HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Does nobody remember that...

Tue Nov 10, 2020, 07:45 PM

Does nobody remember that when it comes to the ACA...

the compromises that were made from the original proposal? The original proposal was basically single payer. The current ACA is a gutted version of what Obama and the Democrats originally wanted. In desperation to at least get something they not only compromised with the Republicans but let the Republicans put extreme restrictions on it just to get something passed. One of those was the penalty if you have no insurance. That was a Republican introduced requirement to the bill. The Republicans gutted ACA, set it up for failure in the future as a mea culpa to the Democrats so it would pass. The Democrats, backed into a corner, compromised the shit out of the ACA just to get at least something. It is very important, the Republicans wanted the mandate originally! I swear, the shit these fucks get away with.

27 replies, 1804 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 27 replies Author Time Post
Reply Does nobody remember that when it comes to the ACA... (Original post)
Cheezoholic Nov 2020 OP
CaliforniaPeggy Nov 2020 #1
MiniMe Nov 2020 #2
still_one Nov 2020 #3
enough Nov 2020 #5
Cheezoholic Nov 2020 #7
still_one Nov 2020 #9
In It to Win It Nov 2020 #8
Demsrule86 Nov 2020 #12
Cerridwen Nov 2020 #17
BumRushDaShow Nov 2020 #21
Hortensis Nov 2020 #18
BumRushDaShow Nov 2020 #20
Hoyt Nov 2020 #4
In It to Win It Nov 2020 #6
Demsrule86 Nov 2020 #11
In It to Win It Nov 2020 #13
BumRushDaShow Nov 2020 #22
In It to Win It Nov 2020 #24
BumRushDaShow Nov 2020 #25
In It to Win It Nov 2020 #26
BumRushDaShow Nov 2020 #27
ehrnst Nov 2020 #15
Hortensis Nov 2020 #19
Demsrule86 Nov 2020 #10
greenjar_01 Nov 2020 #14
Brainfodder Nov 2020 #16
Demsrule86 Nov 2020 #23

Response to Cheezoholic (Original post)

Tue Nov 10, 2020, 07:48 PM

1. I hear you and your frustration; plus, I share them. Outrageous! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cheezoholic (Original post)

Tue Nov 10, 2020, 07:49 PM

2. I remember

They worked on reconciliation, and then they went back on everything

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cheezoholic (Original post)

Tue Nov 10, 2020, 07:57 PM

3. For those who don't remember what happened with the ACA, here is a walk down memory lane

The U.S. House of Representatives was safely Democratic as a result of the Nov. 4, 2008, elections by a margin of 257 – 199; the Democrats had gained 21 seats from the 2006-07 Congress. The real interesting ACA political dynamics began during the November 2008 U.S. Senate elections.

Going into the 2008 elections, the Senate consisted of 49 Democrats, 49 Republicans, and two Independents (Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Bernie Sanders of Vermont) who caucused with the Democrats. When the smoke cleared from those elections, the Democrats picked up eight seats to increase their majority to 57-41 (although Democrat Al Franken’s recount victory was not official until July 7). With the two Independents, the Democrats were one vote shy of the supermajority magic number of 60 they needed to ward off any filibuster attempts and move forward with broad healthcare reform legislation.

But on April 28, 2009, the dynamics changed when Pennsylvania Republican Arlen Spector changed parties, giving Senate Democrats that coveted 60th vote.
Now the Democrats had a safe majority in the House and a filibuster-proof supermajority of 60 in the Senate. That scenario lasted only four months before fate intervened. Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts died on August 25, 2009, leaving the Democrats, once again, with 59 seats (counting the two Independents). Exactly one month later, on September 25, Democrat Paul Kirk was appointed interim senator from Massachusetts to serve until the special election set for January 19, 2010 – once again giving the Democrats that 60th vote. But the intrigue was just beginning.

There didn’t seem to be an urgent need for Democrats to reconcile both bills immediately, because the Massachusetts special election (scheduled for January 19, 2010) was almost certain to fall to the Democrat, Attorney General Martha Coakley. After all, no Republican had been elected to the U.S. Senate from the Bay State since Edward Brooke in 1972 – 38 years before! But in yet another twist of fate, Republican Scott Brown ran his campaign as the 41st senator against ObamaCare and shocked nearly everyone by winning the special election by 110,000 votes.
That left House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and President Obama in a dilemma. Everyone assumed that the Christmas Eve 2009 Senate bill would be tweaked considerably to conform more with the House bill passed two months previously. But now that strategy wouldn’t work, because the Democrats no longer had the 60th vote in the Senate to end debate. What to do? They decided to have the House take up the identical bill that the Senate passed on Christmas Eve. It passed on March 21, 2010, by a 219 – 212 vote. This time, no Republicans came on board, and 34 Democrats voted against. President Obama signed the ACA legislation two days later on March 23.

The fact is we needed every Democratic vote to pass the ACA because not only did no republican vote for it, but lieberman, both nelsons, one in Florida and one in Nebraska, Blanch Lincoln, birch bayh made it clear they would not vote for Medicare for all, or single payer, and we needed every vote just to get what we have today

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #3)

Tue Nov 10, 2020, 08:03 PM

5. Thanks. NT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #3)

Tue Nov 10, 2020, 08:10 PM

7. Thank you for that and to be clear..

it was Evan Bayh, not his father. He was the antithesis to his father. He was the dagger in hearts of Democrats in the Indiana.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cheezoholic (Reply #7)

Tue Nov 10, 2020, 08:21 PM

9. Thank-you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #3)

Tue Nov 10, 2020, 08:10 PM

8. People seem to forget this part

"The fact is we needed every Democratic vote to pass the ACA because not only did no republican vote for it, but lieberman, both nelsons, one in Florida and one in Nebraska, Blanch Lincoln, birch bayh made it clear they would not vote for Medicare for all, or single payer, and we needed every vote just to get what we have today."

The ACA that we ended up with is just as conservative as the most conservative Democrats at the time... which is Republican-lite.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to In It to Win It (Reply #8)

Tue Nov 10, 2020, 08:25 PM

12. And since those conservative Democrats were booted, we have been able to get nothing...we

need a big tent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #3)

Wed Nov 11, 2020, 06:58 AM

17. bart stupak Hyde Amendment fed dollars

stupak retired after

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cerridwen (Reply #17)

Wed Nov 11, 2020, 07:42 AM

21. Yes - that was the final piece

the 17 Democrats in the House under Stupak creating a scene unless a line was added to the bill that is already always added anyway. But to underscore it, Pelosi offered a "memo" be included to point out that yes, the "Hyde Amendment" (nonsense) was included.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #3)

Wed Nov 11, 2020, 07:09 AM

18. Good post. Notably, Franken was illicitly kept from being seated

and voting for, what, 9 months? Basically the Republiclans stole the first year of his term. Another Democratic senator during this time got sick, went home and never came back. Turbulent year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #3)

Wed Nov 11, 2020, 07:40 AM

20. Don't forget this guy -



which is why the ACA-PPA is the way it is.

Here is an interesting running commentary series on his role during that year of crafting and drafting the ACA, from the prospective of Baucus' Senate Finance Committee (just ONE of at least 6 committees working on the bill), that directly controlled the "financial" aspects of the Senate versions (NOT the House versions) of the ACA - https://archives.cjr.org/campaign_desk/baucus_watch_archive.php

Specifically here is where single-payer was torpedoed by him - https://archives.cjr.org/campaign_desk/baucus_watch_part_ix.php

Baucus Watch, Part IX
The senator ejects single-payer advocates—again
By Trudy Lieberman, CJR
May 13, 2009


Single-payer advocates tried again yesterday to be heard at another Senate Finance Committee hearing on health reform options. Again, chairman Max Baucus indicated he didn’t want them there. The topic of this hearing was how to pay for reform, and the witness list included various organizations with strong views (or expertise) on the subject, such as the American Enterprise Institute, the Urban Institute’s Tax Policy Center, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the AFL-CIO, and the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation. Michael Jacobson, the long-time executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, whose specialty is food and nutrition, was also there. Maybe Jacobson was invited for diversity.

Single-payer proponents had asked that Dr. Marica Angell, former editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine and author of a popular book, The Truth About the Drug Companies, or Dr. Steffie Woolhandler of the Physicians for a National Health Program be allowed to speak. Advocates had also tried to get New York Sen. Charles Schumer to help them, but it appears things didn’t work out politically.

The Washington Times reported that several protestors stood up and shouted such slogans as “no more blue crosses and double crosses.” Like last week, protesting the exclusion of single-payer supporters from the table was apparently too indecorous a thing for the Senate, so Baucus had five demonstrators removed from the hearing room. They were arrested in the hallway. As the meeting came to order, twenty-five nurses dressed in red hospital scrubs stood in silence, with their backs turned to the chairman, and left the room. The Times noted that the audience applauded.

Baucus had this to say:

Believe me, we hear you. I will meet with anyone who wants to meet. We’ve got to work with what we’ve got. We cannot go to a single payer system, but that’s not going to work in this country.


More: https://archives.cjr.org/campaign_desk/baucus_watch_part_ix.php


I spent over a full year following the ACA on CSPAN, CSPAN2, and CSPAN3 (all of which showed the various hearings going on simultaneously in both chambers - at least 6 of them). Each committee would offer their draft legislation and the idiot media would suddenly jump up and pick out a single committee's version and declare that ONE committee's draft mark-up was "THE BILL", as if that single committee's draft was the final version.



What had to happen at the end of this initial process was that they had to create a Joint Committee to consolidate and reconcile the House and Senate versions and then bring that back to their respective chambers to vote on and that is what happened in December to get something "on the books".

In the spring of 2010, because Democrats no longer had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, they were able to use the tool of "Reconciliation" to craft the final budget piece that had not been included in the original ACA, and this involved the Senate taking a bill that had already passed the House, because that is the only way the Senate can proffer a bill that involved money (the House MUST "originate" these because they have the "power of the purse" ). And in this case, they used a bill that involved Student aid, and tacked on the healthcare budget outline to it, to create the "Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010", which was signed in March 2010 as an amendment to the Affordable Care Act passed the previous December.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cheezoholic (Original post)

Tue Nov 10, 2020, 08:02 PM

4. Lots of compromises were necessary to get something, but I think

 

mandate and penalty were always part of the plan to force everyone eligible to sign up. Don’t think it was introduced by GOPers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cheezoholic (Original post)

Tue Nov 10, 2020, 08:05 PM

6. I don't recall single payer being on the table. It would have never made it past the Senate

It wouldn't have even made it past all Senate Democrats, which you couldn't afford to lose one or the bill tanked entirely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to In It to Win It (Reply #6)

Tue Nov 10, 2020, 08:24 PM

11. It still won't be passed in the house...if we get the senate maybe a public option.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #11)

Tue Nov 10, 2020, 08:34 PM

13. I don't disagree

I think a public option is the likeliest of all to actually pass in Congress

When Democrats did the ACA, we couldn’t even get a public option through the Democrats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to In It to Win It (Reply #13)

Wed Nov 11, 2020, 08:01 AM

22. It wasn't "through the Democrats". It was "couldn't get it through Lieberman"

In essence, Baucus blocked Single Payer -

Baucus Watch, Part IX
The senator ejects single-payer advocates—again
By Trudy Lieberman, CJR
May 13, 2009


Single-payer advocates tried again yesterday to be heard at another Senate Finance Committee hearing on health reform options. Again, chairman Max Baucus indicated he didn’t want them there. The topic of this hearing was how to pay for reform, and the witness list included various organizations with strong views (or expertise) on the subject, such as the American Enterprise Institute, the Urban Institute’s Tax Policy Center, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the AFL-CIO, and the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation. Michael Jacobson, the long-time executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, whose specialty is food and nutrition, was also there. Maybe Jacobson was invited for diversity.

Single-payer proponents had asked that Dr. Marica Angell, former editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine and author of a popular book, The Truth About the Drug Companies, or Dr. Steffie Woolhandler of the Physicians for a National Health Program be allowed to speak. Advocates had also tried to get New York Sen. Charles Schumer to help them, but it appears things didn’t work out politically.

The Washington Times reported that several protestors stood up and shouted such slogans as “no more blue crosses and double crosses.” Like last week, protesting the exclusion of single-payer supporters from the table was apparently too indecorous a thing for the Senate, so Baucus had five demonstrators removed from the hearing room. They were arrested in the hallway. As the meeting came to order, twenty-five nurses dressed in red hospital scrubs stood in silence, with their backs turned to the chairman, and left the room. The Times noted that the audience applauded.

Baucus had this to say:

Believe me, we hear you. I will meet with anyone who wants to meet. We’ve got to work with what we’ve got. We cannot go to a single payer system, but that’s not going to work in this country.


More: https://archives.cjr.org/campaign_desk/baucus_watch_part_ix.php


and Lieberman blocked the Public Option -

Politics
Why Lieberman Hates the Public Option

Theories explaining the senator's threat to filibuster the health care bill if it includes a public option
Mara Gay
October 28, 2009

This article is from the archive of our partner .

The public option was on a roll. Then, on Tuesday, Sen. Joe Lieberman threatened to filibuster the health care bill if it includes a public option, which he says would create "trouble for taxpayers, for the premium payers and for the national debt." Liberals are once again at war with Lieberman, who has been on the outs with Democrats since ditching the party and campaigning for John McCain. Left-wing pundits are laying on the derision, while everyone else asks: what is Lieberman after?

  • Power Grab The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder says Lieberman's maneuvering is a clear play for more influence over the final bill. "The final bill, post-conference, is going to look a bit different from the reconciled Senate bill," he explains. "Lieberman is giving himself the power to influence the final bill. I doubt that the Senate leadership is going to press him too hard right now, preferring to see if he can be accommodated in the final debate." At Gawker, Amrita Rajan agrees. "Joe Lieberman Would Like Some Attention Please," her headline says.

    (snip)

  • Resents Democrats At The New Republic, Jonathan Chait says Lieberman is "furious with the party, resentful of President Obama (who beat his friend in 2008) and would relish a Democratic catastrophe...Lieberman won't join a futile filibuster, but if he has the chance to stick in the knife and kill health care reform, I think he'd probably jump at the chance." And he suggests Lieberman's true constituents may be quite wary of the public option. "Another reason for his position, of course, is that Connecticut is home to some huge insurance companies, who don't want any new competition."

  • In the Pocket of Insurance Companies At The Daily Beast, Paul Begala goes for blood. "Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman is identified as (I-CT). But the 'I' does not stand for 'Independent.' It stands for 'Insurance Industry.'" Begala says Lieberman opposed reform in 1993 and 1994 for the same reasons he opposes it now: he receives significant support from the insurance companies. "Lieberman sided with insurance companies against sick people, and with insurance companies against citizens who want to sue to protect their rights in court. As The New York Times reported, 'Many of Mr. Lieberman's friends said he had no alternative but to take this position because it was the one favored by the insurance industry. The industry is important to Connecticut's economy and has generously donated to Mr. Lieberman's campaigns over the years.'"


  • https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2009/10/why-lieberman-hates-the-public-option/347740/



    And to get the 60 votes to pass "something", the compromises had to happen.

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to BumRushDaShow (Reply #22)

    Wed Nov 11, 2020, 08:49 AM

    24. Lieberman caucused with Democrats, so there I include Lieberman in "Democrats".

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to In It to Win It (Reply #24)

    Wed Nov 11, 2020, 02:27 PM

    25. Yes except there were basically ONLY 2 in the Senate

    --Baucus and Lieberman-- who made mincemeat out of the ACA. NOT the (implied "all" or "most" ) "Democrats".

    I.e., the other 58 Democrats (and Indies like Sanders) weren't doing that.

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to BumRushDaShow (Reply #25)

    Wed Nov 11, 2020, 02:56 PM

    26. Those are facts that I do not argue. My position is broad. My only point is that we could not

    get a public option through the Democratic caucus that we had at the time.

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to In It to Win It (Reply #26)

    Wed Nov 11, 2020, 03:24 PM

    27. Yes I agree and that was unfortunate due to a pair of show-boaters

    who were our "Susan Collinses". Without the filibuster, it would have been easy peasy.

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to In It to Win It (Reply #6)

    Wed Nov 11, 2020, 06:55 AM

    15. Yes, that's right. I don't know where the OP heard that.

     

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to In It to Win It (Reply #6)

    Wed Nov 11, 2020, 07:14 AM

    19. It was -- as an OPTION. The ACA was not "basically single payer."

    Plenty of people wanted to keep their insurance as it was, and it was important that they be able to do so, albeit subject to the regulations that would improve all insurance, such as mandated coverages, etc. Single payer was to be an alternative option for those who wanted it.

    I had every intention of going directly to single payer. I expected that over time, as it was demonstrated to consistently be better and less expensive, more and more people would move to it. Of course. Which is why the Republicans and Lieberman were determined to kill it.

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to Cheezoholic (Original post)

    Tue Nov 10, 2020, 08:23 PM

    10. The ACA made America belive health care was a right...so I love it...but we need the Senate

    to fix it. It also saved my daughter's life. Had the states passed the Medicare expansion, way more would be insured.

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to Cheezoholic (Original post)

    Tue Nov 10, 2020, 08:37 PM

    14. Welcome to DU

     

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to Cheezoholic (Original post)

    Wed Nov 11, 2020, 06:58 AM

    16. The penalty (mandate BS?) was $100 USD, that's it?

    All the fuss over a hundy?




    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to Cheezoholic (Original post)

    Wed Nov 11, 2020, 08:38 AM

    23. It was never single payer. The votes were not there

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

    Reply to this thread