Michael Moore: Obamacare is awful

[oberliner]

Today marks the beginning of health care coverage under the Affordable Care Act’s new insurance exchanges, for which two million Americans have signed up. Now that the individual mandate is officially here, let me begin with an admission: Obamacare is awful.

That is the dirty little secret many liberals have avoided saying out loud for fear of aiding the president’s enemies, at a time when the ideal of universal health care needed all the support it could get. Unfortunately, this meant that instead of blaming companies like Novartis, which charges leukemia patients $90,000 annually for the drug Gleevec, or health insurance chief executives like Stephen Hemsley of UnitedHealth Group, who made nearly $102 million in 2009, for the sky-high price of American health care, the president’s Democratic supporters bought into the myth that it was all those people going to get free colonoscopies and chemotherapy for the fun of it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/01/opinion/moore-the-obamacare-we-deserve.html

[Matariki]

1. And some the positive stuff from the article:

And yet — I would be remiss if I didn’t say this — Obamacare is a godsend. My friend Donna Smith, who was forced to move into her daughter’s spare room at age 52 because health problems bankrupted her and her husband, Larry, now has cancer again. As she undergoes treatment, at least she won’t be in terror of losing coverage and becoming uninsurable. Under Obamacare, her premium has been cut in half, to $456 per month.

Let’s not take a victory lap yet, but build on what there is to get what we deserve: universal quality health care.

Those who live in red states need the benefit of Medicaid expansion. It may have seemed like smart politics in the short term for Republican governors to grab the opportunity offered by the Supreme Court rulings that made Medicaid expansion optional for states, but it was long-term stupid: If those 20 states hold out, they will eventually lose an estimated total of $20 billion in federal funds per year — money that would be going to hospitals and treatment.

In blue states, let’s lobby for a public option on the insurance exchange — a health plan run by the state government, rather than a private insurer. In Massachusetts, State Senator James B. Eldridge is trying to pass a law that would set one up. Some counties in California are also trying it. Montana came up with another creative solution. Gov. Brian Schweitzer, a Democrat who just completed two terms, set up several health clinics to treat state workers, with no co-pays and no deductibles. The doctors there are salaried employees of the state of Montana; their only goal is their patients’ health. (If this sounds too much like big government to you, you might like to know that Google, Cisco and Pepsi do exactly the same.)

[lostincalifornia]

2. OK Michael, and most would agree it is awful compared to single payer, but how about compared to no

insurance?

Perhaps if Al Gore would have won there might have been a better chance to get single payer or a public option, but in 2000 you were of the opinion that a third party candidacy would no affect the election results, and Al Gore would have won anyway but for the election counting irregularities, and maybe you are right, but we will never know

[joshcryer]

4. The op-ed is actually much more favorable than OP seems.

Read the entire op-ed, it's quite good. Moore is arguing for fixing it.

[lostincalifornia]

12. Thanks, I will

[alato]

8. please read the article

[lostincalifornia]

13. Just did, and have the proper perspective now. Yes, it needs to be fixed

[joshcryer]

3. Michael Moore: Obamacare is a godsend.

And he's right, it sucks but it's still the best thing we could get and we should fight to improve it.

[babylonsister]

5. Unrec for shitty title Moore is not responsible for-you are. nt

[oberliner]

10. Read the first paragraph

It's a direct quote from him, not an interpretation on my part.

[joshcryer]

16. It's still not the title though.

Which should be neutral.

[pacalo]

22. I agree. The title in the header should be changed to "The Obamacare We Deserve".

[oberliner]

30. No it shouldn't

I am drawing attention to an important statement that Michael Moore is making in this piece.

In fact, it concludes his opening paragraph and he makes a point of emphasizing that liberals need not be afraid of admitting this.

[pacalo]

34. You've just made a good point, but your reply should have been your OP...

The header line should match the theme of the article, which is a good reason to use the article's actual title.

Just my two cents.

[oberliner]

28. It's a direct quote

I don't see why the title should be neutral.

The article is excerpted and linked to.

The lead paragraph concludes with Michael Moore saying what I quoted him as saying.

[joshcryer]

31. How'd you feel about "Michael Moore: Obamacare is a godsend"?

I think you should change it to that since you don't care about neutrality.

Michael Moore has been a consistent supporter of Obamacare whether you like it or not.

[sheshe2]

6. Hmmm?

The article's header:

OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
The Obamacare We Deserve
By MICHAEL MOORE
Published: December 31, 2013 386 Comments

Yours:
0. Michael Moore: Obamacare is awful

Wow!

[oberliner]

9. Read the first paragraph

It's a direct quote.

[pacalo]

23. You really should change the title in the header, oberliner.

[oberliner]

29. Wow, Michael Moore was right

It really is "the dirty little secret many liberals have avoided saying out loud..."

Be not afraid. Michael Moore isn't.

[MADem]

7. His fucking glass is always half empty--it takes forever to get to the 'Obamacare is a GODSEND' bit.

And yet — I would be remiss if I didn’t say this — Obamacare is a godsend. My friend Donna Smith, who was forced to move into her daughter’s spare room at age 52 because health problems bankrupted her and her husband, Larry, now has cancer again. As she undergoes treatment, at least she won’t be in terror of losing coverage and becoming uninsurable. Under Obamacare, her premium has been cut in half, to $456 per month.

Funny, though, he's essentially saying what I've been saying all along...that the road to single payer runs through Obamacare.

[joshcryer]

17. That's what ALL ACA SUPPORTERS have argued.

That's what we've ALL got SHIT FOR for the past 5 FUCKING YEARS.

It's nice to finally be FUCKING VINDICATED.

Sorry for caps, the spin is just insane.

[SidDithers]

54. +1...nt

Sid

[Luminous Animal]

35. Without single payer advocates, we wouldn't have even gotten Obamacare. If the best you can

do as a Democrat is reach for a Heritage Foundation/Mitt Romney solution to "healthcare" and then declare that your glass is half full, then you've done nothing to advance single-payer.

The path through single payer has been and always will be at the local level.

So looking forward to your boring eight paragraph rebuttal full of sound and fury.

[MADem]

37. Oh, just stop making the perfect the enemy of the good--no one is buying that shit.

Best "I" can do? Can't you read? Sure, single-payer would have been WONDERFUL, and BEST, but so would a social safety net that treats all equally. So would being able to get the same quality of education no matter if you live in New Bedford or Beverly Hills. But that ain't happening because people are cheap and they don't want to PAY for it. They have to be shown, incrementally, that some things are a good idea and costs don't go up. Only then will they move forward.

The way single-payer gets advanced is to show the nation that the sky doesn't fall under the ACA, that people are better off, that their health is better, that everyone can benefit, that they won't go broke with usurious taxes. VT will be a test for this as MA was a test for ACA.

Sorry, only three paragraphs for you, not full of sound and fury, but simple fact, including this last one which has as its principal purpose to point out that you're behaving in an uncivil and nasty way, as usual, towards anyone who doesn't see things YOUR way....because you're the DU way and the light, apparently...? How amusing, though, that it takes MM at least eight of those paragraphs to agree with ME--but that point wooshes right over your head.

[Luminous Animal]

40. People don't need to be shown squat. They already want Medicare for all.

Incrementalism is a marketeers PR ruse.

You and MM are both willing to let the marketeers wiggle room to fuck us over.

[MADem]

41. They don't want to PAY for it though.

Bit of a conundrum for your assertion, that. The dreaded "incrementalism" you whine about is the only way to get the players into the pool--they can't bear the shock of being thrown in, but if they're allowed to get used to the idea, bit by bit, they come to the conclusion that it's refreshing and don't mind it so much.

Everyone wants ice cream, too, but no one wants to pay the ice cream man.

Grow up, and discuss issues like an adult. Your petulance is tiresome and garbled statements like "You and MM are both willing to let the marketeers wiggle room to fuck us over" are just fact-free nonsense.

[BlueCaliDem]

55. + 1000!

I'm really getting sick and tired of the ACA haters, be they self-proclaimed Liberals or closeted Libertarians, Teabaggers, and other assorted Republicans.

[BlueToTheBone]

11. The headline should read "Obamacare is a GODSEND"

that is also part of his quote. Shame on the NYT for twisting the narrative to reflect their agenda.

edited for clarity.

[oberliner]

15. What about the arguments he makes?

Do you agree with his assessment?

[joshcryer]

18. Michael Moore: Supreme Court Ruling a Victory (for) Single Payer

MICHAEL MOORE: Let me state the positive first. This is—this really is a huge victory for our side, in spite of all of my concerns with this law. It didn’t go far enough. It doesn’t cover all Americans. This is not true universal healthcare. Nonetheless, the right wing has been handed a serious defeat today. This is a real—a real smackdown of their—the way that they believe our country should be structured. And on that alone, everybody should feel really good right now. I know we’re not used to euphoria over anything. It rarely happens. But in this case, I think that everybody should pause today and celebrate this victory.

And then, tomorrow, we have to keep moving the ball down the field. We have to work toward Medicare for all, so that everyone’s covered, a single-payer system, all these things. It would have been a lot harder to move that ball had the decision gone the other way today. That’s why the best thing about this is, is that it moves history forward on the right path, toward what we will eventually have, just as every other civilized country has it. So, I’m—on that level, I feel really good.

And tomorrow, or maybe even later today, we’ll start—we’ll start talking about how this law was also structured to create huge, huge profits for insurance companies. And in the end, we can’t allow private insurance—people making a profit off of people getting sick. Private insurance is not the way to go. And that’s—we have to keep moving toward.

http://www.democracynow.org/2012/6/29/michael_moore_supreme_court_healthcare_ruling

What's to disagree with Michael Moore's position on ACA? I hold it. As do most ACA supporters.

[Barack_America]

19. You have misrepresented the article as a whole.

You know that.

[oberliner]

20. Not so

The subject line is a direct quote from the article.

A link to the entire article was posted along with a direct quote from the author in the first paragraph.

Nothing was misrepresented.

[BlueToTheBone]

21. Both the good and the bad.

I just think that emphasizing the negative is shitty. It is a miracle that there is anything and once it is in place it can only get better.

[Le Taz Hot]

43. What about your title representing

WHAT HE ACTUALLY SAID? Another cult-of-of-personality poster who seems to find it difficult to a) discuss THE SUBJECT without discussing the individual and b) not distort the object of their hatred's words and/or viewpoint.

In your holy quests to shoot the messenger you sully your own credibility.

[DeSwiss]

14. Oh, whaddaya know.....

US National Library of Medicine / National Institutes of Health - Cannabidiol-induced apoptosis in human leukemia cells: A novel role of cannabidiol in the regulation of p22phox and Nox4 expression.

- This is just one more reason why they are trying to keep Cannabis illegal. One cancer after another has succumb to it. And billions will be lost.

Forever.

K&R

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

24. MM hasn't said anything different from what we as supporters of a single payer system AND

Who also realize that the ACA, while not what we wanted, is an important step in the right direction.

OP, your thread title is deliberately misleading. Quite frankly, it's full of shit and you should change it!

[oberliner]

27. "your thread title is deliberately misleading. Quite frankly, it's full of shit..."

It's a direct quote from the first paragraph of the article.

Not misleading and definitely not full of shit.

[MADem]

38. No--the headline you invented is misleading. Use the one the NYT provided, or point out that

MM points out all sides of the debate. Otherwise, you are just making it sound like MM is opposed to the ACA when he isn't.

It's Fauxian as is.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

48. Exactly!! It's full of shit because it only captures one part of MM's argument.

[MADem]

49. His doubling-down, and refusal to acknowledge the valid criticisms

he's receiving here, are negatively affecting his reputation, even if he doesn't quite appreciate that fact.

I'll look askance from now on, where I never did, before.

[Douglas Carpenter]

25. I guess I was wrong about you Oberiiner. I thought until now that it was only in the I/P debate that

you would intentionally mislead people.

[oberliner]

26. "...the dirty little secret many liberals have avoided saying out loud"

Be not afraid. Michael Moore isn't.

[joshcryer]

32. Except liberals have been shitting on ACA forever.

Moore is wrong on that count, he's just been one of the rare radical liberals who has come out in support of ACA for the simply fact that without it there's nothing to evolve away from and to. He understands the political realities.

[last1standing]

33. When the Swarm descends on you, you've done something right.

And Moore is right when he calls it "the dirty little secret many liberals have avoided saying out loud.." Those crying because you refuse to post only fluffy, happy, pretty thoughts about the ACA proves it.

[Luminous Animal]

36. +1

[MADem]

39. Oh nonsense. His "headline" is an incomplete and misleading a statement as a headline

--straight from MM's mouth--saying the ACA is a GODSEND would be.

Did you stop reading halfway through? Sure sounds like it.

[oberliner]

45. All headlines are incomplete

That's why they are headlines and not entire articles.

Michael Moore said that Obamacare is awful. It is in the first paragraph of his editorial. He even goes on to expand on why its awful and the steps that need to be taken to fix it.

Edit to add: He even calls it a "dirty little secret" that some liberals are afraid to say out loud. Clearly he was right about that.

[MADem]

46. But they don't misstate the overarching theme--unless they're written at Faux, then all bets are off

You should just take the encouragement you're getting here to heart, and put the good/bad aspect right out there. The truth is that MM calls it "awful" and "a godsend." Your little effort at playing editor doesn't make that clear at all. In fact, it OBSCURES the truth of his comments, and that is shameful.

Of course, it gets you lots of "hits" and "controversy" for your thread, but it doesn't get it on the front page. And it's a meaningless thrill for you, too, in the big picture.

You misrepresent MM when you try to speak for him. Withholding key material is just a small stumble-step from prevaricating.

This is an issue of YOUR veracity, not his, and you acquit yourself poorly with your behavior and your obtuse insistence that you've done nothing wrong. Enough people have told you this--you'd think you'd take their advice to heart.

[bluestate10]

50. Unfortunately, that happens here. Micheal Moore tried to present a complex argument

that led to the conclusion that while the ACA isn't perfect, given the alternative, it is considerably good. Purists don't like complex arguments, to them everything can be explained by straight line, blinded arguments.

[MADem]

53. I will never again look at anything the OP writes without remembering this thread.

This kind of spinning is flat-out Rovian. I'll be fact checking anything this poster says, if I don't just hit the trash thread button and not give him any credence whatsoever.

I am astounded at his stubborn insistence in sticking to his disruptive and pot-stirring title, despite the number of DUers who have told him it sucks, it's false, it only tells half the story, and he's wrong to misrepresent the work.

[Douglas Carpenter]

42. I completely agree with Michael Moore's nuanced opinion about the ACA - which is why it consider it

wrong to intentionally mislead people by titling the OP in a deceptive manner

[oberliner]

44. There is nothing nuanced about it

And there was not anything "misleading" in the title of the OP which was a direct quote taken from Michael Moore's editorial which was linked to in full, and the paragraph where he said "Obamacare is awful" is provided for complete context.

His opinion is very blunt and very direct.

[Romulox]

47. The idea that the private, for-profit insurers will ever give up the power Obama has given them...

It's a fairy-tale.

[bluestate10]

51. That in fact could happen.

What private company won't trade some uncertainty for a sure thing? If the ACA morphs into Single Payer, which is very possible, insurers would have the certainty that Joe and Sally Sixpack's premiums will get paid in full, on time.

[Romulox]

52. Right. And the Waltons themselves *could* lead a unionization drive. The likelihood of either is

essentially nil.