Sorry, but I don't buy the "But we couldn't have gotten single-payer" defense

[Nuclear Unicorn]

THEM: We couldn't get single-payer.

ME: We passed the ACA without a single GOP vote.

THEM: But red state dems would have been turned out.

ME: The red state dems were turned out anyway because the ACA still effects red states and they're still pissed. We sacrificed them and have nothing to show for it.

THEM: So we have to keep working for single-payer!

ME: How? The dems in red states were turned out. We lost the House and haven't realized enough success with the ACA to adequately guard against losing the Senate.


1. All we got for being active in 2009 and 2010 was an abomination of a law that has pissed off more people than it has helped. Has it helped people? Yes, but that doesn't nullify the fact that more people are angry than happy and in a democracy that fact is dismissed at our peril.

2. We have already lost one chamber of Congress and, denialism aside, we may well lose the other.

3. The ACA has successfully set-up a slush fund and gunpoint customer base for corporations but healthcare is not more accessible or better in quality. Do you think the corporations are going to not use their newfound money to lobby?

4. We can't campaign on improving the law because that reinforces the GOP talking point that the law is broken and they have the votes to keep it that way (see Point #2). There are NO fights in DC to improve the law, everything is a rear-guard action just to keep it alive (see Point #3).

5. The President continually suspends entire sections of the law including the individual mandate for 2 years after we just finished fighting the GOP who shutdown the government seeking to suspend the individual mandate for only 1 year. Imagine if we lose the WH in 2016 and the GOPer decides to continue THAT established practice.

6. All the while this is feeding mistrust in the government, both as a beneficent entity and competent administrator.

What did we win? We are further behind than when we started because the entire effort was half-assed corporatist kowtowing from the start.

[ProSense]

1. Sanders: Single Payer Never Had A Chance

Sanders: Single Payer Never Had A Chance

Evan McMorris-Santoro

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) reminded the progressive media gathered on Capitol Hill today that single-payer health care reform was dead before it started in the Senate.

“It would have had 8 or 10 votes and that’s it,” he said, addressing a topic central in the minds of many who the bloggers and left wing talk show hosts gathered for the 4th annual Senate Democratic Progressive Media Summit in Washington reach everyday.

Sanders is among the few in the Senate not afraid to say he supports government-run, universal health care. But his calls for such a program have gone unanswered, much to the chagrin of progressives who still feel it is the best way to solve the nation’s health care crisis.

Sanders said it was still possible for single-payer to come to the U.S. eventually — but he said the road will not begin in Washington. If a state like California or Vermont ever instituted a single-payer system on its own, Sanders said, it would eventually lead to national adoption of universal coverage.

Sanders has put forward an amendment to the current health care bill in the Senate that would allow states to use federal funds to create their own single-payer plans, he said.

- more-

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/sanders-single-payer-never-had-a-chance.php

Obamacare: It's Obama's signature achievement
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024695694

[Nuclear Unicorn]

12. With all due respect to the esteemed Mr. Sanders --

So?

They still passed a law that set up a corporate slush fund while forcing people to become hosts for corporate parasites. Single-payer or not that is what they chose to pass.

[ProSense]

18. "So"?

"So? They still passed a law that set up a corporate slush fund while forcing people to become hosts for corporate parasites. Single-payer or not that is what they chose to pass."

That was the premise of your OP. Also, I don't agree with your assessment of the law. There are many aspects of the law that make that a bogus claim: the increase MLR, ban on dropping people with a pre-existing condition, the fee to participate in the exchange and the the tax on high-income earners and the wealthy.

All of those will hit insurers and the executives that run them.

[DevineBovine]

92. Accurate Summation

"They still passed a law that set up a corporate slush fund while forcing people to become hosts for corporate parasites. Single-payer or not that is what they chose to pass."

Thank you Nuclear.

He/they had their chance and he/they chose to throw us under the bus.

[Cha]

13. Pfft.. what does Sen Sanders know?

[steve2470]

140. yea, what does he know ?

He's only the most liberal Senator in the Senate and a staunch advocate of single payer from way back.

He's full of it.

[Cha]

143. He was only

there on the inside. Rofl He bought we couldn't get it.

[steve2470]

144. I think Bernie would have spoken his mind, if we could have gotten it

I don't see him being afraid of the DNC or the President or Harry Reid.

[Cha]

145. Oh yeah.. that's what I'm sayin'..

[ljm2002]

59. Not only that...

...but the very idea was so dangerous that those who supported the idea were forbidden from participating in the debate and were, in fact, arrested for trying to do so -- by Democratic lawmakers!

Yes, that was a truly democratic process, one that will warm the hearts of the corporate shills for years to come.

Whether it "could have passed" is entirely irrelevant. The real question is, why was it not allowed to even be discussed? We all know the answer: because the idea was too dangerous to consider, because to consider it would be to consider dismantling entirely the elaborate and very creaky Rube Goldberg mechanisms by which we deliver health care in this country -- mechanisms which are highly profitable for the insurance industry, and highly inefficient for doctors and their patients.

Here's a list of things that a single-payer system would address:

1 - no more tying health care to employment
a - freeing individuals to seek employment where they like, or work less, etc.
b - freeing employers to concentrate on core competencies rather than administering health insurance plans
c - freeing companies from the expenses of health insurance for employees, making them more competitive

2 - no more people letting their afflictions develop into emergencies before seeking treatment
a - meaning a healthier population overall
b - meaning less expensive healthcare overall since problems are caught early
c - meaning higher life expectancy and a better quality of life for the vast majority of our population

3 - no more mish mash of dozens of insurers to contend with
a - meaning doctor's offices no longer need a large staff just to deal with several insurance companies
b - meaning fewer random, arbitrary decisions by insurers as to what procedures and medications are covered
c - meaning a consistent set of standards that are applied across the board

Well none of this is news and I'm not trying to say that you or anyone else here disagrees with Single Payer in principle, and that's not the point anyway. Every system has its problems, and single payer would too. The point is, had the idea been allowed out there, it would have had many attractive features that may have swayed public opinion more in that direction, and that could have helped when it came time to push for retaining the public option, at the very least. But we'll never know, will we? Because TPTB, including this administration, made sure the idea was squashed, and hard, while the ACA was being crafted.

What does it say about our legislators when they are so scared of an idea that they arrest people who try to express that idea? To me, it says they are running scared, worried that their big $$$ donors will give them the boot. And what does that say about our so-called democracy? That is why "single payer never had a chance", and that is why we need courageous people in government rather than the bought and paid for shills we mostly have now.

[ProSense]

66. People need to push for more. I mean,

Those "scared" legislators are still trying to weaken the law with proposals that they claim will "strengthen" it.

People are going to have to understand that this is the fight: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024747402

As I pointed out here (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024748524#post56), the road to single payer requires focus.

[ljm2002]

81. I agree people need to push for more...

...but I would respectfully ask that if you have specific responses, you include them directly in this thread.

Thanks.

[ProSense]

83. Well,

"I agree people need to push for more...but I would respectfully ask that if you have specific responses, you include them directly in this thread."

...I'm not going to get into a debate about links. I provided examples of my point. If you choose to ignore the links, that's fine.

At least you agree about the need to push for more.

[ljm2002]

89. There was no "debate about links"...

...I asked you politely to include your points here in this thread rather than expecting me and others reading this discussion to follow links to other posts that may or may not directly address the issues raised in THIS discussion.

To me, that is basic courtesy on a discussion board. Apparently our ideas differ on that point.

BTW, I have no objection to including links to other sources, including other discussions on DU; it can add a lot of substance. But it should not be used as a substitute for responsive debate.

[ProSense]

97. I understood

"I asked you politely to include your points here in this thread rather than expecting me and others reading this discussion to follow links to other posts that may or may not directly address the issues raised in THIS discussion."

...your point, and that is a "debate about links."

I provided the links, and they were relevant to my point. If you do not want to "follow" them, that's on you.

"BTW, I have no objection to including links to other sources, including other discussions on DU; it can add a lot of substance. But it should not be used as a substitute for responsive debate. "

So if you have "no objection," why are you objecting?

[ljm2002]

102. I am objecting...

...because you include blind links with no indication of their content.

You say, "I provided the links, and they were relevant to my point".

My question is, were they relevant to MY point? I have no way of knowing, unless I follow your link, and you did not include ANY text from the threads you linked to. I will not follow blind links, particularly when past experience leads me to believe the content will not be directly responsive to the points in my post.

Here is the text you included with your two links:

"People are going to have to understand that this is the fight:" -- no indication of the content except that it will define YOUR version of "this is the fight". I have no idea if it is responsive to my points or not. You could have included even one sentence from the thread or post you were linking to, but you did not.

"As I pointed out here (link), the road to single payer requires focus." -- again, no indication of the content except it will be YOUR idea of how we need to focus. Again, had you included a small excerpt, that would have been helpful.

Oh well, carry on. TTFN

[ProSense]

110. They most

"You say, "I provided the links, and they were relevant to my point".

...certainly were in the context of my response. I cited your statement about "scared" legislators, which you indicated as the reason "single payer never had a chance" (a direct response to my original comment)

I pointed out that those same "scared" legislators are still trying to weaken the law with proposals that they claim will "strengthen" it.

I then provided examples of where the fight should be and why the road to single payer requires focus.

You seem to want to deliver a lecture on how others should respond. That's not up to you.

[thesquanderer]

112. ACA did accomplish some of those same things

I'm in favor of single payer, but many of your points are also addressed by ACA, i.e.

1 - no more tying health care to employment
2 - no more people letting their afflictions develop into emergencies before seeking treatment

[ljm2002]

122. ACA began moving in that direction...

...for the two points you cite, but it has not come even close to accomplishing that for everyone.

There are still requirements for employers of over 50 people and who make >$500,000/yr to provide health coverage. It's more complicated and I don't claim to understand how the new rules affect employees and whether they are still tied to their company's coverage -- I'm out of the corporate world, thank God(dess)(deity)(nature)(universe)(whatever forces there be)!

There are still tens of millions of Americans without any coverage. True, some have made that choice; but many cannot afford it under the new law, and many reside in red states where Medicaid expansion was refused by their Republican governors. Now this cannot be directly blamed on the ACA, to be sure -- the Supreme Court got into the act to allow states to refuse the expansion. But, even for those who do have coverage, we still must deal with high deductibles and co-pays and partial coverage, so many people will still be avoiding dealing with health issues until they become urgent.

Anyway you are correct that movement has occurred in the right direction on these issues.

[ebbie15644]

91. Maybe but I do believe they could have got a Medicare buy in if they had tried, they didn't

[grahamhgreen]

158. Of course, the public option did.

[bemildred]

2. We can do anything we want, that's what democracy is all about. nt

[karynnj]

51. However, we need more than 10 Senators to pass it

There is no way single payer would pass either house.

[bemildred]

53. That's just the way things are now, we can change that too. nt

[NorthCarolina]

134. Too many conservative Dems remain in the party to push for any meaningful progressive reform. nt

[bemildred]

141. Right, we haven't changed it yet. nt

[dawg]

3. At least three of the people I love most in this world have "pre-existing" conditions, so ...

I'm glad that something was passed that guarantees their right to buy coverage. But I also agree with you that our Dems could have passed something significantly better if they only had the will to do so. It would have led to a better political outcome. But more importantly, it would have led to better health and financial outcomes for real families. And that, after all, is what matters the most.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

9. Is it just a sad coincidence that insurance has jacked-up the cost of healthcare to the point

where healthcare is unaffordable without insurance? Is it also just a sad coincidence that the insurance corporations could kick the sick (people costing them money) to the curb while keeping the healthy (people paying them money) on the rolls?

I do not begrudge your friends but the existential fact remains that the benefits they gained may well be the mechanism by which the corporatists and GOP (BIRM) set themselves in power for a generation or more. Will their benefits be outweighed by other travesties? How long with those other travesties endure? How long will your friends even realize their benefits?

[dawg]

17. Sadly, I have resigned myself to the fact that the corporatists are in power and aren't letting go.

They control our party, which is why the reforms we got were so severely limited. (Of course, they control the Republican Party with an even more ironclad grip.)

The good features of the ACA are like the expensive diamond ring a cheating husband buys his wife when she doesn't leave him after his 5th affair. It's purpose is to make people like me and you feel like at least *some* progress is being made. Otherwise, we might be tempted to give up on the two party system and try to seek changes through other means.

[awake]

4. Could have would have should of

What we now have is better that what was, is it the best? No is it what I wanted ? No but we need to work with was is and right now ACA is what we have so stop the whining and back Democrats who can get elected so it can be improved including adding the option of single payer. Look at history Social Security looked nothing like it does now when it first went into effect. The Repucks would like nothing more than to have us fight with ourselves over ACA so they can gain the Senate and defund the whole thing.

[randome]

5. You weren't there so you don't know.

Do you really believe that Obama has it in for all of us? That he enjoys shafting America every chance he gets?

Or do you think it's more likely he's doing the best he can under the circumstances?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[Nuclear Unicorn]

10. I never assigned motive, I noted observable facts.

[randome]

15. 'Observable facts' without attention to circumstances give a one-sided story.

'What' is not enough for a full understanding of the results. You also need to examine 'why'.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[Nuclear Unicorn]

20. Okay.

Why?

Why do we have a corporate slush fund to prop-up the insurance corporations?

Why do we have to be hosts for the corporate parasites?

Why do entire sections of the law keep getting suspended?

Why wouldn't a GOPer president do the exact same thing for his purposes?

Why did we throw away the House and maybe the Senate and maybe the WH?

Why do any of your soon-to-be-offered excuses matter?

[randome]

23. I sure as hell don't have all the answers.

And I don't think we should 'settle' for things as they are. Keep up the fight. Single-payer in some form is likely much better than what we have now.

But ACA is what we have now. For all its flaws, it is much better than what we had before.

What possible good does it do to focus on what we don't have? Instead, let's focus on how we get from Point A (ACA) to Point B (Single payer).

The best way to do that is to elect as many Democrats as possible and lean on them every chance we get.

I do not want Clinton to be our next President. I think that won't set back the Progressive cause but slow down the rate of transformation. I do know that allowing Republicans to take control of the Senate will slow it down even more.

As I said, I don't have all the answers. So I'm reversing myself now. Determining 'why' is only pertinent if it helps us move forward. If it doesn't then the next question to consider is 'How?'
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]

[mythology]

154. Actually you stated an opinion

An opinion that isn't supported by the people who were there like Senator Sanders. Simply stating your opinion that they were wrong, doesn't actually make you factually correct.

[dawg]

22. I think the President was well intentioned, but I also think he has bought into much of the ...

1%'s free-trade, small government ideology. Although portrayed by its opponents as a radical move, the ACA is actually just a tax credit coupled with modest (insufficient) regulatory reforms and an individual mandate.

[randome]

29. Maybe. Hard to say sometimes. At least for me it is.

I do think if we were talking about Emperor Obama instead of President Obama, we would have progressed a lot further than we have.

Maybe the President is playing politics too well and that's clearly not always a good thing, if ever. He does seem to have loosened up a bit during the past year. Maybe we'll have more of the same for the remaining 2 1/2 years. I hope so.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]

[CTyankee]

45. well, the ACA WAS the republican plan at one time, remember?

It is entirely possible that Obama thought that because it had been their plan that it would be more acceptable to them. I guess he really wanted to believe that they were honest brokers and not ideologues who would not go along with anything he proposed.

[BrotherIvan]

69. Obama has said as much

We're not allowed to mention that this was the Heritage Plan, but Obama has been surprised at the republican backlash because it was "their plan". More failed bipartisanship (and a misplaced wish to be Reagan which I'm starting to believe is the heart of the problem). But the hall monitors will swarm you and shout you down if you mention it, so shhhhhhh.

[RC]

6. How can we have Single Payer, when they throw people in jail for advocating for the Public Option?

The ACA was written by health insurance lobbyists, working with Right wing Democrats. Is it any wonder Single Payer, Universal Health Care never had a chance?

[karynnj]

57. It was not advocating for single payer, but repeatedly disrupting a Senate hearing

Not to mention, they were taken out, but there were NEVER followup stories on trials or sentences. At least not that I saw - and I assume they would have been prominent here.

I saw the video which was repeatedly posted on DU. The people called by the committee to testify were interrupted each time they started to speak by a long succession of protesters. It was their right to be there, but it was against the rules to disrupt the proceedings. They did it to make a point - and the point was made. They had to accept the consequences of their civil disobedience.

[RC]

139. They were refused speaking time, when they went through the proper channels.

Civil disobedience was all they had left. They were arrested and some were taken to jail, where they spent several hours in cells, before they were released without any charges being filed.
No way were the 'powers that be' allow any trials, as that would expose their highly partisan proceedings for the sham they were.
In other words the deck was stack against both the protesters and us, the average citizen. We will take what we are given and like it.

[karynnj]

150. There was NO entitlement for them to have speaking time at a committee hearing

The chair (with input from others) invites the people to testify and the committee members are there to ask questions.

You are correct in saying that for them to come and speak out of turn -- and they like all people viewing the hearing have no turn to speak. This was civil disobedience and they did it completely aware that they would be kicked out.

There is NO way the committee could do the work they planned to do IF they gave the audience unlimited time to speak. All of these people could try to schedule time to speak with their representatives.

The fact is the Senators were not unaware of what single payer was, they knew it could not pass. They had what was a limited time to investigate various options that were in the space from which a bill that could pass would come. (In fact, they did float Medicare buy-in for those over 55, but as soon as Lieberman said no - it was not viable.)

There are forums where everyone has the right to speak - a committee hearing in the Senate is not one of the places.

[RC]

151. In other words the process was a stacked deck from the get-go.

Thye pretty much knew what they wanted in the outcome and ignored anyone with different or better ideas.

[karynnj]

153. Did you think it a random process?

The various committees with responsibility on the issue - the Finance and the HELP committee in the Senate and at least one committee in the HOUSE were tasked to develop a plan that met the broad goals.

The committees - and especially the Chairs - first worked with their staffs, who are people who are experts in writing law put together the basic plans, identifying all the areas they needed to get information from various experts - including many academics and public policy people. Each member of the committee also had staff, whose expertise was in this area.

Ted Kennedy spent much of 2008 in DC working on the outline of what became the HELP bill. Baucus also led efforts before 2009 started to work on a bill as well. Baucus had the responsibility of working on the cost and tax measures - where Kennedy did much of the policy stuff.

Both men had worked with their peers for years. That - not any nefarious reason - is why they did spend any time investigating the advantages of a single payer system. (In fact, Kennedy did not have to - he wrote a bill that was a single payer plan in 2005 - when NOTHING could pass because the Republicans controlled the House, Senate and the Presidency. )

Other Senators - on the committee or off - worked with them on various alternatives. This included Bernie Sanders getting funding for community centers in ACA.

Nothing ever starts with a clean slate - and all ideas, practical or not, given the same scrutiny. If you look at the fact that the bill as written passed by the skin of its teeth and no one voted against it because it was not progressive enough, it is very likely that they DID write the best bill they could pass.

[ProSense]

7. On another point,

"6. All the while this is feeding mistrust in the government, both as a beneficent entity and competent administrator. "

...I don't agree. In fact, the number of people who want the law expanded is growing.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024727962

That's despite the Koch brothers' efforts.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024702414

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

8. I would change the words

'nothing to show for it' to 'far less to show for it'.

The ACA has a number of good provisions, and is a step forward overall. Now we just need to turf out private-for profit insurance companies from the equation. Get rid of the massive amount of healthcare spending that doesn't actually go towards providing healthcare.

Yes, it wasted a major opportunity to make the serious structural change in healthcare that the country needed. But people actually are getting healthcare they didn't before.

And lots of people 'angry' and 'pissed off'? Sure, because getting them so has long been the Republican modus operandi. If the ACA hadn't passed, they simply would have found something else done by Dems to get people 'pissed off and angry'.

I also think you're wrong on #3. Provisions in the law DO make common types of healthcare more accessible, and incentivize healthcare facilities to actually go farther in trying to keep patients from relapsing and winding right back up in the facility in a short period. This means 'better in quality', because they're taking more time to work on keeping the patient healthy even after they leave, rather than just 'treat em and street em'.

So it's a mix. We blew an opportunity to do a better law, and we handed the GOP more political weapons to attack us with, but in on the healthcare side, healthcare actually will be more accessible for millions of people, and will be better to some extent.

[TreasonousBastard]

11. Has anyone actually defined "single payer"...

because we already have a boatload of federal programs:

VA/Tricare
Indian Health Service
Medicare
Medicaid
SCHIP

and some others slipping my mind at the moment, along with a myriad of state programs, all of which would require a massive merging of bureaucracies and rules.

While everyone has a fine time hating insurance companies, has anyone found a better way to legitimately control costs other than to just cut doctor's pay?

There are a few countries, like Italy, that seem to be doing fine with a form of single payer, but others not so good. All of them are looking at an aging population combined with ridiculously expensive new treatments and wondering how they will pay for it in 10-20 years.

Using "single-payer" as a slogan without a plan won't work. Not much will work with a useless Congress, but a sensibly designed, workable plan would be a good start.

[think]

25. Skimming 15% off the top for insurance companies doesn't feel like a solution

Right now we rank pretty low compared to these other countries. My guess is those future problems will still be a problem under our system as well....

Among advanced economies, the U.S. spends the most on health care on a relative cost basis with the worst outcome

http://www.bloomberg.com/visual-data/best-and-worst/most-efficient-health-care-countries

[Bluenorthwest]

27. Medicare and Medicaid are in fact single payer. The VA is pure Socialized Medicine.

Countries with single payer include the UK, Canada, Taiwan and Australia. Italy has a mixed system, public and private using more than one source of payments.

[treestar]

14. Because even the Democrats were not going to allow it

Even the House didn't vote for it.

Red state Democrats are still conservative. Scared of a government run anything (other than military, which the government seems able to do fine).

We have a lot more conservatism to fight against than some people allow for.

[kcr]

34. True. That includes people who are on Hobby Lobby's side.

There are some even here on DU who are hoping Hobby Lobby wins the SOCTUS case.

[DanTex]

16. It's pretty simple. Conservative Dems wouldn't have voted for single payer. End of argument.

[Cha]

21. I know wouldn't cause I asked him.

[ljm2002]

84. Historically that's a piss-poor way to legislate...

...we might, for example, look back at the Civil Rights Act, where it was also indisputably true that "Conservative Dems wouldn't have voted for" it. Yet somehow LBJ managed to get Congress to pass it. Yes, I know: different time, different forces at play. But that is always the case. It does not change the bedrock principle that in politics, one must fight to promote the issues one supports.

Anyway, whether single payer could have passed or not, is one question; but whether it could have been included in the conversation is another question entirely. Apparently, it was considered too dangerous to even consider. That is my objection -- I am under no illusions that it would have passed at the time. But we don't win by conceding at the beginning, we win when we fight, and when we chip away at the opposition at every opportunity. Instead, we conceded boatloads of policy issues from the outset, and got a contraption of a law, much to the delight of Republicans, who, after insisting on all these detailed provisions benefiting the insurance companies, turned around and gleefully proclaimed "Why, that bill is 2000+ pages long! It's bloated and complicated! It's Big Government at its worst!" and really, what could we say to that? The bill IS long and complicated and doesn't do nearly enough.

[DanTex]

103. I completely agree that single payer should have been part of the discussion.

It wouldn't have passed, but at least it would have drawn the whole dialog and negotiation to the left. This is one of my major criticisms of both Obama and the Dems generally. The are so afraid of seeming "too far left" that the range of opinions you hear expressed in the mainstream ranges from center-slightly-left to far-far-right. And not just on healthcare. The size of the stimulus, or the whole debt-panic thing are other examples.

The thing is, whatever the Dems say, the Republicans are going to paint them as communists anyway. Whereas many average voters get told by the media what the "left" and the "right" are and instinctively want to place themselves in the "middle". So, given this situation, it seems obvious to me that the correct strategy is to move the "left" further "left".

Part of the problem is that conservatives have think tanks constantly cranking our right-wing proposals, and people paid to talk about them. This doesn't really exist on the left. But the politicians themselves also have a lot of blame. There are groups out there advocating for single payer, but you can't expect to see them on Meet the Press if the Democratic Party won't even give them the time of day.

[ljm2002]

107. I agree 100% with everything you say in this post! +10000 n/t

[Drunken Irishman]

111. Then there would be no ACA...

You get one chance to pass something. If it doesn't pass, it's over and you move on. As is, the ACA barely passed and it took until early 2010 - an election year - for it to happen. You add the debate to single payer, using that as a starting point, it absolutely fails, and nothing gets done.

Just ask Clinton. There is a reason he never tried to pass a further compromise after his healthcare reform fight failed. Had Obama started out with single-payer, and put in a legitimate fight, it would've been just as ugly and divisive of a fight as the ACA without any of the actual results. So, in 2010, roughly around the same period, singe-payer dies and, after a bitter fight that galvanizes the tea-party, moderate Democrats from red states/districts are too terrified to even want to debate another bill.

[DanTex]

114. Well, that's the question. I don't know if that's true.

I don't think Obama should have started with single payer. I do think there could have been a way to give single payer advocates a louder voice without compromising the passage of ACA. In fact, if done correctly, it could have helped defend against charges that the ACA is "socialized medicine".

As always, things are tricky. That's really my big complaint with the anti-Obama people here. They like yelling at the president because they don't get everything they want. Like he should have just admitted to the world that, yeah, good point Putin, the Iraq war was illegal, so I'll shut up now while you re-annex the rest of the former SSRs. No, it's not that simple. It's complicated. Domestic politics is also complicated. My opinion is that the Democratic Party and also progressive ideals would do better if there were more talk about policies further left than what we hear right now. Obama seems to have made the calculation that it's better not to. I disagree with that. But I understand what he's thinking. Maybe he's right. Who knows.

[Drunken Irishman]

130. I think Obama knew he was operating under a small window...

He didn't have a whole lot of options, or time, to get something done. As is, the debate was so toxic that it nearly killed the whole thing in early 2010. An extended debate, especially debating other issues that were long conceded not possible, could have dragged things further and killed the entire bill. When you're president, you don't have the luxury of hindsight, so, everything is in the now. Obama gambled that he had limited time, and limited support, to get something done.

[historylovr]

106. +1.

[steve2470]

142. nailed it nt

[JoePhilly]

19. Let's test your argument more directly. I'll spot you every bluedog Senator ...

... except Joe Lieberman.

Here's the test. YOU are now the President. And because you are super awesome, you've convinced all of the other bluedogs to go with a single payer bill. That is, all but Joe Lieberman. You need him to get the 60th vote.

So Mr. President, how do you get Lieberman to vote YES?

A few points to address when you respond.

1) Lieberman campaigned against you in the general election, and he campaigned for John McCain. McCain was going to make Lieberman either SecDEF or SecState ... Graham was getting the other spot. You stole this prestigious position from Lieberman when you beat McCain.

2) Lieberman has said he's not running for re-election. Instead, he's setting himself up for a 7 figure think tank job for when his term ends. (He now holds that 7 figure think tank position)

3) Lieberman was nicknamed "Senator from Aetna", and careers of members of his family rely on positions in that industry.

So go ahead, flip Lieberman. Explain how YOU as President get him to vote YES.

Oh ... what did we win via the ACA? My niece's life. And the lives of kids like her who had cancer as children and who were blocked from getting insurance after. Their lives.

She doesn't feel further behind.

[Timez Squarez]

60. Easy. Disable him. Make him irrelevant.

and hide him in the basement. He does not need to be the 60th vote if he does not show up.

[Recursion]

63. Francis Walsingham? Is that you?

[JoePhilly]

64. Nope ... he had to actually vote.

That is also why Senator Byrd, who was actually near death, came and voted.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/24/us/politics/24byrd.html?_r=0

[Recursion]

73. Yeah. It takes 60 to break, not 41 to block.

People also forget that...

[JoePhilly]

74. Well ... but we did have total control of the House and Senate for 2 years ... damn it!!

I know that you get the joke there.

[steve2470]

148. nothing matters to some

The President should have pushed for single payer and nothing else. It would have been a glorious event, full of flames and fury when it went down to defeat in huge numbers in both Senate and House. Fuck political realities. PERFECTION IS THE ONLY GOAL !

[WorseBeforeBetter]

24. Kicking from North Carolina, a state being destroyed...

thanks to the GOP takeover, thanks to voters who HATE the ACA. If Dems lose the Senate in 2014, all I can say is "welcome to our world."

[ProSense]

28. They should

"thanks to the GOP takeover, thanks to voters who HATE the ACA. If Dems lose the Senate in 2014, all I can say is "welcome to our world."

...hate Republicans.

Koch brothers breaking all spending records to defeat Democrat Kay Hagan
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024493554

Why NC (surprisingly) is a national leader in Affordable Care Act enrollment

Posted by : Adam Searing

Last week I was meeting with other health advocates from around the country. Many of them had one question for me – with our state’s refusal to expand Medicaid or set up a state exchange under the Affordable Care Act, how is it that NC is enrolling twice the percentage of its uninsured people in private health plans than any other similar state? In response I wrote this op-ed in today’s News and Observer:

While North Carolina has refused to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act and many politicians continue to complain about the federal health exchange, the roll-out of Obamacare in N.C. tells a far more positive story.

North Carolina is enrolling uninsured people at a rate at least twice that of any other state that has refused to set up its own health exchange and refused to expand Medicaid. In short, among states that are dragging their feet on the Affordable Care Act – no advertising campaigns, no speeches by the governor on how important it is for everyone to have access to health care, no Medicaid expansion that guarantees the lowest income workers coverage – North Carolina is by far leading the pack in private plan enrollment.

Even with the federal health exchange’s shaky start, N.C. has already enrolled 107,778 uninsured people in private health plans. Compare that with Virginia (44,676 enrolled), South Carolina (24,116), Georgia (58,611), and Tennessee (36,250). Only states like Florida and Texas with many more uninsured people than North Carolina are enrolling anywhere near our raw numbers, and they are far behind us in the percentage of uninsured getting coverage. (Read more)

http://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/2014/01/29/why-nc-surprisingly-is-a-national-leader-in-affordable-care-act-enrollment/

More: http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/01/28/3572241/how-nc-surprisingly-became-a-leader.html

[WorseBeforeBetter]

33. They didn't in 2010 and 2012, and here we are.

We'll see what the "mood" is in November. But thanks to GOP gerrymandering, thanks to the GOP takeover due to hatred of the ACA, Democratic turnout will have to be MASSIVE. We outvoted Rs in 2010, but it wasn't enough.

Obama needs to descend on this state like white on rice to "save" Hagan. Same with the DNC. Reverend Barber, Occupy, and the rest of us are doing are parts.

[ProSense]

36. Hagan is fighting, and she has a slight lead in the polls. n/t

[WorseBeforeBetter]

41. 1) "Hagan is fighting" -- thanks for stating the obvious,

and 2) "she has a slight lead in the polls" -- not very comforting.

Obama needs to get down here at some point and turn on the "rock star" to help her. It is, after all, his signature legislation.

[Recursion]

26. Did you know you're making Rahm Emmanuel's argument?

That kind of amuses me. That's what he was saying in 2009 and 2010: it's not worth the losses we'll take to pass. Move on and let another administration deal with it.

[Bluenorthwest]

31. Rahm's argument was not that we should strive for something worth the backlash but that

we should do nothing. The OP is saying we should have tried for better, not tried for nothing. Rahm said do less, OP says do more, it is not the same argument but the opposite argument. The same or the opposite, what's the difference, right?

[ProSense]

32. At this point,

"The OP is saying we should have tried for better, not tried for nothing."

...it's really a useless argument.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024747402

[Bluenorthwest]

37. How does that relate to my point that the OP is not making the same argument as Rahm?

It does not. It's just something for you to post. It's rude.

[ProSense]

43. If you can't see that, I can help you.

And stop projecting.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

48. Actually, BNW assessed my point exactly.

[Recursion]

54. Then please fill in the blank that's left

What's a proposal that would have kept enough D votes to pass that would have been worth the backlash, if we grant that ACA wasn't?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

58. Okay, I'm wrong. This is the besest healthcare policy EVAH! and only a fool would argue against it!

NEXT UP: "I never said it was the best. It has things that could be changed."

[Recursion]

61. Please answer the question

What's a proposal that would have gotten enough D votes to pass that would have been worse losing the House over?

And if you don't have one, how is what you're saying any different from what Emmanuel said?

Also, kind of an odd strawman to choose, since it's the exact opposite of what I said. ACA is not remotely the best plan, or even a terribly good one. But it was what could pass.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

67. "ACA is not remotely the best plan, or even a terribly good one."

And now that the proponents have succeeded in losing the House -- and perhaps more -- how will they

A. Improve it

B. Keep it alive

C. Recover politically

What's a proposal that would have gotten enough D votes to pass that would have been worse losing the House over?

That's the point. They never proposed anything else. This was the corporatist crap sandwich we were meant to eat from the very beginning. Nothing else was proposed because this is what they wanted.

Please show me the vote tallies from all the other defeated initiatives.

[ProSense]

71. Answers

A. Improve it (Keep working on it: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024702695 including working toward single payer http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024747402)

B. Keep it alive (It's alive: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024747036)

C. Recover politically (Beat the Kochs http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024702414 )

People increasingly want to keep and expand the law (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024727962 ) and they actually like what it offers (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024748702)

[Nuclear Unicorn]

78. Do you live in Washington state or Colorado?

'cause, if not then what you're doing is still illegal.

[ProSense]

79. I take it you're weren't interested in answers?

Or are you simply attempting to hang onto the flawed premise that in your OP by ignoring the information presented?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

85. Answers?

We'll keep plugging for single-payer!

We're keeping it alive even though Obama keeps putting it in suspended animation!

We'll show those Koch brothers!

[Recursion]

72. They proposed tons else

Well, here's a good overall timeline of the committee work:

http://www.rheumatology.org/Content.aspx?id=4204

And another one:

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/06/17/politics/health-care-timeline/

The Senate has an even more complete timeline of their debate and committee work:

http://www.finance.senate.gov/issue/?id=32be19bd-491e-4192-812f-f65215c1ba65

Something like 99.99% of legislative language never makes it out of committee. That's where laws are actually written, and that's what happened with ACA too. In fact, the amendment and mark-up process was the second-longest in the history of the Senate.

In particular, you can read Baucus's outline statement on the healthcare legislation.

There were extensive hearings over several months that outlined multiple problems and proposed multiple solutions. Did you watch the hearings? I did. There were a lot of different views aired.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

75. In other words

They never took a vote and now everyone runs around claiming they never could have found the votes so we lose the House (maybe more) and suddenly claim we'll at some future point find the votes to make it all better.

BRILLIANT!

[Recursion]

77. Well, they did take a lot of votes in the committee

And they also took an absolute ton of nose counts on every proposal. (And Olympia Snowe led Baucus around by the ear for months pretending he could get her vote if he'd just offer the right proposals.) That's how Congress does its thing.

I'm confused by what you're saying now. You're asking where the ideas were offered; I showed you. You can go to the votes on that. If you want the Senate to start writing down headcounts from trial balloons, I suppose, but it's ludicrous to pretend they weren't asking what different proposals different Senators would support.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

82. What I am arguing is

that the ACA is not merely the absence of a good law, it was the enactment of a bad law, i.e. the slush fund designed specifically to prop-up insurance corporations. In fact, the entire law is dependent on corporations and it uses mandates and tax dollars to assert them over our lives.

There is no conceivable scenario where this is a good idea.

And now we are too powerless to change our own mistakes not that we even dare to admit it was a mistake. If the RW gains the Senate/WH can we honestly say the law is so awesome it was worth it?

[Recursion]

88. So, again, you're making Rahm's argument

He didn't like the law and didn't want to give up the blue dog seats for it. You don't like the law, and think we shouldn't have given up the blue dog seats for it.

I don't think it's a bad position, mind you, I just originally wanted to point out it's the same calculation Rahm made in 2010 or so.

I don't think it's a bad position, but it's not mine. The money that gets funneled to private insurers who provision Medicare and Medicaid is pretty massive, but less visible; that's a bad thing, and it would only get worse with a nationwide single payer system (the "2% overhead" for Medicare only counts getting the money to the provisioner, not what happens after the provisioner gets it). The provisioning contracts Medicare and Medicaid sign with the large insurers do not have the profit caps that ACA does, and the insured person doesn't have any say on which provisioning insurer he or she gets -- which can make a lot of difference to the individual (particularly on Medicaid).

In fact, the entire law is dependent on corporations and it uses mandates and tax dollars to assert them over our lives.

The fact that Medicare's corporate provisioning is largely hidden from the public isn't any better. As I argue above, it's worse precisely because it's opaque.

[randome]

98. Focusing on the 'mistake', as you put it, accomplishes nothing.

It puts those who are your best hope at change on the defensive.

Instead of being against something, put your considerable typing skills into the service of being for something.

Obviously you're for single payer. But you'll never help that process along by dwelling on what you think everyone else did wrong.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font][hr]

[Recursion]

52. What's something more progressive that would have kept enough D votes to pass?

That's the missing part of NU's argument. Rahm thought there was no such thing. If someone thinks there is such a thing, they can argue that.

[CJCRANE]

30. How would you implement Single Payer?

And do you think the Tea Party/GOP would be more or less obsructive?

[Bluenorthwest]

35. How will we implement ACA? Many Republican States sued to 'opt out'.

How is that not highly obstructive? Did being 'not single payer' prevent that obstruction? Lots of States opted out of 'universal reform'. So we have not implemented anything nationally, SCOTUS made it a State decision.

[CJCRANE]

38. But it is being implemented and is helping millions of people.

What are the modalities of implementing Single Payer?

Of getting from A to Z?

[Bluenorthwest]

44. So the goal was to get some State's residents covered but not others?

My point is that we face implementation barriers with the current program, so saying 'but the other program would have had implementation problems' is not a point in favor of the current program which shares the same difficulties. If the current plan was being implemented nationally without issue, you'd have a point. Clearly the ACA was passed without much thought about implementation problems. But to so much as discuss other methods we have to solve implementation problems in advance?
'Have you been shopping?'
'No, I've been shopping.'

[CJCRANE]

50. My point is about the feasbility of Single Payer. How do you get from Point A to Point Z?

How do you get from the previous system to Singel Payer?

That has to be taken into account in writing up a law, trying to get it passed and then trying to get it to actually work.

[ProSense]

40. Those lawsuits

"How will we implement ACA? Many Republican States sued to 'opt out'. How is that not highly obstructive? Did being 'not single payer' prevent that obstruction? Lots of States opted out of 'universal reform'. So we have not implemented anything nationally, SCOTUS made it a State decision."

...failed.



http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024714088

The federal government is running the exchanges in states that did not set up their own.

The problem is that these Republican-run states are taking advantage of the SCOTUS ruling that made the Medicaid expansion optional. I do not think that they will be able to hold out for long.

[Bluenorthwest]

49. 21 States have refused to consider Medicaid expansion. 27 have expanded it.

Those lawsuits do not force the States to expand Medicaid. But you know that.

[ProSense]

55. Those decisions are not the result of the law, and people

are fighting to change that.

ACA Tide Turns: Protesters Arrested In GA, GOPer Schools Scottie
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024695722

[Nye Bevan]

39. As it is, the ACA passed by the skin of its teeth.

Obviously anything even slightly more progressive (public option or single payer) would not have passed at all.

[Stuart G]

117. Yes, this is correct.. by 2 votes..217 to 215..I recall (look it up)

There were a couple of Dems who lost their seats in the House of Representatives for that vote. One a fellow from Michigan who
was against it, voted for it at the last minute. It was that vote in the House that passed it. (217-215) We never never could have gotten anything stronger through the House at that time. Now, if you do not believe this, look up the voting record and see for yourself.

we could not have gotten anything even slightly more progressive .... that is correct. Going back and saying we could have, is simply not the truth...

[Thinkingabout]

42. I too would have liked to see the single payer option, it did not happen, they passed the GOP option

Now all the bitching will not change the ACA if we do not get Democrats elected in all positions to change ACA to a single payer. We have to get out and work to change the political makeup and if we don't then the ACA may not remain.

[Whisp]

46. And there is No Sale for: We coulda had it but Obama blocked it on purpose

because He didn't want it because he's such pals with the insurance and pharma corps and because his Mom is CIA and they are all evil and like human suffering, to watch and enjoy.

Not Buying!

[karynnj]

47. Single Payer was not possible as many Democratic Senators were philosophically against it

ACA passed because it got 60 votes in the Senate in the nick of time. Had that right before Christmas vote failed, NOTHING would have passed. This is because in early January, before the Senate returned, Scott Brown was elected.

Nothing that could not get 60 votes in the Senate could pass. It is true that changes were passed under reconciliation, but the rules for what could be done under reconciliation were such that passing the entire bill that way would not have been allowed.

Bernie Sanders himself said that there were no more than 10 Senators willing to vote for single payer. John Kerry when pushed on why said he would vote for it, but it was impossible because there were nowhere near the number of Senators needed. When pushed on whether they could be persuaded, he said there were two many for whom there was no chance they could be persuaded.

Bernie Sanders has says that he thinks we will get to single payer, but not through the federal government. In fact, Vermont will work on the finance mechanism and other remaining issues - not in this session, but in the next with the goal being to have a workable plan passed by 2017 when they can request a waiver to institute it.

VT governor Shumlin said that they expect a lot of energy against it - not because the big powers care what the small VT population does, but "because letting the pony out of the barn, could lead to the stallions (NY, MA) following" - quote from memory from a recent AARP supported interview between their President and Shumlin in South Burlington.

In fact, what they fear is how single payer could spread and it is how it happened in Canada. The key is for VT to get it right and to benefit from both better, friendlier healthcare and reduced costs due to removing the extra administrative costs and defensive medicine.

[ProSense]

56. Shumlin: 'Don't Quit' On Single Payer Before Work Begins

"VT governor Shumlin said that they expect a lot of energy against it - not because the big powers care what the small VT population does, but "because letting the pony out of the barn, could lead to the stallions (NY, MA) following" - quote from memory from a recent AARP supported interview between their President and Shumlin in South Burlington."

Shumlin: 'Don't Quit' On Single Payer Before Work Begins
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024742532

People seem to think getting health care reform is an easy process. It's time to focus on this fight.

[Ms. Toad]

62. Let me know when you check back in to reality.

Studying some history of the attempts to provide access to health care for the past (at least) 4 decades would be a good starting point. Despite numerous attempts, the two previous best efforts (all that have been successful at anything in the past 4 decades) garnered COBRA (no limit on pricing, very limited extended access to insurance when your job ends, if you happen to have worked for a company of a sufficient size) and HIPAA (Access to ongoing insurance, provided you had a qualifying plan in the first place - and do not create any significant gaps - with no limit on pricing).

That's it. Period.

And this attempt has garnered so many legal challenges that key provisions have been gutted leaving roughly 50% of people who were intended to have access to Medicaid

So it is completely out of touch with reality to believe we could have converted to single payer.

It is also completely out of touch with reality, and offensive to the millions who finally have access to health care via insurance, to contend that they should have continued to be sacrificial lambs merely because it was not possible to get a perfect solution for everyone in the first major change in health care policy in decades.

[Stuart G]

147. Yes, this is correct...We couldn't have gotten single payer.

We got what we got. and.........

That will save thousands of lives, and tens of thousands of families their entire savings.
It is a hell of a lot better than what we had. Be thankful for what we got.
Ms Toad is correct, single payer was impossible then, but we got more than most expected...

[steve2470]

149. Some on DU are willfully ignorant, politically naive, obtuse and/or trolls

Would I have loved single payer ? Yes. However, we don't live in Sweden. We live in the USA, where you have people who deny evolution and think the ACA is TEH COMMUNISM ! It's great to be idealistic, but it needs to be tempered with realism and pragmatism.

[Doctor_J]

65. Strange that with a Dem WH, House, Senate, we got a Republican health insurance plan

The fix was in. The campaign of 2008 was a lie. That's why so many 2008 voters stayed home in 2010.

This is the problm with Dems enacting Repuke policies. the Repub voters will hate it because it's passed by Dems. The Dem voters will hate it because it's far right policy.

Obama was a sacrificial lamb offered up by the PTB to get some deluded fan club members and DINOs on board with far right corporate non-solutions. He of course has to completely sacrifice his dignity, but will get rich after leaving office as recompense. The man who looked like an agent for change in 2008 is actually just another corporate politician.

[ProSense]

68. That simply

"Strange that with a Dem WH, House, Senate, we got a Republican health insurance plan"

...inaccurate: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024705315

[Doctor_J]

94. ACA fan club member Paul Krugman disagrees

during the 2012 GE campaign, when Willard's camp was claiming that Romneycare and Obamacare were not the same, Prof. Krugman wrote a column detailing how they're nearly identical.

So by the transitivity of =, ACA = Romneycare and Romneycare = Heritage Care => ACA = Heritage Care.

[ProSense]

100. No,

"ACA fan club member Paul Krugman disagrees"

He explains the disconnect best, citing what Jonathan Chait calls the "Heritage uncertainty principle":

And here’s the thing: Republicans don’t want to help the unfortunate. They’ll propound health-care ideas that will, they claim, help those with preexisting conditions and so on — but those aren’t really proposals, they’re diversionary tactics designed to stall real health reform. Chait finds Newt Gingrich more or less explicitly admitting this.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/13/a-health-care-mystery-explained/?_r=0

Republican proposals are hypothetical and theoretical BS. They have no intention of doing anything positive. They get credit for pushing things that they don't actually support and would never enact.

It's like Romney's veto of the most significant parts of the MA health care law.

It's like the AEI asshole pushing that Republicans should stand up for the safety net when his actual message is the poor should support destroying it.

Naked Blackmail

It turns out that in the final stages of the debt negotiations, Republicans suddenly added a new demand — a trigger that would end up eliminating the individual mandate in health care reform.

This is telling, in a couple of ways.

First, the health care mandate has nothing to do with debt and deficits. So this is naked blackmail: the GOP is trying to use the threat of financial catastrophe to impose its policy vision, even in areas that have nothing to do with the issue at hand, a vision that it lacks the votes to enact through normal legislation.

Second, this is a demand Obama can’t accept, unless he plans on changing his party registration. Health reform doesn’t work without a mandate (remember the primary? Maybe better not to). And if health reform is undermined, Obama will have achieved nothing. So by adding this demand, Republicans were in effect saying no deal — unless, I guess, they believed that Obama is a total pushover.

Awesome.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/23/naked-blackmail/

[Doctor_J]

132. You were very close

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/27/conservative-origins-of-obamacare/

The essence of Obamacare, as of Romneycare, is a three-legged stool of regulation and subsidies: community rating requiring insurers to make the same policies available to everyone regardless of health status; an individual mandate, requiring everyone to purchase insurance, so that healthy people don't opt out; and subsidies to keep insurance affordable for those with lower incomes.

The original Heritage plan from 1989 had all these features

These days, Heritage strives mightily to deny the obvious; it picks at essentially minor differences between what it used to advocate and the plan Democrats actually passed, and tries to make them seem like a big deal. But this is disinformation. The essential features of the ACA, above all, the mandate are ideas Republicans used to support.

I will be the first to admit that the Republicans are being thundering hypocrites on mandatory for-profit health insurance. I just don't think that Dems should be in favor of it.

[ProSense]

133. That is

The essence of Obamacare, as of Romneycare, is a three-legged stool of regulation and subsidies: community rating requiring insurers to make the same policies available to everyone regardless of health status; an individual mandate, requiring everyone to purchase insurance, so that healthy people don't opt out; and subsidies to keep insurance affordable for those with lower incomes.

The original Heritage plan from 1989 had all these features

These days, Heritage strives mightily to deny the obvious; it picks at essentially minor differences between what it used to advocate and the plan Democrats actually passed, and tries to make them seem like a big deal. But this is disinformation. The essential features of the ACA, above all, the mandate are ideas Republicans used to support.

...the stance Obama took in promoting the law. It's a broad overview of some "features," which differ greatly from current law in approach (the details matter), and doesn't offer everything Obamacare does.

The problem is that some people cannot recognize a strategic argument from a literal one.

[Jim Lane]

159. By "strategic argument" do you mean that Obama was deliberately lying?

Or, if that's too strong, that Obama was being less than perfectly candid?

The first impression I form when I read "some people cannot recognize a strategic argument from a literal one" is that a "literal" argument is one that's advanced for the classically approved reason, namely that it's correct -- the premises are true and the conclusion logically follows from the premises; but that a "strategic" argument is one that's advanced because the making of the statement will benefit the speaker, without regard to the soundness of the argument. Is that how you mean the distinction?

I'll concede that a certain amount of spin is permissible. If the proposed bill bears some resemblance to the Republican plan and but also differs from the Republican plan, then Obama is entitled to stress the first point when wooing Republicans and independents, while stressing the second point when answering criticism from the left.

There are limits, though. One person (be it Obama, another pol, a DUer, or anyone else) can't say both that the differences are minor and that the differences are major. Yet that appears to be the rhetorical strategy you're imputing to Obama.

Would you clarify this strategic-versus-literal dichotomy that you've invoked?

[Nye Bevan]

95. Ummmmm...... so why have the Republicans voted to end it 50+ times? (nt)

[Doctor_J]

121. You might try reading instead of a knee-jerk defense of president Reagan/Obama

This is the problem with Dems enacting Repuke policies. the Repub voters will hate it because it's passed by Dems. The Dem voters will hate it because it's far right policy.

It didn't matter what policies Obama passed, the Republicans would bitch about it. That's why he should have tried to get real health care instead of the Heritage Foundation abomination.

[BrotherIvan]

96. But the conservadems would never pass it!

So vote more of them in you extreme left, Libertarian Paulbot, racist, homophobe!

Only winning elections matter. Once they get in, a D can do whatever he wants, unless he is a convenient scapegoat for some issue. Then they will be excoriated until their upcoming primary when they will be again supported with party cash and luminaries singing their praises. Because any single sitting member of Congress is more influential than the administration and the entire citizenry. We accept this economic and structural rogering in exchange for a few bones on social issues, which are not and should not be decided by the federal government anyway. But makes for great sermons whenever you run a hall monitor the wrong way.

RESISTANCE IS FUTILE!

[Doctor_J]

125. yeah, there's a little cognitive dissonance

1. "You have to vote for D, any D, because if we all vote D then we'll get some progress. And that goes triple for the conserva-D's, because they're the only ones who can win in places like Georgia"

2. "Well, yeah we have a huge number of D's, but we can't make any progress because they're conserva-D's"

3. So, if they're not doing what I want, why should I vote for them? "Go to #1"

[BrotherIvan]

128. Hater!

[jeff47]

131. Explain how you get Lieberman's vote for something more liberal.

'cause you need an 'aye' from him in order to pass your proposed bill.

According to Senator Sanders, single-payer only had 8-10 votes. Massive pressure from voters and Obama would get that to about 20-30. So now your more liberal proposal goes down 30-70.

But there's good news. Thanks to the ACA, you don't need the Senate to advance the battle for single payer. You need California's legislature. New York's legislature. Vermont's legislature. And so on. That's a much better battleground for us. And those examples will give us a much stronger position when we return to the national battle.

[Doctor_J]

156. This "argument" doesn't get voters to the polls

they see the Repukes tromp through the Bush years with small majorities, getting everything they want, with the Dems doing nothing to stop the carnage. Then they buy the 2008 campaign BS, deliver huge majorities and a WH landslide, and watch the party cringe, hem & haw, and capitulate before the ink is dry on the oath of office. The excuse that one (D) senator with an axe to grind can negate all of that mandate doesn't cut ice with voters who suffered through the Bush years.

The ACA codified Big Insurance's half-trillion dollar piece of the HC pie. it will be decades before they let go of it, if ever. And, what's more, Vermont was already considering SP.

[jeff47]

160. Yet you didn't quite answer the question, did you?

How do you get Lieberman's vote?

The excuse that one (D) senator with an axe to grind can negate all of that mandate doesn't cut ice with voters who suffered through the Bush years.

Then explain how the Democrats could have done it without him. Keep in mind you didn't have 51 votes to get rid of the filibuster in 2009.

The ACA codified Big Insurance's half-trillion dollar piece of the HC pie. it will be decades before they let go of it, if ever. And, what's more, Vermont was already considering SP.

And Vermont's example will be very helpful in other states. And as we convert those other states, "Big Insurance" loses money and power.

[woo me with science]

70. K&R

[Politicub]

76. It doesn't matter now

We can fight for it. Dwelling on your opinion is useless.

Open your eyes and look around you. People are dying in republican states because they are denied Medicaid.

The ability to insure the working poor was a sea change in policy. The Roberts court sabotaged it by allowing states to opt out of the Medicaid provision.

Is the ACA perfect? Far from it. Should we have the public option or single payer? Absolutely. If the ACA is gutted or repealed will it help or harm? Harm. Millions have access to preventative care now that would be stripped from them.

The ACA is a platform. Getting people in office and a dem majority gives us a chance to improve it.

Your rant shows you avert your gaze from the people the ACA is helping. This type of thinking helps no one.

[ellennelle]

80. oh good grief

how fitting is your name there.

magical (unicorn) destructive (nuclear) thinking.

if you can call this thinking.

seems like nothing more than belligerent whining to me.

tell me, does someone trucking in magical destructive thinking bother to consider the consequences of that, even beyond the more obvious things you listed.

clearly not.

so ultimately, as so many here said, what is your point at this point?

beyond belligerent whining, that is.

[wryter2000]

99. I have to thank him/her, though

I now have conclusive proof that some DUers aren't dealing in reality. It makes hanging around here a lot easier to tolerate.

[INdemo]

86. The reason single payer insurance didnt happen and will neever happen is

because insurance companies began their defense against it long before the bill was ever introduced. Politicians had their pockets lined (Democrats included) and they spent millions on advertising and other forms of public relations to "brainwash" the public on the "why" we don't need a government program of health insurance. What we ended up with wasn't even close to what Obama wanted but its all he could get and insurance companies still won.
What the hell ..back when Clinton introduced the program and it was better that the ACA is now, that to was dead in the water and again insurance companies spent big $$ to rally against it but not as much as they did against the single payer.

[sunnystarr]

87. BENGHAZI

That's all I think of when I see another We should've, would've, could've had Single Payer. Get over it already. We have the ACA which is a hell of lot more than we had. Get behind it. Improve it. Be proud of the most major improvement to healthcare we've had since Medicare and Medicaid. But damn it all enough already. Benghazi. Benghazi. Benghazi.

If all it had done was to insure kids until they were 21 under parents' policies, eliminate the lifetime cap of coverage, eliminate denying coverage to anyone with a pre-existing condition, and providing free yearly medical exams, it would be an achievement to celebrate.

[rrneck]

90. The last I heard health care is one seventh of our economy.

It's difficult to make rapid changes to something that large even if those changes are necessary and good.

[Doctor_J]

119. also difficult when the psychopaths who own that 7% also own the government

and when they make more money providing shitty care than good care.

[rrneck]

120. True that. nt

[NYC Liberal]

93. "abomination of a law that has pissed off more people than it has helped" - Bullshit.

It has helped and is helping MILLIONS of people. And is saving lives. And of course we can campaign on improving it. We can campaign on expanding and strengthening it.

Social Security excluded millions of people when it was first introduced; I suppose you'd be calling it an "abomination of a law" that should never have been passed. Well thankfully most people didn't think like that and worked to strengthen it instead of stamping their feet and pouting.

[ProSense]

104. Yup. "100 million Americans who’ve gained..."

The OP statement is beyond absurd.

Statement by the President on the Fourth Anniversary of the Affordable Care Act

Since I signed the Affordable Care Act into law, the share of Americans with insurance is up, and the growth of health care costs is down, to its slowest rate in fifty years – two of the most promising developments for our middle class and our fiscal future in a long time.

More Americans with insurance have gained new benefits and protections – the 100 million Americans who’ve gained the right to free preventive care like mammograms and contraception, the eight million seniors who’ve saved thousands of dollars on their prescription drugs, and the untold number of families who won’t be driven into bankruptcy by out-of-pocket costs, because this law prevents insurers from placing dollar limits on the care you can receive.

More Americans without insurance have gained coverage. Over the past four years, over three million young Americans have been able to stay on their family plans. And over the past five and a half months alone, more than five million Americans have signed up to buy private health insurance plans on HealthCare.gov – plans that can no longer discriminate against preexisting conditions or charge you more just because you’re a woman or a cancer survivor – and millions more have enrolled in Medicaid.

It is these numbers, and the stories behind each one of them, that will ultimately determine the fate of this law. It is the measurable outcomes – in savings for families and businesses, healthier kids with better performance in schools, seniors with more money to spend because they’re paying less for their medicine, and young entrepreneurs who’ll have the freedom to try new jobs or chase that new idea – that will ultimately offer more security and peace of mind to more Americans who work hard to get ahead.

Last month, after her first wellness visit under her new insurance plan, a woman from Colorado shared with me what that peace of mind meant to her. “After using my new insurance for the first time, you probably heard my sigh of relief from the White House,” she wrote. “I felt like a human being again. I felt that I had value.”

This is what’s at stake any time anyone, out of some outdated obsession, pledges to repeal or undermine the Affordable Care Act. And that’s why my administration will spend the fifth year of this law and beyond working to implement and improve on it.

If you’re an American who wants to get covered – or if you know someone who should – it’s now last call for 2014. March 31st is the deadline to get covered this year. So check out HealthCare.gov or call 1-800-318-2596 to see what new choices are available to you, and get covered today.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/03/23/statement-president-fourth-anniversary-affordable-care-act

[NYC Liberal]

115. It's a good thing FDR didn't demand all or nothing on Social Security,

like some want with the ACA. He got passed what he could and then worked to expand and strengthen it - just like Pres. Obama is doing with the ACA.

Social Security instantly became America’s biggest social program. Yet, ironically, a program now deemed by some to be too large to keep its promises was criticized in 1935 for being too small.

Initial Social Security benefits were much lower than today and the program covered only 60 percent of workers. Vast groups—most significantly millions of farm and domestic workers—were excluded. Because Hispanics and African Americans filled a large percentage of these jobs, they were disproportionately affected. The system also reflected traditional views of family life. Many jobs categories dominated by woman were not covered. Women generally qualified for insurance through their husbands or children.

http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/pdfs/ssguide.pdf

Some would rather us have no progress at all if we can't get everything we want RIGHT NOW.

[randome]

101. I keep looking for an endgame in these type of posts.

What if everyone on DU suddenly agreed with you that ACA is a big mistake? Where does that leave you?

Would it bring you comfort to know others are, like you, miserable? Or would it mean you would work hard to replace ACA?

Let's just skip the 'misery loves company' part and go directly to work for a better system, okay?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font][hr]

[jazzimov]

105. Then you are in denial.

We couldn't even get a Public Option.

[Babel_17]

108. The silver lining is that we'll win the long game

Hopefully

[OilemFirchen]

109. Why didn't Roosevelt pass universal healthcare?

In 1933 he commissioned a proposal and dropped it in 1935.

The Senate was 59 D to 36 R, Congress was 313 D to 117 R.

Howsabout Truman?

His Senate was 54 D to 42 R, Congress was 263 D to 171 R.



Why didn't Wilson propose it when the national sentiment was strongly in favor of it?

It's remarkable that a sweeping law, pushed by the first black president, against the backdrop of right-wing media and the well-funded Tea Party - along with a marginal and trepidatious congress - passed and survived every attempt to destroy it.

And that's who you're picking on?

[randome]

116. Whoa. Facts and history. Good combination.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[OilemFirchen]

129. I didn't include an answer, BTW.

Roosevelt and Truman - liberal icons both, from "our parents Democratic Party", caved to pressure from special interest groups - most notably the AMA. Which, of course, is completely different from the politics of today because... used cars or something.

It's worth noting, as well, that Teddy Roosevelt was the first to propose a national health care system, and he failed to pass it. Because he wasn't elected. Lame excuse.

[randome]

136. Did we have ANY campaign finance laws back then?

Anyone know? I wonder, then, based on your post, if things are worse than before or relatively the same.

Obviously politics is much the same. But was money at the root of it back then, too?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[OilemFirchen]

137. Yes.

Starting with the Tillman Act of 1907 which stated:

All contributions by corporations to any political committee or for any political purpose should be forbidden by law; directors should not be permitted to use stockholders' money for such purposes; and, moreover, a prohibition of this kind would be, as far as it went, an effective method of stopping the evils aimed at in corrupt practices acts. Not only should both the National and the several State Legislatures forbid any officer of a corporation from using the money of the corporation in or about any election, but they should also forbid such use of money in connection with any legislation save by the employment of counsel in public manner for distinctly legal services.

... and the Federal Corrupt Practices Act of 1925. (And, subsequently, the Hatch Act of 1939 and the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947.)

However,

The campaign finance provisions of all of these laws were largely ignored, however, because none provided an institutional framework to administer their provisions effectively. The laws had other flaws as well. For example, spending limits applied only to committees active in two or more States. Further, candidates could avoid the spending limit and disclosure requirements altogether because a candidate who claimed to have no knowledge of spending on his behalf was not liable under the 1925 Act.

http://www.fec.gov/info/appfour.htm

[steve2470]

146. awesome post ! nt

[Laelth]

113. Not even TRYING for single payer was a mistake.

And it's that kind of "give up without a fight" strategy coming from the Obama administration that demoralizes the base and depresses turn-out (as opposed to saying ugly things about the President on DU which does nothing more than advise the party insiders that the base is ticked--advice they should hear and heed).

-Laelth

[ballyhoo]

118. Whoa! What a post! You must live in my

city. I could tell you horror stories, one involving my daughter. But, alas, I have a low post count. Thank you.

[Doctor_J]

123. If the Dems had really wanted some progress on HC, at the very least Medicare would have begun at 60

In fact they got nothing, which pissed off a large number of 2008 voters.

[jeff47]

126. Lieberman explicitly rejected the Medicare buy-in.

How, exactly, do you get him to vote for lowering the eligibility age?

[jeff47]

124. So Bernie Sanders is a liar?

Senator Sanders said there were 8-10 votes for single payer in the Senate.

You are claiming he was lying.

ME: We passed the ACA without a single GOP vote.

THEM: But red state dems would have been turned out.

No, the red state senators would have voted against single-payer. Losing 10-90 does not get us single payer.

THEM: So we have to keep working for single-payer!

ME: How? The dems in red states were turned out. We lost the House and haven't realized enough success with the ACA to adequately guard against losing the Senate.

Because the ACA moves the battle for single payer to the states. The next step is to get single payer in blue states. We already won VT. We need to be working on CA and NY and the rest.

Either directly to single payer or via a public option. With no need to profit, a public option should be cheaper than private insurance, which should result in people signing up for it. When they don't die, that means a larger risk pool, which means even lower costs and even more sign ups. You end up with de-facto single payer.

Once we have those examples of single payer working well, that will destroy the FUD the Republicans are spreading about it. Which then lets us return to the national battle in a much stronger position.

1. All we got for being active in 2009 and 2010 was an abomination of a law that has pissed off more people than it has helped. Has it helped people? Yes, but that doesn't nullify the fact that more people are angry than happy

Excellent work regurgitating Republican spin. Actual polling doesn't agree with you.

4. We can't campaign on improving the law because that reinforces the GOP talking point that the law is broken

This is an extremely dumb argument.

Social Security was much smaller in the 1930s. Medicare has been expanded several times. According to you, both of those could not happen.

5. The President continually suspends entire sections of the law including the individual mandate for 2 years

This is false. The mandate was always scheduled to kick in in 2014.

What did we win? We are further behind than when we started because the entire effort was half-assed corporatist kowtowing from the start.

We won single payer.

It's going to take some time, but the ACA is the mechanism through which we get there. The state-based system means we fight in the blue states, where we are much more likely to win. Once we've won there, we are in a stronger position to expand to purple states. Once we've won there, we can return to the national battle in a much better position.

Your alternative is we lose 10-90. Pressure from Obama and voters? Ok, now we lose 25-75. And health care reform is ignored for the next 20 years, just like 1993.

[kenny blankenship]

127. There was one thing standing in our way, which maybe you've failed to account for:

namely, the Democratic Party and its almost pure and blemishless corruption.

[Hoyt]

135. No way this Congress would have taken on the risk of single payer, I'm not even sure Public Option

would have made a lot of difference.

I really don't think the difference in premiums for a public option would stop the criticism/griping.

"In the Congressional Budget Office’s estimation, premiums for the public plan would be between 7 percent and 8 percent lower, on average, during the 2016–2023 period than premiums for private plans offered in the exchanges—mainly because the public plan’s payment rates for providers would generally be lower than those of private plans." http://www.cbo.gov/budget-options/2013/44890

If that is true, I don't think folks will cheer because their premiums go from $400/month to $368. Until the greed in the system (including that of us as patients) is contained, this is going to be a rough transition. However, the ACA is a huge step forward in a long transition

[ProSense]

138. Statement by Conyers and Kucinich:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8735310

It had no chance in the Senate, but there were even issues in the House. Remember, 39 conservative Dems voted against the final bill.

[truedelphi]

152. According to your profile, you were not on this site back in the Summer of 2009

At that time, there were many tallies conducted by level headed DU'ers, letting every reader here know that we could have had the public option.

Of course, if you want to look deeper into the issue, I urge you to start considering what Madfloridian has detailed in such excruciating detail. Her contributions to DU have let us pull back the curtains to watch how very deliberate the Big Leadership of the Democratic Party has been in their destruction of progressives on the campaign trail. People like Rahm Emanuel went around the nation, circa 2004 to 2007, and forced liberals and progressives out, and brought us Blue Dawgies like the very disliked Mike Thompson here in Northern calif. (Mike Thompson considers Social Security a burden on our deficit, and will not even talk to people who attend his meetings and try to tell him otherwise.)

Anyway here is a link to one of madfloridian's posts about the creation of a neo-conservative Blue Dawg party, out of what was once a distinctly working class FDR-styled political movement:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024588159

[woo me with science]

155. kick

[donheld]

157. In your dreams