The spinelessness leads to everything else...

[kpete]

But the spinelessness leads to everything else, IMHO.

If Obama had just stood there and told everyone, the whole point of the new law is so that insurance companies can't rip you off anymore, they have minimum standards they have to meet, and if your plan didn't meet those standards, they were just stealing from you -- and if every Democrat in Congress echoed the same talking points -- instead of this turning into, "ooh, the president lied to us" and him backpedaling furiously and looking weak and confused, it could be spun -- honestly -- as "the Democrats are protecting us from sleazy, predatory insurance companies."

http://www.eschatonblog.com/2013/11/okay.html#comment-1124590369

[BlueStreak]

1. But, but, but ,,, that might have offended the insurance CEOs

such as Anthem's who made $31,700,000 last year. After all, a lot of Democrats plan to get some of those cushy jobs after leaving office. Not as CEOs, necessarily, but it is all the same club.

http://orgtheory.wordpress.com/2011/08/19/theyrule-net-interlocking-boards/

[L0oniX]

52. ^^^this^^^

[russspeakeasy]

2. Thank you. I needed that..

[progressoid]

3. I don't think he could do that since ACA requires you to purchase from those very companies.

And as we've seen how the ins companies are already skirting the law, it makes such a statement ring hollow.

[BlueStreak]

7. It was a move to calm the storm. It doesn't affect the big picture.

For better or worse, we need the insurance companies, and they need the ACA at this stage. It is really ironic -- strange bedfellows sort of thing.

Most of us would prefer to shot down this corrupt industry altogether, or at least confine it to supplemental coverage. But that's not what the ACA is.

Basically Obama has to keep the waters calm enough to the December 15 deadline. That will bring in a lot of people who want their coverage to state on January 1. And then the March deadline will being in everybody who doesn't want to pay a fine. This "concession", even if it were a real one (which it is not) would only affect about a million people, and they are ones that already have insurance of some fashion. We like to refer to that as "junk" but it is certainly better than nothing. Realistically out of that million who might keep their inferior policy an extra year, perhaps 10,000 will develop a really expensive disease that would blow through caps and leave these people financially destitute.

And you know what? Heck with them. We tried to help them. I don't have any sympathy for them. The ones I have sympathy for are all the working poor who fall into the Medicaid hole.

In reality, Obama has called out the insurance companies. He has put this back on them. They WANT to cancel the policies. They want to push people into more expensive policies, especially if the government will pick up half of the tab.

Obama is flying into a storm right now. IMHO, he is not making it better by lying about the status of healthcare.gov. The site actually works pretty well right now. Obvious Obama has made a calculation that there is nothing to be gained this week by arguing that the site is working. But right after Thanksgiving, they had better be ready to mount a real blitz to get people signed up for January 1. Once there are a million people with ACA policies, the MSM narrative will have to change.

This will turn quickly. There were 106K enrolled in October and 1.000.000 who had applied, but not selected plans yet. There will probably be about a million people enrolled by the end of November -- maybe a little less because you have to make a payment to activate your policy. Some people won't want to pay a month ahead. But 30 days from now, three will be well over a million people who are signed up for ACA plans. The media will have to report on that -- or at least shut up.

[progressoid]

10. A million enrolled sounds nice.

But if there are 48 million uninsured, a million is only 2%. We're going to need a LOT more unless we want to hear pundits declaring this a 98% failure.

[jeff47]

15. Read that again.

A million who keep their crappy sub-standard insurance. Most of the rest would be buying policies on the exchanges.

[progressoid]

21. Ok, I read it again.

I was addressing what BlueStreak said at the end about people who actually sign on to the exchange, " There will probably be about a million people enrolled by the end of November -- maybe a little less because you have to make a payment to activate your policy. Some people won't want to pay a month ahead. But 30 days from now, three will be well over a million people who are signed up for ACA plans."

[BlueStreak]

28. Right. There will be a million enrolled in ACA policies by Dec 15

Last edited Fri Nov 15, 2013, 05:31 PM - Edit history (1)

Maybe a lot more than that. There isn't much reason to do it before then because the prices stay the same, so why pay any earlier for a January policy than you have to?

And by the end of march, there will probably be 3 or 4 million enrolled in ACA policies.

So what if there are a million more who keep a non-ACA policy during 2014? At this point, I have renewed my non-ACA policy through December 2014. I can cancel it and get an ACA police up through March. Either way, this won't affect the success of the ACA.

And there will be another 10 million or so getting Medicaid.

Let the Republicans try to argue that is a failure. The big numbers of people remaining uninsured will be a direct result of Republican governors sabotaging the Medicaid expansion. In the 2014 campaign, we need to go right at those states to educate those red state residents how stupid their Governors are for turning away what amounts to a no-brainer economic development program that would actually net the state a SURPLUS of tax revenue at no cost or risk to the state.

There will be plenty of people who should be in ACA policies but will pay the tax instead during 2014. But we'll get more of them in 2015 with the penalty goes up, and we'll get practically all of them by 2016 when the tax is so high that just about everybody is better off buying insurance.

[Keefer]

57. The only problem with what you said is

the government said it needs 7 million enrollees by March for this to work.

[BlueStreak]

60. No they didn't. That was just an estimate

In reality, it might take 3-4 years to enroll 98% of the people that are targeted, and that won't be a problem. It will take several years for the migration of people to ACA policies to have a real effect on the cost curve anyway. IN some respects, it is a good thing for the ramp-up to take several years. Right at this moment, we are at the apex of the resistance. This is the moment when the maximum number of people are fighting the change. As we see this week, the insurance companies are actually on the side of moving forward.

The big problem at the moment is the media -- and Democrats stoking the bogus media narrative by saying that the website isn't working when it is working. The media always has to have a narrative, which rarely has any real connection with the facts. The narrative is that the website is horrible and won't be good until the end of November. We just have to let that narrative run its course. Some people in the media will actually have to check the website in December, and they will find that it is actually working pretty well. Faux will still claim it is dead, but by that point millions of people will be enrolling, so it will be pretty hard for the media to keep the November narrative. Besides, that narrative will be old, so they will want a new narrative anyway. It is up to use to make sure the December narrative is about the millions of people who are getting good insurance.

As far as the economics of it, well, we are way ahead of the game because so many Republican governors are not expanding Medicaid.

[MyNameGoesHere]

11. I thought the whole point is they can't

buy from companies that don't meet the requirement? It should have been addressed and messaged, not skirted and "misspoken" about. It was a political gamble that back fired. The President was checkmated in this nth level chess game. Of course he can always call upon those Jedi skills and fix it.

[Armstead]

4. They are allergic to straightforward and honest in Washington

[woo me with science]

5. There are corporations to please. nt

[chervilant]

48. And Corporate Megalomaniacs to appease... n/t

[rhett o rick]

6. If the govment wont let us buy sleazy insurance, what next? Wont be able to use PayDay Loan Sharks?

[L0oniX]

53. AMSCOT = too big to fail

[stupidicus]

8. well, that assumes spinelessness is the proximate cause

as opposed to being stuck between competing interests.

How's a good "Third Way" dem and reconciliator supposed to keep the knives from coming out on both sides of him, or one side making a pin cushion outta him?

It's quite the balancing act for that type.

[dreamnightwind]

41. +1 - eom

[Morphia]

44. Very True but it is to be expected when 'Democrats' try to implement GOP Policies

I do hope people will finally learn a lesson about the Third Way and how destructive it really is but then again most 'mericans are clueless dolts when it comes to DC and what is going on.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

9. I don't believe that BHO lied.

But let's compare lies over WMDs.

How many GOPigs and media types were screaming over that?

[Ace Acme]

12. What if the ACA is just an opportunity for the NSA to hoover up all our confidential medical info

... and share it with our corporate masters?

It seems to me naive to think it's not.

[jeff47]

16. :facepalm:

Really? You think the existing insurance companies wouldn't do that without the ACA?

If so, I've got a fantastic investment opportunity for you in some oceanside property in Iowa.

[Ace Acme]

17. The ACA brings in those who don't have relationships with the insurers.

Few of the activists and dissidents I know have medical insurance.

What planet do you live on?

[jeff47]

19. Because those people never got sick, right?

Nor had jobs. Or filed taxes. Or owned a telephone. Or used any government or corporate program. Ever.

You are claiming that insurance companies are the only way the NSA could gather intelligence on these people. That's utterly moronic.

[Ace Acme]

22. Few of the activists and dissidents I know have jobs with health insurance.

No I'm not "claiming that insurance companies are the only way the NSA could gather intelligence on these people." Why would anyone say such a stupid thing?

I'm pointing out that the ACA website wherein millions of people previously outside of the medical databases answer confidential questions about their medical history represents an enormous intelligence opportunity for the NSA.

[jeff47]

24. You realize your two paragraphs utterly contradict each other, right?

Your second paragraph requires the first to be false.

And we haven't even gotten to the part where the leaks about the NSA don't actually include collecting data on US persons, except for the phone metadata program. If you actually look at the leaked documents instead of the breathless coverage, you find all sorts of interesting things.

[Ace Acme]

26. I'll suppose that you can not conceive of the idea

of previously-uninsured people applying for the ACA benefits, and that you don't know that many people working as contractors or temporaries don't have health coverage.

Otherwise, your analysis makes no sense. Enjoy your irrationality. I'm sure it's oodles of amusement for your friends and family!

[jeff47]

56. I'll suppose that you can not conceive of the idea

That those same people would have done something else in their life to allow them to be tracked in your dystopian vision of society.

[Ace Acme]

61. That's paranoid.

Obama with the right hand gives us unlimited NSA surveillance powers, and with the left hand offers cheap medical care.

Why should we trust him? That would be stupid.

[jeff47]

65. Because we actually did land on the moon.

What the hell does that have to do with anything?

Because there's tons of people out there who make the claim we never landed on the moon. They point to things they think of as "odd" as proof. And they continue to point to such things even when it's shown they are wrong. They've decided the overall truth, and evidence really doesn't matter anymore.

There's tons of people out there who insist the NSA is spying on an enormous number of US persons. Problem is the actual documents leaked by Snowden and others do not support this. There's massive spying, but the documents indicate that spying is not targeting US persons. But to large numbers of people, that just doesn't matter. They've decided the overall truth, and the evidence really doesn't matter anymore.

Now, let's forget about that for a second, and pretend there really is a massive NSA program. Why would they need "Obamacare"? Our lives already leave massive electronic trails. So if there really was a massive NSA program to spy on US persons, they wouldn't need "Obamacare" to do so. If the NSA needs "Obamacare", then there isn't a massive NSA program.

[pothos]

32. you must not know very many people

if you think that the only activists and "dissidents" are crustpunks that live outside the system

[Ace Acme]

35. Contractors and Temporaries and Unemployed and UnderEmployed all live outside the healthcare system.

As you would know if you weren't an Elitepunk.

[pothos]

37. again

first of all, there is no such thing as an "elitepunk"

and if you think that any person in those categories you mentioned has never gone to planned parenthood for low cost birth control, or a sliding scale clinic for antibiotics, or an emergency room, or the health clinic at their school, then again, you must not know very many people.

[Ace Acme]

39. There is now. nt

[pothos]

23. I can guarantee you

that if the NSA wants to know anything about anyone, including the health of activists that have never had insurance, they can get that information already.

[Ace Acme]

25. You can guarantee that how? You must be well-connected. nt

[pothos]

33. you must not be paying attention

[Ace Acme]

36. You must think activists and dissidents make careless remarks on the phone.

We knew five years ago that the cell phones were spying on us.

[L0oniX]

54. Email [e-mail] to receive your $1000000 lotto winnings.

[jtuck004]

43. Don't they answer the same questions when they are treated for tear-gas inhalation or taser burns

in an emergency room? When they go to the doctor (whether with ins or not) in a state like WA where it's all on computers and shared with others - across networks the NSA already have access to?

Or perhaps they aren't very active or dissenting.

[Ace Acme]

50. That's paranoid. nt

[jtuck004]

59. LOL.

"What if the ACA is just an opportunity for the NSA to hoover up all our confidential medical info... and share it with our corporate masters?"

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ and this isn't? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^




Enjoy the echo.

[Ace Acme]

62. My what elequent smilies! But I can do better!

[lumberjack_jeff]

58. You're confusing "ACA" with Social Security and "NSA" with The Trilateral Commission.

[Orsino]

13. The money drives the spinelessness.

The money leads to everything else.

[xocet]

14. Let's see...

Example A: single-payer abandoned immediately...no fight at all

Example B: ACA mandated health insurance...tremendous fight even through a government shutdown

[hr]
Question: Which one is better for the insurance companies and which one is better for the citizens of the USA?

Conclusion: President Obama will only fight for the things that please his base.

[hr]

It is not spinelessness. The unincorporated citizens of the USA are simply not President Obama's base. Note that DNI Clapper is still employed after lying to Congress. President Obama has plenty of spine in keeping him on as DNI.

[seveneyes]

18. There has not been enough publicity of predatory insurance companies

If there had been, America would be ready to "smoke them out" by now.

[Dustlawyer]

20. Why do we persist in calling it "spinlessness?" That is not what it is!

So called Democrats are called "spineless" when they cave or don't fight. Remember, these are very ambitious individuals not prone to turn into shrinking violets or they would not have made it to D.C. THEY ARE BOUGHT OFF!!! Republicans are not "spineless" because they can openly support the policies of the Plutocracy, Democrats have to accede to the wishes of the Plutocracy by appearing to cave under pressure. Pressure from who? They blame this or that but the whole thing is orchestrated and spun so that we always blame the other side. I know we cannot change the corporate media and what they present, but let's just be honest here at DU and call it what it is!

[Enthusiast]

47. And I agree with you too.

But the appearance of spinelessness serves a vital purpose in preserving the status quo.

[tblue]

27. I know. Hopefully most people won't

elect to go back to their non-compliant policies. My family is one impacted by all of this. We did get a letter stating that our current policy is being discontinued at the end of this year. If I told you how much we've been paying for it, you'd scream. It's more than anybody else I have heard of yet. With the exchange, now there's at least one competing insurance company offering a roughly comparable plan for $200/month less than the one we've got. And we may qualify for an ACA subsidy, which would lower the premiums more than I ever dreamed possible. We don't know yet, but we will soon.

PLEASE, let the thing right itself ASAP. We need to move forward on healthcare reform, not backward. I wish the President would stand his ground. Sometimes I think he confuses the good guys and the bad guys.

[Agnosticsherbet]

29. Obama's promise, unfortunately, was caused by dumbing down an over simplified talking point

until it was both useless and inaccurate. We live in a culture that prefers things simple, but are dealing with an issue that is complex. Had he said, "You can keep your insurance if you like it, if it conforms to the knew law, and if the insurance companies do not decide to cancel the plan as is their legal right in a private insurance free market system, which they have done on a regular basis."

To damn many words in that talking point, which was made in answer to the accusation that Obama wanted to take people's beloved health care plans away from them.


Probably, a better statement would have been, "You can keep any plan as long as it fully conforms to the new Healthcare law." Closer, but probably over simplified and would not have answered the accusation that Obama was taking peoples health care away from them and replacing it with a Muslim socialist fascist health care death panel system.

Perhaps a clause should have been added to the health care bill that mandated all health insurance policies that do not meet the standard would automatically expand to meet the minimum standards of the ACA and cold not be canceled for one year after the roll out.

[Armstead]

30. Such promises afre one byproduct of spinelessness

[Agnosticsherbet]

34. I disagree with you notion that it is due to cowardice.

It was the result of a sound bite war waged over an issue that can not be explained in sound bites.

[Armstead]

42. This legislation will stop ripoff insurance policies and allow you to get better affordable coverage

That's pretty straightforward and sound-bitey.

The spinelessness was in trying to gloss over the basic crapiness of bad policies in order to pander.

But tehn again, IMO the whole approach to "reform" was spineless pandering, because it was based on keeping insurance companies happy rather than pushing for even a compromise public option.

[MisterP]

31. because he knows he can both serve Big Insurance and have everyone claim "he's protecting us from

sleazy, predatory insurance companies"

two birds, one stone

[liberal_at_heart]

38. That would have only worked if he could have increased subsidies. One of the problems with

people's policies being canceled was that to get a new policy was going to cost them hundreds more dollars a month.

[annabanana]

40. A clean statement, to be sure.

And very hard for the true, confused, exploited low information Repub base to argue against.

[Mostly Orbiting]

45. Yep

[Enthusiast]

46. K&R. How can we not agree with this?

It is correct.

[valerief]

49. He's not allowed to diss insurance companies. They're supposed to be "good" business. You know, like

for profit prisons and defense contractors.

[99Forever]

51. Exactly.

Obama, yet AGAIN, folds like a cheap suit.

Disgusting.

[L0oniX]

55. You mean Max Baucus is a spineless panderer ...spokesperson?

[RagAss]

63. Where do you think we live ?

In a real country ? This is a corporation...now get to work !

[libdem4life]

64. "The U.S. is currently facing a severe shortage of doctors." This may even be a worse situation.

"The Association of American Medical Colleges predicts that by 2020, the shortage will amount to more than 90,000 doctors, including 45,000 patient care physicians. Why such a shortfall? The baby boom generation is getting older and will require more medical care in the coming years. The newly enacted Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will soon require most people to obtain health insurance, leading millions more to seek care. Finally, a third of all doctors plan to retire this decade"

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2012/10/20/doctors-shortage-least-most/1644837/

Same with nurses and other auxiliary medical staff...takes a lot of money and a long time to show up in the actual medical facilities. I've never heard anyone mention this.

So maybe phasing it in, however tacky and bumpy and politically unhappy, may be better than people with health policies who can't get services. Many new Medicare or Medicaid patients now have to search and/or drive to find a doctor who is taking new patients.