Why didn't the dems do "medicare for all" when they had the power to do so?

[Deuce]

Well, I guess that sounded better in your head...lol

You know liberals pay taxes, right? Like, there's not an IRS exemption for voting Democrat.

 

[jaeger19]

Actually they wouldn't. Single payer could remove the insurance companies from the picture. Who owns all the insurance companies and profits from them. The rich and powerful. The whole industry gone. That is a multi trillion dollar industry. All that money actually being used for health care would go a long way. I don't think it would be that easy for the rich and powerful to just take the money from the government. The people might actually want to know who is profiting from their tax dollars. We can hope anyway.

You are foolish to think that single payer would remove insurance companies from the picture. no way.. no how.

Who do you think administers medicare and Medicaid.. right now?

Medicare and Medicaid are among the biggest profit makers for private insurance companies.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

They spent every nickel of political capital on barrycare...which we were told was a "big ****ing deal", remember? Instead of doing what they're now saying would "really fix our medical system", which is medicare for all.

Why didn't they do that then?

By the way, lefties keep telling us how barrycare s awesome, but out of the other side of their mouths still barking about how bad it is. Weird. Really ****ing weird.

Because they would not have gotten the votes from enough democrats to get it passed.

A simple explanation

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

You are foolish to think that single payer would remove insurance companies from the picture. no way.. no how.

Who do you think administers medicare and Medicaid.. right now?

Medicare and Medicaid are among the biggest profit makers for private insurance companies.

That is why single payer is not affordable. After all the government workers and the rich and powerful take their cut there is not enough left to pay for our health care. That is the biggest problem with our government it no longer serves the people.

 

[Zyphlin]

They spent every nickel of political capital on barrycare...which we were told was a "big ****ing deal", remember? Instead of doing what they're now saying would "really fix our medical system", which is medicare for all.

The Democrats had full control due to numerous more moderate Democrats in office (blue dogs) which wouldn't get on board with such a thing as it'd likely have caused them their seats. Combine that with Barack Obama being pragmatic in practice despite his more progressive personal ideology, and thus understanding that the American public wouldn't get on board for such a significant move from what the current system was, and you have your answer.

 

[Zyphlin]

We reached across the aisle to the very end. We even used YOUR IDEAS instead of ours.

The Heritage Foundation is hardly liberal. It was their idea.

Working with Republicans is fruitless.

First, you used some of "our" ideas. Specifically, you used ideas that were proposed by some Republicans decades ago that was rolled into a larger plan, one that was ultimately rejected by Republicans. They used those ideas alongside numerous ideas which were not "ours", some of which that actively hampered some of the reasons why Republicans had supported the ideas you all used.

Second, attempting to act as if the ACA as a whole was simply a Republican idea, which you are doing here by suggesting that they "used [Republican / Conservative] ideas instead of [Democrats / Liberals]", is incredibly dishonest and horribly false.

Third, the ACA was absolutely NOT a heritage foundation idea. ASPECTS of the ACA included some ideas that an individual at the Heritage foundation pushed for decades earlier, and was ultimately rejected by Republicans. But again, to paint the ACA, which is what you're referring to in this line of conversation through your use of "It", was a Heritage Foundation idea is flatly false.
As I've pointed out before on this forum since this point of propoganda is a common one among hyperpartisan liberals (not posting the entire posts for sake of size, but anyone can click the arrow to read them in full):

While the mandating of insurance is similar, there are a number of difference between the two bills that is at the core a likely reason its okay then and not now. For example, one of the key ones it seems is the ability to purchase between state lines. This opens up competition in the market place making insurance more varied, more affordable, and gives more choices to those having to buy it. From what I've seen the penalties for buying your own insurance, and buying very good insurance for yourself, were not present in the older bill which again makes the choice more difficult.

The plan from 1993 also had a number of things, such a reform of malpractice law, that have been denied going into this.

It also doesn't seem to have a number of things, such as the direct access to our bank accounts, a government panel making decisions regarding what treatment you can have (without the appeals process found in private insurance), subsidizing union contracts, and other such things that add to this.

First, there was no real official "republican" health care bill. There was one penned by oft criticized former Republican Lincoln Chafee that did get a significant amount of support for a short time as a possible "compromise" bill, one such compromise being the individual mandate. However within a few months the mandate, and the bill, was roundly criticized and rejected by a majority of Republicans including those previously supporting it, the AMA, and the CBO. You also had the Cooper-Grady health care proposal out there as a possible Republican backed proposal along with the Rowland/Bilirakis one and not that long after the Packwood-Dole which was just as largely supported by Republicans as the Chafee plan and it rejected the idea of an individual mandate. So stating it was some kind of "Official" uniformed Republican preference is an absolute absurdity and highlights the hypocrisy of you complaining about others being honest when you spew such rhetoric yourself. Taking ONE republican backed plan during a time when they were completely out of control of the government and had to put forth compromised bills that gave ground to the other side in hopes of having any shot of legitimately potentially getting something passed as the "OFFICIAL" stance of "REPUBLIACNS" while ignoring other competing bills and wide scale rejection of said bill within a few months time is ridiculously disingenuous. At best you could say it was the stance of a majority of Senate Republicans, and that's about as far as you can get.

to be continued...

 

[Zyphlin]

...

The 1993 Bill in Question, the one that built off the idea put forward by a single individual at heritage, quickly lost support from Republicans. The soon to be Presidential nominee, Bob Dole, who originally cosponsored the bill...along with a number of other senators...were the first to abandon the idea in part due to the individual mandate in 1994 (SOURCE). It was during that year that Senate Republicans completely abandoned the Chafee bill and instead focused on one that expand access to insurance while stopping short of requiring everyone to have insurance (SOURCE). Within short order enough Republicans opposed the Chafee Plan to kill it in the 103rd congress completely (SOURCE).

Shortly after Forty of the Forty-Four Republican Senators supported the Dole-Packwood health care plan that rejected the notion of an individual mandate (SOURE). In the wake of his new bill, supported by the vast majority of Republicans in the Senate, Bob Dole explained well the thought of Conservatives regarding the notion of universal coverage via the individual mandate:

"I think I agreed that was certainly a goal. I didn't object to everybody being covered. But I did object on how we were going to do it and how we were going to get there and how they defined it." (SOURCE)

As you can see, as early as 1994....TWENTY YEARS AGO...it was clear that by and large conservatives had abandoned the notion that the "individual mandate" was a legitimate means of going about attempting to get people covered for health care. Liberals keep pointing back to something that occurred in 1993 as a means of expecting Conservatives to have gotten on board 15 years later...all while ignoring that ONE YEAR later they already had rejected the notion. Why in the world would Conservatives...fourteen years after they by and large began to reject the individual mandate...jump on board with a bill simply because it had an individual mandate?

In short...

Democrats wanted Republicans to "compromise" by accepting a compromised position of an already compromised position that was already rejected by them 15+ years earlier as their policy "reward" for getting on board with various democratic desires within the bill.

 

[Zyphlin]

Fixing health care would be easy if everyone at the table wanted it to be fixed.

Not really. For it to be "easy", not only would everyone want it to be fixed, but everyone would roughly agree on what needs to be fixed, what the primary method for fixing it should be, and what aspects as exists today need to be maintained.

If everyone at the table were in line with those things, then it would truly be "easy". The reality is that there are sizable divides concerning those various other factors, and thus any hope or thought that such a thing would be "easy" is a gross overestimate, likely born from an egotistical fueled notion of "it'd be easy if everyone would just do what my side wants".

 

[Bullseye]

The democrats expanded healthcare to millions of americans ….some people getting it for the first time in their lives and actually saving their lives

The GOP does nothing.

And in the process caused other millions to loose the plans they liked and be forced into buying something they didn't want with premiums skyrocketing every year and huge deductibles. Not to mention having to pay more tax to pay the higher premiums for others. Yeah, that's not fixing anything VG, that's just creating a mindless progressive slogan for the low IQ crowd.

 

[Zyphlin]

LOL... they didn't need a single republican. Weird how you throw that "reaching across the aisle" BS. And the so called republican whose ideas were used is extremely liberal.

They didn't need a Republican, but they absolute needed their own party. Specifically both the President and the blue dogs. They weren't going to get that pushing for a single payer style medicare for all. You seem to be under this misguided notion that every politician with a particular letter under their name is exactly the same as every other one ideologically...that's just not the case.

What's more, you also seem to ignore that they are POLITICIANS. While they may not have "needed" a single Republican, Barack Obama realized that any significant progressive change to healthcare that did not garner at least some support from the other side would mire it in political muck for years, if not decades, to come and leave it on extremely fragile ground that could fall out from under it at any time. As such, incremental change that was likely to stay and potentially make us closer to single payer in the future was preferable to shoving through single payer only to see it potentially cut out at the knees before it really got going and potentially dooming the chances of it happening in the US for another generation or more.

 

[yankintx]

The GOP has the executive and legislative branch, and cant fufill there campaign promise to repeal. Go ahead GOP, try again lol

 

[Zyphlin]

For a few months dems had the power to vote in any form/type of health care insurance they wanted ...

In theory, you're absolutely correct. The democrats had a super majority.

In reality, that only works if one is foolish enough to believe that everyone with a (D) or an (R) next to their name think in absolute lock step with each other on every issue. It amazes me how often I see Republican/Conservative types that would be apt to use the term RINO or complain about Republican "never-trumpers" are always so quick to forget that the notion of interparty conflicts can't possibly exist with Democrats.

Similar to how I've pointed out to people during this current congress when they point out Republican majorities on various things, just because they're all the same party doesn't mean they agree on everything. While they had a super majority of Democrats, that super majority was built off the backs of a variety of more moderate Democratic congressmen from traditional conservative locations who would never have gotten on board with the more liberal wing of their parties policy desires on this matter.

This is why I've pointed out for years now, the compromises done with the ACA wasn't as much about winning over Republican support as much as it was about winning over Blue-Dog democrats and making them feel comfortable that they could vote for this while still having a reasonable chance of winning in their next election.

 

[Linc]

They didn't need a Republican, but they absolute needed their own party. Specifically both the President and the blue dogs. They weren't going to get that pushing for a single payer style medicare for all. You seem to be under this misguided notion that every politician with a particular letter under their name is exactly the same as every other one ideologically...that's just not the case.

What's more, you also seem to ignore that they are POLITICIANS. While they may not have "needed" a single Republican, Barack Obama realized that any significant progressive change to healthcare that did not garner at least some support from the other side would mire it in political muck for years, if not decades, to come and leave it on extremely fragile ground that could fall out from under it at any time. As such, incremental change that was likely to stay and potentially make us closer to single payer in the future was preferable to shoving through single payer only to see it potentially cut out at the knees before it really got going and potentially dooming the chances of it happening in the US for another generation or more.

Another Holy Cow WOW post on DP, Z

 

[Zyphlin]

The GOP has the executive and legislative branch, and cant fufill there campaign promise to repeal. Go ahead GOP, try again lol

Again, this is as idiotic as those acting like Democrats should've/could've just passed single payer. One, Republicans don't have a super majority to bypass filibusters. Two, even if they could get a straight 50/50 vote, they run into the issue that not every Republican thinks the same way on every issue and assuming that they'll all get behind it because they have an (R) is foolish. There are individuals in Congress on the (R) side from liberal leaning areas that likely recognize a full repeal could be costly to them politically and thus won't get on board.

 

[Linc]

In theory, you're absolutely correct. The democrats had a super majority.

In reality, that only works if one is foolish enough to believe that everyone with a (D) or an (R) next to their name think in absolute lock step with each other on every issue. It amazes me how often I see Republican/Conservative types that would be apt to use the term RINO or complain about Republican "never-trumpers" are always so quick to forget that the notion of interparty conflicts can't possibly exist with Democrats.

Similar to how I've pointed out to people during this current congress when they point out Republican majorities on various things, just because they're all the same party doesn't mean they agree on everything. While they had a super majority of Democrats, that super majority was built off the backs of a variety of more moderate Democratic congressmen from traditional conservative locations who would never have gotten on board with the more liberal wing of their parties policy desires on this matter.

This is why I've pointed out for years now, the compromises done with the ACA wasn't as much about winning over Republican support as much as it was about winning over Blue-Dog democrats and making them feel comfortable that they could vote for this while still having a reasonable chance of winning in their next election.

Holy Cow WOW 2.0 — Progressive Conservatism

 

[Zyphlin]

Actually the ACA was based on a plan created in a conservative think tank and allowed over 200 amendments from the GOP. So, yes the ACA did include not only a lot of ideas from the GOP, the whole plan was based on a GOP plan.

No. No it was not. Reference my posts earlier in this thread. A variety of aspects of it was based on a plan created in a conservative think tank nearly two decades earlier, and was subsequently rejected by Republicans in congress nearly two decades earlier as well. What's more, a large number of aspects of that conservative think thank plan were NOT included in the ACA and a large number of aspects that were NOT part of the conservative think tank plan WAS included in the ACA.

They took something that Republicans already turned against and disagreed with last century and then wanted to act shocked when they rejected it again (only this time it took away the sell across state lines, which was one of the key aspects in the original plan that had Republicans thinking it MIGHT actually be a viable option at that time).

 

[Zyphlin]

You know liberals pay taxes, right? Like, there's not an IRS exemption for voting Democrat.

Damn, that would be the one way I would consider registering Democrat

 

[yankintx]

Again, this is as idiotic as those acting like Democrats should've/could've just passed single payer. One, Republicans don't have a super majority to bypass filibusters. Two, even if they could get a straight 50/50 vote, they run into the issue that not every Republican thinks the same way on every issue and assuming that they'll all get behind it because they have an (R) is foolish. There are individuals in Congress on the (R) side from liberal leaning areas that likely recognize a full repeal could be costly to them politically and thus won't get on board.

I am just pointing out another empty campaign promise courtesy of the GOP. Idiotic, not at all, the point went over your head.

 

[AlbqOwl]

They spent every nickel of political capital on barrycare...which we were told was a "big ****ing deal", remember? Instead of doing what they're now saying would "really fix our medical system", which is medicare for all.

Why didn't they do that then?

By the way, lefties keep telling us how barrycare is awesome, but out of the other side of their mouths still barking about how bad it is. Weird. Really ****ing weird.

I personally think the motive was never to improve healthcare, make it more affordable, etc. The purpose was to transfer a tremendous amount of control and therefore power to the federal government and therefore themselves. And that's pretty much what they accomplished.

 

[polgara]

Damn, that would be the one way I would consider registering Democrat

Greetings, Zyphlin. :2wave:

:afraid: .. :thumbs: .. :lamo

 

[jaeger19]

No. No it was not. Reference my posts earlier in this thread. A variety of aspects of it was based on a plan created in a conservative think tank nearly two decades earlier, and was subsequently rejected by Republicans in congress nearly two decades earlier as well. What's more, a large number of aspects of that conservative think thank plan were NOT included in the ACA and a large number of aspects that were NOT part of the conservative think tank plan WAS included in the ACA.

They took something that Republicans already turned against and disagreed with last century and then wanted to act shocked when they rejected it again (only this time it took away the sell across state lines, which was one of the key aspects in the original plan that had Republicans thinking it MIGHT actually be a viable option at that time).

That's actually not true.. in fact ... many of the Congressman that were vehement anti ACA people.. had voted FOR the same ideas years before.

there is just no getting around the fact.. that the democrats did propose the ACA with a lot of core ideas that were and had been supported by republicans for years and years.

Folks like to do a lot of revisionist history but the facts are what they are.

Heck. the ACA was patterned after healthcare reform that was supported by the Republican nominee for president.

(which we really missed the boat on.. because if Romney had owned up to it.. he could have crushed Obama in the debate.. but instead.. Romney had to run from it because of the right wing republicans).

 

[itsforthekids]

I personally think the motive was never to improve healthcare, make it more affordable, etc. The purpose was to transfer a tremendous amount of control and therefore power to the federal government and therefore themselves. And that's pretty much what they accomplished.

Bingo!

 

[jaeger19]

I personally think the motive was never to improve healthcare, make it more affordable, etc. The purpose was to transfer a tremendous amount of control and therefore power to the federal government and therefore themselves. And that's pretty much what they accomplished.

Actually it was a step away from federal government power. Particularly as designed.

 

[jaeger19]

That is why single payer is not affordable. After all the government workers and the rich and powerful take their cut there is not enough left to pay for our health care. That is the biggest problem with our government it no longer serves the people.

Well.. then when you think about it.. if the government doesn't serve the people.. why do you want government.. like Trump.. in charge of your healthcare?

 

[Zyphlin]

That's actually not true.. in fact ... many of the Congressman that were vehement anti ACA people.. had voted FOR the same ideas years before.

Who? Name names.

there is just no getting around the fact.

As I said, you are free to go reference the post I made earlier in this thread. In it I actually provided sources...ACTUAL facts...for what I've said. You've provided zilch other than your opinion masquerading as fact.

Heck. the ACA was patterned after healthcare reform that was supported by the Republican nominee for president.

You mean the Republican Nominee for President who was widely attacked throughout the Primary, BY REPUBLICANS, specifically due to his healthcare law and where said healthcare law was widely viewed by anyone following the primary as one of his primary hurdles to overcome with Republican voters? That nominee?

Romney had to run from it because of the right wing republicans

Right, because it was something viewed for quite some time as a NEGATIVE to the vast majority of Republicans across the country, as evidenced by the fact that they had abandoned such a plan on a national stage over a DECADE earlier.