General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsObamacare without a Public Option was and is a PR wrapper for Corporate Healthcare.
with the exception of Medicaid expansion, which is peculiarly state-optional.
Bottom Line: Modern, high tech medicine is expensive and, IMHO, way past the point of diminishing returns. Seems no one in the system of Patient->Doctor(->Hospital)->Guaranteer(->Insurer) was motivated to control costs.
Soon insurance prices flew past that nebulous "what the market will bear" point, and suddenly the insurers were motivated to either control costs or make insured access to hunks of the medical system optional. In the USA, insurers chose the latter. Buy the expensive insurance and your kid can get in the queue for a transplant if needed. Otherwise, I guess, there's always bake sales....
Even though their product is long past "what the market will bear", insurance companies (read their stockholders) will still want to grow and increase profits each year. At this point, their choices are limited to extracting more blood from the stone, or making the expensive queues even shorter.
If you would like to see this class-based system of healthcare made more populist and queues (Death Panels????) managed more democratically, government-run heath insurance is needed. Obamacare with a Public Option was a great stride in that direction. Obamacare WITHOUT a Public Option is a step in the opposite direction.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"If you would like to see this class-based system of healthcare made more populist and queues (Death Panels????) managed more democratically, government-run heath insurance is needed. Obamacare with a Public Option was a great stride in that direction. Obamacare WITHOUT a Public Option is a step in the opposite direction. "
...nonsense, especially when prefaced with this disclaimer: "with the exception of Medicaid expansion"
What's bizarre is the continued attempts by some to denigrate and distort Obamacare.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024699353
This chart showing support for several provisions of Obamacare needs more exposure.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024748702
Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)crossing fingers but not holding breath - if effective, that loophole will be closed - unless met with a public demanding single-payer.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)It's not a "loophole" it's a feature of the law.
The sooner people come to grips with that, the better.
"Instead of griping about ACA, get active in your state. "
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024747402
Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)a state-led battle possible, maybe.
BTW: That implies that the current state of Obama Care is unacceptable WITHOUT a, well let's call it a State-Optional Option.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"BTW: That implies that the current state of Obama Care is unacceptable WITHOUT a, well let's call it a State-Optional Option."
You were just ""crossing fingers" and declaring that the "loophole will be closed" if effective.
Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)I want a Public Option. If you can get one through the "back door", more power to ya.
I don't think we'll get one unless we march arm-in-arm through the front door.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)She was met with "But I like my doctor" ads.
The Public Option was, and could be, a vote-with-your-dollars-and-your-health referendum. IIRC that was the idea.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)Cha
(297,290 posts)this?
Stayed up all night reading Cruz FB page
40k plus posts on Cruz FB page. He asks folks if they're better off now with Obamacare. Thousands of amazing responses telling how ACA has saved their lives, their kids, friends and neighbors. Overwhelmingly positive feedback from real people who now have access to affordable care. Saved 1249 responses in a WORD file before I stopped for the night. Trying to save everything before they take this page down. Encourage all to read the replies from so many folks who have been helped. Will try to link to the DU page.. Peace, Hannah
http://www.facebook.com/SenatorTedCruz/posts/517779935000978
Here is link to page
http://www.democraticunderground.com/110222976
Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)I'm off.
Nice chatting.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Clueless opposition to the most significant reform in our lifetimes, benefiting millions, saving lives.
With what I save per month as an individual I could have bought two Mercedes Benz vehicles.
This OP is a load of crap.
Walk away
(9,494 posts)governors and legislature while watching the states around them provide Medicare to people just like them while they get shafted.
Look at Tennessee. Hospitals are closing (especially the ones like Erlanger that treat the poor and uninsured).
If we can't get people to get behind the ACA then the hopes for Single Payer are worse than dim.
You act as though people will suddenly realize they are voting against their own best interest and follow you down the road of Socialism. It's a nice dream but not in this decade or maybe even the next.
If we can't make this work we will be dooming Single Payer for generations.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)which Vermont is taking advantage of.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)with non-profit coops.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Should Obamacare be repealed because it's a step in the wrong direction?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024753672
Just an off day or what?
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Well?
Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)Yes or No?
Answer the question.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Trajan
(19,089 posts)It's rhetorical, and not a real accusation, but draws attention to the essential fallacy implied in the first case ...
You anti-dissenters need to get a grip ... we aren't going away ...
We ARE DU ....
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)The accusation is disgusting and immature and beneath this message board. If you feel the need to defend that behavior then you need to get a grip.
Trajan
(19,089 posts)As if all of your gustations are sacred philosophies ...
You are as intellectual as the least here, so don't think you have claimed the intellectual high ground, not when you cannot even recognize a classic fallacy when it is presented ...
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Even the OP couldn't answer a simple yes or no question or give a way to move forward. No ideas, no solutions, no answers, just deflection.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)Yeah, it's a giant sop to the private insurance industry, but it's also an enormous help to tens of millions of families.
The law is thousands of pages long. It's not just one thing.
Oh you are? Well we will just quit positing then.
What do you propose be done? I propose working for better congresspeople to vote on a public option. Not letting zealous Tea Partiers in to block every progress.
Logical
(22,457 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Doesn't that mean the ACA made things worse?
If so, should we repeal it and start over?
Or should we build on it ... adding POs to the state exchanges?
Well?
Why not answer this simple question about your criticism of the ACA and what you think we should do next?
Logical
(22,457 posts)On Sun Mar 30, 2014, 09:07 AM an alert was sent on the following post:
Have you stopped beating your wife?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4753054
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
OTT and downright disgusting question. There are other means to make a point. We don't need domestic violence accusations on DU, not even if they are made in snark.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Mar 30, 2014, 09:17 AM, and the Jury voted 1-5 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: FFS this is a common saying. Lighten up. Quit alerting on stuff you just dislike.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Poster is merely pointing out that the post s/he is replying to has posed a logical fallacy in the form of a "loaded question": "Should we repeal it, yes or no?". "Have you stopped beating your wife" is the classic, often used example of this type of logical fallacy. ~ Zorra
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: This is an inappropriate escalation, IMHO. Time to hide.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This is not an accusation, it's a question with no good answer. This goes back a long way. I think it was a stupid response and as unhelpful as the OP but isn't hide worthy. I'll leave it for all to see the logical fallacy.
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)If one's ignorance is so deep as to not understand common American idiom, one should not alert.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)It was attempt to reframe a rhetorical device as an accusation. Glad they didn't get away with it, thanks jury.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Does it include the ACA?
These aren't difficult questions. Yet no one seems to be willing to answer them.
handmade34
(22,756 posts)The Affordable Care Act holds health insurance companies accountable to consumers and ensures that American families receive value for their premium dollars. Because of health care reform, insurance companies now must disclose how much they spend on health care and how much they spend on administrative costs, such as salaries and marketing.
If an insurance company spends less than 80% (85% in the large group market) of premium on medical care and efforts to improve the quality of care, they must rebate the portion of premium that exceeded this limit. This rule is commonly known as the 80/20 rule or the Medical Loss Ratio (MLR) rule. Consumers benefit from the 80/20 rule in two ways.
First, they benefit upfront because insurance companies now keep premiums lower and operate more efficiently in order to meet the 80/20 rule. And
second, if an insurance company doesnt meet the 80/20 rule, then the consumer benefits by receiving a rebate for the amount that exceeds this threshold. In 2012, the 77.8 million consumers in the three markets covered by this 80/20 rule saved $3.4 billion upfront on their premiums because of the 80/20 rule and other Affordable Care Act programs. Additionally, consumers will save $500 million in rebates, with 8.5 million enrollees due to receive an average rebate of approximately $100 per family. Insurance companies must pay the rebates by August 1, 2013. Rebates can be paid in four ways. You may receive a rebate check in the mail, a reimbursement to the account you used to buy your insurance, a reduction in next years premium, or, if you bought your insurance through your employer, your employer must use the rebate for your benefit.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)The less they keep.
DireStrike
(6,452 posts)What keeps that from happening?
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)DireStrike
(6,452 posts)And not just price setting but policies as well, like the ridiculous overdraft fees charged by almost every bank.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Customers they get, because of competition.
WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)Coventry sells insurance policies to fewer than half the state's counties. Competition, you say?
Obamacare Exchanges Down To Two Insurance Providers
Coventry to charge lower premiums for exchange plans than Blue Cross
For North Carolinians, health insurance through exchange to cost more
....
But in North Carolina, only 25 percent of enrollments through the federal insurance exchange are in the 18-34 age group, even though 40 percent of the states uninsured are in that age group.
If North Carolina enrollments stay flat in March for this group, then insurance companies could pay out more money than they take in, and may raise rates next year, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.
....
Donate to Senator Kay Hagan <---------SERIOUSLY
Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)Hallelujah
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Just because there wasn't the votes from either party to pass a public option, even though he's expanded single payer. Tear it all down. Nihilism. Progressives objecting to progress.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Tells you pretty much everything you need to know.
enlightenment
(8,830 posts)asked the OP a loaded question and they responded in kind.
There is no way to answer your question, because it isn't a yes or no answer.
In the same fashion, there is no way you can answer the question posed to you, as either a yes or no response implies that you have been "beating your wife." It isn't a yes or no answer.
An understanding of logical fallacies is often helpful.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/loadques.html
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Watch.
Yes. We should repeal it and start over. The ACA prevents us from moving forward in any meaningful way.
No. We should work to expand the ACA adding PO options to the state exchanges, and then to the federal exchanges.
See ... No logical fallacy. I would like to know the OP author's plan for how we move forward and whether that plan includes the continuation of the ACA.
Pretty simple really.
enlightenment
(8,830 posts)didn't bother to respond to you.
You don't even recognize the fallacy inherent in your assertion that your question was not a logical fallacy.
Have a good day now.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Hekate
(90,714 posts)I just want to know what the OP's personal plans are and whether he thinks the millions who didn't have coverage before this could afford to keep waiting for single payer to come down the Yellow Brick Road.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Romulox
(25,960 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Romulox
(25,960 posts)smokey nj
(43,853 posts)A loaded question is a question with a false or questionable presupposition, and it is "loaded" with that presumption.
The question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" is a loaded question that presupposes that you have beaten your wife prior to its asking, as well as that you have a wife. If you are unmarried, or have never beaten your wife, then the question is loaded.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=loaded%20question
Aside from being an informal fallacy depending on usage, such questions may be used as a rhetorical tool: the question attempts to limit direct replies to be those that serve the questioner's agenda.[2] The traditional example is the question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Whether the respondent answers yes or no, he will admit to having a wife, and having beaten her at some time in the past. Thus, these facts are presupposed by the question, and in this case an entrapment, because it narrows the respondent to a single answer, and the fallacy of many questions has been committed.[2] The fallacy relies upon context for its effect: the fact that a question presupposes something does not in itself make the question fallacious. Only when some of these presuppositions are not necessarily agreed to by the person who is asked the question does the argument containing them become fallacious.[2] Hence the same question may be loaded in one context, but not in the other. For example the previous question would not be loaded if it was asked during a trial in which the defendant has already admitted to beating his wife.[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Romulox
(25,960 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Response to Junkdrawer (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
handmade34
(22,756 posts)what the subsidies are doing... putting the burden on the higher income groups
questionseverything
(9,656 posts)I guess it is higher than the medium income but that is just because overall incomes for the 99% are so low
the money should of come from the 1% , instead we have the working poor attacking the barely surviving working class
pragmatic_dem
(410 posts)because my out of pocket for my employer plan went up by $1200 in 2014 PLUS they are now charging "lifestyle fees" should you fail biometric screenings.
Many will be helped by ACA, but there are multitudes more who have been left completely out.
And covering my kid until 26 isn't a benefit, it is an admission of defeat that our economy is so bad that kids can't make it on their own.
This is the third way, the rich Democrats and rich Republicans sucking the life out of whatever is left of the middle class so the rich don't have to left a finger except to write the campaign checks.
Our priorities are so screwed up, from education to sending jobs to Asia, trade agreements, all attacking middle class. And, of course, when it comes to fighting the war, the rich don't feel a thing.
All those who are able to take advantage of ACA need to remember that many will receive no relief from rising costs and ACA doesn't really introduce necessary reforms for efficiency/costs. It is, in fact, the employer based plans that will subsidize any shortfall from these programs.
For my peers and colleagues who continue to lose jobs to India, I guess ACA will help them once COBRA is exhausted. But this is really not the strategy that is sustainable for the Democratic Party.
The rich need to start paying for the resources they consume.
questionseverything
(9,656 posts)PLUS they are now charging "lifestyle fees" should you fail biometric screenings.
pragmatic_dem
(410 posts)because the implication is they are caused by your unhealthy habits. If you don't want to pay the lifestyle fee, you have to agree to "training" with a personal coach who is supposed to check your lifestyle on regular basis to see if you are doing the things they want you to do. I don't know what happens if no improvement is made or numbers get worse.
Also, to avoid the fee you have to agree to regular exercise and bunch of other conditions whether you are healthy or not. As you can imagine there is a lot of lying about this.
It is the worst form of micromanagement.
In addition you will find companies working to have employees wear pedometers and logging their steps taken every day. They are experimenting with using this to avoid higher fees as well.
Typically they call it a "lifestyle discount" but the truth is they raise the rate by over $1000 a year and then might discount a few hundred if you agree to all their conditions.
I will tell you that some of the unhealthiest people have qualified and some of the fittest have not. I opted out, I'm not going to lie and I resent that the information is tracked as part of "third party" - another problem. Your biometric data is now free to be exchanged with "partners". The level of privacy and conditions of using your data was so complicated, it made me sick. Basically you have to assume your data is now available for present and future employers and anyone with even a remote interest in assessing your financial, physical and mental health.
People are nothing more than commodities being traded on Wall Street. Like cattle.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)While a public option or Medicare for all would have been preferable, Obamacare still is a step forward for millions of people on expanded Medicaid, millions of people who will benefit from income-based subsidies on the exchanges, millions of young adults on their parents' policies, millions who will no longer be barred from insurance because of preexisting conditions -- and everyone else with insurance, since no one will have to worry about annual or lifetime limits or being dropped when they develop expensive illnesses.
All this is progress in the right direction, even though we have further to go.
Lionel Mandrake
(4,076 posts)Isn't it obvious that the ACA is better than the status quo? I'm amazed that DUers are even arguing about this.
handmade34
(22,756 posts)if for public option... (thanks only to the SC and Republican Governors for limiting Medicaid expansion)...
No one thinks the ACA is perfect (especially me but I will defend it with all I have)...
the 80/20 rule,
pre-existing conditions rule,
Medicaid Expansion,
the ease of the Exchange (yes, it is getting easier to use),
subsidies, preventative (wellness) coverage,
expanded mental health coverage,
ER visits not requiring pre-authorization,
additional dental and vision care for kids (granted that should be extended to everyone),
additional home health and hospice care, etc...
...and many other new rules governing insurance companies make the ACA a good thing...
...throwing the baby out with the bathwater?????
we are trapped in a capitalistic society and until the masses wake up, the ACA is a GOOD thing.
iandhr
(6,852 posts)Tell that to the millions of people who are getting care now who wouldn't have before.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Yes, it would have been nice to have the single payer option, but healthcare has been introduced for 100 years before ACA was passed. With ACA becoming more popular and in fact I think there would be some uprising if it was repealed and not replaced with say a single payer system. Right now, we do not need to bite the hand which feeds us. The ceiling on healthcare has been broken, we need to elect members of the DNC to draft a bill towards single payer and keep a majority so there can be more issues important to Democrats.
ellennelle
(614 posts)agreed we need universal healthcare. not just for cost reasons, but because it's simply immoral for anyone to profit from someone's health needs (or education or living, etc.).
but that aside, methinks your assessment is not fully informed.
here in MA, which is the model for ACA, though premiums did not go down, their rate of increase decelerated significantly. that's saying a lot for the state with likely the highest medical costs in the country (price we pay for all the cutting edge medical centers).
we do have something like a public option here, which is not converting to the exchange.
however, there have been numbers of interesting articles over the past five years or so, mostly in money and business mags, stating the sense in the health ins. industry that everyone knows the party's over, they're not long for this world, and that the universal healthcare future is inevitable, it's only a matter of time. the writing's on the wall.
they're of course milking the transition for all it's worth, but then, so are all the oil companies. this is the nature of blinkered, myopic greed.
obama knew there would have to be a transition from an insurance-dominated system. he wanted, insisted that SOMETHING/ANYTHING get passed and signed into law. there has to be a first step. given the lobbies and resistance, it's a miracle it went through at all, even as it did.
the predictions that once it's in operation, everyone will love it and want more, will give us forceful leverage to move to the next, inevitable phases, hopefully full blown medicare for all or even better, very soon.
i'm predicting within five years. but, it will take a highly motivated populace, and that means not just on this issue but all of them, and not just every four years but every election, and that means local, not just national!
VOTE!! RUN!!
Laelth
(32,017 posts)-Laelth
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Obamacare WITHOUT a Public Option is a step in the opposite direction."
...that implies that Obamacare lessened the chances of getting to a public option or a "government-run" program, which means doing nothing was better. At least doing nothing wasn't a "step" in any direction.
Please respond to this poll.
Should Obamacare be repealed because it's a step in the wrong direction?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024753672
LostOne4Ever
(9,289 posts)This OP is proof that the down rec option should be brought back!!!
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Corporate Healthcare Insurance.
Healthcare != Healthcare Insurance.
Hippo_Tron
(25,453 posts)They have to cover people with pre-existing conditions, they can't suddenly drop people for using their insurance too much, and there's no lifetime maximums.
That means their only option is to draw more blood from the stone and they'll probably continue to do that for a while. But remember, the government now subsidizes health coverage for millions of people and so much of that blood is coming from the public coffers.
When we get to the point where it's simply unaffordable for the government to continue subsidizing coverage, the congress can do two things. They can end the subsidies, causing a huge backlash from millions of voters who won't be able to afford their health care coverage anymore. OR they can create a public option. If I were a congresscritter who wanted to stay in office, I'd do the latter.
pragmatic_dem
(410 posts)list the names of the current Democratic Party leaders/representatives who publicly assert this statement and who are currently active building support for a single payer/public option within the Democratic Party and within the circle of campaign contributors.
Unless you can show a Democratic leadership movement with unified party support to improve health care access and reduced cost for ALL Americans, then ACA is the end-game and leading people on with false hope for improvement is a coldblooded political lie.
But on the other hand, if this is just a stepping stone, it should be clear from Democratic party leadership talking points and there will be ample evidence from recent activities, meetings, campaigns, etc to show that the Democratic Party is full steam ahead with the reform of the well documented corruption and dysfunction within our health care industry.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"if ACA is just an incremental step to public option/single payer... please do this
list the names of the current Democratic Party leaders/representatives who publicly assert this statement and who are currently active building support for a single payer/public option within the Democratic Party and within the circle of campaign contributors. "
...you go:
Sanders has put forward an amendment to the current health care bill in the Senate that would allow states to use federal funds to create their own single-payer plans, he said.
- more-
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/sanders-single-payer-never-had-a-chance.php
Vermont single payer move, fully funded by Obamacare.
By Laura K. Grubb, M.D.
The New England Journal of Medicine, April 4, 2013
In May 2011, Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin signed legislation to implement Green Mountain Care (GMC), a single-payer, publicly financed, universal health care system. Vermont's reform law passed 15 months after the historic federal Affordable Care Act (ACA) became law. In passing reforms, Vermont took matters into its own hands and is well ahead of most other states in its efforts to implement federal and state health care reforms by 2014. The Supreme Court decision last June to uphold most of the ACA left many states scrambling, since they had postponed reforms pending the judgment. Although Vermont is a small state, its reform efforts provide valuable lessons for other states in implementing ACA reforms.
<...>
Finally, Vermont policymakers are maximizing federal financing and have projected cost savings. In January 2013, the state released a 156-page financing plan for its single-payer arrangement; the plan outlines federal financing sources and the anticipated generation of savings. Vermont has been awarded more than $250 million in federal funding for its state exchange the fifth-highest amount among the states, although Vermont has the country's second-smallest state population. We feel strongly that the exchange is not the answer to all of Vermont's health care problems, Shumlin remarked, explaining that the exchange is helpful to Vermont to bring us federal dollars to achieve our single-payer goal.3 In fact, state exchange development will be 100% federally funded.4
- more -
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2013/april/lessons-from-vermonts-health-care-reform
How to strengthen Obamacare, courtesy of the Progessive Caucus.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024702695
pragmatic_dem
(410 posts)Isn't the Vermont story worth having on the front page? Why not post it there?
My understanding is that the Federal Government still has to approve the plan since Vermont's plan is not the same thing as "free market" exchanges. Has the Government expressed any intention to disrupt Vermont's plan?
Does the DNC have anyone from the progressive caucus on it's board or leadership team?
Went to the OFA site and saw nothing on continuing to fight for health care reform.
Went to third way site, nothing on health care reform.
Republicans seem organized to send ACA backwards, yet Democratic Committee Leadership has no organized plan to move reform forward to single payer/public option.
Why is that?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Your questions have nothing to do with the content of the law or Congressional proposals, such as the Progressive Caucus' plan, to improve it.
treestar
(82,383 posts)I'd say work in those states and make sure it works well. That'd be doing something.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)-Laelth
pragmatic_dem
(410 posts)RBInMaine
(13,570 posts)pragmatic_dem
(410 posts)health care reform and cost control through an efficient single payer system.
1. Bernie Sanders.
2. ...?
If this is just the beginning, who is continuing to fight for reform? Where are they meeting, where are the talking points and bumper stickers for single payer? Where is the Democratic Party web site collecting money and volunteers for the continuing fight for single payer?
Clearly, the republican party is not giving up on their disinformation campaign, and it is easy to find a unified message of continuing destruction.
But the only thing that comes out of Democratic Leadership is "sorry, yea it sort of sucks but it's the best we could do. Get over it and let's get moving on some free trade agreements that will send more jobs to Asia."
Who's making sure it isn't the be-all, end-all?
treestar
(82,383 posts)in order to convince enough voters. Cutting it down ourselves leads away from single payer, as the mass of voters thinking it doesn't work and government staying out of it is the answer.
pragmatic_dem
(410 posts)it needs to continue to organize and continue to publish data supporting reform and win grass roots support for reform.
I am happy that many have been helped by ACA, but the fact is, more of us have not been helped - those with larger employer plans will continue see costs rise unchecked and nearly every year I have to change providers as plan dictates who I can see and where I can fill prescriptions, what drugs I can take, from year to year.
I have indicated recently just how much my plan rose this year, but people didn't believe it. Also discussed new "lifestyle" rules that allow insurance companies to charge higher fees by using biometric screening. It seems to be an inconvenient truth and many are in denial.
Nor do they believe that many employers switch plans every two years in effort to get lowest costs, incredibly disruptive to families.
So, if the end-game is public option/single payer I still have not seen any evidence from core of Democratic Party leadership.
I see plenty of evidence and rhetoric that this is the best that we can do because none are brave enough to engage popular support to challenge insurance company and health industry resistance and threats.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)A public option has nothing to do with employer-based health coverage.
pragmatic_dem
(410 posts)and cost controls and ultimately give those who are tethered to corporations more choices, many are simply hanging on because even as health care costs continue to erode earnings and wages, they cannot afford to pay $16K ACA F4 plan because they are just outside earning limits which would be like 15% pay cut on top of existing wage erosion year over year.
It's 10s of millions of people.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)pragmatic_dem
(410 posts)reply says two things about you:
1. You are afraid.
2. You know I am correct.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)pragmatic_dem
(410 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)insurance industry. Unfortunately they spend millions buying congressman, presidents, and justices and in return get to rip off working people for hundreds of millions
pragmatic_dem
(410 posts)there is apparently no documented effort by any Democratic leader to keep fighting for reform.
So, next time anyone says "it is incremental reform" all they need to do is give the name of any Democratic party leader who is actively building support for further reform.
But there isn't any. And there will never be any as long as Democratic leadership keeps selling out to investment bankers. Both political parties are chasing the same pile of money, running over 300,000,000 people in the process.
When I asked for a Democratic leader who was hard at work on the next incremental steps - they proudly gave up "Bernie Sanders", without realizing he is not a Democrat - lol
Too bad, Sanders is exactly the kind of representation we need everywhere, Vermont is lucky to have him.
gulliver
(13,186 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)They can't deny people coverage due to pre-existing conditions now. That is far less of the market than being able to cherry pick customers. They are going to make less money and will have to adjust to that.
flamingdem
(39,313 posts)for your opinions.
Meanwhile those of us dealing with reality are mostly grateful for Obamacare.
It's better than what I've heard about the British and Canadian system, so far
I've had excellent care for very little money on ACA.
think
(11,641 posts)and that is a damn shame....
jeff47
(26,549 posts)They have no mechanism to find out how their colleagues would vote. The only way they can find out is to formally insert it into a bill.
think
(11,641 posts)It is a matter of public record where advocates are allowed to participate. It's the part of the discussion where even the losing parties also speak on behalf of their position. That did NOT happen:
Corporate Crime Reporter
March 3, 2009
President Obamas White House made crystal clear this week: a Canadian-style, Medicare-for-all, single payer health insurance system is off the table.
Obama doesnt even want to discuss it.
Take the case of Congressman John Conyers (D-Michigan).
Conyers is the leading advocate for single payer health insurance in Congress.
Last week, Conyers attended a Congressional Black Caucus meeting with President Obama at the White House.
During the meeting, Congressman Conyers, sponsor of the single payer bill in the House (HR 676), asked President Obama for an invite to the Presidents Marchy 5 health care summit at the White House.
Conyers said he would bring along with him two doctors Dr. Marcia Angell and Dr. Quentin Young to represent the majority of physicians in the United States who favor single payer.
Obama would have none of it.
This week, by e-mail, Conyers heard back from the White House no invite.....
More:
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2009/march/obama_to_single_paye.php
So ya, Obama never even allowed the discussion to happen for the public record. Who cares if you already know the votes aren't there. The Dems should at least fight for their position and let the people know what kind of healthcare the rest of the modern world is getting.
Hell everyone and their brother knows where the Republicans stand because they openly speak out and demand what they want. No the Dems don't need to be as repugnant as their counter parts but they should have taken a stand and at least had a frank and public discussion on the topic.
And yes, the fact that the American people were not afforded that discussion to this effect is a damn shame.....
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Losing that badly sets us back WAY more than not talking about it. It flags the issue as toxic, and it would be much harder to build support.
Single payer loses badly in the country overall, due to demonizing of the term. Especially calling it "government healthcare".
We need to undo that before we can win nationally. The way we do that is to exploit the ACA. Fight for single payer or public options in blue states, where we will have a much easier time. Those states will give us examples to explode the RW bullshit when we return to the national battle.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)-Laelth
Catherina
(35,568 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)wrote it, that's unsurprising.
Hekate
(90,714 posts)Can all those millions of folks who had no coverage for years afford to do whatever-the-hell it is that you are doing? Just curious. And, most importantly, can they afford to keep waiting for single-payer to come along that primrose path?
I highly recommend going to Ted Cruz's FB page and reading the nearly 50,000 replies to his question about whether people feel better off with ACA or hate it. Hint: the vast majority of replies are well- informed and full of gratitude for Obamacare, and many are willing to set the naysayers straight. Probably not what Cruz was expecting at all.
JEB
(4,748 posts)us in the ass with a rusty wire brush and we're supposed to like it.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024755799
jeff47
(26,549 posts)It's 2009. You need Lieberman's vote to pass a bill. How do you get his vote?
-He knows he can not win re-election. Get MA voters as upset as you'd like, he doesn't care.
-He mainly lives for getting on TV. You yank his committee assignments, and he gets a lot more TV time. And still votes no.
-He is known as "the Senator from Aetna".
-You do not have 51 votes to get rid of the filibuster. In fact, you don't have 40 votes to do so.
-He killed the 50+ Medicare buy-in public option....that he proposed to try and derail the ACA.
So how do you get him to vote for a public option?
The Affordable Care Act has a few major advantages.
1) No more pre-existing conditions.
2) Medical loss ratio limits.
3) Medicaid expansion (damaged by the Republicans on the SCOTUS)
4) Most importantly, it moves the battle to the states.
The state-based exchanges means the battle is no longer at the federal level. We can get single-payer and public options in individual states. And public options will become de-facto single-payer - with no need to profit, they should end up cheaper. That'll make them popular, which gives them a larger risk pool, which makes them even cheaper.
So the next move is to fight in blue states, where we will have a much easier time getting single-payer or public options passed. With the successful examples in blue states, we will be able to next move the battle to the purple states. Successes there will let us return to the national battle in a much, much stronger position.
Fact is there was no way to get single-payer or public option to pass at the national level in 2009/2010. The votes just were not there. Senator Sanders has famously said there were only 8-10 votes in the Senate for single-payer. "Obama trying harder" doesn't get you 50 more votes - you lose 30-70 instead of 10-90. Trying anyway and failing is what happened in 1993, and that killed reform for two decades.
So we pass the ACA to fix the most egregious problems, and use it to set ourselves up for winning the next battles. Social Security wasn't "done" in 1935. Medicare was not "done" in 1965. And health care reform was not "done" in 2010.