Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Obama faces rare defeat on health help for jobless

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 03:35 PM
Original message
Obama faces rare defeat on health help for jobless
Obama faces rare defeat on health help for jobless

By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, Associated Press Writer Ricardo Alonso-zaldivar, Associated Press Writer Sat Jun 12, 11:19 am ET

WASHINGTON If Chuck Lacasse had gotten his pink slip four days earlier,

Uncle Sam would have covered most of his family's health insurance while he looked for a new job.

But Congress allowed emergency health care assistance for unemployed workers to expire May 31, and seems unwilling to renew it despite pleas from President Barack Obama.

Not three months after lawmakers passed his $1 trillion insurance overhaul, Obama is facing a rare defeat on health care at the hands of his own divided Democrats. Moderates have rebelled against adding billions more to the deficit in a treacherous election year.

"The same Congress that spent all this political capital trying to get people health insurance is going to take a crucial benefit away from unemployed people," said Andrew Stettner, deputy director of the National Employment Law Project, which advocates for the unemployed.

On June 4, Lacasse lost his job as advertising director for a company that makes

nutritional supplements. He'll soon have to pay the entire $1,500 monthly premium to keep his family covered under his former employer's health insurance plan.

Until May 31, under Obama's economic stimulus law, the government provided a 65 percent subsidy. That would have lowered his cost to $525.

"This really isn't about welfare," said Lacasse, 40. "It's about buying people some time. In a position as specialized as mine, it would have been nice to know that I had some time to look for the right job."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100612/ap_on_bi_ge/us_heal...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Spaghetti House Donating Member (8 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 03:38 PM
Response to Original message
1. Disease
It would be better if our medical complex didn't assign us diseases as a teacher assigns homework to his/her students.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 03:42 PM
Response to Original message
2. "rare defeat" or "do-nothing 44"
I think people should always have help with thier medical, sad we'll have to wait 2 more years for everybody to get it.

But I really couldn't help notice the drastic difference in describing Obama's administration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phoebe Loosinhouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 03:42 PM
Response to Original message
3. $1500 dollar monthly premium.
Tell that to a Canadian or a Brit or a Swede or a German and watch them look at you like you have sprouted a broccoli in the center of your forehead. Really. It's fun.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
midnight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 03:48 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. I think after last summer those countries found out how ill our pricing of
health care in America is. I'm sure they saw doctors set up clinics in remote unusual places for those Americans without access to health care.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 03:54 PM
Response to Original message
5. I don't see anything strange about this.
Edited on Sat Jun-12-10 04:08 PM by sabrina 1
The bill that passed was mainly to benefit Corporations, with a few crumbs tossed to ordinary people, although they'll probably still have to scramble to pick them up.

This situation in the OP is solely something that would benefit ordinary people with no profit for Corporations. Someone didn't get the memo. You MUST hand over huge profits to Corps if you are to get anything at all for the American people.

Business as usual, just as expected, and the new Health Insurance Bail-out apparently is of not help to the Average American in this instance.

There was only one acceptable reform which was to move this country into the same world as all other modern democracies and make healthcare a right by providing a National Health Care system.

That would have been revolutionary and Obama would have gone down in history as one of the great presidents. But, what he got through was just another corporate written and paid for bill not to mention losing the opportunity of a lifetime to do better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 06:12 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. Yes, I'm sure that's correct.
After all, why else would the health insurance industry have spent billions of dollars trying to avoid a bill that you claim would benefit them... oh, wait. :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
girl gone mad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. They spent ten times as much on lobbyists..
making sure they will get exactly what they wanted while the middle class will get financially raped, again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 07:43 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. And that's why all the people who took their money voted "no." Riiiight. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 09:59 PM
Response to Reply #7
16. They got most of what they wanted. They got no Public Option
They got a huge bail-out with the forcing of people who could not afford coverage, to now buy it, and it will be covered by 'subsidies'. Those subsidies are public funds which will now pass through the hands of the corrupt Insurance Industry where nearly 20% will be skimmed off the top, instead of all of it going to pay for actual healthcare. A clever way of transferring public funds into private hands. A Republicans dream come true.



I certainly don't remember them screaming about no Public Option or Mandated Insurance. They kicked a little bit over a few things they didn't like but in the end understood that without those crumbs, the bill would not pass. So all in all they get more than their money's worth.

Wendall Potter when asked what his bosses in the industry felt when told them how Americans had to go to free clinics normally only needed in third world countries. Did they feel shame as Americans that the Health care system was this bad that U.S. citizens had to be treated in animal stalls for free by volunteers?

His answer should have helped us understand the mindset of the corrupt for-profit Corps that are still in charge of our Healthcare system. He said 'they saw those people as a huge potential market'.

And this administration did what even a Republican president could not do, they made their dreams come true. They ordered those people to buy from these corrupt individuals and since you cannot 'squeeze blood from a turnip' they ensured the Corps would be paid, by handing them Medicaid Funds to pay for those people.

I would be a very happy person if I had no conscience and ran a Private Insurance Corp. and they are. The game of pretending otherwise was pretty transparent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lib2DaBone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 11:01 PM
Response to Reply #7
27. It was a Win-Win for Big Insurance.. no matter what happened.
They were going to reap Billions$, or Tens of Billions$$$. It was worth a few bucks they spent to appear to be blocking reform while Max Baucus did their dirty work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 06:25 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. +1000
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 06:40 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. This has n-o-t-h-i-n-g to do with health care reform
This benefit was in the stimulus for unemployed people, same as the additional $25 per week was. As soon as the health care bill kicks in, he'll get his subsidies back, or get free Medicaid if his unemployment income is low enough.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 10:04 PM
Response to Reply #10
17. Those subsidies will come from money that was set
aside to pay for healthcare for the poor. Now those subsidies will first go into the hands of Private Insurance Corps and 20% or more will go to profits. His free Medicaid is no longer free to those who pay for it in taxes. The Corrupt Private Ins. Corps get one fifth of it, for doing nothing that could not be done far more efficiently by the government. They thank you for your support, although don't expect anything else from them. They really don't care if you live or die. Unless in either case you can be profitable for them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 10:10 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. Basically every single sentence of your post is bullshit.
"Those subsidies will come from money that was set aside to pay for healthcare for the poor."

Complete, utter falsehood. Either the subsidies will come from the deficit or they won't come at all. They will not be cutting any healthcare for the poor to extend COBRA subsidies.

"Now those subsidies will first go into the hands of Private Insurance Corps and 20% or more will go to profits."

As opposed to before? COBRA subsidies ALWAYS go to insurance companies.

"His free Medicaid is no longer free to those who pay for it in taxes."

What are you talking about? Of course Medicaid is paid for by taxpayers. How is this a problem?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 10:14 PM
Response to Reply #18
21. 'As opposed to before'? No, and that is exactly
why this was not 'healthcare reform'. We are still stuck with the same old for-profit healthcare system. Thanks for making my point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 10:35 PM
Response to Reply #21
25. So you are just whining that we don't have a single payer system?
Edited on Sat Jun-12-10 10:36 PM by BzaDem
Funny. I thought this post was about COBRA subsidies, not another single payer rant. If you wanted to post yet another post calling Obama a corporatist for not becoming a dictator and enacting legislation by fiat, you should start your own thread.

We don't have single payer because the people (80%+ of which claim they are satisfied with their current healthcare) have elected 30 Congresses of which around 25% or less would even consider single payer. If you want to complain about not having single payer, you should be complaining about the people's electoral choices (as they consistently refuse to elect representatives who want it enacted).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-13-10 02:12 AM
Response to Reply #25
29. So you are just whining because you thought everyone
would forget the betrayal of the American people that this bailout for the corrupt Private Insurance Corps actually was? Whatever made you think that?

And I see you've dragged out those dusty old talking points also ~

Over 70% of the American People want and still want a National Health Care system. They got what Corporate America decided to give them. But one day we will have a president who has the guts to stand up to Corporate America as FDR did, and we will move into the 21st Century along with every other modern democracy where Health Care will be a right, not a commodity to provide profits for Big Business.

Too bad Candidate Obama got lost somewhere between the election and shortly after the inauguration. Some of us were fooled into thinking he might be the next great president who would actually bring about Health Care Reform since he had all that political capital to spend. But it was not to be. Sadly this 'reform' will go down in history as one of those lost opportunities where there wasn't even a decent battle fought.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-13-10 02:22 AM
Response to Reply #29
32. I don't know if you remember, but Obama ran AGAINST single payer as being too extreme
It was in his ads.

Kucinich ran for single payer.

Kucinich got around 1% of Democratic primary vote, while Obama won the presidency. If Obama enacted single payer, he would be betraying his OWN POSITIONS.

It's funny how you keep claiming that so many people support a "national healthcare system" when the people keep electing candidates who RUN AGAINST a national healthcare system.

It is also telling that you call a "betrayal of the American people" a bill that 85%+ of Democrats SUPPORT. People who don't like the healthcare bill are in a VERY TINY minority in the Democratic party. If that's somehow a betrayal, then we need more betrayals.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-13-10 04:29 AM
Response to Reply #32
41. Obama ran against mandated insurance. He slammed
McCain and Hillary for supporting it. Many people voted for him for that very reason. Was McCain right then after all? Because basically what you are saying is that McCain was right and it wouldn't have made any difference to HC Reform, if he had won.

Obama also supported a PO during the campaign, well he SAID he did. So stop trying to excuse his flip flops. And this is not the only thing he flip flopped on.

He also slammed McCain on Offshore Drilling. Was McCain right about that also?

How about indefinite detention without trial for suspected 'terrorists'? Was McCain right about that also?

What about justice for those who were tortured? Obama doesn't think they need it, neither did McCain.

How about the vile MCA that 12 Democrats voted for and that we were assured would be 'fixed' that Habeas Corpus would be restored AFTER Dems won in 2006? But then we were told we needed 'all three branches' before we could fix that treasonous bill. Be patient, they said, wait 'til the 2008 election.

Now, Obama is using it to try a tortured child soldier. Fix it? I guess the joke was on us, again. But it's not poor, helpless Obama's fault, he has no power to do anything at all.

Do you support the privatization of Social Security? I'd like to have you on record before it comes up after November if you don't mind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-13-10 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #41
46. McCain NEVER supported mandated insurance. That is completely false. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 10:10 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. Basically every single sentence of your post is bullshit.
"Those subsidies will come from money that was set aside to pay for healthcare for the poor."

Complete, utter falsehood. Either the subsidies will come from the deficit or they won't come at all. They will not be cutting any healthcare for the poor to extend COBRA subsidies.

"Now those subsidies will first go into the hands of Private Insurance Corps and 20% or more will go to profits."

As opposed to before? COBRA subsidies ALWAYS go to insurance companies.

"His free Medicaid is no longer free to those who pay for it in taxes."

What are you talking about? Of course Medicaid is paid for by taxpayers. How is this a problem?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 10:16 PM
Response to Reply #17
23. Oh man
Medicaid was always paid for through taxes, where the hell did you think the money came from? Now it will be expanded to MORE low income people, up to 133% of poverty. It's being paid for through increased taxes on the rich.

Regardless, the point is, the guy losing his COBRA isn't a health care reform issue.

It's one of those "nothing" things that has been ridiculed by people like you - and now it's the holy grail when it's going to end. Do you not note the hypocrisy?

There are currently 2 years of unemployment benefits with a $100 a month supplement. But because there's no Tier 5, it means what has been done is nothing???

I don't know what world you live in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-13-10 02:38 AM
Response to Reply #23
34. Of course it was paid for by taxes. Did someone say it wasn't?
And of course the guy losing his Cobra is a health care reform issue. Had there been reform, he wouldn't have to worry about losing anything.

In every other civilized country this person would not have to worry about his health care. Just reading your explanation underscores the failure of this system, which is now even worse than before for many people.

There are currently 2 years of unemployment benefits with a $100 a month supplement. But because there's no Tier 5, it means what has been done is nothing???

Why is this even considered to be an acceptable situation? Why do Americans have to deal with these various different complexities in order to get what IS A RIGHT? Why is everyone's coverage different, why do the rich get better health care than the poor? Why are Americans, some of them anyhow, so subservient that they will take this BS and even defend it?

No wonder you can't win. You don't even know what you are entitled to. No other people would put up with this BS and then FIGHT to defend it!! You amaze me.

Have you ever tried to help an elderly person navigate their health care coverage in this country? Explain to me why they at their age should have to wade through the mountains of paperwork that comes EVERY DAY to try to find out what they are paying, what they are not paying, what is covered or what is not? And this bill has already made it even more confusing for them. 'medicare d' 'medicare a' 'medicare b' aarp this, aarp that, private insurance company/medicare, no wait, private insurance company/aarp, or no, no private coverage, can't afford it! It's a CRIME. Old people should not have to even think about this garbage. I have seen them lose coverage because they could not deal with the complexities of the paperwork. I volunteer time to try to help some of them wade through the maze and even I and other volunteers have a hard time keeping up with it. How does an 80 year old with no help deal with this?

Eliminate the private insurance industry and everything is simplified and people can focus on their health. Like they do in Europe and Canada. At least don't try to defend this system, there is no defense for it.

Some of us will keep fighting until we get what every other normal country has and expects as their right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-13-10 03:05 AM
Response to Reply #34
35. People have single payer in Europe and Canada because the people of those nations voted for it.
Edited on Sun Jun-13-10 03:06 AM by BzaDem
Healthcare is a right in Europe and Canada because the people voted for people who made it a right.

We do not have single payer, because the people elect Congresses that are massively opposed to it. Each and every time, without exception.

That is the difference between America and Europe/Canada. You can whine about corpoirations and whatever until you turn blue in the face. But in the end, the people have elected and re-elected 30 Congresses since Truman who a HUGE portion would never even consider voting for single payer. Congressmen and Congresswomen will run actively opposed to single payer, and they will frequently get elected and re-elected in landslides. The people in this country have the power to change that, and they actively refuse to do so each and every time.

You (and all of us) should continue to fight to make healthcare a universal right, becuase that is the right thing to do. But to blame Obama for trying to make the system better for 30 million people is ridiculous (especially when 85%+ of the Democratic party supports this law and thinks you are full of it).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-13-10 04:19 AM
Response to Reply #35
40. He didn't make it better for 30 million people. according to
Obama the candidate! He OPPOSED mandated insurance claiming it was wrong and unfair. Now, how did it get to be 'making things better' one year later? Do you realize how twisted the logic has to be to try to defend this? You have to argue with Candidate Obama, NOT with me? Did you argue with him THEN? I have a feeling you agreed with him.

As for the nonsense that it is the fault of the American people for voting for Reps who oppose a National Health Care system? That is NOT true. Most Democrats claim to support such a system. They just aren't willing to fight for it. Even those who were for a PO, and there many, CAVED when WH pressured them. STOP making excuses, hold them accountable because it is people like you who choose to accept the BS we keep getting who will ensure we will NEVER have decent healthcare in this country.

If this bill had been proposed by Bush, the same people now trying to defend it would be screaming. In fact when Romney proposed it, THEY WERE screaming.

Excuses never got anything done. Action and commitment from voters, moves politicians. But why, why should Democrats pay any attention to the people who elect them, when like bad parents, those same people rush to excuse them every time they do the wrong thing.

In the movie Sicko, Michael Moore made it very clear why politicians vote against the interests of the American people on Health Care every time it comes up. Money buys votes. The American people do NOT elect anti-National Health Care candidates. The American people cannot afford to buy their votes. And if we keep electing them, as we have been doing, nothing will change.

So, now we have seen what a Dem majority brought us we no longer have to 'vote for the lesser evil'. If Bush had had time for HC Reform, the bill would have been mostly the same. This was a Republican bill. The only difference would have been Democrats would have voted for it also.

When politicians start fearing the voters on the Dem side, things will begin to change. But as long as their apologists for them, as long as people continue to vote for them no matter what, nothing will change.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-13-10 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #40
45. You are right, many Democrats support single payer. If half of them do, that's 25-30% of the house.
That's basically what I've been saying all along. If the people really wanted single payer, they wouldn't elect a Congress for which only a quarter supported single payer. You make my point perfectly.

Yes, Obama flip-flopped on the mandate, because his economists told him the rest of his plan he ran on (built around subsidies for PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE) wouldn't work otherwise. In reality, he always knew (as did anyone with a brain) that you need a mandate to have any kind of universal coverage, and he simply took a position against it so he could have something to argue with Clinton about in the primary.

"The American people do NOT elect anti-National Health Care candidates."

Yes, actually they did and continuously have done so for decades. Your statement is just made up.

"In fact when Romney proposed it, THEY WERE screaming."

Complete and utter BS. Romneycare was supported by both parties in Massachusetts.

"STOP making excuses, hold them accountable"

Says someone who wants Obama to sign a single payer bill when he specifically ran against single payer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-13-10 10:36 PM
Response to Reply #45
48. I'm glad we weren't depending on people with your
defeatist attitude for all the major changes that courageous people, sometimes against impossible odds, fought for and won. We would never have defeated the British Empire. Maybe you should study history and see what the odds were of the Founding Fathers getting support for their Declaration of Independence and then watch how it was done. It certainly wasn't done by saying 'well, we couldn't get the votes because some people were not in favor of it'. We'd still be singing Hail to the King of that had been the attitude, considering how much opposition there was to what they wanted to do.

And we would still have segregated schools, women still wouldn't be voting, and the elderly would have nothing to live on.

Keep making excuses. But watch what happens in November to those YOU claim are really only pretending to be 'democrats', to support a National Health Care system, to say one thing in their campaigns then vote the opposite way.

Everything has value, even if it is only as a learning experience. And we got an incredible education after eight of Bush and believing that a presidential candidate knew what he was talking about, when in fact, according to you, it was McCain who was the one we should have elected because he KNEW, according to you, that Mandates were necessary while Obama did not.

It is BS that Obama was less informed than McCain. What is clear is that he was lying to get the democratic vote, or he was convinced once he got to the WH that he didn't need to worry about those who elected him, he needed to worry about those who own this government.

Of course, he apparently was wrong about changing that also. According to your assessment of him, he was the most naive candidate ever to run for the presidency. He didn't know eg, how great Offshore Drilling was either until he got to the WH.

Never trust a politician. You have to make them understand that if they betray those who voted for them, they will not keep their jobs. That is the mistake WE have been making for far too long.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-13-10 03:30 AM
Response to Reply #34
37. You
You said the subsidies are going to come out of the health care money for the poor, so "His free Medicaid is no longer free to those who pay for it in taxes."

His free Medicaid was never free, it was always paid for in taxes.

It doesn't matter whether you like this system or don't like this system. That isn't the point. The point is that the guy in the OP is losing his assistance because of UNEMPLOYMENT changes, NOT the health care bill. Unemployment forever is not a right.

They could pass single payer tomorrow and it wouldn't be implemented the next day. It would take transition time. So the guy in the OP would still be in a pickle.

Elderly people are navigating through Medicare, so you might want to rethink attacking their health care to advocate for single payer.

People in this country don't want it. Almost everybody on this board is bitching about the government response to BP. Bitch about the billions totally lost in Iraq. Bitch about the corruption. Bitch about the privacy invasions. And yet you think there would be no problem turning our health care over to the same government?? Does that really make sense to you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 08:22 PM
Response to Reply #5
15. Before you post such screeds, you should really make sure you know what you are talking about.
Edited on Sat Jun-12-10 08:23 PM by BzaDem
Healthcare reform provides subsidies to the poor and middle class for private health insurance. Your whole premise that this was mainly to benefit corporations and not individuals is complete bullshit. But for the sake of argument, let's assume your premise is true.

Then what in the world do you call COBRA subsidies that go directly to health insurance companies for those who recently got layed off? How is a COBRA private subsidy to a private insurance company "something that would benefit ordinary people with no profit for corporations," but subsidies that go directly to health insurance companies for the poor and middle class a corporate benefit with little or no benefit to individuals?

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 10:11 PM
Response to Reply #15
20. And you too make my point about this so-called
HC bill. As I said above, instead of the Government run Medicaid program paying directly for healthcare for those in need, the NEW system will send those funds into the greedy hands of the Private Insurance Ind. where 20% will taken out for profit.

There is no health care reform as long as it remains a for-profit based system. Those funds will now massively increase the profits of those failed organizations making them even more powerful, with more money to pay lobbyists to make sure this country remains, as it was before this bill, in the clutches of private industry.

If people benefit, and some will, it is only because they can provide profits for the insurance industry. You may not mind being nothing but a commodity to these criminals. I prefer to think of Health Care as a right as all other modern democracies do.

This administration blew a once in a lifetime opportunity to begin removing the predatory private insurers from our health care system. We need an FDR, someone with vision and courage to remove these blood suckers from our health care system. Sadly, Obama was not the person for that job.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 10:38 PM
Response to Reply #20
26. You want a President who is a dictator that dissolves Congress. It's pretty simple.
Edited on Sat Jun-12-10 10:41 PM by BzaDem
FDR had an 80% Democratic Congress, compared to our 60%. And even HE didn't try to enact single payer!

You want a president who turns our country into a dictatorship. Then, as a dictator, he would be executing on the "vision" and "courage" you speak of by enacting single payer by fiat.

Because in a Democracy, this Congress would happily tell Obama to take his "courage" and "vision" to shove it. Fewer than 25% of either house would even consider single payer (and it is probably more like 10% in the Senate). If you want to whine, you should whine about people who continuously and without exception elect representatives who would never even consider single payer. Democracy is a pesky irritant for some people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-13-10 02:18 AM
Response to Reply #26
31. What utter BS. So Obama has no power?
This is the excuse we keep hearing from those who simply cannot face the truth. We were sold out, face it, many of us have.

Congress, when the President's party has a majority, will follow the leadership of the party. And they did. The leadership did not want what the American people wanted. If they had, we would have had it.

Your nonsensical claim that the POTUS has no power is laughable. Bush got through his agenda when his party was a MINORITY.

Give this president some credit. He is not the weak, useless leader you portray him as. He got what he wanted. HE SAID SO! 'I got 95% of what I wanted'!

Too bad he didn't tell us what he wanted in the campaign. So we were fooled. But never again, at least not by the same person.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-13-10 02:26 AM
Response to Reply #31
33. He has no power to enact single payer, and anyone who claims otherwise is ignorant.
Edited on Sun Jun-13-10 02:30 AM by BzaDem
You seriously know very little about the American presidency.

Obama has power, but his power does not consist of the ability to enact single payer when 75%+ of Congress is against it.

Obama got 95% of what he wanted because he constructed what he wanted based on what could actually pass Congress. It is really pretty simple, and it is amazing how so many people don't understand even the simplest aspects of how American government works.

Bush got through tax cuts because a majority of Congress was in favor of tax cuts.

Bush miserably failed on privatizing Social Security and Drilling in ANWR because a majority of Congress was against both.

Obama would similarly miserably fail if he proposed single payer. Again, this is not rocket science.

The idea that "Congress, when the President's party has a majority, will follow the leadership of the party" is one of the most ignorant historical statements that I have ever seen on this board. Truman tried and failed for Single Payer. Clinton tried and failed for something much more modest. Bush failed on immigration reform, social security, ANWR drilling, and a host of other parts of his agenda. The list really goes on and on and on. Even other people on DU who are against the HCR that passed haven't claimed something as ridiculously silly as "Congress, when the President's party has a majority, will follow the leadership of the party."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-13-10 03:50 AM
Response to Reply #33
39. Well, thank you for the lesson.
What you are saying is that we wasted our time getting the Democrats a majority. They ran on Health CARE reform, not Health INSURANCE bailouts. But, according to you, they were lying. They knew that even with a majority, nothing much would change.

BS, they are bought and paid for by Big Business. They do what Big Busniness wants them to do. This is what we learned.

Explain if you can how Bush got his War in Iraq with support from DEMOCRATS. Why did Democrats vote for that illegal war? Their constituents were against it. They voted for it because that is what Big Business wanted them to do. They did not have to vote for it, they were WILLING to do so.

Bush worked hard for Big Business and he got most of their agenda passed, with the help of Democrats, often just enough of them to get his agenda passed.

It is YOU who is ignorant of how politics works. Politicians do not work for us, except for a very few. Obama does not work for us, that has been made clear.

Explain why he lifted the ban on Offshore Drilling?

And will you defend him when he gets the job Bush failed to get done, the privatization of Social Security, done? He's working on it. Will you tell us we are ignorant and that the poor guy had to do it because he didn't have the votes NOT to?

Was Obama ignorant of politics also BEFORE he became president? When he made all those statements, so eloquently too, about not supporting the Republican HCR plan of mandated insurance? Was McCain smarter? He was for it, but Obama attacked him and said it was not fair to force people to buy something they could not afford? Did we elect a person who was ignorant of 'how things work in DC'?

I will look forward to your defense of why he had to go along with privatizing Social Security, which won't happen until after the November Election.

Do you defend this administartion's current plan to privatize public housing btw? Can poor, helpless Obama do nothing about that either?

If people were to follow your advice, they wouldn't bother voting at all, because no matter whether Democrats in the minority or the majority the poor things cannot get anything done, because they 'don't have the votes'. If only we had known that a majority and control of all three branches of government means nothing at all. We could have saved a lot of time and money ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-13-10 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #39
44. They (for the most part) did not run on single payer.
Edited on Sun Jun-13-10 11:20 AM by BzaDem
And they did not define "healthcare reform" being single payer.

So your statement "They ran on Health CARE reform, not Health INSURANCE bailouts" is completely false. Obama ran specifically against single payer, as did many Congresspeople (who won in landslides).

And McCain was not for mandated insurance at all. So much of your posts is just made up out of whole cloth or ignorance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
readmoreoften Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-13-10 03:13 AM
Response to Reply #31
36. Obama is a poor, poor victim... dontcha know!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-13-10 03:33 AM
Response to Reply #36
38. Straw man.
Edited on Sun Jun-13-10 03:34 AM by BzaDem
Obama is not a poor, poor victim. He also doesn't have the power to unilaterally enact domestic policy, much less when 75%+ of Congress is against the policy. Amazingly, this is difficult to understand for some people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PassingFair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 03:56 PM
Response to Original message
6. If only there was a subsidized PUBLIC OPTION.
Sorry, I was DREAMING.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 06:41 PM
Response to Reply #6
11. It wouldn't be in place right now
So this guy still wouldn't get any help.

When the subsidized plans are implemented, this guy won't need to depend on COBRA anymore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-13-10 02:14 AM
Response to Reply #11
30. Which begs the question...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PassingFair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-13-10 08:41 AM
Response to Reply #11
42. Why wouldn't it be in place right now?
Why can't a provision be available right now?

This happened to a guy I work with last week,
so it's not a hypothetical situation.

Why couldn't an expanded Medicare public option could have
been made available immediately for those in need?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-13-10 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #42
47. It takes time to implement anything
SCHIP was passed in 1997, states didn't start implementing it until 1998 and 1999. And that was just a program for kids added to Medicaid. You're talking about the whole country. Do you know they collected social security taxes beginning in 1937, but the first check wasn't paid until 1940? That would never work today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lorien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 08:17 PM
Response to Original message
13. "Moderates"= Reaganites (DLC)
there's nothing remotely "moderate" about any of them!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FBI_Un_Sub Donating Member (610 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 08:22 PM
Response to Original message
14. We need a Left Wing version of the Tea Baggers
to fight this Mitch McConnell - John Boehner (and Jim DeMint) bull shit. When Reagan killed PATCO he killed our Left Wing version of the Tea Baggers. By " Left Wing version of the Tea Baggers" I mean someone who will fight the good battle for us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 10:15 PM
Response to Original message
22. I was right there until I saw, "his job as advertising director".
I think Bill Hicks has the only viable answer, "please kill yourself. No, this is not a joke, really, just blow your fucking brains out. You (made) the world worse everyday you (went) to work. Fuck you."
:kick: & R anyway.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hayu_lol Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 10:19 PM
Response to Reply #22
24. Under a single-payer National Health Plan...
health care for the unemployed would not be a problem...neither would VA care for vets...nor would, ah, you know what I'm saying.

Health care reform is a mess of pottage that we have been forcefed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-13-10 02:00 AM
Response to Reply #24
28. Of course not, but why would we want to switch to a system that covers everyone and still costs
a fraction of what we are being extorted for when it won't produce even one billionaire?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-13-10 08:55 AM
Response to Original message
43. Failure by Congress to extend COBRA is a defeat for the American people
and it is partly our fault for the mindless way in which we elect people to Congress. Politics is not a game in which one rallies to one's team. Politics is a conflict in which the haves try to keep the have nots from having their rightful share of the pie. Ironic that since it is labour which creates the wealth, it is labour which does not get its fair share.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-13-10 11:28 PM
Response to Original message
49. Was Rahm Emanuel using his "sharp elbows" on reluctant Democrats?

Nah.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Dec 20th 2014, 01:45 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC