Skinner on the ACA

[OmahaBlueDog]

My opinion is that the ACA is the single most important piece of social legislation of my lifetime.

No, wait. That isn't my opinion -- It is a fact.

I've read posts by DUers trying to tear it down for the last six years, and frankly I've found their arguments to be unconvincing. No, wait, that's not quite right. The truth is that I've found their anti-ACA crusade to be wrong-headed and maybe even a little offensive. I get that many of them are motivated by a desire for single-payer. I am also myself a supporter of single-payer. But I think wishing for the Affordable Care Act to fail is about the worst possible way to fight for single-payer. In fact, I think they are playing into the hands of Republicans who want the whole thing repealed. We sure as hell aren't going to get single-payer if the ACA is killed. More than likely we'd end up back with the shitty system we had before -- or something even worse.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12595334

IMO, this is very well said.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. Damn right.

Thank you for bringing this to everyone's attention, my dear OmahaBlueDog!

[OmahaBlueDog]

2. You are always welcome, CP!

[Whisp]

93. ???

I must have you mixed up with someone else. I thought you were cheering on the anti-Obama ACA Ted Nugent vomitous screed the other day...

[BeyondGeography]

127. You're right...it's, um...confusing

[REP]

211. Also

More important than the Civil Rights Act or Medicare? Both were signed in my lifetime, and I'm a couple decades younger than the poster in question.

[sheshe2]

3. Read it in ACA!

Thank you Skinner!

Truth! From the chief Honcho of Democratic Underground!

[Sarah Ibarruri]

4. I totally agree. It's the first time anything begins to move in the general direction of health

care for all, and it's been a STRUGGLE to get even this!

The next person I hear whining about it had better be running for president, have millions supporting and financing him, and have a fool-proof way of showing me how he's going to get single-payer approved by Congress with no problems.

[Jamaal510]

22. I like this:

"The next person I hear whining about it had better be running for president, have millions supporting and financing him, and have a fool-proof way of showing me how he's going to get single-payer approved by Congress with no problems."

[Sarah Ibarruri]

31. Thanks! :) nt

[freshwest]

83. +1,000. Also, work to turn their states into single payer like VT. It's in the ACA.

But it's up to us to do it.

Misery is easy to create. It's the tool of the maliciously lazy.~ Anon.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

146. You said it!!! I view the whiners as sitting home chewing on Twinkies and posting whines

It'd be lots better (if indeed they're feeling so whiny) if they got off their tuchus and worked toward changing the country's mistaken and wacko right wing views, exposed RW propaganda for the damage it has done and is doing, and worked to get the Repuke a-holes out of office. On the other hand, that would keep them too busy to whine and they'd lose some of that attention they keep receiving.

[riqster]

194. Perfect rebuttal to the all-or nothing crowd!

[Cha]

210. Excellent, Sarah!

[Sarah Ibarruri]

214. Thanks! nt

[Le Taz Hot]

5. And Skinner is entitled to his opinion

just as other DUers are entitled to theirs. Skinner's opinion is no more important than anyone else's. Pointing to him like he's a god is just kind of silly.

[OmahaBlueDog]

18. Skinner is the owner and founder of the site.

I hardly think quoting his opinion is "pointing to him like he's a god."

[LWolf]

124. Skinner doesn't require us to agree with his opinions.

While he is a site owner, and can and will censor topics when it comes to election campaigns, his opinion is not more valid because he owns the site.

imo, it smells of desperation when you pull out one of his opinions to try to score points against those who don't share them. It sounds like you are anxious to silence dissenting opinions by whatever means you can find. If the opinion you are promoting has any weight, you don't need to do that. It's weak and unbecoming, and can lead to loss of respect for your side of any debate.

As for the point you are trying to make about the ACA? I disagree with Skinner; I think it's legislation that further legitimizes the concept of insurance as priority over care, as the insurance industry as the gate keepers to care, and it spreads the false idea that insurance somehow equals care rather than the reality: The more "affordable" the insurance, the less affordable the care, and having insurance doesn't mean that one can afford to get actual care. It just means that whatever we've got to pay for health care goes to pay an insurance premium, and then we self-limit the actual care we get, because there is nothing left to pay those copays and deductibles.

I think that trying to polish the image of Democrats with the ACA for midterm elections is, frankly, misguided to say the least. If I were on the fence, it sure as hell wouldn't convince me to vote for a Democrat. Hopefully Democrats have something stronger to point to. Thankfully, my Senator and Governor both do.

[OmahaBlueDog]

136. Umm.. I saw Skinner's quote, liked it, and posted it. That's all.

imo, it smells of desperation when you pull out one of his opinions to try to score points against those who don't share them

I don't view this as a game and don't look to score points.

It sounds like you are anxious to silence dissenting opinions by whatever means you can find.

No. If I wanted that, I'd have posted "Shouldn't we make support of the ACA a TOS. I did nothing of that sort. I repeat. I liked the way he defended the ACA. He said it well.

As for the point you are trying to make about the ACA? I disagree with Skinner; I think it's legislation that further legitimizes the concept of insurance as priority over care, as the insurance industry as the gate keepers to care, and it spreads the false idea that insurance somehow equals care rather than the reality: The more "affordable" the insurance, the less affordable the care, and having insurance doesn't mean that one can afford to get actual care. It just means that whatever we've got to pay for health care goes to pay an insurance premium, and then we self-limit the actual care we get, because there is nothing left to pay those copays and deductibles.

OK. You disagree. We disagree. I'd hope that we can agree that healthcare for all should be a goal of the Democratic party. I disagree with you to this large extent (and I just made this point in another post).

I don't see physicians as victims of a soul-crushing corporate system. I see them as equal players in a game that has four players: the physicians, Pharma, the for-profit health insurance market, and hospital networks. As with all games, the players are sometimes partners and sometimes opponents, but they all have one goal -- skim as much money from the system as possible.

Yes, all of these players, at some level, are there to help people and improve health outcomes -- in the same way that American Eagle wants to sell you trendy clothes or that Chipotle wants to sell you addictive, overly large burritos. However, the principal goal of all of these enterprises is to make money.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4708867

To sum up: We disagree. I'm fine with that. However, you are supposing motives with respect to my post that simply aren't there.

[LWolf]

139. Apparently that's not all, lol.

Since you needed to take my post apart.

Why did you need to repost a DU post on DU? Seems redundant if I'm wrong about motive.

"I'd hope we can agree that healthcare for all should be a goal of the Democratic Party."

YES. With the emphasis on the word CARE. The ACA is about insurance. Not care. Which IS the point of those on DU who criticize it.

[OmahaBlueDog]

191. I tried to answer all your points. Not take apart your post.

Why repost? As you probaby know, a sizable percentage of DUers (I'd guess upwards of half) don't read anything outside of GD, and IIRC, non-star members can't access AtA.

The ACA is about insurance, but what it's really about is covering and spreading cost. Doctors cost money. Hospitals cost money. Medicine costs money. None of those parties are providing care out of altruism.

[LWolf]

199. THAT is true.

For the most part, anyway. Which is why any authentic attempt to address universal care is going to have to take the profit out of the equation. It ought to take insurance out of the equation.

Universal, national, high quality, accessible public health care paid 100% by taxes.

We're not anywhere close to being able to achieve that. Medicare for all would be a decent compromise: a first step. The ACA mandates insurance, and helps some people, but not all, pay for some of that insurance. The bottom line remains, though: the more affordable the insurance, the less affordable the care, and for many of us, once we've shelled out for the insurance premium, we don't have anything left for copays and deductibles, which means we still don't get care. That, and being "covered" by insurance doesn't mean that our policy will actually "cover" the care or meds needed.

[tavalon]

205. I'd say he did need to.

I missed it the first time around and just like on Facebook, I'm grateful when my friends repost an important tidbit I missed.

[MADem]

25. This is his private website, and it does have a perspective.

Those of us who found this thing in the wake of the Bush selection felt an affinity for that perspective, which included the TOS line about "electing more Democrats and fewer Republicans to public office."

I think Skinner's opinion DOES matter here. He's the site owner, he holds a leadership position in this organization in that he can decide who stays and who goes, and he is the author of the TOS, after all. I think people who don't get that are kind of silly.

[Le Taz Hot]

33. I never said his opinion "doesn't matter,"

I said it's no more or less important than anyone else's opinion. Truly, he's just a guy who, along with 2 other guys, started a popular message board.

[MADem]

37. I think it IS a bit more important than anyone else's opinion.

He can push a few buttons and jettison either one of us from his "house." And this IS his house, and the walls of the house are his TOS.

I don't have a problem with his perspective; hell, I share it.

That's why I'm here.

I'm one of those "like - minded" folks he talks about in his guidelines.

[Le Taz Hot]

41. And that's your opinion

which is no more or less important than mine or Skinner's.

[MADem]

46. It's not an opinion. It's based on an analysis of the power structure here.

You can't ban anyone. I can't, either. The admins can, and they do.

They have the ability to enforce adherence to their TOS.

[Warren DeMontague]

50. I've noticed that some people seem to want to write their own rules for this site

then get really mad when other people object to them "enforcing" them!

[MADem]

59. I can't understand it either.

I'm here because it's a place for people like us who want to see Democrats running the country, not Republicans. I like supporting Democrats for public office. I'm not here to listen to the potential virtues of some Paulbot asshole--there are other places on the net where that tripe can be found.

When I signed up they had "rules" that got longer by the day--I actually read them every few months just to keep up with the latest. Now we have the TOS which is more generic and easier, but it still has that core "Democratic/Progressive" theme, and I like that.

I think it's funny that people who don't like having to behave like a Progressive/Democrat on a Progressive/Democratic site think it's "authoritarian" or "censorship" or "bullying" if those of us who are here for that reason take exception to wingnut, woowoo, Teahadist and Paulbot bullshit.

[Warren DeMontague]

60. Yeah, I find it esp. funny when people who just had a 3 week long meltdown over one swimsuit picture

complain about people "overreacting" to someone posting an OP calling a sitting Democratic President a "***** of **** **** *** salesman" or whatever.

[MADem]

63. Without getting specific as to any individuals, in a generic sense, I think we're seeing a lot

of outrage over a number of issues that is over-the-top in relation to the "crime."

It doesn't matter if it's a magazine picture, or a smoking, breastfeeding pitbull in the Olive Garden, there are some topics that just seem to get beaten to death. I don't really know WHY, though. The freakish outrage is totally unrealistic. It's almost a parody of itself; like performance art.

Along with that are the FUD droppers, who, no matter what the subject, will push the Debbie Downer POV. Sometimes, it looks like the talking points have leapt straight off the pages of the Daily Caller or Drudge. Makes me wonder, I must say.

[steve2470]

64. I think part of the Debbie Downer is sincere, part is definitely FUD

I must say, the Crimea/Ukraine crisis really opened my eyes about DU. I don't consider myself a cold warrior by any stretch, but the amount of FUD pushed here about that was incredible. The other FUD is the "perfect being the enemy of the good" brand. I really have no patience for that but choose to not engage over it.

Some here are just clueless about the sausage-making and horse-trading that politics always has been. FDR wasn't perfect in the eyes of the Left, either. That's conveniently ignored.

And, some just like to argue and debate. To the bitter end. About everything.

[MADem]

67. I can't argue with that.

I didn't mean to suggest that it was all FUD, trolls, disruptors and rudies, of course there are some who just have a different view. But you are right--there are some who just like a good fight on the internet -- about anything and everything!

[steve2470]

69. oh there's definitely trolls and Republicans here and libertarians

I think the jury system has been unbalanced by them. Some of the jury verdicts are just WTF.

[Number23]

72. "FDR wasn't perfect in the eyes of the Left, either. That's conveniently ignored."

I had one of the most ridiculous conversations I've ever had here (and that is TRULY saying something) making that exact same point. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2806922

FDR, the source of I'm pretty sure some fairly salacious night time dreams of more than a few here, faced many of the same criticisms that Obama faces. And now, he is some sort of lion.

I've said a million times that in 50 years, when our grandchildren hear that a small but loud minority on the left complained that Obama didn't care enough about the poor, only cared about the rich, was a corparatist etc. etc. etc., I have no doubt that those kids will be every bit as mystified then as some of us are NOW about the nature of these criticisms.

That link I was posted was pretty much the last time I tried to engage with the deniers. Stopped bothering a long time ago.

[steve2470]

73. I do agree with you

President Obama is truly the best President in my lifetime. The ACA is a historic accomplishment, along with the other accomplishments. We need to give him credit and support him.

Yes the kids in 50 years will be confused.

[mikekohr]

89. #23, Your grasp and perspective of history is bound to confuse

and infuriate some people here
Not me though! Keep it coming.

[Number23]

174. What a lovely, kind thing to say. I really appreciate that

[LostOne4Ever]

108. Completely agree

The deniers are never going to accept anything that goes against their carefully constructed strawman.

[MADem]

129. +1,000...FDR was so correct on so many things, but he had a few clunkers too...

Ask George Takei about his formative years living in a shed in the desert--he'll tell ya! Imagine what Dumbya would have done if FDR could have made the Supremes even larger--the horror!

The false equivalency, that FDR was all things 'liberal,' and Obama is not, and FDR cared about the people, and Obama does not, will just not fly when examined by any serious scholar.

[Number23]

173. MAD, it doesn't even fly NOW. Let alone in 50 years when there will be documentaries

History Channel specials ('cause they've got to put the Nazis aside every now and then!) etc. on how this president came to power.

He is a massively historical figure and he will be discussed for a very, very long time. I have no doubt that the vast majority of the focus on Obama in 50 years will be the unprecedented level of Republican obstructionism he faced. Republicans will be running from this for a hundred years.

Obama's detractors on the left are far less consequential, but when they will be discussed I have no doubt that the historians and scholars will be doing the face about the nature of some of these criticisms. If DU is still around then and Skinner hasn't completely scrubbed the maniacal posts in GD from 2008-2016 and locked them in some vault 40 leagues beneath the sea (which I honestly wouldn't blame him if he did) our heirs will probably wonder what the hell was wrong with alot of these folks. Just like alot of us are doing now.

[MADem]

178. +1,000 !!!! nt

[A Simple Game]

196. Very brave of you to point to a thread where you lost a debate and then lost your temper

and had a post hidden. Most wouldn't brag about it, good for you!

Kudos to you, keep up the good work bashing those damned liberals.

[Number23]

207. That hidden post was worth it. And if you consider that me losing the debate

then I can understand why you felt the need to chime in with this post. The facts were on my side which was precisely why that person felt the need to alert in the first place. The other dude in the conversation had long since slinked away.

Thanks for playing. And you keep up the good work doing...whatever it is you think you're doing right now.

[A Simple Game]

213. I chimed in because I followed your link, something I rarely do, but had a

feeling that it would be worth it this time. Yes that hidden post was truly worth it, it shows others just what you are made of.

Should I alert the administrators that you have hacked a way to see who hits the alert button. You are the only one I know of that knows who alerts without them admitting it.

As to the other dude, he didn't slink away I saw his posts in other areas of the thread, I assume he just got sick of your BS talking points.

[Number23]

215. Yes, my "talking points" of history and politics

Of REAL history not just some rose colored BS that you guys want the rest of us to swallow that places Obama as the anti-Christ of all things "left" in this country and pretends that FDR didn't get the exact same criticisms from the "left" during his day as well. It's very telling that you consider my arguments with supported links "bashing" but it does say everything I need to know about you, not that I have ever seen you before you decided to jump up with your chest all puffed up to come after me just now.

Anyone that considers me talking about how liberals can get more liberals in office "bashing" is not worth the time and trouble. And I am begging you to PLEASE send your "concerns" to the admins and post their responses. They are bound to even be even more hilarious than your posts to me in this thread. And I have no regrets about that hidden post, sorry that this seems to upset you so greatly. It had nothing to do with my arguments but was a comment about the poster's user name which he jumped on as an opportunity to get me locked out of the thread.

It's funny that you think your posts in this thread don't show what YOU are about. As if this needlessly aggressive attack dog style in which you consider asking legitimate questions of how liberals can get more progressives into office as "bashing" somehow makes you look informed or noble.

[A Simple Game]

218. You can rattle on can't you, and you obviously don't proofread.

Had a hard time following your train of thought.

Now how did you know I had my chest all puffed up, come on now let us know, just like you know who alerted on your out of control post?

As for alerting, never have never will, but that was more hyperbolic than threat, should have been obvious to most people.

How did you know I'm upset because you have no regrets about your hidden post? You are psychic aren't you? But then you seem to be the one rattling on about being locked out of the thread so maybe I'm not the only one upset?

I don't think my posts show what I am about, I know they show what I want people to see and nothing more, you should know that, you are the psychic one after all.

Now as I can see you are getting upset again I will not respond any more that way you don't get any more hidden posts. Hidden posts do upset you so.

[Number23]

219. Color me shocked that a person who considers it "bashing" when someone asks how progressives

can take themselves off the sidelines and actually get liberals in office and affect GENUINE progressive change can't follow my line of thinking. I would have been beyond shocked if you had been.

Doing more than screaming from the sidelines at the folks on the field hasn't been a strong suit with many of you guys. Toodles.

[Whisp]

128. can I ask what FUD is? I'm making up all kinds of guesses

in my head and most are not pretty at all.

[FSogol]

132. Spreaders of Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt n/t

[Whisp]

133. oh! sounds like a Hunter Thompson book title. ty. n/t

[FSogol]

134. Maybe Johnny Depp* will find it in Hunter's basement.

* When visiting HST in preparation of making "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" into a movie, Johnny Depp found the unmailed manuscript for "The Rum Diary" in Hunter's basement.

[muriel_volestrangler]

148. A less glamorous origin, as an acronym, anyway - about IBM's 70s marketing tactics

The term appeared in other contexts as far back as the 1920s.[4][5] A similar formulation "doubts fears and uncertainties" reaches back to 1965.[6] By 1975, the term was already appearing abbreviated as FUD in marketing and sales contexts:[7]

“ One of the messages dealt with is FUD—the fear, uncertainty and doubt on the part of customer and sales person alike that stifles the approach and greeting. ”

FUD was first defined with its specific current meaning by Gene Amdahl the same year, 1975, after he left IBM to found his own company, Amdahl Corp.: "FUD is the fear, uncertainty, and doubt that IBM sales people instill in the minds of potential customers who might be considering Amdahl products."[8] The term has also been attributed to veteran Morgan Stanley computer analyst Ulrich Weil. As Eric S. Raymond writes:[9]

“ The idea, of course, was to persuade buyers to go with safe IBM gear rather than with competitors' equipment. This implicit coercion was traditionally accomplished by promising that Good Things would happen to people who stuck with IBM, but Dark Shadows loomed over the future of competitors' equipment or software. After 1991 the term has become generalized to refer to any kind of disinformation used as a competitive weapon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt

[Whisp]

151. Thanks for that - I assumed it was made up by clever DUers. n/t

[pkdu]

203. thats where I learned it....by the time I joined , it became "no-one ever got fired for buying IBM"

not exactly true...but there you go.

[muriel_volestrangler]

204. By the time I joined, 'FUD' was what Microsoft spread with Windows rumours

which screwed up OS/2. Sniff.

[MADem]

137. It's the three electric supermarket scooter riders of the acopalypse....

Fear.

Uncertainty.

DOUBT.


You know it when you see it. It often "comes from the impeccable-liberal-credentials FAR left" -- from someone whose mini-bio reads "Off-the-grid pioneer; grow all my own food, built my micro-tree-house by hand. Go to town in my llama-pulled wagon. Connect to the net via handmade wooden modem powered by my feet on a bicycle generator..." or someone with a major Paulbot or Nader slant, affecting a faux anarchist-y or "I won't respect anyone's authorit-teh" juvenile attitude (until Mom runs out of Hot Pockets, I guess).

They will often accuse others of not being sufficiently liberal, they'll throw around words like "corporatist" and "oligarchy" as if they understand their meaning, they're first out of the gate to criticize Obama no matter WHAT he does (Obama had a Father's Day breakfast at the White House....I can't help but notice he didn't invite any GRANDFATHERS to the thing...thanks a LOT, Obama!) and they're somewhat annoying. They aren't sharp enough to rise to the level of insufferable, usually, but the template is usually the same. Often, they'll have screen names that sound so comically Far Left that they sound like they were invented by a ghost writer for Limpballs. MIRT catches a lot of them, but they're like gum stuck to your shoe--hard to shift!

[Whisp]

143. lol!!! give me a warning next time.

go to town in my llama-pulled wagon.


I had to stop there, I couldn't see the screen because I was shaking with laughter so much. Ok, better now - off to read the rest.

==
Ok, I finished reading it and have to say that is one of the best darned things I have ever read here. I read it out loud to hub and he joined in the chorus of laughter. I copied it to a file to save and savour for future laughter needs.

[MADem]

152. Some of that stuff is just so ... OTT!

I honestly think a lot of it is trolling, but some is just hipster "too cool for school" performance art. And then, there are always the clueless who just HAVE to vote against their own interests, because they think they'll be beaten by a lucky stick one day, and win that ten million dollar scratch-off ticket! And that, of course, will magically make them "better" than their wage-slave peers!

[riqster]

195. Or we could ride our llama!

http://m.

&feature=kp

[Number23]

176. This is the SECOND time I've said this to you this week...

But you are soooooo wrong!!!!

"Off-the-grid pioneer; grow all my own food, built my micro-tree-house by hand. Go to town in my llama-pulled wagon. Connect to the net via handmade wooden modem powered by my feet on a bicycle generator"

Those poor llamas...

[MADem]

181. I know, but sometimes I just can't help ma-sef!!!!

[Whisp]

197. those poor overworked llamas pulling the weight of all that righteousness!

where is the humane society?

[llmart]

182. That is a priceless definition.

Sums them up to a tee.

[Kaleva]

220. Lol!

[Arugula Latte]

160. It's how dogs spell "food."

[MADem]

163. One of my favorite commercials...! nt

[Warren DeMontague]

90. Yeah, or like the "NASA Study Says Civilization Will Collapse Within A Decade!"

No they didn't, no, it didn't, and no, it probably won't.



Some people aren't happy unless they're doomed.

[MadrasT]

94. That one makes me roll my eyes and giggle every time I see it.

And I came to the same conclusion. Some people just love doom.

[Callmecrazy]

96. Not me...

I love bacon.

[MADem]

131. I find the BATBOY laughs in the lounge more credible than those! nt

[Major Nikon]

116. Some opinions are more relevant than others

...based on the audience. Whether or not this makes them more or less important depends on how much weight you give to how many people are reading them.

[Le Taz Hot]

117. Actually, opinions are neither right or wrong,

they're just opinions and are, therefore, equal in their value. Where the right/wrong comes in is when one equates opinion with fact.

[Major Nikon]

120. I didn't say anything about right or wrong

Whether they are equal in value depends on how you evaluate them. There are certainly opinions I value more highly than others. YMMV.

[ScreamingMeemie]

52. I think you are twisting Skinner's words into some sort of threat.

While I support ACA, I don't think that was his intent by posting that, and I don't think you should be doing that. I think, in posting that, he was being regular Joe Hang-Out-On-the-Boards.

Have a nice weekend.

[MADem]

55. No, I'm not.

It's possible to hold more than one thought in one's head at the same time.

If you think I think he's telling people how to feel about the ACA, I don't think he's doing that--just in case that is your source of confusion.

I do know the reason he started this website, as a place for "like minded" individuals following the election theft, I understand this site prioritizes the election of more Democrats and fewer Republicans to public office, and I also think that he has the authority to enforce the TOS. I know this because I see him do it on occasion.

See, those are two different thoughts, and I hold both of them in my head.

FWIW, he wasn't being a "Regular Joe" on the the boards. Someone asked him his view about the ACA ( there were a number of FUDdish posts on the boards) in the ATA forum, and he responded to the query. That's what you see posted upthread and elsewhere.

FWIW, I agree with every word he wrote.

[joshcryer]

77. He's no Kos, though.

So the perspective is personal more than anything. If Skinner was as prolific as Kos and tried to manage the community to meet his personal viewpoints I might agree with you. But he's very hands off. Managing a forum this way in the past, hands off, I couldn't have been expected to hold a particular view. But whenever the drama got too high I'd boot a given troll.

[MADem]

141. Well, KOS has a very different style and mission.

His goal is to encourage political activism via those "diaries"--this place is more about DISCUSSION of news or issues, with a progressive slant. He has rabble rousers ready to storm the barricades; this place is more of a living room where people shoot the shit. Sure, some people get off their ass and "get active" here but that's not the principal focus.

KOS is leading an army of activists in a specific direction; DU is a discussion group with a few "group leaders" who let the discussion go where it may, allow the group to self-censor, but will throw someone out if they get too jerky (and some of those PPR comments are priceless). The only time the hammer comes down is during elections.

It's a different goal and vibe.

I can't read Kos's site--cannot make head nor tails of it. Too hard to navigate and too unfriendly for my farty old eyes!

[Warren DeMontague]

49. You're kidding, right?

He's not a God, but he's certainly one of the bouncers.

[randome]

111. The difference is he states his opinion without juvenile use of the word 'fuck' in it.

Or Ted Nugent-style 'piece of shit'. A better class of writing than we've seen recently from some.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[Le Taz Hot]

113. And some of us are bilingual,

i.e., street and academia. If I'm addressing academics the word "fuck" never appears. When I'm on this board, my passion comes out which means my street comes out and the "fucks" begin to fly. The point is, just because one uses the word "fuck" doesn't make them any more or any less intelligent nor does it negate the point they're trying to make. The point will succeed or fail on it's own merits or lack thereof.

In context, Will was scared and pissed and he lashed out on the board. So what? People do that all the time here, especially in GD. I think the responses of the defend-Obama-no-matter-what crowd were sickening. People TRIED to explain that he was just blowing off steam and to just give him some room but the Party Loyalists would hear none of it. They just piled on as they usually do which only made the situation worse.

Just my opinion.

[randome]

119. He SAID he was scared and pissed. So does Ted Nugent. I don't always believe everything I read.

But, as we saw, being scared and pissed doesn't mean posting falsehoods then refusing to acknowledge them as false.

Ever since '24 business hours' became an Internet meme, we've understood that some individuals who might have once been looked up to can totally fail when push comes to shove.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Precision and concision. That's the game.[/center][/font][hr]

[Le Taz Hot]

123. I don't doubt that his wife is ill. I don't doubt that she couldn't get her meds for a time.

He panicked, he lashed out. So what? It really is not that big of a deal and for people to go apoplectic over it just added fuel to the fire. Personally, I don't look up or down to that particular poster. To me, he's just another DUer with whom I agree sometimes and other times disagree. (For the record, he's actually had me on Ignore for years.)

[randome]

126. I gathered you were on ignore based on another post you made.

Okay, we're good.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]All things in moderation, including moderation.[/center][/font][hr]

[Auntie Bush]

155. Well when one goes apoplectic...one get's apoplectic comments in return.

Just human nature. Both sides should understand and forgive.

Will just proved how much he loves his wife and how panicked and angry he was when he thought she was denied medication because of ACA.

However, ALL sides should understand why he doesn't want to publicly apoligize. All is forgiven! Lets just drop it!

[grasswire]

164. specifically, what is the falsehood(s)? nt

[randome]

168. Well, he could have admitted that Obamacare had absolutely nothing to do with his situation.

But he couldn't bring himself to say he was wrong, only that his wife received meds and he was still pissed. Of course he won't say who he's pissed at? His 'friend' who gave him wrong information? You'd think he'd publicly excoriate such an individual since he likes to put his personal life online.

Calling Obama a 'used car salesman' and a 'piece of shit' for no reason deserves a simple post that he was wrong to blame ACA. But I don't expect that to happen.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]

[grasswire]

170. you wrote:

" being scared and pissed doesn't mean posting falsehoods then refusing to acknowledge them as false. "

But you won't cite the falsehoods?

What were they?

[msanthrope]

200. You are bilingual in "street" and "academia?"Sorry...that sounds as silly as this....

http://m.

Surely you must be joking....

[Le Taz Hot]

208. No I'm not and don't call me Shirley

Ba dump bump! Tsssssh!

[Skraxx]

221. God, People are Soooo Funny!

Why does this bother you so much? Have you ever asked yourself that?

[1000words]

6. I'm curious as to what legislation it surpassed.

What other social legislation has been passed within the last, say ... 40 years? Most of the effort has been methodically dismantling social safety nets, has it not?

[OmahaBlueDog]

21. I can think of three pieces of major social legislation off the top of my head.

The ADA
Medicare Part D
The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act


Those are the three my half-asleep brain came up with. Brighter minds will think of something else.

[MADem]

39. He is younger than I am, but I said, in another thread, that the ACA ties, in my mind,

with the Civil Rights Act a half century ago. Of course, I was alive when that passed, too. It was a different sort of "social" legislation, but it changed lives too, in an enormously important way that people who never experienced that sort of discrimination and segregation cannot understand.

[Tarheel_Dem]

7. Right on point!

[William769]

8. Kick & recommended.

[Cali_Democrat]

9. What a used car salesman!!1!(one)!!

[JI7]

10. authoritarian

[OmahaBlueDog]

23. Ummm...

[Number23]

65. She's just joshing ya

I think she wanted to get in the cries of "authoritarian!!1" because you support ACA before anyone else did, but as a joke whereas those other taunts are unfortunately all too real.

[Cha]

79. She keeds..

[OmahaBlueDog]

115. Thank you Cha (& Number 23)

..sometimes, I need subtitles.

[Cha]

184. :) Me too!

[Cha]

11. THANKS OBAMA... You #$%^&@)_+&^*!!111

"..I've read posts by DUers trying to tear it down for the last six years, and frankly I've found their arguments to be unconvincing. No, wait, that's not quite right. The truth is that I've found their anti-ACA crusade to be wrong-headed and maybe even a little offensive... "



Mahalo Omaha, Steve!

[steve2470]

12. Mahalo Omaha, Cha !

Did I say that right ? hehe

[Cha]

13. If I lived in

Omaha..

I'm Kauai Cha~

[steve2470]

14. oh, I'm in Orlando

Mahalo Kauai, Cha !

[Cha]

17. Aloha, Orlando steve~

[steve2470]

19. I'm sure you've been told a billion times, it must be nice to live in Hawai'i

[Cha]

26. I can never hear it enough..

I finally got back here.. tired of the New York winters.. even though I miss my NY sis and my Friends!

I use to live in Florida and went down to visit one of my sisters and my Dad when I was back East a few times. I always liked FLa.. even the humidity in the Summer time. My sister lives in Gainsville where I use to live. And, Bronson for a short while.. by Cedar Key.

My NY sister took her family to Disney World for winter break in Feb. Girl knows how to R&R!

Just not the fascists that took over since the jeb. Hope you get Charlie Crist, yeah?

[steve2470]

27. yes I hope we do

Charlie and a big slew of Democrats in the statehouse would be lovely.

[Cha]

29. Here's Hoping!

[steve2470]

32. go Dems, go Charlie, go medical marijuana initiative !

[OmahaBlueDog]

24. I live in Omaha

...and it's 37 degrees here, so you'd rather be in Kauai

Mahalo

[Cha]

28. Yeah, I know you do, Steve.. :) Didn't

know about the 37 degrees, though.. brrr! Probably don't want to hear about it being a perfect Hawai'ian day today, weatherwise?

It's not always you know but today it was.

[sheshe2]

35. ^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^

7 Reasons Why Every American Woman Should Love Obamacare

2. Women can no longer be denied insurance for having a "pre-existing condition."



Before Obamacare, health insurance companies could deny women coverage, limit benefits and charge higher prices if a woman had a "preexisting condition" like breast cancer (or even if they've received treatment for domestic or sexual violence). Beginning in 2014, health insurance plans can no longer deny coverage to adults with pre-existing conditions. Discrimination against children with pre-existing conditions was banned in 2010.

3. All new health insurance plans will cover maternity care.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/17/obamacare-women_n_3541318.html

Cha

[Cha]

56. Oh Sweet, she! Riveting Beautiful pics of the

Woman and the Babies~:loveya:

I'll do the First ONE..

1. Insurance companies will no longer be able to charge women more than men.



The National Women's Law Center found that 92 percent of the best-selling insurance plans charged 40-year-old women more than 40-year-old men for coverage, even for plans that did not cover maternity services. Beginning in 2014, Obamacare will prohibit insurance companies from charging higher rates due to gender or health status.

she peeps

[sheshe2]

98. Thanks for posting #1 Cha~

ACA is the difference between life or death for many. It's a lifeline.

[Cha]

99. Good Morning~she

[sheshe2]

102. Night Owl!

Thanks Cha, I am waiting for my coffee to kick in. Then Hi Ho, it's off to work soon.

[Cha]

103. LOL!

G'DAy @ work.

[freshwest]

86. Beautiful as always! n/t

[sheshe2]

100. Hi freshwest~

I am a little bleary eyed, I am on my first cup of coffee. So this picture will speak for me.

[LittleBlue]

15. The ACA will never be repealed

unless it's replaced with something guaranteeing similar benefits.

Manipulating benefits by changing retirement ages or using chained CPI is hard enough, suddenly ripping away the ACA with a straightforward repeal isn't politically feasible.

Now if somehow the Rethugs get 60 seats in the senate and secure the White House, then we'll talk. Even then, they'd face the precarious position of either being on the hook for passing new legislation, which would cause a revolt among the Tea Party, or face a torrent of ads from us featuring children who lost a parent due to lack of healthcare. Not appealing. We spent a lot of political capital passing it because we knew that it was a long-term investment that would reap rewards and be impossible to overturn. The ACA will be safe until the system is fully in place, and by that time people will come to rely on it for healthcare. After that it will be a permanent fixture of American life. I'm not being cocky, that's just historically the way the politics of entitlement programs (and other programs that provide benefits) have played out.

Republicans bring it up for repeal in the House to fire up their base for votes and donations, but even they realize the ACA is here to stay.

[Kablooie]

42. If we get a Republican president, Senate and House anytime soon it sure as hell WILL be repealed.

That's a lot of things to all fall into place the right way but with out country's large, frothing at the mouth, insane Republican following it's still possible.

[riversedge]

61. I too think

it could happen if all --WH, Senate and House are controlled by Republicans. I look at WI where all 3 are controlled by Republicans and things have gone from worse to bad for us--our schools, our land, our water, our environment. I do fear that happening. I never thought it could happen in WI but the Tea party crept up and stayed.

[Kablooie]

84. Same in N Carolina.

The state is beginning to dissolve while the Republicans party.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

162. They will have a hard job replacing it

the public will say no

[Kablooie]

180. depends on how strong GOP marketing is compared to Dems.

Right now the general view is that it's a horrible disaster that will destroy the country.
That's the Republican message and it's the main thing people hear.
The Democrats haven't been able to counteract that marketing message effectively.
The Republicans plan to use this message as their primary campaign issue in the fall.

It doesn't really matter how effective the plan is, it's the advertising that will make or break it.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

202. Suddenly pre-existing conditions matter?

and young people will automatically lose their insurance. I don't think any marketing will be able to entice people to lose their insurance.

[jeff47]

125. Part of it has to be renewed by 2019.

The portions that were passed via reconciliation can only last 10 years.

[VanillaRhapsody]

16. Time for the bullshit surrounding this to STOP!!!

We have midterms to think about AND we need to run on the Affordable Care Act...just like Nancy Pelosi said...and like she said...I am going to try to stop calling it the ACA or Obamacares....because the Republicans are the ones that didn't want the public to hear the word "affordable"!

BTW Nancy Pelosi is a force to be reckoned with!

[DevineBovine]

70. What kind of "force", I don't know...

She forever lost me with "Impeachment is off the table", and other self-defeating dandies.

As far as she and the so many others within her classic genre are concerned, "part of the problem" seems a more fitting badge of dishonor that should be bestowed in recognition of their unending and career focused, centrist inaction.

Of course, that's just IMHO.

[VanillaRhapsody]

118. Whatever.....she was the most successful Speaker of the House ever...

she gets shit done...she ALWAYS got her votes


THAT kind of force...


You "opinion" non withstanding (we know you hate all Democrats except Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.....we have heard it all before....your "opposition" to almost every damn Democrat is duly noted)

By the way....how do YOUR opinions help us keep the Republicans from winning back the Senate this year?

[DevineBovine]

161. Interesting assembly of assumptions and generalizations

Congratulations! From my voluminous base of five posts here on DU, you've managed to peg me. Good for you, Kreskin!

IMHO (again), the ACA is better than nothing. But it's also far less than what could have been achieved if the public option had not been so quickly and questionably shelved -- and yet so easily embraced by those who, rather than take a stand and demand that their representatives deliver on what's right, instead succumb to the lesser-of-two-evils fear mantra repeated over and over by administration apologists. I find curious your disdain for us radical leftist, dirty 'effin' hippy types who vocally object to the business-as-usual compromise, capitulation, and collusion that has dominated the political landscape for far too long. Is that the "shit" you accept as being "done"? If it is, well then good for you. But don't, for a minute, think it makes you a better Democrat.

For me, the obvious question is -- who are they working for? Me...? My family...? My friends...? My co-workers...? I think not. I'm "done" with that "shit", and I intend to hold them accountable. We need more Democrats who are willing to rock the boat.

What is clear in your tone, you don't care for my opinion nor do you appear to have any tolerance for those opinions contrary to your own. I'm glad that gives you the sense of authoritative confidence that brightens your day.

Cheers!

[red dog 1]

166. + 1

Welcome to DU.

[Cali_Democrat]

20. Bernie Sanders and Skinner...both on the same page...

both support the ACA and think its the path to single payer:

The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the Affordable Care Act. Sen. Bernie Sanders welcomed the ruling. "Today is a good day for millions of Americans who have pre-existing conditions who can no longer be rejected by insurance companies. It is a good day for families with children under 26 who can keep their children on their health insurance policies. It is a good day for women who can no longer be charged far higher premiums than men.

"It is a good day for 30 million uninsured Americans who will have access to healthcare. It is a good day for seniors who will continue to see their prescription drug costs go down as the so-called doughnut hole goes away. It is a good day for small businesses who simply cannot continue to afford the escalating costs of providing insurance for their employees. It is a good day for 20 million Americans who will soon be able to find access to community health centers.

"It is an especially good day for the state of Vermont, which stands to receive hundreds of millions of dollars in additional federal funds to help our state achieve universal health care.

"In my view, while the Affordable Care Act is an important step in the right direction and I am glad that the Supreme Court upheld it, we ultimately need to do better. If we are serious about providing high-quality, affordable healthcare as a right, not a privilege, the real solution to America's health care crisis is a Medicare-for-all, single-payer system. Until then, we will remain the only major nation that does not provide health care for every man, woman and child as a right of citizenship.

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/recent-business/a-good-day

So who ya gonna listen to? Bernie Sanders and Skinner? Or those other folks?

[cprise]

57. Uh, Sanders' state (VT) is single-payer

The option to implement a single-payer system instead of compulsory private insurance is the only good thing about the ACA.

A decade from now, when the private insurers have been re-financed by Wall St. banks using creatively conceived "financial instruments", the corporate media will be hyping the "health care bubble" and how it burst. Of course, in this case, the states and the ACA have a safety-valve in that they can go to single-payer, but they may not have the resources to do so if another economic crisis has already set in.

[Cali_Democrat]

58. Ya...VT is moving toward single payer, thanks to the ACA

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024090281

Bernie SUPPORTS the ACA, just like Skinner.

[cprise]

62. And he doesn't support private health insurance.

Let's not kid ourselves here. Sanders is being very strategic about how he achieves this goal. And I certainly don't blame him.

But as long as most of the ACA along with our political culture encourage the idea of private health insurance, and as long as the single-payer option remains a small by-line (almost a footnote) in the legislation, there is every reason to expect the single-payer option will be undermined by future legislation. All they have to do is re-define a term here, add a non-obvious clause there.

I think the awareness of, and commitment to, single-payer is as important as the legislation itself. Time will tell...

[Cali_Democrat]

75. Yes, but he does consider the ACA to be a step in the right direction

Last edited Sat Mar 22, 2014, 03:30 AM - Edit history (1)

That's the point.

[cynzke]

122. Insurance Companies are nothing more....

than leeches. They don't provide health care, they control access to it. People don't get that! Their sole motivation is to make a profit and as long as they were allowed to, the insurance companies worked hard to rig the system to their advantage by restricting coverage and denying claims. Passage of some form of consumer protections was inevitable. ACA took away their most effective and valuable tools. But now that insurance companies have lost the ability to deny coverage and limit payouts, the ACA still gives them a gift by allowing the insurance companies to load their policies up front with larger deductibles. Deductibles were meant to discourage insureds from running to a doctor for every little ache or pain. Now the insurance companies use deductibles to restrict/slow access to your healthcare. Insurance companies are not necessary and serve no benefit to us. AND WE ARE STILL PAYING THEM FOR THIS. Its like paying someone to beat you up.

[DevineBovine]

201. + 1

I agree 100% -- thanks. It's as plain as the nose on Mr Magoo's face. And some...

[Union Scribe]

30. Maybe I haven't read all the threads

but who here has rooted for ACA to fail? I've seen plenty of posts saying it doesn't do enough, but I doubt anyone here wants whatever good it does do to not happen.

[LAGC]

40. I think this is what sparked things off...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4685964

[Union Scribe]

48. Right, though I wouldn't call that

hoping for ACA to fail. If anything he wanted it to work and was frustrated by problems he was encountering. I'm just wary of that framing, like any critics of the legislation want people to be uninsured.

[red dog 1]

171. That particular post was "over the top", IMO

(From that OP which you provided the link for)

"Fuck the insurance companies"....I agree

"Fuck you, Mr President, you piece of shit used-car salesman"...I do NOT agree:
( I wonder why that OP wasn't "hidden"?)

We can disagree with other DUers.

We can disagree with President Obama.

But do we need to call President Obama a "piece of shit used-car salesman"?

I think not.

[riversedge]

212. I had not seen that . Thanks for the link

[MADem]

44. There are many posts that specialize in FUD of the worst order.

We're not seeing as many of the "Waaah, I pay a million dollars a month in premiums, and I went to the doctor and the band aid he gave me wasn't covered, I got a bill for a hundred dollars..." or stupidness like that.

Then, someone hops on the thread, asks a few questions, and reveals the poster to be either BSing or doing something like going out of network, while lying about their premium costs.

But we were getting a lot of those for awhile. If more people start posting their success stories, I've no doubt we'll get 'sapos' from other websites coming over to fling FUD for fun. It's tiresome. Also pretty obvious.

And there have been posters here, some of them very well known to us, who have excoriated the program roundly, often unfairly too. That may not be a specific vote for failure, but those kinds of posts do have a cumulative effect if they aren't answered.

[steve2470]

47. you nailed it once again

We had to move heaven and earth just to get the ACA. To defend it and morph it to single payer, we need to be well versed in its details.

The RW wants to roll back the clock to the really bad old days we all grew up in, and are STILL living in.

[joshcryer]

54. Check the rec's on this thread:

http://sync.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=309723

[kelliekat44]

85. Checked it...1% of viewers. Don't know most but two surprised me...nt

[joshcryer]

87. Skinner indicates he's in a certain camp though.

If you attack the ACA you're just carrying water for the Republicans, basically.

The truth is that I've found their anti-ACA crusade to be wrong-headed and maybe even a little offensive. I get that many of them are motivated by a desire for single-payer. I am also myself a supporter of single-payer. But I think wishing for the Affordable Care Act to fail is about the worst possible way to fight for single-payer. In fact, I think they are playing into the hands of Republicans who want the whole thing repealed.

A lot of us single payer supporters who also support the ACA are in that camp.

[red dog 1]

169. + 1

I am a single payer supporter who also supports the ACA, and I do NOT want it repealed.

I still support President Obama 100%.

However, I do wish he had at least TRIED to make the ACA a single payer health plan.


A recent Bloomberg News poll found that 64 percent of Americans say that Obamacare should remain law; however, 51 percent said that the bill needs some changes.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014754006/

"Can Obamacare Be Changed To Make It a Single payer health Plan?"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024670957/

http://www.thomhartmann.com/users/bluedog-294/blog/2014/03/can-obamacare-be-changed-single-payer-health-plan/

[SoapBox]

34. Good post.

[LynneSin]

36. ACA, without a doubt, is imperfect but an amazint step in the right direction

It's a good start but we still have much work to do!

[Kablooie]

38. Yes. It's not perfect but it's a huge step towards being perfect someday.

With patience it might evolve into single payer.
It will take time but a hell of a lot less time than if it's killed.

[KT2000]

43. Agree!!

I thought it would never happen in my lifetime.
I saw a newspaper from the late 40's and the arguments against universal health care were identical to the ones we are hearing today - Socialism and objections from doctors.
It has played over and over for decades and it has always worked.

The fact that Obama got this is frankly amazing. The politicians against it can only boast of their willingness to insist that not all people should have access to medical care. They sound like the asses they are.

[Warpy]

45. When he's right, he's right. Er, make that correct.

No one should be rooting for the ACA to be killed. What will happen is that health insurance companies will find it's incompatible with their business model. Some might reorganize as the non profits they used to be. Others will simply pull out of all but the most profitable urban markets.

Likely single payer will come one poor (read: agricultural) state at a time as for profit insurance flees. As the country sees how much better they're doing with a government plan, they'll join.

Perhaps a couple of insurance companies will insure for concierge medicine at specialty hospitals for the top wealth holders. If they're still around, that is.

The ACA is far from perfect because it left the bloodsuckers in the catbird seat. That is not likely to last forever since the bloodsuckers aren't going to like the diet they've been put on.

[sheshe2]

51. Kicked and Recommending!

[joshcryer]

53. It is without a question of doubt that ACA will lead to single payer.

[Puzzledtraveller]

66. How do you see that coming about?

Because I imagine it will actually be the failings and shortcomings that will make single payer possible. It is like if the ACA was perfect and I do not mean that sarcastically then why would would single payer be the next step. So I try to imagine what particular key issues we discover along the way as the ACA gets going might be problematic enough that single payer then becomes not only feasible legislatively but something the american begin to ask for.

[joshcryer]

74. Look at Vermont, they need the ACA to go to single payer.

There are too many uninsured and they would have to raise payroll taxes to 11% to make single payer happen. As it stands now a lot of people there got expanded Medicare, that resulted in a massive reduction in people who were uncovered. By 2017 when Vermont can propose their new system to replace the ACA, it'll be reduced to 2% uncovered. Easily absorbed.

The ACA will work by failing mind you. I don't disagree. It will fail to reduce costs as much as single payer in states that adopt it will. But that's the point. Single payer supporting ACA supporters know that. That's why we support the ACA, not because we want to line the pockets of insurance companies, but because we know what will happen.

[TheKentuckian]

106. Without question would require a level of prescience not demonstrated, the CBO doesn't agree.

I think you can articulate an arguable path but to treat such as fact is to disregard the very meaning of the word to "guess that I strongly believe in based on faith and hoping expectations rather than structural or legal requirements.

You are taking the merely possible and going straight past plausible (which I'm not comfortable betting on) to incontrovertible which is well beyond hyperbole.

[joshcryer]

209. The entire reason to implement the ACA was single payer.

That was quite literally the reason supporters of "mandated insurance" argued back when the Nixon-era proposal was being championed by the two leading Democratic candidates.

To prove it to the level of objectivity you're requiring on a forum is way beyond my desire. It is an easily tested prediction, though.

[Walk away]

109. And save thousands of lives as we work towards that change.

The Affordable Care Act is the law but it will not be made a better law unless we take back Congress and increase our majority in the Senate.

We should be working together to support electable Democrats in 2014 and 2016 to make the ACA the real roots of Single Payer.

[Firebrand Gary]

68. I stand with Skinner.

I'm thrilled to see the post, in fact I think it's one of the best post that I've seen on DU since I first began reading on the site 10 years ago!

K&R

[Cha]

78. You nailed it, Firebrand Gary..

[Whisp]

121. Yes, it's pretty darn good. So good I'm using part of it in my sig. n/t

[cer7711]

71. I Agree!

Let's continue to push for real health care reform (Medicare for all--or at least a viable, affordable and comprehensive public option to the predatory for-profit insurance companies) while exposing the nonsense stories of the "Obama-care" haters as the wild and reckless plutocratic propaganda it is.

I want my Democrats to be fired-up firebrands of populist fury and outrage, angry and articulate enough to push back against the forces savaging this country. (Example: Ted Kennedy raging to Congress: "My god, how much more do you want? How much is enough? How much more do we have to give?!"--close paraphrase)

[grahamhgreen]

76. So we are all agreed that the goal is still single payer or better:)

[OmahaBlueDog]

114. My goal is whatever works

If private-sector, choose your own experience insurance works, great.

If we move towards private -sector with a public option, private single payer, or public single payer, great.

What needs to end is a) lifetimes of debt /bankruptcy because someone got sick and b) people who can't get preventative care or adequate management of chronic conditions because they can't see a doctor, and then wait until they are so sick they end up in the ER.

[grahamhgreen]

222. Also less paperwork and lower costs. Single payer/nationalized insurance works.

[OmahaBlueDog]

223. It works better for some than for others.

From what I know about single payer in Canada and in Europe it's really good for things like annual physicals, and emergency care. For non-life threatening care (e.g. knee replacements, shoulder surgery, hip replacements) you wait. Also, I'm reliably informed that it is harder to see specialists and that GPs do more. That is good or bad, depending on your POV.

Ireland has a bare-bones single payer plan with private insurance that offers upgrade options (nicer hospital rooms, easier to see specialists, etc.)

[grahamhgreen]

224. You wait here too... And then argue with the insurer over payments.

But let me tell you, when you know you will always be covered the stress release is amazing

[blackspade]

80. I tend to agree.

I don't like the ACA, not for what it is, but for what it isn't.
But that does not mean I want it repealed.
I want it superseded by single payer as soon as can be managed.

[enid602]

82. Obamacare

Several States are considering moving to single payer within Obamacare. This might be the right way to go, as other States will be able to leverage off their successes and failures.

The only two nations on the planet that currently have single payer are the UK and Canada. Canada has a small population, a small defense budget and virtually limitless natural resources to exploit and sell to pay for their single payer system. The NHS in the UK is good, but I don't know if it is more efficient than insurer provided healthcare in Germany, Belgium, France, Japan or elsewhere. Obamacare is a step in the right direction, and provides fundamental protections regarding pre-existing conditions, lifetime spending limits, etc.

The only problem that I see with Obamacare is that it does not answer the fundamental problem with healthcare in this country, i.e., why is the average PER CAPITA cost of healthcare in the US twice as high as that of other industrialized countries. Despite the fact that not everyone is covered. Despite the fact that longevity and health outcomes in the country are not greater than those of other countries.

I have read that our healthcare is so expensive because a) we have hundreds of protected insurance companies that cannot operate across state lines, b) neither Medicare nor Congress have the ability to negotiate pricing with Big Pharma (although the VA hospital system does; go figure) and c) we are in need of tort reform. France, on the other hand has only 5 insurance companies, negotiates all pricing with Big Pharma and has limitations on lawsuit awards.


The sad truth is that both political parties in this country are beholden to one or more of the three groups (insurance companies, Big Pharma and the ABA), and given our tolerance of lobbyists (institutionalized corruption), meaningful change in the system will not be easy.

[Glitterati]

107. Can I explain what "tort reform" does?

Because I live in a republican controlled state that enacted tort reform years ago.

Here's the result........no attorney in this state will take a medical malpractice lawsuit. The return on those cases are not enough to support the practice of med mal any longer. Hell, the return won't even pay for the necessary expense of expert testimony.

So, even though it was a medical "mistake" that cost my husband his life, no attorney in the state of Georgia would bring a lawsuit on his behalf, nor on the behalf of his daughter who lost her father. The medical bills which resulted from this "mistake" was in the millions, and ended up bankrupting us.

That is the result of tort reform. I hope you can live with that.

[enid602]

144. reform

I'm not familiar with tort reform in GA; it must be unreasonable if you're not even able to sue for medical expenses incurred! But here in AZ, doctors pay a huge premium for malpractice insurance, and perform all sorts of unneeded 'defensive' medical procedures to avoid lawsuits. The result is added expense to healthcare, which you do not find in most countries where per capita healthcare costs are only half of what they are in the US.

[Glitterati]

225. There's a cap

of $250,000.00 on med mal.

It doesn't matter what your costs are, nor how severe the damage done.

$250,000.00 period.

[lostincalifornia]

88. Could not agree more. That we even got any kind of healthcare is an amazing feat. The republicans

were united against it, and the fight to keep the Democrats together on just this form of healthcare can not be underestimated.

Anyone here who believe that the blue dogs would have voted for single payer if "only Obama" had pushed harder, does have a grasp of the way things were in Washington at that time.

Obama needed to get something out, and quick, because he knew he had a two year window

If it didn't happen then, it wasn't going to happen

[treestar]

91. well stated, I agree with Skinner

[Trust Buster]

92. Hello Skinner....folks....I'm a newbie here.....

I've been enjoying DU headlines for a year now but just recently decided to actively post. I've been doing some heavy battle on another forum with wing nuts for years. I find this site to be a refreshing change of pace and more constructive. Not that I don't value diverse opinion, but let's be real, the Right wing's position has been set in stone my whole lifetime and never changes with the times. Ergo, their problem.

Regarding the ACA, we must not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Any legislation that affects 1/6 of our economy is bound to have rough edges in it's nascent stage. I choose to focus on the larger vision. This is the first time in my life that the healthcare reform boulder has gone from an immovable initiative to one that's now rolling and in play. The shackle that has blinded employee to employer has been broken and the self determination that flows from that alone makes the ACA worth it's price in gold IMO.

[MADem]

149. Welcome, and thanks for pointing out the fact that people don't have to stay in a shit job

at a shit company just because they've committed the "crime" of having a pre-existing condition!

[Vattel]

95. I think Obama couldn't be more mediocre as a President,

but I do think ACA was well worth a try, and if its problems lead to single payer then it will prove to be one of the most important pieces of legislation in American history. I do think the Civil Rights Act and even the legislation that gave us the EITC are, so far as we can tell right now, possibly more important pieces of legislation in Skinner's lifetime (assuming he is as old as I think he is). The importance of ACA remains to be seen. It is too early to call it the most important social legislation of anyone's lifetime.

[MADem]

150. I don't think Skinner is a fifty year old man. If he is, I want directions from him to the Fountain

of Youth!

And he'd have to be, in order for the Civil Rights Act to have been signed in his lifetime.

[Vattel]

206. good point

[riverbendviewgal]

97. I agree

ACA is not one payer but it likely will lead to it.

Canadians a few years ago voted Tommy Douglas, a Premiere of Saskatchewan, as the greatest Canadian who ever lived. He was the one who started one payer health care insurance in his province. It spread into the other provinces. We Canadians will never give it ip

[madokie]

101. I'm not sure but I don't think Skinner has ever been wrong

on any issue. I know its his board and all but still.
I'd like to see him run for office. Actually all three of the Admins, they could make a difference where ever they chose.

[mmonk]

104. As someone now paying over $600 a month less and thousands less on deductibles,

I agree.

[Glitterati]

105. Folks, this is really simple

try living in a state where the republican controlled legislature is doing everything in it's power to nullify Obamacare.

Yesterday, our legislators in Georgia passed a bill, several bills combined into one actually, to nullify the ACA.

So, I have Obamacare and am insured for the first time in 30+ years. And my state legislators are doing everything in their power to take it away from me.

Live with THAT.

Deal with THAT.

Then, we'll talk about your petty ACA fights that matter not.

Those of us with pre-existing conditions are fighting like hell just to KEEP what we have today.

[MineralMan]

110. I agree with him, and have seen its benefits

in my own household.

[iwillalwayswonderwhy]

112. Yet somehow I do not think Skinner intended for his words to be used to bash people nt

People with legitimate concerns.

[MADem]

138. Who is using his words to "bash" people? Are only some opinions welcome to be cheered? nt

[iwillalwayswonderwhy]

142. cheer away

Except for in my thread about my son who was denied his HIV meds for over 3 months due to a clerical error. Someone found it appropriate to post it there along with a big picture of Obama and a small pic of people cheering the ACA. Then proceeded to lecture me.

Yeah.

[MADem]

145. Wait a minute--I was in that thread and I offered you some tea and sympathy, IIRC.

As well as a list of things your son could do to try and resolve his problem.

And did you not tell me that you didn't even KNOW about his problems because he didn't tell you, and that his problems had been RESOLVED? He hadn't had meds since January, and you only found out a week prior?

It wasn't " OBAMA's FAULT" or the fault of the ACA that an individual idiot made a clerical error.

Why in the world would you try to make the association here that it was?

And here's a more salient question--what would your son have done in future years without the ACA? You do know that HIV/AIDS medications had a "lifetime cap" in terms of expenditure with the insurance companies? What would your son have done when he reached that cap? There is no cap anymore on those drugs--he can breathe easy, knowing that he won't go to the pharmacy and be told "Your allowance has run out."

So, YEAH. I don't think it is the job of the President of the US to oversee clerks.

Your son's problems were not "Obama's fault."

[iwillalwayswonderwhy]

153. oh for heaven's sake

I never said it was Obama's fault. I stated that there were problems and that real people were falling through cracks. My son, sees it as he WAS getting his meds now he wasn't. As soon as he was converted to Obamacare. So yeah, he does kind of see a connection. His perception, I am sure, will change, once this clerical screw up is behind him, but I don't think hearing about how wonderful the ACA is, and how great Obama is, and how even Skinner agrees, is gonna penetrate. Surely anybody can see that.

I am sure, absolutely sure, that had his medication been continued while the error was being straightened out, we'd have no grumbles at all. But it wasn't. My kid was actually hurt by doing everything he was told to do. And being told that thousands and thousands are being helped does not help him.

But I was told that I was piling on the hate. And that Obama would help my son if he knew. Which is absurd as well as naive.

[MADem]

156. What many are arguing in this thread is that it IS "Obama's fault" though, and because

it's not "perfect" and it isn't "single payer," then it all sucks and it needs to go away.

I invite you to re-read the first post in this thread. That's what we're discussing, here, that this whole "perfect is the enemy of the good" attitude is just, well, unhelpful.

I certainly would NOT want your son to "see the connection" when he went to the pharmacy counter and was told to cough up a few grand because he'd exceeded his lifetime cap. And that would have happened to him had the ACA not been passed.

I didn't tell you that you were piling on any hate. I gave you advice, if you recall, as to how your son could overcome the glitch he was encountering, and you replied by telling me that his problem dating from January had been fixed, and that he hadn't told you about it when it happened because he didn't want to worry you.

Frankly, I think if your son had been at a town hall and asked Obama for help, he most certainly would have helped your son if he knew. I don't think that is an absurd statement at ALL. If your son made the appeal in the morning, he'd likely be picking up his meds the next day at the latest.

[Berlum]

130. k and r

nt

[cry baby]

135. Skinner's right. If the ACA goes down, it will be decades before single payer

would be even attempted by our lawmakers.

Perhaps, in increments, we can get to single payer through changes in the ACA.

[flamingdem]

140. ACA has been a godsend for me

personally. I'm sure it is for millions of other people as well. Thanks Skinner!

[MrMickeysMom]

147. I'm reminded of a quote from Jim to Sheriff Bart in "Blazing Saddles"...

… which went something like, "Hey… In another 100 years, you might be able to drink out of the same water fountain as they do…"

I'm one of those who possibly offended you in saying "ACA is not enough" Or, something like… we're too late in the game… we are in crisis mode… too many are going to continue to suffer beyond what you imagine, because we have no economic support brought on by the fact the insurance industry dictates when people have access… and we have no fucking jobs that could further sustain a middle class who can afford this shit.

Saying we MUST do better than the ACA is not the same as and "anti-ACA crusade". You can be offended until the cows come home because we have that here a lot. Too bad. What you CANNOT do is be serious that we have the time to continue further with any battle that ends with the American people more than in debt and escalating their status as debt slaves in a system in which Single Payer (Medicare for All) sees NO light of day UNLESS WE INSIST IT DOES NOW!!!

Does this mean I don't accept what I get under the ACA versus what we could have had with a public option? I get it very well, and I know that the compromising Democrats in the House who continue to grab their ankles and worry about their re-election campaigns have long forgotten their promised priorities as members of the legislative branch. They stopped doing that as soon as Barack Obama was elected.

You better hope like hell we live to fight this overhaul of the health care system with success. What we have so far has not stopped the corporate stampede in control of every politician's bankroll. Every day it's going to get harder and harder and harder and harder….

[red dog 1]

179. Another great quote from Jim to Sheriff Bart in "Blazing Saddles"

(As Bart puts in his guns to fight Mongo)
"No. Don't do that, Don't do that..If you shoot him you'll just make him mad."

[A Simple Game]

154. I was born in 1950 so it will take much more than the ACA to impress me.

It is truly sad that this is the single most important piece of social legislation in your lifetime.

Many including myself want something better but know that starting over is not an option. The ACA is better than what we had but, as is true with most legislation these days, still very poorly done. We also know that "fixing" legislation after the fact doesn't usually work out that well.

Sadly it was never meant to be better than its present form and that was obvious from the beginning when single payer was taken off the table and advocates for it were even arrested. Then there were the deals with the pharmaceutical companies, etc. Most people are realists and understand that deals have to be made but President Obama's negotiating skills don't seem to be one of his stronger points. This is the well that most people's disappointment springs from. The Supreme Court decision on Medicaid expansion also was a serious blow to the ACA. Who could have thought that so many would turn down free money?

Repeal is not an option and we have to hope that this is a starting point and that our politicians are serious about fixing the problems but only a fool would have much hope for this path to single payer. The best hope lies in states like Vermont getting single payer and showing the rest of the Country just what is the best way to administer health care. But sadly as a Country we haven't seemed to be able to learn from other countries so I expect the changes state by state to be a slow process. Personally much of my disappointment with the law lies in the fact that the "fixing" will be a very slow process, one in which I don't expect to live to see much progress.

Although there may be a few short-sighted enough to want to start over, to accuse members of wanting the ACA to fail after it is passed into law suggests you don't understand their reasoning. No one is anti ACA, but many, I know most and hopefully including you, are for a better ACA. We all, I suspect even you, know the system still needs a lot of fixing. Saying those that want single payer, also wanted by a majority in the US, of wanting the law to fail makes little sense to me and is not constructive. Instead of belittling those with valid concerns, could you help come up with some constructive solutions? Solving problems like this is what could really put this website on the map, not the petty bickering which seems to be what we as a whole have fallen into doing lately.

[malokvale77]

186. I was born in '53...

so I agree that the ACA is rather lame when compared to something like LBJ's Civil Rights Act. Now that took some guts.

Since then, outside of the late Paul Wellstone, I don't see Democrats willing to take risks for the general welfare of the citizens.

Your post is excellent. I hope everyone here reads it and gives it some thought.

[A Simple Game]

189. Thanks for the praise and I have to agree with Democrats not taking risks. n/t

[MrMickeysMom]

192. A bunch of tips of the hat to you, A Simple Game...

… for you said with a higher degree of temperance what I could not. FYI… I'm born in 53 and I do remember my older siblings telling me about the civil rights movement, which happened in a time that only a decade later, was I to truly begin to reflect upon.

To move through the badly needed legislation this country needs to survive, it takes a whole lot more… and dammit… we are or once were so capable of that.

Your post is great…

[A Simple Game]

193. Thanks, the hat tip is appreciated as kind words seem to come sparingly on DU lately. n/t

[Hissyspit]

157. "Trying to tear it down over the last six years." It hasn't existed for six years.

Does this include posters who were trying to help make a BETTER ACA before it was a done deal? (See Post #154.)

[malokvale77]

185. I was wondering about that six year statement myself

I guess nobody else noticed it.

[Ikonoklast]

158. The midterms are coming up. Team FUD here on DU will try anything to piss off voters in the

hopes they get discouraged and stay home.

The recent step-up in concerted attacks on the ACA is but one tactic being used even as the positive news about the ACA racks up.

That way a Paradise will arise from the ashes of a totally Republican-controlled government after it inevitably crashes and burns.

The "Let It All Fail" crowd is still here, pushing their agenda.

[steve2470]

159. nailed it nt

[Rex]

165. Just think about it folks - when is the last time the GOP tried to repeal anything

50 times! NEVER. They HATE the idea of workers now having some choices and not having to live under the thumb of a boss that lords a health insurance policy over the workers head!

BIG? This is 50 times BIG!

Skinner is right and I am right there with him - wanted single payer, but got the ACA and now that I know what it is - I see it as a huge stepping stone for workers rights!

Been saying that from the beginning and YES this is HUGE.

[Springslips]

167. Clear and sane

with more than a dash of common sense. The ACA bashes here need to think deeply at what he said.

[Tippy]

172. Right on Skinner

[MirrorAshes]

175. Glad to see this site hasn't gone completely insane

Been feeling more like LaRouche Underground lately IMO.

[Cha]

187. No, we're here.. and Skinner is a

"strong Obama supporter."

[SunSeeker]

177. Exactly. nt

[MisterP]

183. nope: Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act

[KittyWampus]

188. What a DINO.

[DesertDiamond]

190. LOVE you Skinner!!!

[Stellar]

198. That's been my argument all along.

I preferred single-payer but we got A.C.A. And ObamaCares is better than a zero which is about what GOPtbaggers are offering. At least we got something to build on for the next democratic presidential candidate in 2016.

[Desert805]

216. Thank you, skinner!!!

Ass kick focus: Republicans!

[Cha]

217. KICK!