Skip to main content

View Diary: Merkley co-sponsors Landrieu bill to allow consumers to keep health plans (159 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  "Obamacare is not so flawless that it should be (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wdrath, auapplemac

    considered untouchable."

    Careful, you're trodding on sacred ground.

    "When dealing with terrorism, civil and human rights are not applicable." Egyptian military spokesman.

    by Paleo on Wed Nov 13, 2013 at 09:56:14 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Good. (5+ / 0-)

      I'd replace it with Medicare for all in a heartbeat, and so would most of you.

      (And so, I think, would President Obama).

      The ACA wasn't a touchdown; it wasn't even a field goal.  But it was a first down and moved the chains, and I supported it (and still support it) on those grounds; it's far better than the status quo ante.

      Some members of the party, though, when faced with a blitzing defense--think the best strategy is to turn tail and run to their own end zone--better to concede the safety rather than risk getting sacked, I guess.

      If the Democrats were smarter (and too many of them ARE corporate chickens who run screaming from the room every time they see a bad poll), they'd use this opportunity to attack the ACA from the left.  Point out the flaws in keeping the insurance sharks in business, and suggest Medicare for all.  After all, Medicare covers the old and sick already; the remaining population cohort is less expensive to provide healthcare for.

      But many Democrats aren't that smart, and don't recognize an opportunity to move the Overton window in the correct direction.  

      •  Obamacare wasn't a touchdown? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        it was a fumble in our own end zone.  It was an own goal.   It was a walked in winning run..

        It didn't fix anything that needed fixing except for the one rule,  Pre existing conditions.   That could have been passed by itself.

        No,  HR676 was already written.   All it needed was a vote.   It had the full support of the CPC.  But Obama killed it before it could even get a hearing.  

        Obamacare is the thing no one supports except the insurance lobby and their courtesans.   It's his baby.   And it's a cluster fuck.   Doing the bidding for Bill Clinton isn't the answer either.   Single payer works.   Do it.  

        "I'm ashamed you exist" -Inland 11/8/13

        by Nada Lemming on Wed Nov 13, 2013 at 10:32:07 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Disagree (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          A whole lot of poor people, and those with pre-existing conditions,  who before could not get access to affordable healthcare, now can.  (Depending on what state you live in and how obnoxious the local politics are, of course--many GOP governers would rather turn away free money than let the poor enjoy Medicaid expansion).

          That, in and of itself, is worth something.  Even if the means are inefficient and problematic.

          And in some ways, that's a big reason the ACA is politically vulnerable--wealthy and many middle-class voters; the ones who were "winners" under the old system, are in many cases slightly less off.  Many "cadillac" plans offered to middle-class professionals are disappearing, as insurers and employers don't wish to pay the Cadillac tax.  And certain groups who have been essentially freeloading on the system are being told they can no longer do so; many of these groups are more politically active than the poor, who often don't bother to vote.

          What we are now seeing is those who don't benefit from ACA, complaining that they might be inconvenienced a bit so that the poor can have decent healthcare.

          •  Was the ACA sold as a poverty program? (0+ / 0-)

            Were people told that they were going to have the cost of insuring poor shifted on to them?  Were they told the "affordable" in the title did not apply to them?  

            Do you think a middle class adult earning $50,000 feels rich? Were they told they were going to have to re-budget their "discretionary" income so that poorer people could have healthcare?  Were they told the choice was to tax the wealthy or to screw the person making less than $100K and Democrats decided the middle of the middle class should take the hit?

            Actually, the Republicans did tell them so who are they going to believe next time?

            I hope this works out but so far it has all the hallmarks of brain dead centrism which offers the worst of both worlds to the middle class.  The rich get to keep tax cuts.  The middle class gets their benefit cuts.  The poor get some help by making the middle class poorer.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site