Skip to main content

View Diary: "Obamacare" goes boom! (283 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Actually yes, it will have to be done in one shot (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Odysseus, Mr Robert, Funkygal, J M F, rsie, TimmyB

    or not all. If anything can be learned from this mess that should be it.

    Let's face it, the people lost this one. A Republican plan that once achieved only encouraged more aggression.

    •  And so who exactly is (7+ / 0-)

      going to do this in one shot?  The last time something was done in 'one shot' in this country was the Civil War, preceded by the British War and the Spanish American War.

      Because that is what doing something in one shot would take.

      "The bottom line is, we've got to wake up. We can't allow our disappointment in Obama to lull us into allowing a truly dangerous strain of conservative philosophy to gain any more traction than it already has." --ObamOcala 4/5/11

      by smoothnmellow on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 07:18:04 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Medicare for All (7+ / 0-)

        It's really not that complicated.

        The 'one shot' is dumping private insurance companies. There's no middle ground with them - in or out. If you keep them in they take what little ground they have and expand until they are back in control.

        •  Obviously it is (8+ / 0-)

          or we would have had single payer decades ago.  You try just 'dumping' private insurance companies overnight.

          It just doesn't work that way.  Sry.

          "The bottom line is, we've got to wake up. We can't allow our disappointment in Obama to lull us into allowing a truly dangerous strain of conservative philosophy to gain any more traction than it already has." --ObamOcala 4/5/11

          by smoothnmellow on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 07:54:00 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  It doesn't work the other way either (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Mr Robert, Funkygal, rsie

            as surely we have learned or should have by now.

            You can't halfway it to universal coverage. Nor have the countries that have universal coverage gotten there that way.

            Further empowering the insurance companies is going to make the system MORE likely to transform? Ridiculous.

            •  But it already has (4+ / 0-)

              and the rest is still yet to be determined.  How can you say something doesn't work that hasn't fully kicked in yet?  

              I'm sry I'm not down with the 'let's burn down the whole city and rebuild' meme.

              You are assuming that these industries are being more empowered than they were with no law in place.  That's ridiculous to me.  

              I'm more concerned with people getting more and better health care, even if companies profit, which over time, they will not.

              "The bottom line is, we've got to wake up. We can't allow our disappointment in Obama to lull us into allowing a truly dangerous strain of conservative philosophy to gain any more traction than it already has." --ObamOcala 4/5/11

              by smoothnmellow on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 08:19:53 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  It's a backdoor bailout of an industry that makes (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Funkygal, J M F, rsie, TimmyB

                no sense. There is a reason no other country has this ridiculous for-profit system. It's only been around since Nixon and it's continued to provide increasingly worse outcomes.

                Propping it up instead of admitting failure and starting over has been an obstacle not a stepping stone to progress. No we aren't incrementally moving towards a better system, we are treading water as the demographics get worse.

                •  I don't agree with that. (0+ / 0-)

                  I don't see how you can come to the conclusion that this is a bailout for the health care industry.  Unlike the banking industry, their profits have always been healthy.

                  "The bottom line is, we've got to wake up. We can't allow our disappointment in Obama to lull us into allowing a truly dangerous strain of conservative philosophy to gain any more traction than it already has." --ObamOcala 4/5/11

                  by smoothnmellow on Wed Dec 07, 2011 at 10:31:11 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Uhm, why should we have learned this? (0+ / 0-)

              This law is the first of its kind in this country. Up until now, the insurance companies have had their way with us unimpeded.

          •  It didn't have to be "overnight". (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            rsie

            Medicare for all could have been phased in region by region.  That would have put "the good, the bad, and the ugly" on full view for the country to see.  

            Since Medicare gets high marks from those who use it, "the good" would have been front and center.  

            This could have been phased in over a 3-4 year period.  Ironically, that is the same time period it will take to fully phase in the flawed HCR.

            There were many different avenues to take.  Unfortunately, the one path of least resistance was the one taken.  

            Dedicated to the GOP debates: When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro. Hunter Thompson

            by NyteByrd1954 on Wed Dec 07, 2011 at 09:29:11 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  They couldn't get 50 signatures (15+ / 0-)

          on a non-binding letter in the Senate for a Public Option, so we're not going to get Medicare for all or anything remotely like that until we have a far more progressive congress.

          I maintain that the way you do that is to pass legislation that moves the ball down the field to the left...then people start cheering and demanding more, and progressives in Congress become emboldened and start shouting from the rooftops...and we get more tweaks and nudges to the left.

          And the people like it and the spiral continues.

          This is true of health care reform and it is true of bank regulations. Baby steps lead to toddler steps lead to adult steps lead to a trot to a run to a sprint. Always seems to be that way when battling an entrenched and heavily armed (with cash) status quo.

          •  Sorry, that incrementalist fantasy, while somewhat (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Funkygal, J M F, NyteByrd1954, rsie

            compelling, won't come to pass.

            The fact is you will get rolled by entrenched interests when you go down that path - they are there longer, are better connected, have more money to spend, and aren't coming and going with each election. You'll never win that way. It's either a knockout punch or getting on the escalator to nowhere.

            •  You would have voted against Social Security, too (8+ / 0-)

              SS didn't cover African-Americans in the beginning. How much more flawed can you get?

              And look at it now. All because people didn't pay attention to Republican trolls - I mean, pessimists.

              •  Get your facts straight. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                AaronInSanDiego, DSWright

                African-Americans were NOT excluded from Social Security.  Occupations were.  In certain regions, but not all, African-Americans made a up a sizable group in those occupations.  

                Please stop telling the lie.  By all means, make the case for the racial make-up of the occupations in certain regions.  But please do not make a blanket statement such as "SS didn't cover African-Americans in the beginning.".  

                It is false information.  

                Dedicated to the GOP debates: When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro. Hunter Thompson

                by NyteByrd1954 on Wed Dec 07, 2011 at 09:32:16 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  But it had the same effect. (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  GMFORD, Gator Keyfitz, Matt Z

                  Let's not act like dummies here either.

                  "The bottom line is, we've got to wake up. We can't allow our disappointment in Obama to lull us into allowing a truly dangerous strain of conservative philosophy to gain any more traction than it already has." --ObamOcala 4/5/11

                  by smoothnmellow on Wed Dec 07, 2011 at 10:32:27 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  No (0+ / 0-)
                    But it had the same effect.

                    No, it didn't because African-Americans who were not working in the excluded occupations were covered by SS.  

                    Let's not act like dummies here either.

                    The only one acting like a dummy is the one pretending that "SS didn't cover African-Americans in the beginning" and "Occupations were.  In certain regions, but not all, African-Americans made a up a sizable group in those occupations." are the same thing.  

                    They are not no matter how many times the false narrative is stated.    

                    Dedicated to the GOP debates: When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro. Hunter Thompson

                    by NyteByrd1954 on Wed Dec 07, 2011 at 01:06:33 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  So it was just a coincidence (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Gator Keyfitz, Matt Z

                      that SS explicitly excluded many majority black professions. SUUUUUUURE.

                      That's like saying if you have a black friend you can go around dropping the n word about black people.

                      The only one acting like a dummy is the one pretending that "SS didn't cover African-Americans in the beginning" and "Occupations were.  In certain regions, but not all, African-Americans made a up a sizable group in those occupations." are the same thing.  

                      SS was intentionally designed to exclude common black professions to make it easier to pass. If you won't admit that, you're just denying history.

                      But w/e. Who needs facts. We're progressives right? FDR was a holy, blameless figure. Those Japanese really deserved internment, because FDR can do no wrong.

                      When we stop putting leaders from the past up on pedestals and ignoring their flaws, we can start seeing our present leaders for what they really are.

                      by PhillyJeff on Wed Dec 07, 2011 at 04:53:00 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Again, get your facts straight (0+ / 0-)
                        SS was intentionally designed to exclude common black professions to make it easier to pass. If you won't admit that, you're just denying history.

                        I denied that?  Please point it out.  

                        What I did take issue with was this:  "SS didn't cover African-Americans in the beginning".

                        Is that a true statement or not?  If you're saying it is, please point it out in the original law.  

                        Are you saying blacks who were not working in the excluded occupations were not covered by SS?  Yes or no?  This really isn't a difficult question requiring all sorts of gyrations and flights of fancy.  

                        That's like saying if you have a black friend you can go around dropping the n word about black people.

                        Please confine that argument with the one who makes it.  Since I didn't, I'd have to assume this was just verbiage to fill in the blank spots.  

                        We're progressives right?

                        Wrong.  I'm a liberal and not a "progressive".  The term progressive entered into the common vernacular when too many liberals let themselves be defined by the rightwing.

                        I'm not one of them.  

                        FDR was a holy, blameless figure. Those Japanese really deserved internment, because FDR can do no wrong.

                        Again, please confine that argument to the one who makes it.  

                        Since it isn't me, it really has no bearing on the original post or subsequent answer.  

                        Dedicated to the GOP debates: When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro. Hunter Thompson

                        by NyteByrd1954 on Wed Dec 07, 2011 at 05:06:20 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

            •  History does not agree with you (11+ / 0-)

              Nor do the tales of health care changes in other countries, like Canada.

              But I'm not your enemy, nor are you mine. We both want the same thing.

              So let's get there.

            •  I'm sorry, but you just seem like a troll... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Matt Z

              EVERYTHING moves incrementally and success in politics as in battle does too. Civil rights, voting rights, women's rights... all moved incrementally to succeed and some are still waging that battle on the ground if not in the courts. You sir, are just passing heated fouled air space out of your rear discharge valve.

              Use this for our causes! "Goodbye American Dream" music: http://tinyurl.com/3hhtuyo lyrics: http://tinyurl.com/3jm7g2k

              by Fireshadow on Wed Dec 07, 2011 at 12:14:49 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  I know there is much more to come but from my (5+ / 0-)

            vantage point outside the community it seems to have worked that way with sexual orientation rights.  At first there were steps that were taken by this administration that seemed to some to be slow and small.  Behind the scenes there was groundwork being done.  The public was moving forward in a progressive direction on these rights and now it seems as if the pace is picking up overall.

            The same seems to be true in the energy efficiency, climate issues.  The country is moving toward the new standards, realizing its a good thing to go forward, there is lots of ground work being done behind the scenes.  As people understand and are not afraid of the results this will mushroom as well, I believe.

            I think financial regulations are similar.  Steps have been taken, some of the abuses will be stopped before they get out of control and then people will realize the positives.  Next we will be able to shore that area up with deeper controls.

            •  Exactly (5+ / 0-)

              Change is HARD for lots and lots of people. There's a core belief in many that goes along the lines of: I did this today and I didn't die, so if I do exactly the same thing tomorrow, I won't die.

              This seems particularly true in the elderly. Given that, even a positive change in their health care plan unnerves many and frightens many. Republicans play upon this fear.

              But Republicans and their status quo billionaire donors also know another thing: once people come to agree with an "entitlement," good luck taking it away. Bush saw it with his SS designs.

              The GOP is desperate to be rid of Obamacare, because as it fully implements, well, they're never undoing it. The American people won't let them.

          •  Honestly, I alway thought it would start (0+ / 0-)

            in the states(provinces) like Canada.

    •  If that is the case, it will be not at all (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Deep Texan, GMFORD

      and we should try for the best alternative.

      "Okay, until next time. Keep sending me your questions, and I will make fun of you... I mean, answer them." - Strong Bad

      by AaronInSanDiego on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 11:09:49 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Sorry. The government ... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Deep Texan, GMFORD

      ... is not a microwave oven.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site