This is the "progressive" accomplishment?

[zipplewrath]

ObamaCare Myth: ObamaCare Takes Sides

“ObamaCare”, officially titled the Affordable Care Act, was originally meant as a pejorative term to equate the bill with President Barack Obama in order to play politics with health care reform. The truth is the Affordable Care Act is the result of a joint effort between all sides of the isle, health insurance companies, and law makers and has been in the works for decades. The law itself is based on “RomneyCare”, The Massachusetts health care insurance reform law, St. 2006, c.58. “RomneyCare” was based on the individual mandate which was proposed by the Heritage Foundation in 1989. The individual mandate was championed by Republicans as alternative to single payer as it put individual responsibility at the forefront of health care reform. In short the ACA may be supported and passed by Democrats but it leans more towards the center both in terms of politics and who it benefits.

http://obamacarefacts.com/obamacare-myths/

[arcane1]

1. And now, republicans call it "socialism".

Good cop/bad cop anyone?

[whathehell]

3. Yes, it's what they called Social Security & Medicare too

as well as Veteran's Benefits.

[HughBeaumont]

4. Republicans don't seem to get that the ACA is almost a completely Republican plan.

Right down to the Repubil-Dems Baucus and Lieberturd taking the Public Option off the table and having single-payer advocates arrested at the formatives.

Multi-payer could have been a progressive accomplishment, but we're simply not ever going to move past the notion that everything nailed and otherwise absolutely has to be about making a buck.

[geek tragedy]

2. Say, what was the partisan makeup of the Massachusetts legislature

when it passed its healthcare reform bill?

[staggerleem]

5. Every President since Teddy Roosevelt ...

... has TRIED to pass a national health care law. Obama SUCCEEDED!

So, YES, it's an accomplishment! It's the first step that we've taken in the right direction on this issue, and will likely lead to the adoption of a single payer system before too long, so YES, it's progressive!

[zipplewrath]

9. Why do you say that?

Obama himself said that single payer "wouldn't work" in this country. There's nothing in here that requires or incentivizes single payer. Quite the opposite, by placing the insurance companies firmly in the system, it places them in a position to ensure that such a major change will not occur. They are making way too much profit and a significant portion from the public coffers. We've had Medicare for 50+ years and we still don't have single payer (that was some how supposed to be the path to single payer). What specifically about the ACA in anyway would evolve into single payer?

[staggerleem]

17. When Obama said that single payer "wouldn't work" ...

... he meant that there was no way he could PASS a single payer plan through the Congress that we, the people, saddled him with.

The fact that the InsCos are making a ton of $$ feeding at the public trough is NOT an argument for keeping that plan in place - to the contrary, it's a reason to change it!

Elect Bernie Sanders, vote for Democratic Senators, paint the House blue, and we'll have a single payer system. Count on it!

BTW - The Donald supports single-payer, too!

[zipplewrath]

22. Well, that's not what he said

But apparently you have inside knowledge.

The fact that the insurance companies are making a lot of money is why the ACA is no "path" to single payer. It is the new obstacle. Too many people making too much money from it. And much of it public money.

And we did paint the House "blue" and we got the ACA. It was what we "saddled" him with, and the democratic Senator Chairman had the single payer advocates arrested.

[staggerleem]

28. Yeah - politicians ALWAYS say ...

... EXACTLY what they mean, right? And those 75 Filibuster-proof days were a real shot in the arm for Obama, right? What we got out of that was the country's FIRST national health care plan - something almost every President since Teddy Roosevelt has tried to pass.

The path from the ACA to single payer starts with the Sanders revolution. IF Bernie Sanders gets elected President, it will be because of a progressive movement among a vast number of voters. He'll have very strong coat-tails, that will bring LOTS of Progressive Democrats into Congress & the Senate along with him. Remember, he's CAMPAIGNING on single-payer!

The movement, in fact, actually started in the 2014 mid-term, although it was easy to miss, because the majority of Democrats RUNNING for office were Blue Dogs, who believed the FOX BS about the toxicity of the President. The few Dems who DID win in 2014 were Progressives. Also, a bunch of Progressive ballot measures at the state level were passed in that election (marijuana legalization, raises in minimum wage, gay marriage, etc.)

The American public is moving back to the left, and it's about damn time!

[zipplewrath]

29. But you're interpreting

All I'm saying is that you keep claiming that the ACA is some sort of pathway to single payer, and the words of the man that proposed it say otherwise.

I'm still not clear how the ACA moves us closer to single payer when the original form was designed to avoid that outcome, the man that proposed it this time said single payer wouldn't work and THIS was the better way, and the congress not to mention the nation isn't going to be in a mood to do ANYTHING significant on health insurance, much less health CARE for another generation. And even more so, the ACA put a huge financial interest on the part of many powerful players to ensure that single payer NEVER happens.

[staggerleem]

31. I agree that the ACA and Single Payer represent opposing views.

I also believe that whether we had the ACA or not, IF Bernie Sanders gets elected, we WILL have single payer. I only say that it's "on the path" because it's where we ARE.

You and I can argue this point until mid-2017, or we can just wait and see what happens.

Oh, and btw, Zippy, if you truly believe that the words that come out of a politician's mouth are NEVER open to interpretation, you must live in a VERY confused world.

[zipplewrath]

32. They are always

I'm just disputing YOUR interpretation. I offered no interpretation to dispute. I merely worked with the facts as they stood.

[staggerleem]

33. And I'm disputing ...

... your "interpretation" that a law with a state opt-out clause, allowing any state that can come up with a better way to provide care to more citizens at less cost to do just that, has no "path" to single payer. We may see public-option ballot measures in VT and CO, this November or next. Seems like a path to me.

Do we agree that it's not such a stretch from public option to single payer, or is even THAT too much interpretation for your standards?

[zipplewrath]

34. If we only had a public option

The public option was the way to single payer and that was given up in about month 4. It isn't clear it can be executed at the state level. You'll note VT backed off. Oregon had something close years ago and had to abandon it. the problem is that the criteria for implementing it (i.e. lower cost and more citizens) may be unachievable.

[staggerleem]

35. VT backed off their FIRST plan.

There's another on the fire. Colorado's working on one too.

This is how it got done in Canada - in the Provinces (like our states, only bigger) first, then it went national.

I still do not see what your reasoning is that makes you believe that just because SOME plan exists (which is profitable for the InsCos, and at best, tolerable for the insured), that it's not possible to change the plan?

I guess you're also fairly certain that Sanders will crash & Bern? If that wasn't the case, I think you'd have more faith in the possibility of single payer - even in MY lifetime (I'll turn 62 in Dec.)

[zipplewrath]

36. Did MA lead to single payer?

How long have they had "Romneycare"? Are they moving towards single payer?

The congress will not go near health care for another generation. The fallout was so bad over this last round that no one is going to be interested in touching the subject in any meaningful way for a good generation (typically about 15 years or so). So you'd have to believe that the states will accomplish it. Something that no state has accomplished ever. In fact, the states resulted in the system that Obama felt necessary to federalize health insurance regulation.

And yes, that includes President Sanders. He will find no congressional cooperation for anything much more than "fixing" the short comings of the ACA.

[leveymg]

6. The advantage is Medicaire expansion to low-income Americans in states that have allowed it.

Seven of the 29 states (and the District of Columbia) that expanded coverage have experienced higher-than-expected enrollment. The expansion of Medicaid now allows most low-income adults making up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level to qualify. Except that leaves out people in 21 states where legislatures haven't passed measures to pay the state costs component.

An estimated 1.4 million more people than expected have signed up in those seven states since enrollment opened in October 2013 -- with Illinois, Kentucky and Washington state more than doubling their projected numbers.

The problem is that many states, including Florida, still debating whether to take the plunge and green-light the Medicaid expansion, which is optional under the ACA as it was negotiated.

[Agnosticsherbet]

7. It has made things better, and that makes it liberal in the way Social Security, Civil Rights Act of

1964, Title IX, Medicare, and Medicaid made things better.

We should remember that there were civil rights acts in 1957

On September 9, 1957, President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed into law the Civil Rights Act of 1957. Originally proposed by Attorney General Herbert Brownell, the Act marked the first occasion since Reconstruction that the federal government undertook significant legislative action to protect civil rights. Although influential southern congressman whittled down the bill?s initial scope, it still included a number of important provisions for the protection of voting rights. It established the Civil Rights Division in the Justice Department, and empowered federal officials to prosecute individuals that conspired to deny or abridge another citizen?s right to vote. Moreover, it also created a six-member U.S. Civil Rights Commission charged with investigating allegations of voter infringement. But, perhaps most importantly, the Civil Rights Act of 1957 signaled a growing federal commitment to the cause of civil rights.

and 1960

The 1960 Civil Rights Act was born towards the end of 1958. Following the 1957 Civil Rights Act, Eisenhower introduced another civil rights bill in late 1958, which was his reaction to a violent outbreak of bombings against churches and schools in the South. Though Eisenhower is not automatically linked to thecivil rights issue, his contribution, including the 1957 Act, is important as it pushed the whole civil rights issue into the White House

Those acts and the other signature laws of the period made lives better for everyone. They were not perfect, and required a lot of improvement, and need a lot more.

They are very Liberal.

[zipplewrath]

8. So now Medicare Part D is liberal too?

Let's see, who passed that?

[geek tragedy]

12. That person didn't say anything approaching that. Are you suggesting that the Medicaid

expansion under the ACA is Republican/rightwing?

[zipplewrath]

13. Yes, they did

Look at the opposition from democrats leading up to Part D's passage.
If the definition of "Progressive" is "it didn't make anything worse on balance" the GOP is responsible for a lot of progressive legislation.

I'm suggesting that on balance, as the article I quoted said, that it was a centrist piece of legislation that included features that were meant to avoid single payer.

[geek tragedy]

15. where did that person mention Part D?

Progressive means making progress.

[zipplewrath]

16. Actually, no

Progressive is the opposite of regressive.
And it definitely isn't "centrist" which was what the OP stated.

[Agnosticsherbet]

20. Did 'Part D' make things better? I do know that other modifications to Medicare improved the lives

of we the people.

Pointing at one piece of legislation that has a long history of being used and changed is not addressing the whole issue. Medicare improved the lives of people. For the most part, legislation has improved what was a good bill.

Yes, Republicans can pass bills when the people put them in power.

That does not make Medicare a bad bill.

And it does not refute legislative history.

What we need to do is to keep people in office of work to help everyone rather than cater to a few or follow slavishly an ideology like Conservatism.

[zipplewrath]

21. Yes, it did

It was a "good enough" improvement that when the democrats ran in '08 they didn't run on changing it, or overturning it or anything.

The ACA "fixed" one of the biggest problems with Part D, the whole "donut hole" problem. It still has that awful "no negotiation of prices" crap. But a lot of democrats opposed part D originally because of those two problems. They opposed it because ostensibly it wasn't progressive "enough". Some how, when it is a Democratic president that automatically makes it progressive. Well, at least for some. Dennis admitted that it wasn't all that progressive but that it was "good enough" to pass.

[Agnosticsherbet]

23. Then even Republicans can do something right and liberal on occassion,

even when it isn't their intention.

By the way, I am not now and have never claimed to be a Progressive.

I am a liberal.

[zipplewrath]

25. And the OP wasn't about you

The OP was about the ACA, and the centrist nature of the bill.

[Agnosticsherbet]

27. And my comment was that it is a great accomplishment in Health Care...and made things better

and in that is both liberal (in expanding healthcare to more people) and left wing progressive (in that it improved the lives of millions and made progress.)

So the OP was about me.

[nationalize the fed]

10. Here's the original paper

Read by less than 1% of the population

Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans
By Stuart M. Butler, Heritage Foundation
http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/assuring-affordable-health-care-for-all-americans

Note the comparisons to Auto Insurance

2) Mandate all households to obtain adequate insurance. Many states now require passengers in automobiles to wear seatbelts for their own protection. Many others require anybody driving a car to have liability insurance. But neither the federal government nor any state requires all households to protect themselves from the potentially catastrophic costs of a serious accident or illness. Under the Heritage plan, there would be such a requirement. This mandate is based on two important principles. First, that health care protection is a responsibility of individuals, not businesses.

Thus to the extent that anybody should be required to provide coverage to a family, the household mandate assumes that it is t h e family that carries the first responsibility. Second, it assumes that there is an implicit contract between households and society, based on the notion that health insurance is not like other forms of insurance protection. If a young man wrecks his Porsche and has not had the foresight to obtain insurance, we may commiserate but society feels no obligation to repair his car. But health care is different.

If a man is struck down by a heart attack in the street, Americans will care for him whether or not h e has insurance. If we find that he has spent his money on other things rather than insurance, we may be angry but we will not deny him services - even if that means more prudent citizens end up paying the tab. A mandate on individuals recognizes this implicit contract. Society does feel a moral obligation to insure that its citizens do not suffer from the unavailability of health care. But on the other hand, each household has the obligation, to the extent it is able, to avoid placing demands on society by protecting itself.

The health insurance mandate in the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, is an idea hatched in 1989 by Stuart M. Butler at The Heritage Foundation in a publication titled "Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans". This was also the model for Mitt Romney's health care plan in Massachusetts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heritage_Foundation#Policy_influence

And don't forget that both Obama and Reid promised a public insurance option (after Baucus had single payer doctors and nurses *arrested* at a hearing)

Reid

Obama told us all his policies are "republican from the '80s" so the final result shouldn't be all that surprising

[Cali_Democrat]

11. Bernie Sanders voted for the ACA

That Republican!

[zipplewrath]

14. So did Dennis

And if you read what he said before he voted for it, he didn't claim it was a piece of progressive legislation.

[JI7]

24. he also says single payer didn't have support

He also supports chuck Schumer for senate dem leader.

[Xithras]

18. Obama took America's healthcare turd and polished it.

It's an improvement over what we had before, but it still stinks.

[zipplewrath]

19. Health Insurance

At the end of the day, what he did predominately was nationalize the regulation of health insurance. To a great degree it had been done at the state level prior to that. Health CARE got a whole lot less out of the ACA. Especially anything that might take DOWN the levels we pay for it. We still are paying whole integer multiples more than many western nations, and other primary economic competitors. And it is still going up at 2 to 3 time the larger rate of inflation.

[HassleCat]

26. Yes, it's very centrist

Not what we wanted. Not what we needed. But it was what we could get. If you remember, Obama had to scrape together every last vote he could get, and he had to make compromises just to get support from his fellow Democrats. That said, it is significantly better in many respects than the previous situation. And it's the first health insurance reform in my lifetime. And he got it through a hostile Congress. So, yes, it's a pretty good accomplishment.

[zipplewrath]

30. And puts the insurance companies in control

It's not the first health insurance reform in your lifetime, it is the federal government taking over health insurance regulation from the states. You've lived through many reforms unless you were born 6 years ago. They just happened PREDOMINATELY at the state level. (MA. and Romney obviously beat the feds to it by many years. Oregon also had some major health insurance reform about a decade or so ago.) And at the federal level, Medicare Part D occurred in the previous administration, which was a huge unfunded expansion of Medicare. So just how young are you?

He got a formerly GOP plan, inspired by the Heritage foundation, containing no public option, but with a mandate which he campaigned against, and didn't get any real help from the GOP.

But I'm glad you agree it isn't a progressive accomplishment.

[Egnever]

37. Very progressive from my viewpoint

My child with Diabetes no longer has to fear not being able to get health insurance.


Massive progress from what was there before. Single payer would be great but till we get the money out of politics it will never happen.

[zipplewrath]

38. I'm glad

I'm glad for you and your child. I presume that means you can actually afford to use the insurance as well.

I presume you actually read the original post and understand the meaning of centrist. I suspect even the President would characterize it in that fashion. Goodness knows that's what he basically said to the GOP when he was trying to get their support.