Democrats ready to run with Obamacare

[ProSense]

Democrats ready to run with Obamacare

by Joan McCarter

Go ahead and call it Obamacare, says President Obama. And if you're a Democrat running for reelection, take advantage of Republican disunity and run on fixing the law. That's the approach Democrats all over the country will be taking this cycle, going on offense.

“Part of what we learned in 2010 is that this is a real issue of concern to voters and you can’t dodge it, you have to take it on, and I think Democrats are much more ready and willing to do that in 2014,” said Geoff Garin, a Democratic pollster who has done surveys for Democrats on the law. “We certainly have enough evidence now that this is not a fight you can win if you are in a defensive crouch.”

At the same time, as we've been there's been plenty of evidence over the last few years, there's plenty of evidence to show that the voting public is getting really sick of this fight, that they want Congress to just move on already, fix the law and work on something else for a change. Democrats apparently have finally gotten the message.

“The best way to push back on the attacks we know Republicans will launch over health care is to be on offense about what your opponent would do to health care while highlighting your commitment to fixing and improving the law,” Jesse Ferguson, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s deputy executive director, wrote in the memo. <...>

An internal Democratic poll recently conducted in Montana, where there’s a competitive Senate race, found that 65 percent of voters agree with the statement “we’ve wasted too much time talking about Obamacare and we have other problems to deal with.” Among targeted voters, those deemed as persuadable, 73 percent agreed. Among women, 68 percent agreed and 28 percent disagreed.

Another Democratic poll in a state President Barack Obama carried with a competitive Senate race found two-thirds of voters agreed with the statement: “There are problems with the law, but there are good things — including coverage for preexisting conditions … so no more bankruptcies for medical bills."

Meanwhile, Republicans are in a tea party mess, with the Ted Cruz wing of the party still in control and still pushing nothing but repeal, a message that only appeals to tea party Republicans. It's a trap Republicans built for themselves as their primary races get crazier and crazier. They'll probably be all right with that in their gerrymandered House districts in 2014, but all-repeal-all-the-time isn't going to win them Senate seats as easily as they assume. Good for Democrats for finally recognizing and embracing that.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/02/17/1278227/-Democrats-ready-to-run-with-Obamacare

Obamacare Small Business Goldmine
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024512997

Bad news for Republicans: Obamacare is helping their voters too
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024501140

[Jesus Malverde]

1. run on fixing the law

Hey this revolutionary program we're forcing on everyone, it's broken and we may fix it....

[ProSense]

2. Hey,

"run on fixing the law

Hey this revolutionary program we're forcing on everyone, it's broken and we may fix it...."

...nothing is perfect, and it would be complete crazy to believe Obamacare is the end instead of the beginning.

FDR's statement on the 1939 amendments to the Social Security Act of 1935

IT WILL be exactly four years ago on the fourteenth day of this month that I signed the original Social Security Act. As I indicated at that time and on various occasions since that time, we must expect a great program of social legislation, such as is represented in the Social Security Act, to be improved and strengthened in the light of additional experience and understanding. These amendments to the Act represent another tremendous step forward in providing greater security for the people of this country. This is especially true in the case of the federal old age insurance system which has now been converted into a system of old age and survivors' insurance providing life-time family security instead of only individual old age security to the workers in insured occupations. In addition to the worker himself, millions of widows and orphans will now be afforded some degree of protection in the event of his death whether before or after his retirement.

The size of the benefits to be paid during the early years will be far more adequate than under the present law. However, a reasonable relationship is retained between wage loss sustained and benefits received. This is a most important distinguishing characteristic of social insurance as contrasted with any system of flat pensions.

Payment of old age benefits will begin on January 1, 1940, instead of January 1, 1942. Increase in pay-roll taxes, scheduled to take place in January, 1940, is deferred. Benefit payments in the early years are substantially increased.

I am glad that the insurance benefits have been extended to cover workers in some occupations that have previously not been covered. However, workers in other occupations have been excluded. In my opinion, it is imperative that these insurance benefits be extended to workers in all occupations.

The Federal-State system of providing assistance to the needy aged, the needy blind, and dependent children, has also been strengthened by increasing the federal aid. I am particularly gratified that the Federal matching ratio to States for aid to dependent children has been increased from one-third to one-half of the aid granted. I am also happy that greater Federal contributions will be made for public health, maternal and child welfare, crippled children, and vocational rehabilitation. These changes will make still more effective the Federal-State cooperative relationship upon which the Social Security Act is based and which constitutes its great strength. It is important to note in this connection that the increased assistance the States will now be able to give will continue to be furnished on the basis of individual need, thus affording the greatest degree of protection within reasonable financial bounds.

As regards administration, probably the most important change that has been made is to require that State agencies administering any part of the Social Security Act coming within the jurisdiction of the Social Security Board and the Children's Bureau shall set up a merit system for their employees. An essential element of any merit system is that employees shall be selected on a non-political basis and shall function on a non-political basis.

In 1934 I appointed a committee called the Committee on Economic Security made up of Government officials to study the whole problem of economic and social security and to develop a legislative program for the same. The present law is the result of its deliberations. That committee is still in existence and has considered and recommended the present amendments. In order to give reality and coordination to the study of any further developments that appear necessary I am asking the committee to continue its life and to make active study of various proposals which may be made for amendments or developments to the Social Security Act.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/fdrstmts.html#1939b

[BlueCaliDem]

5. OOPS! A LOT of ObamaCare naysayers on this board forget those facts.

It's astounding how many so-called Democrats on DU would excoriate President Obama in a friggin heartbeat for not being perfect enough - all the while praising FDR for being THE MOST perfect president - and yet tend to forget that when the S.S. was rolled out under his Admin, it looked nothing like today's S.S..

As Rep. Clyburn stated after the PPACA was signed into law, it's not perfect but it IS a step in the correct direction and we need to concentrate on improving it, just like we did with Medicare and SS.

Obama just can't catch a break with some "Democrats" around here.

[grahamhgreen]

28. You are for moving the law to Medicare for All, right? :-) That's exactly how candidates should be

pitching it, dontcha think???

[Ron Green]

3. Here's an idea: Call Obamacare a Republican plan (which it is),

and run on a truly simple, inclusive, affordable plan - Single Payer!

[ProSense]

4. They're trying to win not hype Republicans, but here's

why the OP strategy is a good one:

[RBInMaine]

19. One can not run on that which has ZERO chance of PASSING. Please, stay inside reality.

[napkinz]

6. we need a massive ad campaign sharing these stories ---->

ACA Signup Success Stories

1. https://www.facebook.com/acasuccessstories

2. https://www.facebook.com/acasignupsuccessstories

3. https://www.facebook.com/ilikeobamacare

4. https://twitter.com/ACASuccessStory

5. http://acasignups.net

[napkinz]

7. and another ad campaign reminding the people what the GOP is doing to deny other Americans care ...

[napkinz]

8. the ACA is President Obama's Apollo 13; the GOP is America's Katrina!

[BlueCaliDem]

9. Finally! Democrats need to stand stronger and be in-your-face when it comes to

promoting the PPACA and the beneficial effects it's already having in this country. They need to thumb their noses at do-nothing GOP liars and tell the ADHD-afflicted American populace WHY the PPACA is GOOD for this nation and WHY Republicans are not.

By the way, implementing a single-payer system is costly and more than most States can afford, in addition to being a less fair deal for cash-strapped young adults.

Sure. Single-payer would benefit middle-aged and older Americans, but in most cases, younger Americans will have to pay with money they don't necessarily have than they do now under the PPACA.

Most young Americans are students or working minimum wage jobs or don't have a job, putting them in the group where they qualify for expanded Medicaid, which costs them nothing, but what covers just about everything. An added benefit of expanded Medi-Cal in CA Denti-Cal is coming back starting May 1, 2014 for people over 21, and is, since January 1, 2014, already open to those under 21 and who receive the new and improved Medi-Cal (expanded Medicaid).

But the silver-lining for single-proponents here is, single-payer is already here, buried in the PPACA under the State Innovation and Medicaid Waiver clause. If States can prove that they have a cheaper solution than the PPACA that covers as many or more people and that won't add to the Federal deficit - meaning, single-payer - then they can apply for the Waiver and get help through Federal funding to put that system in place. And there's only ONE system that can do all of that: single-payer.

Thanks to the PPACA, single-payer is on its way.

As we've seen with all laws that people deem controversial based on tens of millions of dollars in false advertising hit-jobs by America's elite and Big Corp, it's up to the States to begin implementing those laws before it reaches the Federal level and, in this case, follow Vermont's lead (and, I've heard, shortly CA's), and apply for the waiver in order to begin putting single-payer in place beginning 2017.

[ProSense]

10. It wasn't long ago

"Finally! Democrats need to stand stronger and be in-your-face when it comes to"

...that some were feeling giddy about the notion that Democrats would run away from the law.

How things have changed.

[BlueCaliDem]

13. I've seen those posts here and elsewhere as well.

It's a good thing that they're being proven wrong, as the planning amongst Democrats clearly shows.

[gulliver]

11. Fixing it nothing. We should be dancing in the end zone.

By November every voter will be between 0 and 1 Bacons from a huge Obamacare success among their family and friends. I don't think the word "fixing" should pass Democratic lips. It should be more like "Look at the life saving, cost saving, America improving success Obamacare is. Democrats created that success. Republicans shut down the government trying to kill it."

We shouldn't be adopting the Republican "fix it" bullshit. They are retreating to that position. They will be using the words "fix it" for every proposal they make in the future aimed at destroying it. Why would we validate them? I say we call Obamacare what it is, a major step forward for the country and its people. Let the Republicans dangle in the wind with "fix it."

[napkinz]

12. we're not turning back ...

[solarhydrocan]

14. Health insurance is not Health Care

Deductibles and co-pays are going to hurt those that can least afford it after the ~300/mo paid to corrupt corporations that make money by denying claims

Name another country that operates their "health care" in this despicable manner

then compare Health Care in Germany to the rotten egg the ACA laid

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Germany

[ProSense]

15. Tired cliche. n/t

[freshwest]

16. All 300 million plus of us, will now move to Germany and enjoy their system!

[ProSense]

18. Yup, deflections that

ignore where we're heading. Win, and carry on.

Single Payer movement in the era of Obamacare
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/07/30/1226609/-Single-Payer-movement-in-the-era-of-Obamacare

Fully funded by Obamacare:

Lessons from Vermont's Health Care Reform

By Laura K. Grubb, M.D.
The New England Journal of Medicine, April 4, 2013

In May 2011, Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin signed legislation to implement Green Mountain Care (GMC), a single-payer, publicly financed, universal health care system. Vermont's reform law passed 15 months after the historic federal Affordable Care Act (ACA) became law. In passing reforms, Vermont took matters into its own hands and is well ahead of most other states in its efforts to implement federal and state health care reforms by 2014. The Supreme Court decision last June to uphold most of the ACA left many states scrambling, since they had postponed reforms pending the judgment. Although Vermont is a small state, its reform efforts provide valuable lessons for other states in implementing ACA reforms.

<...>

Finally, Vermont policymakers are maximizing federal financing and have projected cost savings. In January 2013, the state released a 156-page financing plan for its single-payer arrangement; the plan outlines federal financing sources and the anticipated generation of savings. Vermont has been awarded more than $250 million in federal funding for its state exchange — the fifth-highest amount among the states, although Vermont has the country's second-smallest state population. “We feel strongly that the exchange is not the answer to all of Vermont's health care problems,” Shumlin remarked, explaining that “the exchange is helpful to Vermont to bring us federal dollars to achieve our single-payer goal.”3 In fact, state exchange development will be 100% federally funded.4

- more -

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2013/april/lessons-from-vermonts-health-care-reform

Section 1332 of the health care law:

State single payer waiver provisions in the Senate healthcare bill - legislative language and fact sheet from Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders

Why the 1332 Waiver in the Senate Health Reform Bill is the Only Opportunity for State Single Payer Systems Under the Bill

The health care reform bill passed by the Senate requires that all states set up Exchanges through which private insurance companies could sell their plans. Because federal laws preempt state laws, the federal health care reform bill would supplant any state attempt to set up a single payer system in lieu of an Exchange, which by its nature calls for multiple payers to compete. If the Senate bill is enacted, the only opportunity for states to move toward a single payer system is found in Section 1332. This section would allow a state with a plan that meets certain coverage and affordability requirements to waive out of the requirement to set up an Exchange for private insurance companies. Only with such a waiver could a state move in the direction of a single payer system.

- more -

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2010/march/state-single-payer-waiver-provisions-in-the-senate-healthcare-bill-legislative-langu

Release: President Endorses State Waiver Proposal

Vermont Delegation and Gov. Shumlin Hail Obama Endorsement of State Health Reform Waiver Legislation

WASHINGTON, Feb. 28 - The Vermont congressional delegation and Gov. Peter Shumlin today hailed President Obama's endorsement of legislation allowing states to provide better health care at a lower cost starting in 2014.

At a meeting of the National Governors Association Monday morning, Obama announced his support for amending the Affordable Care Act to allow states like Vermont to seek a federal waiver to the new law three years earlier than currently allowed. States would be required to design plans that are at least as comprehensive and affordable as the federal model and cover at least as many people

Last month Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) introduced in the Senate and Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) introduced in the House legislation that would advance the date waivers would be accepted from 2017 to 2014. The three joined Gov. Shumlin at a Montpelier press conference to announce the legislation, which would provide Vermont the flexibility it needs to adopt reforms Shumlin is pursuing.

Leahy said, "This is a wise decision that keeps in focus the goal of continually improving health care in America. I applaud President Obama and Secretary Sebelius for supporting efforts by Vermont and other states to go above and beyond what the Affordable Care Act requires. They know that the federal government does not have a monopoly on good ideas, and innovations by the states will prove - and improve --- the benefits of health insurance reform, on the ground, and in practice. While some in Washington want to turn the clock back and repeal the new health reform law, Vermont and other states want to move ahead. Vermont has already been working hard to improve the state's system of health care, and passage of the delegation's waiver bill will move our state one step closer to that goal."

Sanders said, "At a time when 50 million Americans lack health insurance and when the cost of health care continues to soar, it is my strong hope that Vermont will lead the nation in a new direction through a Medicare-for-all, single-payer approach. I am delighted that President Obama announced today that he will, in fact, support allowing states to innovate with health coverage models sooner rather than later. I worked hard to draft and secure the waiver provision in the health reform law and I am very pleased the president now agrees that we should make it available in 2014 as originally intended. While there is a lot of work to be done, I look forward to working with Sens. Leahy, Wyden, Inouye, Brown and others in the Senate and Rep. Welch and others in the House to get this done as soon as possible."

Welch said, "President Obama's support for allowing states to innovate sooner is a good news for Vermont and all states looking to tailor health care reform to individual states' circumstances. This legislation will give Vermont a green light to lead the nation in providing quality health care at a lower cost. I'm hopeful that Democrats and Republicans alike will support this practical step to give states flexibility to achieve progress their own way."

Shumlin said, "I was excited to learn about this today during a visit to the White House. All along officials from Health and Human Services have expressed a willingness to work with us, as long as we don't compromise standards under the law. I think this is an excellent example of how we can work together to control skyrocketing health care costs and implement meaningful health care reform as soon as possible."

A fact sheet on the delegation's "State Leadership in Healthcare Act" is available here.

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=44a664de-8e92-43f4-a871-d26e0b5a252d

FACT SHEET

"State Leadership in Healthcare Act‟

Section 1332 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act – the “Waiver for State Innovation” – allows states to waiver out of some of the requirement of federal health reform if they meet certain standards. The provision in the new law was authored by Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and strongly supported by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.).

The Sanders-Leahy-Welch “State Leadership in Healthcare Act” moves the availability of state waivers from 2017 to 2014. This would allow a state to avoid the expense of setting up an exchange – which is otherwise required in every state in 2014 – only to dismantle it later.

The federal waiver would allow a state to:

a) Collect all the federal funding and use for financing coverage for individuals through a plan designed by and for that state.
b) Coordinates this waiver process with Medicare, Medicaid and CHIP waiver processes that may be required depending on the design of the system. The state

The federal waiver would not allow a state to:

a) Offer lower quality or less affordable care to their residents than would be available in the exchange.
b) Obtain waivers from the health insurance market reforms implemented under the law such as those benefiting ending the use of pre-existing conditions to exclude individuals from coverage or those allowing young adults to stay on their parents’ plans longer.

How does the waiver provision of the law work?
Step 1: The state passes a law to provide health insurance to its citizens.
Step 2: The Secretary of Health and Human Services and Secretary of the Treasury review the state law and determine that the plan is:

a) At least as comprehensive as its residents would receive in the exchange;
b) At least as affordable;
c) Deficit neutral to the federal government; and,
d) Covers at least as many people.

Step 3: If the federal government finds that the alternative state system meets these requirements without certain federal rules, states can get a waiver. The state plan could receive waivers from:

a) The section requiring establishment of the exchange
b) The designs for how federal subsidies would have to reduce premiums and co-pays.
c) The employer penalty for providing coverage
d) The individual mandate.

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/graphics/011411state_waiver_fact_sheet.pdf

The Affordable Care Act: Supporting State Innovation
http://www.healthcare.gov/news/factsheets/2012/02/state-innovation02222012a.html

[Cha]

17. KICK!

[RBInMaine]

20. This is GREAT !! I love how she SLAMS the right wing SCUMBAG very HARD ! Go Alex !

[napkinz]

21. thank you, Mr. President

[napkinz]

22. and FU Teapublicans

Teapublicans force hospitals to close and cause infants to die, because they hate Obama

February 18, 2014

Deny it all you want, but that is what’s happening. In Red states that have refused to take free Federal money for Medicaid expansion, hospitals are closing and babies are dying. Each and every state that is refusing Medicaid Expansion is run by Teabagging “Republicans” who hates them some Obama. Click the links if you don’t believe it. So it’s clear: these slimy creeps are willing to see you and your kids die, so just so they can go “nanny-nanny-boo-boo” to the President of the United States.

You have to wonder why an allegedly “pro-life” party would deliberately ensure the deaths of thousands of people, including infants. One also wonders why a party that loves state-level governance is passing on billions of dollars in free money. The reason is plain and simple: they hate our President and anything that has his name anywhere near it.

Today as this is being written, hospitals are preparing to close. People whose lives could have been saved are dying. And it is for petty political payback, by a bunch of vindictive “Republicans” who are willing to see innocent blood shed in order to inflict harm on our President. That’s a lot of blood on the paws of those scumbag Red politicians.

And if you vote “Republican”, Gentle Reader, there is blood on your hands, too. If you don’t love dead babies, then don’t vote for Repubs. If you don’t like dead senior citizens, don’t vote for Repubs.

read more: http://bluntandcranky.wordpress.com/2014/02/18/teapublicans-force-hospitals-to-close-and-cause-infants-to-die-because-they-hate-obama/

[Skittles]

23. I saw a CORNYN FUNDED OBAMACARE sign today

I like to think it will backfire on them

[Pretzel_Warrior]

24. kick

[blkmusclmachine]

25. Meh. ACA is/always was a GOP wet dream.

[ProSense]

26. Well,

"Meh. ACA is/always was a GOP wet dream."

...feel free to thank them: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024521045

[merrily]

27. Democrats should run ON Obamacare, not with it.

I am not a fan of Obamacare, but it's what they voted for. And it's more than possible to run as the party of Medicare, Medicaid and Obamacare and children's health programs, the party that actually gives a damn if people can get medical treatment. What's more pro-life than that?

[grahamhgreen]

29. You do want us to expand the law into Medicare for All, like the rest of us, right??? :-) 'Cuz THAT

is a winning position!!!!

I even included a BLUE LINK for ya, wooHoo!!!!

Over half of Americans want national single-payer health care, Improved Medicare for All.

That fact was documented in 2007, as per the bar chart below.

That fact has been confirmed multiple times since that time, in 2008, 2009, 2010.

Examples of the wording in polls in 2007: "... adopt a universal health insurance program in which everyone is covered under a program like Medicare that is run by the government and financed by taxpayers" (65% yes) and " ... federal government should guarantee health insurance for all." (64% yes)

http://www.medicareforall.org/pages/Chart_of_Americans_Support

[napkinz]

30. Arkansas Republican Admits GOP Is Acting As A DEATH PANEL!

John Prager
February 19, 2014

Arkansas State Rep. Nate Bell (R) made a startling admission during a debate over Medicaid expansion on Tuesday: he doesn’t think that uninsured Americans should be educated about their health care options because it costs too much to insure them.

Bell, as a true representative of the “pro-birth, pro-death” party, offered up an amendment to the state’s proposed Medicaid expansion bill that would prevent Arkansas from using federal funds to promote the Affordable Care Act. The amendment would bar Arkansas from advertising on television, radio, print, or online, and would put a halt to Arkansas’ direct mail campaigns–a critical part of spreading the word about the Medicaid expansion.

Bell admits that “without active marketing, you probably get declining enrollment.” However, that’s not a problem to him–in fact, that’s exactly what he wants to accomplish. As Bell explains, “We’re trying to create a barrier to enrollment. In general, as a conservative, if I have the opportunity to reduce government spending in a program from what’s projected… I’m probably going to take that deal.”

You read that correctly, folks–Bell wants to prevent information from circulating in an effort to prevent the uninsured from obtaining insurance because it saves money. It’s almost like he is proposing that lawmakers ration healthcare to those who they deem to be more deserving, kind of like a panel. A panel that decides who lives and who dies.

Where have we heard that before?

http://aattp.org/arkansas-republican-admits-gop-is-acting-as-a-death-panel/

[ProSense]

31. What?

Josh Marshall:

What?

Team McConnell starting to hedge on Obamacare?

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/mitch-mcconnell-chamber-of-commerce-ad

New Ad Muddies Whether McConnell Wants To Fix Or Repeal Obamacare
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/mitch-mcconnell-chamber-of-commerce-ad

Kentucky's Democratic Governor expanded Medicaid and put Mitch between a rock and a hard place.

60% Of KY GOPers Buck McConnell, Support Medicaid Expansion
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/poll-kentucky-obamacare-medicaid-expansion

[napkinz]

32. WATCH: This Obamacare Success Story Is What Scares The Hell Out Of the GOP (Video)

February 21, 2014


What happens when an uninsured American gets sick or becomes injured? In the past it meant a trip to the emergency room to receive expensive care that most likely could have been administered in a primary care office — and if a patient couldn’t pay, the hospital would have to write off the cost of treatment. That, of course resulted in the rising costs being passed off to the consumer. Now we are seeing first hand the progress and positive outcome of affordable insurance for every American; and it has the GOP running scared. Despite temporary website glitches, Obamacare is a success.

Watch how Peter Nugent went from working two jobs with no health insurance to having his healthcare needs met and exceeded with the help of the Affordable Care Act.

http://aattp.org/watch-this-obamacare-success-story-is-what-scares-the-hell-out-of-the-gop-video/