So, many around here feel we are now the bad guys...

[busterbrown]

The ACA is apparently leaving a small percentage of people out in the cold. These are people who are in the age group of 55-65 who don’t qualify for federal subsidies and are at the age when the Healthcare companies put the screws to them..Probably 600-800 for a reasonable plan with a S2500 deductible and reasonable Hospital Coverage.
Close to $10,000 a year. These people will definitely get hurt...But how many have been hurt before this plan was enacted.. Over 49,000 people dying each year because of finances and thousands upon thousands being thrown into financial ruins because medical bills surrounding huge unfortunate events..

You would think Obama could have done a better job putting this together? Republicans did everything they possibly could to destroy the ACA and to this day have not let up. Not only did they want to destroy the ACA but they wanted to destroy this Black Kenyan Socialist President who in their minds should not have been allowed to occupy the White House.

Our Healthcare system was a total disaster before the ACA was enacted. It was heading down a road that would have eventually put 45% of the American people( with the economy being ignored) in a hopeless situation which they could have never dug out from..

So now it seems that everything is Obama’s fault. He lied, he misinterpreted, he wasn’t informed it goes on and on
and on. Many here felt he should be held responsible because he seems insensitive to those who have fallen through the cracks. Almost as though he does’nt care about those who will left out in the cold.
That in my mind is complete bullshit. This thing was so freaking complicated that it had to be done on the run. And it was.. But this highly imperfect plan is only a beginning, but the alternatives were inevitably going to put the whole country at risk..
So quit your complaining and stop with crap that we do not care about those who will be hurt by the plan.. We do
but we’re on that road now and we better not stop and detour because that can and will end it all.

So yes, the ACA is imperfect and some will get hurt and we all must be deeply concerned about these people.However ,if our President didn’t stand up and fight like hell for the ACA and begin a process which will hopefully stabilize our healthcare system, in the manner in which our country is currently heading politically, there would probably be no movement on this issue for at least the next 20 years..

[last1standing]

1. If people like yourself worried more about those harmed instead of Obama, things might get fixed.

Instead your only concern is that someone might hurt the president's feelings.

As I said in the thread you're responding to, whatever party your in, it's not the Democratic Party I joined. My Democratic Party actually cared when people were being screwed by the system. It didn't shrug and say "oh well, we tried."

By the way, it was the lack of fighting for a public option and other programs that would have helped the working poor that caused this mess.

[merrily]

2. I agree with your priorities.

Think we may both have to duck, though.

[passiveporcupine]

3. I don't see anyone saying "Oh well, we tried"

Instead I see the usual media frenzy that seems to happen with just about anything that reflects on the White house, and only after a month or so does the truth start to come out that what all the media coverage represented was not the truth at all.

The insurance companies played this to perfection, to try to make ACA and Obama look bad. Why? Because they knew that if the ACA worked, the people would get better coverage for less and they would lose some of their precious profits.

This was a false dichotomy...3% of the people were not screwed by Obamacare, they were screwed by the for profit insurance industry, who knew exactly what they were doing.

[RBInMaine]

14. Absolute hogwash. The ACA is a very good step in the right direction and the best POSSIBLE law.

Are you politically naive? Single Payer and Public Option COULD NOT PASS. What is so hard to understand about that. Those could not and would not PASS the Congress. Obama is ONE branch of government, not all three.

I do wish the ACA could have placed rules FORCING the insurance companies to grandfather ALL those plans, but that may have not passed the court challenge. I do wish, though, they had tried. We have a system with insurance companies still with lots of power, and unfortunately we have to rely on them and the market for a lot of voluntarism in this transition. They knowingly sold policies after the law was signed they knew were not in compliance with the ACA. THAT is what really stinks here. And THAT is the point that needs to be PRESSED.

MILLIONS are getting signed up through Medicaid and the Exchanges as we speak. (400,000 through Medicaid so far and 800,000 pending in the exchange, and that is of Nov. 1st. It is climbing daily.) The insurance companies can extend plans if they are WILLING. They always could have. No one is getting denied or chucked due to pre-existing conditions anymore, young folks can stay on parent plans through age 25, and as more and more people come into the market, costs should continue to come down and the system will stabilize. We may need to tweak the law as we go as should be expected. GIVE IT TIME. The law is doing a lot of GOOD and will do more and more over TIME.

[GoneFishin]

15. ACA is good, yes. That being said, it is naive to say the "PUBLIC OPTION COULD NOT PASS".

By not trying to inject the Public Option or Single Payer into the discussions, the goal posts were moved to the right, AS ALWAYS with this administration.

Nothing would ever get done anywhere, anytime, if no attempt was made. Like so many other efforts that were never made in the Congress, Senate and the White House because of sniveling excuses about how futile it is to try. THEY DID NOT TRY BECAUSE THEY NEVER WANTED THE PUBLIC OPTION. BO negotiated it away to the insurance companies behind closed doors before the public debate even started. Max Baucus would not allow ANY discussion of single payer, cutting off peoples microphones.

From the White House to Capital Hill the Democratic leadership smothered any utterances about Single Payer or the Public Option, which shifted the negotiations to the right.

[quadrature]

17. so, people with existing policies they like, are now the enemy, why is that

nt.

[RBInMaine]

19. It was indeed included in the conversation and couldn't pass. Give it up.

[AndyA]

27. I don't recall a public option or single payer being included in the conversation

At least, not when the committee was formed to officially "research" the options. They were off the table at that point. I remember protestors supporting a more universal option being escorted out of the very first meeting, while everyone on the committee sat there and grinned.

[jazzimov]

68. Google is your friend. It was in the original bill.

See post #66.

[DissidentVoice]

37. When was it included?

Cite specifics, please.

[jazzimov]

67. In the original bill

see post #66 for links.

[Hippo_Tron]

75. Sure it could've, just use the nuclear option to end the filibuster

The filibuster is going to be killed off at some point anyway. Might as well pass the most important piece of legislation in the last half century while you're in the process of killing it.

[sendero]

23. We get the best government..

... corporate money can buy. Until that is fixed, don't expect much in way of progress on any progressive goals because 99% of the politicians in Washington DC and elsewhere are owned lock stock and barrel by monied interests.

This law being a prime example. Don't kid yourself, the insurance companies LOVE the ACA hell they practically wrote it.

[dionysus]

43. imo, it's naive to believe holy joe or one of the blue dogs weren't going to fillibuster PO or SP,

assuming we could even get 60 votes. Bernie claimed we had at most 10 senate votes for single payer.

[jazzimov]

66. A Public Option was in the original bill - it DIDN'T pass.

The Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) will establish a national public option

http://www.dpc.senate.gov/healthreformbill/healthbill04.pdf

It was taken out in order to pass the Senate. Joe Lieberman refused to vote for the bill with it in there.

Lieberman, despite intense negotiations in search of a compromise by Reid, refused to support a public option;

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

[GoneFishin]

69. What was the bill number that was put up for a vote which did not pass ... ?

which contained the Public Option?

[Hippo_Tron]

76. What if we'd said fuck Joe Lieberman, we're using the nuclear option?

What's more important, the arcane rules and procedures of the Senate or creating a rational health care system that finally brings us in line with every other western industrialized nation on the planet.

Hell... what if we'd just threatened it? Maybe Joe Lieberman would've come back to the table begging for scraps...

[busterbrown]

78. Thanks for your post..

I mean were not people watching the events which took place during the discussions..

We were lucky to get this plan passed!

How do people not get it around here that the opposition's main goal was to destroy and and all progressive legislation which Obama put forth.. Looking back, I’m amazed the ACA passed..

[IronLionZion]

20. Many folks can't afford to wait for single payer. They need help now. nt

[area51]

58. +1

Some people seem to take criticism of Obama as if they had been personally criticized. What a lack of spine of Obama in not fighting for a public option, which he originally said he'd never sign a bill without one.

[Psephos]

70. wow, well said n/t

[jtuck004]

4. Add between 5 and 8 million who don't get insurance because they don't have enough income for the

ACA and because they live in states where the Medicaid expansion was deemed (by the Courts) to become optional. Unless that is addressed, (perhaps we get single payer and get rid of the health in$urance cos?) those numbers of deaths and utter ruin mentioned in your OP may not change much.

[Live and Learn]

6. So, we keep the focus on them but put the blame where it belongs

on those states that refused to expand medicaid. And we could also remind people (even those here) that it was mainly Republicans in Congress that ensured that Single Payer couldn't get passed.

Blaming Obama for any of this is simple minded and ridiculous.

[treestar]

26. Well they are voters of those states

maybe pay more attention to state politics instead of just the Presidency.

[jtuck004]

28. Snide, but wrong. The polticians are chosen by people who make more than they

do. By people who are more likely to have cars, regular food, better education, and some security. Maybe those voters could give a little shit less about themselves and care a little more about others.

Or maybe you are right, the poorest should just "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" and figure it out.

[treestar]

29. I thought each state had an election system?

My state has elections every two years for county, city and statewide offices. Anyone can run. Maybe they have to raise some money, but at the local level it would not be prohibitive.

It sure is sad you think we are all just passive victims, even with freedom of speech and the ability to vote.

[jtuck004]

32. Yeah, but maybe not the ability to get to the polls, or the ability to read, or the ability

to get a driver's license to vote in states where the bastards are making it harder, or the ability to get away from their oxygen machine or cast aside their walker or wheelchair, or the ability to be old enough to vote, or the advantage of not being stopped by the police because they are mostly black, or the ability to get away from their low-wage job which they spend 10 hours a day at when you include the extra 3 hours on the bus, or the ability to not lose the pittance of a job they have from a boss that doesn't care any more than you do about them when they dare try to go vot,e etc.

They are the single most vulnerable group we have, used and walked on by everyone. Many have had the spirit beaten out of them, so much so that they can barely even get through a day. And they are ruled by two parties parties who think they are just fodder for their machines, and just differ in the amount taken from them.

It's easy for some armchair conservative to say they should just pick themselves up and do it like the rest of us who, with far more advantages, have.

Then again, I guess when you have yours, that's a lot easier to say.

And they didn't vote for the Supreme Court that made this possible, nor the party that said "Well, we got ours, too bad for you, maybe later".

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

40. Blame the 36 Republican-led states that didn't provide the health care insurance exchanges!

That's the problem. Every state was supposed to provide the exchanges. Healthcare.gov was NEVER supposed to be the one-stop portal for ALL health care exchanges. That's why it's not working! That's the problem.

And in those same states, there is no expansion of Medicaid. Yes, in OH, Kasich expanded Medicaid but he has not established the health care exchange, so what good does that do? No good!

Notice that in the states that have the exchanges, there are little to no problems. I live in Maryland where there are exchanges. Initially there was an issues with the state website, but that was fixed within the first week or so, and now we're on live. In CA, NY, KY, VT...all the states with exchanges, people are getting on and doing well. That is how it was supposed to work!

So please put the blame where it belongs!

[JustAnotherGen]

42. +10000

[jtuck004]

44. No. That's like saying "the dog ate my homework". Check Oregon - progressive state, has exchange,

progressive and all that, isn't working worth a shit. They are even quoted in the paper as "embarrassed".

But their expansion of Medicaid, which isn't dependent on this, has registered 50,000 people.

Not big on blame, since it doesn't get anything done - though some people seem to think it means something. The Repubs are opponents - it's not their job to
assist, and anyone who expects them to is deluded. That's why they are called "opponents".

But I guess, for the people who have their insurance, they have theirs, so screw the people in poverty. Same thing that's been going on for the past couple three decades. And that's not just a Republican ideal, apparently.

We shouldn't be in bed with profit-making health insurance companies. But I guess, since the Wall Street crowd moved over, there must have been room.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

45. Oregon being able to sign up 50,000 is not indicative of an alternative way to get people signed up

other than an on-site portal. That's all. Your post doesn't negate anything I've written above.

If 50,000 now have health insurance, 50,000 were able to sign up. HOW they were able to sign up is not the issue; they used the exchanges; they just didn't use them on-line. The exchanges still exist. Medicaid expansion STILL exists and is still helping these people supplement their insurance. So what have I said that's wrong? The only thing that I wasn't sure about was HOW they signed up.

[jtuck004]

48. They did not use the exchange. It was Medicaid. They returned a card or made a simple phone call.

Feel free to google it though. The exchange site wasn't working - and they even stated publicly that they were embarrassed.

They are trying to do good work, but they negate the argument that is was only in states that didn't, because they are FULLY supportive of ACA.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

50. Right. That's what I said. The exchange site wasn't working. I conceded that point. And as I

explained, the expansion of Medicaid does help, but it's not the only source of the insurance. You still need a plan. So even though the site was down; the information was still made available to those who wanted to sign up for the program. They simply used an alternative vehicle to do that: the use of the cards or made a phone call.

You can do that at the federal level as well. With healthcare.gov down, there's a 1-800 that people can use to speak with someone. It's not the online "exchange," but they can get program information and sign up using the "Navigators" (I forget the formal name of the people assigned to help folks that call). The health care marketplace exchange is STILL available; it's just that the vehicle used to get information on them is different.

[jtuck004]

51. The 1-800 number and the forms are just busywork - the people responding to them

still had to use the exchange to input the info - and they couldn't get in. They showed it publicly, so that's no big secret. One could go to the insurance company, but that's like getting medical info from a drug dealer - not someone with your best interests at heart.

The website wasn't working because the project was so poorly managed. There are many reasons for that, on both sides of the aisle, and those of us who work on this stuff for a living understand that problem all too well.

But irrespective of all that, a single payer plan would have made it much simpler. Still would. And even the CBO says it would have been cheaper. Still would.

And people wouldn't have to expend so much creative energy trying to invent excuses which do no one any good at all, on either side of the aisle.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

52. Of course the website isn't working because it was sabotaged--a point that I've made ad nauseum.

But, o.k. We agree.

And we also agree that single payer would have made things much simpler. We agree that we want single payer. And that's the ultimate goal.

But because we want single payer doesn't mean that we have to trash the ACA. Why not work with what we have and improve on it? Build on it? Push for a public option first. Then, build on it until we get the single payer?

Many of us have made the basic point until we're red in the face, and frankly, I'm sick of repeating it, but I guess it bears repeating once again:

We were never going to get a public option. And we were never going to get a single payer system. We just weren't. We didn't have the votes for either plan. Kucinich put his single payer plan in the House; it didn't have enough votes to get through subcomittee. There were three other versions of public option bills that were proposed in the House--none of which could get through the chamber. Likewise in the Senate, there were two different public option bills working their way through the committees, neither could get through. I stayed on the phone, calling Democrats, particularly Blue Dog Democrats. I will NEVER forget this. None of them would yield. Yes, that's right. None of those Blue Dog cowards were EVER going to support a public option, no matter how many times I called and begged. It simply was not going to happen. I remember Obama asking us to call our senators. Did you make calls? Did the people blaming Obama pick up the phone and make calls? I remember spending hours on the phone. Days on the phone, calling Kagan, Pryor, Lincoln, the two Nelsons, Baucus, none of them would budge on the public option. NONE OF THEM!! We were never going to get a public option!!!

The only way to get our public option or anything that remotely resembles a public option or a Medicare for All (single payer program) is to elect more--not less--progressive Democrats to BOTH chambers of Congress. Give up the 50 state strategy. Abandon that strategy. Apologize to Dr. Dean, but the 50 state strategy is the very reason for why we have all these Blue Dogs in the first place. We need to abandon that strategy if we want more progressives elected to office unless we somehow can persuade Blue Dog and corporate Democrats to embrace single payer. Until that magical day, we need MORE progressives in office.

No ones inventing excuses. I'm at one with reality. The reality is that we have the ACA. It is here to stay unless it is repealed by a 2014 Congress made up of Republican House and Senate members. The reality is that unless you can tell me how we can get a public option or single payer pass through the halls of the House and Senate, all you have is wishful thinking. Until you can come up with a cohesive strategy for doing that, all we have is the ACA; might as well work with it and improve on it. The reality is that if we refuse to embrace the ACA and work to improve it, the Democrats WILL lose in 2014. Then what do you have? Back to square one. Republicans don't give a shit about the plight of the uninsured. The reality is if we lose in 2014, I bet we lose in 2016 as well, as things will only get much worse--as if they can get any worse--for this president and the Democrats. That's the reality. No excuses. I'm not crying over spilt milk. I'm tired of crying and whining about why we don't have single payer or why we don't have the public option. I'm at one with reality. Not excuses. Reality!!

[jtuck004]

56. Respectfully, sabotage implies it was kept from working, and there is evidence that they thought,

incorrectly, that it was.

And that's what I mean about excuses. It never got far enough to be sabotaged before it hit the street. Had they said "There were funding shortfalls that caused a delay" I think most people would have understood. Instead they turned it on and were surprised that the unfinished piece of crap didn't work. And then all the excuses and finger-pointing started. Blaming denial of service attacks that didn't actually do anything of consequence to some magical load that it shouldn't have to handle - what a bunch of utter bullshit. I worked on networks before there was an Internet, with database-enabled websites since the very first ones, both in private industry and on government contracts, and with some of these old databases that run on older government hardware. There are a LOT of people out there who know this stuff backwards and forwards, many specialists in areas better than I do, and we have all been part of failed implementations just like this one.

It was bad project management, nothing more. Failure to determine the capabilities they needed in advance, failure to create a site that would deliver when it was needed, failure to acknowledge right up front that it wasn't ready, and then presenting it as if it was. The people making excuses don't seem to understand that their credibility is now zero because they keep arguing what many of us know not to be the case. We have been here before, nothing new.

If the excusers would stop, acknowledge that fixes have to be made, maybe just acknowledge that the work wasn't complete and that the roll out should have been done differently, people might believe that. But perhaps not, because you usually only get one chance, and when people figure out that they are getting a snow job, they may never trust you again. We will see.

Good book out there - "Mistakes Were Made, But Not By Me". Subtitle is "Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decision, and Hurtful Acts", by Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson.

I think people should read it. This whole exercise could be its own chapter.

But that's all about the web site - you started in on the ACA. I agree, it is what it is. I don't agree that it was inevitable. I think the Democratic Party sold out to corporate interests when they saw what happened to Jimmy Carter when he tried to tell the country that it needed to grow up, spend less, save more, and get control of our finances. They decided that having a hundred million people in perpetual servitude was a decent trade off if they could just win, and profit themselves. This administration is just a further extension of that. Had it used its power to take the side of working people, act like a community organizer instead of supporting the assets of the wealthy "because it is good for everyone else" this would have been a very different presidency, and I think we would have been richer for it. The bankers would be in jail where they belong instead of at the head of banks that are now 30% bigger and richer than they were before they threw nearly 10 million families into the street in foreclosures. The trade imbalance would be less so there would be better and more jobs. We would have single-payer and the insurance companies that wrote the ACA would be gone and the 5 or 6 million people who have been thrown under the bus because they don't have enough money to get health insurance under this plan written by health insurance companies would be covered. Housing values would be lower, but younger people would not be priced out of the market like we are today, they wouldn't be shouldering a crushing burden of student debt which is growing by the day. We would raise the cap on the income that is taxed for Social Security, and we could close the loopholes that the wealthy people, friend of our presidents, are using to avoid taxes. And we would be living on less borrowed money which is keeping much of this country in a perpetual servitude to the finance companies, some for the rest of their lives because the Democrats are unwilling to stand up against it.

To do this would require the Reagan Democrats that run the place to turn away from the money that has given them power, apologize to the people they have hurt, and stand beside them as they turn against the corporations they have enabled to ruin the lives of so many people.

But I doubt that is gonna happen, because it would require them to trust and believe in working people instead of their corporate masters.

And here we are. I see your suggestion that we embrace what is because there is no other choice much like an argument to support the plantation owner because one's bondage as a slave is inevitable, because "they" are just too powerful. I don't think so. I just think the people that could fight them are weak, without the moral conviction that they say they have, and willing to sell out their own mother for a nickel. They don't have the stomach for the fight, it's easier, and more profitable, to just sell out their neighbors.

Personally I think it is all going to spin apart, regardless of which party is at the helm. It's just a matter of who is sitting in the chair when the music stops.We aren't investing in our country, we are running a trade imbalance which is costing us jobs, we are slowly killing off the most vulnerable for the profit of a few corporations that give money to political candidates and their friends. Health care is going to get more and more expensive and the ACA is not going to stop it. There is a whole laundry list, but it sounds very much like a recipe for killing off a country.

And when it does it's going to be horrific. I think that's reality. We will see...

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

59. I see your points but don't agree with your pessimistic outlook. That's all.

I guess we'll see...

[jtuck004]

60. I understand. It's just that I pay a lot of attention to the evidence

and the numbers that are on paper, and unless one wants to apply a great deal of spin, there is a really dark future ahead, I'm afraid.

One never knows, some new invention or a huge change in human behavior might come along, but nobody can point to that or document it yet, other than "hope", which is not a plan.

I think part of that may come from having come of age in the 60's and 70's, seeing what we are capable of, and now watching us eat our seed corn while people run around patting themselves on the back. Millions don't have 10 or 20 years to see it change, which means that they are just being thrown away while everyone pretends things are better. And the proposals on the table will take away even more - and those are from the "good guys".

And that's sad.

But, onward

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

61. Same here. Maybe I don't want to see. I'm black and a woman. Maybe I feel that it

simply can't get any worse. I don't know.

All we have left is each other. We're on the same side and I hope we can still come together even in our differences and muster up enough strength to continue the fight.

p.s. I was happy to hear that it was on the strength of black women as a voting bloc which came out in overwhelming numbers that was largely responsible for Cuchinelli's defeat in Virginia. I don't live in VA but a bunch of us traveled down there from DC and MD to knock on doors, register people, make calls, and drive people to the polls. That's why I haven't totally lost hope.

[jtuck004]

62. I was happy to hear that it was on the strength of black women as a voting bloc <-

I had not heard that. It bodes well for the future.

[Psephos]

71. Hey, I picked up that book you mention. Great read!

Great post, too.

[jtuck004]

72. Thank you. That book is a little scary because it really describes what

goes on all around us, every day, especially in political circles, and especially here, imo. We are so caught up in pointing fingers and assigning blame, a world of spin, that we forget what counts is the actual end product, the quality of life for people.

If, as a nation, we could ever get back to sacrifices that have to be made, the idea that we are ALL human and thus fallible, and figure out a way to let people grow and learn without trying to punish them for failure, I think we would be unstoppable as a nation, maybe a world.

Having grown up in the 60s and 70s and being able to see all the experimentation that went on then, I never would have thought we would get to this meaner, colder era.

As it is, I think we are finished, and just haven't gotten to the cliff yet. But maybe not.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

53. Watch "Up With Chris Hayes" right now. He is explaining this much better than I can.

Remember that not everyone qualifies for Medicaid; they may make a little too much, so Medicaid expansion may not cover everyone.

[jtuck004]

55. Medicaid expansion may not cover everyone

Right. And that's the problem

Single payer - problem solved.

[Hippo_Tron]

73. Democrats need to get their shit together in red states to address that one...

It's a good issue that they can use to take back legislatures and governors' mansions.

[DissidentVoice]

5. I don't see Obama as the "bad guy."

I think his heart is in the right place, really.

However...I believe he suffers from "DLC weak-spine syndrome."

[RBInMaine]

11. Hogshit ! HE finally PASSED comprehensive healthcare reform. It was TOUGH and RISKY but he DID !

We need comprehensive reform, and no one else had the guts to actually get it done. Clinton did try in the 90's even with a Democratic Congress, and THEY couldn't get it done. It imploded. Was Clinton WEAK?

This is a TOUGH, TOUGH, TOUGH thing to do because it is so big and so complex and there are so many people getting rich off the status quo that they have millions of bucks for propaganda, a GOP in their corner, and corporate media in their corner too.

Single Payer and even Public Option would not pass the Congress. He did the best he could with what he had.

[DissidentVoice]

33. Perhaps so.

Yes, I do believe Clinton was "weak" in the 1990s. Why? Because when the GOP blocked him on health care, he didn't even TRY to fight them. He rolled over and played dead. Not only that, he jumped on their own bandwagon - welfare "reform," "the era of big government is dead." I remember it well. I nearly sat out the '96 elections because of that.

Single Payer would not pass the Congress? Has anyone TRIED? I mean, really TRIED beyond giving lip service to it? Make the GOP actually stand up and tell the American people "Yes, we are blocking this because we do not want you to have health care. We want the status quo. We want 40-odd million and climbing people without health cover. We want this simply because we do not give a damn. You are not worthy of having health care, because you are poor because you choose to be, and it is not the role of government and it is not our problem."

The Republicans have couched their opposition to health care in spurious missives about "small government" and the tired, tired old refrain about "it's not in the Constitution." They have done this because a Democratic President and/or Congressional Democrats (I'm not counting Blue Dogs) have not had the spine to stand up and call them out! They have tried with ultimate futility to "get them on board," when the Republicans have not, and will NEVER "get on board" for anything except the status quo.

The Public Option would not pass the Congress? We don't know that...because, again, nobody really TRIED. Max Baucus said "no," President Obama said "okay," and the public option went down the drain.

We are stuck with an overly-complex plan that still leaves Big Insurance and Big Pharma in charge - just as the GOP has always wanted. The ACA is very close to what Bob Dole was touting in the 1990s.

Am I dismissing the ACA completely? NO. Half a loaf from Obama is worlds better than scraps from the GOP. Nonetheless, it is not universal health care and it will not cover everybody.

Do I give Obama credit for what he has done? YES. The fact that the GOP is crapping bricks is, to me, an indication that he is doing something RIGHT! Lest you wonder, I voted for the guy twice.

But at some stage, someone is going to have to draw the line and confront the Republican Party on their stances in favour of institutionalised cruelty - not just on health care but on their "kill the poor" attitude in general.

And it isn't going to be "centrism" or "moderation" that will do it.

[OnyxCollie]

13. How much you like a politician

should not be a determinant as to the quality of his/her policies.

Conservatives thought W. was the bee's knees, but that didn't stop the Iraq war from being a steaming pile of shit.

We assume that statesmen think and act in terms of interest defined as
power, and the evidence of history bears that assumption out. That assumption
allows us to retrace and anticipate, as it were, the steps a statesman-
past, present, or future-has taken or will take on the political scene.
We look over his shoulder when he writes his dispatches; we listen in on
his conversation with other statesmen; we read and anticipate his very
thoughts. Thinking in terms of interest defined as power, we think as he
does, and as disinterested observers we understand his thoughts and actions
perhaps better than he, the actor on the political scene, does himself.

The concept of interest defined as power imposes intellectual discipline
upon the observer, infuses rational order into the subject matter of politics,
and thus makes the theoretical understanding of politics possible. On the
side of the actor, it provides for rational discipline in action and creates that
astounding continuity in foreign policy which makes American, British, or
Russian foreign policy appear as an intelligible, rational continuum, by and
large consistent within itself, regardless of the different motives, preferences,
and intellectual and moral qualities of successive statesmen. A realist theory
of international politics, then, will guard against two popular fallacies:
the concern with motives and the concern with ideological preferences.

~snip~

Yet even if we had access to the real motives of statesmen, that knowledge
would help us little in understanding foreign policies, and might well
lead us astray. It is true that the knowledge of the statesman's motives may
give us one among many clues as to what the direction of his foreign policy
might be. It cannot give us, however, the one clue by which to predict his
foreign policies. History shows no exact and necessary correlation between
the quallty of motives and the quality of foreign policy. This is true in both
moral and political terms.

We cannot conclude from the good intentions of a statesman that his
foreign policies will be either morally praiseworthy or politically successful.
Judging his motives, we can say that he will not intentionally pursue
policies that are morally wrong, but we can say nothing about the probability
of their success. If we want to know the moral and political qualities
of his actions, we must know them, not his motives. How often have
statesmen been motivated by the desire to improve the world, and ended
by making it worse? And how often have they sought one goal, and ended
by achieving something they neither expected nor desired?

Morgenthau, H. (1948). Politics among nations: The struggle for power and peace (pp. 5, 6). New York: Knopf

[cer7711]

7. Uh, no.

I appreciate what our president has managed to accomplish.

Do I wish he hadn't cut a back-room deal (to take single-payer off the table before negotiations had even begun) with Big Pharma and the very insurance companies who are now--once again--squeezing the ^&%$ out of their victims? Hell yeah!

Do I wish our president had fought harder for single-payer? Yes.

Hoped for FDR-like rhetoric ("Economic royalists! Gangsters!&quot from him to rally the American people to his side? Certainly.

Had the sinking feeling that these (censored bleeps) who run for-profit health care would find a way to muck this up? Oh yeah.

But the last thing we need right now is a circular firing squad. Or weak-kneed Dems kow-towing to gloating right-wingers. Or a lunatic "mainstream" press so out of touch with reality that they're afraid to call racist, magical-thinking wack-jobs on their bald-faced lies.

Sadly, we now have all three of the aforementioned occurring.

Because, you know--our president had no stomach to fight for single-payer. Like us whiny, hopelessly out of touch, fantasy-world pie-in-the-sky socialists urged him to.

[RBInMaine]

12. Please do not be politically naive. Single Payer COULD NOT PASS, and you know it.

It could not pass. Why is that so hard to understand? Much as you and I wish it could have, it could not have. They couldn't even get the Public Option to pass because of the realities of the political landscape. You see, in life there is an ideal world and then there is a real world. Let's stay in the real world.

He PASSED the best bill he could with the Congress he had.

[GoneFishin]

16. He let them move the goal posts by giving up Single Payer. Why is that so hard to understand?

He has done this repeatedly.

[RBInMaine]

18. Please give me a scenario where it ever had a real chance to PASS. Please get real.

[Igel]

21. It's a moot point.

At least one person thinks the president is the one who passes bills. That takes "unitary executive" to a whole new level. (And so help me, every time I type "unitary executive" these days I have to slow down to keep from typing "urinary executive.&quot

[cui bono]

24. Please do not be politically naive. The goalposts were moved, and you know it.

By not even trying for it AND not fighting for the lesser public option either the goalposts were moved farther right. Why is that so hard to understand? He had the perfect opportunity to get Single Payer out into the open and teach people about it yet he never even uttered a peep about it. In negotiations you don't give up on everything you want without even asking for it, you ask then you comporomise.

And he had back room negotiations with the insurance companies - which he denied until he had to admit it.

You see there are politicians who are corporate and there are politicians who are liberal. Unfortunately we have a corporate president.

He PASSED the bill he fought for.

[DissidentVoice]

36. Quite well said.

See the footer at the bottom of my messages.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

46. "HE" doesn't pass anything. Stop calling people naive until you understand that.

Congress passes the laws. The president doesn't. Kucinich had a single payer bill in the House. The bill couldn't even get out of subcomittee. Likewise, a public option bill--two versions came through House committees, neither of which could get through the chamber. Three versions of health care legislation with some version of a public option stalled in the Senate. I spent days calling Blue Dog Democrats, asking them to sign on to a public option bill--one of these bills that offered some form of a public option. Not one of them would do it. Not one!!

We were never going to get a public option. And we never were going to get single payer. It was never going to happen!

However, we have the ACA and we can build on it and make it better. But, too many of us hate Obama so much that we can't even allow him to make this ACA work so that we can make it better. Even Dr. Dean admits that if we can get the ACA up and running, we can get more progressive Democrats in Congress so that getting a public option and even single payer through the legislature can be an easier task. But because we are so impatient and in many cases--so hateful towards this president--we can't even work with what we have NOW and work to improve it later. It's very sad. Very!!!

[cui bono]

54. First of all, I modeled my post after the one I was replying to so tell it to that person.

As if I don't know congress passes laws. Could you be more condescending? But who signs them into law, hm?

Second of all, everything I said in my post you were replying to.

No one hates Obama. Many of us, the ones who stand for democratic and progressive and liberal principles are immensely disappointed in him, and rightly so. Everything he does is pro-corporation.

Again, he NEVER fought for the public option. Didn't even try. That's why he's taken the country further to the right. He doesn't stand up for the people.

[yeoman6987]

80. The Congress when ACA passed

Obama had both houses of Congress BARELY. He basically had 60 Senators that were Democratic and a House that had a simple majority of Democrats. The Democrats in the Senate had to be pushed hard into voting for it. Ben Nelson was offered some Corn Husker deal for his vote. Obama could NOT have passed anything more than he did. Guess what? In 2010, he lost the House completely and a lot of Senate Seats. He could have sat back and not lift a finger, but he didn't. He fought with what he had. It was a tough time for Obama and obviously still is. However, one thing I wish he would stop doing is making statements that are naive. He did that with red line and now with this crazy if you like your insurance, you can keep it. How can he even make statements like these when he is making a completely new insurance system. That is my only criticism of Obama....he puts his foot in his mouth, but obviously not purposeful.

[DissidentVoice]

34. I am not politically naive. I just get sick of those who cop out saying "there's no political will"

What that says to me is that they don't believe there is something WORTH FIGHTING FOR, and that is not what I look for in the people who I give my vote to.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

47. There's no political will if there aren't enough progressives there to take the fight. Elect more

progressives to Congress and there's your will. You'll never get a public option or single payer with a bunch of Blue Dog Democrats dominating the legislature. I'm sorry, but you won't. So when people accuse of people naive, that's what they mean.

[DissidentVoice]

57. I know that

I also know that it is the "Blue Dogs"/DLC types who have, to me, ruined the Democratic Party.

[cui bono]

8. You might want to write an OP about how Obama isn't to blame for TPP.

He's really going to need your help on that one.

[Chan790]

9. ...

[Enthusiast]

10. I am perfectly will to say that Republicans are completely full of shit.

On the ACA issue and every other.

[Igel]

22. The (R) are responsible for two things.

The first is the SCOTUS decision that said a Medicaid mandate imposed on the states wasn't Constitutional. Right or wrong, that's the same SCOTUS that decided that whatever it was called the mandate was legal ("the mandate is not a tax ... oh, wait, yes it is&quot .

That's a wrinkle, but, you know, it's not a huge wrinkle in the current mess. That's a separate issue entirely.


The other problem was that (R) governors and states did exactly what the law of the land, passed by Congress and signed by the President, and declared Constitutional (in some awy) by the Supreme Court, said they could do. They opted out.


That's it. All the House bills to repeal the ACA mean nothing. The budget fights meant nothing. Even the huge DNS attacks that never happened mean--mostly because they didn't happen--nothing. The best you can take aim at is misinformation, but the level of non-information dwarfs the level of misinformation, and a lot of the misinformation wasn't in any (R) disinformation ad I've heard of.

The executive decided to issue and re-issue all the regs that they took it upon themselves to write, and made them messy. The executive decided to hold off on getting started on websites because they wanted time for those who were balking against the arc of history to yield to their pea-pushing betters. Let's not diminish the executive by saying that he's impotent and can't really be held responsible. I know there's a push to make sure the buck stops with the president when it's one we don't like but to shield him from any responsibility for bad things when it's one we do like, but that way leads to infantilizing the man. That's condescending and humiliating.

[DissidentVoice]

35. VERY well said

I believe Harry Truman would agree!

[treestar]

25. Same reason you don't get single payer

He got what could get passed.

The voters didn't vote for people who would support more. That's the bottom line.

[OregonBlue]

30. I am sorry the ACA rollout was so horrible. This is hopefully just a start of a process that will

eventually bring us to single payer. That's why I am loath to jump on the anti-Obama bandwagon, even though I think it was done really, really badly. And yes, DHS will have to find a way to cover those who had high deductible plans that were very cheap or they will lose a lot of participants. We can't just ignore them.

[Rectangle]

38. One silver lining to this whole clusterfuck might be- that people take a good look at the insurance

middleman/monopoly scam, and give the ACA at least a little credit for trying to
get everyone under some kind of insurance umbrella. Even though it is very, very, very
very imperfect...

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

49. The rollout was bad because it was sabotaged from the beginning. Again, the healthcare.gov website

was never meant to take on the activities that the states were supposed to administer. The states were responsible for setting up their own exchanges. People would first go to their state exchages and sign up for health care insurance.

That website was doomed from the beginning because the Republicans never fully funded it.

I work for the federal government. I hope this entire process demonstrates how bidding for federal contracts really works. And that private industry is not always the better entity to get things done. But the bottom line is that it was doomed to fail from the very beginning because the project was woefully underfunded; therefore, forced to go with lesser qualified bidder, thus taking on more risk for the government. That's what happens when you put Republicans in charge.

[kelly1mm]

79. Doesn't the ACA specifically allow the states to opt out of making a state exchange? If so,

how is it sabotage do what is allowed by the law?

[MADem]

31. The sky didn't fall when Commonwealth Care became the law in MA.

And people here LOVE it.

Even the Republicans.

But hey, whatever. Instant results, everything perfect, never a glitch, now-now-now.

[JoePhilly]

41. +1

[mikekohr]

64. +45,000,000

[tavalon]

39. There are also many who are getting screwed by their company plans

Mine for instance, doubled my deductible and raised the catastrophic level. And a few other stupid things as well. I don't blame ACA, I blame my insurance company for trying to squeeze out a few more dimes before they become irrelevant. I do hope we move on from insurance companies to single payer in my lifetime. I will happily send my current insurance card back with a note that says "fuck you, you leeches".

[Rosa Luxemburg]

63. 'Right wing speak'

the right wing media are having a party

[davidpdx]

65. I think it's a matter of putting it into historical perspective

Many presidents, in fact all the way back to FDR tried to get healthcare passed in some form or another. After Truman and before Clinton the Republicans held the White House 28 of the next 40 years. LBJ badly wanted to have healthcare as part of the social safety net expansion in the 60's.

Earlier today I was listening to a podcast by a guy connected to Moveon. One of his guests was a woman who fought hard for civil rights, women's rights, healthcare, etc. She pointed out that big money lobbied hard against the ACA and prior attempts to pass any kind of healthcare bill. This goes back to the influence of money on politics. When money equals speech those who are the worst off lose.

The ACA isn't perfect, it isn't single payer, it isn't universal coverage. There is one thing it is though. Historic. Over the last 80 years we've had 7 presidents that were Democrats. Six of them failed at getting any significant healthcare reform. All of them were great presidents in their own way, but were not able to get it done.

We need to view the ACA as a starting point, not a failure. The only way we take the next step is to get back the House and gain seats in the Senate. It may take several steps to get even close to the goal, which is going to take patience. Fixes to the current law are going to have to be made, then we are going to have to work toward the larger goal.

Several times I've posted that I don't live in the US anymore and I've been in South Korea for 10 years. We have universal healthcare coverage here and I swear to geebus if someone tried to take that away I'd kill them.

I want people in the US to have the same coverage I have. It is so damn awesome. That's why I continue to fight.

Edit:

The show was The Good Fight with Ben Winkler and the activist was Heather Booth. Here is a link to the show:

http://thegoodfight.fm/episodes/1-launch-franken-obamacare-wins?ref=mo1

Bonus, there is a short interview with Al Franken.

[Hippo_Tron]

74. Buster, I think the notion is that if 45% of the American people were in a hopeless situaton...

Single payer would be inevitable. My hope is that they go back and introduce a public option so that it still becomes inevitable.

[mike_c]

77. I'm in exactly that "left in the cold" demographic...

...but thankfully I have a good union job with cadillac health insurance obtained through collective bargaining-- the sort of health plan, at no direct cost to me, that EVERY American should have. Or we should all have single payer universal health coverage, i.e. medicare of all.