Author Topic: Healthcare  (Read 819 times)

Online Baruch

Re: Healthcare
« Reply #30 on: June 27, 2017, 04:05:47 PM »
The ones that are in purple or even purple-leaning red states, however, are looking at those recent special elections where 'safe' Republican districts turned into nailbiters.  Now, 2018 doesn't look like a good opportunity for the Dems to make advances in the Senate; their only realistic chances are in Nevada and Arizona, and they're going to have some difficult seats to hold on to (Indiana, Florida, Missouri, New Mexico and North Dakota are all up), and there's an outsidemost chance that Cruz's unpopularity might give the GOP a case of nerves in Texas, but I don't expect him to lose.

But if the Dems hold the line in the Senate in 2018 against bad odds and make strong advances in the House (or even, dare I hope, win it), in 2020 and beyond Repubs in purple and blue states are going to be running scared shitless -- especially in 2020 if the Democratic presidential candidate has long coat-tails.

Chelsea running in 2020?  Or just her mom again? ;-)
שלום

Offline Cavebear

Re: Healthcare
« Reply #31 on: June 29, 2017, 04:59:18 AM »
The ACA (Obamacare) was a first start toward a single payer system and universal health care as is practiced in most developed nations.  It was what could be passed at the time.  In spite of Republican efforts, the drive toward basic health care as a "right" will progress.  The current fight is a failing hiccup in that drive.  The majority of people want it, itt would benefit the economy, it will happen.  Eventually.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!  b 1950

Offline SGOS (OP)

Re: Healthcare
« Reply #32 on: June 29, 2017, 08:39:11 AM »
The ACA (Obamacare) was a first start toward a single payer system and universal health care as is practiced in most developed nations.  It was what could be passed at the time.  In spite of Republican efforts, the drive toward basic health care as a "right" will progress.  The current fight is a failing hiccup in that drive.  The majority of people want it, itt would benefit the economy, it will happen.  Eventually.
Healthcare started as universal healthcare, but once people got behind it, Obama and the Democrats switched it to something else and pushed that through on the strength of the rally behind universal.  It's the same strategy used by car salesmen.  You ask for Car X at Price A, and are given a promise.  Somewhere during the paperwork, you realize you are actually being sold Car Z at Price B.  You point out the change and the salesmen tells you it's your mistake, because he could not possibly sell you Car X at Price A.  You buy the car and tell yourself that while it's not what you wanted, at least you didn't get fucked as bad as you could have.

It would be unfair to blame all the Democrats, however.  Half the Democrats fiercely opposed Obamacare without the single payer option, and about 90% said they preferred single payer over Obamacare.  However, in the end they all voted for it, and it became law.  All it took was a couple of key Democrats on the Insurance Company payroll and Obama to oppose universal healthcare.  Republicans all opposed the ACA, because well, you know.  That's just a given. 

I've always called Obamacare a bait and switch, although if you said that to Senator Max Baucus or Obama, they would most likely deny it.  They would say they never promised universal healthcare in the first place.  This is probably true for the Senator, and while I haven't gone to the Library of Congress to look it up, I can't remember if Obama ever said that.  But he definitely knew what people were expecting and never told them otherwise until he got the necessary momentum started.

Obamacare was a step to protect insurance industry profits, and it currently doesn't appear to be proceeding in the so called "right direction," otherwise the Republicans wouldn't be getting beaten up for what they are doing.   You can blame the Republicans, but remember that it required all the Democrats to get Obamacare through.  In other words, when it came to the final vote, none of them supported universal healthcare.  The ballot was crafted to exclude the option, altogether.  But that doesn't leave them off the hook.  The Democrats designed the ballot.

Offline Cavebear

Re: Healthcare
« Reply #33 on: June 29, 2017, 11:02:34 AM »
Healthcare started as universal healthcare, but once people got behind it, Obama and the Democrats switched it to something else and pushed that through on the strength of the rally behind universal.  It's the same strategy used by car salesmen.  You ask for Car X at Price A, and are given a promise.  Somewhere during the paperwork, you realize you are actually being sold Car Z at Price B.  You point out the change and the salesmen tells you it's your mistake, because he could not possibly sell you Car X at Price A.  You buy the car and tell yourself that while it's not what you wanted, at least you didn't get fucked as bad as you could have.

It would be unfair to blame all the Democrats, however.  Half the Democrats fiercely opposed Obamacare without the single payer option, and about 90% said they preferred single payer over Obamacare.  However, in the end they all voted for it, and it became law.  All it took was a couple of key Democrats on the Insurance Company payroll and Obama to oppose universal healthcare.  Republicans all opposed the ACA, because well, you know.  That's just a given. 

I've always called Obamacare a bait and switch, although if you said that to Senator Max Baucus or Obama, they would most likely deny it.  They would say they never promised universal healthcare in the first place.  This is probably true for the Senator, and while I haven't gone to the Library of Congress to look it up, I can't remember if Obama ever said that.  But he definitely knew what people were expecting and never told them otherwise until he got the necessary momentum started.

Obamacare was a step to protect insurance industry profits, and it currently doesn't appear to be proceeding in the so called "right direction," otherwise the Republicans wouldn't be getting beaten up for what they are doing.   You can blame the Republicans, but remember that it required all the Democrats to get Obamacare through.  In other words, when it came to the final vote, none of them supported universal healthcare.  The ballot was crafted to exclude the option, altogether.  But that doesn't leave them off the hook.  The Democrats designed the ballot.

As I said, the ACA was what could be passed at the time.  Most citizens supported the idea AS AN IMPROVEMENT over the existing system where health care costs fpr almost everyone was increasing.  Many citizens were using emergency room care at public hospitals as basic medical care (and emergency room care was costing all the rest of us dearly). 

The idea of requiring all citizens to obtain some sort of medical insurance makes economic sense in the long-term.  That's so similar to car insurance. 

The foundations of the ACA were Republican/Conservative based.  Everyone should pay into the insurance pool, some assistance to those too poor to pay, and a basic package of required coverage.

So that's what the Democrats proposed (and with 9 days of public committee hearings and 150 Republican amendments voted on).  The Republicans decided on the strategy of "NO" even though the ACA was mostly Republican ideas.  The Democrats would have preferred Medicare for all.  Very simple idea to implement

Now the Republicans are stuck saying NO to their own proposals.  The current bill has 1,000 pages.  The majority of the pages are tax cuts for the wealthiest of us. 

I would gain from this bill, but I do not support this bill.  I support "the greater good'. 

A world where I gain personally at the expense of the majority of my fellow citizens is not right and never will be.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!  b 1950

Offline trdsf

Re: Healthcare
« Reply #34 on: June 29, 2017, 12:35:34 PM »
If there is any good that's going to come of this mess, I think it's that single-payer is definitely on the table now, and I think outside of the knuckledragger community, that's going to be part of a winning message for Team D.

The thing is, people en masse don't respond to nuanced messages.  They respond to strong statements.  And given a choice between a mild but true "We're going to try to do this about that and see if that works, although of course compromise may be necessary along the way" and a forceful "OUR PLAN FIXES EVERYTHING EVEN PROBLEMS YOU DIDN'T KNOW YOU HAD AND YOU'RE A TERRORIST SYMPATHIZER IF YOU OPPOSE IT!" even when asserted in the presence of direct evidence demonstrating it won't, people will essentially knuckle under to the bully.

So, I really think it's time to be liberal 'bullies', as it were.  Michael Moore made this point twenty years ago in a column in The Nation, and he was right then, and he's right now: if we can't make the progressive case to Joe Sixpack at the bowling alley, making it to the ivory tower types is of complete irrelevance.  Our message needs to be "SINGLE PAYER NOW AND IF YOU OPPOSE IT YOU HATE HEALTHY BABIES!" or something equivalently forceful.

And in any case, turning the other cheek only works if you want matching handprints.
"It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning." -- Calvin and Hobbes
"I thought I committed regicide today, but I committed deicide!" -- Sadie Doyle, Beyond Belief

Offline SGOS (OP)

Re: Healthcare
« Reply #35 on: June 29, 2017, 03:10:03 PM »
If there is any good that's going to come of this mess, I think it's that single-payer is definitely on the table now, and I think outside of the knuckledragger community, that's going to be part of a winning message for Team D.
I've considered that possible outcome, but I'm a bit too cynical to consider it as little more than an "in my wildest dreams" possibility, at least in the short term.  I see it more as a long term possibility as the electorate loses confidence in the present system.  As you point out, the Democratic presentation would be important, and I agree that that the demagogic bashing by the Republicans plays well with much of their base.  I'm not sure if the presentation would work as well with liberals.  And I don't know that the Democratic leadership is ready yet, partly because they are getting some good political mileage from the current turmoil.  From what I understand, much as can be gleaned from the media for what that's worth, the public at large supports universal healthcare, and did 5 years ago.  But even with a majority supporting it, if that is indeed correct, it wasn't a critical mass large enough to make a difference.  The support has to grow even more to overcome the inertia of the private insurer concept and the political contributions from insurance corporations.

Obamacare may work against a massive build up of support because currently a lot of Democrats are basking under the perception that as it stands, it represents a great victory for the Democratic Party.  A future message to the liberal community might be, "We can do better, much better.  It's time, and we all deserve it."

Offline SGOS (OP)

Re: Healthcare
« Reply #36 on: June 29, 2017, 03:31:06 PM »
I would gain from this bill, but I do not support this bill.  I support "the greater good'. 

A world where I gain personally at the expense of the majority of my fellow citizens is not right and never will be.
We are in agreement there.  Although, I won't gain anything from this bill.  Fortunately, I don't lose much either, because I'm on Medicare.  Sometimes I wonder why I should care about this issue so much, but as you point out "the greater good" is important, and passage of universal healthcare would help more people, and help a great deal.  And if the worse case scenarios I've seen put forth by detractors in regards to how much taxes will go up because of universal healthcare are true, the increases in taxes would still be far lower than the costs of private insurance we are forced to buy.  Of course, the detractors were most likely just coming up with figures out of their asses.  We have yet to hear from the GAO, and then anyone interested in doing their own math (if they can clear the emotional dust out of their heads), can figure out for themselves whether Universal healthcare will help improve their lot or not.