How Obama and the Democrats failed to defend the universal right to healthcare

[marmar]

from In These Times:


A Private-Sector Model: Really?
How Obama and the Democrats failed to defend the universal right to healthcare.

BY James Thindwa


Outside observers watching the brouhaha over the Affordable Care Act’s website malfunction might well have assumed that the GOP, not the Democratic Party, is the governing party. After all, GOP zealots turned the long-overdue launch of national healthcare—a momentous achievement for the country—into a phony crisis about a website malfunction. What’s more, the national media obliged by allotting more time to fulminations about the website than interrogating the ideologues who oppose healthcare equity. While a few progressive commentators pushed back, the governing party went into retreat.

The GOP fury over the website’s issues was rooted not in any newfound interest in the ACA’s success, but in a long-held opposition to healthcare as a “right.” In a telling moment in the 2008 presidential debates, Obama asserted a right to healthcare, and McCain rejected it. The problem is that Democrats have handled this malevolence as normal political discourse, rather than the outlier worldview it is. Republicans are the only major political party in the industrialized world still fighting national healthcare. The failure of Democrats to turn this retrograde worldview into a national scandal explains why the GOP maintains an undeserved death grip on the healthcare conversation.

But Democrats have not only failed to confront Republicans. They have also reinforced conservative mantras that undermine their professed agenda by mimicking the anti-government evangelism and uncritical exaltation of markets, most memorably in Bill Clinton’s famous 1996 declaration that “the era of big government is over.” Democrats also ceded political space to GOP fanatics during the Affordable Care Act’s conception in 2009. Instead of contesting Tea Party fearmongering around Obamacare, Democrats offered concessions—first by excluding single-payer healthcare from consideration, then jettisoning the public option. The president’s (and the ACA’s) declining popularity underscores growing public doubts about Democrats’ willingness to stand and fight.

Rather than reassert the purpose of his health plan in the face of post-launch criticism, Obama apologized—repeatedly. His team promised that the improved ACA website would operate with “private-sector velocity and effectiveness.” Apparently they couldn’t find any examples of government “velocity and effectiveness.” They clearly didn’t consider the U.S. air traffic control system, which wondrously handles 64 million takeoffs and landings each year (Air Force One included) and oversees the safest skies in the world. Nor the Social Security Administration, which has never missed a payment to its 57,469,232 beneficiaries. By contrast, in the private sector last year, a security breach at Target Corp compromised the credit card data of 70 million customers, and a battery malfunction grounded all Dreamliner jets—built by that icon of capitalism, Boeing—but no one blamed free enterprise. ...........................(more)

The complete piece is at: http://inthesetimes.com/article/16129/a_private_sector_model_really

[xchrom]

1. du rec.

[msanthrope]

2. Obama is Satan, for sure!!! nt

[solarhydrocan]

3. "excluding single-payer healthcare from consideration"

sounds so much better than "arresting single payer advocates at a hearing"

Who can blame most Democrats for the rephrasing?
But if a Republican had done that most D's wouldn't forget. Ever.
An example of a broken system.

Baucus’s Raucous Caucus: Doctors, Nurses and Activists Arrested Again for Protesting Exclusion of Single-Payer Advocates at Senate Hearing on Healthcare

Advocates of single-payer universal healthcare — the system favored by most Americans — continue to protest their exclusion from discussions on healthcare reform. On Tuesday, five doctors, nurses and single-payer advocates were arrested at a Senate Finance Committee hearing, bringing the total number of arrests in less than a week to thirteen. We speak with two of those arrested: Single Payer Action founder Russell Mokhiber and Dr. Margaret Flowers of Physicians for a National Health Program. [includes rush transcript]
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/5/13/baucus_raucus_caucus_doctors_nurses_and

The problem can't begin to be fixed until it's acknowledged.

[geek tragedy]

4. So says some guy who has provided increased

access to health care to absolutely no one.


This is petty whining, not a serious policy critique.

[msanthrope]

7. This particular 'some guy' is a Chicago labor leader who thinks PBO owes him. He gets little

traction with his anti-Obama schtick within Chicago, and therefore must rely on a more credulous Internet audience of firebaggers.
He fared poorly on Kos.

[Octafish]

5. The ''reinforced conservative mantras'' parts really bug me.

Operation COFFEECUP - How Reagan Worked to Stop Universal Health Coverage in 1961

[MinM]

13. Hot Coffee

Reagan was such a tool .. here's an excerpt from On the Media that previewed the HBO documentary 'Hot Coffee':

BROOKE GLADSTONE: And, as a matter of fact, you note in the film a kind of proto-McDonald's story in a story about a telephone booth that President Ronald Reagan recounts.

PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN: In California a man was using a public telephone booth to place a call. An alleged drunk driver careened down the street, lost control of her car and crashed into the phone booth. It’s no surprise that the injured man sued, but you might be startled to hear whom he sued, the telephone company and associated firms. That's right.

SUSAN SALADOFF: The telephone booth was in a very dangerous place and it had been hit several times. And the telephone company had never properly fixed the door, so even though he was trying to get out he couldn't get out until he was hit in the booth. He lost his leg. And so, it wasn’t a real - a real joke the way President Reagan had portrayed it...

http://www.onthemedia.org/story/145272-hot-coffee/transcript/

http://audio.wnyc.org/otm/otm070811e.mp3

Judge Oliver Diaz from "Hot Coffee"

[Octafish]

15. Wesley Clark was on NPR 'The Takeaway' this morning and talked about ''Bob Gates''...

The host asked him about the dust-up regarding the difference of opinion re Afghanistan. In his reply, which addressed a bit about Gates' surprise at discovering the Pentagon had little clue about the mission there when he arrived during Bush43's madministration, he mentioned something important about national memory (paraphrasing from my own, limited memory):

"It takes about three generations" to change the way the People feel about some thing, some issue. Take Vietnam. Take Afghanistan.

We've got a national majority that was raised on Reagan and all that voodoo economics crapola. No wonder no one can think outside the box. They don't even know there is an outside the box.

And some wonder why we give a damn about Dallas. Thank you for standing up, MinM. Great post and links, yours, above.

[polichick]

6. Yes, but I don't think Dems conceded to "Tea Party fearmongering" - but...

rather, they were servicing their corporate patrons. Just take a look at the WH visitor's log from those days - Billy Tauzin and other lobbyists were constant visitors; single payer and public option advocates were not.

[Progressive dog]

8. You can't defend something you don't have,

at least we moved in that direction. No wonder more couldn't be accomplished on health care.

[marmar]

9. ^^ Spin control is terribly uncreative these days.

nt

[loudsue]

10. You're on a roll today, marmar! Thank you for representing the democratic arm of the

democratic party!

[JoePhilly]

11. New numbers for the ACA roll out must have come out.

Maybe we should repeal and replace it.

[msanthrope]

14. The Greens and Libertarians don't like the ACA numbers any more than the Repubs do. nt

[ProSense]

12. "That principle now is here to stay."

But Democrats have not only failed to confront Republicans. They have also reinforced conservative mantras that undermine their professed agenda by mimicking the anti-government evangelism and uncritical exaltation of markets, most memorably in Bill Clinton’s famous 1996 declaration that “the era of big government is over.” Democrats also ceded political space to GOP fanatics during the Affordable Care Act’s conception in 2009. Instead of contesting Tea Party fearmongering around Obamacare, Democrats offered concessions—first by excluding single-payer healthcare from consideration, then jettisoning the public option. The president’s (and the ACA’s) declining popularity underscores growing public doubts about Democrats’ willingness to stand and fight.

The above is from the OP.

Republicans have been fighting the notion of Obamacare since 2009, and trying to kill it since it was signed into law. The above proves that anyone can say anything, regardless of the facts and reality. That reality is that every step of the way, including the SCOTUS decision, Obamacare reinforced the right of everyone to health care. I find it interesting that just recently the claim was that the glitchy website furor created an opening for single payer. Why? The premise was that everyone now would see that single payer is the way to go after the failed promise of Obamacare. What promise? Health care as a right. The reality is that because of Obamacare, "that principle now is here to stay."

2010:

Why Republicans are So Intent on Killing Health Care Reform

by Richard Kirsch

It’s not just about expanded care. It’s about proving our government can be a force for the common good.

Why are John Boehner, Eric Cantor and Mitch McConnell so intent on stopping health care reform from ever taking hold? For the same reason that Republicans and the corporate Right spent more than $200 million in the last year to demonize health care in swing Congressional districts. It wasn’t just about trying to stop the bill from becoming law or taking over Congress. It is because health reform, if it takes hold, will create a bond between the American people and government, just as Social Security and Medicare have done. Democrats, and all those who believe that government has a positive place in our lives, should remember how much is at stake as Republicans and corporate elites try to use their electoral victory to dismantle the new health care law.

My enjoyment of the MLB playoffs last month was interrupted by ads run by Karl Rove’s Crossroads front group against upstate New York Rep. Scott Murphy, who was defeated last Tuesday. Rove’s ads rained accusations on Murphy, including the charge of a “government takeover of health care.” Some might have thought that once the public option was removed from the health care legislation, Republicans couldn’t make that charge. But it was never tied to the public option or any other specific reform. Republicans and their allies, following the advice of message guru Frank Luntz, were going to call whatever Democrats proposed a government takeover.

There’s nothing new here. Throughout American history, health care reform has been attacked as socialist. An editorial published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in December 1932, just after FDR’s election, claimed that proposals for compulsory insurance “were socialism and communism — inciting to revolution.” The PR firm that the American Medical Association hired to fight Truman’s push for national health insurance succeeded in popularizing a completely concocted quote that it attributed to Vladimir Lenin: “Socialized medicine is the keystone to the arch of the Socialist State.”

<...>

President Obama and Democrats in Congress understood the historical importance and profound moral underpinnings of the new health care law when they enacted it earlier this year. And they knew that the right-wing attack had soured the public in swing Congressional districts and states on reform. They stood up then. They will have to stand up again, understanding that if they give way to Republicans, they lose more than the expansion of health coverage. They lose the best opportunity in half a century to prove to Americans that government can be a force for the common good.

http://www.newdeal20.org/2010/11/08/why-republicans-are-so-intent-on-killing-health-care-reform-26298/

2013:

"US health reform's Gettysburg moment"

by ybruti

In January 1 2014: US health reform's Gettysburg moment, a veteran of decades-long battles over health care policy sees a parallel between the Union Army's victory at Gettysburg in 1863 and today, which he calls

the most transformational day in the history of United States health care policy, ever....the first day of fundamental reform of the business and regulation of health insurance in all 50 states.

In his article, John E. McDonough, a professor at the Harvard School of Public Health and the author of Inside National Health Reform, lists these accomplishments of The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), which was signed into law by Barack Obama on March 23, 2010:

Banning the practice of "medical underwriting" by which insurance companies rate enrollees based on their health status and medical history,
Banning pre-existing condition exclusions from US health insurance everywhere,
Establishing "guaranteed issue" as the new operating paradigm for individual health insurance,
Completely eliminating lifetime limits on all health insurance, and
Establishing "minimum essential benefits" that must be included in nearly all licensed health insurance policies everywhere.

In addition, McDonough highlights Medicaid coverage beginning today for five million previously uninsured low-income people, "with many more millions to follow"; private health insurance coverage obtained through federal and state exchanges and starting today; and the principle of personal responsibility to obtain health insurance - the individual mandate. Although the July 1, 1966 beginning of Medicare was another historic date in health care policy, McDonough says "the scope and breadth of changes" beginning today are "far more consequential by comparison."

Regarding the Battle of Gettysburg analogy, McDonough compares the Republican 17-day shutdown of the federal government on October 1 to Picketts Charge on July 3, 1863, "the final and failed Confederate assault at Gettysburg." And just as the Civil War did not end for almost two years after Gettysburg, so the Republican war against the ACA will continue but "the ultimate outcome is no longer in doubt."

McDonough concludes:

The overriding importance of 1/1/2014 is the actualization of a new principle of health justice for all Americans, however flawed that principle is in form and in practice under the ACA. That principle now is here to stay.

- more -

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/01/01/1266424/--US-health-reform-s-Gettysburg-moment

2014:

From 'I don't want any part of Obamacare' to 'It's a godsend'
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024349685

ACA Signups: KA-POW!! Medicaid Overhaul Posted, CA Updated, Grand Total approaches 12M!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024368026


Obamacare isn't going anywhere, and its success is going to continue to shine a light on the path forward to single payer.

Single Payer movement in the era of Obamacare
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024090281

[zipplewrath]

22. It's done no such thing

That reality is that every step of the way, including the SCOTUS decision, Obamacare reinforced the right of everyone to health care.

ACA is basically silent on the right to health care. All it did was to establish an obligation to have health insurance. And it was even very specific on who was excluded from that obligation. It did not establish that there was a universal "right" to health insurance. And the SCOTUS decision clearly allowed the states NOT to extend health insurance (in the form of expanded medicaid) to a segment of the population who would otherwise go without insurance. The ACA also said the states are not obligated to establish exchanges.

There has been no right to health care established. Heck, the details of ACA clearly lay out who must pay for what, and if you can't pay, you can be denied health care in many instances. Health care providers can, and are, demanding co-pays and out of pocket limits up front prior to providing health care, and are allowed to do so (and always have). There is also no requirement for all health care providers to accept all forms of the insurance that the citizens are obligated to have. And medicaid exclusion is not uncommon.

ACA did alot of small and nice things, but establishing a right to health care isn't among them.

[ProSense]

24. You

"ACA is basically silent on the right to health care...It did not establish that there was a universal "right" to health insurance. "

...can say anything you want to dismiss the facts in the previous comment, but all you're doing is protesting by saying "it did not."

The Affordable Care Act & The Patient’s Bill of Rights

On the six-month anniversary of the passage of the Affordable Care Act, President Obama leads a backyard discussion on the Patient’s Bill of Rights and hears from real Americans who are already benefitting from health reform.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2010/09/22/affordable-care-act-patient-s-bill-rights

"ACA did alot of small and nice things, but establishing a right to health care isn't among them. "

Nonsense.

[zipplewrath]

25. Read the law

It very clearly outlines exactly who is not obligated to have health insurance at all. It also clearly outlines who is not eligible for medicaid, even if they also are exempt from the obligation to have health insurance. It also clearly outlines how generous a health insurance plan can be, and if it exceeds that level of generosity, there will a "Cadillac Tax". It also outlines required levels of out of pocket limits and copays. It does not establish that if you don't have them, you still have a right to the underlying care.

You can claim that it establishes universal health care, you just can't point to where it actually does that. And a backyard discussion doesn't establish law.

[ProSense]

27. Good grief

"It very clearly outlines exactly who is not obligated to have health insurance at all. It also clearly outlines who is not eligible for medicaid, even if they also are exempt from the obligation to have health insurance. It also clearly outlines how generous a health insurance plan can be, and if it exceeds that level of generosity, there will a "Cadillac Tax". It also outlines required levels of out of pocket limits and copays. It does not establish that if you don't have them, you still have a right to the underlying care."

...what nonsense. Still, what the hell does any of that have to do with establishing health care as a right?

[zipplewrath]

33. What is a reasonable cost for your free speach rights?

You don't clearly legislate who will be required to pay for their rights, and who will be exempt from paying because they won't have them. You don't tax people who practice their first amendment rights more than some maximum amount with a "cadillac tax". You don't outline the amount of out of pocket money will allowed to be charged in order to exercise their right to avoid self incrimination.

As I say, read the law, there's nothing in there establishing health CARE as a right, only about the obligations of citizens, employers, and the states with respect to health INSURANCE. And the SC established that the states are NOT obligated to extend health insurance to certain low income classes.

[ProSense]

34. That comment makes no sense, and still has nothing to do with the point. n/t

[zipplewrath]

35. The point is that the is no established universal right to health care

And you repeating it doesn't make it so. If it was so you'd link to the part of the law that establishes that. I'm merely pointing to the aspects of the law that demonstrate that the ACA doesn't consider health care a right.

[ProSense]

36. And

"The point is that the is no established universal right to health care

And you repeating it doesn't make it so."

...you keep posting misinformation about policy that has nothing to do with the point.

[zipplewrath]

37. You mean law

I'm not discussing policy, I'm discussing the law called the ACA. Within that law is nothing that establishes or outlines a universal right to health care. Right now, in the US, a universal right to health care is not recognized by any court or government agency and laws specifically recognize such a right. There is an established obligation to have health insurance, for which some people are specifically exempt.

[ProSense]

38. OK

"You mean law I'm not discussing policy, I'm not discussing policy, I'm discussing the law called the ACA. Within that law is nothing that establishes or outlines a universal right to health care. Right now, in the US, a universal right to health care is not recognized by any court or government agency and laws specifically recognize such a right. There is an established obligation to have health insurance, for which some people are specifically exempt."

...law, and proof the comment makes no sense. Up to now you kept pointing to specific parts of the "law," which have nothing to do with establishing health care as a right.

The above comment adds to the nonsense, as the law includes mandates, bans of practices, corporate penalties, taxes on high income earners, and more that you completely chose to ignore.

None of that is relevant to "that principle now is here to stay." FDR's Second Bill of Rights wasn't a law either. It was a set of established principles.

[zipplewrath]

39. You "principal" has no effect

There is no universal right to health care in this country. That right has not been established, and in fact the ACA goes in the opposite direction and lays out that it is NOT a right but a product which can be sold for profit.

[ProSense]

40. It's "principle"

"There is no universal right to health care in this country. That right has not been established, and in fact the ACA goes in the opposite direction and lays out that it is NOT a right but a product which can be sold for profit."

...and simply opposing the law doesn't make the nonsense about valid or relevant.

[zipplewrath]

41. The law opposes the principal

The reality is, the law opposes the principal.

[jeff47]

16. There's a very large problem with this article.

And that is the assumption that the "war for healthcare" is over. The ACA is not even the end of the first battle.

What the ACA does do is move the battle for universal healthcare to the states. And it's going to be a lot easier to get single-payer or public-options passed in the "Blue" states than at the federal level. That's why Republicans are so adamant about repealing the law - they can't stop what will happen in blue states starting in 2017.

When blue states go single-payer or add a public option, the distinct lack of dead people will destroy the FUD the Republicans have been using at the federal level. Success in those blue states will cause some purple states to follow suit. Once we have success in both blue and purple states, the federal battle will be far easier.

Also known as "doing exactly what Canada did to get single-payer".

[Fumesucker]

17. Canada's private health insurance companies were never as well entrenched as in the USA

They also weren't nearly as rapacious either.

Comparing Canada and the US is not particularly fruitful, the two nations are not the same politically, culturally or economically.

[jeff47]

18. The similarity is the states/provinces go first, then the national system follows.

Not that it will be an exact duplicate of Canada's transition.

And the health insurance companies can be as entrenched as they'd like. Not gonna stop public options from passing in blue states.

With no need to profit, those public options are going to cost less than private insurance. Which will cause private insurance to lose its customer base, thus its income, and thus its power in that state. Repeat a few times, and the insurance industry will not be so entrenched nationally.

[Fumesucker]

19. The insurance companies are becoming more entrenched by the day

That was a good part of the purpose of the ACA which the insurance industry largely wrote in the first place.

[jeff47]

20. If that were true, the insurance industry wouldn't be giving their political contributions

to the party that wants to repeal the ACA - why repeal the law that is making them "more entrenched"?

The ACA is a short-term plus for the insurance industry. It will destroy them long-term.

We're talking about an industry who's long-term planning abilities are so poor that they let us get into this situation - they demanded ever higher profits, making insurance so expensive that some sort of reform became politically inevitable.

Smart long-term planning would have kept the costs about where they were in the 90s when they successfully stopped reform efforts. They didn't do that. They decided to goose their stock price in the short term, because that made the executives a pile of money now.

How, exactly, do you think the insurance industry would be able to avoid public options taking over in blue states? Vermont's already setting up to go single-payer and the insurance industry does not appear to be able to thwart that effort. Politicians in CA and NY are already talking about public options in those states (can't do it until 2017, so no concrete action yet in those states.) We only need one or two successful examples to start a large wave.

[Fumesucker]

28. Under the American form of government you can't really buy a politician

The best you can hope for is a long term lease and the insurance companies are taking out leases even as we speak.

And never underestimate the ubiquity of the "Don't throw me in that Briar Patch Brer Fox" gambit either.

[jeff47]

30. Again, how exactly would the insurance industry stop it in all blue states? (nt)

[Fumesucker]

31. The same way they got a Democratic president to kill the public option we were promised

[jeff47]

32. So you think they'll turn blue states red.

So that Democrats in those states have to negotiate to get bills passed.

Yeah, I can definitely see CA electing a large number of Republicans real soon now.

[BlueCaliDem]

29. ^^^This!^^^

In most gripes against the PPACA, people forget the Medical-to-Loss-Ratio: insurance companies must use 80% (for private policies) or 85% (for businesses) of the premiums they collect on the patient, not their advertising and executive bonuses. Since the MLR kicked in January 2013, premiums have dropped and they will continue to drop.

Proponents of California OneCare are silent at the moment, but it sounds as if they're going to press for California OneCare when the time is right (closer to 2017). Implementing a single-payer system is incredibly expensive, but the PPACA under the "States Innovation and Medicaid Waiver" clause, they'll get most of the funding necessary should they decide to install a system that:

1)...Is at least as comprehensive as ACA coverage,
2)...Is at least as affordable as ACA coverage,
3)...Covers at least as many residents as the ACA would have covered, and
4)...Will not increase the federal deficit.

And the only system that does the above is single-payer.

[uponit7771]

21. Next OP will be How the purist left blames Obama for the purist lefts inaction of not voting in 2010

[marmar]

23. Repetez en anglais, s'il vous plait?

Huh?

[zipplewrath]

26. Usual myth

They are basically asserting the myth that the 2010 losses were because progressives/purists/liberals didn't "show up" for the 2010 elections, even though all the exit polling data clearly shows it was the moderate middle that abandon the democrats.