law.
I hope we keep this place a solid left Democratic board.
-p
nolabels
(13,133 posts)Anything could be okay to post back then and was sometimes debated on but now any reasoning out of the ordinary or contrary is pushed away. It's all about image now, substance has moved from the backseat to the trunk
patrice
(47,992 posts)because despite the fact that it supports private insurance it ALSO supports UNIVERSAL health care, so if the private insurers can't do it right, MLR 85% + PCORI, then some other means MUST legally be created to use those mandated dollars to provide universal health care, ergo Medicare or some other form of Single Payer.
This perspective on the mandate is not welcome on this board, ergo, you are correct this board is moving to the right: destroy the mandate and throw the legality of the whole issue right into the Right's lap to do with as they wish.
earthside
(6,960 posts)As has been documented in so many places, the heritage of the 'individual mandate' is Republican and conservative.
Remember, even Barack Obama was against the individual mandate, before he was for it.
Dokkie
(1,688 posts)The biggest most reich wing think tank aka the Heritage foundation also supported individual mandates.
The individual mandate or the insurance company written reform left? gimme a break
nanabugg
(2,198 posts)That way, in a second term, universal health care can become a reality with the GOP on the sidelines?
Maybe Obama really is that smart...smarter then those on the left and the right? Hmmmm.
nolabels
(13,133 posts)We already have medical treatment for all (one way or the other, eventually). Or a least as they die as the doctors watch them go by-by anyway. Why do doctors do that, because that is what they were trained to do. What we have needed for a long time is preventative healthy lifestyles that are dictated by societal norms. What we have got is lives filled with trash from corporate boardrooms We needed to educate ourselves and those around us that it is better to lead a life that will lead to continued health. Instead we got a boob tube that fills our brains with ideas about foolish things we don't need. We trade messages about what is supposed to be hip so we all do the same stupid things instead of thinking for ourselves We instead pollute ourselves and everything we can influence as a normal thing. Longevity of our lives and it's posterity is the last thing on our cultural list of things to do. We have all helped to built this pile of dung we are living in now and we probably will all just suffocate in it too. Shrug
I don't worry so much about Obama but more of those around me that think they need to help me change my mind about something, let's just call me a skeptic. 
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)other form of privatization.
If you want universal public health care, you don't start with privatized measures. All you're doing is increasing the power of private players, creating more people with a stake in the private programs and so making it *harder* to take it away later.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)When you consider a policy with direct roots in Romney, Nixon, and Bob Bennett is somehow "left".
Perhaps you should reevaluate your perspective, or perhaps you definition of left.
Lydia Leftcoast
(48,223 posts)When it still leaves millions uninsured?
FarLeftFist
(6,161 posts)With the ACA there is much more reform and regulation of the insurance companies to do right by the consumer. Talk to me when the GOP was IN FAVOR of regulating the ins. industry against discriminations and price-gouging, pre-existing conditions, etc.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)That's the part striking down discrimination against pre-existing conditions. The price controls contained within the ACA are weak at best. Even the vaunted wording that forces insurance companies to pay out at least 80-85% of their premiums on benefits can be struck down by individual states(and seven states have done just that so far).
patrice
(47,992 posts)MadHound
(34,179 posts)Then yes, it is meaningless, or next to meaningless. As far as PCORI goes, it will have nineteen political appointees, so that in and of itself renders it problematic. Not to mention that it does nothing directly to control prices.
patrice
(47,992 posts)And that *IF* regarding MLR, which you cite, is contingent upon the defense of Constitutional grounds in the mandate, is it not?
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Go read up on PCORI. Nineteen, count them, nineteen political appointees, appointed to six year terms. And who do you think the next 'Pug president is going to appoint to that board? And what do you think those 'Pug appointees are going to do on that board? Oh, yeah.
As far as your sentence about MLR goes, it is incomprehensible to me, I honestly don't get what you are saying, so if you could rephrase it, I would appreciate it. However there is no "if", states can, and have, struck down the MLR already.
patrice
(47,992 posts)Does the people's advocacy for themselves mean nothing relative to those political positions?
I know the problems with that relationship: Citizens United/campaign finance corruption in general; vote suppression; corrupted vote counting/computers. But without a successful effort to change all of that FIRST, at least the PCORI implements this confrontation, where there was NONE before, of the facts:politics. Reform the politics and you have something that CAN work. Throwing the baby out with the bath water, even IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIFFFFFFFFFFFFF we EVER actually achieve political reform, will result in MORE death, because we have NO TOOL to create discourse about that based upon actual empirical evidence.
BTW, what are your thoughts about how such a discourse about such a vital issue COULD fuel political reform that addresses the electoral corruption I outlined earlier???
I think there's a lot that you and I agree about, except where the cart and where the horse is.
earthside
(6,960 posts)If the individual mandate is upheld by the Supreme Court, the very next step by the health insurance corporations will be the immediate commencement (if they haven't started already) of lobbying and campaign contributions to ease any ACA regulation that cuts into their profit.
Then we will be stuck with the worst of all possible health care worlds: buy corporate health insurance or be fined by the federal government ... and weak or non-existent regulations "to do right by the consumer."
This is why I have never believed that the insurance corporations are really all that against 'Obamacare'. Likewise the Repuglicans in Congress -- they are so shameless that they will indeed become defenders of the ACA while weakening all of its regulations.
Sadly, as we all know, that is how the political system works in Washington these days.
Uncle Joe
(65,137 posts)they should have plenty of funds to accomplish those goals.
"If the individual mandate is upheld by the Supreme Court, the very next step by the health insurance corporations will be the immediate commencement (if they haven't started already) of lobbying and campaign contributions to ease any ACA regulation that cuts into their profit."
CAPHAVOC
(1,138 posts)BCBS is a non-profit Corporation. I think. What does this mean to them? I bet the Republican Justices uphold it. It is a corporate give away.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)CAPHAVOC
(1,138 posts)Guess we are going to end up living in a "company" town. Shopping at the "company store". With our measly company money. Like the good ole days. What will we get for 16 tons" Or from the Tally Man?
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)2,700 pages of the ACA, there was a page detailing the fact that to help ease the deficit, 1/2 trillions dollars has to be removed from MediCare.
Where that money will come from I don't know. It has been stated again and again that this reduction will not up fees for the seniors dependent on the program - but that only means that monies normally ordered to go to doctors will not be available.
It won't matter to the seniors if they can't get MediCare because premiums are now too high, or that doctors in their area have pulled out of taking patients with MediCare. They will still be Sh__ out of Luck.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)lines of cutting funding to popular programs to make people dissatisfied with them, the better to eliminate them later.
They're been doing it for thirty-plus years now.
CrispyQ
(40,969 posts)Maybe when people start getting fined by the government while their loved ones are dying, they will wake up to the monstrosity of corporate personhood & finally demand change. IMO, this is should be the battle cry of the Occupy movement - Personhood Rights for People Only.
CAPHAVOC
(1,138 posts)If they keep their wallet in their right pocket. It is so heavy with Insurance and Pharma Lobby money they have to.
libinnyandia
(1,374 posts)on every issue. Their hatred for Obama has driven them crazy.
Stargleamer
(2,728 posts)to the extreme right, and this is dragging the Democratic Party further rightward too.
liberalmike27
(2,479 posts)The democratic party, being financed by the same lobbyist money as republicans, just won't, or can't make the case anymore for anything. They can't usually suggest higher taxes, at least not to the extent they are needed. They can't seem to fight against onerous drug laws, though they are more a direct example of "big government" than regulation of corporations. They can't seem to rail against the death penalty, or even the idea of progressive taxation. They can't seem to muster any anti-war sentiment, they no longer make the case for better control of guns, through gun laws. They can't make the case against globalization, or down-sizing, since they were right smack in the middle of sending jobs away.
They aren't much good, and only serve as the bitching party, rather than the doing party. Republicans do, Democrats react by whining, usually with no ideas. It's reflected in what little media supposedly supports the democratic party, as they tend to play a right-wing clip and rail against it, rarely actually coming up with ideas on their own, bargaining points far to the left, in hopes to counter radical right stuff.
As far as here, well I'm sure they've figured out by now the Internet is a big player, and there are freepers abounding throughout this and other democratic sites, trying to convince more youthful people who've never actually seen true liberalism, that the "New Democratic Way" (of acting like republicans) is the correct way.
And it's all about the Benjamins--they are both paid by the same people, it is the core of the corruption of the American system. The poor and middle class, now destroyed, clawing to get crumbs, just can't afford to buy any politicians, they don't own the media, and are drowned out. Even protests are ignored, or covered negatively in most media.
EFerrari
(163,986 posts)since Nixon took office, so it has been 43 years of the finger to the left in this country.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)Nixon also distinguished himself by these lefty actions:
* Saved America’s environment by creating the Environmental Protection Agency and Clean Air Act while approving the most sweeping environmental legislation in history.
* Simultaneously reformed welfare and brought in serious new civil-rights laws and agencies for minorities, women, the handicapped and children.
* Proclaimed the first official U.S. Earth Day/Earth Week in 1971.
* Totally reformed the government’s relationship with Native Americans, bringing new self-determination and civil rights to U.S. tribes while saving such Indian natural wonders as Pyramid Lake — the tribe even renamed its capital “Nixon.”
* Was even described as “the Abraham Lincoln of the Indian people.”
* Loved those Chinese communists.
* Spent more on social programs than defense!
* Fathered screaming ex-socialist lunatic Mojo Nixon.
There you go, hippies: Nixon was more liberal than Clinton.
http://wonkette.com/227457/richard-nixon-americas-greatest-liberal
SSI was Nixon.
In addition to successful legislation that federalized aid to the old and handicapped, and the COLA for social security, the Nixon administration succeeded in expanding aid to education, through revenue sharing programs, the creation of the National Student Loan Association to aid students from low income families attend colleges and universities, a Career Education Program to aid community college in teaching "critically needed skills, and finally through the establishment of the National Endowment for the Humanities. When Nixon's increased funding for elementary and secondary beginning with the Education Amendments of 1972 are added to Nixon's other social welfare spending programs the percentage of such expenditures increased from 49 percent of the GNP 1965 to almost 60% in 1975.20
While Presidents Kennedy and Johnson had employed the term "affirmative action," it "did not have much bite" until the Nixon administration announced a revised "Philadelphia Plan" in 1969 requiring federal contractors in the construction industry to hire minority workers. Secretary of Labor George Shultz later extended this plan to nine other cities. Shultz also issued the first guidelines requiring businesses with federal contracts to draw up "action plans" for hiring and promoting women.27 In other words, not until the Nixon administration did "affirmative action" begin to become synonymous with "civil rights." When the Rehnquist court decided in City of Richmond v. J. A. Croson, 109 S. Ct. 706 (1989) that "set asides" for minority construction workers were unconstitutional, much to the surprise of most Americans, legal specialists recalled that they had been initiated with the Philadelphia Plan twenty years earlier by the Nixon administration.
There's more...
http://www.nixonera.com/library/domestic.asp
EFerrari
(163,986 posts)much more liberal than Clinton, which is unnecessary because he was more liberal than Clinton in some respects.
Nixon did not totally reform the Feds relationship with Native American tribes, for example, as the A.I.M. and other groups demonstrated in the following decade. Since we were at hot and cold war during his administration, the claim that he spent more on social programs than on defense is probably not accurate although he did reduce defense spending when the Viet Nam war wound down.
The way you can tell your source is right wing is by the way it talks about Commies and hippies.
I'd fact check the whole thing before I used it again.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)didn't reform the feds' relationship with the tribes in the direction of greater self-determination.
No more than the founding of the Black Panthers (1966) meant that the 1964 Civil Rights Act was a bust.
Nixon reduced defense spending. "Topline," which probably doesn;t take all the hidden stuff into account,but nevertheless the biggest reduction since Eisenhower.
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/07/img/historical_defense_budget_charts.html
And he dramatically increased social spending: "By 1977 defense expenditures amounted to only 23.7 percent of the budget, whereas non-defense comprised 76.3%..." With social spending being 55.9% of the total v. 28.7% in 1960, and v. the 49-51 split of defense v. non-defense in 1960.
http://books.google.com/books?id=u_37SCBc3u0C&pg=PA19&lpg=PA19&dq=nixon+social+spending+military+spending&source=bl&ots=tO3YIz274X&sig=mDFl6StYQ0Xx6YjQ2ZlvdSDr1jw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=wKR5T4-LLcXWiALng_inDg&ved=0CD8Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=nixon%20social%20spending%20military%20spending&f=false
Just because it's the Nixon library doesn't mean it's a lie.
EFerrari
(163,986 posts)that the wonkette piece made for Nixon. If you look at it carefully, you'll see that it belongs to a right wing folk form which is a kind of "gotcha" and in this case, unnecessary as Nixon was demonstrably more liberal than Bill Clinton. I didn't go to the library site.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)which wonkette links, is serious, and I looked up the budget information and find it factual. The rest -- e.g. that EPA was a creation of the Nixon admin -- is well known.
I agree, nixon's social policies generally were more liberal than clinton's. Which was the point I was trying to make. Nixon was the last gasp of old-style liberalism on social policy (with some exceptions).
After him it's neo-liberal, and carter was arguably the beginning of that. After Carter it's definitely neo-lib and backstepping all the way.
EFerrari
(163,986 posts)When the torture president was still in office, we used to remark here that we couldn't believe how good Nixon looked in comparison.
The funny thing about this wonkette item, I agree with the sentiment and know she leans left AND this thing probably did originate at some wingnut site because it's a form. These things 1) use bullet points to lend credibility to 2) inflated or spun claims 3)that are often wrong when you push on them, 4) not very well written and 5) usually end with some kind of insult. Maybe she got an email and reworked it but once you read a few of those, the form itself is sort of unmistakable just like someone's version of The Vanishing Hitchhiker or The Hook.
It would be fun to see if I can track it down but it's Monday and there probably won't be time. If she didn't just rework it, she did a good job of mimicking one of those emails.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)has been a part of every plan. Nixon's had it. The other 2008 candidates' plan included it. In fact, the other candidates wanted to garnish wages to achieve it.
Clinton opted for an employer/individual mandate.
http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/13/2/105.full.pdf
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Funny thing, Republicans also proposed an individual mandate as part of Clinton's reform efforts. Back then, only two Democrats backed the mandate, while Republicans like Bennet and Dole loved it.
Thanks for continuing to prove my point.
"Yes, and all those plans, excepting Clinton's were Republican plans"
So, Clinton's plan, which included a mandate, was the only one that wasn't a Republican plan, but Obama's is?
What nonsense.
I wonder if Hillary or Edwards had won if their supporters would have been upset if they carried out the mandate via garnishing wages.
On edit, there are also a number of proposals in Obama's plan that makes it far more progressive than Clinton's.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)By every objective view, put forth by every objective expert, the ACA is directly descended from the Republican Romneycare, which is in turn descended from the Republican Nixon proposal. So yeah, the ACA is a Republican plan, despite the fact that a nominal Democrat named Obama pushed it and signed it.
Oh, and if you think I'm picking on Obama because I'm a former Clinton or Edwards supporter, I suggest that you check out my past posts. Personally, I think that the only way to go is single payer UHC, much like they have in Canada and Europe.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)that explains alot.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)I said, "Oh, and if you think I'm picking on Obama because I'm a former Clinton or Edwards supporter, I suggest that you check out my past posts." Nowhere in there do I state that I'm was a former Clinton supporter. I didn't support Clinton, Edwards or Obama, but rather Kucinich. I reluctantly voted for Obama in the general, with deep reservations, most of which are, sadly, coming true.
Oh, and next time take my advice and check out my previous posts.
Kucinich voted for the ACA and now opposes the repeal of it. I wonder if Kucinich wouldn't have done the same if he won the election.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)peace.
By every objective view, put forth by every objective expert, the ACA is directly descended from the Republican Romneycare, which is in turn descended from the Republican Nixon proposal. So yeah, the ACA is a Republican plan, despite the fact that a nominal Democrat named Obama pushed it and signed it.
Oh, and if you think I'm picking on Obama because I'm a former Clinton or Edwards supporter, I suggest that you check out my past posts. Personally, I think that the only way to go is single payer UHC, much like they have in Canada and Europe.
...I didn't. I also have no problem with the health care law's similarity to "RomneyCare."
In fall 2005 the House and Senate each passed health care insurance reform bills. The legislature made a number of changes to Governor Romney's original proposal, including expanding MassHealth (Medicaid and SCHIP) coverage to low-income children and restoring funding for public health programs. The most controversial change was the addition of a provision which requires firms with 11 or more workers that do not provide "fair and reasonable" health coverage to their workers to pay an annual penalty. This contribution, initially $295 annually per worker, is intended to equalize the free care pool charges imposed on employers who do and do not cover their workers.
On April 12, 2006, Governor Mitt Romney signed the health legislation.[18] Romney vetoed eight sections of the health care legislation, including the controversial employer assessment.[19] Romney also vetoed provisions providing dental benefits to poor residents on the Medicaid program, and providing health coverage to senior and disabled legal immigrants not eligible for federal Medicaid.[20] The legislature promptly overrode six of the eight gubernatorial section vetoes, on May 4, 2006, and by mid-June 2006 had overridden the remaining two.[21]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_health_care_reform#Legislation
There is a reason Romney is running away from it.
Did you support Kucinich? He voted for the health care law.
Washington, Mar 26 -
Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), who provided the pivotal vote in the House to pass the Affordable Care Act, today explained the Supreme Courts’ ruling will simply be the next step in the inevitable path towards single-payer health care. Today, the Supreme Court began hearing arguments as it considers the landmark health care reform bill passed in the previous Congress.
“The Supreme Court has begun its review of the Affordable Care Act, and I hope the law is upheld. I voted for the bill, even as the coauthor of the single-payer solution, because it provided immediate relief [1] for my constituents. It also demonstrated that reform is possible within the context of the for-profit system. However, in the current for-profit system, one out of every three dollars spent on health care goes toward things other than providing health care. The cost of health care continues to grow because the costs cannot be constrained within the context of that for-profit system. Whether the Supreme Court upholds the law or strikes it down, single-payer is the only alternative that can meet our nation’s needs,” said Kucinich.
Congressman Kucinich is the coauthor, along with Congressman John Conyers (D-MI), of H.R. 676, Medicare for All. H.R. 676 would cover everyone in the U.S. for all medically necessary services with no copayments, premiums or deductibles, for the same amount we currently pay for health care.
“The fundamental question for Americans is whether health care is only for those who can afford it or whether health care is human right. I believe health care is a fundamental right of every American and we have found that when we treat it as such, it becomes more affordable for everyone.
“Congress has shown an appetite for single-payer. I introduced an amendment to the Affordable Care Act in 2009 in the Education and Labor Committee. The amendment, passed on a bipartisan vote but stripped from the bill, would have helped states pursue single-payer if that is what their residents wanted. My amendment was one of the first single-payer legislative victories in Congress. It won’t be the last.”
http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=287135
MadHound
(34,179 posts)So, what other Republican policies do you support? Anything so long as somebody with a D after their name signs off on it? Explains a lot about you.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"So you support Romney care, a Republican policy"
...of what you call it, you're damn right I support:
Do you oppose these things?
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Just so long as somebody with a D behind their name signs off on it.
Explains a lot about you, more than you perhaps care to share.
You are a perfect personification of the point I was making in my OP. Thanks for playing.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Just so long as somebody with a D behind their name signs off on it.
Explains a lot about you, more than you perhaps care to share.
...response: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=503230
The willingness to see millions deprived of coverage "explains a lot about you": Screw the poor because it's President Obama's law that will help them.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)How very sad is that? Looks like you're experiencing a bankruptcy of ideas these days if you are having to link to your own posts, in the very same thread. Surely you can do better than that? Or maybe not.
Anyway, I am not willing to see anybody screwed due to repackaged Republican "health care reform". If the individual mandate stays in place, and weak price controls, the poor and the middle class will all get screwed as premiums get jacked up and up and up. That is, after all, what happens in a monopoly, which is what the individual mandate gives the insurance industry, a mandated monopoly.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)Heritage Foundation's proposal more than Nixon's.
Nixon's Plan For Health Reform, In His Own Words
Upon adoption of appropriate Federal and State legislation, the Comprehensive Health Insurance Plan would offer to every American the same broad and balanced health protection through one of three major programs:
--Employee Health Insurance, covering most Americans and offered at their place of employment, with the cost to be shared by the employer and employee on a basis which would prevent excessive burdens on either;
--Assisted Health Insurance, covering low-income persons, and persons who would be ineligible for the other two programs, with Federal and State government paying those costs beyond the means of the individual who is insured; and,
--An improved Medicare Plan, covering those 65 and over and offered through a Medicare system that is modified to include additional, needed benefits.
One of these three plans would be available to every American, but for everyone, participation in the program would be voluntary.
There would be no exclusions of coverage based on the nature of the illness. For example, a person with heart disease would qualify for benefits as would a person with kidney disease.
Under the Comprehensive Health Insurance Plan, a doctor's decisions could be based on the health care needs of his patients, not on health insurance coverage. This difference is essential for quality care.
Every American participating in the program would be insured for catastrophic illnesses that can eat away savings and plunge individuals and families into hopeless debt for years. No family would ever have annual out-of-pocket expenses for covered health services in excess of $1,500, and low-income families would face substantially smaller expenses.
As part of this program, every American who participates in the program would receive a Health-card when the plan goes into effect in his State. This card, similar to a credit card, would be honored by hospitals, nursing homes, emergency rooms, doctors, and clinics across the country.
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2009/September/03/nixon-proposal.aspx
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Truly sad.
But the fact of the matter is that yes, the origins of today's ACA lie with Nixon. That is self evident by the piece you linked to.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)patrice
(47,992 posts)Even if a LEGAL mandate gets defeated politically, at least if you have not backed-off of those legal grounds, you have something to stand on when you put together an effort to pursue Single Payer.
I don't see how you can do that if you give up those Constitutional grounds.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)As opposed to paying taxes in order to receive full coverage, non-profit, government run health care. Big, big difference.
patrice
(47,992 posts)at this particular phase, it's a mandate for dollars to private insurers, who must MEET CERTAIN STANDARDS, if they fail in this, it is the government's responsibility to implement a different kind of mandate to meet the requirement that it act on behalf of the commonweal, which at this time takes the form of its authority over inter-state commerce. Back off of that, kill ACA, and you have no legal grounds upon which to approach Single Payer. Right or wrong?
MadHound
(34,179 posts)n/t
patrice
(47,992 posts)patrice
(47,992 posts)TheKentuckian
(26,314 posts)What happens is if the insurance cartel doesn't comply the government is forced to knuckle under because nothing else. Can happen under the law.
In order to create new anything, a new law has to be written, passed, and signed into law. The existing law making no difference in some future Congress' ability to enact some whole new law to actually create a realistic attempt at a remedy. The Wealthcare and Profit Protection Act will be of no importance.
The government's responsibility is immaterial, as reality might demonstrate.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)Nixon's Plan For Health Reform, In His Own Words
Upon adoption of appropriate Federal and State legislation, the Comprehensive Health Insurance Plan would offer to every American the same broad and balanced health protection through one of three major programs:
--Employee Health Insurance, covering most Americans and offered at their place of employment, with the cost to be shared by the employer and employee on a basis which would prevent excessive burdens on either;
--Assisted Health Insurance, covering low-income persons, and persons who would be ineligible for the other two programs, with Federal and State government paying those costs beyond the means of the individual who is insured; and,
--An improved Medicare Plan, covering those 65 and over and offered through a Medicare system that is modified to include additional, needed benefits.
One of these three plans would be available to every American, but for everyone, participation in the program would be voluntary.
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2009/September/03/nixon-proposal.aspx
mike_c
(37,051 posts)It's a republican notion, through and through.
CAPHAVOC
(1,138 posts)If that is true then why do the Progressive Justices like it? None of this makes sense.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)On fiscal matters, meh, not so much.
CAPHAVOC
(1,138 posts)I am. I may want to by pass the Progressives. If this is what they like. I like the idea of Liberal. Social and economic at this point. I agree with the 1% theory. That is what got me. But not the Government in bed with Mega Corporations. Forcing us to buy their products. I thought that would be Conservative.
girl gone mad
(20,634 posts)when they make decisions on who should be granted equal rights on the basis of concepts such as "God is in the mix," and when they prosecute the war on drugs in a manner that makes Pat Robertson look like a far left hippie by comparison.
Pab Sungenis
(9,612 posts)since John Paul Stevens retired. The Clinton and Obama appointees are all of the "new left" which is the old right.
CAPHAVOC
(1,138 posts)I remember the name but did not pay much attention back then.
Pab Sungenis
(9,612 posts)I personally don't like the personal mandate and think he might have voted it down, too. I was just pointing out that there are no "progressive" judges on the Court any more.
CAPHAVOC
(1,138 posts)Of Progressive and Liberal. What was JFK considered to be. Liberal or Progressive? Or FDR.
Pab Sungenis
(9,612 posts)Liberal is a philosophy, and progressive is a type of social and economic policy. You can be liberal but not progressive (i.e.: for civil rights, social justice, etc. but not progressive in economic policy).
Taft, Hoover, and Eisenhower were liberal but not progressive. Wilson was progressive but not liberal.
CAPHAVOC
(1,138 posts)I am in the Liberal camp. And did not know it. Eisenhower was POTUS when I was a kid.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)program? Also many states have turned to private insurance companies such as Humana and Medica to cover the costs of Medicare and Medicaid. Are those programs also going to be illegal now? There is more to this than HCR.
CAPHAVOC
(1,138 posts)We are infested with it.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Privatization rarely ever works.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)
KG
(28,795 posts)is laughable.
patrice
(47,992 posts)mandate.
Response to patrice (Reply #22)
Uncle Joe This message was self-deleted by its author.
OccupyTheIRS
(84 posts)Dems: "Anyone want single payer?"
Media: "No, they don't!"
Dems: "Okay, we'll just do what the republicans want"
patrice
(47,992 posts)You echo echoes of reich-wing talking points: this has NOT been anything like a dialogue, because there has not been enough of the appropriately distributed support that is necessary to SP, ergo no Dems, ergo also the whole thing has been a MEDIA monologue and that includes the DU.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)I suggest you stop being so insulting to our intelligence.
patrice
(47,992 posts)them. WHY do you attack mine?
What I say can be taken as personal, or NOT, that's your choice, not mine. If the shoe isn't going to fit, don't try it on. Trying it on suggests that you think it fits somehow.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)But you are trying to shove that shoe down my throat and the throats of those who disagree with you. You are essentially saying that if we don't agree with you then we're brainwashed media droids. That is both insulting and wrong.
But hey, continue to get all huffy when you're called on your bullshit, it is indeed amusing.
CAPHAVOC
(1,138 posts)truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Single Payer Universal HC notion?
You know all those many ads that flood our air waves each night during Prime Time. The ones telling Americans they need new anti-depression meds, new sinus meds, new "did you ever burp and now want to try a cure that may kill you?" ads.
Surveys show Americans now tune them out. But the main reason for those ads is that the ad revenue holds those networks hostage. Should any network allow any Talking Head to mention and promote Single Payer Universal HC, and those ad revenues will not be available to the networks anymore.
girl gone mad
(20,634 posts)They don't reflect reality. Single payer was popular, but only received negative coverage. The public option was popular, but the media wouldn't talk about it. Instead we got wall-to-wall "death panel" hysterics. No accurate criticism of the bill as a corporate giveaway, just a bunch of ill-informed morons shouting about government takeovers.
patrice
(47,992 posts)political calculation, rather than as an essential legal necessity in this issue.
Such preponderance of attitude is a very likely indicator of bias.
There ARE other explanations for a LEGAL strategy that includes a mandate. We NEVER see any of that discussed here, perhaps that is because this board is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more about politics, instead of issues, than it is about anything else.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)To a mandated monopoly without a public option or meaningful price controls reeks of political calculation. He essentially went from being an FDR Senator to a Reagan Democrat president. All in order to get elected to the WH.
patrice
(47,992 posts)It's so interesting, in such a highly complex situation, a situation from which an extremely high number of strategies COULD emerge, that so many people have decided that there is ONE and ONLY ONE possibility going on with so many different things about which they literally know next to nothing.
How well do you know what attorneys are and precisely HOW they function with other attorneys within any kind of a dynamic legal milieu?
I'm not saying I can predict, divine, what's going on better than lots of other people. I just think it's HIGHLY interesting how this situation is being EXTREMELY over-simplified and very very very possibly, intentionally?, mischaracterized.
I'm not sure; I value the REALITY of admitting that fact and I am highly skeptical of others who appear not to share that value, because I know very intimately how expectations SHAPE outcomes.
kiva
(4,373 posts)Damn, I'm so glad we get to vote for the honest politician.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Willing to sacrifice his ideals and our future for crass political gain.
Thanks, nice to know you recognize the obvious.
Maven
(10,533 posts)ie the only thing that would have made the mandate acceptable, for political reasons.
There, I fixed it for you.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)it's right up there with the payroll tax cut, and trickle down economics. Both Republican ideas which have now been embraced by Democrats. We're gonna create jobs - by cutting taxes!!
obxhead
(8,434 posts)and getting to (rightly) blame Democrats for it.
It boggles the mind.
CAPHAVOC
(1,138 posts)Unless the whole shebang is just a Dog and Pony Show. I am really confused now. Seems the Liberal Justices should be against the Corporate Mandate and the Conservatives should be for it. Crazy time.
patrice
(47,992 posts)CAPHAVOC
(1,138 posts)I want the Medicare plan. Not the government to control my doctor. Just the payment. I don't mind paying fair taxes for it. I get medicare in 2 years if it is still around. Why should not everyone else? It is a great plan. It works. What you are saying just sounds "sneaky" to me.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)because they're corporate conservatives.
The wingers came up with the mandate in 1989. Their present opposition to it is sideshow.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-weigant/the-individual-mandates-c_b_1386716.html
The financial community wants it. Therefore, it's constitutional.
EFerrari
(163,986 posts)so it's not worth it to have their "justices" toss it just to damage Obama.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)And this court *loves* to expand the power of the State in their chosen directions.
The State has the power to tax you to give money to corporations, as well as to force you to pay them directly. The corps now get it two ways.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)...not since JP Stevens was replaced with a "moderate".
The entire court has steadily shifted to The Right over the last 30 years.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/justices-side-police-warrantless-search/story?id=13613343
patrice
(47,992 posts)HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Last edited Sun Apr 1, 2012, 08:18 PM - Edit history (1)
Wake up, America. The one percent are in both parties, not just one.
You cannot fix a problem if you refuse to acknowledge it.
K&R
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)Element #1: Every resident of the U.S. must, by law, be enrolled in an adequate health care plan to cover major health care costs.
This requirement would imply a compact between the U.S. government and its citizens: in return for the government's accepting an obligation to devise a market-based system guaranteeing access to care and protecting all families from financial distress due to the cost of an illness, each individual must agree to obtain a minimum level of protection. This means that, while government would take on the obligation to find ways of guaranteeing care for those Americans unable to obtain protection in the market, perhaps because of chronic health problems or lack of income, Americans with sufficient means would no longer be able to be "free riders" on society by avoiding sensible health insurance expenditures and relying on others to pay for care in an emergency or in retirement.
Under this arrangement, all households would be required to protect themselves from major medical costs by purchasing health insurance or enrolling in a prepaid health plan. The degree of financial protection can be debated, but the principle of mandatory family protection is central to a universal health care system in America.
Help would be provided in two ways. First, the tax code would be amended, as Chapter 3 describes, to give tax relief to individual purchasers of health insurance or prepaid plans and to provide tax credits for out-of-pocket expenses. Second, government would aid those who, because of income or medical condition, find the cost of protection to be an unreasonable burden. Such aid could take the form of vouchers for purchasing insurance or state-managed systems as described in Chapter 5.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-weigant/the-individual-mandates-c_b_1386716.html
Autumn
(48,962 posts)I can smell it too, and it smells like republican bullshit. What the hell, a gold plated piece of shit is still shit. Thank for your post, it says it all.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)
xchrom
(108,903 posts)Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)mandate they proposed while watching the Democrats scream how wonderful and necessary it is.
I have been watching as Republicans say this is a step towards evil "socialism" while Democrats say it's a step towards single payer.
I have been watching as Republicans say it's the end of the world of this law stays on the books and as Democrats say it's the end of the world if it doesn't.
I have come to the conclusion that they are all FULL OF SHIT.
I can count on one hand the number of politicians who are actually working for the people.
The system is rigged, the game being played is for show, and I believe that even if Democrats managed to get super majorities in every branch of government we would still get fucked over.
Oh K&R by the way. 
girl gone mad
(20,634 posts)or maybe even in the late 80s.
The way I see it, progressives who actually understand finance and know how the insurance industry operates are the ones who are dead set against the mandates, for good reason. In order to function as intended, health insurance has to be a really bad deal for the vast majority of the people. This bill cost shifts the risk of required emergency care costs from the government (yes, its the government that bears most of these costs now, not insured people, contrary to the industry spin) on to young workers, primarily. That's the last thing our economy needs right now.
If we want to provide a level of basic health care and preventative services to the people, it should be done through the existing Medicare infrastructure, not by forcing every citizen to buy a private product which fundamentally exists to deny its customers health services whenever possible.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Private regulated provision of public goods has been the American way for several centuries now. It's not the best way but it's what our political system can manage.
You can't have guaranteed issue without a mandate or (literally) five-figure premiums.
progressoid
(53,179 posts)It's rather depressing that this is now considered liberal by our side and even super-duper liberal by the GOP.
I guess we're just supposed to smile and accept this new liberalism.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)This is just an authoritarian left wing propaganda talking point, that it was a "Republican idea."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/us/politics/lobby-groups-blanket-supreme-court-on-obama-health-care-plan.html?pagewanted=all
http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2012/03/briefs-and-amicus-briefs-in-health-care.html
http://www.americanbar.org/publications/preview_home/11-398.html
Merit Briefs
Brief for Petitioners Department of Health and Human Services, et al.
Brief for State Respondents on the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for Private Respondents on the Minimum Coverage Provision
Reply Brief for Petitioners Department of Health and Human Services, et al.
Amicus Briefs
In Support of Petitioners (in support of the federal law)
Brief for 104 Health Law Professors in Support of Petitioners Regarding the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for AARP in Support of Petitioners Regarding the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for Advocacy for Patients with Chronic Illness, Inc., in Support of Petitioner
Brief for the American Association of People With Disabilities, The Arc of the United States, Breast Cancer Action, Families USA, Friends of Cancer Research, March of Dimes Foundation, National Breast Cancer Coalition, National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship, National Health Law Program, National Organization for Rare Diseases, National Senior Citizens Law Center, National Women’s Health Network, The Ovarian Cancer National Alliance and Voices for America’s Children in Support of Petitioners Regarding the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for the American Cancer Society, the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, American Diabetes Association, and the American Heart Association Supporting Petitioners Urging Reversal of the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for the American Federation of Labor and the Congress of Industrial Organizations in Support of Petitioners Regarding the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for the American Hospital Association, et al in Support of Petitioner with Respect to the Individual Mandate
Brief for American Nurses Association; American Academy of Pediatrics; American Medical Student Association; Doctors for America; the National Hispanic Medical Association; and the National Physicians Alliance in Support of Petitioners and Reversal on the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Inc., in Support of Petitioners Regarding the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for California Endowment in Support of Petitioners and in Favor of the Reversal of the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for Child Advocacy Organizations in Support of Petitioners on the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in Support of Petitioners Regarding the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for Constitutional Law and Economics Professors in Support of Petitioners
Brief for Constitutional Law Scholars in Support of Petitioners (Minimum Coverage Provision)
Brief for David R. Riemer and Community Advocates in Support of Petitioners Regarding the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for California Public Employees' Retirement System, et al in Support of Petitioners Regarding the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for Economic Scholars in Support Of Petitioners Urging Reversal on the Minimum Coverage Issue
Brief for the Governor of Washington Christine Gregoire in Support of Petitioners Regarding the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for Health Care for All, Inc., Health Law Advocates, Inc., et al. in Support of Petitioners and Urging Reversal on the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for Health Care Policy History Scholars in Support of Petitioners Regarding the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for Jewish Alliance for Law and Social Action, Jewish Council on Urban Affairs, Jewish Social Policy Action Network, New England Jewish Labor Committee in Support of Petitioners
Brief for Lambda Legal Defense Fund, et al, in Support of Petitioner Regarding the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for Law Professors Barry Friedman and Matthew Adler, et al., in Support of Petitioners and Reversal of the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., the American Civil Liberties Union, and the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights in Support of Petitioner Regarding the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for the National Women's Law Center, et al in Support of Petitioner on the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for Prescription Policy Choices, Professors of Law, and Professors of Health Policy in Support of Petitioners Regarding the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for Service Employees International Union and Change to Win Addressing the Minimum Coverage Provision Issue and Supporting Petitioners and Reversal
Brief for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi and Congressional Leaders and Heads of Committees of Relevant Jurisdictions in Support of Petitioners Regarding the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for Small Business Majority Foundation, INC and the Main Street Alliance in Support of Petitioners Regarding the Minimum Coverage Issue
Brief for State Legislators from All Fifty States, The District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico Supporting Petitioners Regarding the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for the States of Maryland, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, New Mexico, New York, Oregon and Vermont and the District of Columbia in Support of Petitioners Regarding the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for Young Invincibles in Support of Petitioner Regarding the Minimum Coverage Provision
In Support of Respondents (people against the law)
Brief for the 1851 Center for Constitutional Law in Support of Respondents on the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for American Catholic Lawyers Association, Inc., in Support of Respondents Regarding the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for the American Center for Law and Justice, 119 Members of the United States Congress, and More Than 144,000 Supporters of the ACLJ in Support of Respondents and Urging Affirmance on the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for the American Civil Rights Union, the Social Security Institute and the 10th Amendment Foundation, inc. in Support of Respondents Regarding the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for American College of Pediatricians, Christian Medical & Dental Associations, American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists, Catholic Medical Association, Physicians for Life, National Association of Pro Life Nurses, and Medical Students for Life of America in Support of Respondents Regarding the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for the American Legislative Exchange Council in Support of Respondents on the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for the American Life League in Support of Respondents Regarding the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for Association of American Physicians And Surgeons, inc., and Individual Physicians in Support of Respondents Regarding the Individual Mandate Issue
Brief for Authors Orgins of Authors of the Origins of The Necessary and Proper Clause (Gary Lawson, Robert G. Natelson & Guy Seidman) and the Independence Institute in Support of Respondent on the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for the Caesar Rodney Institute in Support of Respondents Regarding the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for the Catholic Vote and Steven J. Willis in Support of Respondents Regarding the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for the Cato Institute, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Pacific Legal Foundation, 14 Other Organizations, and 333 State Legislators Supporting Respondents Regarding the Minimum Coverage Issue
Brief for Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, Judicial Education Project, Reason Foundation, the Individual Rights Foundation, the Heritage Foundation, Ending Spending, inc., and Former Senators George Lemieux and Hank Brown in Support of Respondents Regarding th Minimum Coverage Provision Issue.
Brief for Citizens and Legislators in the Fourteen Health Care Freedom States in Support of Respondents Regarding the Minimum Coverage Provision (associated with ALEC)
Brief for Citizens’ Council for Health Freedom, Supporting the Respondents, and Addressing the Minimum Coverage Provision Issue
Brief for Docs4patientcare, Benjamin Rush Society, Pacific Research Institute, Galen Institute, and Angel Raich in Support of Respondents Regarding the Minimum Coverage Provision (supports doctor-patient 'sanctity')
Brief for Economists in Support of Respondents Regarding Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for Employer Solutions Staffing Group in Support of Respondent Regarding the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for Egon Mittelmann, Esq. in Support of Respondents Mary Brown and Kaj Ahlburg on the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for Former U.S. Department Officials in Support of Respondents on the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for the Foundation for Moral Law, in Support of Respondents, Regarding the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for the Independent Women’s Forum in Support of Respondents
Brief for the Insitute for Justice in Support of Respondent
Brief for HSA Coalition, Inc. and the Constitution Defense Fund, a Project of Freedomworks Foundation in Support of Respondents Regardin the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for John Boehner Speaker of the House in Support of Respondents Regarding the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for Judicial Watch, inc. in Support of Respondents on the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for the Landmark Legal Foundation in Support of Respondents on the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for Liberty Legal Foundation in Support of Respondents Regarding the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for Liberty University, Inc., Michele Waddell, and Joann Merrill in Support of Respondents on the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for Members of the United States Senate in Support of Respondents on the Minimum Coverage Provision Issue
Brief for the Missouri Attorney General in Support of Respondents Regarding the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for Montana Shooting Sports Association in Support of Respondents Regarding the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for the Mountain States Legal Foundation in Support of Respondents
Brief for Oklahoma in Support of Respondents Regarding the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for Partnership for America in Support of Respondents Regarding the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for Project Liberty in Support of Respondents Regarding the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for the Rutherford Institute in Support of Respondents Regarding the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for Senator Rand Paul in Support of Respondents Regarding the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for Single Payer Action, It's Our Economy, and Fifty Medical Doctors who Support Single Payer in Support of Respondents on the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for Stephen M. Trattner in Support of Respondents Regarding the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for the Tax Foundation in Support of Respondents Regarding the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for the Texas Public Policy Foundation in Support of Respondent Regarding the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for the Thomas More Law Center, Jann Demars, John Ceci, Steven Hyder, and Salina Hyder in Support of Respondent Regarding the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for Commonwealth of Virginia, ex rel. Attorney General Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, II in Support of Respondents Regarding the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for Virginia Delegate Bob Marshall, Virginia Senator Dick Black, Oklahoma Representative Charles Key, the Institute on the Constitution, U.S. Justice Foundation, Gun Owners Foundation, the Lincoln Institute for Research and Education, the United States Constitutional Rights Legal Defense Fund, Inc., Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, Policy Analysis Center, Downsize DC Foundation, Gun Owners of America, Inc., the Liberty Committee, Public Advocate of the United States, American Life League, Inc., and DownsizeDC.org in Support of Respondent on the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for the Washington Legal Foundation and Constitutional Law Scholars in Support of Respondents Regarding the Minimum Coverage Provision
Other
Brief for the Health Foundation of Greater Cincinnati in Support of Neither Party Regarding the Minimum Coverage Provision
Now, out of all of those, a record number of briefs, one, count them, one that I can see actually supports something better than what's on the books. The rest want to shoot it down because they hate that it takes their "freedoms." They're mostly right wing "free market" policy wonks who hate ACA.
What strange bedfellows the OP and the people recing the OP have. Strange bedfellows indeed.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)But sadly it looks like you, along with many other Obama supporters, don't want to deal with that reality.
Why?
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)It has everything to do with not being bedfellows with such entities as the Cato Institute.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)In Romneycare, Bush I policy proposals, and originally Nixoncare? Talk about strange bedfellow?
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)Please do not confuse tacit support for a practical way to get to single payer as advocacy for not-single-payer. There's one reason a single payer group is for ACA, and it's not because that group wants the plan as it is. Politics is nasty. You have to do crappy stuff to get the better stuff implemented.
50 years from now single payer advocates will look right wing to those people who want to move beyond something more progressive than single payer. In no historical time period is one solution the final solution.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Of private savings accounts for retirement before we went to Social Security.
Settling for intermediate steps generally means that one doesn't reach your goal. I would prefer to get to the goal, not settle.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)No survivors (spouses, children), no disability. The dependents part was modified soon after (if we actually got out the vote in 2010 ACA could've been modified and on the way to being fixed by now if not paving the way for single payer, but oh, no). Benefits weren't increased except for an act of congress (hey, cost of living increase, actually a good thing!). Disability benefits didn't even come on the landscape until the mid 50s, but that was for people aged 50-64, disability for all age groups didn't happen until the 60s. Supplemental benefits didn't happen until the 1970s. The regressive Retirement Earnings Test wasn't abolished until 2000!
I'm saying you get the government you deserve.
Give me an FDR with super majorities and if nothing I want gets done then I'll complain.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)joshcryer
(62,536 posts)We've been down this road before. The mandates were necessary to reduce the costs. Krugman pointed this out 5 years ago when Obama was bashing mandates.
That junior senator from Ill. even pulled a Harry and Louise over mandates.
I remember the anti-mandate propaganda well.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Making sure that medical costs continue to rise..
After all, 15% of ten billion dollars is more than 15% of one billion dollars.
Are corporations considered people in any other nation that has a mandate for private insurance?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Making sure that medical costs continue to rise..
After all, 15% of ten billion dollars is more than 15% of one billion dollars.
Are corporations considered people in any other nation that has a mandate for private insurance?
...to make the system more efficient. There will be federal oversight.
http://cciio.cms.gov/
http://www.healthcare.gov/law/resources/reports/rate-review03222012a.html
Oversight and enforcement will help to drive down premiums.
The enactment and enforcement of medical loss ratio requirements, along with other important measures for holding insurers accountable, can help make premiums affordable for consumers in all 50 states.
http://www.familiesusa.org/summit-watch/medical-loss-ratios.pdf
Here's why the health care law's MLR rule is significant
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002500237
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)Administrative costs cannot be calculated into the MLR as per HHS and around a quarter of smaller insurers will go out of business. That's why all these right wing free market think tanks, including the vile and despicable ALEC, are against it. It's why investors jumped ship from health insurers. The profits are going to go down across the health insurance industry if only because people with pre-existing conditions must be covered, if only because children must be covered.
It's a right wing talking point to say that costs go up, profits go up, and so on: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/04/the_affordable_care_acts_spend.html
The reality is that even though it's a shitty solution, as a practical solution it takes us in the right direction for single payer.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Nobody bothers to read Uncle Remus stories any more, too bad because they have some universal lessons.
Please don't throw me in dat Brier Patch Br'er Fox..
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)You're already in the Brier Patch. 
ProSense
(116,464 posts)mean that he believed the mandate was unconstitutional. In fact, his point was that affordability has to precede a mandate.
SEN. OBAMA...According to Senator Clinton...there are more people covered under her plan than mine is because of a mandate. That is not a mandate for the government to provide coverage to everybody; it is a mandate that every individual purchase health care...If it was not affordable, she would still presumably force them to have it, unless there is a hardship exemption as they've done in Massachusetts, which leaves 20 percent of the uninsured out. And if that's the case, then, in fact, her claim that she covers everybody is not accurate....
MR. WILLIAMS: And Senator Clinton, on this subject --
SEN. CLINTON...Senator Obama has a mandate in his plan. It's a mandate on parents to provide health insurance for their children. That's about 150 million people who would be required to do that. The difference between Senator Obama and myself is that I know, from the work I've done on health care for many years, that if everyone's not in the system we will continue to let the insurance companies do what's called cherry picking -- pick those who get insurance and leave others out.
<...>
SEN. OBAMA...I do provide a mandate for children, because, number one, we have created a number of programs in which we can have greater assurance that those children will be covered at an affordable price. On the -- on the point of many adults, we don't want to put in a situation in which, on the front end, we are mandating them, we are forcing them to purchase insurance, and if the subsidies are inadequate, the burden is on them, and they will be penalized. And that is what Senator Clinton's plan does.
- more -
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/26/us/politics/26text-debate.html?pagewanted=print
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)On Nov 19, 2008 I said this..
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4494168&mesg_id=4494251
"I can envision a day when you have to show proof insurance at the job interview"..
-Hillary Clinton, slightly paraphrased..
I'd be willing to wager a small sum that rancid idea will rear its grotesque head again fairly shortly.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5781557&mesg_id=5781645
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5353866&mesg_id=5355673
Edited to put correct date in post..
Hell Hath No Fury
(16,327 posts)She was for it, he was against it.
Somehow, I got stuck with GOP that shit anyway. 
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)And naive Obama had to include it because without the mandate the costs would've skyrocketed.
For what it's worth Obama never ruled it out and never ruled out fines.
I remember the mandate debates well.
I, and Krugman, and a few other in the minority here, support the mandates.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)I frankly was with Krugman on mandates.
I did not expect Obama to weasel on the public option, however. Totally threw me for the loop.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)When Hillary's imaginings come true and you have to show proof of health insurance at the job interview, what then for the person who falls on temporary hard times?
It seems to me like a system custom designed to keep back permanently those who ever falter in the rat race.
The Health Care Games..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hunger_Games
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)I'm not going to defend Hillary's many faux pas though.
http://mediamatters.org/research/200709200005
This is hardly controversial.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)I had no idea, personally I've never once visited Drudge's website so I know little of him beyond what I read elsewhere.
Hillary was clearly closer to being accurate in her imaginings on the campaign trail in regards to a mandate than was Obama, it wouldn't surprise me at all to see a requirement for private health insurance before you can legally get a job, that's just the way our society rolls these days.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)Are you kidding me? You're actually using a Drudge talking point now? Before it was accurate but being misconstrued and now it's a full on Drudge talking point. Unbelievable.
You go into a job interview. Employer goes "Hi, do you have insurance?" You say "Yes. I do. Here's proof." Or you say, "No, I do not, you are required to provide it for me." This is uncontroversial.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)As I said, I've never once visited Drudge's site, evidently unlike many DUers.
Why should health insurance be linked to employment anyway, what exactly is the connection?
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)The point of the comment was to make health insurance ubiquitous, to champion personal responsibility. It was one of Hillary's stupid moments that she was always having. Of course if you had insurance you would tell your employer at the job interview, it would save them money. But at no point did she say it was a requirement to get a job, that was Drudge who started that meme.
Single payer does the same thing, your employer pays for part, you pay for part.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)I've heard that phrase before..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Responsibility_and_Work_Opportunity_Act
The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) is a United States federal law considered to be a fundamental shift in both the method and goal of federal cash assistance to the poor. The bill added a workforce development component to welfare legislation, encouraging employment among the poor. The bill was a cornerstone of the Republican Contract with America and was introduced by Rep. E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-FL-22) who believed welfare was partly responsible for bringing immigrants to the United States.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)You would have to pay into it, like Social Security or Medicare.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)I thought it was a bit ironic how you accused me of using right wing talking points while mouthing a prime right wing talking point yourself.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)I think it was fair enough.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)But I suppose that was different, agreeing with candidate Obama makes one guilty of using right wing talking points.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)Hell Hath No Fury
(16,327 posts)vociferously defend what was essentially Bob Dole's old health care plan. 
Dems have been played. And masterfully. Taste the freshness, suckers.
Single payer or bust.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Dems have been played. And masterfully. Taste the freshness, suckers. "
...there are a lot of "suckers" out there:
Krugman: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002503913
Kucinich: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002503243
Sanders: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002496175
Also, Clinton's plan included employer/individual mandate.
http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/13/2/105.full.pdf
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)...when the briefs to the SCOTUS prove, undeniably, that those against ACA are quite strange bedfellows with such institutions as the Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation, and, most despicably, ALEC.
I can understand "clock right once twice a day."
But 45 clocks?
CrispyQ
(40,969 posts)And it's not just health care. There are numerous other vital issues where the dems & I have parted. I seriously don't know what I"m going to do this fall. This is what voting for the lesser of two evils gets you - the very thing you were voting against in the first place.
I predict that any remaining rational repubs will jump ship. Already, many of our dems are more repub than dem. We will have a party for the religiously insane & a party for the capitalists & the liberals will be left out in the cold.
Hell Hath No Fury
(16,327 posts)The Dems have changed on how they fundamentally view governments role. More caving in to big business on regulations. More submitting to the 1% on finances. More abandonment of the Worker. More "flexibility" on Choice. More war hard-ons. More Police State tactics.
Let's be honest here: today's Democratic Party would be a very comfortable fit for the majority of 1960s/1970s Republicans.
And this:
"We will have a party for the religiously insane & a party for the capitalists & the liberals will be left out in the cold."
- has been part of the Emmanuel/DLC/New Democrat plan from the very beginning. Create a vast, permanent, capitalist "center" that marginalizes the Left from the Democratic Party for good.
We ALL need to wake the fuck up and realize this.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)*Paul Wellstone... KIA
*Howard Dean.... discredited, marginalized, banished
*Cynthia McKinney..... attacked, isolated, marginalized, cut off from Party support, expelled
*Eliot Spitzer...... Honey Trapped, discredited, isolated, expelled
*Anthony Wiener..... marginalized, discredited, isolated, expelled
*Russ Feingold.... attacked from The Center, marginalized, isolated from party support, exiled
*Alan Grayson .... attacked from The Center, marginalized, isolated from party support, exiled
*Dennis Kucinich ... attacked from The Center, discredited, marginalized, isolated, redistricted, exiled
The downfall of some of the above can be partially attributed to their own personal foibles,
but in every case, the party leadership was quick to condemn and abandon, and made no effort to embrace or assist any of these Liberals in their time of need. There ARE politicians in BOTH parties guilty of far more serious transgressions who managed to survive their troubles because of Party support.
*Maxine Waters... currently under attack
*The Congressional Black Caucus..... admonished by the President to quit whining, "Take off your bedroom slippers. Put on your marching shoes" and get behind the President's agenda.
(When has he EVER spoken to the "Blue Dogs" like that?)
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-tells-blacks-stop-complainin-fight-015928905.html
*The Progressive Caucus.... no seats in the cabinet, almost none appointed to positions of any power in the Executive Branch, the White House doesn't take their calls.
*Democratic Primaries 2010.... Strong pattern of endorsing and supporting Blue Dogs and Big Business Conservatives,
even including one "former" Republican running against more Liberal, Pro-Working Class challengers.
(See: Arkansas, Pennsylvania and others)
The pattern is clear.
---bvar22
A mainstream/Center loyal FDR/LBJ Working Class DEMOCRAT,
now relegated to the "Fringe Left" wing of the "New Democrat" Centrist Party.
[font color=firebrick][center]"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want a party that will STAND UP for Working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone [/font][/center]
[center]
[/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22 at the Labor Day Picnic, St Paul
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font]
"By their WORKS you will know them."
Hell Hath No Fury
(16,327 posts)The pattern is INDEED clear.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)bvar22
(39,909 posts)Oh, but WE are going to GIVE poor people subsidies,
so THAT makes it ALL OK!
No it doesn't.
The "Poor People" don't get a subsidy.
The For Profit Health Insurance Industry gets the subsidy.
This "subsidy" channels BILLIONS of our Tax Dollars to a private Industry that:
*Manufactures NOTHING
*Produces no tangible product
*Creates NO Wealth (Value Added)
*Adds NOTHING to The Commons
*Provides NO service
WOW!
What a DEAL!
Billions every year for an invisible "product" that many will not be able to use due to high Co-Pays/Deductibles for "Bronze" coverage.
This is going to be especially onerous when photos of the NEW Summer homes in Aspen, new private JETS and Yachts,
and other forms of Conspicuous Consumption by the Insurance Industry Execs start showing up after 2014.
I KNOW these photos are going to show up on The Net, because I will be posting them as often as possible,
along with these suggestions:
"We can't begrudge them their wealth."
"They are just savvy businessmen."
"Look at all the baseball Players."
"Its the FREE MARKET."
Its a "Uniquely American Solution"!!!!
You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]
progressoid
(53,179 posts)He looks familiar but those words don't sound like the guy I've seen on TV lately. 