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

[AlbqOwl]

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

The original Act contained 381,517 words none of which transferred any power to the states or individuals.
As of 2013 there were 11,588,500 words of Obamacare regulations on the books with three more years of the Obama administration to add to those. And NONE of those words transferred any power to the states or individuals and took a whole lot of power from them.

For comparison, there are 805,649 words in the King James Bible and 7,562 words in the U.S. Constitution including amendments.

 

[Deuce]

The original Act contained 381,517 words none of which transferred any power to the states or individuals.
As of 2013 there were 11,588,500 words of Obamacare regulations on the books with three more years of the Obama administration to add to those. And NONE of those words transferred any power to the states or individuals and took a whole lot of power from them.

For comparison, there are 805,649 words in the King James Bible and 7,562 words in the U.S. Constitution including amendments.

Wordcount is the absolute dumbest thing to bring up. And to add the bible... jeez, just move to Saudi Arabia already.

 

[jaeger19]

The original Act contained 381,517 words none of which transferred any power to the states or individuals.
As of 2013 there were 11,588,500 words of Obamacare regulations on the books with three more years of the Obama administration to add to those. And NONE of those words transferred any power to the states or individuals and took a whole lot of power from them.

For comparison, there are 805,649 words in the King James Bible and 7,562 words in the U.S. Constitution including amendments.

Actually I read it.

And the ACA gave states and local governments funds and support to start local coops for insurance.. to increase competition in the market.

The ACA gave money so that Medicare patients .. individuals could go and discuss their personal wishes with their physicians so that there was not needless medical expenses at end of life.

The aca helped states and the federal government create exchanges where INDIVIDUALS could go and purchase their own healthcare policies and choose from a variety of options..

The reality is that the ACA gave way more power to the individual and to the states.

Sorry maam.. but thats just a couple easy examples.. and big ones.. of the ACA decentralizing power. It was a large step back from going toward single payer.. and using a market based concept for insurance coverage.

Just the facts.

 

[jaeger19]

Who? Name names.
.

Sure:

Republican Sen. John Chafee of Rhode Island was the point man. The bill he introduced, Health Equity and Access Reform Today, (yes, that spells HEART) had a list of 20 co-sponsors that was a who’s who of Republican leadership. There was Minority Leader Bob Dole, R- Kan., Sens. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, Richard Lugar, R-Ind., and many others. There also were two Democratic co-sponsors.

Among other features, the Chafee bill included:

An individual mandate;


Creation of purchasing pools;


Standardized benefits;


Vouchers for the poor to buy insurance;


A ban on denying coverage based on a pre-existing condition

.

Look familiar?

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?

Yes.. the one that ultimately was the republican choice for president.

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

Which they had originally supported.

The facts are that republicans had supported such things in the past.. you just can't get around those facts.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

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?

Trump is one man in an Ocean of bought and paid for puppets. I think Trump is truly trying. He is clearly not one of the party puppets. Trump was a democrat before he joined the republican party. I don't think he cares about party at all. If there was a strong candidate in the republican party and the democrats had 15 candidates and further was further split by the tea party he would be a democrat president right now. He actually makes a better democrat than a republican. He would fit right in with Bill Clinton and the Kennedy's.

 

[Zyphlin]

Sure:

So first, because I need to

Moderator's Warning:

If you're going to quote other sources please follow rule 9 and provide a link to the material

Now then, entering your quote into google, it appears to come from a Politifact article concerning "Is the ACA the GOP health care plan from 1993"? Now, since you're trying to use that as an authority, let me first point out their overall answer....that such a statement is only a half-truth. Note, when I pointed that out to the poster who was originally making such a point, you claimed "no, that's not true".

The second thing I want to point out is that it's BEYOND apparent that you've not bothered to actually bother to read my posts in this thread, because I already addressed this, and it just highlights your dishonesty all the more. Not only that, it's clear you didn't even do any research beyond just clicking on Politifact. Not a single Republican cast a vote for the bill in question because the bill never actually made it to the floor for debate let alone a vote. The reason for that, as I already noted in this thread at post #82, was because the bill eventually lost support from Republicans that originally sponsored it.

So 1) you're wrong, no republican voted for this bill that opposed the ACA and 2) it's dishonest to act surprised, or as if it's inconsistent, that they opposed the ACA based on this bill because they opposed this bill over a DECADE earlier.

Yes.. the one that ultimately was the republican choice for president.

Yes. I know this seems to be a running confusion on people on both sides of the aisle recently, but people can be nominated or even elected without the base or even the majority of their side of the aisle agreeing with them on some issues. For example, Hillary Clinton was far more hawkish than a large number of people on the Democratic side of things, yet her nomination wasn't proof that the left supports hawkish military action.

When talking about what the right supports, what would reasonably be an olive branch to conservatives, and what's likely to winning them to your side, pointing at one of the major issues that stood in the way of one of their presidential nominees from getting the nomination isn't exactly a stirring argument.

Which they had originally supported.

Which some had originally supported, while other were actively attempting to scuttle it, and ultimately all of them moved against it and withdrew their support for it over a DECADE earlier. So acting like putting something in that they already had declared they didn't support over 10 years earlier is somehow a "compromise" aimed at them is ridiculous. And simply claiming it was something they supported, without giving the further information that it was also something they STOPPED supporting, is nothing but a lie via omission.

The facts are that republicans had supported such things in the past.. you just can't get around those facts.

The FACTS are that it was something SOME republicans had supported in the past, and was something that most republicans STOPPED supporting long in the past as well.

 

[Barnacle]

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.

The democrats had super majority with 60 dem senators. 60 democrat senators voted for Obamacare ... lock step ...

 

[Howard the Duck]

The democrats had super majority with 60 dem senators. 60 democrat senators voted for Obamacare ... lock step ...

And it is still the law even though your party controls the courts, the presidency, the senate, and the house.

 

[jaeger19]

Now then, entering your quote into google, it appears to come from a Politifact article concerning "Is the ACA the GOP health care plan from 1993"? Now, since you're trying to use that as an authority, let me first point out their overall answer....that such a statement is only a half-truth. Note, when I pointed that out to the poster who was originally making such a point, you claimed "no, that's not true".

.

First.. shame on you for pulling the moderator crap. the NAME OF THE BILL WAS IN THE QUOTE I PROVIDED.. thats the source. Everything else in the article was superfluous. And it sure as heck was not copyrighted material that was posted so you need to check the forum rules.

Blah blah blah.. look. you don't want to own up to the fact that prominent republicans LEADERS OF THE PARTY.. .. SPONSORED A BILL that basically had all the elements that the ACA had.. they SPONSORED IT,.and put their names on it.. the same folks that then turned around and lambasted the ACA for things like the individual mandate.

But the facts are what they are. and stop claiming I am a liar because I am far from it.

Now.. you might want to think that the reason the ACA.. had the elements like a mandate, like standard benefits.. etc.. and the reason that it looked so similar to Romney care..... was "just a coincidence".. and not an attempt to forge a bipartisan bill.

You are welcome to deceive yourself as much as you want.

Anyone with at least a hint of objectivity understands better.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

32T over 10 years is less than America spends on healthcare right now...

We are currently projected to spend between $33.6 Tn and $38 Tn over the next ten years right now with what we have.
So what is the point of throwing around that scary sounding figure?

Oh wait, don't tell me...

 

[Ikari]

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.

The Dems are part of the Republocrats, they don't want to actually roll something out like Medicare for All. Their allegiance has always been to the Corporations that donate to them. There was always some folk within the Dems that may have pushed a little harder for these things, but it wasn't until recently with Bernie that we started to see more of it promoted to the front. I think, particularly after Hillary's loss, the DNC has been lost without voice or direction. So while they usually kept these individuals silenced, they have had a harder time keeping a lid on things.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

For a few months democrats under Obama had a super majority.

"... Exactly one month later, on September 25, Democrat Paul Kirk was appointed interim senator from Massachusetts to serve until the special election set for January 19, 2010 – once again giving the Democrats that 60th vote.

... With the supermajority vote safely intact once again, the Senate moved rather quickly to pass the ACA – or ObamaCare – on Christmas Eve 2009 in a 60 – 39 vote ...

... They decided to have the House take up the identical bill that the Senate passed on Christmas Eve. It passed on March 21, 2010, by a 219 – 212 vote. ... President Obama signed the ACA legislation two days later on March 23. ..."


https://www.forbes.com/sites/physic...amacare-into-law-four-years-ago/#2aaa8aff526b

Try paying attention. Greenbeard said that they did not have 218/60 for a MEDICARE FOR ALL bill.
We all know that for the twinkling of an eye there was a 218/60 for the ACA but the ACA was not MEDICARE FOR ALL now, was it?
If you could pay attention, you'd be able to discern two dissimilar things and you wouldn't be making foolish retorts.

 

[mike2810]

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

Working with Republicans is fruitless.

How is that possible when Pelosi stated, "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, …….." Seems know one in Congress knew what all was in the Health Care bill.:lamo

AS are as working with Republicans is fruitless. Seems that could be said about the Dems now that they are in the minority again. Good leadership finds ways to come to terms for the good of the country. Many in Congress of all parties have lost that ability or never had it.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

What sort of super majority would the dems have needed in order to pass single payer?

The same, only they would have to agree to vote for single payer, not the ACA.
One of these things is not like the other, you don't get that?

 

[jaeger19]

The Dems are part of the Republocrats, they don't want to actually roll something out like Medicare for All. Their allegiance has always been to the Corporations that donate to them. There was always some folk within the Dems that may have pushed a little harder for these things, but it wasn't until recently with Bernie that we started to see more of it promoted to the front. I think, particularly after Hillary's loss, the DNC has been lost without voice or direction. So while they usually kept these individuals silenced, they have had a harder time keeping a lid on things.

Medicare for all will be a boon for insurance companies. right now. One of their major profit centers is administering Medicaid and Medicare programs:

Nearly 60 percent of top health insurers' revenue comes from Medicare and Medicaid

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/04/most-of-top-insurers-revenue-comes-from-medicare-medicaid.html

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

How is that possible when Pelosi stated, "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, …….." Seems know one in Congress knew what all was in the Health Care bill.:lamo

AS are as working with Republicans is fruitless. Seems that could be said about the Dems now that they are in the minority again. Good leadership finds ways to come to terms for the good of the country. Many in Congress of all parties have lost that ability or never had it.

Sigh, this gets tiring, even more so when I realize just how much I dislike Pelosi.

“In the fall of the year,” Pelosi said today, “the outside groups…were saying ‘it’s about abortion,’ which it never was. ‘It’s about ‘death panels,’’ which it never was. ‘It’s about a job-killer,’ which it creates four million. ‘It’s about increasing the deficit’; well, the main reason to pass it was to decrease the deficit.” Her contention was that the Senate “didn’t have a bill.” And until the Senate produced an actual piece of legislation that could be matched up and debated against what was passed by the House, no one truly knew what would be voted on.

“So, that’s why I was saying we have to pass a bill so we can see so that we can show you what it is and what it isn’t,” Pelosi continued. “It is none of these things. It’s not going to be any of these things.”

So, what she was mumbling about was that in order to SHOW PEOPLE what the reality was, they had to first get the work done in passing it.
Everybody in Congress KNEW what was in it, but "away from the fog of controversy" was the only way that people were going to get the real story.

Thus, the poorly constructed phrase: "But we have to pass the bill so that YOU can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy."

For instance, take the whole despicable claim of DEATH PANELS. It's the goddamn insurance companies which WERE the REAL "death panels" at the time, because they were the ones shutting off coverage for gravely ill people, even CHILDREN.

And the deliberate MISQUOTE by "Chicks on the Right" was:
"But we have to pass the bill so that WE can find out what is in it."

Pay close attention, there be massive WORD GAMES afoot, just as there was during the entire process.
The biggest word game of all was the fact that a Heritage Foundation blueprint for something called "The Affordable Care Act" was being dubbed "Obamacare". The two things Obama wanted most, but which he did not fight hard enough for, were either Single Payer OR the Public Option.
Once those got shot down, there was no more "Obama" in Obamacare, there was just this giant insurance lobby sponsored national mandate for free market insurance.

 

[mike2810]

Sigh, this gets tiring, even more so when I realize just how much I dislike Pelosi.



So, what she was mumbling about was that in order to SHOW PEOPLE what the reality was, they had to first get the work done in passing it.
Everybody in Congress KNEW what was in it, but "away from the fog of controversy" was the only way that people were going to get the real story.

Thus, the poorly constructed phrase: "But we have to pass the bill so that YOU can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy."

For instance, take the whole despicable claim of DEATH PANELS. It's the goddamn insurance companies which WERE the REAL "death panels" at the time, because they were the ones shutting off coverage for gravely ill people, even CHILDREN.

And the deliberate MISQUOTE by "Chicks on the Right" was:
"But we have to pass the bill so that WE can find out what is in it."

Pay close attention, there be massive WORD GAMES afoot, just as there was during the entire process.
The biggest word game of all was the fact that a Heritage Foundation blueprint for something called "The Affordable Care Act" was being dubbed "Obamacare". The two things Obama wanted most, but which he did not fight hard enough for, were either Single Payer OR the Public Option.
Once those got shot down, there was no more "Obama" in Obamacare, there was just this giant insurance lobby sponsored national mandate for free market insurance.

I agree context is important. Try to remember that when other politicians speak.

Your post does not change my mind that Congress is broken.

 

[Barnacle]

Try paying attention. Greenbeard said that they did not have 218/60 for a MEDICARE FOR ALL bill.
We all know that for the twinkling of an eye there was a 218/60 for the ACA but the ACA was not MEDICARE FOR ALL now, was it?
If you could pay attention, you'd be able to discern two dissimilar things and you wouldn't be making foolish retorts.

Pfft ... for several months dems had super majority. They didn't have to pass Obamacare, they could have easily passed Medicare for all ... but they never had a plan for Medicare for all ... :lol:

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

I agree context is important. Try to remember that when other politicians speak.

Your post does not change my mind that Congress is broken.

I wasn't aware that there was a dispute over Congress being broken.
I don't think anybody disputes that.

Nevertheless, we're now back to the health care system we had back when "pre-existing conditions" was a list that was about two and a half miles long and which included everything from pregnancy to pimples to a broken arm when you were six years old as justification to cutting off coverage for bone cancer when you're 57, and it's the other arm.
We're back to recissions, we're back to spending caps, we're back to people who are declared "uninsurable at any cost" (that would be my son) and we are back to secret rule changes that happen with no notice, so that when a person takes out a policy and is promised one kind of coverage, without notice they discover that the coverage mentioned in the policy has new rules which leave them out in the cold.
We're back to exploding cigar policies which seem like a bargain, until you actually need to use them.

And we're apparently well on the way to privatizing the VA, which means the end of eighteen years of the best health coverage my wife and I ever had in our entire lives, including HER life being saved outright eight times. I'll get told to piss off and she'll get a voucher, a kick in the teeth and a great big phony "Thank you for your service!".

Pardon me if I don't celebrate the possibility of having to bury my wife and son if something goes wrong and they don't have the care they both need. If that happens, you'll most likely see me on the news, but you know what? At that point, I won't give a **** anymore.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Wordcount is the absolute dumbest thing to bring up. And to add the bible... jeez, just move to Saudi Arabia already.

Word count is pretty darn important to me when it is me and mine who are affected by it.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Actually I read it.

And the ACA gave states and local governments funds and support to start local coops for insurance.. to increase competition in the market.

The ACA gave money so that Medicare patients .. individuals could go and discuss their personal wishes with their physicians so that there was not needless medical expenses at end of life.

The aca helped states and the federal government create exchanges where INDIVIDUALS could go and purchase their own healthcare policies and choose from a variety of options..

The reality is that the ACA gave way more power to the individual and to the states.

Sorry maam.. but thats just a couple easy examples.. and big ones.. of the ACA decentralizing power. It was a large step back from going toward single payer.. and using a market based concept for insurance coverage.

Just the facts.

Just think about that a minute. Where did the federal government get that money to give to the states to 'help out'? Hmmm? And it decentralizes NOTHING when everybody you give money to is bound to conform to the federal legislation in every detail.

 

[jaeger19]

Just think about that a minute. Where did the federal government get that money to give to the states to 'help out'? Hmmm? And it decentralizes NOTHING when everybody you give money to is bound to conform to the federal legislation in every detail.

Sure it came from individuals and the states... Which they gave back to individuals and states.. Hmmm are you going to claim that tax rates went through the roof for americans during that time?

And it does decentralize when you give people back their own money.. to then purchase healthcare insurance of their choice..

it certainly takes a big step away.. from single payer.

Then when you reimburse doctors so that individuals can determine their own end of life issues..

And start local coops.. and exchanges so that individuals have a easier time purchasing insurance...

Yeah it certainly is more free market.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

The original Act contained 381,517 words none of which transferred any power to the states or individuals.
As of 2013 there were 11,588,500 words of Obamacare regulations on the books with three more years of the Obama administration to add to those. And NONE of those words transferred any power to the states or individuals and took a whole lot of power from them.

For comparison, there are 805,649 words in the King James Bible and 7,562 words in the U.S. Constitution including amendments.

Do you mind if I ask you if you, your family (your nuclear family) or your loved ones have any serious ongoing medical issues?
You don't have to answer. I won't even feel offended if you tell me to **** off, but I ask for a reason.

For the record, I'll show you mine.

I'm a diabetic, with failing vision and hearing (which is why I am semi-retired from the film business at this point) failing knees and ankles, my wife is a 100% service connected disabled Navy vet born with one kidney (which is now in trouble) who has multiple sclerosis and who was exposed to ionizing radiation while she was serving, and my son was born with five major heart defects which are directly traceable to her radiation exposure.
He is looking at a heart transplant, probably before he hits 28 years old, or even possibly twenty-five. He's 22 right now.
Thankfully my daughter is relatively healthy, her worst problem is she has a trick knee which is exacerbated by her being 75 pounds overweight.
Other than that she is healthy, but she works on her feet all day long.

 

[Deuce]

Word count is pretty darn important to me when it is me and mine who are affected by it.

"This bill repeals the first amendment to the US Constitution."

"No public official shall engage in, promote, or facilitate an act of treason against the United States of America."

Your preference, you're saying, is for the first, eh?

 

[CLAX1911]

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.

Same reason they didn't do anything about gun control they don't care about these issues.