Understanding the Corporate Welfare Giveaway known as the ACA...

[truedelphi]

There are certainly significant "positives" contained in the legislation known as the ACA.

Among them are the fact that there are no longer any Americans who can be told they cannot be insured due to a "pre-existing condition."

Many Americans who previously did not find insurance affordable now have subsidies to help them afford such. Due to the fact that such individuals number in the millions, it is not difficult to realize that many lives will be saved that would have been lost.

But the actual "reform" was much more of a give away to the biggest, already most profitable business in th USA, health care insurers, than being a net gain to consumers. For instance, many poorer individuals will strive to avoid using the insurance, due to the fact that for many folks seeking a cheaper premium, the deductibles are about half or one third of their income. ($ 5,000 is a lot of money if you make less than $ 60,000. And with rent and groceries and housing prices extremely high, that $ 5,000 deductible is a lot even to someone making $ 60,000!).


Let's look at one facet of what the public wanted and then explained that they wanted in almost every poll taken between 2008 and Dec 2009, an important facet that was not realized - the public option... According to the second article I link to in this OP, "This latter provision, one of the positive elements in Obamacare, was not forced upon the insurers; they themselves had proposed it. If they had not agreed to accept patients with pre-existing conditions, the law would have had to include a “public option” to guarantee that such patients could access health insurance, thus creating public competition that would give at least some consumers a non-private insurance option.

"Whether a public option would have constituted a meaningful alternative that competed with private companies would have depended partly on the details of its design; it is certainly possible that it would have served as a place for private insurers to dump
sick customers, making it expensive and unsustainable
(especially if the already-insured were not given the public
option, as seems likely). "
13

Edward Luce, “Gloves Off in Health Reform Battle,”
Financial Times

In any case, it would inevitably have been inferior to a
system. See Physicians for a National Health Program, “The
‘Public Plan Option’; Myths and Facts,” available at
http://www.pnhp.org/change/Public_Option_Myths_and_Facts.pdf

.

Just who were the "stakeholders" that the Obama Administration was catering to? The following URL has an excellent thesis regarding the ACA, and defines the word "stakeholder" as used by the Administration. (Wanna guess the meaning of the word "stakeholder?" Let's just say it is not you or me.)
http://www.academia.edu/7048015/Healthy_Wealthy_and_Wise_How_
Corporate_Power_Shaped_the_Affordable_Care_Act


From the above linked to thesis:
(4)
The subsequent process by which the reform was shaped is
much clearer: the administration invited the key corporate
powerholders into the policymaking process from the
beginning. In the words of White House communications
director Dan Pfeiffer, the Obama strategy was to “bring every stakeholder to the table.”
(10)
Journalist Ryan Lizza makes clear that “stakeholder” referred to capitalist interests and not the general public, noting, for example, that Obama “sent his toughest political operatives — like Rahm Emanuel and Jim Messina — to cut deals with the pharmaceutical industry and hospitals.”
(11)
One major agreement that derived from this process of
negotiation promised the health insurance industry tens of
millions of new customers, who would be forced by the law to
buy plans from private insurers. In exchange, the industry
agreed to provide coverage to patients with pre-existing
conditions.
(12)
In another major negotiation, administration operatives and
Democratic Senator Max Baucus (Chair of the Senate Finance
Committee) gained assent from the Pharmaceutical Research and
Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) to the proposed law by
renouncing the government’s power to negotiate drug prices
and import lower-cost drugs.
(13)
The final product was generally deemed “a good deal” by industry
insiders (the opinion of the senior vice president of PhRMA, which actually bought ads supporting the bill).
(14)
Except for the five biggest private insurers (Aetna, Cigna,
Humana, UnitedHealth, and WellPoint), most major players in
the healthcare industry supported the reform or at least did
not actively oppose it. This assent from the industry
— a reversal of its decades of vigorous opposition —
resulted from from the shaping of the reform into a familiar
form of corporate welfare: “a big injection of public subsidy to
expand the overall size of the US healthcare market,” as the
Financial Times noted.
(15)


The corporate welfare aspect of the bill can be clearly seen
in the negotiations with America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), the main health insurers’ lobbying organization.

Though AHIP never formally endorsed the bill, it agreed to
the basic framework and did not mobilize its legislative weight against it. The law’s central component— the individual mandate
in exchange for “no pre-existing condition exclusions”—
was precisely what AHIP and the right-wing Heritage
Foundation had previously proposed, and which

[Mnemosyne]

1. K&R nt

[peacebird]

2. K&R

[L0oniX]

3. K & R

[Hoyt]

4. The things health insurance industry had, that the government did not and GOP would not approve

were the funds to invest and systems to administer health plans, set rates, develop provider networks, relationships with providers, etc. Most importantly, they had the funds to take on the risk of a whole new patient population.

I realize I'm in the minority, but I don't think anything would have passed if the government had tried to take all that on, including the risk of a patient population with pent up demand. We could not afford another failure like Hillarycare that resulted in no politician touching health care for almost 20 years.

Fact is, insurance companies handle the administration of Medicare and Medicaid now. So, had insurance companies been left out, the government would have had to spend tens of billions to administer the program. GOP - and some Dems -- would not have supported that. Obamacare would never have been enacted, and we'd be sitting here with nothing, not even a platform to build upon.

Finally, we saw how people griped about the federal exchange problems. Do you really think anyone on the government wanted to take on the total administration of a health plan that as soon as they said "no" to something to control costs would have set off people -- including Democrats -- claiming "death panels," and worse. I think most in the government would rather insurance companies took the blame -- at least initially -- for the tough decisions necessary to take on this enormous undertaking.

BTW, I hate insurance companies. I also hate doctors, hospitals, plumbers, air and heating repair-people, car salespeople, oil companies, funeral directors, etc. But, sometimes, you just gotta pay the "aholes" when you need them.

[truedelphi]

13. Although I find logical the majority of yr post , the end statement

Is one I totally disagree with.

Now there are times we have to deal with less than favorable people and institutions, including ones wherein we agree to deal with assholes. I just helped a friend deal with buying a car through a car dealership. And although the mission was completely successfully, let's face it - if the dealer and salesman had been out and out assholes, then my friend and I would have walked out of the dealership.

But the fact is, if you are dealing with assholes, in terms of trying to get health care, then you often don't have that option. There is no "dealership" you can walk out of. Look at the situation of the woman in Madison Wisconsin who just get hit with a bill totaling over $ 50,000, because the para medics took her to the hospital they took her to, rather than the one less than a mile away that her new insurance plan allows her to go to. She was unconscious, so she couldn't fight with the paramedics about where to take her, nor could she fight with her insurers. She was taken where she was taken, and now, despite being a young adult, starting out after college, she has an indebtedness that is crippling her financial future.

So because so many Americans took the position you're taking, that a really shitty piece of legislation was the best we could do, that is what we got. And like I said, we cannot just turn and walk away.

We will be obligated to:
1) spend a heck of a lot of money we don't need to spend

and 2) Perhaps end up dying needlessly anyway.

If Europeans can handle health care in an intelligent and sane manner, then we should be able to. And we would be able to, if we didn't have elected grifters running the show, from the Congress man or woman in our district to the occupant of the Oval Office.

[Hoyt]

16. I hear you, but here's the thing. You can buy health insurance that covers any hospital,

but it's going to cost you a bunch more.

Truthfully, the hospital ought to accept the insurer's payment and write off the rest. The hospital probably accepts less from other payers, but is going after the lady for what is an artificially high charge.

If the insurance company ponies up, the other policy holders pay.. The hospital ought to be the one taking the criticism on this.

[sabrina 1]

25. Well, as I understand it, when the Government administers Medicaid, the overhead is 3%. But now that

Private Ins Corps have managed to get their hands on it, the overhead is 20%, down from 30% airc as part of the negotiations.

That means that Public Funds intended for those who cannot afford Private Ins, are now passing through the hands of the Private Ins Industry, and on their way, 20% that should be going to actual HC is taken out and pocketed by Private Ins Corps.

THAT was what they wanted, to get their hands on yet another Public Fund. There is simply NO reason why Medicaid could not have continued to be administrated by the Government, other than to provide PROFITS for the Private Ins Corps. What a waste of Public funds, and a tragic one.

As far as your point regarding getting Republicans on board? I don't think a single Republican voted for the ACA. So Dems did it alone, did they not?

We need a National HC System, period. The Private Ins Corps were failing due to the crash when so many Americans lost their jobs. Those lost jobs meant lost revenue for the Private Ins Corps.

It was a Golden Opportunity to finally go for a National HC system. But instead we bailed out the Private Health Ins Corps and left millions still without coverage.

Sorry, I opposed the Heritage Foundation's long struggle to grab Public Funds and put them into private hands. I opposed Hillary and McCain's proposal for Mandated Ins/Romneycare.

I supported Obama because he too opposed all that and promised to fight for at least a PO.

[Hoyt]

26. Government doesn't administer most of Medicare, private insurance companies do.

Actually, most state Medicaid agencies gave up trying to pay claims and run the entire program themselves. It's sad, but they just gave up because it was too costly and complicated for them to handle.

You missed my point - if the feds had to take on administering the ACA and the risk, some Dems would have defected. Both the House and Senate had to do some wrangling to get what was passed through.

Finally, at least half of that 20% goes to paying claims, maintaining provider networks, utilization review, billing premiums, monitoring quality, etc. The other 10% goes for risk taking and profit.. Right now, that doesn't bother me. Long-term, that needs to be reduced.

I think Obama had good intentions, but the reality was totally different once he got in office. Sure, he could have tried to push something else through, and it likely would have been stalled just like Hillarycare, which was good legislation.

[sabrina 1]

27. Dems defect because of weak leadership. That should not happen if we had strong Democratic

Leadership. But it made for a good excuse for betraying the voter on the PO, first to blame the Republicans, then when they were out of the picture, to blame the Blue Dogs.

So the voters took that to heart and kicked out the Blue Dogs, or most of them anyhow, then they BLAMED THE VOTERS.

Look, we are sick to death of the convoluted garbage we have been handed for so long now. Many of us began to wonder what was going on way back when so many Dems supported Bush's disastrous ME invasions. WE were the ones trying to make excuses, trying to blame the aftermath of 9/11 etc.

But we've had plenty of time since then to the whole scam play out and it is useless anymore to try to excuse the disaster of a government we have.

And the voters have spoken on that. One of the lowest turnouts in history!

Dems are supposed to fight for the people, not the Corporations.

This isn't rocket science, we HAVE a Corporate Party. Clearly the Dems have run out of excuses, for this HC Bill, opposed by so many Dems, including some of our best Elected Dems, and for their war mongering, drones, excuses for torture etc etc, letting War Criminals off the hook, bailing out Wall St Criminals, which they ALSO did without any help from Repubs.

THIS FORUM is intended to move along and away from all the excuses, apologists and explanations, we've heard them over and over again and we don't believe them.

Now we have to start from the point where we realized, 'our party has been taken over by the Third Way/DLC/Republican Lite which is what ACTUALLY explains all the problems with HC, War, Drones, Wall St etc', and decide 'where do we go from here'?

[Hoyt]

28. I wish you success in straightening the mess out with all your answers.

[sabrina 1]

29. The answer is obvious. The Dem Party needs to represent the people who elect them.

I can't imagine why anyone would disagree with that.

[jwirr]

50. Exactly just like Social Security has a low overhead (6% I think). And they want to privatize that

also.

[jwirr]

48. My daughter has been on Medicaid for many years and here in MN it has almost always been

administered by Blue Cross Blue Shield. Since the change there are more insurance companies involved. One of the differences is that we the client have to choose which insurance plan we want. Then they followed the state guidelines in the Medicaid program, now the Medicaid program buys the insurance from the insurance company. There is a big difference in who is in control.

I am not sure about this but I also think that back then the state was the one deciding what was covered and now the insurance companies do it. I would much prefer to work with the states. For example when you are working with the state they know you and your needs better than they seem to do today. And of course the bottom line today is money, while then it was providing the type of care needed for the individual client.

[jeff47]

5. To bad no government program has ever changed after it was first passed.

Oh wait....every single one has.

Wanna fix this:

Let's look at one facet of what the public wanted and then explained that they wanted in almost every poll taken between 2008 and Dec 2009, an important facet that was not realized - the public option.

Then start working on your state to offer it. The law does not require that every insurance program on your state's exchange be private. And with no need to profit, a public option should easily out-compete the private options.

Yes, we people in "red" states aren't going to get very far for the time being. But we're counting on you blue state residents to keep pushing forward. And lots of you (Hello, California) do not need any Republican votes to do it.

[BlindTiresias]

6. Oh btw

regarding Vermont, it isn't looking too good as they haven't even figured out a way to pay for it and it may be considered politically toxic as the right wing has gained some ground there (the Democrat who proposed it barely won).

Your analysis is just not very good.

[jeff47]

12. There's talk of the governor re-entrenching.

IMO, it's just another overreaction to the election. That's why he needs Democrats to push for him to not do so.

Alternatively, we could keep waiting for a messiah to appear and fix everything without us lifting a finger.

Your analysis is just not very good.

Your criticism might carry weight if you could explain how you'd overcome Lieberman in 2009/2010.

[BlindTiresias]

17. Except I wasn't arguing that position

I honestly don't know if it could have gone through and I've seen some convincing arguments on both sides. I don't feel like I have enough information to make a determination in either direction.

[redruddyred]

8. healthcare without profit?!

the heresy! if cancer patients aren't losing their houses and going hundreds of thousands into debt for pharmaceutical company approved non-treatment then we're doing something wrong.

[Doctor_J]

19. heritage care does not need to "change". it needs to be undone.

It's the polar opposite of actual healthcare, which is why the people who actually run the country let it pass. The president who campaigned on a public option took it off the table before the fake negotiations even started.

[sabrina 1]

30. That is what people are doing now. Realizing they have no voice in DC, people are focusing on

local elections.

[jwirr]

49. In this I and my family are some of the luckiest people in the world. MN has MNCare. Most of us opt

for it if we can.

[redruddyred]

7. the ACA was definitely a compromise

but with the fucking idiots in our government who decided they had to shut it down, because socialism, it's the best we're gonna get.

unless people decide to actually, like, vote or something.

[RufusTFirefly]

10. The first step is to end corporate brainwashing -- aka consolidated media propaganda

Once there's a chance that information will be reported accurately and that the media will operate in the public interest instead of simply serving as a sophisticated delivery system for corporate press releases, the Democrats need to start standing for something instead of sanitizing their positions in order to attract big contributors.

[Maineman]

20. Corporate brainwashing. I absolutely agree.

We seriously must get rid of the corporate media profiteers and their propaganda. They are propaganda machines.

[RufusTFirefly]

23. Close to 90 percent of Californians supported GMO labeling at the outset

By the time the elections rolled around and the voters had been subjected to a steady diet of Monsanto-financed propaganda ads for several months, the initiative lost.

[redruddyred]

57. oh that's such a shame

I am trying to help get gmo labelling here in my own state as well.

these effing multinationals have millions to spend on propaganda but not to pay their employees.

[jwirr]

51. The problem is that what little media we do have are know only by people like us. The closest we

come to a liberal media in the MSM is MSNBC at night. Yes, I realize they are also owned by one of those corporations. We even have some magazines but for me the problem is having enough money to afford them. We knew already in 2008 that we needed to develop media outlets and unfortunately the only one who tried that I know of was Al Gore and Current. We are never going to educate the people without freedom speech in the media.

[RufusTFirefly]

52. Start with Pacifica

Although it's constantly undergoing tumult, it is entirely listener supported, which means it is utterly free of corporate influence. There are only a handful of stations, but if you have Internet access, you can listen to any of them online.

The Real News is also an excellent source of thoughtful discussion on politics and current events. Once again, it's untainted by corporate influence.

As for MSNBC, it's to progressive politics what porn is to sex. It only exists because it fills a market niche. It's designed to titillate not change. It's all about money not politics. If anyone on staff strays too far from the corporate agenda, they are dealt with rather harshly. Just ask Phil Donahue or Cenk Uygur (I'd say Keith Olbermann, too, but that's a bit more complicated).

[jwirr]

53. Okay that is a start but how do we get the ordinary voter to listen to them? I considerate it an

accomplishment to get most of them to listen to MSNBC at night. After all there are all those great reality shows to watch.

[sabrina 1]

31. The people DID vote, in 2008. Did you forget that we worked hard and WON? There was a mandate

from the people, the compromise in that mandate, was a PO. That was OUR compromise. We didn't even get the compromise.

We voted to bring Wall St and War Criminals to justice, by a wide margin.

Those we elected had different ideas which they didn't tell us during the campaign.

In 2010, the people aqain voted. Our elected officials, rather than get the message the voters sent them, decided to BLAME THE VOTERS.

Biggest turnout in 2008, in a very long time. So what are you talking about when you say 'like, vote or something'? Were you around when we voted, or something??

What should people do when voting doesn't work for them?

Do it again, holding their noses, and again, holding them tighter?

How about you BLAME THOSE WHO DIDN'T keep their campaign promises for a change?

Your comment is exactly why Dems are losing. People vote, they spend time, energy, money many didn't have to spare, then when they succeed, those they elected tell them to 'get lost'.

So the voters listened, they did as they were told. And you are blaming the voters? Well, apparently that strategy isn't working, because once again, the voters 'got lost'.

But they DID vote for Ballot Issues. The voters believe they are not represented. You can ignore that, AGAIN, if you wish, and go on ignoring the real reasons for the lack of enthusiasm for DC, while voters focus on local elections, but if that is your choice, do you expect a different result? Blaming the voters hasn't worked, has it, maybe our elected officials should start listening to the instead.

What a novel idea, 'listen to the voters'!

[Enthusiast]

36. It looked like this....

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[sabrina 1]

39. I remember, Dems had so much support to do what needed to be done as fast as they could.

Reminds me of this: There is tide when taken at the flood, leads on to fortune'

The tide was at that flood right then, and Dems let it go out.

[Enthusiast]

42. Just imagine how effective a bully pulpit could have been at that moment.

I'm in my early 60s. I don't remember such a powerful unified force since maybe JFK. Completely squandered.

[sabrina 1]

44. Yes, completely squandered. The question is 'why'?

[Enthusiast]

45. I won't say it.

[Babel_17]

38. Good post (nt)

[redruddyred]

58. and yet it passed the senate by a single vote.

not because we didn't have a majority, but because a certain opposition party thinks it's their job to act like complete #$%$#$.

[RufusTFirefly]

9. K & R. Totally agree with the quote about the public option, too.

Had we gotten it, the Republicans would undoubtedly have starved and subverted it in order to "prove" that public solutions are always inferior to private ones. This is precisely the dynamic that is undermining our public school system.

As former Amtrak President David Gunn once put it, "First you starve us. Then you yell at us for being too skinny."

I fear that would've been the fate of the public option. It certainly would've been better than the mandated corporate giveaway, but because it would appear to be a government plan, it might've done long-term damage for true national healthcare.

[sabrina 1]

40. The politics of fear. 'Let's not try something because they will destroy it even if we succeed.'

Sorry, that is a prescription for failure. And since we've seen it in action, we KNOW it is a prescription for failure.

How about we just forge ahead and do what is right, knowing the people are on our side, then USE their attempts to take stuff away from the people to fight them with?

When did the Dem party decide that fighting for the people just isn't worth it? Because well, 'republicans'??

That is a defeatist argument and has no place in any discussion on what is right for this country. If they are too weak to fight, (which I doubt, my opinion is they are complicit btw), then replace them.

[aquart]

11. How did you figure to get it through Congress otherwise?

[truedelphi]

14. How did FDR get the legislation he wanted passed to go

Through Congress?

The man took to the bully pulpit, utilizing the new medium of th radio, and he urged his constituents and fellow citizens to let their legislators know that what needed to be done had to be done.

FDR insisted that Congress face a "100 day deal" wherein every single day of the fist 100 days of their meetings, the Congress was effectively forced to deal with elements relating to the financial situation.

Now since Obama had already delegated the economy over to Geithner, he really had no excuse whatsoever not to follow FDR's lead.

He certainly had plenty of time on his hands.

but he claimed that he couldn't do a thing, not even mention to Congress his enthusiasm for the public option, as he "knew" that doing so meant that he was opposing the Constitution and ignoring the separation of powers.

Notice how obama totally does as he wants, with regards to separation of powers, when it suits him.The One Percent need the Bush cuts tobe extended. Obama complies willingly, while Congress is out to recess. (Forget if that happened in 2009 or 2010.)

Obama wants his Puppet Masters to have the new war in Syria, so he immediately takes to the bully pulpit and addresses the American public on TV, telling us how necessary the war in Syria is. (Summer of 2013.) No concern at all about the fact that the US Constitution states that Congress should handle war matters. Unfortunately, the war-weary public only offers some 17% support. But this does show that he knows how to make a plea for something any time that he really wants it.

[NYC_SKP]

24. FDR's congress was LOADED with Democrats. There simply is no comparison.

FDR's 1935 (74th) Congress:

Senate--

....Dems: 73

....Reps: 21

House--

....Dems: 322

....Reps: 103



Obama's 2011 (112th) Congress:

Senate--

....Dems: 51

....Reps: 47

House--

....Dems: 193

....Reps: 243

[truedelphi]

32. You are re-writing history. Obama got in back in 2008, and was inaugurated in 2009.

Your quoting the relevant numbers relating to 2011, that is rather duplicitous.

By end of Jan 2009, we had some 56 "D" Senators, 2 Independents, in the US Senate, and of course, the remaining 42 Senators were Republicans.

As far as filibuster effrots, would Republicans such as Martinez, Collins, Snowe and Murkowski have filibustered a health insurance situation that included the public option. Not sure they would ahve.? Seems to me that the entire premise here is off base.

As far as the rest of the US Congress, for 2009, the Democrats held 233 seats, while the Republicans held 202.

The Health Care/ Helath Insurance Reform matter was over by late Spring 2010. So what the situation in 2011 has to do with the discussion, I can't say for sure, but it seems like you were simply being mis-leading.

[sabrina 1]

37. Exactly, and I remember Jan, 2008. There were high hopes that Dems would move swiftly on

important issues, especially BECAUSE we knew it was a rare moment in time that that needed to be taken advantage of, while Dems held the majority AND had a mandate from the people.

And surely THEY knew that pushing through legislation quickly was the key to getting it done.

One issue eg, I thought would be pushed through immediately, the people in general were for it. Gays in the military. Even some Republicans would probably have voted for that.

Instead this administration actually fought against it. When a court ruling declared the DADT unconstitutional, the DOJ fought it, delaying the passage of a bill for months and months.

I couldn't understand that.

Then there was the Bush Tax Cuts which, we were told, would not pass.

How were these two issues connected? After months of waiting on both issues, we were told, the only way to pass legislation regarding Gays in the Military, was to extend the Bush Tax Cuts.

And maybe I'm cynical, but it dawned on me that this was planned, they had no intention of ending those tax cuts but knew the public would be furious. However, if they ended DADT, it would appease some of the people.

And that's exactly how some people argued for extending the Bush Tax Cuts 'we wouldn't have ended DADT if we didn't 'compromise' on the Bush Tax Cuts.

When in reality BOTH could have been dealt with in Jan, 2009.

[Enthusiast]

35. Thank you, truedelphi.

[truedelphi]

56. And Enthusiast, thank you too. I was actually a bit

Scared to click on direct reply number two (which is your reply) as I didn't want to start out my week reading another, "But nothing could be done. Our President was powerless!" type of rebuttal.

[redruddyred]

59. d'you think obama could've been elected

w/o the help of goldman sachs?

I hear they pitched in much later in the game, once the odds became clearer. still, I wonder.

[truedelphi]

63. Obama = Goldman Sachs.

That was clear the second he announced that Tim Geithner would do as he wanted to, because Obama claimed he had only studied up on the situation of the Two Wars, and that he knew "nothing" about the economy.

Obama's mother worked for the Ford Foundation, so he grew up inside a household where many things like a nation's economic situation would have been explained to him. And guess what? Geithner's dad was Obama's mother's boss, when the Ford Foundation stationed her over in the Far East.

So I guess that was one reason why Geithner felt, from not only an actual position, but a psychological position, the need to proclaim that Obama "works for me."


This was a statement G. made many times to foreign officials while attending meetings overseas.

[redruddyred]

64. opensecrets says that UC was his biggest donor.

funny that, esp considering the recent student protests about tuition hikes. how come they have so much money to give away?

sachs also has strong ties with the U of C and their extra neoliberal econ program.

again, could he have won without their help?

[truedelphi]

65. Until two years ago, Richard Blum, Sen Di Feinstein's husband,

Was on the Board of Regents for the UC system.

I imagine if Blum had anything to do with money coming into Obama's campaign chest, that there was a quid pro quo. Blum and Feinstein do little out of the goodness of their own hearts.

[sabrina 1]

41. Did any Republicans vote for the ACA?

Your question should be 'how does a Dem administration lead its party to do what is right'? We have plenty of historical examples of how that is done, even with members of the other party. It involves FIGHTING for what you believe in. Since DEMS alone passed the ACA, we have to assume they really did not want a PO.

[jwirr]

47. Correct and it also involves having the facts at hand and making sure they are the right facts. From

experience I know that first hand stories do not hurt one bit when it comes to opening minds. We here on DU are good at this.

[Zorra]

62. By Democrats simply doing their job. When I don't do my job, I get fired.

And that's exactly what happened to Congressional Democrats; they got fired for not doing what we, their employers, told them to do.

We had large majorities in the House and Senate, and we told them to implement single payer public funded universal healthcare.

Instead, they implemented a boondoggle.

[Triana]

15. I highly recommend Wendell Potter's 'Deadly Spin' on the subject. n/t

[Maineman]

21. Me too!

[kelliekat44]

18. Corporations are always going to make out like bandits. I would rather have them make out while

people are being helped than make out when only the rich are being helped by the government.

[Enthusiast]

34. That's one of the main reasons for starting this group—

so that we could end corporate supremacy. Corporations could never make out like bandits unless politicians we elected aided them at our expense.

[sabrina 1]

43. And I would rather we stop them from making out like bandits, which is what they are. And helping

people to get what they are entitled to. I would rather PROSECUTE corrupt CEOs from Wall St while helping their victims.

But I am familiar with this mantra. Well, so what if Criminals profit hugely, that is the ONLY way we can help a few people.

That is no longer working. Because it is not true.

This forum is end that attitude which has failed the people and to stop buying all the excuses and rationales we keep getting and 'move forward' from all of it.

[Doctor_J]

22. The exact plan that the fascists rolled out in 1994

They got a dino president on board so that tiger beat would support it (same group who now like war, TPP, RTTB, etc.) and here we are.

[Enthusiast]

33. Kicked and recommended!

This is where the Obama Administration went wrong, way wrong.

Any time elected representatives negotiate/formulate law (in secret especially) that favors corporations at the expense of the citizen consumer it should be roundly condemned. Think TPP.

The ACA could have been a wonderful thing. The ACA could have been so good that the GOP wouldn't have found a foothold to attack it from.

[jwirr]

46. No real arguement. However I think the Medicaid expansion is a real positive. Many of the people

I know either did not know they were ever eligible for Medicaid or are now eligible. And in my experience with government medical programs I think Medicaid is the best of them all. When everyone else wants Medicare for All I wonder why it is not Medicaid for All.

[truedelphi]

54. Here is why, jwirr

MediCare for all means the government has a program they run, and it is considered a benefit to you the citizen. However there is that age restriction. A person must have trained the age of 65 to qualify.

MediCaid is a program that is offered up to poor people, and there is no age requirement.

You can be a single parent in your late teens getting MediCaid; you can be a fifty year old.

However, what is rarely told to people being offered MediCaid, is this: when you obtain a medical service through the umbrella of Medicaid, you are responsible for the expenses. Oh, not the day the services are incurred, but the day you die.

So if we had MediCare for all, I assume it would be paid by taxes. (Maybe by charging some of the larger Corporations some type of tax - look at how Verizon makes a gazillion dollars in profits and spends not a dime on Corporate tax!)

But when a 55 year old signs up for Medicaid, about six weeks later, they will get a brochure in the mail, letting them know that when they die, the state will audit their estate. So before your double wide can be left to your kids, the state needs to make sure that it gets re-imbursed for the monies that have been spent on you. That amount could d be $ 100; or it could be tens of thousands of dollars.

And that is why before we make the decision to choose MediCaid over MediCare, we need to consider whether we think it better to tax some large corporations rather than making Ma and Pa Kettle end up with nothing to give their kids and grandkids. My thoughts on this are that since every other civilized nation takes care of its people through a situation similar to our MediCare without forcing the citizens to re-imburse them, then we should too.

[jwirr]

55. I had forgotten that aspect. Now I understand. My reasoning was that Medicaid pays for everything

medical including dental, eye glasses and medications and nursing home care. But I can see where what you said above will never allow that plan to happen. Too bad.

[demwing]

60. Kicked & Reed /nt

[demwing]

61. Kicked for visability /nt