Skip to main content

View Diary: An oft-ignored lesson of 2012: The case for appeasing the base (145 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Well, I see how strongly you feel Obama is a tool, (0+ / 0-)

    ... and this all-powerful 1% is responsible.

    As for ACA, Yes, I think Limp is right. Conservatives would have demolished ACA (they did, after all, excoriate Roberts for upholding it ... for a while). But if it is to be sustained, justifying that on the taxing powers is far preferable to them than the obviously correct rationale - the Commerce Clause. Ruth BG's opinion does a beautiful job of showing Roberts' "crabbed" reasoning and skewers the conservatives' Commerce Clause rationale.

    I don't agree the 1% loves the mandate, though. Heritage disavowed its proposals and Romney, of course, retreated completely. You might try to argue they're being disingenuous rather than hypocritical, or that the 1% believes things differently than the next, say, 4%, but I doubt it. I've talked to Republicans in the 4%; they hate Obamacare to the core. As for insurers, they do get a clientele, but they'd rather juggle the conditions of policies, have pricing to themselves and enjoy profiteering freedom. (Unlike Medicare, which they now pretty much love for taking the highest cost cohort out of the basic universe.)

    I think you're selling Progressives short when you say, "But, tragically, many in the progressive community are now totally compliant in regard to cuts to Social Security and Medicare." No one is "compliant" in any Progressive blog I read. And very few are willing even to think about Chained CPI. (The only way Progressives address the obvious M&M funding problems is to raise the roof on revenues to support Medicare. I agree that revenue is far preferable to cost cutting.)

    My biggest disagreement, however, is with the notions that "the 1% have allowed [Obama] to be president" and that they are capable of that much fine tuning and manipulation at that level. Regulatory intrusions and lobbying legislative matters, Yes. But I don't think it was or is in the power of the 1% to "allow" someone to be President.

    Conspiracists obviously disagree. And let's face it, the bigger the boogeymen, the more interesting the myths. But we don't need boogeymen to point to; the GOP base and its leaners are scary enough.

    2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

    by TRPChicago on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 02:45:08 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Well, thanks for your reply. Disagree on a couple (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      US Blues, TRPChicago, limpidglass

      issues.

      Briefly, I'm from an insurance and securities brokerage "family."  My family members are quite happy with the status quo of the ACA.  And the soon to be mandated private retirement accounts that Senator Harkin's trying to get passed.  (Commented on them in a couple of blogs yesterday.  Won't repeat.)

      The rank and file Republicans HATE the ACA.  I know that.

      But, the 1% are one of the biggest beneficiaires of the ACA.  The much heralded "pre-existing condition" clause pertains to private individual health insurance policies, which makes up approximately 8% of the industry, and are obviously carried by mostly affluent and/or wealthy individuals.

      [Group health insurance policyholders are usually affected only by a 30-, 60- or 90-day 'exclusionary period' for pre-existing conditions.]

      Heritage did later disavowed Romneycare (as did Romney, at times--he took both positions, as I recall, LOL!), but that's mostly for partisan reasons, IMO.

      True, the 1% doesn't care about mandates in the sense that they "care if everyone has access to medical coverage."  But they DO care that their taxes will not be subsidizing a large number of Americans.  

      So, the way that the ACA is set up, putting the "responsibility" on the individual as opposed to the government for insuring most folks, is right down their alley, so to speak.

      It was not my intention to "sell anybody short."  I did qualify the statement, using the work "many."  If I recall correctly, you were questioning what was so bad about the implementation of the Chained CPI.

      That is discouraging to me.  But clearly you have every right to be in support of it, if you are.

      Regarding "My biggest disagreement, however, is with the notions that "the 1% have allowed [Obama] to be president" and that they are capable of that much fine tuning and manipulation at that level."

      I have no comment, since I never addressed the issue.

      Admittedly, my views are possibly influenced by several generations of brokers in my family, in regard to the ACA being a windfall to the insurance industry.  [That will also be true of the mandatory private accounts that Senator Harkin is working on getting passed.  The life insurance and annuity industries are both "foaming at the mouth" over the prospect of Harkin's legislation passing.]

      Look, "to each, their own."  Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on a couple of issues.  :-)  

      Enjoyed the discussion.

      Namaste.

      [Hope this is not too much of a mess.  Short of time.]

       

      Mollie

      “If a dog won’t come to you after having looked you in the face, you should go home and examine your conscience.” -- Woodrow Wilson

      by musiccitymollie on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 04:11:27 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Progressive health care (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        musiccitymollie, Odysseus

        Would look like the national plans the rest of the civilized world enjoys. The very fact that private companies are still in the insurance game is the first clue that the ACA is not a progressive policy.

        "Political ends as sad remains will die." - YES 'And You and I' ; -8.88, -9.54

        by US Blues on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 04:15:54 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Agreed. We couldn't get single payer. You gotta... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          musiccitymollie

          ... live with that as a practical matter. The votes to do that were not in the House, thanks to the Blue Dog Democrats.

          The best, most defensible program would have been Medicare without an age limit. It was not to be.

          Obamacare will, over time, be a fine idea ... But it's a long time evolving already and it's only just begun!

          2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

          by TRPChicago on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 04:33:11 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  TRPC, I'd rather have seen Medicare-For-All, (0+ / 0-)

            in lieu of the ACA, but I truly hope that you're right that the ACA will evolve into a "fine" health care system.  :-)

            Mollie

            “If a dog won’t come to you after having looked you in the face, you should go home and examine your conscience.” -- Woodrow Wilson

            by musiccitymollie on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 06:14:35 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I have hope. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              musiccitymollie

              Mostly because ObamaCare suggests more coherence will come to a system with so many moving parts, so many individual players each maximizing its own slice of the pie, that it has not been possible to grab ahold of the pressure points for change.

              In a population of some 306 million or so people, we have 50 million uninsured, meaning more than 15% of us will to a certainty enter the health care system at some point. Ways to provide care targeted to their needs also offers hope for us all. Amazing - in my experience - how quickly lessons can be learned by example.

              Specifically, I like the changes already in place, the Patient's Bill of rights and particularly coverage for pre-existing conditions and ending lifetime dollar limits on hospital care.

              Going forward: (1) Emphasis on preventive care and "public health" programs for a broader range of the public. That alone is a significant societal value. Saying the poor and the uninsured have access to health care because they can get into to an ER is ignorant, callous and mean-spirited. (And refusing to fund parts of Medicare is vicious public policy.)

              (2) Encouraging primary care physicians and health professionals like nurses and physicians assistants for the same reasons. Yes, now some physicians have been turning to "concierge practices" and opting out of treating Medicare patients. I put this largely to pique, to being wedded to a very lucrative system, to resistance to the kind of change that other businesses have been incented to undergo. This is mostly a generational problem; time will wound these heels.

              (3) Funding community health centers. More clinics are desperately needed throughout urban and rural areas. They allow many forms of care at far lower cost than big central hospitals with large atriums and overcrowded ERs.

              (4) Attention to reducing huge and growing administrative costs and "overheads." Simplification of systems will help everyone from patient to providers.

              Bottom line: Making health care more available and more affordable. None of this was going to happen by itself under the current system.

              Yes, I have hope.

              2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

              by TRPChicago on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 07:36:23 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  Ditto. N/T (0+ / 0-)

          Mollie

          “If a dog won’t come to you after having looked you in the face, you should go home and examine your conscience.” -- Woodrow Wilson

          by musiccitymollie on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 06:08:49 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site