Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

MannyGoldstein

(34,589 posts)
Mon Mar 26, 2012, 11:26 AM Mar 2012

Incredible: Single Payer way more popular than ObamaRomneyCare.

From today's NY Times:

Poll: 47% Disapprove of Health Care Law

More Americans continue to disapprove of the federal health care legislation than support it, with a deep partisan divide underscoring their views, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll.

Passed in 2010, the Affordable Care Act has never won the support of most Americans in surveys by The Times and CBS News, highlighting the Obama administration’s lack of success in winning over the general public to its signature domestic accomplishment.

...

More independents agree with Republicans about the law than with Democrats, with 51 percent of these important swing voters saying they disapprove of it.


by contrast, polls have consistently shown that two-thirds of Americans want Medicare for All

Medicare for Alll would cost a hell of a lot less than ObamaRomneyCare, is clearly constitutional, and people actually want it, bigtime. But it requires political courage: politicians saying "no" to some of the 1%.

So here we are.
146 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Incredible: Single Payer way more popular than ObamaRomneyCare. (Original Post) MannyGoldstein Mar 2012 OP
du rec. nt xchrom Mar 2012 #1
The coverage of this issue is universally misleading lumberjack_jeff Mar 2012 #2
Lumberjack, I'm curious. Puzzledtraveller Mar 2012 #4
Because that is how Blue Dogs think. And that is why Blue Dogs need to be run out of the party. (nt) w4rma Mar 2012 #8
+1000 nt abelenkpe Mar 2012 #15
That's the Tea Party Strategy Richardo Mar 2012 #21
How is 70% Blue Dogs better? RC Mar 2012 #34
Seats Richardo Mar 2012 #71
Meaningless without policy kenfrequed Mar 2012 #111
That is one opinion. We don't have the backing of a few Billionaire and a full time propaganda Vincardog Mar 2012 #55
So you say that the republicans are a 170% political party Autumn Apr 2012 #141
The De Facto third party corporate supremacists would stand the most to gain. Uncle Joe Mar 2012 #10
He doesn't literally mean "designed." Loudly Mar 2012 #13
When the parties are as far apart as we are, there's no middle ground. lumberjack_jeff Mar 2012 #59
They managed to mandate that woo me with science Mar 2012 #23
I believe you nailed it, woo me with science. Uncle Joe Mar 2012 #25
^^this^^ me b zola Mar 2012 #128
Say it again! bvar22 Mar 2012 #132
+100000 Well said and worth its own OP woo me with science Apr 2012 #133
Yes. Exactly. annabanana Apr 2012 #142
I think both Single Payer and the Public Option were out of the picture Jackpine Radical Mar 2012 #33
That is his tragic flaw. He gives a lot before he gets anything. If it is not deliberate it is sad Vincardog Mar 2012 #56
Harry and Louise were speaking for the smaller insurance companies eridani Mar 2012 #64
There were ways that COULD have worked. bvar22 Mar 2012 #105
The Republicans are already making themselves unelectable, so if you're right, and Jackpine Radical Mar 2012 #116
Then the voters allow that treestar Apr 2012 #135
People are obviously vulnerable to advertising. Jackpine Radical Apr 2012 #136
We can always ignore their ads or look at them critically treestar Apr 2012 #137
"We"--or many of us anyway--already do that. Jackpine Radical Apr 2012 #140
Agreed, that is the issue treestar Apr 2012 #145
In the long run, I think the free flow of information Jackpine Radical Apr 2012 #146
I agree, the corporate media don't believe in bringing up the issue of how for profit insurance Uncle Joe Mar 2012 #7
I see no reason CAPHAVOC Mar 2012 #28
The millionaires and billionaires who are profiting by denying care oppose Medicare for all Vincardog Mar 2012 #58
The depressing aspect of the poll is that Progressives want to see the law fail. bluestate10 Mar 2012 #81
I Agree YOHABLO Mar 2012 #91
But I thought that Obama Care limited Insurance Company profits on health care coverage to 15% Walk away Mar 2012 #104
Actually, I believe it limits non-medical uses of premiums to 15%, including profit MannyGoldstein Mar 2012 #106
There are two sides to this coin, however, l_j Doctor_J Mar 2012 #110
Krugman: Supreme Thoughts ProSense Mar 2012 #3
Same ole lie zipplewrath Mar 2012 #26
And Medicare premiums Sgent Mar 2012 #27
More ProSense Mar 2012 #30
And yet the law is very specific zipplewrath Mar 2012 #35
Really? ProSense Mar 2012 #37
It is not universal zipplewrath Mar 2012 #38
Well, ProSense Mar 2012 #40
Prove it zipplewrath Mar 2012 #43
Speaking ProSense Mar 2012 #44
Let's get this straight. zipplewrath Mar 2012 #46
How about ProSense Mar 2012 #47
No, you zipplewrath Mar 2012 #49
Here ProSense Mar 2012 #50
Nuttin' huh? zipplewrath Mar 2012 #95
This message was self-deleted by its author zipplewrath Mar 2012 #51
It differs from true universal health care in TWO important ways: Lydia Leftcoast Mar 2012 #53
Krugman: ProSense Mar 2012 #61
But in our screwed up system, an older person like myself Lydia Leftcoast Mar 2012 #89
Uhm... kenfrequed Mar 2012 #113
Somehow I doubt that fans of Krugman's critique of Obama mzmolly Mar 2012 #87
Doesn't matter what % wants this. SammyWinstonJack Mar 2012 #5
cough *this law expanded medicaid eligibility* cough phleshdef Mar 2012 #6
Wonderful. Too bad Medicaid bux are being slashed right and left at state and federal levels n/t eridani Mar 2012 #92
Medicare for All is the only thing hifiguy Mar 2012 #9
What about my weird dream? mazzarro Mar 2012 #11
nice dream, pessimistic about it happening in real life northoftheborder Mar 2012 #14
Because it controls the costs they can charge /nt still_one Mar 2012 #19
Uh, we already had control of the house and senate and they decided that ACA was the way to go. progressoid Mar 2012 #29
Gonna keep repeating it: SINGLE. PAYER. RIGHT. EFFIN'. NOW. kestrel91316 Mar 2012 #12
Candidate for this year's "You Call This NEWS?" Award rocktivity Mar 2012 #16
and how would he do that? If the HCR is ruled unconstitutional, Obama loses the election /nt still_one Mar 2012 #18
And why would it cost him the election? rocktivity Mar 2012 #24
Because that is what he hung his first two years on, and if it was ruled unconstitutional, the still_one Mar 2012 #63
That might be the case, but I think the effect would be the opposite rocktivity Mar 2012 #125
Here is the reality, single payer would NOT have passed in 2008. The blue dogs and repugs would still_one Mar 2012 #17
Health Insurance Reform zipplewrath Mar 2012 #36
I agree mostly, however, by virtue of covering 40 million uninsured, it should save emergency room still_one Mar 2012 #62
We'll see zipplewrath Mar 2012 #75
It most assuredly did NOT federalize regulation, which is specifically left to the states n/t eridani Mar 2012 #93
It didn't? zipplewrath Mar 2012 #94
That is all irrelevant if actual enforcement is left to the states eridani Mar 2012 #123
Obama said it was Insurance Finance Reform. Autumn Apr 2012 #143
Great, realistic post. bluestate10 Mar 2012 #84
Then our "democracy" is a farce. It's as simple as that. nt Romulox Mar 2012 #109
I'm extra glad the Dems compromised away the best solution, that 2/3 of the public supported phantom power Mar 2012 #20
^^^^^^ Yes, the Dems had control and they silenced discussion of a universal, not for profit system slipslidingaway Mar 2012 #90
I'd start by blaming Lieberman. JoePhilly Mar 2012 #96
Start by calling him zipplewrath Mar 2012 #98
What leverage did they have .... your "call him" is nonsense. JoePhilly Mar 2012 #117
Kinda depends upon what HE says zipplewrath Mar 2012 #119
Weak strawman ... JoePhilly Mar 2012 #122
And you know this??? zipplewrath Mar 2012 #124
Funny how Kucinich got the 'come to Jesus' plane ride and not Lieberman..... Edweird Apr 2012 #144
It was ALL Joe Lieberman's fault!!!! bvar22 Mar 2012 #107
Sorry, I'm calling Bullshit MannyGoldstein Mar 2012 #115
So you can't actually answer the question ... got it. JoePhilly Mar 2012 #118
For one thing, the White House could have used THIS: bvar22 Mar 2012 #131
Dems set the agenda for the HC reform discussions long before the vote took place ... slipslidingaway Mar 2012 #129
The GOP really had the upper hand, as they control the Blue Dogs in the Dem Party. NorthCarolina Mar 2012 #97
Blue Dogs leveraged the GOP zipplewrath Mar 2012 #99
Check out ProSense Mar 2012 #22
Gee...what a surprise. Safetykitten Mar 2012 #31
71% wanted the public option before the gop pissed all over it. nt wiggs Mar 2012 #32
thanks to town cryers like you Whisp Mar 2012 #39
When did I suggest that? MannyGoldstein Mar 2012 #42
when? Whisp Mar 2012 #45
In other words... MannyGoldstein Mar 2012 #73
Oh, Manny...there you go again. Zorra Mar 2012 #41
They want it until the Conservative media tells them they don't maximusveritas Mar 2012 #48
Medicare for All lovuian Mar 2012 #52
Reveals the disingenuous way that "disapproval" gets reported SoCalDem Mar 2012 #54
duh a2liberal Mar 2012 #57
Actually it's HeritageNewtRomneyObamaCare if one were to do it chronologically from Dragonfli Mar 2012 #60
Gotta give Bob Dole his due as well. Before or after Gingrich will do. TheKentuckian Mar 2012 #67
You're Right!!! I can't believe I went and denied him credit due, thanks for reminding me Dragonfli Mar 2012 #69
IIRC MannyGoldstein Mar 2012 #76
Can't blame them for taking a bow, they spent over 20 years buying this law. /nt Dragonfli Mar 2012 #78
Not at allincredible. maddiemom Mar 2012 #65
Why is that "incredible"?? DCBob Mar 2012 #66
Not just Rethugs JustABozoOnThisBus Mar 2012 #100
Medicare for all. WHEN CRABS ROAR Mar 2012 #68
That will be the first piece of legislation usrname Mar 2012 #70
That's been true since the 1st!!!! AlbertCat Mar 2012 #72
It always had been but any voice trying to get the attention of Congress, when Cleita Mar 2012 #74
Understand, if you can get off a high horse. bluestate10 Mar 2012 #77
Then why go way back over 20 years to a Heritage Foundation law that makes it even worse? Dragonfli Mar 2012 #79
Just curious: ever heard of Medicare? MannyGoldstein Mar 2012 #80
You mean like Medicare? Doctor_J Mar 2012 #121
If our taxes can pay for illegal invasions, why can they not be used for Universal HC? WinkyDink Mar 2012 #82
Because UHC would reduce incomes for MannyGoldstein Mar 2012 #83
When you mention figures, there is little support Yo_Mama Mar 2012 #85
Do you really want to know what they think? bvar22 Mar 2012 #127
That can't work Yo_Mama Mar 2012 #130
Thanks Manny. I can't resist this quote chill_wind Mar 2012 #86
Great quote, thanks! MannyGoldstein Mar 2012 #88
ĎDonít repeal health law..." ProSense Mar 2012 #101
Single Payer health care rocks! Quantess Mar 2012 #102
Keeping us sick and dependent on our overlords is the plan of the 1% libtodeath Mar 2012 #103
What is the yearly cost to Americans.... bvar22 Mar 2012 #108
I've always been clear - I want for-profit insurance companies OUT OF THE LOOP. saras Mar 2012 #112
Funny how that fact gets so little media attention! polichick Mar 2012 #114
Why is that incredible? LWolf Mar 2012 #120
Well, gee. woo me with science Mar 2012 #126
Something must be wrong with the polling treestar Apr 2012 #134
it's not popular with "the right people" unfortunately. librechik Apr 2012 #138
People like Obamacare at first, until it was attacked Freddie Stubbs Apr 2012 #139
 

lumberjack_jeff

(33,224 posts)
2. The coverage of this issue is universally misleading
Mon Mar 26, 2012, 11:32 AM
Mar 2012

The tea partiers who think we should be free to die destitute, have very little in common with those of us who want single payer, yet we're lumped together as exemplary of "the deep partisan divide" underlying our views.

This is the best/worst example of compromise. It is a solution which was designed to piss everyone off equally.

Puzzledtraveller

(5,937 posts)
4. Lumberjack, I'm curious.
Mon Mar 26, 2012, 11:36 AM
Mar 2012


This is the best/worst example of compromise. It is a solution which was designed to piss everyone off equally.


Interesting. What would be the motive, or who would stand to gain by pissing all of us off? Serious question, really. That last statement you made is interesting to me and I'm curious as to how you reach that conclusion. I share atleast some of your view and wonder where they connect.
 

w4rma

(31,700 posts)
8. Because that is how Blue Dogs think. And that is why Blue Dogs need to be run out of the party. (nt)
Mon Mar 26, 2012, 11:45 AM
Mar 2012

Richardo

(38,391 posts)
21. That's the Tea Party Strategy
Mon Mar 26, 2012, 12:19 PM
Mar 2012

Run the Blue Dogs out and you're a 30% political party. Good luck with THAT.

 

RC

(25,592 posts)
34. How is 70% Blue Dogs better?
Mon Mar 26, 2012, 02:09 PM
Mar 2012

That's like renaming the moderate Republican the Party Democratic Party. In fact, that is basically what did happen with the DLC. How are they any kind of Liberal when they work with and computerize with the wing nuts on the right? Just because they have a (D) by their name does not make then desirable.

kenfrequed

(7,865 posts)
111. Meaningless without policy
Tue Mar 27, 2012, 10:55 AM
Mar 2012

That is what we seem to consistently get wrong.

One analysis I have been looking at is that since we have given the republicans the Hertiage foundation's version of healthcare reform and triangulated and compromised on almost all of our positions it has left the Republicans with little left to demand. So naturally they jumped further to the right into absolute insanity.

Of course that means we now are compromising with insanity. Which is always such a wonderful idea.

Yes, we need seats, but we also need actual vision and a little bit of friggin unity and party discipline. Congress critters like Ben Nelson have got to stop kissing up to Wallstreet and blue dog bullshit and start being Democrats for awhile.

Vincardog

(20,234 posts)
55. That is one opinion. We don't have the backing of a few Billionaire and a full time propaganda
Mon Mar 26, 2012, 06:24 PM
Mar 2012

network.
I do not believe that only 30% of the left believe in real democratic principles.
Where other than you own opinion do you get that statistic?

Autumn

(44,927 posts)
141. So you say that the republicans are a 170% political party
Fri Apr 6, 2012, 09:33 PM
Apr 2012

We don't need luck, cause we are fucked either way. We need to throw that fucking 70% out of our Democratic party.

Uncle Joe

(58,244 posts)
10. The De Facto third party corporate supremacists would stand the most to gain.
Mon Mar 26, 2012, 11:50 AM
Mar 2012

With the public being pissed off, the corporate supremacists can't lose because the "Party of the People" didn't put the people first.

 

Loudly

(2,436 posts)
13. He doesn't literally mean "designed."
Mon Mar 26, 2012, 12:02 PM
Mar 2012

He's just citing an old adage that the measure of a successful compromise is often that no one is satisfied with it.

 

lumberjack_jeff

(33,224 posts)
59. When the parties are as far apart as we are, there's no middle ground.
Mon Mar 26, 2012, 06:58 PM
Mar 2012

everything in between is intolerable to both parties.

woo me with science

(32,139 posts)
23. They managed to mandate that
Mon Mar 26, 2012, 12:26 PM
Mar 2012

Last edited Mon Mar 26, 2012, 10:24 PM - Edit history (1)

*every single American* purchase an outrageously overpriced corporate product for their *entire lives.*

Think about that. What a coup for the one percent. This sort of mandate to buy is unprecedented.

The mandate was the goal all along, and it was planned to profit the insurance companies, period. They knew from the outset that neither side would want it, but they fired up one side with the promise of universal health care and the other side with the fear of government-run health care, and they orchestrated a "compromise" that they knew neither side would want, but that the insurance companies did. That is why it was never presented honestly and why we got the Kabuki theater of the negotiations.

It was a brilliant, bipartisan scam.

bvar22

(39,909 posts)
132. Say it again!
Wed Mar 28, 2012, 11:37 AM
Mar 2012
"They managed to mandate that *every single American* purchase an outrageously overpriced corporate product for their *entire lives.*"


...AND *every single American* will be forced to BUY this invisible "product" every year from a Corporation that:

*Manufactures NOTHING

*Provides NO useful service

*Creates NO Wealth (Value Added)


"It was a brilliant, bipartisan scam."

It IS the "Uniquely American Solution."

---indeed.



You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

woo me with science

(32,139 posts)
133. +100000 Well said and worth its own OP
Wed Apr 4, 2012, 07:24 AM
Apr 2012

as a broader topic, I think.

It's like something a James Bond villain would devise, isn't it, or a feudal lord: Insert yourself between the people producing something and the people who need it, and rake in the money only because you have the power to insert yourself there.

This middleman tactic of sucking profit from work/services/value generated by others is worth making explicit wherever it happens, because we are trained not to question the status quo or examine it too closely.

And the biggest example of all, the elephant in the room that nobody ever notices, is the Federal Reserve system itself, which almost nobody understands because it is generally not taught in school

Almost nobody realizes that America does not print its own money directly, but rather relies on the private Federal Reserve banks for every dollar that goes into circulation. Almost nobody realizes that every dollar that is put into circulation is issued as debt, with interest.

Almost nobody realizes that every time the one percent push a war, they will make billions not just because they own the defense contracting companies and weapons manufacturers...but because they own the banks that issue the loans, at interest, that the government needs in order to pay for a war. Almost nobody understands that the banks have an interest in pushing policy that will sink our nation in debt, because they profit from every transaction. And almost nobody understands that we could change all that in an instant by printing our money directly and taking out the middleman.

But that doesn't happen, because the middlemen have tremendous power and have inserted themselves there.

I wonder how many other places in this economic system we could see the same scam at work...money funneled to the leisure class simply because they have the power to insert themselves between what is needed and the people who need it...if we decided to open our eyes as a nation.

Jackpine Radical

(45,274 posts)
33. I think both Single Payer and the Public Option were out of the picture
Mon Mar 26, 2012, 01:54 PM
Mar 2012

before they were even mentioned by the Obama Administration. They had already been given away to buy off Harry & Louise.

For those who don't get the reference, when the Hillary plan was put forward in 1993-4, the insurance companies launched a major ad campaign to kill it. The ads featured an old couple named Harry & Louise, who were always talking about their fears of what HillCare would mean.

Obama knew he couldn't get any health care plan through without industry support, so he made sure he kept them bought off with promises of the mandate in exchange for concessions like the prior conditions exclusion.

He got a little, he gave a lot.

eridani

(51,907 posts)
64. Harry and Louise were speaking for the smaller insurance companies
Mon Mar 26, 2012, 07:34 PM
Mar 2012

The big boys wrote the Clinton administration legislation.

bvar22

(39,909 posts)
105. There were ways that COULD have worked.
Tue Mar 27, 2012, 09:30 AM
Mar 2012

The American Public would have supported letting unemployed and unemployable Americans between 55 & 65
BUY Medicare,
especially IF the Obama Administration marketed this as Economic Relief during a crisis,
and not as a Health Care Reform.
Obama may have been able to do this with an Executive Order,
but it certainly could have been done with 50 votes.
After THAT, expanding MediCare coverage to every American would have been unstoppable.

The Democrats BIG mistake was in the marketing.
They learned NOTHING from the Clinton HealthCare failure.
They could NOT have done a worse job if they has wanted to FAIL.

I live in a very rural, very red, very poor part of the South.
People here were afraid of a Comprehensive Package that was unreadable, unexplainable, and easy to brand as "Big Government."
When I asked locals here if they would like to be able to BUY MediCare,
EVERYBODY said, "SURE!"
Most people have a family member on MediCare.
They aren't afraid of it.

This was a case of Failure by design,
or failure by incompetence.

If it looks bad NOW,
wait until 2014 when Americans find out about The Mandate,
and 40 Million - 70 Million are FORCED to buy "Bronze" (JUNK) Insurance on The ("Big Government&quot Exchange.
Democrats will be unelectable for a generation.



You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

Jackpine Radical

(45,274 posts)
116. The Republicans are already making themselves unelectable, so if you're right, and
Tue Mar 27, 2012, 11:25 AM
Mar 2012

"Democrats will be unelectable for a generation"

…that ought to open the path for something new.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
135. Then the voters allow that
Wed Apr 4, 2012, 07:28 AM
Apr 2012

Why did they allow Harry and Louise to affect them?

The corporations don't have to have this power. We just let them persuade us with their ads.

Jackpine Radical

(45,274 posts)
136. People are obviously vulnerable to advertising.
Fri Apr 6, 2012, 11:29 AM
Apr 2012

Otherwise Citizens United wouldn't matter, TV would have to find some other way to make broadcasting pay, and there would be no reason for Madison Avenue to exist.

There is of course a whole science of persuasion that studies how to shift public opinion.

You may decry aspects of human nature, but it is here with us nevertheless.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
137. We can always ignore their ads or look at them critically
Fri Apr 6, 2012, 01:47 PM
Apr 2012

That's part of human nature and abilities too. In fact, that is the solution, rather than trying to control what is said and where.

Jackpine Radical

(45,274 posts)
140. "We"--or many of us anyway--already do that.
Fri Apr 6, 2012, 09:29 PM
Apr 2012

The problem is how "we" get the rest of the populace to do the same thing.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
145. Agreed, that is the issue
Sat Apr 7, 2012, 12:44 PM
Apr 2012

I am for handling it that way and at least trying, rather than a bunch of laws designed to "control" our fellow citizens exposure to what we would consider propaganda.

Jackpine Radical

(45,274 posts)
146. In the long run, I think the free flow of information
Sun Apr 8, 2012, 09:21 PM
Apr 2012

will turn into a powerful "sanitizing" force if we can hang on long enough to get there. I'm talking about things like Anonymous blowing the lids off government stashes of classified documents, OWS changing the national dialog on its first outing and then morphing and mutating rapidly ahead of the forces trying to control it--Yeah, I could see us getting there, and maybe in not too long, but there are a lot of pressing threats out there, the biggest one being the climate. Can we get it together in time to drastically reshuffle our priorities into a rational survival plan?

Uncle Joe

(58,244 posts)
7. I agree, the corporate media don't believe in bringing up the issue of how for profit insurance
Mon Mar 26, 2012, 11:45 AM
Mar 2012

hurts the public and drives up the cost of health care.

They simply stay away from that aspect of the debate.

bluestate10

(10,942 posts)
81. The depressing aspect of the poll is that Progressives want to see the law fail.
Mon Mar 26, 2012, 09:00 PM
Mar 2012

The question is. What in the hell will Progressives replace the Health Care bill with? Sit back and listen to them rail on about Single Payer. Single Payer will not be a miracle that shows up, PUFF, out of the blue to save us all. People, wake up, Single Payer is the end fruit of a long journey, fought over many years. If the Health Care bill dies, we start from point zero, with Single Payer becoming a more difficult goal to reach.

 

YOHABLO

(7,358 posts)
91. I Agree
Tue Mar 27, 2012, 01:32 AM
Mar 2012

Many of us oppose this because of the give away to the Health Insurance Industry. The opposition from the Tea Party is another issue. I want the same type of coverage they have in every industrialized nation in the world .. national health care. Not insurance.

Walk away

(9,494 posts)
104. But I thought that Obama Care limited Insurance Company profits on health care coverage to 15%
Tue Mar 27, 2012, 09:22 AM
Mar 2012

How is that a give away?

 

MannyGoldstein

(34,589 posts)
106. Actually, I believe it limits non-medical uses of premiums to 15%, including profit
Tue Mar 27, 2012, 09:37 AM
Mar 2012

But it depends on what is considered to be a non-medical use. A lot of slack there - which is why health insurer stocks are soaring again.

 

Doctor_J

(36,392 posts)
110. There are two sides to this coin, however, l_j
Tue Mar 27, 2012, 10:19 AM
Mar 2012

If Hate Radio and Fox "News" called it by its original name (WillardCare), then all the teabaggers would love it. they don't know anything about it, except what Limpballs and the rest of the traitors on the radio tell them. So these polls are useless anyway

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
3. Krugman: Supreme Thoughts
Mon Mar 26, 2012, 11:33 AM
Mar 2012
Supreme Thoughts

I haven’t been weighing in on the ACA hearing at the Supreme Court; I’m not a lawyer, and while most legal experts seem to think that the case for striking the law down is very weak, these days everything is political.

But I guess I should give my take, which is really quite simple. We know, or I think we know, that a single-payer system — in which the government collects taxes, and uses the revenue to provide health insurance — would be constitutional. I mean, I don’t think the court is about to strike down Medicare.

Well, ObamaRomneycare is basically a somewhat klutzy way of simulating single-payer. Instead of collecting enough revenue to pay for universal health insurance, it requires that those who can afford it buy the insurance directly, then provides aid — financed with taxes — to those who can’t. The end result is much the same as if the government collected taxes from those under the mandate and bought insurance for them.

Yes, the system is surely less efficient than single-payer, both because it’s more complex and because it introduces another layer of middlemen. That’s what happens when you have to make political compromises. But it is in no sense more interventionist, more tyrannical, than Medicare; it’s just a different way of achieving the same thing.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/26/supreme-thoughts/

Better, more detailed polling:






http://upload.democraticunderground.com/1002367724

zipplewrath

(16,646 posts)
26. Same ole lie
Mon Mar 26, 2012, 01:01 PM
Mar 2012

They like it so much, they feel they have to lie abou it.

Well, ObamaRomneycare is basically a somewhat klutzy way of simulating single-payer. Instead of collecting enough revenue to pay for universal health insurance, it requires that those who can afford it buy the insurance directly, then provides aid — financed with taxes — to those who can’t.


It provides aid to SOME of those "who can't". The law specifically calls out who is not required to purchase health insurance. If the government has to subsidize too much of your premiums, and yet you make above 133% of the poverty level, you're not getting insurance.

And of course they only promise insurance, it is relatively silent on the issue of actually getting health CARE. Single payer actually assures that you'll get CARE. But I guess Krugman just forgot this little detail.

Sgent

(5,857 posts)
27. And Medicare premiums
Mon Mar 26, 2012, 01:20 PM
Mar 2012

are over $350/ month depending on income, so their is an explicit subsidy for those earning less.

Now given, $350 is less than $500-$600, but its not a different order of magnitude.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
30. More
Mon Mar 26, 2012, 01:43 PM
Mar 2012

info from the NYT/CBS poll: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002473375

"It provides aid to SOME of those "who can't". The law specifically calls out who is not required to purchase health insurance. If the government has to subsidize too much of your premiums, and yet you make above 133% of the poverty level, you're not getting insurance."

Not true because there are also hardship waivers, and the unemployed make up a significant chunk of those who do not have insurance.

zipplewrath

(16,646 posts)
35. And yet the law is very specific
Mon Mar 26, 2012, 03:25 PM
Mar 2012

If your premiums are above a certain size, more than the subsidy will provide, and your income is BELOW a certain level, yet above poverty, you can be exempt from the mandate. Which means you won't get any insurance. You won't have to pay the mandate tax either however.

The mandate’s exemptions cover a variety of people, including: members of certain religious groups and Native American tribes; undocumented immigrants (who are not eligible for health insurance subsidies under the law); incarcerated individuals; people whose incomes are so low they don’t have to file taxes (currently $9,500 for individuals and $19,000 for married couples); and people for whom health insurance is considered unaffordable (where insurance premiums after employer contributions and federal subsidies exceed 8% of family income).

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
37. Really?
Mon Mar 26, 2012, 03:37 PM
Mar 2012
If your premiums are above a certain size, more than the subsidy will provide, and your income is BELOW a certain level, yet above poverty, you can be exempt from the mandate. Which means you won't get any insurance. You won't have to pay the mandate tax either however.

The mandate’s exemptions cover a variety of people, including: members of certain religious groups and Native American tribes; undocumented immigrants (who are not eligible for health insurance subsidies under the law); incarcerated individuals; people whose incomes are so low they don’t have to file taxes (currently $9,500 for individuals and $19,000 for married couples); and people for whom health insurance is considered unaffordable (where insurance premiums after employer contributions and federal subsidies exceed 8% of family income).

What you proved is that the mandate will impact very few people by way of its exemptions. As for the point about not having insurance, the information simply means those individuals will not be mandated to buy insurance. They can do so by choice. It also does not rebut the point that there are hardship waivers. It also shows the 8 percent cap. So if a percent earns $30,000 and premiums exceed $2400, they are exempt from the mandate.

zipplewrath

(16,646 posts)
38. It is not universal
Mon Mar 26, 2012, 03:46 PM
Mar 2012

Despite Krugman's claims, it does not provide universal coverage, and it is not single payer by some "klutzy" means. It isn't anything like single payer and in fact was created by the GOP in opposition of "Hillary care" with the intention of obstructing single payer.

But the proponents of this bill seem to feel the need to continually try to claim that it is some how equivalent and universal. It is neither. That seems to bother them alot so they just decide to lie.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
40. Well,
Mon Mar 26, 2012, 03:52 PM
Mar 2012

"It is not universal"

...it starts at 95 percent, and will likely grow. In fact, when states like Vermont have their single-payer up and running (funded by the health care law), that percentage will increase.

Romneycare’s 98% Success Rate Defies Gripes on Obama Law
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-03-26/romneycare-s-98-percent-success-rate-defies-gripes-on-obama-law

zipplewrath

(16,646 posts)
43. Prove it
Mon Mar 26, 2012, 04:08 PM
Mar 2012

I keep hearing these promises, but no one can seem to demonstrate it. Even the White House is hesitant to predict much more than 90% in 2019. There's always a transient body of people that aren't covered by health insurance. It is very hard to get that last 10%. Vermont is one of the smallest populations in the country and will hardly affect the rate at all.

And again, this is not some "Klutzy" form of single payer, despite Krugman's claim. You keep avoiding that little detail, like so many advocates for this bill. Single payer provides health CARE to all. ACA just forces health INSURANCE on alot of people, with no underlying assurance of health CARE.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
44. Speaking
Mon Mar 26, 2012, 04:17 PM
Mar 2012

"I keep hearing these promises, but no one can seem to demonstrate it. Even the White House is hesitant to predict much more than 90% in 2019."

...of "prove it," got a link to that claim, which is complete nonsense.

zipplewrath

(16,646 posts)
46. Let's get this straight.
Mon Mar 26, 2012, 04:32 PM
Mar 2012

I post that it isn't universal, you claim that isn't true. I demonstrate that it is true, you back peddle and say it will be great anyway. You avoid the fact that it isn't anything like the single payer as Krugman was claiming. You come in claiming that we "may be higher" and that "95%" will be covered, and pushing claims about the effect of Vermont.

But now I am the one who has something to prove?

How about getting one fact right first.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
47. How about
Mon Mar 26, 2012, 04:38 PM
Mar 2012

"How about getting one fact right first."

...you first? I mean, you're throwing a lot of bogus claims around and speculating that people aren't going to buy insurance if they're exempted from the mandate.

zipplewrath

(16,646 posts)
49. No, you
Mon Mar 26, 2012, 04:45 PM
Mar 2012

I posted that it wasn't universal and you made the claim that wasn't true. Now you are acknowledging that it is in fact true. You already posted that even in MA, people aren't buying insurance, so you've already established that by your own posting. So now that we're all in agreement that it isn't universal, and it isn't a Klutzy form of Single payer, how's about something demonstrating that the 95% will both be achieved, and then further exceeded.

Response to ProSense (Reply #30)

Lydia Leftcoast

(48,217 posts)
53. It differs from true universal health care in TWO important ways:
Mon Mar 26, 2012, 04:58 PM
Mar 2012

1. It does not achieve universal coverage, unlike countries that have either single payer or national health service models

2. It has deductibles. I do not know of any other country in the world that has deductibles, which are an excuse for the insurance companies to take your money and not give you anything in return.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
61. Krugman:
Mon Mar 26, 2012, 07:05 PM
Mar 2012
<...>

Every wealthy country other than the United States guarantees essential care to all its citizens. There are, however, wide variations in the specifics, with three main approaches taken.

In Britain, the government itself runs the hospitals and employs the doctors. We’ve all heard scare stories about how that works in practice; these stories are false. Like every system, the National Health Service has problems, but over all it appears to provide quite good care while spending only about 40 percent as much per person as we do. By the way, our own Veterans Health Administration, which is run somewhat like the British health service, also manages to combine quality care with low costs.

The second route to universal coverage leaves the actual delivery of health care in private hands, but the government pays most of the bills. That’s how Canada and, in a more complex fashion, France do it. It’s also a system familiar to most Americans, since even those of us not yet on Medicare have parents and relatives who are.

Again, you hear a lot of horror stories about such systems, most of them false. French health care is excellent. Canadians with chronic conditions are more satisfied with their system than their U.S. counterparts. And Medicare is highly popular, as evidenced by the tendency of town-hall protesters to demand that the government keep its hands off the program.

Finally, the third route to universal coverage relies on private insurance companies, using a combination of regulation and subsidies to ensure that everyone is covered. Switzerland offers the clearest example: everyone is required to buy insurance, insurers can’t discriminate based on medical history or pre-existing conditions, and lower-income citizens get government help in paying for their policies.

In this country, the Massachusetts health reform more or less follows the Swiss model; costs are running higher than expected, but the reform has greatly reduced the number of uninsured. And the most common form of health insurance in America, employment-based coverage, actually has some “Swiss” aspects: to avoid making benefits taxable, employers have to follow rules that effectively rule out discrimination based on medical history and subsidize care for lower-wage workers.

- more -

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/17/opinion/17krugman.html



Healthcare in Switzerland is universal[1] and is regulated by the Federal Health Insurance Act of 1994 (Krankenversicherungsgesetz - KVG). Health insurance is compulsory for all persons residing in Switzerland (within three months of taking up residence or being born in the country). International civil servants, members of permanent missions and their family members are exempted from compulsory health insurance. They can, however, apply to join the Swiss health insurance system, within six months of taking up residence in the country.

Health insurance covers the costs of medical treatment and hospitalisation of the insured. However, the insured person pays part of the cost of treatment. This is done (a) by means of an annual excess (or deductible, called the franchise), which ranges from CHF 300 to a maximum of CHF 2,500 as chosen by the insured person (premiums are adjusted accordingly) and (b) by a charge of 10% of the costs over and above the excess up to a stop-loss amount of CHF 700.

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



Lydia Leftcoast

(48,217 posts)
89. But in our screwed up system, an older person like myself
Mon Mar 26, 2012, 11:26 PM
Mar 2012

(but too young for Medicare), is limited to a $5000- $10,000 deductible, because frankly, that's all that is affordable.

Paying a higher premium for a lower deductible (i.e. $800 a month) would almost equal my housing costs. And there is no longer any such thing as a no-deductible health plan.

Co-pays, as in the Japanese system, would be fine.

kenfrequed

(7,865 posts)
113. Uhm...
Tue Mar 27, 2012, 11:07 AM
Mar 2012

You are aware that even in the first article you cited there is a shift between the use of "care" in the first line which is used to refer to care in a few of the subsequent paragraphs to the term "universal coverage" in the fifth as though they represent the same thing. They really are not the same thing.

Additionally, the Health care program enacted is not even close to as useful or stringent as those controls that exist in Switzerland to garauntee care. It is really apples and oranges. The US allowed the insurance companies to dictate far, far too much of healthcare reform. While this is a bandaid, and a useful bandaid, it will ultimately fail to contain costs. Of course it is obviously better than the republican methodology of amputation or festering, but it really does not solve the underlying problems and assumptions.

mzmolly

(50,974 posts)
87. Somehow I doubt that fans of Krugman's critique of Obama
Mon Mar 26, 2012, 09:54 PM
Mar 2012

will revel in his logic on this.

Great info though. Thanks for sharing.

SammyWinstonJack

(44,129 posts)
5. Doesn't matter what % wants this.
Mon Mar 26, 2012, 11:38 AM
Mar 2012

Not when the president thinks the private for profit health care insurance is better able to serve the public rather than government run health care.

And Obama has said exactly that. cough *Medicare/Medicaid* cough

No public option and individual mandated health insurance.


What a deal!

 

phleshdef

(11,936 posts)
6. cough *this law expanded medicaid eligibility* cough
Mon Mar 26, 2012, 11:44 AM
Mar 2012

This law expanded upon many existing options for public health care. And this law also imposed many new rules on private insurance companies. Its very hard for you to make the argument that "Obama said exactly that" when he signed a law that invests more in public avenues of care financing and changed a shit load of things in regard to how the private companies are allowed to operate.

I'm all for a full single payer system. Its what we should continue to push for. But being completely dishonest about the current law and the intentions behind it isn't going to help that effort.

 

hifiguy

(33,688 posts)
9. Medicare for All is the only thing
Mon Mar 26, 2012, 11:46 AM
Mar 2012

that has ever made any sense in terms of health care reform. But it would inconvenience Big In$urance and Big Pharma so it ain't gonna happen.

mazzarro

(3,450 posts)
11. What about my weird dream?
Mon Mar 26, 2012, 11:52 AM
Mar 2012

Can this scenario come to pass? SCOTUS decides against some or all aspects of the ACA - Obamacare, Obama wins re-election, Democrats hold the senate and win back the house - then proceed to replace ACA with Medicare for all? I mean rub it in to the rePIGlicans.

northoftheborder

(7,568 posts)
14. nice dream, pessimistic about it happening in real life
Mon Mar 26, 2012, 12:04 PM
Mar 2012

What I don't understand: the health care bill as is, cowtows to the insurance companies in so many ways; yet they are fighting it.

progressoid

(49,892 posts)
29. Uh, we already had control of the house and senate and they decided that ACA was the way to go.
Mon Mar 26, 2012, 01:38 PM
Mar 2012

It was called "a big fucking deal" by one of our leaders.

I don't expect our pro-corporation government to want to do anything to piss off the true power in America: corporations.

rocktivity

(44,568 posts)
16. Candidate for this year's "You Call This NEWS?" Award
Mon Mar 26, 2012, 12:05 PM
Mar 2012

But why do you think it's incredible? Medicare for all simply makes "right good sense," and the US is one of the only Westernized nations who doesn't have it. And if the Supreme Court rules against it, I hope Obama goes into single payer mode immediately.


rocktivity

rocktivity

(44,568 posts)
24. And why would it cost him the election?
Mon Mar 26, 2012, 12:27 PM
Mar 2012

It's the one percent/Republicans who want the health care status quo -- the 99% doesn't.


rocktivity

still_one

(92,024 posts)
63. Because that is what he hung his first two years on, and if it was ruled unconstitutional, the
Mon Mar 26, 2012, 07:29 PM
Mar 2012

repukes along with the MSM would plaster and demonize that until November

If the the Court said it is legal, it will become a non-issue

rocktivity

(44,568 posts)
125. That might be the case, but I think the effect would be the opposite
Tue Mar 27, 2012, 04:12 PM
Mar 2012

I think it would generate more sympathy for Obama if only because the 99% now understands that if the Repukes were to return to power, it would never have a chance at health care reform.

Besides, he could issue an executive order removing the age limits for Medicare, and let them take THAT to the Surpreme Court!


rocktivity

still_one

(92,024 posts)
17. Here is the reality, single payer would NOT have passed in 2008. The blue dogs and repugs would
Mon Mar 26, 2012, 12:05 PM
Mar 2012

have blocked it, and nothing would have happened

would not have allowed it.

In addition, you may not be aware, but unless you have supplemental with Medicare, you still have a hell of a lot of out of pocket expense, and that supplemental insurance people have to pay for. In addition, a fair number of doctors in states such as Texas and Florida are not accepting Medicare patients, because they argue that the amount Medicare pays does NOT cover their costs

The wonderful media, and R/W calling the HCR "Obamacare", is part of the demonizing of that legislation

It is Healthcare reform, not "obamacare"

Just like it is the Democratic party the the "democrat" party

I am pretty tired of the R/W and media characterizing things as "evil"

The current HCR has major problems, but it is better than what was before

People with existing conditions cannot be discriminated against or turned down. 40 million uninsured people can have healthcare without going to the emergency room for acute treatment

Parent's kids under 27 can be covered under their parents plan.

There is no longer a cap on healthcare


zipplewrath

(16,646 posts)
36. Health Insurance Reform
Mon Mar 26, 2012, 03:28 PM
Mar 2012
It is Healthcare reform, not "obamacare"


Actually, it's health insurance reform. It basically federalized health insurance regulation. There wasn't alot of health CARE reform in it. And it did very little to control the cost of health CARE, except to the federal government through medicaid changes. Even there mostly what it did was to slow the rate of growth. They did close the donut hole on Part D.

still_one

(92,024 posts)
62. I agree mostly, however, by virtue of covering 40 million uninsured, it should save emergency room
Mon Mar 26, 2012, 07:25 PM
Mar 2012

costs, if preventive care is used

I do wish that we had single payer or Medicare for all, but it is hard for me to see that happening in the near future due to the environment

zipplewrath

(16,646 posts)
75. We'll see
Mon Mar 26, 2012, 08:47 PM
Mar 2012

the HMO's tried the whole "save money through preventative care" and it didn't really work. And just because people have insurance doesn't mean they can afford the underlying care.

We got insurance reform, we needed health care reform.

zipplewrath

(16,646 posts)
94. It didn't?
Tue Mar 27, 2012, 08:17 AM
Mar 2012

It didn't impose a prohibition against pre-eixsting conditions? It didn't define what qualifying health insurance plans did, and did not, have to cover? It didn't empower any departments of the federal government to generate regulations on the health insurance industry? It didn't define what services had to be covered at 100%?

You mean the states did all of this?

eridani

(51,907 posts)
123. That is all irrelevant if actual enforcement is left to the states
Tue Mar 27, 2012, 03:02 PM
Mar 2012

The regulations that you are so looking forward to are being written by the insurance companies.

bluestate10

(10,942 posts)
84. Great, realistic post.
Mon Mar 26, 2012, 09:31 PM
Mar 2012

The head up the assism of some on DU make me want to run into the night screaming. At lease the RW is diciplined when spewing their lies, infinitely more disciplined, and I also claim, more realistic that the far Left.

slipslidingaway

(21,210 posts)
90. ^^^^^^ Yes, the Dems had control and they silenced discussion of a universal, not for profit system
Mon Mar 26, 2012, 11:37 PM
Mar 2012

but we can always blame other people, from another party, and continue the feud while people suffer.



JoePhilly

(27,787 posts)
96. I'd start by blaming Lieberman.
Tue Mar 27, 2012, 08:23 AM
Mar 2012

You claim the Dems "had control" ... pretending to not notice the blue dogs.

Buts let's ignore all of those but one ... Lieberman, you know him, called the "Senator from Aetna" ... the guy who campaigned against Obama, the guy who is not running again.

Please explain how you get his vote ... that's all I want to know ... you get all the other blue dogs for free ... just explain how you get Lieberman to vote YES for a universal, not for profit system. Without his vote, it can't happen.

I won't hold my breath ... I have yet to hear a reasonable response to this question.

Bt maybe you'll be the first.

zipplewrath

(16,646 posts)
98. Start by calling him
Tue Mar 27, 2012, 08:55 AM
Mar 2012

Obama and the White House never even called him. They never made any attempt at all to influence his vote. They did fly to Dennis' district to campaign for HCR, but they never even called Lieberman.

When you look at all the secret negotiations that the White House did all on their own, and what came out of them, not to mention that the White House chose to structure their plans around a 1995 GOP plan, one can come to the inference that they were much closer to, and comfortable with, Lieberman's position, than anywhere near Kucinich.

JoePhilly

(27,787 posts)
117. What leverage did they have .... your "call him" is nonsense.
Tue Mar 27, 2012, 12:30 PM
Mar 2012

Obama's team lobbied every Dem ... and so again, I am asking YOU ... what SPECIFIC leverage did Obama have with Lieberman?

You are pretending that flipping the Senator would be easy ... "just call him" .... ok ... then what?

What's do you say to him?

zipplewrath

(16,646 posts)
119. Kinda depends upon what HE says
Tue Mar 27, 2012, 12:46 PM
Mar 2012

You'd have to call him to know what his objections were, and what could be done to address them. Or you could just throw up your hands and say "oh, never mind". I think I'd go with the former. Negotiating with him through the press would be stone cold stupid.

JoePhilly

(27,787 posts)
122. Weak strawman ...
Tue Mar 27, 2012, 02:45 PM
Mar 2012

His "objections" were that insurance companies did not like it. There is a REASON he is known as the "Senator from Aetna".

He did not want anything. That is the entire point. The insurance industry OWNS him. His wife works for them. When he leaves office he will get paid off, or if not him, his family members.

Now ... if YOU can explain what OFFER would get him to change his vote, please do so.

Again, you can't. And that's the point. No one can. Because there is nothing.

He was called. They did talk to him.

What I'm asking you to do is pretend that you have him on the phone, what do you offer him?

You can't answer that because again, there is nothing that you could offer him. If you had any idea what to offer him, you'd name it.

zipplewrath

(16,646 posts)
124. And you know this???
Tue Mar 27, 2012, 03:21 PM
Mar 2012
He did not want anything.


That's a hell of an assertion about a politician. You have some special insight nor knowledge that we should know about? Because all politicians have their issues. Can reach either compromises nor accomodations if you don't even DISCUSS the issues with the people who will do the voting.

bvar22

(39,909 posts)
107. It was ALL Joe Lieberman's fault!!!!
Tue Mar 27, 2012, 09:48 AM
Mar 2012
He was this SUPER Bully who beat up on the President
and RUINED his whole Health Care Plan for ALL of us!
There was NOTHING Obama could doooo.
It was HORRIBLE!



Joe Lieberman took one for Team DLC.
He had nothing to lose,
and was greatly rewarded by the Centrist party Leadership for
Biting the Bullet on Health Care.
The White House could have brought Lieberman to his knees anytime it wanted to do so.


"Johnson was the catalyst, the cajoler in chief. History records him as the nation's greatest legislative politician. In a great piece on the Daily Beast website, LBJ aide Tom Johnson, writes about how his old boss would have gotten a health care reform bill through the current congress. It's worth reading to understand the full impact of the "Johnson treatment" and how effective LBJ could be in winning votes for his legislation."

http://thejohnsonpost.blogspot.com/2009/08/johnson-treatment.html







President Obama KNOWS how to play hardball.
He does it with the Progressive Wing of the Democratic Party ALL the time.



You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

 

MannyGoldstein

(34,589 posts)
115. Sorry, I'm calling Bullshit
Tue Mar 27, 2012, 11:20 AM
Mar 2012

Remember how LBJ was unable to pass a strong single-payer system for Seniors? I believe that he wanted to call it "Medicare" or some such thing, and it would cover virtually all Seniors with minimal overhead and paperwork.

Of course it was totally impractical, too far left, and Johnson failed miserably. If he'd just been more pragmatic, all Seniors would be guaranteed crappy, overpriced health care today.

JoePhilly

(27,787 posts)
118. So you can't actually answer the question ... got it.
Tue Mar 27, 2012, 12:32 PM
Mar 2012

I'm simply pointing out that you needed every blue dog, but even if I give you all the other blue dogs for free ... you can not describe how exactly you get lieberman to vote YES.

Saying "play hardball" means NOTHING. So please, explain your version of hardball for me ... how exactly do YOU as President pressure Lieberman?

You can't do it ... so you deflect.

bvar22

(39,909 posts)
131. For one thing, the White House could have used THIS:
Tue Mar 27, 2012, 05:29 PM
Mar 2012

[font size=5]Obama's Army, Jan. 21, 2009[/font]



*Send THAT crowd to Connecticut to "convince" Old Joe.
OR
*Obama himself could have gone to Connecticut and called out Lieberman in public venues like he did to Kucinich
OR
*use White House pressure to threaten funding for projects in Connecticut , and make sure Connecticut understood WHY
OR
*call together the Blue Dogs in a meeting and shame & insult them like he did to the CBC a few months ago.
(The put on your marching boots and get with MY program session)
OR
*use White House pressure to ensure that assholes like Bacchus don't get to CHAIR the Senate committees on Health care.
OR
*any one of a hundred other ways that Presidents and leaders of the Democratic Party can get something done!

Instead, The White House and Democratic Party leadership was MIA during TeaBagger Summer.


You must be really new at this to NOT know how powerful the President really is,
especially when the Poll Numbers are heavily on his side.
Can you point out a single occasion where the Democratic party Leadership or the White House publicly called out the Blue Dogs for their treachery?
NO.

Instead, the White House put all its weight behind Blue Dog Blanche Lincoln in the Arkansas Democratic Primary 2010
in a failed attempt to rescue her Primary campaign against a Democrat who supported HCR.
Blanche Lincoln actually crowed about derailing Obamacare during that campaign,
and the White House had HER back the whole time.
They even sent Bill Clinton back to Arkansas to try to save her failing campaign.

...so, ONE thing Obama CAN do is
STOP HELPING the Blue Dogs,
unless, of course, they are actually helping your real agenda.



You are also factually wrong with THIS statement:

You said:
[font color=firebrick size=3]"I'm simply pointing out that you needed every blue dog"[/font]
And I'm simply pointing out that your statement is untrue.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the final bill passed under reconciliation?

There were other ways to get around the 60 vote excuse too.
Expanding Medicare eligibility to 55 could have been passed through reconciliation too,
and THAT would have paved the road to Medicare for ALL,
and NOT the puny proposed state run single payer systems that will be so small and diluted that even the best run won't be able to show much cost savings.




...but I do agree with you that the problem is NOT the Republican Party.
The real problem is INSIDE The Democratic Party,
and until we fix THAT problem,
we aren't going to see much "change".

The White House could have brought Lieberman to his knees anytime it wanted to.
Lieberman was simply playing out his assigned part in the Kabuki Theater,
for which he was well rewarded by the Centrist party leadership.


You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

slipslidingaway

(21,210 posts)
129. Dems set the agenda for the HC reform discussions long before the vote took place ...
Tue Mar 27, 2012, 05:04 PM
Mar 2012

they needed to advance the issue of a universal, not for profit system.

Instead they chose to silence anyone who wanted to advocate for that position, even though two-thirds of Americans favored it.







 

NorthCarolina

(11,197 posts)
97. The GOP really had the upper hand, as they control the Blue Dogs in the Dem Party.
Tue Mar 27, 2012, 08:47 AM
Mar 2012

That's why Blue Dog Democrats exist, to insure a win for the 1% regardless of which party is in the majority.

zipplewrath

(16,646 posts)
99. Blue Dogs leveraged the GOP
Tue Mar 27, 2012, 08:56 AM
Mar 2012

It's what they do. The claim to be in the majority party, but they work with the GOP to interfere with democratic initiatives. We used to call them "dixiecrats".

maximusveritas

(2,915 posts)
48. They want it until the Conservative media tells them they don't
Mon Mar 26, 2012, 04:43 PM
Mar 2012

It's ridiculous to directly compare them like that. People don't like mandates because they've been hearing loads of negative press about it. It was much more popular before the attacks started. The same things is true for single payer once the Republicans label it a socialist big government takeover.

SoCalDem

(103,856 posts)
54. Reveals the disingenuous way that "disapproval" gets reported
Mon Mar 26, 2012, 04:59 PM
Mar 2012

just right 25%
Not enough X 25%
Too much X 25%
Don't know how much X is just right 25%

our media reports it as 75 % AGAINST "just right"

a2liberal

(1,524 posts)
57. duh
Mon Mar 26, 2012, 06:27 PM
Mar 2012

Why do you think Democrats got that historic electoral mandate in 2008 (and were subsequently knocked down in 2010 for failing to deliver)? The blue dogs would have you believe it was for being TOO liberal (yeah, right) despite all the polling and electoral evidence...

Dragonfli

(10,622 posts)
60. Actually it's HeritageNewtRomneyObamaCare if one were to do it chronologically from
Mon Mar 26, 2012, 06:58 PM
Mar 2012

author "The Heritage Foundation", to the first pol to push it in '93 to Romney passing a state version to Obama finally realizing the Heritage Foundation Ideal on a National level.

Dragonfli

(10,622 posts)
69. You're Right!!! I can't believe I went and denied him credit due, thanks for reminding me
Mon Mar 26, 2012, 07:58 PM
Mar 2012

My mind's not the steal trap it used to be.

maddiemom

(5,106 posts)
65. Not at allincredible.
Mon Mar 26, 2012, 07:39 PM
Mar 2012

If the PTB were listening to us, they'd know most thinking Americans would love to have single-payer health insurance. The ignorant get much more media attention these days, probably because they're so loudly vocal.

DCBob

(24,689 posts)
66. Why is that "incredible"??
Mon Mar 26, 2012, 07:43 PM
Mar 2012

Of course most people want single payer but it will never get passed as long as the Rethugs have the House majority or 41 votes in the Senate.

JustABozoOnThisBus

(23,311 posts)
100. Not just Rethugs
Tue Mar 27, 2012, 09:03 AM
Mar 2012

If Single-payer looks like it might pass, the insurance industry will lavish money and job offers on congress and staff, corrupting the Republicans and Democrats alike.

The same sort of thing happened when Medicare (part D) was prohibited from negotiating better drug prices, only health care would be even bigger.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_Prescription_Drug,_Improvement,_and_Modernization_Act

The vote on drug price negotiation was kept open for some hours after it was supposed to close, to give time to twist the arms of congresscritters who wanted Medicare to negotiate drug prices. Once the drug companies had the needed votes, the voting was closed. Not a shining moment for the democratic process.

Cleita

(75,480 posts)
74. It always had been but any voice trying to get the attention of Congress, when
Mon Mar 26, 2012, 08:42 PM
Mar 2012

the debate was going on, was shut out, harassed or arrested. They don't care if the majority want it.

bluestate10

(10,942 posts)
77. Understand, if you can get off a high horse.
Mon Mar 26, 2012, 08:51 PM
Mar 2012

There will not be an instant medical plan that meets the dreams of you and others on the far Left. Real life happens in fucking increments. First a health care plan has to be in place to show the majority of americans the benefits of preventing insurance companies from denying people coverage for pre-existing conditions. Or burden young people with impossible to get health insurance. Or allow people that have money to buy health care but who chose not to, burden the rest of society with paying for the care to make them healthy when they get sick.

The issue about the poll that makes me want to puke is that many of so called progressives were counted in those disapproving. I can afford health care. I have more health care coverage than I need. I 100% support any health care initiative that moves the country toward the day when every american, at birth can be assured of cradle to grave superior health care. If progressives prevent my dream because of a misplaced sense of what is possible for our times, the they are Fredo to my Michael. I will drop the ball on any objective that is important to progressives but doesn't coincide with the circumstances of my life.

Dragonfli

(10,622 posts)
79. Then why go way back over 20 years to a Heritage Foundation law that makes it even worse?
Mon Mar 26, 2012, 08:56 PM
Mar 2012

Giving the vampires on the system that provide no health care whatsoever endentured customers to milk and then deny procedures to is not helping the long run or the short run of anything but profits from companies that again PROVIDE NO ACTUAL HEALTH CARE WHATSOEVER .

 

MannyGoldstein

(34,589 posts)
80. Just curious: ever heard of Medicare?
Mon Mar 26, 2012, 08:59 PM
Mar 2012

If "yes", do you have any thoughts about updating your first paragraph?

 

Doctor_J

(36,392 posts)
121. You mean like Medicare?
Tue Mar 27, 2012, 02:42 PM
Mar 2012
First a health care plan has to be in place to show the majority of americans the benefits of preventing insurance companies from denying people coverage for pre-existing conditions. Or burden young people with impossible to get health insurance. Or allow people that have money to buy health care but who chose not to, burden the rest of society with paying for the care to make them healthy when they get sick.


A large number of people already have such a thing - it's called Medicare.

Yo_Mama

(8,303 posts)
85. When you mention figures, there is little support
Mon Mar 26, 2012, 09:41 PM
Mar 2012

I remember back when ACA was being debated on DU - most persons getting health insurance for work were not in favor of universal coverage, because they quailed at what they might have to contribute.

Our current system keeps a lot of people ignorant about what a lifetime of medical coverage really costs, and therefore the premium cost to a younger person who has coverage through work seems exceptional.

Personally, I believe almost everybody would be better off over the course of their lifetimes, and many people would be MUCH better off, and I think it would reduce discrimination against older/sicker persons in the workforce. It would also help to generate jobs, and it would equalize the playing field between large/small companies. Over time it would help the economy grow, which is an unquantifiable but real benefit.

So I am very much in favor of a universal coverage system.

However, whenever I put forward reasonable numbers, I do not get the idea that most people support it. People say yes to the words, but most people don't even know what Medicare costs, and when you tell them they are probably going to pay 15% of their salary for 80/20 coverage with no drug benefits, they spit in your face.

Most people, even on Democratic forums, are feeling very pushed and are out for themselves. We have lost the faith that we can make life better as a whole, so now we are all squabbling about our own advantage. In a way it is completely understandable - when you have so many people so pushed by rising costs and wages that do not keep pace, many will flinch at such a suggestion. They just can't pick up more burdens.

bvar22

(39,909 posts)
127. Do you really want to know what they think?
Tue Mar 27, 2012, 04:48 PM
Mar 2012

Simply ask them if they would like the opportunity to have Medicare,
and explain that if they don't want it, they don't have to buy it,
but can stay with whatever they already have.

Everybody I've ever asked around here (very rural, deep RED South) said they would prefer Medicare.
Most have family members with Medicare, or know somebody who does.

Some have asked, "Isn't medicare going broke?"
When I explained that if younger & healthier people were allowed to buy Medicare and share the cost (expand the risk pool),
Medicare would be in much better shape.

Expanding Medicare was a MUCH easier "sell" around here than a 2300 page "Comprehensive" overhaul.
As soon as I mentioned "Public Option", most people's eyes glazed over and their brain quit working.
The "Comprehensive Health Care Reform" was a marketing disaster from the start.
They learned NOTHING from the "comprehensive" Clinton failure.
(or maybe they learned everything.)

Yo_Mama

(8,303 posts)
130. That can't work
Tue Mar 27, 2012, 05:17 PM
Mar 2012

The reason it can't work is that then you would have adverse selection - the group of people for whom insurance is relatively cheap would not buy Medicare, and the people who badly need insurance and can only get it a very high price would buy into Medicare. That would inevitably either drive Medicare premiums up or bankrupt the system.

The reason Congress passed the individual mandate is not because they were stupid - it's because any non-universal system has to charge significantly higher premiums.

If you wanted to buy into Medicare, this year it would cost $451 for hospital insurance each month, plus $99.90 for outpatient. That's an 80/20 coverage. It would cost extra for any prescription coverage, and it doesn't include dental, eye etc. There are deductibles. The cost was actually higher last year, but in part that was due to non-processing of payments, so next year the premiums will go up.

So most people would pay at least $600 a month for the basics - physician/outpatient/basic prescription coverage. There is no cap really on out-of-pocket expenses, and some items, such as most orthopedics, aren't covered at all. For many this would be unaffordable - try paying that if you earn $300-$400 a week, gross. If you earn 20K a year, after FICA/SECA (old style) plus federal tax, your monthly after tax income is about $1,440 a month, without figuring state tax. It would be very hard to pay $600 a month out of that, or even the $550 without prescription benefits. So a very substantial pool of pretty healthy people couldn't buy in.

That would be a really good deal for some people and not a good deal for groups of younger people, so it is likely that mostly the really sick would buy into Medicare, and that would drive premiums up.

If you actually had Medicare for all, of course pulling in significantly healthier groups of people would tend to control overall costs in relation to overall revenues.

chill_wind

(13,514 posts)
86. Thanks Manny. I can't resist this quote
Mon Mar 26, 2012, 09:44 PM
Mar 2012

from the comment section at the link in your OP:

As was noted, well over 90% of Canadians (varies from 92% to 97% depending on the poll) would never accept an American style insurance-run health care system. Any Canadian politician who would be stupid enough to even whisper that they wanted an American style health care system would not only be defeated, they would be obliterated to the point that their political career would be irretrievably over. The three main Canadian sports are hockey, curling, and griping about Canadian health care, but let anyone try to change the health care system from what we’ve had for 45 years and that person had better run in order to outrun the 30 million Canadians whom would try to kill them.


(bold emphasis mine)

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
101. ĎDonít repeal health law..."
Tue Mar 27, 2012, 09:07 AM
Mar 2012
‘Don’t repeal health law – go beyond it to single-payer Medicare for all’: doctors’ group (2011)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002477239

That's the case against insanity.

bvar22

(39,909 posts)
108. What is the yearly cost to Americans....
Tue Mar 27, 2012, 10:03 AM
Mar 2012

... for keeping the Health Insurance Executives and their "Investors" living the Lifestyles of the very RICH to which they have become accustomed?

Health Insurance is a completely predatory enterprise.

* It manufactures NOTHING

*It provides NO "service".

*It creates NO wealth (Value Added).

...and, yet, Rahm crows about "protecting the Private Delivery System" of Health Care.

”In a Thursday interview, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel argued that rather than recoiling against Obama, business leaders should be grateful for his support on at least a half-dozen counts: his advocacy of greater international trade and education reform open markets despite union skepticism; his rejection of calls from some quarters to nationalize banks during the financial meltdown; the rescue of the automobile industry; the fact that the overhaul of health care preserved the private delivery system; the fact that billions in the stimulus package benefited business with lucrative new contracts, ...


Do you know that the term "Medical Bankruptcy" is unknown in civilized countries,
but will STILL be Big Business here even after all the provisions of ACA are implemented?
It will perhaps be even BIGGER Business as 40 MILLION - 70 MILLION struggling Americans try to access actual "Health Care" with their "Bronze" (junk) policies they are forced to BUY on "The Exchange".


The Perfect Storm will hit in 2014.
Polls show that most American do NOT know about "The Mandate".
40 Million to 70 Million struggling, Working Class Americans are going rudely awakened in 2014.
They won't be happy.




You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

 

saras

(6,670 posts)
112. I've always been clear - I want for-profit insurance companies OUT OF THE LOOP.
Tue Mar 27, 2012, 10:59 AM
Mar 2012

Beyond that, there's all kinds of different approaches that can work.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
134. Something must be wrong with the polling
Wed Apr 4, 2012, 07:27 AM
Apr 2012

Or, people don't really support it when it comes down to it. Then why don't they elect people who will pass it? Why are they so susceptible to conservative arguments that it's socialism, blah, blah? That the government is incompetent, etc. etc.

librechik

(30,668 posts)
138. it's not popular with "the right people" unfortunately.
Fri Apr 6, 2012, 02:48 PM
Apr 2012

the tiny segment of oligarchs that actually run this place.

Freddie Stubbs

(29,853 posts)
139. People like Obamacare at first, until it was attacked
Fri Apr 6, 2012, 02:52 PM
Apr 2012

What makes you think the same thing won't with Mdeicare for all?

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Incredible: Single Payer ...