McCaskill: Obamacare Is Like Ryancare For Non-Seniors

[Freddie Stubbs]

Source: Talking Points Memo

Grilled about her support for the Affordable Care Act, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) told a home state radio interviewer that the law’s core structure is “exactly” like the House GOP Medicare privatization plan that conservatives support and liberals detest.

“The irony of this situation is that these are private insurance companies people will shop to buy their insurance. It’s not the government,” she told KMOX of St. Louis on Wednesday. “It’s exactly what Paul Ryan wants to do for Medicare.”

“It’s subsidized by the government — premium subsidies — which is exactly, this is the irony,” continued McCaskill, who faces a tough reelection battle this fall. “You think what Paul Ryan wants to do for seniors, you think it’s terrific. But when we want to provide private health insurance for people who don’t have insurance with subsidies from the government, you think it’s terrible.”

McCaskill’s point is an important one that exposes the real nature of the underlying fight over how to fix health care. The progressive ideal is a single payer system, a la Medicare, but for everyone. The conservative ideal is a deregulated market-based system with a diminished federal role. The Affordable Care Act, despite the right’s protestations of socialism, is a middle ground between the two. And the insurance exchanges mirror what the Ryan plan does to Medicare — as Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) have conceded.

Read more: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/03/mccaskill-obamacare-is-ryancare-for-non-seniors.php?ref=fpb

[sinkingfeeling]

1. Excellent point for anybody that's been paying attention.

[zipplewrath]

2. Hardly

The Affordable Care Act, despite the right’s protestations of socialism, is a middle ground between the two.

Hardly. It may be "between" but it ain't the "middle". The distance from the republican concept is vastly smaller than the distance from any progressive/single payer concept. It practically IS the republican plan, with a few notible (mostly regulatory) exceptions.

[emulatorloo]

3. Santorum is claiming it is "socialized medicine"

That's the context McCaskill is working in. So in that sense what she says makes sense. Maybe not to you, but to her sane constituents. She can frame it like that, or she can surrender to whatever crazed tea-bag Senate candidate she is running against.

Who will be more than happy to repeal "Obamacare" and take away all the good shit that is in it.

As far as the Affordable Care Act being the "Republican Plan", Republicans have sat on their fat asses not doing a damn thing about healthcare/health insurance reform since at least the time of Nixon.

Their "plan" for everything is deregulation and the elimination of anything that smacks of consumer protection.

ACR may not be the holy grail of single payer, but it is better than the big bunch of nothing we had before.

It is also capable of evolving, and it will evolve in a positive direction as long as we don't sit on our fat asses and allow Republicans to take over in 2012.

[zipplewrath]

5. Hardly

ACR may not be the holy grail of single payer, but it is better than the big bunch of nothing we had before.

It changed us from a country with 85%ish covered to 93%ish covered, half of whom were already eligible for government supported health insurance. Oh, and it gave us the republican proposed idea of a mandate on those least able to afford it.

"It is also capable of evolving, and it will evolve in a positive direction..."

The regulations are still evolving, as are the exchanges. There is no guarantee that the same people that brought us mandates and restrictions on drug price negotiations will evolve it in a "positive" direction. More than likely it will move in the same direction that all other regulation moves once the bureaucrats settle in and the lobbying starts. Banks are regulated, the coal mines are regulated, the oil wells in the gulf are regulated.

And don't expect ANY democrat to go anywhere near health insurance, much less health CARE legistlation for a good long time. They learned their lesson this time around. There is NO enthusiasm to bring up THAT topic again.

[emulatorloo]

9. That's what activists are for. Pressure for "positive" direction

That is why we get behind progressive candidates.

That's why we don't lay down and die and act like no laws have ever been amended.

"And don't expect ANY democrat to go anywhere near health insurance, much less health CARE legistlation for a good long time. They learned their lesson this time around. There is NO enthusiasm to bring up THAT topic again."

They are campaigning on Affordable Care Act in 2012. So I think there is a fair chance that if we get the house back and get a better composition in the Senate, the Affordable Care Act will be revisited. I get a sense that insurance companies are trying to game the regulations already. That shit needs to be fixed.

[zipplewrath]

10. We get behind them, Obama campaigns for the other guy

This happen twice last time 'round. Progressives get behind candidates in the primaries, and Obama, Clinton, and the DLC get behind the opponent.

They are campaigning on Affordable Care Act in 2012. So I think there is a fair chance that if we get the house back and get a better composition in the Senate, the Affordable Care Act will be revisited. I get a sense that insurance companies are trying to game the regulations already. That shit needs to be fixed.

You're dreaming. They won't go near it. And the senate will be the primary reason why. We had 60 and we couldn't get it done, we're not going to get 64 after this election. We'll be lucky to hold it.

[emulatorloo]

12. Some updates on the Republican Front

"..."repeal and replace" appears to have been rebuffed and rejected."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/125120689

"We had 60 and we couldn't get it done" ignores Liebermann who was working for Aetna and BlueDogs who were scared of their wing nut constituents.

"we're not going to get 64 after this election. We'll be lucky to hold it" Agreed, Senate is where good bill go to die. However that is not going to stop me from GOTV in 2012.

"You're dreaming." And that is a bad thing? I'd rather spend my time thinking about what I can do. I am not big on being told I can't do things. OWS is a pretty big inspiration don't you think?

[zipplewrath]

14. What's to replace, they got everything they wanted.

"We had 60 and we couldn't get it done" ignores Liebermann who was working for Aetna and BlueDogs who were scared of their wing nut constituents.

No, it doesn't ignore it. It explains that the mantra of "elect more democrats" doesn't get it done. Especially when we just turn around and make excuses for their failures and misdirection. Obama never even CALLED Lieberman, but he went and campaigned for passage in Kucinich's (former) district.

"You're dreaming." And that is a bad thing? I'd rather spend my time thinking about what I can do. I am not big on being told I can't do things. OWS is a pretty big inspiration don't you think?

I don't think that is a reason to blow smoke up my backside about how great and progressive HCR was and that is was the best we could do. It was trun to the right and making believe that isn't true doesn't change anything.

[Doctor_J]

29. Please come in from Kool-Aid land

"We had 60 and we couldn't get it done" ignores Liebermann who was working for Aetna and BlueDogs who were scared of their wing nut constituents.

The make-up of the next Congress will be nowhere near as friendly as in was in 2009-2010. That's a fact, not "debbie downer" pessimism

"we're not going to get 64 after this election. We'll be lucky to hold it" Agreed, Senate is where good bill go to die. However that is not going to stop me from GOTV in 2012.


What does this have to do with the point at hand, which is that the ACA is basically a Republicon's wildest dream (Paul Ryan, for example)

"You're dreaming." And that is a bad thing? I'd rather spend my time thinking about what I can do. I am not big on being told I can't do things. OWS is a pretty big inspiration don't you think?

Yes it is a bad thing when it deludes you into thinking that GOTV is going to improve the political landscape. And OWS has been completely useless, except as a show piece. THe teabaggers got 50 House members voted in in 2010 by waving guns and making threats. OWS is standing around and getting pepper sprayed. Let's see how many House seats THAT tactic picks up.

[emulatorloo]

13. Some updates on the Republican Front

"..."repeal and replace" appears to have been rebuffed and rejected."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/125120689

Pretty sure Obama has gotten it thru his thick skull that helping Liebermann was a huge mistake.

"We had 60 and we couldn't get it done" ignores Liebermann who was working for Aetna and BlueDogs who were scared of their wing nut constituents.

"we're not going to get 64 after this election. We'll be lucky to hold it" Agreed, Senate is where good bill go to die. However that is not going to stop me from GOTV in 2012.

"You're dreaming." And that is a bad thing? I'd rather spend my time thinking about what I can do. I am not big on being told I can't do things. OWS is a pretty big inspiration don't you think?

[zipplewrath]

15. And Lincoln? And Specter?

Pretty sure Obama has gotten it thru his thick skull that helping Liebermann was a huge mistake."

And the others? Not to mention the long line of Goldman Sachs executives he KEEPS appointing.

I'm not sure you can make a real big case that Obama has "learned" anything. I expect more of the same in the second term.

[emulatorloo]

18. Self-delete. I am done.

I thought we were having a discussion about our difference in opinion. I see from your last post that you don't want to discuss anymore. I am not going to play an insult game with you.

[zipplewrath]

23. What insult

That's twice you've made that assertion. Exactly when did I insult you? Or is pointing out the weaknesses and flaws in your positions insulting?

[lark]

25. Obama is clearly a very moderate Dem

using current parlance, which actually means that he tilts right on many issues. He is not my ideal candidate by any means, but unfortunately since the Repugs are all insane, edge of the cliff on the right side crazy, he will get my vote.

I am very concerned though, that once he's won a 2nd term, the restraints come off and he could go all the way right and destroy Medicare/Medicaid. Of course, there's the alternative view that with the restraints off, he could go left since he'd no longer have to worry about re-elections. However, he went strongly right to begin with, and only is tacking left now that there is a campaign to win, so I'm not hopeful.

[zipplewrath]

26. More of the same

I'm sort of in the middle. I suspect he has been accomplishing much of what he has wanted to do and will continue to do so in his second term. He's very happy with his right leaning accomplishments as much as he is with any of his left leaning. If anything changes, I suspect he's done with "reaching out" to the GOP. He's probably learned that strength gets more cooperation than deference.

[Doctor_J]

28. So the Dems are campaigning on the ACA by saying it's just like Ryan's debacle?

Please explain to me how that is

1. A good thing,
2. a way to get more Dems elected, and
3. promising for a change in a positive direction after the election.

Reality here. Come join us

[Proud Liberal Dem]

32. +1

Excellent reply!

[CanOfWhoopAss]

4. Obamacare is BobDoleCare from 1994.

It's the Republican counter to HillaryCare in 1994. Little difference.

[zipplewrath]

6. Yup

Obama basically explained that himself. He passed a GOP plan and they didn't have to vote for it. Three dimensional chess I guess.

[emulatorloo]

8. Not as simple as that. Liebermann and Snowe did the dirty work for McConnell

to water it down as much as they could. (bye public option, bye bye compromise of lowering medicare to 55 (which was a Liebermann idea originally, but he was dead set against it when it came from progressives like Weiner.

They held the bill hostage (with help from Ben Nelson etc) until enough concessions were made to get their votes for Cloture.

Which allowed all the other Republicans to vote against it and scream "Socialism"

All part of the McConnell scorched earth plan to try to deny success to Obama and Democrats

That being said, I think you and I have a different idea about how change happens in the US.

You want a radical break from the past.

I may want a radical break too, but that's not how the US government works. Now was that how it was set up to work. Things happen slowly and incrementally. Think of the system of checks and balances. That was put into place to more or less insure there are no radical breaks.

You want the insurance industry abolished. So do I. However that was never going to happen in 2009. I think the insurance industry will fade away and die, as long as we continue pushing for single payer.

Basicallly what was needed was to get a law into place that did SOMETHING. Republican strategy was to do NOTHING.

Affordable Care Act can evolve in a positive way. Or Republicans can win and get rid of it.

[zipplewrath]

11. I want a change in direction

You want a radical break from the past.

I may want a radical break too, but that's not how the US government works. Now was that how it was set up to work. Things happen slowly and incrementally. Think of the system of checks and balances. That was put into place to more or less insure there are no radical breaks.

I want a change in direction. Instead we head TOWARDS the GOP plans for health care. Read the OP. Obama passed the GOP plan for medicare, for the rest of us. It moved AWAY from progressive goals, not towards them. Progressives wanted health CARE changes, what we got was health INSURANCE changes, mostly ones dreamed up by the GOP. Insurance mandates? Obama campaigned that this was like ending homelessness by forcing people to buy houses.

These are incremental changes in the wrong direction. I'm not asking for a "radical break", I'm talking about turning left instead of right.

[emulatorloo]

16. "Instead we head TOWARDS the GOP plans for health care."

This is your perspective. Not everybody shares your perspective. There are things in it that make progress from where we were before it was passed. There is potential for more progress to be made toward progressive goals.

Progress on big issues in the US is made by a combination of legislation and court decisions.

The more Rightwingers we elect to congress and the more Rightwingers President Romtorum appoints to the courts, the less likely we are to make progress on the issues progressives care about.

"Progressives wanted health CARE changes, what we got was health INSURANCE changes"

This to me is almost semantic gamesmanship. Yes I understand the distinction that is being made.

However given the historical point we are at now, the insurance industry is not going to be destroyed or nationalized in the near term.

So when you write "what we got was health INSURANCE changes", that is dismissing diminishing the SIGNIFICANT changes the law what the insurance industry is no longer allowed to do. They've had to drastically cut their overhead (profits), they can't deny you coverage if you have a pre-existing condition, deny coverage if they decide you are too sick, and on and on. I'm sure you have seen the list.

That is a not the "GOP Plan". The GOP plan is a deregulated industry that can do whatever it fucking wants to you.

I think we are pretty much at a dead end with this discussion. i appreciate that we can talk and not just yell at each other. Trust me I will take in what you have said and process it. You are going to influence my thinking. So thanks for taking the time to reply to me.

[zipplewrath]

17. No one is asking for that

"Progressives wanted health CARE changes, what we got was health INSURANCE changes"

This to me is almost semantic gamesmanship. Yes I understand the distinction that is being made.

However given the historical point we are at now, the insurance industry is not going to be destroyed or nationalized in the near term.

Stop with the strawmen.

We aren't talking about "destroying the insurance industry". However, we were talking about a public OPTION, remember? Instead we got mandates, something Obama argued against, and the GOP proposed. Remember when we were outraged that we couldn't negotiate drug prices as part of Part D? See what got left in? Progressives want health CARE to be a right, instead we got buying insurance as an OBLIGATION. We also got it clearly spelled out exactly who WASN'T going to get help. Oh, and by the way, the White House itself acknowledges that health CARE costs will continue to rise by 7% per year, even as insurance profits will be limited to a maximum of 20%. I realize that's just a semantic difference to you, but it is a huge problem for individuals that now are legally obligated to BOTH buy insurance and also PAY for much of their health care.

If we don't get control of the cost of CARE, the cost controls on insurance won't mean diddly squat. But I know, semantics.

[emulatorloo]

19. You know the history of the public option. Senator Aetna killed it.

I know about rising health care costs.

Don't insult me.

On edit: I thought we were having a discussion about our difference in opinion. I see you don't want to discuss anymore. That's fine, but I am not going to play an insult game with you.

[zipplewrath]

21. And is he responsible for the rest?

Really, at what point is Obama not responsible for anything he got passed and signed? He negotiated the mandate, not Senator Aetna. He negotiated, in secret (didn't even bother to tell congress, much less Senator Aetna), with Big Pharma to dump drug price negotiations. He decided to move forward with the mandates after he gave up on the public option. He bragged that it "wasn't all that different" than the Dole plan. He decided not to even CALL Lieberman, but to fly to Dennis' district.

The differences between health care and health insurance in this bill are significant and fundamental to its short comings and aren't just "semantics". And the cost aspect is only the largest of those problems.

This was a turn to the right for the democratic party plain and simple.

[emulatorloo]

7. So what year exactly did Republicans enact BobDole Care?

Never.

You are missing my point. Republicans have done not one DAMN THING to address healthcare in the US.

So there may have been a "Bob Dole Plan" but it was just a frigging head-fake.

Republicans have no plan except deregulation and privatization (RYAN)

Democrats are going to run on the Affordable Care Act in 2012. I've already gotten two mailers, one from the DNC and one from the DSCC.

There are good things in the Affordable Care Act. They are going to run on the good things it accomplishes.

If Republicans win and roll it back, I guarantee they are not going to replace it with single payer. They are going to give free reign to the insurance industry to price gouge and so forth and so on.

[Dragonfli]

20. The Republican plan was no mere head fake, it was developed carefully by the Heritage Foundation

for three years they worked it out for their Conservative lackeys in both parties.
It was passed after all, only it took some fake Democrats to do it for the Heritage Foundation.

They got it passed, it took 20 years and a head fake by a Democrat that pretended not to support this Republican Ideal during the election, quite a worthy performance for an Illinois politician, one wonders why he never became an actor.

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2010/February/23/GOP-1993-health-reform-bill.aspx

[zipplewrath]

22. 2010

And it only took a couple of republican votes to do it. They got the democrats to pass the rest.

There Heritage Foundation actually had to tell its people NOT to comment on the legislation for fear of undermining everything they had been advocating for years.

[Selatius]

31. Actually, the idea of a private mandate with subsidies for the very poorest goes back to Nixon.

He offered it up as an alternative to the ideal LBJ offered in Medicare. There was talk in the late 1960s and into the 1970s of the feasibility of expanding Medicare to eventually cover the population, and Nixon offered up the private mandate as a counter-example. Of course, nothing came out of it. The AMA was totally opposed to expanding Medicare and so were the insurance companies. Medicare never expanded to younger people, and the issue of private mandates was placed on the back burner in favor of other issues Nixon had to deal with at the time like the war, the oil embargo, inflation, stealing documents from the Democrats at Watergate, etc.

[Dont call me Shirley]

24. Wow, Claire's stepping up to the plate, next she should put a MEDICARE-E bill up for vote

[Doctor_J]

27. You forgot the sarcasm tag

she's bragging about how the president's re-election pearl is the spitting image of a horrific Repuke scam.

[asfghjkyu]

30. Spam deleted by uppityperson (MIR Team)