Health Care Goes South for Democrats

My timing was impeccable: Last month I wrote a story for Time.com about the modest role health care seemed to be playing in the midterm elections. My thesis was that, although Obamacare was far from a winning issue for Democrats, it hardly promised to be the political debacle that Republicans gleefully predicted when Obama signed health care reform bill back in March. I was reacting in part to polling which showed that the bill’s popularity had steadily grown in the months since its laborious and sometimes tawdry passage. In late August, Pollster.com’s well-respected aggregation of surveys showed opinion nearly split, with 43 percent of the public opposed and 46 percent in favor. And Democrats cheerily predicted that opinion would improve from there, possibly making it a majority-support issue.

But I seem to have written my story at an inflection point. Because in the weeks since, the public has grown notably more sour about Obamacare. The pro/anti spread is now more like 40-48–and the trend continues downward. Part of the problem for Democrats is mass confusion about the law’s provisions, as our Kate Pickert wrote yesterday. Another, according to a new Associated Press poll, is that a majority of voters aren’t aware of the Congressional Budget Office finding that the bill will reduce the deficit. But it’s also quite possible that Americans never loved the law to begin with, and that as the recession drags on they’re growing increasingly irritated that Congress and Obama spent so much time on it.

What’s particularly troubling for the Democrats is that the bill appears especially unpopular in many of the key districts and states that Democrats are trying to defend. (Here’s an ad supporting Tea Party star Christine O’Donnell in Democratic Delaware touting her support for “freedom to choose doctors and health plans,” while in Pennsylvania Democratic Senate nominee Joe Sestak is under attack by a Karl Rove-affiliated group for the costs of the “Sestak-Obama plan.”) The new House GOP “Pledge to America,” meanwhile, makes repeal of Obamacare a core party plank. And it’s not easy to find a House Democrat who is making his or her vote for health care a selling point.

It’s possible this grim picture will brighten somewhat for Democrats. Several of the law’s most popular new provisions kick in today, something President Obama spent yesterday publicizing. They include bans on denial of coverage to children with pre-existing conditions and on lifetime benefit caps for all policyholders. (Insurers are already trying to undercut the first of these new rules, however.) The ongoing publicity around those new measures–and the tangible changes in many Americans’ lives– might warm the public to Obamacare.

So it’s possible we’re at another inflection point. But it’s also clear that confusion and skepticism about the law runs deep. And with just six weeks left until Election Day, Democrats have precious little time to turn that sentiment around.

P.S. And for any readers who are themselves confused about the new law, here is Karen Tumulty and Kate Pickert’s tour de force explanation of what’s it in, what it does, and what it means for you.

Related Topics: Uncategorized
  • Latest on Swampland

    Pete Souza / The White House via Getty Images

    Political Picures of the Week, May 18-25

    TIME’s photo editors bring you the best pictures of the past week from the Beltway and beyond.

    Obama Administration Blocks Global Health Fund To Fight Disease In Developing NationsHuffPost Politics

    From left: AP; ABACAUSA

    The Phony War: Obama and Romney Are Debating Character, Not Policy

    More than five months from Election Day, the back-and-forth about Mitt Romney’s record at Bain already feels played out. Unfortunately, there’s good reason to expect the campaign continues in this vein indefinitely. Neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney are terribly interested in dwelling on policy platforms. Romney’s plan to slash spending and keep taxes low on the wealthy isn’t especially popular, at least not at any level of detail beyond a blithe promise to shrink the deficit. Meanwhile, Obama’s signature first-term achievements, like health care, the stimulus and Wall Street reform, are all unpopular or tricky to sell. (The Dodd-Frank bill is the most popular of these, but hyping it means offending wealthy donors.) So what we’re getting instead is a superficial duel about character–and, worse, one that’s based on the largely false premise that the better man can better “manage” the economy back to health.

  • danielatlanta

    People do not understand what Obamacare is all about, Part of the problem is that the media, both print and electronic, keep discussing the process and tell us very little about the details of the healthcare bills and how they will affect families and individuals.
    -
    We will continue to have a dumbed-down electorate unless the media starts presenting information as news instead of trying to make news into entertainment.

  • http://redstatedebate.wordpress.com redstatedebate

    Did you know that you could take 1/20 of what Obama care is going to cost and buy everyone uninsured health insurance right now?

    There is not an endless coffer of money out there, the taxes comes from people and when people pay taxes they hurt.

    Here is one of Barbara’s cronies Noreen Evans giving us a glimpse into how they really feel about spending your money

    http://conservativeblogscentral.blogspot.com/2010/09/clueless-noreen-evans-barbara-boxer-why.html

  • afguy

    So, the existing law sucks and that automatically means the critics think the existing health care in this country is just “hunky-dory” as is?
    .
    Christ, Michael, we had this discussion just a day or two ago.
    .
    it’s just possible that most think changes need to be made and hate what’s in the law (and what was left out for political reasons), not the concept that health care needs to be improved here.
    .
    Do try to keep an open mind, how about it?

  • gum0nshoe

    In a world where news writers slip politically innacurate charged jargon like “Obamacare” into their articles it remains a mystery as to why the public would be confused. Hope arises for the populace though as reporters are now beginning to report to the populace on their confusion. It is hoped that the confused populace will realize they are confused, go to their sources of information, find out they are still confused, and continue to be confused. Be sure to check in to next week’s articles to determine how you should feel about things you don’t know about.

    Sincerely,
    James Earle Jones

  • http://elvisberg.wordpress.com Elvis Elvisberg

    Yep.
    -
    Part of the problem for Democrats is mass confusion about the law’s provisions, as our Kate Pickert wrote yesterday. Another, according to a new Associated Press poll, is that a majority of voters aren’t aware of the Congressional Budget Office finding that the bill will reduce the deficit.
    -
    Both of these are “the media is terrible at informing people about the news” stories.

  • Michael Crowley

    Geez, y’all are an awfully crotchety bunch! But if it makes you feel better I just posted Karen Tumulty’s grand explanation of the law from a few months back.

  • Paul-no not that one

    “Obamacare”
    .
    You win.

  • southernbell49

    Dems need to start running commercials, now, featuring Huckabee comparing pre-existing medical conditions to a person seeking property insurance after a fire.

    They need to liken the federal government to the calvary, saving the average American from greedy insurance companies. They need to underscore that one of the main reasons wages remain stagnant is because employees are spending more on health insurance and thus have less money to give their employees directly.

    There are a lot of easy-to-understand ads Dems can highlighting themselves as heroes and Repubs as being controlled by Big Business.

    The fact that some insurance companies are using loopholes to not write policies for kids with pre-existing conditions is a heaven-sent opportunity to underscore why the federal government needed to step in and help its citizens,

  • textee

    “Another, according to a new Associated Press poll, is that a majority of voters aren’t aware of the Congressional Budget Office finding that the bill will reduce the deficit.”

    No, the majority of Americans are not as stupid as the fools at the execrable Associated (with terrorists) Press, who are naive enough to believe that Obama’s socialized medicine scheme “will reduce the deficit” as the Congressional Budget Office has ridiculously alleged. Dream on ….

  • m0mentom0ri

    It’s “Associated Press” not “Associated (with terrorists) Press”, just like it’s “Nation Review” not “The National Review”.
    .
    No need to thank me, just helping out!

  • gum0nshoe

    Appreciated, but I’m still wondering why you’re calling it Obamacare? Is it because he signed it? Because even so, I remember there being a committee that drafted it and a congress that voted on it.
    .
    Maybe we should start calling the engagements in the middle east the Bush Wars.

  • afguy

    Hoiw about some discussion of the potential for passing the changes to this “starting point” that even its most avid supporters say need to be added to make it work?
    .
    I was struck by the statement of the person toward the end of Karen’s article: “it’s something to fuss with, as opposed to nothing”.
    .
    The Affordable Health Care Act: It’s Better Than Nothing. Unfortunately, that’s pretty much what I thought when it was passed. At my age and health status, I’m afraid I’m not going to see any real advantages to me or my family any time soon.
    .
    Given the overt obstruction on one hand, and towering gutlessness on the other, being shown by the parties involved, I’m not holding my breath that the needed improvements are going to appear any time soon (if at all) – and the “death by a thousand cuts” for what is in place will now commence.

  • m0mentom0ri

    “Tea Party star Christine O’Donnell in Democratic Delaware touting her support for “freedom to choose doctors and health plans,”
    .
    Is that true? Does Christine O’Donnell have a plan for the “freedom to choose doctors and health plans”? What is that plan? Will it work?
    .
    Oh wait, nevermind. Just tell me more about the politics of health care, no need to actually go into facts of health care. Facts are for rubes and suckers. We want to know how people FEEL about it! That’s what’s really important!
    .
    Of all the things I miss, I miss journalism the most.

  • southernbell49

    I absolutely agree that the MSM is partly to blame for the confusion.

    At one time, we had newscasters who simply gave the public the facts. Now we have “fair and balanced” which means CNN just lets each side talk about an issue. There is no disinterested party, i.e. a reporter, correcting the different talking points.

    And that’s because progressive Dems are on the right side of history. And Fox might scream foul if actual facts supporting the HRC were actually presented by the media.

    If Walter Chronkite was still reporting, we would have an informed public and I guarantee more Americans would be in favor of HRC.

    I do think Dems have to reiterate that HRC isn’t just for the currently uninsured; they have to remind us again and again that we are paying too much for private insurance and lower rates means more money in our pockets to spend on other things.

  • afguy

    And, in a similar vein, it’s the Democratic Party, NOT the Democrat Party.

  • afguy

    Of all the things I miss, I miss journalism the most.
    .
    Me, too, momentomori. If I happen to see a good example of some being practiced, I’ll let you know.

  • daraghmcdowell

    You might also point out that the entire economic and political structure of ACA was a Republican idea to begin with, and one that they were perfectly fine with until Obama was inaugurated. They’ve been utterly hypocritical about HCR and argued in bad faith every step of the way. And unless someone (i.e YOU – Michael Crowley) actually point that out, the broader public who (thank god) don’t spend their time reading Heritage foundation policy documents from the early 90′s will never know.

    We’re not asking for much here Mike. We’re asking you to do what it is you supposedly do, and are actually paid for. JOURNALISM!

  • textee

    Racist Democrat (isn’t that redundant?) Loretta Sanchez declares that “the Vietnamese and the Republicans are trying to take away this seat.” See the video here: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/09/027289.php

    I’m sure that there would be a similar, complete media blackout at ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, CNN, A-Mess-NBC, et al., had an incumbent Republican declared that “the blacks, hispanics and gays are trying to take away this seat.” Right?

  • gum0nshoe

    I’m fine with everything until you get to the lower rates and this is arguably the hardest part about this reform, both to explain and understand. Unless there was a true government take over of health care there is ultimately nothing the government can do to decrease rates.
    .
    This reform only helps people buy coverage and maintain that coverage. Any reductions to the costs of health care still largely remain in the insurance & health care industries hands.
    .
    It is entirely unlikely that anyone will see their rates reduced due to the coverage that was passed; however, if you decide to get health care from some other outlet by going out on your own, you might be able to find it at a cheaper price than you pay now. It would be up to you to get your company to reimburse you for dropping the company health care plan with the money they generally pipe into the system on your account that you never see regardless.

  • square1

    Did you know that you can make up completely imaginary “facts” tell them to 20-25% of the population and that they will not only be believed without question, but regurgitated ad nauseum?

    I will call those 20-25% “teabaggers” to coin a term at random.

  • hippooath

    Ah, rightwingers and their need to revise everything. Revise racism, revise history and revise progress…repeal it all.

  • freeinpa

    “Health Care Goes South for Democrats”
    .

    Maybe they should have read the bill before they voted for it!

  • freeinpa

    hippo:

    Its more like th eleft could get away with being racist and then scream its not me its them. They have built an entire infrastructure based on race.
    .
    Here you have an American born Hispanic telling a Vietnamese immigrant that he is anti-immigrant and he is trying to take “our seat” I

    .
    I didn’t know affirmative action extended to democratic elections.

  • square1

    With all due respect to my fellow liberals, I have no problem with the term “Obamacare”.

    Obama ran on the issue. And he picked the timing of the legislation.

    He guided it through Congress. He negotiated with the various health care and insurance lobbies. He preferred to use Finance Committee as the point Senate committee. When it came time to conference the bills in Congress, Obama pushed the Senate bill as a baseline. And when it was necessary to reconcile the bill, Obama pushed against any inclusion of a public option or Medicare buy-in.

    The bill, for better or worse, true or not, was always going to be Obama’s baby. He had the choice to either make it as wonderful as possible and take all the credit or to make it a compromised sell-out that he would be forced to blame in part on other actors. He chose the latter.

  • Paul-no not that one

    I took a quick look, not exhaustive, to find the term not used as a pejorative.
    .
    I didn’t find any examples.
    .
    I expect more from journalists. Others may not.

  • newfreedomblog

    Tumulty? The Democrat shill for healthcare reform at the time this was being debated, Michael?
    .
    Here is a good report on how healthcare reform was brought to us on a platter by the likes of Tumulty. But, in reality here is what we got….
    .

    “» Obamacare won’t decrease health care costs for the government. According to Medicare’s actuary, it will increase costs. The same is likely to happen for privately funded health care.
    .
    » As written, Obamacare covers elective abortions, contrary to Obama’s promise that it wouldn’t. This means that tax dollars will be used to pay for a procedure millions of Americans across the political spectrum view as immoral. Supposedly, the Department of Health and Human Services will bar abortion coverage with new regulations but these will likely be tied up for years in litigation, and in the end may not survive the court challenge.
    .
    » Obamacare won’t allow employees or most small businesses to keep the coverage they have and like. By Obama’s estimates, as many as 69 percent of employees, 80 percent of small businesses, and 64 percent of large businesses will be forced to change coverage, probably to more expensive plans.
    .
    » Obamacare will increase insurance premiums — in some places, it already has. Insurers, suddenly forced to cover clients’ children until age 26, have little choice but to raise premiums, and they attribute to Obamacare’s mandates a 1 to 9 percent increase. Obama’s only method of preventing massive rate increases so far has been to threaten insurers.
    .
    » Obamacare will force seasonal employers — especially the ski and amusement park industries — to pay huge fines, cut hours, or lay off employees.
    .
    » Obamacare forces states to guarantee not only payment but also treatment for indigent Medicaid patients. With many doctors now refusing to take Medicaid (because they lose money doing so), cash-strapped states could be sued and ordered to increase reimbursement rates beyond their means.
    .
    » Obamacare imposes a huge nonmedical tax compliance burden on small business. It will require them to mail IRS 1099 tax forms to every vendor from whom they make purchases of more than $600 in a year, with duplicate forms going to the Internal Revenue Service. Like so much else in the 2,500-page bill, our senators and representatives were apparently unaware of this when they passed the measure.
    .
    » Obamacare allows the IRS to confiscate part or all of your tax refund if you do not purchase a qualified insurance plan. The bill funds 16,000 new IRS agents to make sure Americans stay in line.”

    .
    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/Obamacare-is-even-worse-than-critics-thought-960772-103571664.html#ixzz10N2YILEK
    .
    The only thing at the time Tumulty cared about was to make sure her brother was able to get some form of cheap government sponsored healthcare insurance. That is a FACT.

  • 3xfire3

    Good Point

  • newfreedomblog

    And, in a similar vein, it’s the Democratic Party, NOT the Democrat Party.”

    .
    As has been said on this subject many many times, there is nothing at all “Democratic” about the Democrat Party. NOTHING.

  • kevin

    As has been said on this subject many many times, there is nothing at all “Democratic” about the Democrat Party.
    .
    Other than winning majorities of citizens’ votes in democratically-held elections, of course.

  • gum0nshoe

    Thank you, Paul.

    I see I wasn’t as clear as you were as to why that term is something that bothers me. Unless Crowley is trying to re-brand the term into something neutral (which I imagine he’d have a hard time doing) this is the reason why it bothers me. If you get past the “charged-ness” of the word Obamacare, there were a couple other things that bothered me about the article; however, the word itself wasn’t used as a pejorative necessarily in this article which may be the exception to the rule.

  • centfan

    It is weird how Democrats seem unable to muster the imagination to load the ammunition that the Republicans hand them. Think of all the damning clips The Daily Show can string together in a few hours of searching.
    -
    Show what the Republicans are saying. Show in stark terms what the logical extreme of their position becomes. Write it, film it, and you’ll still have time for lunch before it goes on the air in the evening. It should be simple. Why is it not done?

  • afguy

    Oh, yeah, almost forgot…
    .
    Did you ever apologize for your blog comments about her, Rusty?

  • centfan

    Square, it’s either a sellout or nothing at all and the discussion never happens. You apparently choose nothing at all. If the pop media news, an unavoidable filter to reality, would rather fan flames than guide the facts then a sellout is all that can come out the other side in our political system.
    -
    One more time, a sellout is the only thing we can get.

  • Michael Crowley

    Thank you square1, I’m glad you raised this because I was getting ready to address it myself. I certainly don’t think of “Obamacare” as a perjorative–as opposed to a simple, convenient shorthand–for some of the reasons you cite. But I’m seeing that enough people *do* interpret it as a jab that I’ll try to avoid the term from now on.

  • sgre144

    Let’s us all hope and pray that the R’s achieve a veto-proof majority in the next Congress and override Obamacare. I’m quite sure, the 85% of Americans, but declining, w/ insurance will be thrilled to find that 25% of their income will go to pay for coverage by the end of th decade and our health care performance remains in the bottom 20% of the developed world.
    Fortunately, I’ll be on Medicare w/ a public sector secondary insurance, so my costs will actually drop, i.e., no more co-payments. What a wonderful world I’ll live in.

  • Paul-no not that one

    Even shorter hand -ACA.
    .
    The actual law’s acronym.

  • stuartzechman

    Michael Crowley:
    .
    The ongoing publicity around those new measures–and the tangible changes in many Americans’ lives– might warm the public to Obamacare.
    .
    What many of us movement liberals particularly resent is the tiny population of beneficiaries being trotted out like public relations hostages by the Administration and this policy’s (mostly partisan) supporters, with the message being “See? Vote for Democrats, or these poor, sick folks get it!
    .
    Health care reform was never supposed to be about charity, about welfare, about all of us middle-class people putting aside our selfish concerns and donating to the unfortunate, worst-case scenario victims of the system that doesn’t work for any of us (except the wealthiest).
    .
    Moving the goal-posts in Bush/Iraq fashion only serves to underscore the failure of this policy; we’re not so completely stupid out here that we don’t recognize a public relations strategy when we see it.
    .
    We also happen to have memories that are longer than mosquitoes’ and the political press corps’, Michael Crowley.
    .
    We remember when the President campaigned against the individual mandate he then advocated and signed into law, declaring:

    OBAMA: “Let’s break down what she really means by a mandate. What’s meant by a mandate is that the government is forcing people to buy health insurance and so she’s suggesting a parent is not going to buy health insurance for themselves if they can afford it. Now, my belief is that most parents will choose to get health care for themselves and we make it affordable.
    .
    Here’s the concern. If you haven’t made it affordable, how are you going to enforce a mandate. I mean, if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house. The reason they don’t buy a house is they don’t have the money. And so, our focus has been on reducing costs, making it available. I am confident if people have a chance to buy high-quality health care that is affordable, they will do so.”

    Do you, Michael Crowley? Does your professional cohort remember? We do.
    .
    We also remember when the President campaigned on giving people a choice between the broken, expensive, denial-based system in which they’re currently trapped, and a new, parallel system that didn’t share the same incentives as the stock-price driven, for-profit private insurance cartels:

    Specifically, the Obama plan will: (1) establish a new public insurance program, available to Americans who neither qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP nor have access to insurance through their employers, as well as to small businesses that want to offer insurance to their employees; (2) create a National Health Insurance Exchange to help Americans and businesses that want to purchase private health insurance directly…

    http://web.archive.org/web/20080216041746/www.barackobama.com/issues/pdf/HealthCareFullPlan.pdf
    .
    We remember, because we were so enthused about the prospect of real change coming to compete with a health care system whose incentives are so at odds with consumers’ interests. We were enthused because the Obama plan was so specific in its promised actions:

    1. OBAMA’S PLAN TO COVER THE UNINSURED. Obama will make available a new national health plan which will give individuals the choice to buy affordable health coverage that is similar to the plan available to federal employees.The new public plan will be open to individuals without access to group coverage through their workplace or current public programs. It will also be available to people who are self-employed and small businesses that want to offer insurance to their employees.
    .
    The plan will have the following features:
    .
    — Comprehensive benefits. The benefit package will be similar to that offered through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), the program through which Members of Congress get their own health care. The new public plan will include coverage of all essential medical services…
    .
    — Subsidies. Individuals and families who do not qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP but still need assistance will receive income-related federal subsidies to keep health insurance premiums affordable. They can use the subsidy to buy into the new public plan or purchase a private health care plan.
    .
    — Easy enrollment. The new public plan will be simple to enroll in and provide ready access to coverage.
    .
    — Portability and choice. Participants in the new public plan and the National Health Insurance Exchange (see below) will be able to move from job to job without changing or jeopardizing their health care coverage.
    .
    — Quality and efficiency. Participating hospitals and providers that participate in the new public plan will be required to collect and report data to ensure that standards for health care quality, health information technology and administration are being met.

    The whole idea was to construct for the benefit of everyone a new system designed to compete at a national level with the old, broken one, not to hand out medical welfare with one hand, and guaranteed profits with the other.
    .
    Do you remember, Michael Crowley? Has your professional cohort forgotten? We haven’t.
    .
    Remember the campaigning against lobbyist access, secret deals and corrupting negotiations with powerful interests?

    TOPIC: Ethics & Lobbying Reform, January 26, 2006
    .
    Lobbying Reform Summit, National Press Club Washington, DC
    .
    OBAMA: …people shouldn’t lump together those of us who have to raise funds to run campaigns but do so in a legal and ethical way with those who invite lobbyists in to write bad legislation. Those aren’t equivalent, and we’re not being partisan by pointing that out.
    .
    …when big oil companies are invited into the White House for secret energy meetings, it’s no wonder they end up with billions…
    .
    When a Committee Chairman negotiates a Medicare bill at the same time he’s negotiating for a job as the drug industry’s lobbyist, it’s hardly a surprise when that industry gets taxpayer-funded giveaways in the same bill that forbids seniors from bargaining for better drug prices.
    .
    In 2004, over $2.1 billion was spent lobbying Congress. That amounts to over $4.8 million per Member of Congress. $4.8 million per member so that oil companies can still run our energy policy and pharmaceutical companies can still raise our drug prices and special interests can still waste our tax dollars on pet projects.
    .
    See, one of the reasons why lobbyists…and their allies in Congress have been able to manipulate the system is because most of their backroom deals are done in secret. Just the other day, we heard that because of pressure from health care industry lobbyists, Republican negotiators met behind closed doors and changed a budget bill to provide a $22 billion giveaway to HMOs…
    .
    This is an outrage…

    Do you remember, Michael Crowley? Can your professional cohort contrast this kind of campaigning with the corrupt process that actually transpired? We can.
    .
    Based on these fabricated claims, Michael Crowley, most movement liberals had very little idea that the system overhaul proposed by Obama would turn into a Third Way think tank’s dream legislation.
    .
    We remember this broken promise in particular:

    Remarks of Senator Barack Obama: A Change We Can Believe In
    .
    Spartanburg, SC | November 03, 2007
    .
    …this is also a moment of great promise. It’s a chance to turn the page by offering the American people a fundamentally different choice in 2008 – not just in the policies we offer, but in the kind of leadership we offer. It’s a chance to come together and finally solve the challenges that were made worse by George Bush, but existed long before he took office – challenges like health care
    .
    That’s how I’ll pass a universal health care bill that allows every American to get the same kind of health care that members of Congress get for themselves and cuts every family’s premiums by up to $2500.
    .
    That is the change that’s possible in this election. That is the moment I want to seize as President. And I ask you all to join me in this journey. Thank you.

    Well, Michael Crowley?
    .
    Do you remember the President campaigning on an openly-negotiated, transparently-constructed, parallel health care system that lowered prices through national economies of scale, that allows every American to get the same benefits that Congress enjoys, and cuts every family’s yearly premiums by $2500?
    .
    Do you remember a liberal health care policy being campaigned upon by this President, Michael Crowley?
    .
    The kind of system we movement liberals propose would do exactly those things, because we’re not devoted to a political ideology that says we can’t look to Germany or France, Canada or Japan –all the countries in the First World who do health care better and cheaper than we do– for solutions. We’re neither ideologically devoted to a “uniquely American solution,” nor to guaranteeing private profits, unlike the President who appeared to us in office after the 2008 campaign was over.
    .
    The kind of system we got was the DLC’s long-proposed “reforms”, not liberal policy.
    .
    Public disappointment with the legislation currently being re-sold to us is not merely about the obviously false claims about what the new system would do, it’s about what kind of new system we would have.
    .
    So, we remember, Michael Crowley, we remember the new system, the change that was held out to us, the promise of something fundamentally better than what we know is going to hell beneath our feet.
    .
    It’s why we’re offended when images of health care hostages are waved in our faces as a defense against the indefensible, indisputable fact that we were sold a counterfeit bill of goods in 2008. It’s not that we didn’t “get everything we wanted,” it’s that we got something we know won’t work, and now we’re being told that these unfortunate, sick people will die, if we try to hold those responsible accountable for their promises and claims. It’s disgusting, it’s cynical, and it certainly isn’t change we can believe in –or that even works.
    .
    Does your profession remember? Is it capable of memories not provided for it by professional public relations campaigns?
    .
    Do you remember, Michael Crowley?
    .
    We do.

  • Paul-no not that one

    “Health care reform was never supposed to be about charity, about welfare, about all of us middle-class people putting aside our selfish concerns and donating to the unfortunate, worst-case scenario victims of the system that doesn’t work for any of us (except the wealthiest).
    .
    Moving the goal-posts in Bush/Iraq fashion only serves to underscore the failure of this policy”
    .

    Weird. I made that exact “WMD,no I mean Saddam, no I mean nurture Mid East democracy” with regard to the health care reform analogy last night over dinner.

  • stuartzechman

    I don’t think that it’s that weird, PNNTO.
    .
    It seems to me that normal people can easily see that sort of thing going on without much help.
    .
    We were just treated to eight whole years of it, and we’re apparently in for more.

  • square1

    centfan, I respectfully disagree.
    .
    Rising health insurance and health care have made the present system unsustainable. You may be correct that, in 2009-2010, liberals could not get anything better passed. But I would rather have no legislation than bad legislation, because the pressure for a real fix would have continued to mount.
    .
    If we didn’t pass ACA, what do you think would have happened? Would Americans have simply accepted larger insurance premiums, denials of service, continued rescissions, and medical-related bankruptcy?
    .
    Or would pressure have continued to mount? Would voters punish candidates who ignored the issue?
    .
    Would single-payer get put on the table? Would insurance companies have increasingly accepted a public option as a last-ditch effort to safe their industries from a national health care scheme.
    .
    The HCR bill that we got is worse than nothing for 3 reasons:
    .
    1. It doesn’t solve the cost problem, but takes the blame away from market failure and puts it on “Obamacare.” Great. Greater government involvement in the future becomes less likely as people continue to be dissatisfied, but now think the problem is the bill not the underlying insurance market.
    .
    2. Many of the provisions don’t kick in for years. This means that for about 10 years ACA defenders will be able to keep telling liberals to be patient because we don’t really know whether the bill is working yet.
    .
    3. The only thing in the bill that keeps the middle class from getting totally screwed on rising premiums is the subsidy provision. Unfortunately, the subsidies are not generated from a self-sustaining fund. Rather, Democrats will constantly be forced to go to the well to vote for larger and larger subsidies. It is obvious that this will be a political disaster as Democrats in Congress will be constantly faced with 3 very uncomfortable alternatives:
    .
    (a). Don’t vote to increase subsidies as premiums rise, screwing the middle class; (b) vote for subsidy increases, don’t pay for them, and get attacked for blowing up the deficit with “entitlement spending” or (c ) vote for subsidy increases but pay for them with politically unpopular tax increases.
    .
    It is beyond me how anyone can think this will work out well over time for Democrats.

  • Paul-no not that one

    SZ-I can’t claim to have read everything you wrote on the topic (he understates) but your points about the switch from benefit to all (like SS) to helping some leaving it open for, among other things, cuts by “serious” people down the road is exactly what I believe will happen.

    .
    Weakening an already weak law.
    .
    Bad politics plus bad policy is what I maintained months ago and I haven’t changed my mind.

  • stuartzechman

    Thanks so very much for responding to commentary, Michael Crowley, it is always greatly appreciated.

  • acameronw

    textee,

    Why do I get the feeling that if the Congressional Budget Office said that HCR would increase the deficit you’d be behind them 100%? But since they’ve arrived a conclusion (and “ridiculously so” at that) you don’t like then they’re incorrect?

    Care to provide any evidence that the CBO is erroneous in its conclusion? Please remember I asked for evidence, not another unhinged screed about the media.

  • stuartzechman

    LOL (he understates)
    .
    The thing that’s most important in what I wrote, I think, was this:
    .
    The kind of system we got was the DLC’s long-proposed “reforms”, not liberal policy.
    .
    That’s both an indisputably true statement, and a statement about why you believe this is a “weak law.”
    .
    It’s not a weak law, it’s a very strong law, if you happen to hold a fundamentally different kind of philosophy about what works and doesn’t work in government or the economy than what liberals hold. If you don’t know what the establishment Democrats were proposing, and you only know about Republican opposition, then it will seem weak to Democrats, but it’s not.
    .
    The establishment Democratic center got almost all of what they wanted, but you can only see that if you go and examine what the DLC’s think tank (“Progressive Policy Institute”) or the establishment Bipartisan Policy Center (Daschle/Dole/Baker) proposed.
    .
    It’s a strong DLC law, not a weak liberal law, in other words.
    .
    You’re right that it will get “weaker” (more DLC-like) over time, though. That’s the intent, apparently.

  • stuartzechman

    This:
    .
    This reform only helps people buy coverage and maintain that coverage. Any reductions to the costs of health care still largely remain in the insurance & health care industries hands.
    .
    is indisputably true.

  • gum0nshoe

    Thanks Crowley, connotation matters. I agree that ACA sounds very neutral as it leaves out “affordable care” which could be construed as spin just like Obamacare is spin.
    .
    Square… obviously things could have been better. I’m not sure a public option would have cut costs though, even as much as its been pushed. You still have to deal with the fact that a dying man will pay any amount of money to live and there are plenty of people who will take that opportunity to charge more than the cost of the service to people who in the end don’t have many choices about where they are going to go to get help.
    .
    If this really is a non solution as the now more vocal left is claiming, it’ll be up to you guys to point out why and how to make it work in the end. And, unfortunately, that means finding a way to open up another line of dialog on top of the moderates & right wing dialog.

  • bryanfred

    On the original subject of this post, the CBO estimate grades the budgetary impact of the bill based entirely upon the assumptions given to it by Congress. It passes no judgement on the quality of those assumptions, many of which in this case are ludicrous.
    .
    For instance, the elimination of the annual “doc fix” that keeps Medicare reimbursement rates from being cut by around 25%, which would save hundreds of billions of dollars per year but prompt a widespread national dropping of Medicare patients by doctors. This will never happen, yet the “reduce the deficit” argument is based partly on something like $500 billion of annual savings from not making the fix. The CBO DID estimate that the bill will make the cost of insurance policies increase, even if all the rosy and unrealistic assumptions come true. So even the name of the law is a misnomer.

  • Paul-no not that one

    SZ-Yes, that is what I meant by weak law. As in effectiveness for what I believe to be the public good.
    .
    “That’s the intent, apparently”
    .
    As I think has been made clear I am neither a BHO good or bad kind of guy nor a harsh critic of the president but that last sentence is what I fear to be the case.
    .
    I’ve been wrong before (maybe this is the camel’s nose under the tent) hope I am again.
    .
    But I doubt it.

  • grape_crush

    Here’s a handy-dandy widget that shows ACA rollout timing, in case someone is interested.

  • afguy

    I’ve been wrong before (maybe this is the camel’s nose under the tent) hope I am again.
    .
    P-NNTO,
    .
    I’m afraid that if the camel actually tries to actually enter the tent, his nose is going to get bloodied to the degree that he’s be shy of ever making the attempt again.
    .
    This was sold just as you describe – as a first step in a long process. And it would be a long process forward, even if the opposition isn’t trying to undo the first baby step.
    .
    I see so much effort being expended just to maintain what has gotten done to the point that further REAL progress is a non-issue for the forseeable future.
    .
    HCR opponents will fight to repeal but will “settle” for a promise of “no additional changes” and will work to defund what is on the books, citing “deficit issues”, leaving us with a law but no power or real will remaining to make it work like it was intended.
    .
    They will “lose” the battle but “settle” for winning the overall war. And, barring leadership changes, the present Dem leadership will let it happen and proclaim how they “saved” HCR from repeal.

  • stuartzechman

    You still owe Tumulty a huge apology, Rustydog.

  • http://patricksartor.wordpress.com patricksartor

    redstate,
    .
    I won’t mock your handle or make fun of you since you, unlike Rusty/Newfreakenblog and Freakinpa have not gotten into a war of personal attacks, but, here in Swampland if you introduce a new fact but do not have a link to a reliable source to back it up, the presumption is that this information came from Rush Limbaugh’s ass and is about as factual and useful as the story of Cinderella.
    .
    When a person links to the same blog again and again trying to raise traffic to that blog, we call them a blogwhore.
    .
    So far, you have been whoring the same site but have never linked to an article to prove your point.
    .
    So, if you wish to be treated with respect, get with the program and link to articles from news sources. Fox and Rush Limbaugh do not count as news.

  • Paul-no not that one

    It isn’t all that dissimilar to the stimulus.
    .
    The Democrats (with large majorities in both houses and the presidency) get bullied into a smaller than effective bill and then get both “We TOLD you it wouldn’t work” and “We tried that before, why make the same mistake twice?” if it’s suggested maybe it could be improved.
    .
    BHO is both the president and head of the party so he gets the blame but Congressional Democrats, with some exceptions, bear a ton of responsibility.
    .
    Which is one of the reasons I complained about the Obamacare nonsense. Along with it being lazy “shorthand” it lets Congress off the hook.

  • tillkan

    Of course this is happening, I and other people predicted that this piece of Heritage foundation crap of a Republican health care bill would not be popular. The only chance of getting past the demagoguery would have been medicare-for-all because people actually know what it is. It would have had a bottom of 50% support and likely more.

  • stuartzechman

    patricksartor is correct, in as much as that credibility here requires links to and quotes from direct sources.
    .
    It’s the same for the pro writers as it is for the commenters.
    .
    Please provide links to and quotes from direct sources that can support your factual claims.
    .
    Welcome to Swampland.

  • http://patricksartor.wordpress.com patricksartor

    “It is weird how Democrats seem unable to muster the imagination to load the ammunition that the Republicans hand them. Think of all the damning clips The Daily Show can string together in a few hours of searching.”
    .
    It just seems like to me that when Democrats run for office, they seem to believe that everybody who votes is a political wonk who knows every word of every bill and will just look at policy and vote for Democrats.
    .
    Meanwhile, Republicans know that many Americans mistake elections for America’s funniest home videos and vote for the person smiles the most and shouts out how much they love America and Jesus Christ.
    .
    The worst example of this was six years ago when John Kerry seemed to spend his entire campaign with a pained look on his face like somebody just told him his mother had died. Billy Crystal, the comic was helping out with his campaign. I think he should have been piping fresh jokes into John Kerry’s ear via an earpiece to make Kerry start smiling.
    .
    But, this is how campaigns have been for years: Republicans cheer, love America, smile bright smiles and stone faced Democrats talk about issues with the presumption that everybody knows exactly what they are talking about and Republicans have spent 30 years beating Democrats for that reason.

  • stuartzechman

    You and other people who will never be on Meet The Press to discuss these things made reasonably accurate predictions once again.
    .
    But nobody could have predicted…

  • square1

    PNNTO: This isn’t about Obama being a “good or bad guy”. Just as there are different factions within the GOP, the Democratic party has different factions. And those factions simply have different values and different policy approaches.

    Simply noting the existence of Third-Way Democrats should not be controversial. And when President Obama surrounds himself with Third-Way Democrats, pushes for Third-Way policies, and rhetorically attacks liberal policies, it should not be controversial to make the argument — or even discuss the possibility — that President Obama is, in fact, a Third-Way Democrat. That he actually wants the policies that he has supported.
    .
    For some reason, many Democrats — many ostensibly liberal Democrats — simply refuse to consider this possibility. Discussing the possibility of Obama being a Third-Way Democrat is tatamount to accusing him of being a Nazi…or even a Martian. The suggestion isn’t merely offensive, it apparently borders on the preposterous to suggest that Obama fundamentally agrees with his hand-picked advisors and the policies that his administration has advanced.

  • chief568

    Mr. Crowley,

    What you and others failed to consider was that Obamacare (yes, it SHOULD be called that as President Obama pushed for a healthcare plan and signed it sight unseen – as such he OWNS it) didn’t really start until September when the effects hit.

    That’s when the anger and incredulousness about what was in it hit…mainly because NO ONE, not even those who VOTED for it (remember Speaker Pelosi saying “we have to vote for it before we know what’s IN it”?) and so didn’t know all of the ramifications of the bill.

    NOW we know and we know it STINKS!

    GOD willing, the conservative will get into power and repeal this horrendous law!

  • chief568

    REPUBLICAN health care bill?! I seem to recall that the DEMOCRATS were the ones behind closed doors creating this travesty and didn’t allow the Republicans entry…much less to have a word on how it was written!

    Worse, they were given little time to even READ the blasted bill before the vote came up. Of course, it appears the Democrats didn’t bother to read it either…they simply voted YES on it, sight unseen.

  • Paul-no not that one

    square1-poor writing on my part.
    .
    I’m not a “With BHO good or bad (as in no matter what)” guy nor a “harsh critic”.

  • stuartzechman

    I really wish I could have put it that clearly, sqr1.

  • stuartzechman

    It’s not a purely Republican piece of legislation, that’s true.
    .
    It’s a Third Way compromise between Stuart Butler at Heritage Foundation’s proposals and the Progressive Policy Institute’s proposals from about ten years ago, updated in 2009 through Tom Daschle/Bob Dole/Howard Baker’s Bipartisan Policy Center message shop/think tank.
    .
    So much of it is, in fact, Republican policy or policy designed to obtain Bob Dole’s promised “20 or so” GOP Senate votes.
    .
    http://www.bipartisanpolicy.org/library/health-insurance-design-choices-issues-and-options-change

  • http://patricksartor.wordpress.com patricksartor

    Apparently Freakinpa and Textee are taking turns repeating right wing misinformation about why a Latina Democrat would call her Vietnamese opponent anti-Immigrant.
    .
    “”Tran said immigration enforcement “is definitely a federal issue” – but he also said he supports Arizona’s right to attempt to crack down on illegal immigration. He said he does not support a blanket amnesty for the millions of immigrants here illegally but also said sending them all home “realistically (is) not going to happen.”"
    .
    http://www.ocregister.com/articles/tran-265124-federal-sanchez.html
    .
    Naw, Van Tran has no views which could possibly be called “anti-Immigrant”.

    Read more: http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/09/23/morning-must-reads-pledge/#ixzz10NtE0amS
    .
    How many times are you going to post this misleading half story?
    .
    I guess you will continue to post lies until they are believed.

  • chief568

    A Republican healthcare bill…with almost 100% of Republicans voting against it and almost ALL Democrats voting for it.

    Wow…that’s SOME logic.

    Sorry but this is OWNED by the Democrats, no matter HOW they compromised on it…because THEY voted for it. And AGAIN, they did not let the Republicans in the room while it was being written. Therefore I fail to see how ANYONE could attribute this lousy law to the Republicans.

    Those who voted for it, OWN it. That is the way politics goes.

    So, basically this is a Democrat law which they own, no matter HOW you slice it. You can spin it any way you want, but those who voted for this law which was crammed down the American people’s throat will be forced to take ownership of it in November.

  • stuartzechman

    A Republican healthcare bill…with almost 100% of Republicans voting against it and almost ALL Democrats voting for it.
    .
    Remember when the majority of Democrats voted against Bush’s Medicare Part D, even though so many had previously campaigned precisely on extending drug coverage through Medicare?
    .
    It’s like that.
    .
    It’s not that hard to imagine.

  • pelhamite1

    Hey, Chief

    The New York Times, doing its job, is starting a series today describing how individual families are affected by ACA, what you sneeringly call Obamacare (see page A16, I’m not good at linking). They start with a profile of the Thompson family of Kansas, who can get insurance for their child with spina biufida, now that they can no longer be denied due to her pre-existing condition. The Strong family of California is able to get treatments for their three year old with spinal muscular atrophy Type I; under the old system their child was likely to succumb as treatments would have been unaffordable. The McLears of Virginia are in the more mundane category of “being able to provde insurance for their 24 year old daughter who would have aged out of the old system” but are appreciative of the benefits all the same.

    You, apparently, want these children to die.

    As for myself, while I was lucky in that I had insurance that covered the treatments for my daughter’s Hodgkins Lymphoma two years ago, I am keenly aware that if I had lost my job, as so many others did during that time, that I might not have been able to cover the treatments. Even so, I will probably have to sell my house to get clear of the debt my family accumulated under the existing system.

    The old system was horrible. The old system killed people. The new system is overly complex – it is, as Stuart Zechman might say – a Center-Right system, but that is not due to Obama but to the simple fact that the Center/Right hold the balance of power in the Congress at this time and this was the best that could be passed. But it is an all important start.

    And not only do you want to go back to the old system that killed people but was insanely wasteful to boot, but you think God is on your side. Whatever Christianity might mean, your crabbed, spiteful world view cannot be it.

    As a matter of fact, may you rot in Hell.

  • chief568

    “Remember when the majority of Democrats voted against Bush’s Medicare Part D, even though so many had previously campaigned precisely on extending drug coverage through Medicare?”

    And yet it is attributed to the Republicans, is it not? So why not attribute Obamacare to the Democrats?

  • afguy

    Sorry but this is OWNED by the Democrats, no matter HOW they compromised on it…because THEY voted for it. And AGAIN, they did not let the Republicans in the room while it was being written.
    .
    A lot of this bill was tailored to get the votes of a few so-called “moderate” Republicans. Their input was accepted and incorporated. And they still voted against a bill that contained provisions THEY requested.
    .
    We call that “bad-faith negotiation”. You can blame the Dems for failure to realize what was happening or the GOP for wasting time negotiating but they WERE consulted.
    .
    We choose option C – both of the above. We ended up with a law that NO ONE likes in its present form but that NO ONE is likely to find the courage (or political desire) to improve.
    .
    The law is NOT unpopular because of opposition to HCR. It’s unpopular because opponents dislike either what was left out (public option) or what was included (mandate w/o public option). A majority think something needs to be done to inprove things.
    .
    Same some of your outrage for the GOP – they contributed substantially to this mess.

  • http://patricksartor.wordpress.com patricksartor

    Two different matters:
    .
    1) Obamacare sounds like either a Mcname as in a name some really bad advertising people came up with for a catchy slogan or a perjorative. It just doesn’t sound professional just as no Democrats (with Democratic advertisers asleep at the wheel rather than coming up with catchy perjoratives) never called Iraq The Bushwar. It was, like HCR, something Bush took ownership of. It was his idea, yet, not called The Bushwar.
    .
    2) With 97 years since Theodore Roosevelt promised in his failed third term attempt in 1912 under the Progressive/Bull Mouse Party, the waiting until it’s perfect strategy was, clearly, by 2012, a total failure.
    .
    I can agree with Republicans on one of their smaller points: when a government agency or program starts (with the exception for the New Deal programs to put people to work which shut down promptly as the Second World War started in Europe and labor demand went through the ceiling) it almost never gets cut. Unlike Republicans, however, I would site some of the cold war military spending as what I would like to see on the hit list, but, that’s off topic.
    .
    Now we have government offices dealing with health care for people who are employed and not impoverished. From here, with Republican obstructionism, our worst case scenario is that this remains as it is for two to twenty years. Our most likely scenario is that the yellow bellied blue dogs are less timid when moderate and progressive Democrats put the public option back on the table.
    .
    We all know the math of the public option. Even with higher wages for it’s lowest paying positions, with no huge executive offices, a $200k per year rather than $20m per year salary for the CEO, no advertising costs, no profit sharing that the public option will devour for profit insurance companies such that these companies will have to start branching into other forms of insurance and start closing down their health care insurance divisions.
    .
    That, I would guess five years after the public option, would have only the public option left with nobody hiring lobbyists against single payer.
    .
    From there we go to single payer.
    .
    I totally agree that this is watered down, weak and barely half of what anybody wanted, but, if we left it at waiting for perfection, perhaps another 97 years would have gone by with no plans completed and I am not going to be alive in 2107 to see that happen.

  • apr2563

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/22/sharron-angle-autism-health-care-coverage_n_735885.html
    .
    Please stop calling health reform Obamacare. It was, unfortunately, assembled by group think, steered by lobbyists. Some good things in the bill but needs a serious overall, and not by the current group of Republicans.
    .
    Please point out the stupidity of some Reps who seem to have a basic misunderstanding of health insurance. Angle only wants policies that charge premium for what a customer will need. She wonders why insureds have to pay for maternity costs, autism costs, etc. Why they may never use those benefits! Do you think she wants to have cancer covered? You might never use that benefit. How about carbuncles?
    .
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/22/sharron-angle-autism-health-care-coverage_n_735885.html
    .
    But then, she also wants to privatize the VA.
    .
    http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/09/reid-ad-angle-wants-to-privatize-the-va-end-our-promise-to-veterans-video.php
    .
    Why don’t you canvas the TP candidates and other reactionary Republicans to find out if they buy into the Angle concept of insurance? So they also want to privatize the VA? I would like them to explain that to our wounded vets.

  • http://patricksartor.wordpress.com patricksartor

    I don’t know your name, but presume you are joking.

  • chief568

    Hey pelhamite1,

    Oh REALLY?

    Big health insurers to stop selling new child-only policies
    Anthem Blue Cross, Aetna Inc. and others say they will make the move as soon as Thursday when parts of the new healthcare law take effect. They cite potentially huge and unexpected costs for insuring children.

    http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep/21/business/la-fi-kids-health-insurance-20100921

    Looks like Medicare might be cut too.

    Oh and the premiums for health insurance will be raised soon too.

    Haven’t you figured this out yet??? WHY is there a 4 year lag time between the government sponsored healthcare and the taxes collected to deal with it if healthcare costs won’t go up “one thin dime”?

    Because it’s a waiting game. Those with catastrophic diseases will now get healthcare at normal rates…so ALL the rates will go up. Once that happens, people will shop for a better rate…until the insurance company they had goes out of business. Then the process happens again and again…UNTIL only the RICH will be able to afford private healthcare insurance…and the rest of the population will have to be on government health care.

    BTW, just HOW did these children survive BEFORE this law was inacted?

    Oh and you didn’t see the little blurb in the law that states those under age 14 or older than 60 have to have a review of their conditions in front of a board, which will do essentially a cost/benefit analysis as to whether or not it is economically sound for the government to finance someone’s treatments.

    Before, you could sue the private institution if they didn’t treat you…good LUCK suing the federal government.

  • stuartzechman

    The new system is overly complex – it is, as Stuart Zechman might say – a Center-Right system
    .
    Whatever else is or is not the case, you are correct –that is exactly what I might say.

  • http://patricksartor.wordpress.com patricksartor

    Stuart,
    .
    I respectfully disagree with two things;
    .
    1) As I stated above (but after your comment) that I do agree with a concept Republicans so often say: once a government agency or laws are created, they are very seldom repealed but, instead, often made larger. (As stated above, I only agree with that smaller point, not which things should be shrinking or abolished.)
    .
    2) I sent you the PBS Frontline episode about the passing of HCR. Maybe I have some insights being from a mildly dysfunctional family of six, but, as Frontline presented it, I am not in the least bit surprised that adding all of these decision makers when going through congressional and senate committees radically alters the bill to be watered down and changed into something different.
    .
    Our biggest difference is in intent of the administration. It seems to be your POV that Obama knew exactly what this bill would look like from the beginning of his campaign and always wanted this. By contrast, I believe that he was only very slightly less surprised that all of us were that his HCR reform went from a slightly more conservative version of the German model to what it became, but, as when figuring out what six different people want to order for Friday nigh Pizza, you have the option of taking what you get or starving.
    .
    Since I believe that the president meant what he said, if and only if we have a significant Democratic majority with very few yellow bellied blue dogs and many progressive Democrats in that majority, this president himself may work with congress to make this health care package far, far more like the one he promised after 2012 or, possibly, after 2014 when it gains significant popularity.
    .
    This is one difference I, also, have with 3Xfire3: president is very dissimilar to CEO/President of a company. Company presidents and CEOs run dictatorships. Presidents are more like Kindergarten teachers hoping to get all of the congress to play together nicely and not spend all day throwing blocks at one another.

  • http://patricksartor.wordpress.com patricksartor

    Chief, from your own link:
    .

    “The action will apply only to new coverage sought for children and not to existing child-only plans, family policies or insurance provided to youngsters through their parents’ employers….
    …The insurers said they now sell relatively few child-only policies, and thus the changes will have a small effect on families.”
    .
    I see one thing for you and one thing for Stuart.
    .
    1) For Chief, this will impact very few people since most people insure both themselves and their children. If these people work for companies which prefer getting health care insurance rather than the tax, the harm will promptly be undone.
    .
    2) For Stuart, as the link says, congress has already condemned this action. What I read is, if Democrats get a majority, congress will close this loophole as a small part of a long evolution towards single payer.

  • liberalmeltdown

    Don’t take it personal Michael. Kids will be kids. They don’t want to accept the responsibility of perpetuating fraud on the public.

    Ever so sensitive to labels like: Obamcare, the liberals would never use something like that, or call someone a teabagger, nope.

    You think they’re cranky now, wait until November.

  • stuartzechman

    Whoah, wait a second, patricksartor…
    .
    as a small part of a long evolution towards single payer
    .
    What evidence do you have that establishment Democrats are positively involved in some kind of “long evolution towards” Canada’s system?
    .
    Isn’t there all kinds of evidence that the people in charge of the Democratic Party are quite opposed to a single-payer system, even if many of them are (sensibly) oblique about their principles at opportune electoral moments?

  • http://patricksartor.wordpress.com patricksartor

    Meltdown,
    .
    First, nobody would object to “The Democrats Health Care Reform” since it is absolutely factually correct. But, Obamacare is a slur.
    .
    Second, Michael nor any of the other journalists, held to a higher standard than any of us are (or at least should be) do not call you (as I usually don’t unless somebody is starting another personal attack) “teabaggers”.
    .
    Until recently, a few months ago, I forgot what it meant since it was just something crude guys would tell each other about after a few drinks in college when there are no women around.

  • http://patricksartor.wordpress.com patricksartor

    “What evidence do you have that establishment Democrats are positively involved in some kind of “long evolution towards” Canada’s system?”
    .
    First, you can use Republican examples of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security or Liberal examples of the military industrial complex as a template for government behavior. Once you go as far as to create an agency and/or regulations, there is a push to expand, not maintain or retract that agency and/or regulators to constantly correct for unintended consequences or incomplete results.
    .
    Second, from Chief’s article:
    .
    “The change has angered lawmakers, regulators and healthcare advocates, who say it will force more families to enroll in already strained public insurance programs such as Medi-Cal for the poor in California.

    The White House weighed in Tuesday, condemning Anthem corporate parent WellPoint Inc. and others that plan to stop selling child-only policies.”
    .
    If this particular problem of children only policies continues or gets worse and is already visible to the white house and Democrats in congress, the next step – within the next year if we keep the majority – is a correction of this problem through amendments to the law.
    .
    Except for New Deal job programs like the WPA, the CCC and so on, which were abolished due to responding to the opposite problem from unemployment to preparing for war, find me any examples of programs which shrank, were abolished or did not expand.
    .
    This has been my thesis all along and how it differs from yours. Single payer, after 97 years, has it’s toe in the door. That toe is not going to get cut off. It will, within ten years, be a full foot in the door and, possibly, due to the problems of not having a public option, have a full foot in the door with a public option.
    .
    It’s an evolution, not a revolution.
    .
    In my own interpretation of history, most things, even political revolution, evolve slowly rather than coming out of the womb as a fully formed adult.

  • http://patricksartor.wordpress.com patricksartor

    Note: by any standard of “proof” neither one of us have any way of having “proof” about 2014, 2020, etc much less what would have happened if this HCR failed.
    .
    I have a hypothesis as you do.

  • conradca

    The problem with Obamacare is that it is dishonest and fascist.

    The “deficit reduction” was based on fraud. They counted 10 years of new taxes and only 6 years of expenses. Furthermore, they counted on revenue that then knew was not real. Such as the reduction in fees paid for medicare that would have destroyed medicare. So any claim of deficit reduction is a lie.

    Obamacare weill destroy the current healthcare system we have. This is contrary to Obamas promise to let us keep the existing plans. Obamacare kills the existing plans by adding additional requirements to all insurances and by making it much cheaper for businesses to drop the insurance the provide to their employees.

    The liberals/progressives never pass up a chance to force their will on that of the people. They know better than everyone else so they passed Obamacare over the opposition of the majority of US citizens. Then the attacked those who expressed disagreement calling them Nazis, astrotruf and pawns of the wealthy evil insurance companies. Now they are trying to ban plastic shopping bags and tax paper bags because they know better than the people. Oh, and my favorite, they are trying to ban free toys with kid’s meals. They also want to force people to live in small boxes packed together like sardines and only ride public transit because they know better and have the power to force their will on the rest of us. They love the Cap & Trade bill because it will give them control of just about everything we do. They have a lot in common with the fascists and communists.

    Another great example of their arrogance is how they “interpret the second amendment” to mean, not what is clear states, but support their views that guns should be banned. There is no limit to their arrogance and fascist nature.

  • 3xfire3

    Liberalmeltdown,.

    “Don’t take it personal Michael. Kids will be kids. They don’t want to accept the responsibility of perpetuating fraud on the public.

    Ever so sensitive to labels like: Obamcare, the liberals would never use something like that, or call someone a teabagger, nope.

    You think they’re cranky now, wait until November.”
    .
    Excellent post.
    .
    Like Kids, the left must blame someone besides themselves for the fact that no one loves them but themselves.
    .
    November will be great.

  • 3xfire3

    Stuart,
    .
    You are correct.

  • http://patricksartor.wordpress.com patricksartor

    “Like Kids, the left must blame someone besides themselves for the fact that no one loves them but themselves.”
    .
    Actually, 3X, as the popularity grows and grows very, very slowly, it is not blame I want for both Democrats in both houses and Democratic voters like myself in addition to Obama, it is on it’s way to being something we will take credit for.
    .
    I am, obviously, not president Obama, so, if you call it “Obamacare” you leave me out. “If you call it Patricksartorcare, it would be even less accurate and nobody outside of swampland would have any idea what you are talking about.
    .
    So, I prefer, Democratic Health Care Reform since I did not write it myself at all.

  • stuartzechman

    The liberals/progressives never pass up a chance to force their will on that of the people. They know better than everyone else so they passed Obamacare over the opposition of the majority of US citizens.
    .
    Hey, movement liberals didn’t have anything to do with passing this thing, our representatives were mostly threatened into voting for it, and it’s obviously not liberal policy.
    .
    “Progressives,” on the other hand, love it.
    .
    This is their policy, not ours.

  • stuartzechman

    It may take some time for me to properly digest this…hypothesis, as it were.
    .
    I’ve got Jay Ackroyd’s public affairs show Virtually Speaking in Second Life in 45 minutes, I may not be able to respond, as I’d like.

  • earljr1

    You are right on the money with your commentary, chief568. Obamacare is at best, a mammoth fraud perpetrated on the American public. The democrats in their infinite wisdom, left the fox in charge of the hen house. The insurance and pharmaceutical industries have more power than ever, rates continue to escalate with no end in sight and physicians are now quite cognizant of the impending crisis, if millions of new patients are forced on already overburdened infrastructure. The most negatively impacted by obamacare, will be our seniors. New medicare patients will find great difficulty in finding a doctor to treat them as thousands of my colleagues are putting up a stop sign and who can blame them? Payment has been reduced and the insurance companies will tell us what we can, or cannot do, in treating our patients. This whole bill is nothing but a bureaucratic entanglement and DOES NOT serve the patient well. As it gets implemented, expect a long, anguished howl of protest (especially from our seniors) as patients experience major inconveniences. This bill SHOULD be repealed.

  • http://patricksartor.wordpress.com patricksartor

    “The insurance and pharmaceutical industries have more power than ever, rates continue to escalate with no end in sight and physicians are now quite cognizant of the impending crisis, if millions of new patients are forced on already overburdened infrastructure.”
    .
    So Earl’s solution is to elect people who have always wanted more control by the insurance companies to make sure that things get much, much worse rather than elect more liberal Democrats who would, at the very least, put in the public option which will, due to their lower costs, destroy for profit health insurance when in open competition.
    .
    It’s like discovering that the fox is watching the hen house and advocating to release the wolves to scare away the fox – and eat each and every hen in the process.

blog comments powered by Disqus