A wise man does not bite off more than he can chew...

[kentuck]

For years, Democrats tried to pass healthcare reform. None of them succeeded. This President succeeded but he did not put as much on his plate. He has chosen his meal in small portions.

So far, we have seen two years of incremental change. It doesn't seem like much to those that want the change in one fell swoop.

But, if we multiplied the present change we have seen by 4, if we assume we could see the same amount of change for the next 6 years, that would seem like substantial change, I would think?

If it seems like I am defending the President, I am.

[Tippy]

1. "He has chosen his meal in small portions"

And keeps putting one foot in front of the other. If we can remaine the majority I believe we will see by the end of his second term, Health Care we can be truly proud of.

[RaleighNCDUer]

2. OTOH, by not taking a healthier chunk he's left the base malnourished.

He's more concerned with not pissing off people who will never be not pissed off at him, while giving next to nothing to those who got him where he is.

Dems would be in nowhere near the trouble they are now if he'd come out strongly for a public option (whether it passed or not), closed Gitmo, stopped the torture/rendition programs (whether he prosecuted those who ordered it or not), gave a fraction of the attention to those who faced losing their mortgages as he did to those who faced losing their multi-million dollar bonuses.

There may be a time for incrementalism, but this ain't it.

EDIT:
Do you really think it will be EASIER to make 'incremental changes' when we have less of a majority in congress than we do today?

(2nd edit for spelling)

[kentuck]

4. That is the other side of the coin...

but we should be able to look at both sides.

[Pirate Smile]

10. You have to be realistic about what could get passed through Congress. Congress has blocked Gitmo

from closing. The public option didn't have the votes to pass the Senate. Unrealistic expectations is a big part of the problem.

[zipplewrath]

14. I'll give him a touch of slack on Gitmo

Only in this sense. He came into office with both he AND McCain running on closing Gitmo. So he was a tad surprised I'm sure at the opposition from his own party. But he ran on CLOSING Gitmo and then we found out what he really meant was a change of address to Illinois. He still wants indefinite detentions without trial. He still wants to use evidence gained from torture to be used in military tribunals. And his point man on accomplishing all of this is none other than Lindsey Graham.

[RaleighNCDUer]

17. Did Obama fight for either? "Congress" means "the Senate", and

we HAD 60 votes in the Senate; if he had applied any pressure to close Gitmo they would have passed it, with even a couple Republican votes. But he didn't even try.

Did he go into campaign mode on the public option? At a time when it was favored by 85% of Dems, and 55% of Republican, why did it have to be held up by one asshole from Nebraska? There was no stick, no carrot, that could have changed that single Dem vote? Did he even TRY?

Harry Reid may be good at counting the votes, but any third grader can count to 60. He's the majority leader and he needed to CREATE the votes - he knows who is who, who can be pressured, who is looking for a reward for his vote. If Obama wanted it all he'd have to do is say so, and Reid could have gotten it - there may be a quid pro quo down the road, but that's how it works.

SINCE WHEN IS A FILIBUSTER PROOF MAJORITY NOT ENOUGH TO GET THINGS DONE?

[FrenchieCat]

20. It is obvious that he didn't have 60 votes in the Senate.

Why pretend that he did?

The vote was taken twice.

Creating votes? What.....pull them out of one's ass.
Your reality is a fantasy!

[zipplewrath]

22. Actually it's not

Furthermore, they chose to avoid using reconcilliation. The vast majority of what they got could have been obtained by reconcilliation months earlier. And leaving Bacuus and his Insurance Industry Lobbyiest to write the whole mess had to be one of the dumber moves of the year.

[RaleighNCDUer]

25. Not pulling them out of my ass - pulling them out of recalcitrant fucking blue dogs.

"Sen. Nelson - we're going to run high speed rail coast to coast. We're working on the route today. We kind of like the I70 corridor. On the other hand, if you are willing to reconsider the Public Option, we could maybe go with I 80 - it has a lot to be said for it. Whataya think? Half a billion dollars pumped into Nebraska? Think your constituents would like that? It would be a shame for them to miss out on that."

Don't COUNT the votes - CREATE the votes. That's the way politics has been done since the day the constitution was signed.

[ProSense]

33. "Don't COUNT the votes - CREATE the votes. "

Politics is the art of ignore the math?

There was a time when it took 67 votes to fight off a filibuster. It changed to 60 in the 1975.

Yesterday, every Senate Democrat voted for the DISCLOSE Act, and it failed to pass. Of course, that's President Obama's fault for not creating the imaginary Democratic vote. If the Democratic leadership compromises with Repubicans and conservative Democrats to get it passed, then the President is a sellout.

He's been in office 19 months, and had a 60-vote majority for a total of 11 months. It's his fault that he didn't cram his entire agenda into those 11 months.

[Pirate Smile]

37. "Democrats had an effective filibuster-proof majority for about 14 weeks."

I think this is an important point:

About That Filibuster Proof Majority

By Kevin Drum
Wed Sep. 22, 2010 10:42 AM PDT.

Over at the Economist, E.M. writes about Harry Reid's failed attempt to pass the DREAM Act and repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell:

Politically speaking, it is arguably better for the Democrats that these measures do not pass: many of their disappointed backers will doubtless resolve to head to the polls in November to punish the recalcitrant Republicans and reward the Democrats, in the hope of better luck next time.

But that thinking rests on the assumption that advocates of gay rights or immigration amnesties or healthy firemen will blame the Republicans (and the filibuster) for their misfortune. The problem is that increasing numbers of them blame Mr Reid and the Democrats instead. They, after all, had the votes before the death of Ted Kennedy to push all these measures through the Senate, but instead hummed and hawed until it was too late. Mr Reid cannot embarrass the Republicans by inducing them to filibuster a seemingly unobjectionable bill without reminding the left of how little the Democrats did with their filibuster-proof majority when they had it. And the more used Democratic activists feel, the less likely they are to rush to the polls to castigate the Republicans.

Well, let's at least get our history straight. Until Al Franken was sworn in on July 7, the Democratic caucus in the Senate stood at 59. After that it was technically up to 60, but Ted Kennedy hadn't cast a vote in months and was housebound due to illness. He died a few weeks later and was replaced by Paul Kirk on September 24, finally bringing the Democratic majority up to 60 in practice as well as theory. After that the Senate was in session for 11 weeks before taking its winter recess, followed by three weeks until Scott Brown won Kennedy's seat in the Massachusetts special election.

So that means Democrats had an effective filibuster-proof majority for about 14 weeks. Did they squander it? I guess you can make that case, but there's a very limited amount you can do in the Senate in 14 weeks. Given the reality of what it takes to move legislation through committee and onto the floor (keeping in mind that the filibuster isn't the minority party's only way to slow things down), I think you might make the case, at most, that a single additional piece of legislation could have been forced through during that period. But probably not much more than that. Democrats basically had a filibuster-proof majority for about three months. That's just not very long.

http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/09/about-filibuster-proof-majority

[RaleighNCDUer]

38. He did nada for those first 11 months. He did nada on HCR until AFTER

we had lost that solid 60 seats. When he came into office it wasn't by a half-assed plurality, but a real majority, and then he lets the Republican and blue dogs set the agenda, frame the issues, and compromised away any possibility of change. Even the most egregious crimes of the previous administration were continued - Gitmo and extraordinary rendition, the refusal of habeaeus corpus to detainees despite the fact that they are clearly under the jurisdiction of the US justice system. He didn't want to embarrass the Bushs for some reason, or what?

Ending Gitmo, ending extraordinary rendition, ending DADT, creating a fair and equitable healthcare system, those are not lefty-liberal issues - those are human rights issues, and you don't fucking compromise on human rights.

[ProSense]

44. "He did nada for those first 11 months" I guess

preventing a depression, saving the auto industry and these other significant laws are "nada" in your world.

Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act

Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009

Omnibus Public Lands Management Act

Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure (CARD) Act of 2009

Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (regulating tobacco for the first time ever)

Cash For Clunkers Extension

Veterans Health Care Budget Reform and Transparency Act of 2009

Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Extension Act of 2009

Military Spouses Residency Relief Act

Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act

[RaleighNCDUer]

46. Right. He barnstormed the country, arguing for all of those.

Links, please.

Simply signing legislation that reached him is not 'doing' them.

What issue did he confront congress on, challenge congress on? On what issue did he drag out the bully pulpit? Name ONE.

[USArmyParatrooper]

58. How many links do you want?

It will be time consuming to dig up multiple videos on a different issues.

So within reason how many videos do you want on different issues he was pushing for?

AND, most important - if I provide them will you concede that you are wrong on this issue?

[NJmaverick]

64. The President was holding town hall style meetings all over the nation

on every single major bill passed by Congress. I am incredulous that you would suggest otherwise.

[zipplewrath]

66. Are these the "major bills"?

Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act
Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009
Omnibus Public Lands Management Act
Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure (CARD) Act of 2009
Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (regulating tobacco for the first time ever)
Cash For Clunkers Extension
Veterans Health Care Budget Reform and Transparency Act of 2009
Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Extension Act of 2009
Military Spouses Residency Relief Act
Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act

I don't remember alot of "barn storming" on the Public Lands Act.

Just because he mentions something on a trip doesn't exactly make it "barn storming". Heck, some of these predated his administration. Ledbetter has been around for a while. So had Shepard.

Of course I don't exactly consider the Cash For clunkers Extension a "major" bill.

[NJmaverick]

67. Don't fault the President for your faulty memory

[zipplewrath]

70. It hasn't been determined that it is faulty,... yet.

I perfectly willing to believe that he may have done some "barnstorming" but on those specific bills I'm suspicious that he would particularly do so. I'm suspicious it was particularly necessary on some of them. I know he spoke of them often AFTER the fact.

[treestar]

83. So you're saying if he "simply signed" anything into law, including

single payer, he would get no credit for it from you.

[treestar]

82. Wouldn't you then be saying he sold out to Ben Nelson?

Pork, extortion, all that crap?

And how do you know Nelson would take that over voting against however he thinks his constituents want?

Your problem is with our system. You're wanting some other system. One that involves outright horse trading and no principles whatsoever.

[Zenlitened]

88. Well said:

Don't COUNT the votes - CREATE the votes. That's the way politics has been done since the day the constitution was signed.

:thumbsup:

[USArmyParatrooper]

54. Usually when you make wild speculations you should say, "in my opinion"

"if he had applied any pressure to close Gitmo they would have passed it, with even a couple Republican votes."

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about whether any President can have complete and total control over the Senate - to the point that he can get 100% participation from literally everyone who caucuses with the Democrats - including NON-Democrats like Lieberman. Further more he should be able to have total control over every Senator on every single issue.

And on the Guantanamo issue, it was NOT just one or two Senators who opposed it. It wasn't even freaking close.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/177/close-the-guantanamo-bay-detention-center/

Plan to close Guantanamo faces opposition from Congress

Updated: Thursday, September 16th, 2010 | By Lukas Pleva

Talk about a rating roller coaster! When we first reviewed President Obama's campaign pledge to close the Guantanamo Bay Detention Center in January 2009, we rated it In the Works. By May 2009, we moved it to Stalled, since the White House was facing significant opposition from Congress. In mid-October, it went back to In the Works, as Congress allowed some detainees to be temporarily moved to the United States for prosecution. That rating remained unchanged after our last update in January 2010.

"Congress" means "the Senate"

I was under the impression that Congress is comprised of House Representatives and the Senate.

[CrispyQ]

89. The fight is what we didn't get. The fight is what I voted for.

Instead, we got capitulation & compromise on all the key issues from the very beginning, as this administration tried to work with a group of people who had absolutely no intention of ever working with them. What a squandered opportunity!

John Kerry made a comment regarding recent climate bill talks & I believe it is the Democratic battle cry:

“We believe we have compromised significantly, and we’re prepared to compromise further.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/39165.html

[ZombieHorde]

92. "Unrealistic expectations is a big part of the problem."

The unrealistic expectations came from candidate Obama's promises. He either intentionally deceived us, or he was naive. Do you know of a third option?

[treestar]

77. Once again claiming the base is something other than what it is

And ignoring the constitutional system. Congress does matter and it does have power. If this alleged base put Obama where he is, they neglected to give him Senators other than Lieberman and Nelson.

The arrogance here is astounding. You don't work on a POTUS campaign to make the President your servant, tyrannical over others.

[FrenchieCat]

3. I was listening to talk radio yesterday, and the liberal host put it this way.....

Obama is like the little engine that everyone keeps discounting, but who keeps saying....I think I can, I think I can, I think I can.....and keeps right on getting to where we need to go.



No we ain't even close to halfway there yet.....
but he persists and he continues to make changes, inch by inch, foot by foot, mile by mile.

So although he's no bullet train since the tracks for one of those haven't been built (our system is fucked up, and isn't unable to take deal with big changes based on the media we have, and an uninformed populace), he's still manages to go forward climbing mountains no matter how slow......

So yes, I think he can, I think he can, I think he can, too!

[zipplewrath]

6. He's on the wrong track

It doesn't matter how dedicated the little train is, if he's on the wrong set of tracks.

[FrenchieCat]

7. I disagree.......

I think you're at the wrong station. Your constant negativity tells me so.

[zipplewrath]

9. The plan obstructs universal health care

It was designed to do exactly that. It codifies the insurance companies into law and makes it an obligation of citizens to buy it, whether they can afford to use it or not.

How is that possibly the "right track"?

[FrenchieCat]

11. Obama didn't run on Universal Health Care.......

even if it was on your wish list.

That's what puts you on the wrong platform at the wrong station.....
You in fact act as though you were expecting
the one that never ran on Universal Health care
to still give it to you.

[zipplewrath]

13. He didn't run on obstructing it either.

He ran against mandates and cadillac taxes as well. He also ran on drug price negotiation. He ran on drug importation as well. And he did run affordable health CARE, which he did virtually nothing to achieve, and his own estimates have it rising at 6% per year for the foreseeable future.

[FrenchieCat]

18. Politics is the art of the possible,

and that means making compromises.....

You are uncompromising, and that may work for you.....
but in politics, being uncompromising and expecting
progress doesn't work as well as it does in your mind.

There are circumstances as to why the going is slow,
and not a straight path.....
circumstances that you choose to ignore,
because being a disappointed victim is what you want to be.

and certainly, nothing happens if all one does is sit on the Internet
and gripes and complaints and criticizes,
and always, always, at those who are certainly more on your side
than the assholes waiting for you at the other end of the tunnel.
Good luck with that! :hi:



being sane in this country is understanding
that nothing happens exactly as you would order it.....
not even for you.

[zipplewrath]

21. Compromise isn't going backwards

It's not a compromise to go in the wrong direction. Mandates are the wrong direction. Cadillac taxes are the wrong direction. Dumping the public option is the wrong direction.

I notice you have to keep avoiding the details.

[FrenchieCat]

26. I see that you keep stating your opinion as though they were facts.

[zipplewrath]

29. But I support them with facts

Often those supplied by the White House themselves. 25 million uninsured is their number. 6% is their number (and that's expenditures, not the actual costs. Cost go up faster but they estimate we'll spend less to avoid the cost. That means decreasing the amount of care we buy as a method of cost control). Obama campaigned against mandates, and it was his joke I quoted. It was McCain that campaigned on Cadillac taxes.

[FrenchieCat]

35. No. You support them with negative opinions as to what others should have done.

I pray you are running for office, because it is obvious that you have all of the answers,
and would be perfect, and pure, and pretty, and totally excellent.

I would suggest that you drop some of that negativity you exhibit when judging others,
cause that could be a real turn off to voters.....who understand that no one is magic;
not even you.

[zipplewrath]

41. Which facts were wrong?

Like I say, most of them come from the presidents administration themselves. He did campaign against the very things he championed upon becoming president. He is predicting 6% growth. I'm not making this stuff up.

[HughMoran]

95. Pretty much everything you say?

Your spin is undeniable.

[RaleighNCDUer]

32. Which is peachy, so long as it is only progressives who do the compromising. nt

[ProSense]

60. Can progressives pass legislation on their own?

No group in Congress can do that. If the legislation being presented is progressive, such as a robust public option, the compromise is not going to go in a more progressive direction and garner the support of other groups to pass it.

[zipplewrath]

62. Not with the White House working against them.

Obama negotiated with the drug companies in secret. That cut the legs right out from under the progressives. They bailed on single payer on day one. The announced a preference for mandates and cadillac taxes over increase taxes on the top 2 percent of wage earners. It makes it hard to achieve anything when your own team is selling you out to Big Pharma.

[ProSense]

69. Not ever, unless you think there are 50 or more progressives in the Senate.

There will always be compromise.

[zipplewrath]

71. You're probably right

He'll never work with the progressives as long as the conservative democrats are easier to work with and closer to his political beliefs.

[Mimosa]

85. Zipplewrath, I wonder why some people deny the facts

I respect that members disagree, but I don't appreciate the distortion of facts. The President did not fight for significant change for health care.

And people like me will be paying the price we can't afford, then dropping health insurance when we can't afford it and there will be no help for us. It didn't have to be like that.

[RaleighNCDUer]

97. You are so VERY fucking funny.

As if a robust public option was EVER presented to be compromised on.

[woo me with science]

90. He did run on controlling costs,

and that WILL NOT HAPPEN as long as you entrench the for-profit health insurance industry the way he has done.

Sheesh, the point of reform was to make health CARE, not health INSURANCE, accessible and affordable for people. Now all you have done is mandate that people buy insurance they cannot afford to use.

You can't sugar-coat shit. "Having" health insurance means nothing when you can't afford to see a doctor.

[HughMoran]

94. He's doing good by me

I don't take your objections very seriously any more - sorry to say.

[RaleighNCDUer]

98. So it's "I got mine, Jack, so fuck you all"?

This so-called reform is NOT doing good by some forty MILLION people - the 25 million who will still get no coverage, and another 15 million who can get coverage but can't do anything more than an occassional checkup, because of the co-pays and deductibles which preclude them getting any REAL releif.

FORTY MILLION PEOPLE.

Against "He's doing good by me."

[HughMoran]

99. He's doing good by me

It's a big improvement that hasn't even kicked in yet. It was never intended that it would cover everybody, but it's still a massive improvement and I'll take it. Nobody said the system was going to now be perfect - it's amazing we passed anything at all with people like LIEberman supposedly on our side.

[zipplewrath]

5. Not exactly

Democrats previously had opposed a mandate and cadillac taxes. Obama even ran against a mandate, making fun of McCain IIRC by suggesting that we could wipe out homelessness by mandating that everyone buy a house.

Furthermore, the goal previously was health CARE reform. We didn't reform health care, we nationalized health insurance regulation. We also modified (extensively actually) the medicare and medicaid programs to both include more people, and reduce the payments those programs made.

The change that has been achieved is nice. It affects about 5 - 10% of the population, depending upon who you believe. It did virtually nothing to address the core problem, which is that the cost of health CARE continues to rise at unsustainable rates. The White Hosue predicts 6% growth per year for the forseable future. People will have health insurance that didn't have it before. But just as people who did have it before learned, they quickly will get to a place where they can't afford to use it.

HCR under Obama became a plan to reduce costs to the federal government by modifying medicare and medicaid. Whether that is how it started out is immaterial, that's how it concluded. It saved the feds millions and billions over the next 10 years or so (as compared to what they would have spent). They probably couldn't pass medicare modifications, especially the ones they did, without the larger distractions over single payer and mandates and cadillac taxes. It did very little to nothing to make health care more affordable to the vast majority of us, and large numbers of people will see their health insurance rates climb even faster (mostly the young and extremely health that were getting some of the lowest rates). Some folks will benefit and basically never know it because they won't get canceled about the time the get really sick. (Well, some of them will since the insurance companies will endeavor to claim that they committed fraud on their applications when they forgot to mention some previous disease or condition from their youth.).

It is what it is and whether you see it as good, bad, or a step in the right direction will depend alot upon your own history and personal situation. What it was not was a step towards universal health CARE. It was quite the opposite a codification of health insurance into law as an obligation of individuals (an some employers). It was also based heavily upon a concept put forth by the GOP in the mid '90s to obstruct any form of universal health CARE. It left health care as an option for the free market to deliver.

[FrenchieCat]

8. you say...."The change that has been achieved is nice. "

and I say....yeah, 30 million people nice.

Progressives who are gripping that Obama hasn't done for them
in his first 20 months, everything they had listed on their wish list
for years and years are amazing to me.

[zipplewrath]

12. Actually, he's done very little

But that's not what's being discussed here. By the White House's own estimates, there will be 25 million people still uninsured after 2014. Their own estimates still put the rate of health care expenses rising at 6% for the foreseable future. Many of the insured still won't be able to afford health care, even with insurance.

The cadillac taxes were so regressive he had to call in the unions to negotiate his way out of the worst of them. The mandate is realtively regressive because it affects the lower incomes way more than the upper incomes.

[FrenchieCat]

16. Zipplewrath = Glass half empty

or glass broken.

You choose to focus on how many will still be uninsured.....
as opposed to how many won't be when this bill takes full effect.

It is you in fact who won't be satisfied unless miracles happen....
and who believe that Obama should have done magical things...

and you only blame him for not being the magical guy you thought
you elected.

You choose to accuse the engine who gave you a relatively
accurate roadmap as to which station he was going to be at,
of being on the wrong track......simply because the station which he is coming to,
ain't the one where you are standing.

[zipplewrath]

19. I notice you avoid details

As I said, it includes several features against which he ran. It includes many features that are objectionable. And the positive features affect a very small population, proportionally speaking. And the dominate issue of cost to everyone was left virtually untouched. I'm not sure which ones of those are half anything, but none the less it is all true.

He ran on affordable health CARE and gave us mandated health INSURANCE. How is that an "accurate road map". (And if we're going to work over bad metaphors, can we at least acknowledge that trains don't use roads, much less road MAPS.)

[FrenchieCat]

24. I notice you avoid the obvious...like having to first get to the station

and for that, one might need a map.


As a self employed individual.....I'm looking forward to joining forces with others
in my same boat! As the mother of a 20 and 23 year olds, I'm glad that they will
get some relief as of yesterday.

Sure, none of it is enough, nor when I want it,
but before, it was never going to be.

As for my metaphors....as usual, you are a cynical critic and nothing more....
demanding perfection, and only commenting in the negative when it isn't there.....
which it never will be.

[zipplewrath]

27. for how long

The cost of the underlying care is rising quickly, 6%+ per year. Depending upon your personal health and situation, your rates are going to climb as well (mostly if you were in one of the lowest categories to begin with). It's not so much a case of "not enough" it's a case of not even keeping up.

[FrenchieCat]

28. He gave us more than I was expecting....

perhaps because I understand politics,
and I understand why not any of the Presidents
before him got anywhere close to what he got.
You may not like it, and if politics for you is only about
"what have you done for me, specifically?",
the ones waiting for you at the other end of the tunnel
will specifically make sure you get what they believe you deserve.

[zipplewrath]

30. Well, that's fine

But he also "gave" things that he campaigned against. And he didn't "give" the one biggest thing that everyone needed, controling health CARE costs, which is what he campaigned upon. And that was achieveable, although it probably wouldn't have saved the government money. In the end, that's what this was about, cutting the governments costs (well, the rates of increase). He didn't run on that.

[FrenchieCat]

34. Yep. He hasn't been perfect.

Never said he had been.

The difference between you and me is not so much our ideology,
as much as the understanding or not of the limits of what
any one person can achieve do in the arena of American politics
in the 21st century in 20 months.

You choose to concentrate on what still hasn't been done,
and believe fully in the "rightness" of your political theories
of what is the correct way of achieving what we should want,
While refusing to believe that your way may not be the only way,
and that in fact, your way is most likely politically impossible,
especially since you refuse to recognize any positives along the way.


I choose to concentrate on what has been achieved,
and yes, I accept (even if I'd rather not)
the political limitations to getting all that I want,
and in my understanding that there may or may not be other ways to get there,
those are simply theories coming out of the mouth of those
who really haven't achieved enough to be so confident as to blame
someone else for not doing exactly as they have ordered.

[zipplewrath]

43. Actually I focus on the difference between the promise and the product

He promised one thing and delivered another. I have outlined the severe differences between the two. You choose to ignore them for obvious reasons. But none of us will be able to ignore for long a 6% per year increase in health care costs for long.

[phleshdef]

31. I'm glad history will shit all over that opinion.

Face it. Obama has pushed through historically large amounts of reform. Thats how history will report it and no amount of your denial will ever change that.

[zipplewrath]

40. We will see

We are currently speaking very ill of DADT and DOMA not to mention NAFTA. How history tends to treat the past has as much to do with what is going on in the future as anything. It will tend to depend greatly on whether the GOP ever over turns much of this. I strongly suspect that within about 10 years the cost of health CARE will be so expensive that some variation of single payer will come our way. Remember, if it continues to rise at 6% at year, for 10 years......


And then we'll get some variation of health CARE reform, but probably by the GOP. Hope you like their "politics of the possible", not to mention their version of mandates and cadillac taxes.

[ProSense]

15. "So far, we have seen two years of incremental change"? Want to see incremental?

Social Security was not the perfect bill, and it had the support of 16 Republicans.

FDR's statement on the 1939 amendments to the Social Security Act of 1935

IT WILL be exactly four years ago on the fourteenth day of this month that I signed the original Social Security Act. As I indicated at that time and on various occasions since that time, we must expect a great program of social legislation, such as is represented in the Social Security Act, to be improved and strengthened in the light of additional experience and understanding. These amendments to the Act represent another tremendous step forward in providing greater security for the people of this country. This is especially true in the case of the federal old age insurance system which has now been converted into a system of old age and survivors' insurance providing life-time family security instead of only individual old age security to the workers in insured occupations. In addition to the worker himself, millions of widows and orphans will now be afforded some degree of protection in the event of his death whether before or after his retirement.

The size of the benefits to be paid during the early years will be far more adequate than under the present law. However, a reasonable relationship is retained between wage loss sustained and benefits received. This is a most important distinguishing characteristic of social insurance as contrasted with any system of flat pensions.

Payment of old age benefits will begin on January 1, 1940, instead of January 1, 1942. Increase in pay-roll taxes, scheduled to take place in January, 1940, is deferred. Benefit payments in the early years are substantially increased.

I am glad that the insurance benefits have been extended to cover workers in some occupations that have previously not been covered. However, workers in other occupations have been excluded. In my opinion, it is imperative that these insurance benefits be extended to workers in all occupations.

The Federal-State system of providing assistance to the needy aged, the needy blind, and dependent children, has also been strengthened by increasing the federal aid. I am particularly gratified that the Federal matching ratio to States for aid to dependent children has been increased from one-third to one-half of the aid granted. I am also happy that greater Federal contributions will be made for public health, maternal and child welfare, crippled children, and vocational rehabilitation. These changes will make still more effective the Federal-State cooperative relationship upon which the Social Security Act is based and which constitutes its great strength. It is important to note in this connection that the increased assistance the States will now be able to give will continue to be furnished on the basis of individual need, thus affording the greatest degree of protection within reasonable financial bounds.

As regards administration, probably the most important change that has been made is to require that State agencies administering any part of the Social Security Act coming within the jurisdiction of the Social Security Board and the Children's Bureau shall set up a merit system for their employees. An essential element of any merit system is that employees shall be selected on a non-political basis and shall function on a non-political basis.

In 1934 I appointed a committee called the Committee on Economic Security made up of Government officials to study the whole problem of economic and social security and to develop a legislative program for the same. The present law is the result of its deliberations. That committee is still in existence and has considered and recommended the present amendments. In order to give reality and coordination to the study of any further developments that appear necessary I am asking the committee to continue its life and to make active study of various proposals which may be made for amendments or developments to the Social Security Act.

link

Some of those excluded:

Most women and minorities were excluded from the benefits of unemployment insurance and old age pensions. Employment definitions reflected typical white male categories and patterns.<11> Job categories that were not covered by the act included workers in agricultural labor, domestic service, government employees, and many teachers, nurses, hospital employees, librarians, and social workers.<12> The act also denied coverage to individuals who worked intermittently.<13> These jobs were dominated by women and minorities. For example, women made up 90% of domestic labor in 1940 and two-thirds of all employed black women were in domestic service.<14> Exclusions exempted nearly half the working population.<13> Nearly two-thirds of all African Americans in the labor force, 70 to 80% in some areas in the South, and just over half of all women employed were not covered by Social Security.<15><16> At the time, the NAACP protested the Social Security Act, describing it as “a sieve with holes just big enough for the majority of Negroes to fall through.”<16>

link

The FDIC was established as a temporary agency with few powers.

• Banking Act of 1933 (P.L. 73-66, 48 STAT. 162).
  Also known as the Glass-Steagall Act. Established the FDIC as a temporary agency. Separated commercial banking from investment banking, establishing them as separate lines of commerce.
  
  
• Banking Act of 1935 (P.L. 74-305, 49 STAT. 684).
  Established the FDIC as a permanent agency of the government.
  
  
• Federal Deposit Insurance Act of 1950 (P.L. 81-797, 64 STAT. 873).
  Revised and consolidated earlier FDIC legislation into one Act. Embodied the basic authority for the operation of the FDIC.
  
  
• Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (P.L. 84-511, 70 STAT. 133).
  Required Federal Reserve Board approval for the establishment of a bank holding company. Prohibited bank holding companies headquartered in one state from acquiring a bank in another state.

link

And President Obama significantly expanded the FDIC power.

Only in today's America can a President save the country from a depression, enact health reform after 100 years of attempts, enact histortic student loan reform, enact the strongest financial reforms since FDR, including a first-ever Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, do it all in his first 18 months, only to have people pushing the meme that he hasn't done enough and nothing has changed.

[RaleighNCDUer]

36. Ah, yes, the SS strawman.

Once again, the very establishment of SS was a game changer. It created something which did not previously exist, which could then be built upon.

As was Medicare/Medicaid.

The HCR bill not only did not create a new framework for healthcare in this country, it embedded the employer based private insurance framework in concrete, making truly universal healthcare not just difficult but impossible in the foreseeable future. Not only will private insurance continue to stand between doctors and patients, now it is MANDATED that they stand between doctors and patients.

If you have employer-based private insurance but can't afford to use it because deductibles and co-pays are through the roof, how are you helped by the fact that you can now add, at additional cost, your unemployed 24 year old daughter to the policy?

BTW, it's not 100 years of attempts. Sure, it was first proposed at the turn of the last century, but since then we DID get Medicare and Medicaid, and what passed this year only locks in place the private insurance system that was imposed on us in 1947 at the same time that most other industrial nations were putting single-payer or mixed private/government universal healthcare plans in place. This legislation does nothing to move us toward what they have attained - in fact, it weakens the only such plan - Medicare/Medicaid - that exists already.

[ProSense]

39. Strawman?

You have no idea what transformative effect health care reform will have on this country.

I'm sure you'd have pushed to try to be first in line to criticize FDR because he passed a bill in 1935 that originally wasn't going to provide old age benefits until seven years later and basically covered only white men.

[zipplewrath]

42. Well, we have some ideas

But furthermore, his basic point is correct. Unless you're hanging your hat on the CHC, this didn't really create anything new to build upon. Truth is, it built upon the system that was already breaking. And even the administration admits that the fundamental problem hasn't particularly changed. Obama himself even stated on the campaign trail that we NOW have to "dig in" and get to work on controlling health care costs.

[RaleighNCDUer]

45. health care reform would have a transformative effect on this country.

Unfortunately, what we got was some tweaking around the edges of the private health insurance industry, with no cost controls, not guarantees of service (they still won't treat you if you can't pay) and a weakening of Medicare and Medicaid.

I'll say it again, in small words. Having health insurance, even mandated health insurance, does not help if you can't afford to see a doctor.

You have to meet the deductibles up front. You have to pay a co-pay just to walk into the office.

This is more of the same, on steroids. It is not 'change'.

SS WAS change. It established the principle, for the first time ever in this country, that the government was responsible for the welfare of its citizens - that having people starve to death simply because they were too old to work was not good for the country.

You write too well to not be able to see the difference between a new system of governmental responsibility and an old system of "pay up or get out". Therefore, your posting is a deliberate strawman - tying my argument into a fictional attack on SS and going after that.

[dflprincess]

48. Well said!

As was your earlier post in this thread. :applause:

[ProSense]

52. "SS WAS change."

Health care reform is change: bans rescission, ban on denial of coverage, strenghtened Medicare, establishes exchanges, including at least one non-profit plan in each state run by the OPM, covers 32 million more Americans, provides funding in 2017 (about the time it took for old age benefits to be paid out) for states to set up single payer. Ask Bernie Sanders if that's irrelevant. It it's a strong foundation, and every change to the health care system going forward, including a public option, will strengthen it.

You can quibble about it not being change and parse words about "health insurance" vs. "health care" reform, but in the long run: this law represents significant change.

[zipplewrath]

55. Merely a modification of the status quo

It basically just leveraged existing programs and the larger economic structure. The closest "new" thing was federal regulations over the private insurance market. Well, there was that new mandate. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, heck to some extent even Medicare Part D were new programs. The Consumer Protection Agency at least is a new agency under Treasury.

[ProSense]

57. "Merely a modification of the status quo"

Can you point to where the government is currently running exchanges and administering a non-profit plan? Also, if you don't mind, can you provide information on the government program that funds state single-payer?

[zipplewrath]

61. That's a modification of the private insurance model

They are moving folks out of medicaid and into the government exchanges. Government "single payer" on the state level is a variation of state run medicaid, and in fact is an attempt to reduce the cost thereof. This entire effort is merely codifying into law the private insurance model, with the underlying structure of government subsidized health insurance through medicare and medicaid. They are moving some folks around under different funding methodologies (and encouraging the states to pick up some of the tab). There's no new real health care delivery structure here. There's not even all that much new in health insurance delivery except for some of the names.

There is nothing here on the order of a SS or a Medicare. Heck, there's not even anything on the order of Medicare part D. The most dominant feature is the federalization of health insurance regulation.

[ProSense]

68. What?

"Government 'single payer' on the state level is a variation of state run medicaid"

So single payer isn't single payer if it's in the health care reform bill?

Bernie Sanders

There is more spin around this law than in a tornado.

[zipplewrath]

72. It's not single payer

in the national sense. What came out, despite its name, is basically a variation on state run medicaid that already exists. It is the one area with the most potential. As Dean pointed out many times, state level single payer doesn't really have the clout that is needed to be effective, which is why it got through. It is the singular area that has the most potential for morphing into something useful. The problem is that it will have to morph from state level to national level and that process is hard to envision. There aren't alot of models for it. SS was always a federally run program.

[ProSense]

73. "in the national sense"?

Oh brother. It's single payer. Period.

[zipplewrath]

74. No, it's not

You see, the power of single payer on a national scale is the ability to control the health CARE market. On a state level, that isn't as easily accomplished, if at all. Dean spoke of this problem often because they looked at moving to a single payer model in NH when he was governor. The problem is, in many states, they don't have the actual population to dictate prices, much less service delivery. It might work in the larger states, but those are the least likely to move towards single payer for a variety of reasons. It is further confused by the fact that you don't have control over your entire market since you'll have people with "out of state" insurance and you'll have folks close to the borders going to "out of state" doctors.

The two models aren't the same. As I say, it is the closest thing to potential that came out of this bill. But it is evident as well that it was able to stay in BECAUSE the various opponents realized it was a bad bet.

It is a correlary to various attempts at gun control at the state level. It is very hard to be successful with those programs at a state level because the activities of the neighboring states will impact your effectiveness.

[ProSense]

75. "You see, the power of single payer on a national scale is the ability to control the health CARE.."

Canada

It's single payer.

[zipplewrath]

76. And they contorl the entire market

That is very hard to achieve on the state level. Between border issues, and relative "transients" plus various categories like military personell and retirees with out of state insurance companies, a singular state has trouble particularly dominating the market, especially in smaller states.

Canada controls the price of pharmaceuticals, and virtually the price of everything else. THAT'S health CARE reform.

[ProSense]

79. "a singular state has trouble particularly dominating the market, especially in smaller states"

Vermont

[treestar]

78. the HCR was a major change, creating what did not previously exist

the usual twisted statements don't change that.

[RaleighNCDUer]

51. Oh, and btw, it was not the FDIC that prevented a new depression for

75 years - it was the separation of commercial and investment banking, which prevent speculation, that did that - and I haven't noticed Obama doing anything about restoring Glass-Steagal. Nor has anything been done to empower unions, the bulwark of the middle class, by repealing Taft-Hartley.

You want economic progress, work on those.

[ProSense]

56. "I haven't noticed Obama doing anything about restoring Glass-Steagal"

• Reinstating Glass-Steagall via the Volcker Rule
  
  
• Regulating the credit ratings agencies by revoking the exemption granted under the Securities Act of 1933
  
  
• Establishing a first-ever consumer protection bureau
  
  
• Closing loopholes that will benefit consumers and farmers around the world
  
  
• implementing the most significant financial regulatory reforms since the 1930

[NJmaverick]

23. Agreed

[elleng]

47. Yes yes, you are correct,

and of course not counting on MAMMOTH intransigence of repugs, AND plain old intransigence of 'blue dogs.'

[alsame]

49. The problem with this argument is that we have just come

from 8 years of Bushco, when nothing had to be incremental. They rammed through their agenda and ravaged this country with little resistence. (It was the same with Reagan.)

To name just a few:

Two wars
Tax cuts for the rich
Ban on stem cell research
Torture
Domestic spying
NCLB

So it's quite understandable that people are frustrated that Democrats have to settle for 'small portions' while the GOP come into office and quickly enact huge horrific changes to this country.

[zipplewrath]

53. Bingo

1 set forward 3 steps back. Quite honestly on some subjects such as torture, health care reform, and wars, we're just walking backwards more slowly.

[Radical Activist]

50. No, it does seem like much.

I guess this board has a lot of people looking for another LBJ with a much bigger Democratic majority in Congress. I hope they're working to get that bigger Congressional majority. As for me, there has never been a period of such dramatic movement in the right direction in my lifetime.
All major change in American history has happened incrementally. This period of change is faster than most.

[Honeycombe8]

59. The healthcare bill has been a failure.

Either the healthcare bill has been a total failure (most people hate it, according to polls), or the Dems have failed to advertise why it's good. Either way, it's a failure in the opinion of most Americans. And that means it's a failure.

The failure translates into votes either against Dems or for non-Dems.

I know more than many about the HC bill, but that's not saying a lot. And I've made it my business to look up information on it. It has been practically impossible to get information about it from the Democrats. That tells me that it's not a good bill; they don't want people to know about it, for some reason.

[zipplewrath]

63. The GOP campaigns on it, the dems avoid it.

That kinda says it all right there. The funniest part is that the GOP admits they like certain portions, and even campaign upon them, but the democrats run like hell from it. That REALLY tells you what is going on.

[ProSense]

65. "most people hate it, according to polls"

It has it's ups and downs.




Still, most people like many of the provisions

[Honeycombe8]

87. You're citing an ins. company poll? LOL LOL! nt

[Uzybone]

81. flat out untrue

but I can see why some democrats run from it, they cant even get their "supporters" to tell the truth about it.

[Mimosa]

86. ^ Exactly. ^

My partner and i are trying to get health insurance we can afford. But we can be turned down for pre-existing and priced out because we are over 50. :(

[Uzybone]

80. Defending?

coming from you this is high praise.

[lunatica]

84. I hope you're right

I've thought the same thing. As long as he's going in the right direction he may actually cover a lot of ground before he's done.

[Safetykitten]

91. But what if the item being chewed in little pieces is poison?

[HughMoran]

93. Good post

:thumbsup:

[KoKo]

96. Not so positive as you, Kentuck...but One More Time...we need to Vote Dem...!

You are kind about "incremental." This President came to Power on STRENGTH...no Contested Election...A Mandate and so many had worked so hard to get him elected by working for years since Stolen Election 2000. Voting Rights, Americans Rights against Secret Tribunals, Torture, Spying and Eavesdropping on us and corrupt Bush Judges who corrupted the Legal System and Sending Jobs Overseas to boost Wall Street while Americans were teased with 0 Interest Rate/No Money Down Mortgages and Interest Rates on Credit Cards Skyrocketed and Clinton had increased the bar for Bankruptcy for Average Americans...but we see that at the end of Bush...the Bankrupted Banks were Bailed out and Ordinary Americans were left holding the Bag for Bailout while losing their Homes and being in Credit Card Dept out the Wahzoo because of the Policies of Bush and the Repug Congress in last years of Clinton's Administration.

This President should get Dems OUT TO THE POLLS to vote DEMS IN LOCALLY...even HOLDING NOSE.

BUT...should there still be loyalty AFTER THIS ELECTION...if we don't see the policies we worked for years so hard for at least get some Credibility. Calling Dem Activists "Fucking Retards" and "Crazy" and other slanders do not seem to be what a Party we can believe is truly working for us and "change we can believe in" is really about with the current track record.

[kentuck]

100. I understand what you are saying.

I would have preferred radical change after the Bush years disaster. But, maybe the political reality was such that nothing would have gotten done? Maybe?

Regardless, we still have to give the President credit for what he has accomplished, under the circumstances. It would be difficult for me to argue that nothing accomplished would be better than where we are today. Today, it may seem a minuscule accomplishment in comparison to what is needed, but it is still progress. Tomorrow, we may look at it differently?

[KoKo]

101. Perhaps....

If lighting comes out of the sky and motivates our Democratic Party to strike them with the FIRE for CHANGE...which would really be standing up for what so many of us believe Democratic Ideals are.

If it doesn't come...we will be stuck in this morass...and be at the whims of the MSM forever...and we will live from Presidential election to election with mid-terms inbetween where the Corportions and MEDIA and Powers out of the average person's control...are tossed aside. This is the last one...imho before something very much more wicked this way comes.

Peace...:-)