Obamacare: Once Political Poison Now an Asset for Democrats

[SGOS]

I've noticed this happening, but it's the first time I've seen it in print. The problem as I see it, which others will disagree with of course, is that it's only a useful campaign strategy.  It doesn't actually fix the poison part that caused many Democrats to hate Obamacare from the very beginning.  They are still not talking about making affordable care available to everyone as Democrats seem reluctant to drop their obsession with identity politics.   Although, the article does point out that there are a few presidential hopefuls among Democrats that are starting to push for universal coverage, which sort of implies single payer, but as we have seen, doesn't mean a thing during the sales process.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-healthcare-midterm-election-20180611-story.html

[Baruch]

I've noticed this happening, but it's the first time I've seen it in print. The problem as I see it, which others will disagree with of course, is that it's only a useful campaign strategy.  It doesn't actually fix the poison part that caused many Democrats to hate Obamacare from the very beginning.  They are still not talking about making affordable care available to everyone as Democrats seem reluctant to drop their obsession with identity politics.   Although, the article does point out that there are a few presidential hopefuls among Democrats that are starting to push for universal coverage, which sort of implies single payer, but as we have seen, doesn't mean a thing during the sales process.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-healthcare-midterm-election-20180611-story.html

Universal coverage is possible, just not desired by the powers that be.  War is more profitable than saving lives, always has been.

But the idea that some candidate will seriously propose this ... is hypothetical.  It has to be payed for by cuts in other areas (which is possible).

Ayn Rand â€" 'We can ignore reality, but we cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.'

[Cavebear]

I've noticed this happening, but it's the first time I've seen it in print. The problem as I see it, which others will disagree with of course, is that it's only a useful campaign strategy.  It doesn't actually fix the poison part that caused many Democrats to hate Obamacare from the very beginning.  They are still not talking about making affordable care available to everyone as Democrats seem reluctant to drop their obsession with identity politics.   Although, the article does point out that there are a few presidential hopefuls among Democrats that are starting to push for universal coverage, which sort of implies single payer, but as we have seen, doesn't mean a thing during the sales process.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-healthcare-midterm-election-20180611-story.html

You may be missing the point SGOS.  A health care system that helps Some, "sometimes", and others less but  still "sometimes"  ripples through society.  People desperate for insurance but denied because of pre-existing conditions MATTERS as life and death to many people.  And that is what they are seeing Trump and the Republicans taking away. 

To Trump, and Republicans, its a question of "just let them buy insurance.  Did "let them eat cake" work well for Marie Antoinette?

In a very serious sense, as many rights are guaranteed to people, they are thinking general health care should too.  We are moving, like it or not, into a social democracy.  And if someone complains that we are there already, well there we are.  We are already there.  The world nations can't function otherwise.  Things have just become too complicated to do anything else.

Please, consider it this way.  Back in the day, a tribal chief could dispense reasonable justice.  He knew everyone.  He knew who lied, who snuck food from the group pots, who beat up weaker people.  He could say with rational certainty, "Hara, you stole food.  You will miss the next meal"

But a day came when the chief could not be so certain.  He needed people to spread out and learn about everyone.  And I'm not going to drag this out.    We have entered a world where people cannot just share among family and friends.    It takes a community to fix some diseases.  If we want community assistance, we must give to the community. 

Or else, only the richest survive.  Few are that rich.  I don't want a world like that.  I want a world where we generally do well and when not, there is the rest of the world to help.  Its a community-wide insurance program.  I give a few peenies each day hoping I will never need the community help, but knowing it is there if I do.

Arguing aganst that is like going back to the days when firefighters demanded a fee before they would stop your house from burning down.  When the police only protected the rich peoples houses.  When armies only protected the castle and the rest of the population was out of luck.

Throughout history, when the wealthiest have moved into gated communities, desperate mobs have beaten down the gates.  That is no way to run a modern nation. 

We are on the verge of space travel.  A time when all humanity could begin a long voyage beyond our national and even planetary limitations.  Is THIS the time to divide ourselves into rich and poor, insured and not, healthy and not?

"In all our searching, the only thing we’ve found that makes the emptiness bearable is each other." Carl Sagan

[SGOS]

You may be missing the point SGOS.  A health care system that helps Some, "sometimes", and others less but  still "sometimes"  ripples through society.

But a health care system that helps everyone also ripples through society, and not in just some esoteric philosophical sense.  The benefits are immediate and shared by all, and there are economic gains that can stimulate other areas of economic growth.

I get the point, and I even fell for much of it way back when they were talking about a system where the poor were covered and medical institutions would be lining up to lower their costs, a benefit that would be shared by everyone, because the institutions wouldn't have to treat the poor for free.  I actually had people explain this to me, and it makes sense if you take human behavior out of the equation, just like any ideology works flawlessly when you remove the human element.  But how many of those who explained it to me actually believed it would happen?  I mean really believed it after thinking it through and allowing for the inevitable elements of human and corporate psychology,  But sometimes, some things are just bullshit designed to sell whatever someone wants you to buy.  Costs keep going up and I've read no reports about hospitals passing the extra earning back to the customers.

People desperate for insurance but denied because of pre-existing conditions MATTERS as life and death to many people.  And that is what they are seeing Trump and the Republicans taking away.

I get it.  I really do.  I've been aware of it before I spotted the article.  A lot of people who hated the idea at one time, hated it because the Democrats passed it.  Never mind that it was a Republican idea.  But the ones in that crowd who were covered for free, aren't about to give that up, and this is hurting the Republicans.  You don't need cunning insight to see how that works.

But again my point is that you can have all this and more with universal coverage that benefits everyone equally.

To Trump, and Republicans, its a question of "just let them buy insurance.  Did "let them eat cake" work well for Marie Antoinette?

In a very serious sense, as many rights are guaranteed to people, they are thinking general health care should too.  We are moving, like it or not, into a social democracy.  And if someone complains that we are there already, well there we are.  We are already there.  The world nations can't function otherwise.  Things have just become too complicated to do anything else.

I flat out agree with the rest, and I'm a little puzzled about why it still feels like a debate.

[Cavebear]

But a health care system that helps everyone also ripples through society, and not in just some esoteric philosophical sense.  The benefits are immediate and shared by all, and there are economic gains that can stimulate other areas of economic growth.

I get the point, and I even fell for much of it way back when they were talking about a system where the poor were covered and medical institutions would be lining up to lower their costs, a benefit that would be shared by everyone, because the institutions wouldn't have to treat the poor for free.  I actually had people explain this to me, and it makes sense if you take human behavior out of the equation, just like any ideology works flawlessly when you remove the human element.  But how many of those who explained it to me actually believed it would happen?  I mean really believed it after thinking it through and allowing for the inevitable elements of human and corporate psychology,  But sometimes, some things are just bullshit designed to sell whatever someone wants you to buy.  Costs keep going up and I've read no reports about hospitals passing the extra earning back to the customers.
I get it.  I really do.  I've been aware of it before I spotted the article.  A lot of people who hated the idea at one time, hated it because the Democrats passed it.  Never mind that it was a Republican idea.  But the ones in that crowd who were covered for free, aren't about to give that up, and this is hurting the Republicans.  You don't need cunning insight to see how that works.

But again my point is that you can have all this and more with universal coverage that benefits everyone equally.
I flat out agree with the rest, and I'm a little puzzled about why it still feels like a debate.

Well, if you are thinking that universal coverage is a good idea (as I do) and wondering why it doesn't exist, ask Republicans.  I'm in full favor.  But maybe that's why they aren't (more of that Fureiner Obama trash stuff)...

[Baruch]

This is where sore loser D folk come to commiserate over what a miserable party they belong to ... and blame everything on the all powerful R party.  Not the party of FDR.

[SGOS]

Yesterday, NPR expanded on the article/insight/whatever, and the pundits were discussing how Obamacare has gone from poison to gold for Democratic party.  Noted was that this issue will not work for the party in power, because politicians want to avoid it.  So the only party in a position to talk about it is the out party, as the Republicans did when the Democrats could be held responsible, and Democrats are now doing when the Republicans are responsible.

My God, but Congress spends a lot of time blaming and then avoiding.  There isn't much room for statesmanship.  We pay these guys way too much for what they do.

[Baruch]

Yesterday, NPR expanded on the article/insight/whatever, and the pundits were discussing how Obamacare has gone from poison to gold for Democratic party.  Noted was that this issue will not work for the party in power, because politicians want to avoid it.  So the only party in a position to talk about it is the out party, as the Republicans did when the Democrats could be held responsible, and Democrats are now doing when the Republicans are responsible.

My God, but Congress spends a lot of time blaming and then avoiding.  There isn't much room for statesmanship.  We pay these guys way too much for what they do.

Regardless of the specifics ... in 2010 Congress said ... "we have to pass it to find out what is in it" ... how come the whole government didn't resign at that point?  This is what happens when you don't have term limits ... Senate = 1 term, House = 3 terms, President = 1 term.

If any party, would propose, to cover the $6000 deductible on Bronze Obama Care ... for free ... would get elected overwhelmingly.  Why don't they even propose that?

Or simply promise people unlimited free medical care ... and we will have a one party state (ahem, we do already) but just like Sweden (not).  Or in a more Republican way, drop all Federal taxes, abolish the IRS?

[SGOS]

Regardless of the specifics ... in 2010 Congress said ... "we have to pass it to find out what is in it" ... how come the whole government didn't resign at that point?

I think that was mostly one guy in Congress, and I think he was trying to make a point.  About what, I'm not sure.  I can't even remember if he was for passing it or not.  Writing the necessary computer program was probably the hardest part, and it wasn't a smooth start, but Obamacare was not so complicated that it warranted that statement.  It wasn't mysterious.  It may not have been what people thought they had been promised at the start, but when it was passed, we knew what it was.

The government doesn't resign.  Those guy's think they own their offices, and can only be gotten rid of while they are carried out kicking and screaming, "I'm not a crook!"

[Baruch]

I think that was mostly one guy in Congress, and I think he was trying to make a point.  About what, I'm not sure.  I can't even remember if he was for passing it or not.  Writing the necessary computer program was probably the hardest part, and it wasn't a smooth start, but Obamacare was not so complicated that it warranted that statement.  It wasn't mysterious.  It may not have been what people thought they had been promised at the start, but when it was passed, we knew what it was.

The government doesn't resign.  Those guy's think they own their offices, and can only be gotten rid of while they are carried out kicking and screaming, "I'm not a crook!"

Who?  Nancy Pelosi one of that party's leaders.  Congress changed hands that Fall.  It was a joke all of it, all of Obamacare, and the rollout by Ms Obama's college friend.  I am still laughing.  Yes, mention Nixon, one of the people who wanted us to have national health care ... but they prevented that by giving him something else to think about.

The point was how many pages it was ... over 20,000.  Is that how YOU write legislation?  If so, don't expect any campaign contributions from me.

Yes, I knew what it was ... a Constitutional violation (forced use of private party interests), supported by Congress, WH and SCOTUS.  Dred Scott all over again.  I was hoping for complete collapse of the US, just to stop it.  It is a mistake to do political over-reach by any party ... unless you really want violence.  Compromise ... and the moose and squirrel don't "get it".  Single Payer Medicare would not have been a Constitutional violation.  Details matter.

[SGOS]

Who?  Nancy Pelosi one of that party's leaders.  Congress changed hands that Fall.  It was a joke all of it, all of Obamacare, and the rollout by Ms Obama's college friend.  I am still laughing.  Yes, mention Nixon, one of the people who wanted us to have national health care ... but they prevented that by giving him something else to think about.

The point was how many pages it was ... over 20,000.  Is that how YOU write legislation?  If so, don't expect any campaign contributions from me.

Yes, I knew what it was ... a Constitutional violation (forced use of private party interests), supported by Congress, WH and SCOTUS.  Dred Scott all over again.  I was hoping for complete collapse of the US, just to stop it.  It is a mistake to do political over-reach by any party ... unless you really want violence.  Compromise ... and the moose and squirrel don't "get it".  Single Payer Medicare would not have been a Constitutional violation.  Details matter.

Yeah, I recall the 20,000 pages, and that does seem unnecessary, but Congress - men/women don't read those things.  They have lawyers working for them that do.  Not that knowing what's in them makes much difference.  They vote for or against bills for a variety of reasons irrelevant to the common good, and merits of the bill aren't a high priority.

Nixon had a surprisingly good environmental record.  His downfall was Watergate, and he can only blame himself for that.  But I didn't put the "I'm not a crook" line in there to attack Nixon.  It's my general view of upper level government, and I like the word "crook."  I look back at Nixon with a degree of nostalgia.  He wasn't that bad compared to today.  I didn't like him because he escalated Vietnam, but he did some good things.

[Baruch]

Yeah, I recall the 20,000 pages, and that does seem unnecessary, but Congress - men/women don't read those things.  They have lawyers working for them that do.  Not that knowing what's in them makes much difference.  They vote for or against bills for a variety of reasons irrelevant to the common good, and merits of the bill aren't a high priority.

Nixon had a surprisingly good environmental record.  His downfall was Watergate, and he can only blame himself for that.  But I didn't put the "I'm not a crook" line in there to attack Nixon.  It's my general view of upper level government, and I like the word "crook."  I look back at Nixon with a degree of nostalgia.  He wasn't that bad compared to today.  I didn't like him because he escalated Vietnam, but he did some good things.

If Congress doesn't work, terminate it as an organization.  We don't need it.  Hire Trump's or Clinton's favorite legal sharks ;-)

Here is the R party version ;-(

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Legislative_Exchange_Council ... don't be a smart ALEC.

[Cavebear]

Yeah, I recall the 20,000 pages, and that does seem unnecessary, but Congress - men/women don't read those things.  They have lawyers working for them that do.  Not that knowing what's in them makes much difference.  They vote for or against bills for a variety of reasons irrelevant to the common good, and merits of the bill aren't a high priority.

Nixon had a surprisingly good environmental record.  His downfall was Watergate, and he can only blame himself for that.  But I didn't put the "I'm not a crook" line in there to attack Nixon.  It's my general view of upper level government, and I like the word "crook."  I look back at Nixon with a degree of nostalgia.  He wasn't that bad compared to today.  I didn't like him because he escalated Vietnam, but he did some good things.

Politics really gets complicated sometimes.  Nixon was personally crud, but he believed in positive government, and did many positive things.  And while he expanded the war in Vietnam, Eisenhower did it, Kennedy did it, LBJ did it.  Nixon followed.  The domino effect was OUR failure.  Ho Chi Minh actually came to us in the 50s seeking our help to make Vietnam a democracy free of the French.  Sadly, we are pretty lame about foreign policy and judging liberation movements.

[trdsf]

Politics really gets complicated sometimes.  Nixon was personally crud, but he believed in positive government, and did many positive things.  And while he expanded the war in Vietnam, Eisenhower did it, Kennedy did it, LBJ did it.  Nixon followed.  The domino effect was OUR failure.  Ho Chi Minh actually came to us in the 50s seeking our help to make Vietnam a democracy free of the French.  Sadly, we are pretty lame about foreign policy and judging liberation movements.

Even earlier, actually - Ho Chi Minh was around at Versailles in the wake of World War I trying to get Western support for Vietnamese independence, but neither Clemenceau nor Wilson would see him.  Needless to say, the only attention he could attract was from Lenin and the Comintern.  But even during World War II, he worked with OSS backing and had his guerrillas fighting the Japanese and Vichy French.  And then he asked Truman to recognize his independence declaration, probably hoping that the recent coöperation with American forces would be viewed favorably and... nope again.  So yeah, Viet Nam was a continuing American foreign policy failure for over half a century, not just for the duration of the conflict.

[Baruch]

Even earlier, actually - Ho Chi Minh was around at Versailles in the wake of World War I trying to get Western support for Vietnamese independence, but neither Clemenceau nor Wilson would see him.  Needless to say, the only attention he could attract was from Lenin and the Comintern.  But even during World War II, he worked with OSS backing and had his guerrillas fighting the Japanese and Vichy French.  And then he asked Truman to recognize his independence declaration, probably hoping that the recent coöperation with American forces would be viewed favorably and... nope again.  So yeah, Viet Nam was a continuing American foreign policy failure for over half a century, not just for the duration of the conflict.

President Wilson wasn't liberal ... he segregated DC for the first time (which had been un-segregated since Lincoln's time).  President Johnson wasn't liberal ... they knew that how welfare was going to be implemented, would destroy African-American families.  They knew how feminism was going to be implemented, would destroy all American families (to destroy labor unions).  They knew that killing a million Vietnamese wasn't ... liberal.