Thursday, March 29, 2012

Did liberals screw Obamacare?

Just guessing, I'd imagine the average reader of this blog has been following the health care debate. It is the kind of thing, no matter whether you have insurance, whether you believe others should have it, whether you love or hate Obama himself, that the average citizen of the US knows they will be impacted one way or the other by its existence or its denial. I thought this article was excellent on the reasoning the White House should have used to support the mandate. We should not only be aware of this argument but use it the next time a rightie tells us the mandate is too far reaching or unfair.

17 comments:

Dion said...

A healthcare plan concocted with half-measures is what screwed Obamacare. Keeping the corporate insurance agent as the middle-man is a sickness of sorts. Capitalism over community health, that's sick. In the end, it's always Capitalism that wins out in this land of opportunity. Doesn't matter if it's Obama or Bush, Clinton or Reagan. The two-party system is corporate owned. And the powers that be keep Americans divided with the Liberal /Conservative division.

Single payer healthcare paid for by a tax mechanism is the short answer to what we need to succeed. I won't hold my breath.

Let's face the truth. If Obamacare is overturned, healthcare costs will go up and if Obamacare remains, healthcare costs will go up.

People realize they'll work hard into their 70's and then they'll die after handing over their assets to the healthcare provider.

Rain Trueax said...

The fact that this plan will profit the corporate insurance monopolies is why it might just survive. The justices have a tough one to decide what to do-- take down Obama or screw their corporate masters. Roberts will be the main one impacted by this conflict based on his past decisions-- like ruining campaign financing protections to profit the big boys.

I've said it many times that we need single payer. To get it, we better work very hard on a 60 vote majority in the Senate and taking back the House.

Dion said...

I think Obamacare will survive for the very reason you stated, Rain. Corporate masters are our 'deciders'.

Dion said...

I wish you still had the button to subscribe to follow up comments. I've noticed several blogs no long have that now.

Rain Trueax said...

It must be blogger's new set up. It told me it would happen in April and to update now which I did. Nothing looks the same but so far it does work. I'll look around to see if there is something I can click for that now

Dion said...

Not to beat a stubborn donkey, but even when you get 60 Senators, how many will be like the Nelson boys or Baucus or Landrieu. To name a few.

Rain Trueax said...

Exactly. We don't want DINOs; so I think we should be looking to Occupy people just as the Tea Party did. I have heard some are running. The hard part is when they run in a primary, it's hard for them to get out a Democrat who has been there and truly isn't progressive or liberal. I think Bob Kerry will be an improvement over Nelson but can he win the election in a conservative state?

Dion said...

I would think that the Occupiers would be diametrically opposed to joining in with the two-party system. You can't be an Occupier and serve the corrupt two-party government.

Rain Trueax said...

That attitude would either lead to bloodshed or a dictatorship and maybe both. Tea Party felt the same way about no good government but they put up candidates. Occupy has some also but if occupy's goal is to end government, they are only destroyers, not builders. Here is a quick search for who is running with the viewpoint of the Occupy movement-- Occupy Candidates-- Mother Jones

Reality is you either get people in there to change things or rename Occupy-- Anarchy...

Anonymous said...

If we are truly going to provide health care for all, that is what we should do - not screw around with insurance. Get rid of insurance altogether and the price of health care should be reduced considerably (think about how many people make their living by working for insurance companies - where does their salary and the expenses of the brick/mortar/communications/record storage come from?)
Obviously, I don't think much of the insurance industry. Neither it nor the lawyers actually do good for society.
Cab Comp

Ingineer66 said...

I am confused. Didn't the Dems have the White House and Congress and 60 seats in the Senate when Obama-care was shoved through under dark of night?

Rain Trueax said...

You call them RINOs and it's the same thing with DINOs. To get their votes, it required giving up a lot of things that most progressives would want.

I agree, copcar. If they had gone for universal coverage and no insurance, there would be less cost as the profits from this are enormous. People end up giving up their whole savings to stay living and not be miserable-- they hope. I had a link recently about the kind of care people get in England. Canadians have talked about their care and except for Fox, you hear positive stories from places with health care for everybody.

The ones here who don't have to fear a health care disaster either have government or corporate insurance-- and the corporate ones are iffy for the future.

It's why we need a real 60 vote majority. We won't likely get it given Americans prefer blocked government and then wonder why a constipated system does not work.

Obama didn't want to cut out the insurance corporations either. It's about money and righties and lefties both profit from the money being there for their campaigns.

Anonymous said...

Rain I think Obama may have miscalculated. He and his advisors should have known that this issue would end up before the Supreme Court. And this court will have the final say so. The bottom line is the issue of the federal government being able to tell citizens that they must do something even if they oppose it. And if they dictate mandatory health insurance what will prevent them from doing it over and over again ?

Rain Trueax said...

The federal government dictates all kinds of things from the drug laws to my paying for wars with which I disagree. We end what they can tell us based on electing leaders who do what we want. When the country elects leaders who favor public libraries, they get them. If they want them closed, they'll get that. A lot of the limitations on people's so-called freedoms by governments are local!

The issue with health insurance is what the link goes into. If someone doesn't buy it, but our system today demands they get helped after a catastrophic accident (laws decreed that voted on by leaders), then the rest of us pay for that. Insurance is about responsibility. And do you get a choice on paying SS tax or Medicare tax? You will if Republicans get their way and you will see the end of safety nets.

Dick said...

I said from the beginning that what we needed was to extend Medicare to everyone. I realize that would be a challenge in that who and how would it be paid for but it could be done. I also know that many people don't like Medicare but if it applied to everyone (those in Congress, judges, etc.) they would likely fix the problems. And it could even still preserve a big part of the private insurance industry as we all need some sort of a Medigap plan to cover what isn't covered by Medicare A and B, so the insurance companies would still be in business.

If Obamacare is turned down, maybe the next step could be to look into something like Medicare For All.

Rain Trueax said...

You were right, Dick. And it would be constitutional. I think they wanted to preserve big business profits and it's why they didn't do it. We need a 60 vote majority in the Senate of real democrats. And control of the House. It's what it would take, and putting everyone in it including Congress would not only help to pay for it but lead to improving the system!

Anonymous said...

Honourable bye, genial soul mate :)