Progressives Support Shoring Up ACA Before Tackling Medicare For All

[George II]

Source: Huffington Post

WASHINGTON ― The Trump administration’s effort to completely dismantle the Affordable Care Act through the courts is having one immediate, unintended consequence: uniting Democrats.

Despite a large division in the Democratic party over the best health care solution ― single-payer or a continuation and possible expansion of something like Obamacare ― progressives in Congress appear to be in lockstep with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s priority of shoring up the ACA before tackling anything like Medicare for All.

“I’m happy to support any provision that strengthens the ACA and plug some of the gaps that we’re seeing, particularly as it’s under assault by the president,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) told HuffPost on Wednesday. “I think it’s part of a longer-term vision, at least for me, towards guaranteeing ― truly guaranteeing ― health care for all Americans.”

Ocasio-Cortez said she understood prioritizing fixes to the Affordable Care Act. “Because we have a Republican Senate, a Republican president, and so the things that we have the ability to pass right now are pretty narrow,” she said, though she added she wanted hearings on Medicare for All and didn’t think single-payer solutions had been given enough attention from the Democratic caucus yet.

Read more: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-aca-democrats-array-ocasio-cortez-health-care-medicare_n_5c9bc9f9e4b072a7f603a718?1hd

[RandySF]

1. Not all of them.

[George II]

2. Yes, I know. Sad state of affairs if you ask me.

[yardwork]

24. Yes, Bernie Sanders came out against protecting the ACA.

I'm furious.

[Cha]

27. Not too smart..

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[NurseJackie]

40. My LIFE DEPENDS ON IT... I'll always hate him for that. Unforgivable!

[BlueFlorida]

3. This is a proper way to go.

Build on what we already have instead of throwing it all out and trying to start from scratch with an unworkable plan. It may be good for someone's ego and/or legacy but we are talking about people's lives here and a true leader would show a lot of flexibility in moving forward on the path.

A quarterback at his own 20 yard line saying I want a touchdown in one play and one play only won't last in even a high school football team. One has to run and throw short passes to get closer and closer to the goal line. It can take several plays and it may take time but the odds are better of scoring a touchdown in the end.

[Hassler]

4. +1

[George II]

7. My analogy yesterday somewhere was the Empire State Building was built first....

....by laying the foundation, then the first floor, then the second, etc. They didn't top it off before they built the 102 stories below the spire.

[msongs]

12. empire state had a blueprint of exactly what the finished product would be from day one nt

[George II]

13. Yes, and it was completed ahead of schedule and at 1/3 BELOW projected budget....

Plus, like everything else, there was politics involved!

[sheshe2]

9. Wow.

Great post.

Not a football fan, yet your analogy:

even a high school football team. One has to run and throw short passes to get closer and closer to the goal line. It can take several plays and it may take time but the odds are better of scoring a touchdown in the end.

Welcome to DU. Spot on.

Lol~ I may get this wrong but let me try.

You can't kick the ball from the end zone and expect it to sail over the goal. Impossible. However it takes courage, stamina and the whole team to run that ball down the field, taking hits on the way to make it to the end zone.

[George II]

10. This is great. I thought you said you're not a football fan! Excellent description of the process:

You can't kick the ball from the end zone and expect it to sail over the goal. Impossible. However it takes courage, stamina and the whole team to run that ball down the field, taking hits on the way to make it to the end zone.

[sheshe2]

11. Thanks!!!

I'm not really. My State team uses deflated ball and now we have the owner accused of soliciting prostitution. Oh my! Both of them are trumpers. Surprise, surprise, surprise. Cheaters.

Glad I got the analogy right.

[NurseJackie]

41. He has COMPLETELY disqualified himself. He should just drop out now and go back to Vermont.

However it takes courage, stamina and the whole team to run that ball down the field...

I'm not seeing courage. I'm not seeing stamina. I'm not seeing teamwork.

My life depends on the ACA. The lives of people I love depend on the ACA. I hate him for this betrayal. It's beneath contempt. I'll never forgive it.

He has COMPLETELY disqualified himself. He should just drop out now and go back to Vermont. Someone who does/says something like that doesn't DESERVE to even be CONSIDERED to be nominated for president.

[sheshe2]

58. With you 100%, Nurse Jackie.

[True Blue American]

77. Millions like you depend on

The ACA. I would never vote for anyone who does not want to fix the ACA, then work on the things that need fixing,undoing the damage Republicans have done.

We are better than this.

[MooDrew]

17. The ACA is horrible for anyone that is or has a family member with a chronic illness

The only thing I can say positive about the ACA is that it is better than what we had before and better than the Republican alternative. However, it needs a lot more work than a few patches here and there. The only patches I hear them talking about are more generous subsidies and including higher income levels in the subsidies. What is horrific about it is the incredibly high out of pocket costs that go with one of these policies. It is a sad joke for someone that has a chronic medical problem. I can't wait another two years for meek Democratic politicians to say once they are elected all they can get done are few minor tweaks here and there and that is where I see it going.

You wouldn't put a new roof, new carpet and new windows in/on a house with a rotten foundation. And Private Insurance is the rotten foundation of the ACA. Any Democrats in the 2020 Presidental Primary that don't support some version of universal care won't be getting my support.

[BlueFlorida]

18. People with chronic illness

are already on SSI and Medicare.

[MooDrew]

23. Nope

My wife just got SS in Dec after trying on and off for the past 5 years. They kept saying she is too young surely there is something she can do. Now we have two-year wait until Medicare kicks in. In other words only two more years of poverty and getting hauled to court once a month by somebody trying to garnish my wages.

[Hortensis]

31. MooDrew, Medicare uses private insurers, your "rotten foundation."

Private insurers, private medical providers, private rehabilitation, private device manufacturers, private pharmaceuticals, etcetera. Medicare is considered at best only partially socialized in that it is run by the federal government, but it operates within the free enterprise system with some regulation. But far from enough.

My husband and I are on Medicare. It costs me about the same as I had under the ACA. But in order to get comparable coverage we each have to pay premiums for 2 medical policies and a medication policy. Eye and dental are also, of course, separate.

The VA, with better care for much less, is our nation's only large true socialized medicine system. Very perversely, many of those passionately supportive of MfA think the VA isn't needed, that vets should lose their special benefits and be in the same, lesser system as everyone else. The VA is of course already on the Republican chopping block along with the ACA.

In any case, it sounds like the ACA is doing so poorly for you guys that at least you won't miss it all that much if Trump and the Republicans succeed in closing it down as unconstitutional.

And I can tell you that if you won't miss the rotten ACA all that much, maybe you won't miss Medicare all that much either if the Republicans succeed in repealing that before you get there.

[ehrnst]

46. +1000.

[George II]

84. Few people truly understand how Medicare works and who does a big part of the administration...

....of Medicare. It's not the federal government, it's private insurance companies. The government contracts with private insurance companies to administer Medicare, and those contracts serve to keep the premiums for supplemental insurance way down.

We've been on Medicare for about three years, and we have supplemental insurance. Our Medicare premium is about $125 each per month (deducted directly from our Social Security benefits), and our supplemental premium is about $25 each per month. Both go up or down a few dollars at the beginning of each new year. Deductibles and co-pays are reasonable. I'm on two medications, my wife one - our co-pays are $2, $2, and $3 per month.

So, with three prescriptions combined, our monthly total cost is $307, that's $3700 per year, less than I was paying through my employer for just me!

There are also a number of factors contributing to why the ACA "doesn't work" and why premiums are "high". In states where the ACA was embraced and exchanges are set up, the ACA works fine and premiums are reasonable. It's states the do NOT have their own exchanges, people have to work through the Federal exchange and they get very little support from the states in which they live. In THOSE states premiums are skyrocketing, mostly because they're not supported by republican governors/legislatures in those states.

In states that have accepted the ACA, it's working fine and it's "affordable" (the first "A" in ACA!)

[Hortensis]

85. Let's point out that the Pubs have hurt the ACA as bad

as they can, attacking its funding mechanism several ways, of course not allowing the Medicare expansion, allowing states to sell junk policies, and much else. In spite of that, the ACA is so solid and so well entrenched among the various industries that work with it that it still works as intended for those people fortunate enough, like those in California, to have it working mostly as intended.

At this initial stage, of course. Considering the Republicans never allowed a single tweak to improve this tremendously complex program before or after rolling it out, it's been a marvel.

McConnell trying to scare people by showing it printed out. He didn't say congressional Republicans wouldn't allow even one adjustment to allow it to work better after road testing. Boy, were they disappointed!

Btw, now that we have a majority in the house, we're trying to make substantial improvements for those who have to live with it for the next 2 and more years, but Bernie Sanders refuses to join in improving it, even opposing reducing the premiums.

?uuid=E9A7RI28EeKfVPP91wrK0g

[George II]

89. Where it isn't working is in states where the Governors refused to expand Medicaid...

...or run exchanges. In Connecticut it's working fine, in fact the last I looked there were four or five options available on the exchange. A few years out of curiosity I even went to the exchange of a Southern state (forget which now, Louisiana or Mississippi?) and they had easy signups.

[ehrnst]

43. Hillary had a plan to expand Medicare and allow buy in by those 55 and older

at a higher rate than if they waited, but at a lower rate than private insurance even with subsidies.

That is far, far more likely than MFA to get through the GOP and be upheld by the current SCOTUS.

[onit2day]

20. Well said moodrew. I'm with ya.

[Cha]

26. ACA is Not "horrible" for Millions of People..

ACA is helping Millions of people who are enrolled and getting help with their pre-existing conditions.

5 Ways the Affordable Care Act is Helping Real People

Affordable Care Act Helps People with Pre-Existing Conditions

Based on their past proposals to replace the ACA, the Republican replacement plan would drastically weaken these protections.

Repeal of the ACA threatens against the 133 million people with pre-existing conditions. Share Kimberley's story.

https://familiesusa.org/5-ways-affordable-care-act-helping-real-people

Nobody is saying it's the endgame. These "progressives" know that..and want to strengthen it for those who are being helped by it.

They understand it's a smart temporary fix..

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[MooDrew]

28. It sure is horrible for myself and my family...

and other chronically ill people. Yes, it covers preexisting conditions but that doesn't mean anything if your preexisting condition requires you to spend what your family out of pocket is every year. Not only that we exceed it despite being on the special Silver Plan because my wife's expensive drugs aren't in the insurance companies' formulary. Why do you think (before Trump got rid of the mandate) there was an exemption to the mandate for people with high medical costs? It was an acknowledgment that it was seriously flawed for people with chronic conditions.

So, yes, if you have something like high blood pressure where the treatment is inexpensive you are good to go, but if you have something more serious that sends you to the hospital once or twice a year and or requires you to take expensive drugs you are screwed.

I will throw this out there too since I have been on the ACA for several years now. I live in a rural area and what I saw year after year was intentional gaming of the Marketplace. What do I mean by that? As you may or may not know, the subsidy you get is not only based upon your income but it is also based on the average premium for a silver plan in your county. Here is what I typically saw. There would be three companies that offered plans. The first two companies did not offer viable plans. They weren't viable plans because there was nowhere you could go to the hospital or even a GP within a one-way two-hour drive that was in Network. Those two companies' plans were always much cheaper than the one viable company that offered plans you could actually use meaning your subsidy was always lower than it should have been because of those other two other companies offering phantom plans. And I am sure that was a feature to hold down costs and not a bug.

I get so frustrated talking to other Democrats about the ACA. A lot of them simply don't understand how poor the ACA is for someone with a chronic illness or an injury and when presented proof they pull out charts and try and sell me on how I just must have misunderstood the last several years of my life because the ACA is wonderful.

I do agree right now it is the best we can do with a Republican Senate and President, but what concerns me is what comes after 2020 assuming Democrats win. I know Pelosi had that secret meeting a few months ago with Insurance executives that leaked where she promised they would continue to get their slice of the pie. That is unacceptable to me.

[Cha]

29. The Progressives in the House want to

strengthen and keep it for those who have pre-existing conditions.. and Not let the Fascists make it disappear.

They do NOT want to throw millions, who ARE getting HELP, under the bus.

[Habibi]

38. Thank you for sharing your experience. You're completely right:

the ACA is not "wonderful" for everyone. Out-of-pocket costs are ridiculous, if you make just a little too much to qualify for subsidies. People scramble to pay the premiums, and then are faced with both co-pays and deductibles.

Yes, it's better than what we had, but it needs a LOT of work.

I wish people who champion the ACA would take a deep breath and really LISTEN to folks in your situation who are still having to struggle like this. Ignoring the experiences of real people isn't the way to fix this issue.

[ehrnst]

45. The ACA was kneecapped by the GOP and SCOTUS. Dems are listening to you, the others are not. (nt)

[Habibi]

50. I agree that the GOP has sabotaged the ACA at every turn.

But, I believe MooDrew is referring to individual Dems, some on this site, who ignore a person’s negative experience of the ACA, or insist that that experience doesn’t matter in light of the millions of people who are helped. Yes, it has helped millions. But as MooDrew stated:

I get so frustrated talking to other Democrats about the ACA. A lot of them simply don't understand how poor the ACA is for someone with a chronic illness or an injury and when presented proof they pull out charts and try and sell me on how I just must have misunderstood the last several years of my life because the ACA is wonderful.

[ehrnst]

53. I was talking about individual Dems, too.

Last edited Thu Mar 28, 2019, 11:21 AM - Edit history (1)

It's one thing to say that this is the reality of health care, at this point in time, due to many factors, and quite another to say that these negative experiences "don't matter." That's a strawman.

pull out charts and try and sell me on how I just must have misunderstood the last several years of my life because the ACA is wonderful.

I have not seen one instance of the poster being responded to in this manner, so I think that it's an emotional perception about anyone talking about any good the ACA has done for anyone.

I think they are characterizing any analysis or reporting of the ACA's successes, and any attempts to repair or expand it as a personal rebuke to them and anyone who is struggling with the health care system as it is.

That's just not the case. Saying that an MFA bill is impossible (at this time in history at least) to pass isn't "ignoring" someone, or telling them that they aren't suffering. It's also not telling them that they don't deserve better health care, or Democratic leaders don't want universal health care because they see more viable multi-payer solutions for UHC than Single Payer, like the vast majority of industrialized nations have found.

I lived in Great Britain and participated their single payer health care. I was very happy with it. I had no objections to it. I also understand the differences that are relevant in between GB and US, and the very real obstacles to single payer here. That's not "ignoring" the needs of people in the U.S. or saying that the current system is "wonderful" and can't be improved. The ACA is the closest we've ever come to UHC.

When desegregation was made law, there were entire regions of the South that simply closed all public schools, and opened private "Christian" schools that were able to admit only white students. An entire population of school aged of black children were denied any formal public education for several years. I'm sure that if you asked them, they could say that the Brown v. Board of Education decision was "horrible" for them, and any discussion of progress made later on in public education access might seem like people were simply "pulling out charts and graphs and telling them that they must have misunderstood those years of lost education because Brown v Board of Education was wonderful."

That would be based in the mistaken ideas that there was a better, equally doable alternative to Brown v Board of Education that was ignored for a judicial based effort. Like there was a possibility of a federal ban on private and religious schools, and removing public education from state and local oversight, being staffed and built and run by teams that were sent in from Washington, which would have greeted warmly by those in the segregated south.

There may have been many viable alternatives in theory, but in reality, Brown v. Board of Education was the only thing that worked towards desegregation. And like just about anything in history that involved that big of a change, there were going to be some people who would have it worse.

[Habibi]

54. Please see post #26.

This is not the first time I've seen this type of response to a poster who describes a less-than-desirable experience of the ACA on this board. Apparently, it's not the first time for MooDrew, either.

Look, my point is that when a poster states that the ACA has been horrible for them/their family, it really isn't asking so much to acknowledge the truth of their situation. Dismissing it by asserting that the ACA isn't horrible for millions of others is not a helpful tactic. "I hear you and I sympathize" is a better first response.

[ehrnst]

60. No, I'm not seeing #26 telling the poster that "they just misunderstood their life"

or anything like that.

Look, my point is that when a poster states that the ACA has been horrible for them/their family, it really isn't asking so much to acknowledge the truth of their situation.

If by, 'the truth' of their situation is that "the ACA is a failure for EVERYONE with a chronic illness, because of their personal experience," that's not going to be acknowleged, because it's not true.

Did you see the statement that #26 is responding to?

"The ACA is horrible for anyone that is or has a family member with a chronic illness"

#26 rebuts that as a universal experience of people with chronic illnesses since the ACA passed, because they have health care now that they didn't have access to prior to the ACA. Cha says: " Nobody is saying it's the endgame. These "progressives" know that..and want to strengthen it for those who are being helped by it.

Right wingers whose premiums got raised at all howled that the ACA is the reason that they rose, even if they rose less under the ACA than in previous years. They, too "wanted acknowledgement of the truth of their situation" which was that "the ACA was the reason they were paying more than last year in premiums." Any attempt to tell them that not only would their premiums have gone up even higher without the ACA, but that way more people were being covered who hadn't been before, so yes it was progress, would be as unhappy as the poster who is also blaming the ACA on continuing problems within our system that were worse before the ACA.

"I hear you and I sympathize" is a better first response.

LBN is a discussion board, not a support group. The support groups are listed near the bottom on the left navigation, just below "sports." The poster knows this and has been attempting to undermine support the ACA on other threads, trying to push the false narrative that shoring up the ACA is somehow an obstacle to MFA, and Democratic leaders are secretly meeting with and pandering to the private insurance execs, and it's corruption that causes them to 'choose' to try to repair the ACA, rather than demanding the politically impossible at this point in history Medicare for All.

Somehow, I don't think that the poster is here simply seeking sympathy and emotional validation.

[ehrnst]

74. Who is "telling you to keep your mouth shut?"

Pointing out the factual discrepancies in your statements doesn't = telling you to keep your mouth shut.

[ehrnst]

75. What "actions" show "they haven't heard?"

And by "they," who are you talking about specifically that "pretended to listen?"

And what did you say to "them" that elicited the response that shows that "they haven't heard"?

Way too many pronouns to navigate.

I know the difference between chronic and pre-existing conditions.

I also know that some, including my sister and her family, they make too much for subsidies or to participate in the marketplace. They pay much more than I do for healthcare. I believe everyone should pay in what they can, and get at least the basic care. This does not mean that I will just believe anyone who says that they can promise that, especially a politician eyeing the WH.

I have more background in health policy (via non-partisan, self funded sources of information) than the average person. This certainly can be a downer, especially when one sees the holes in the shimmering promises made concerning how "easy" it would be to change everything over without disruption or huge costs incurred by the transition and implementation.

I would love to think that MFA would be everything it's promised to be, but I know enough to see that it is not. No amount of "positive thinking" and "wanting it badly enough" will make it so. LBJ was able to lie about what Medicare and Medicaid would cost, because he knew if he told Congress and the Senate about the cost estimates, it would not pass. We have the CBO now, so there isn't a way to hide or dismiss those details any longer once they score it.

[ehrnst]

82. So you're not going to answer my questions? I'm not surprised.

Last edited Thu Mar 28, 2019, 05:27 PM - Edit history (1)

Little old me is "the reason that we can't talk as Democrats about the very real problems..."

Because I point out where you get the facts wrong? Should I be flattered that you think I have that much power over what "Democrats can't talk about?"

You are so invested in the ACA that you have to parse every pronoun I type hoping you can find one little crack in the story of the life I have lived under the ACA, so you can create a make-believe discrepancy to discredit everything I said.

That's a bit of an overreaction, don't you think? Attacking a straw man and a false dillema in one sentence that also accuses me of lying, twisting or otherwise trying to discredit "the story of the life you have lived under the ACA."

Because I ask for clarification about who exactly is "pretending to listen to you" and who is "telling you to shut up?"

There are support boards all over the internet for people who simply want validation for and to share their struggles. You seem to need something more - that everyone else agree with you concerning the false equivalence of only "MFA or Bust" or "I don't want other people to get health care," with nothing in between

If one has an agenda to trash Democratic voters and leaders who don't jump on the Single Payer or bust boat, DU is the wrong place. There are other boards more than happy to agree with everything you say. DU isn't an echo chamber, nor is it a place where you will do much converting people against the Democratic party.

Since you fired off a response before I finished my edits - here they are again:

I know the difference between chronic and pre-existing conditions.

I also know that some, including my sister and her family, make too much for subsidies or to participate in the marketplace. They pay much more than I do for healthcare. I believe everyone should pay in what they can, and get at least the basic care. This does not mean that I will just believe anyone who says that they can promise that, especially a politician eyeing the WH.

I have more background in health policy (via non-partisan, self funded sources of information) than the average person. This certainly can be a downer, especially when one sees the holes in the shimmering promises made concerning how "easy" it would be to change everything over without disruption or huge costs incurred by the transition and implementation.

I would love to think that MFA would be everything it's promised to be, but I know enough to see that it is not. No amount of "positive thinking" and "wanting it badly enough" will make it so. LBJ was able to lie about what Medicare and Medicaid would cost, because he knew if he told Congress and the Senate about the cost estimates, it would not pass. We have the CBO now, so there isn't a way to hide or dismiss those details any longer once they score it.

I'm "invested" only in what will actually work, and give some relief now. And neither MFA or single payer will do either.

I hope you or a family member never suffer a serious injury or illness and have to experience the problems with the ACA first hand as I have.

I would bother to tell you why that's based on a false assumption, but I sense that it's more of a passively worded wish.

[ehrnst]

88. So much to unpack... but here are some highlights

Last edited Fri Mar 29, 2019, 06:52 AM - Edit history (1)

You want me to cite a source for every point I make and expect me to have perfect recall of an article I read two months ago yet you talk off the seat of your pants and imply that I am lying or that I don't have anything to back up my claims. When I show you that I do have sources you dismiss them and gloss over you getting your facts wrong. That is what they call gaslighting.

Strawman plus some gaslighting of your own. When you say " a recent poll shows..." and someone asks you for a link to that poll, and you get defensive, that's not someone else being unreasonable. That sounds.... how did you put it? "Republicanesque" THAT's it! That's not what "they" call gaslighting, that's what "they" call "asking for a citation."

When you are asked about the source, that's not gaslighting, that's called debate. That's called "evidence based argument."

Who is telling me to shut up? That is easy. People like you. You don't come out and say shut up but you gaslight every valid point I make and as I said before you parse every pronoun I type looking for a tiny crack hoping you can spin it into some sort of grand gotcha moment.

Sounds more like someone is pretty upset about being asked for the source of their claims, and asked for clarity on who "they" is in a rant. That's not what they refer to as "telling someone to shut up."

Twice you made the claim I didn't have a source for the secret meeting. Instead of admitting you were wrong, you doubled down and said my source wasn't credible.

When I asked for the source the first time, it was because you hadn't provided one. When I pointed out again that you hadn't yet provided one, it was because you hadn't yet provided one. When you finally provided your source, I pointed out the problems in it. Please provide a link to where I stated that "you didn't have a source."

I am not trashing Democratic voters or leaders. I think we should be a fact-based party.

Says the person who didn't have their facts straight about who "secretly met with insurance execs to promise them a piece of the pie" "proving" that Democratic leaders are "beholden to insurance" but gets testy and defensive when asked for the source of their facts, or gets corrected on them. Really, you should go back and read what you are accusing others of....

Saying it is great for everyone and just needs a few minor changes to shore it up isn't a fact-based statement.

It's not a statement that has been made by anyone on this thread, so that's yet another strawman being attacked, and not a fact based statement. When one needs to misrepresent others statements in order to make them seem less ressonable, that's not helping one's credibility.

What I don't want to see is lip service given to problems of the ACA during 2020 and then have Democrats that win everything say it is just too hard to do anything more after the victory.

It sounds like you think Democrats are lying and giving lip service because your personal situation isn't changing. Aren't you worried about politicians who have talked about MFA for years giving lip service as to why it hasn't gotten any farther than a proposal since 1972? And once again, you passively accuse Democratic leaders of lying by saying that you expect it.

There was a poll not too long ago that showed 51% of Republicans wanting MFA.

Care to provide a link to that poll? When you make a statement based on an actual poll, don't get testy and defensive when someone asks to see it. That's not gaslighting nor a "gotcha."

There is no reason other than fear mongering by the existing profiteers in the current system why we can't get it done.

Wait a minute... but you said "A lot of Democratic politicians like Nacy Pelosi pretend to listen to these types of ACA concerns but then conduct (or have their staff) conduct clandestine meetings with insurance company executives asking for an alliance to defeat single payer."

Which is it? "Fearmongering by profiteers" or "Democratic politicians like Nacy Pelosi asking for an alliance to defeat single payer?"

You've been shown in this thread alone many other obstacles to single payer in the U.S. that are much more fact based than "the mechanations of Nacy Pelosi because she likes insurance." But I'll bite - what is your source for that claim? And who are you talking about when you say "A lot of Democratic politicians like Nacy Pelosi?" You made the claim. Name the names. Show us that your claim is fact based, and not something created out of a need for a villain(s) to make sense out of an awful situation that doesn't make sense.

Every other first world country has managed to make universal coverage a reality in some way.

The majority of them started 60+ years ago. From scratch. Do you have a time machine? They didn't get to where they are there starting 8 years ago, let alone after having to dismantle a system that's baked for 70 years into their economy to the tune of 17% . Many cities in the Midwest have simple grid layouts that make plowing and getting first responders to an address. Does anyone in Boston ask why they can't do the same? And you don't seem to acknowledge or accept that the vast majority of those countries didn't use Single Payer to get UHC. You seem to regard single payer as dogma, and not subject to facts. It just sounds republicanesque in that they see getting rid or Planned Parenthood is the only moral, logical way to solve the problem of abortion - they are also convinced the only reason that it hasn't been done already is the profiteers who fearmonger with fables of women dying in back alleys.... . It makes sense on paper - shut down the provider of the most abortions, and women will stop having sex until they want a baby, and you stop most abortions No GOP poltiican, even one who knows that's completely wrong, would dare to refute it with facts from public health officials and medical providers that shutting down PP would actually create more unplanned pregnancies. In reality, the idea doesn't work. It's become dogma, like "single payer is the only moral UHC."

Dogma is the antithesis of fact-based ideas. I worry that "single payer/Bernie's plan is the only moral, logical way to solve the problem of health care access in this country" is dogma for the left.

[dansolo]

99. We do listen, and recognize that fixes need to be made

It is the Medicare for All supporters who aren't listening. They are so invested in their solutions, that they are willing to let the ACA be gutted. When M4A doesn't get passed (which it never will in its current form) what will people be left with?

Don't forget that a lot of the issues with the ACA were specfically caused by Republicans. They passed provisions to weaken it, they sued to remove the mandate, they blocked Medicaid expansion, they used inadvertant wording to prevent exchanges from be set up properly, and they have refused to do anything reasonable to fix even the most reasonable oversights.

I'm getting sick of Democrats getting the blame for the evil actions of the Republicans.

[ehrnst]

44. What "secret meeting" with Pelosi did insurance execs have? Source?

Last edited Thu Mar 28, 2019, 10:38 AM - Edit history (1)

And even if we get the WH and the Senate in 2020, how do you propose to replace the current SCOTUS we have?

The previous SCOTUS blocked enforcement of the requirement that states expand Medicaid to most low-income adults to 138% of the federal poverty level, even if that expansion was paid for by the federal government.

You think that the current SCOTUS, which is further to the right, will not only reverse that 2012 decision, but hand down one requiring states to comply with a federal expansion of Medicare (or it's equivalent) to all residents?

[treestar]

56. Yes, exactly. Where does that come from?

And it only proves that Republicans have power and yet people are willing to throw Democrats under the bus so republicans have the power and they can claim the Democrats are "weak."

[ehrnst]

61. Crickets so far... (nt)

[ehrnst]

71. So you misrepresented a basic detail. Not Nancy Pelosi, an 'aide.' Second: Ryan Grim...

Writer for the Young Turks and the Intercept, two orgs that bash Democrats and the Democratic party on a weekly basis.

"Sources familiar with the meeting...." said that an aide/advisor "said that Democrats would be allies to the insurance industry in the fight against single-payer health care."

That's quite a leap of faith consider that "quote" to be a reliable account of what was said, coming from the fan 'zine for the Democratic party hating left.

Unless you're their target audience.

If it was SECRET and NEFARIOUS why did Pelosi's office acknowledge it and clarify when asked about it?

“We’re not going to barter lower prescription drug costs for inaction in the rest of the health care industry,” Pelosi spokesperson Henry Connelly told The Intercept. “The presentation was a broad look at the health care environment and some of House Democrats’ legislative priorities over the next two years in a period of GOP control of the Senate and White House.”

Of course Wendell Primus would be portrayed an Intercept narrative as an mustache twirling arch villian, trying to thwart Senator Bernie Sanders and all people who need health care. Here is what a Google turned up:

Wendell Primus is the Senior Policy Advisor on Budget and Health issues to Speaker Nancy Pelosi. In that capacity, he was the lead staffer in developing the Affordable Care Act. He also played a major role in the SGR legislation in 2015 and various budget agreements. Prior to this appointment in March, 2005, Dr. Primus was the Minority Staff Director at the Joint Economic Committee. He has also held positions at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, served in the Clinton Administration at the Department of Health and Human Services and also served as Chief Economist for the House Ways and Means Committee and Staff Director for the Committee's Subcommittee on Human Resources. Dr. Primus received his Ph.D. in economics from Iowa State University.

The people involved in the meeting weren't even correctly identified before it was declared to be "unacceptable."

I think this shows an outlook that anything that Democrats do that isn't in lockstep with Senator Sanders is what is really "unacceptable."

[ehrnst]

73. Strawman much? I wasn't the one who said he was Nancy Pelosi. That's a pretty big "detail."

And yes, there are some very valid points about obstacles to Single Payer in the US. In fact, the vast majority of countries with UHC use multiple payers to get there, so assuming anyone who thinks single payer isn't a good option is by definition "beholden to big insurance/big pharma" is not very informed about UHC around the world.

Another detail you may be unclear on are some important differences between Single Payer and Medicare for All:

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/05/voters-who-like-medicare-for-all-may-not-like-single-payer.html

[George II]

97. The Young Turks and the Intercept? Yes, very objective news sources, Cenk Uygur and Glenn Greenwald

Speaking of the Young Turks, I'm amazed Cenk hasn't been forced to change the name of his organization, especially since for years he denied the existence of the Armenian Genocide 100 years ago.

"The Young Turks were the perpetrators of the Armenian Genocide....."

https://www.armenian-genocide.org/young_turks.html

[ehrnst]

98. But WENDELL PRIMUS OMG

That is not the name of a good guy! That ALONE should raise suspicions of a partnership with BIG INSURANCE!

That meeting was SECRET! Did you see in on CNN? I REST MY CASE. I will not sit here and listen to people DEFEND this kind of BACK ROOM shenanigans!

Young Turks and the Intercept are ON THE CASE!

[Politicub]

66. It's not all about you

It is helping millions. Sorry you make too much to get a subsidy.

Rural areas, especially in red states, need a public option.

[ehrnst]

83. Yet another strawman... with namecalling.

So it is a case of I have mine who cares if you don't get yours?

No, I believe that the poster was simply pointing out that having the longest list of problems with the health care system in a discussion does not make that person's opinion the final word on health policy and the efficacy of the ACA, any more than someone who has an allergy to penicillin makes them the final word on the value of antibiotics in modern medicine. No matter how many times you give the horrific details, and how dangerous it is, when someone says, "Pennicillin has saved countless lives for others, and acknowledging it's efficacy isn't just about your allergy," it's not the same as saying "I don't get a reaction, who cares if you did, stop talking."

I don't tell you this because I want your sympathy. I tell you this because I want your anger. I want you to say simply making a few tweaks to the ACA isn't good enough because this could happen to me.

Bingo... there are plenty of angry people here, including the person you just completely misrepresented. Many people angry at the obstruction, the long term costs, and the kneecapping of the ACA. They are mad that people like you are going through what you are going through.

We're just not wasting that energy and time directing that anger at the people who actually made some progress in health care reform - Democratic leaders.

I think that's the real goal here.

[ehrnst]

42. You do know that the ACA is UHC, right?

It was supposed to expand further, but has been kneecapped by the GOP and SCOTUS.

If the GOP was able to take the Medicaid expansion requirement, even though the expansion was paid for by the Federal Government all the way to SCOTUS where it was ruled unconstitutional, why do you think they wouldn't do that with MFA?

It's a sad joke to say that somehow MFA is going to be upheld by an ever more conservative SCOTUS than the one that struck down even expanding Medicaid to a larger population.

[treestar]

55. What state are you in?

That and your income is the question. And the Democrats are not meek, they just don't have enough power. They need the Presidency, the House and a Supermajority of the very undemocratic Senate.

[onit2day]

19. QB is running same play from his 20 3 times already.Will do it on 4th also

Because the other team has removed the goal posts and he is just running out the clock. We've done all this before. Progressives have not lost sight of the goal they just know it's a pointless attempt until we get rid of this republican cult. In this atmosphere, the offense is playing defense. Best effort is get the message of what we will do out there to to win over...oops the majority is already on board with Medicare for all but their representatives are afraid to jump aboard what 80% of the country wants but corporate donors don't want. Just ask the CEO of United with his billion dollar predecessor. Educate the public on the hold up and what will happen once this cult is defeated at the polls.

[BlueFlorida]

22. Let's not be cynical

ACA is only about 10 years old and didn't go into full effect until 6 years ago.

[sheshe2]

5. This part here, from your link.

And that was the message from every progressive HuffPost spoke to on Wednesday. Democrat after Democrat said defending the ACA was the first priority, even as liberals argue that Obamacare is ultimately insufficient in providing coverage for everyone and containing costs.

Rep. John Garamendi (D-Calif.) said he was “not at all frustrated” with the priority the ACA had taken over Medicare for All.

“In fact, I’m very pleased. We’ve got to deal with the crisis at hand. The president just created a crisis,” he said.

Democrat after Democrat said defending the ACA was the first priority,

Let me repeat. Democrats are in fact united in this. Democrat after Democrat!

[Cha]

34. Mahalo for bringing that

report over from the link, she.. and Bolding it!

You wouldn't think it would be so hard to understand how important strengthening the ACA is.. for a path to MFA or whatever the next step is. Fortunately, I think most people get it.

[sheshe2]

63. Your're welcome, Cha.

ACA is the path to build on...you are 100% correct.

[BigmanPigman]

6. Good, this is the opposite of what the fucking moron had planned.

He mainly wanted to spite Obama's legacy (same old same old...grow up you 72 year old baby). After that he wanted to split up the Dems and their various plans.

[Cha]

8. It's only the smart thing to do.. Contrast that with this..

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[betsuni]

14. "Democrats were taking a 'L.O.V.E.' approach to health care -- 'Let Other Versions Exist.'"

Good. Scaring people that one version of policy is the only way and anybody who doesn't back it doesn't want universal health care or fight climate change and we're all doomed has to stop. Love, not fear.

[George II]

15. Indeed. On an issue as complicated as Healthcare Insurance...

...(it's incorrectly referred too often as just "Healthcare" ) there is no such thing as "one size fits all". We're talking about 330 million DIVERSE people, and many more in the future. The plans that are being bandied about in other countries as being what WE should have, cover only a fraction of the people in the United States, and they're mostly relatively homogeneous populations.

[BlueFlorida]

21. Exactly. If American people are not behind it

by a VERY very wide margin, any plan is just a pie in the sky.

[GulfCoast66]

16. Excellent. We all want Universal Healthcare. Republicans don't. Americans do.

That what we run on. And win. We can figure out the details later because that is how policies are made.

I can’t believe trump has jumped on this right at what appeared to be a moment of triumph. It was in the headlines of our paper today!

I and many Democrats think Medicare for all is a horrible idea. Many democrats and DU members disagree.

But good god, we all want affordable healthcare for all Americans and that no American does not get healthcare due to income nor loose everything they have because of an illness.

This won in 18 and will win in 20.

[Sapient Donkey]

25. Any details on what is involved in shoring up the ACA?

Last edited Thu Mar 28, 2019, 10:41 AM - Edit history (1)

Seem that term a lot, but the details are usually light. Think it would involve including a public option? That kind of seems like a logical first step toward maybe a single payer or medicare for all solution in the future, or at least a medicare for all who don't have insurance....or is that what's usually meant by medicare for all? That's another vague term that I don't think is well defined, and I think everyone has different ideas with regards to what it means.

[lapucelle]

33. Here are all the details, including summaries, the text of the comprehensive bill,

and the text of five stand alone bills

One page summary of The Protecting Pre-Existing Conditions & Making Health Care More Affordable Act of 2019 :

https://energycommerce.house.gov/sites/democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/files/documents/Health%20Care%20Bill%20One%20Pager.pdf

Section by section summary of The Protecting Pre-Existing Conditions & Making Health Care More Affordable Act of 2019:

https://energycommerce.house.gov/sites/democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/files/documents/Health%20Care%20Bill%20Section%20by%20Section.pdf

Comprehensive bill: The Protecting Pre-Existing Conditions & Making Health Care More Affordable Act of 2019:

https://energycommerce.house.gov/sites/democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/files/documents/Health%20Care%20Bill%20Text.pdf

Stand alone bill: Short-Term, Limited Duration Insurance Rule Prohibition:

https://energycommerce.house.gov/sites/democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/files/documents/HR_1010_CASTOR_.pdf

Stand alone bill: Protecting Americans with Preexisting Conditions Act of 2019:

https://energycommerce.house.gov/sites/democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/files/documents/HR_986_KUSTER_.pdf

Stand alone bill: Expand Navigators’ Resources for Outreach, Learning, and Longevity Act of 2019:

https://energycommerce.house.gov/sites/democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/files/documents/Navigators.pdf

Stand alone bill: Marketing and Out-Reach Restoration to Empower Health Education Act of 2019:

https://energycommerce.house.gov/sites/democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/files/documents/HR_%20987_BLUNT%20ROCHESTER_.pdf

Stand alone bill: State Health Care Pre-mium Reduction Act:

https://energycommerce.house.gov/sites/democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/files/documents/Reinsurance.pdf

[Sapient Donkey]

51. Oh awesome.

I got to read through the summaries. I'll have to read the rest later when I get a chance. It seems like a good portion is aimed at fixing Trump's attempts to destroy it. Reading that really puts into perspective how much the Trump admin has done to destroy the ACA and limit healthcare access.

[George II]

49. We have more details about "shoring up the ACA" than we do about "Medicare for All".

[Sapient Donkey]

52. Yeah, I see that now. The links above posted by lapucelle were helpful.

Gonna have to go through those some more later. I'm glad it's actual legislation and not just talk.

[NotHardly]

30. No such ting as SHORING UP.. republicans are trying to kill it as it lives... Democrats could do ...

something real and meaningful, like Medicare for All without wasting their time on fighting every GD kite the Republicans fly past them

[Cha]

32. Progressives in the House Understand the Need

to strengthen ACA.. the Current Law.. as a path to MFA.

[lapucelle]

36. I wonder if those who are against the legislation have bothered to do any research

before they immediately dismissed it out of hand.

https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20190327.894190/full/

[Cha]

37. Well BS said No.. so that

must be right.

Not that everyone who is against strengthening ACA listens to him.. maybe it's just a coincidence.

But, AOC says "Yes"! Ha!

Mahalo for the link, lapucelle!

https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20190327.894190/full/

[lapucelle]

35. Yes there is. Those who haven't, need to actually read the propsed legislation.

https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20190327.894190/full/

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/10142293852#post33

[Habibi]

39. Thank you for these! nt

[ehrnst]

47. So what will people do during the time it will take to replace Gorsuch, Kavanah, Alito, Thomas

& Roberts?

Because if the previous SCOTUS struck down the requirement for states to expand Medicare to childless, non-disabled adults who were under the poverty line, even if it was paid for by the federal government, why does anyone think the current SCOTUS will reverse that, AND uphold a requirement for states to expand Medicare to all residents?

So, tell us what sick people are supposed to do until there's a new SCOTUS? Accept that Democrats aren't going to "waste their time on fighting every GD kite the Republicans fly past them" including trying to keep coverage for the 30 million who will lose it if the GOP gets their way?

And please tell us what the Democrats "could" be doing that they are not? And what are the "GD kites that the Republicans are flying past them?" Not releasing the Mueller report? Continued corruption and misconduct by cabinet members? The jailing and sexual assault of immigrant minors? The implications of the Cohen testimony? Which of these are simply "kites?"

Because here on DU there are a some people who think that Democratic leaders need to be in front of mics every day screaming about the corruption, and complain when they don't.

[George II]

48. The ACA was tough to pass in the first place, but it's THERE now! Do you really think...

..."Medicare for All" will pass? It was introduced almost two years ago and has been left dormant ever since.

So what's your "real and meaningful" plan to get it passed?

[still_one]

57. Kick and Rec!!!!!!!!!!

[lagomorph777]

59. Reasonable strategy. We can show what we're made of now,

and improve on the system after we clean out the Reptilians.

[ehrnst]

62. If one's car has a flat tire, you replace it. You don't leave it by the side of the road and

hitchike to the car dealership for another.

That new car may come later, but if you're standing on the side of the road, and fixing the flat will get you off the side of the road, even if it doesn't fix the transmission problem too, you do it.

[George II]

93. Hey, a little off topic, but when I was in college I had no money so bought "junkers" to drive...

...for about $200. When the tires wore out enough to be dangerous, I'd get rid of it and buy another $200 piece of junk. It was cheaper than getting new tires!!

[sheshe2]

64. Kicking!

[Politicub]

65. I agree

Parts of the ACA are miracles for those of us benefitting from the law. It is better than Medicare for some.

A public option on the exchange would make it even better.

[cstanleytech]

69. Medicare for all is just one declaration of a national emergency away thanks to the Repugnants

setting the precedent of letting a president declare one to get want he or she wants now rather than having to get approval from Congress.

[SWBTATTReg]

78. What really gets me is that the repugs and rump constantly attempt to shut down the ...

ACA, without any viable alternatives in place ... they've yapped about the evils of the ACA without proposing a single fix, not one that I recall. They're the ones who need to be squarely in our sights to vote out of office in 2020. rump is worthless too, we won't see anything what-so-ever viable from him. Worthless.

[Power 2 the People]

80. George you cut off your text right before Bernie's quote.Why did you omit it?

No less than Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), whose 2016 primary campaign arguably mainstreamed Medicare for All among Democrats, also backed the idea of Congress shoring up the ACA rather than focusing all its energies on enacting single-payer.

“We must defend the ACA from Trump’s assault and protect people’s existing coverage. However, protecting the ACA will not fully solve the health care crisis. To finally guarantee health care as a right, we must take on the insurance industry and pass a Medicare for All bill,” Sanders wrote on Twitter Tuesday.

[melman]

86. Good question

[George II]

92. See post #91.

[melman]

94. I saw it

But I don't think that's the answer.

[George II]

96. That's the answer. If you don't think it's the answer, well what else can I say?

[George II]

91. DU frowns upon posting more than four paragraphs, that's why there's a link.

If that's his position, why did he tell Chris Hayes that he wouldn't support the bill in the House? Which position is his?

Even Paul Krugman picked up on that:

Link to tweet

[lark]

81. AOC, getting it right again.

She's a wonder and I thoroughly applaud her efforts.

[Snellius]

90. Agree completely.

New at it and more fiery but she's as methodical and practical and strategic as Pelosi when it gets down to it and more than even some of her skeptical old-school allies would like to admit. She out-lawyered the lawyers at Cohen hearing.

[Cha]

95. This needs Kicking once

Again!

[ck4829]

100. K&R

[Squinch]

101. Well! This thread brought a few out from under the bridge, didn't it?

[beachbum bob]

102. Its all symbolic and manuevering for 2020 elections as democrats have zero ability to do

ANY legislation that the senate would even vote on or trump will sign. The attitude of not working with Obama is still in place with not working with democrats as it id viewed as "weakness". The democrats have one choice, start playing hardball every day on every issue, piece of legislation as possible.