Skip to main content

View Diary: ObamaCare. The End. (103 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  So? (13+ / 0-)

    Lots of people who post here are wrong about lots of things.  Having now read his piece on this, he's very, very wrong in his assumptions.  HR 676 (Medicare for all and the elimination fo the insurance industry for all practical purposes) didn't stand a prayer. Ever. Under any circumstances or timing. You think the insurance industry was going to stand by and let that happen? Really?

    “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

    by Catte Nappe on Sun Sep 29, 2013 at 11:41:37 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Wait. He's wrong because you have a different (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      splashoil

      opinion on the success of alternatives?
      Back up your assumptions that other ideas wouldn't pass muster in a Democratic and filibuster proof Congress. Bollocks.

      His metrics on the body counts are spot on. Don't wonks here like the empirical proofs?

      NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

      by Aeolos on Sun Sep 29, 2013 at 11:56:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  What do his metrics prove? (6+ / 0-)

        That more people would be covered under a single payer "Medicare for All" system.? Well, sure. Duh. "for ALL" kind of gives that one away. Getting such a thing passed is a whole different kettle of fish. And speculating that such a thing might have been accomplished is just about delusional. I repeat:
        You think the insurance industry was going to stand by and let that happen? Really?
        And you proably  need  some extra help with context as you think that through, or you wouldn't be making the assertions in the first place.
        Remember the state of economy at that point in time, and the kinds of "support" there would be for shutting down an entire huge industry overnight at any time, let alone in those times.

        “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

        by Catte Nappe on Sun Sep 29, 2013 at 12:15:47 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The medicare solution was promoted by... (0+ / 0-)

          wait for it... the Republicans.
          Go back. Do your research.
          On top of that there was plenty of moments that were killed off, aborted by the administration that could've been tabled but never saw the light of day.

          NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

          by Aeolos on Sun Sep 29, 2013 at 12:30:28 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Shutting down what industry? (0+ / 0-)

          No one was proposing shutting down the Insurance Industrial Complex. Only offering a gov't based pool of Americans that would be managed like any other Insurance. Simple really.
          An option not to be beholden to an industry.

          Of course the solution we got was to demand through the tax code, that we be even MORE beholden to the industry. And to use our own tax base to subsidize it. Just like the bailouts! How convenient the new socialism for the uber rich is while we at the same time cut off the possibilities for Health CARE reform and price controls.

          NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

          by Aeolos on Sun Sep 29, 2013 at 03:10:17 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  There was no filibuster proof Congress (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        annominous, FiredUpInCA

        Republicans plus Lieberman could block anything.

        •  So you make a deal w/ the devil. (0+ / 0-)

          Look. Look where that strategy got Obama and the Democratic Party. Tomorrow is going to school you.

          NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

          by Aeolos on Sun Sep 29, 2013 at 06:00:04 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I called the devil at his senate office (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            FiredUpInCA, annominous

            And I wrote him.  He still insisted on filibustering both the public option and the medicare for 55.

            I didn't make a deal w the devil. The devil refused to make a deal with me.

            I was hoping you would at least pause to acknowledge that you were wrong about the filibuster proof Congress.

            •  You freaking force him to filibuster. (0+ / 0-)

              Thats the process. You threaten to throw him out of committee chairs. You threaten to throw him to his dog friends the GOP.
              You don't CAUCUS with him.

              You don't play nicey nice. In the end you get serious. Which is what neither Reid nor Pelosi nor Obama ( his bud) ever got with one of their own DLCers.

              If they didn't intend on using the 60 votes, the CAUCUS, then they shouldn't have put the public, the party through this charade to begin with that they intended to LEAD. They intended in the end to act as agents and arbitrators for the powerful over the people.

              NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

              by Aeolos on Sun Sep 29, 2013 at 07:25:14 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  Not to mention the fact that there were deep (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      FiredUpInCA, annominous

      arterial interconnection to the financial industry and Wall Street. A sudden shock to the system of "nationalizing" all health care would have plunged us into a full global depression that would have dwarfed the Bush Recession.
      If it had passed.
      Which it wouldn't .
      As it is, now there's a framework for improvement, public option plans can come in via the exchanges, and the medical loss ratio limits the amount of capital extraction the ins. cos. can do ala Wall Street as usual.
      This is going to wean Wall Street off of health ins. over time. (At least some experts have said so.)
      No one said the ACA was the end of health care reform. It's the beginning.

      You can't make this stuff up.

      by David54 on Sun Sep 29, 2013 at 03:36:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I never heard much talk about Nationalized (0+ / 0-)

        Health Care.
        The public option was just that, an option (unlike this silly mandate upheld by Justice Roberts of all folk).

        This sudden shock business is frankly the same bullshit about the closing zombie, too big to fail banks. Ideology disguised as pragmatism. Must save the banks. Must save the Insurance industry. The word "Nationalization" thrown around like a red scare. I remember well. There were plenty of laws in place, Sheila Bair will tell you to close the top five and end the contagion.

        Good luck in that scenario. Because you're gonna see the sequel real soon. And the pithy epithets to any thought of intervention by regulators won't do you much good this time around.

        NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

        by Aeolos on Sun Sep 29, 2013 at 04:06:25 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Single payer is "nationalizing". (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          FiredUpInCA, annominous

          I think it's the way to go, but it has to be done incrementally.
          Even if you don't agree that it's "nationalizing", you know that Wall Street and the gop would have been all over it as a "socialist" power grab.
          I think single payer is inevitable. There's no reason for the insurance companies, except their own profit. They just stand in between the patient and the care provider and take most of the profit.
          There's a difference between dividing big banks or big companies up and just eliminating an industry.
          I think the push back against single payer would have been a hundred times worse than it has been against Obamacare.

          At any rate, you're looking backward and playing Mon. morning quarterback. We have what we have. Now we have to go forward and make it better. Frankly that means that we have to get the gop out of the way. Period. Nothing can go forward until we do that.

          You can't make this stuff up.

          by David54 on Sun Sep 29, 2013 at 05:25:19 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  May be academic but (0+ / 0-)

            Social Security did not nationalize retirement. It underpins a base line. Same with Single Payer. The US Treasury being that payer via employee premiums. Want Silver, Gold, pay supplemental in private insurance.
            It all seems academic but makes all the difference when you talk about efficiencies, when you consider delivery and a regimen to keep costs down.

            NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

            by Aeolos on Sun Sep 29, 2013 at 06:11:58 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site