No, Obamacare Wasn't a "Republican" Proposal

[yodermon]

I had no idea about this article until babylonsister posted it in thisthread.

http://prospect.org/article/no-obamacare-wasnt-republican-proposal#.UsbE7mQQZwo

The presence of a mandate is where the similarities between the ACA and the Heritage Plan end, and the massive remaining differences reveal the disagreement between Democrats and Republicans about the importance of access to health care for the nonaffluent. The ACA substantially tightens regulations on the health-care industry and requires that plans provide medical service while limiting out-of-pocket expenses. The Heritage Plan mandated only catastrophic plans that wouldn't cover basic medical treatment and would still entail huge expenditures for people afflicted by a medical emergency. The Affordable Care Act contained a historic expansion of Medicaid that will extend medical coverage to millions (and would have covered much more were it not for the Supreme Court), while the Heritage Plan would have diminished the federal role in Medicaid. The ACA preserves Medicare; the Heritage Plan, like the Paul Ryan plan favored by House Republicans, would have destroyed Medicare by replacing it with a voucher system.

(snip)

But, especially with the constitutional challenge to the mandate having been resolved, the argument that the ACA is the "Heritage Plan" is not only wrong but deeply pernicious. It understates the extent to which the ACA extends access to medical care, including through single-payer insurance where it's politically viable. And it gives Republicans far, far too much credit. The Republican offer to the uninsured isn't anything like the ACA. It's "nothing." And the Republican offer to Medicare and Medicaid recipients is to deny many of them access to health care that they now receive. Progressive frustration with the ACA is understandable, but let's not pretend that anything about the law reflects the priorities of actually existing American conservatives.

[leftstreet]

1. Both plans endorse for-profit healthcare

So what difference does it really make?

[ProSense]

2. A

"So what difference does it really make?"

...huge one. Nearly 20 million Americans will get Medicaid, and the law puts the country on the path to single payer.

But even here, remedies could evolve. States might use their state-run exchanges to funnel so many applicants to a single, low-cost insurer that the insurer becomes, in effect, a single payer. Vermont is already moving in this direction, and California may be next. In this way, the Affordable Care Act could become a back door to a single-payer system – every conservative’s worst nightmare.

How to strengthen Obamacare, courtesy of the Progessive Caucus.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024702695

[Doctor_J]

12. It is not on a path to SP

the ACA is a giant step away from SP. that half-trillion dollar per annum giveaway to Big Insurance is now the law of the land, and part of their annual predictions. They won't be letting go of it for a long time. Then there are the Big Pharma concessions, delays, and so forth.

Here we see the problem with Dems implementing republican "solutions" to problems. They drag those who should be fighting for real answers into the muck of "private sector solutions"

[ProSense]

13. Sure

"It is not on a path to SP"

...it is.

But even here, remedies could evolve. States might use their state-run exchanges to funnel so many applicants to a single, low-cost insurer that the insurer becomes, in effect, a single payer. Vermont is already moving in this direction, and California may be next. In this way, the Affordable Care Act could become a back door to a single-payer system – every conservative’s worst nightmare.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024699353

Obama just launched single-payer in America
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024088437

Uh... we should be thanking *Bernie Sanders and Ron Wyden* for single payer in America.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024088636

[Doctor_J]

15. yes, you already posted those links in this thread

posting them again doesn't double their validity. I find bizarre flights of fantasy like

It's essentially the same path Canada used to get there.

No, Canada never had mandatory for-profit insurance

You simply MUST leave reality to think this is a solution. The fact that two states MIGHT BEGIN to start toward SP in 4 years does not, in any way, imply the "ACA is the first step toward SP"

[ProSense]

17. What's

"I find bizarre flights of fantasy like...No, Canada never had mandatory for-profit insurance."

...is the denial. For-profit insurers still exist in Canada.

About 27.6% of Canadians' health care is paid for through the private sector. This mostly goes towards services not covered or partially covered by Medicare, such as prescription drugs, dentistry and optometry. Some 75% of Canadians have some form of supplementary private health insurance; many of them receive it through their employers.[40] There are also large private entities that can buy priority access to medical services in Canada, such as WCB in BC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada#Private_sector

Obamacare set this country on a path to single payer. When it finally arrives, it may well be more inclusive in terms of drugs, dentistry and optometry than single payer elsewhere.

[Doctor_J]

18. HOw does your post contradict the fact that Canada never had mandatory for-profit insurance?

I am getting the feeling that you have a linkerator somewhere, and you just press a button and a random pro-Big Insurance/anti-health care paragraph pops up on the screen, usually not even remotely applicable to the point being made.

Canadians get health care as part of their citizenship. Americans have to pay billions to billionaire middlemen whose job it is to deny them care.

Canadian SP did not start as mandatory for-profit health insurance. Continuing to post that is a lie. Mandatory middlemen is not a step away from middlemen. Continuing to post that is a lie.

[ProSense]

20. Obamacare puts

"I am getting the feeling that you have a linkerator somewhere, and you just press a button and a random pro-Big Insurance/anti-health care paragraph pops up on the screen, usually not even remotely applicable to the point being made. "

...the country on the path to single payer. Deal with it.

[phleshdef]

4. A huge difference when gauging the lives the ACA is saving and will continue to save.

[Doctor_J]

19. The original Heritage plan would have saved lives in the same way

Fortunately back then we had a cadre of Dems who refused to let the billionaires make a half trillion dollars per year for providing no service. Now, not so much.

[phleshdef]

21. The aca goes way further than the heritage plan

[Cha]

3. But, that's a whining talking point.. no matter how much it's helping

people. thanks ym

[Whisp]

5. K&R

[former9thward]

6. Nixon first proposed Obamacare.

In February 1974, Republican President Richard Nixon proposed, in essence, today’s Affordable Care Act. Under Nixon’s plan all but the smallest employers would provide insurance to their workers or pay a penalty, an expanded Medicaid-type program would insure the poor, and subsidies would be provided to low-income individuals and small employers. Sound familiar?

http://www.salon.com/2013/10/29/nixon_proposed_todays_affordable_care_act_partner/

[Jesus Malverde]

7. The core of the heritage plan is forcing everyone into for-profit insurance plans.

They are identical in that respect.

The partnership between government and corporations is complete. The broken insurance industry guaranteed profits and customers BY LAW.

[Puzzledtraveller]

8. Denial, some haz it

[Doctor_J]

11. Yup. Both guarantee hundreds of billions in HC dollars to CEOs, shareholders, and other "takers"

who provide nothing except obstacles to health care.

I was afraid when it passed that the faithful, who should be fighting AGAINST republican answers to problems, would eventually start signing its praises. And here we are.

We are now stuck with the worst and most expensive HC in the developed world for at least another 50 years. And it happened with Dems in charge.

[polichick]

14. The ACA is a good old-fashioned "Democratic" solution, ya know...

No matter what the facts tell you!

[Doctor_J]

16. more of a new-fashioned Dem solution, AKA

not quite as bad as the Republican solution.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

9. 1992 "Heritage Consumer Choice Health Plan"

Maybe the confusion arises from the source. The article cites a 1989 source. The language in the 1992 source is different.

Here, some dude on RT explains the difference at 4:00 (Nadering intended)

http://www.thomhartmann.com/blog/2011/11/transcript-thom-hartmann-big-picture-proof-heritage-foundation-flip-flop-obamacare-3-oc

[treestar]

10. Wow, that is good information

that's become another one of the whiny talking points.