It's pretty simple, the GOP would not vote for single payer or public option. Everything else is irrelevant. Look at the votes. Look at the ideology. The GOP NEVER wanted single payer. This is common knowledge. But look who I'm talking to.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Mass media seems intent on making sure Trump fails
- Thread starter Greenie
- Start date
It's pretty simple, the GOP would not vote for single payer or public option. Everything else is irrelevant. Look at the votes. Look at the ideology. The GOP NEVER wanted single payer. This is common knowledge. But look who I'm talking to.
It's pretty simple, the GOP would not vote for single payer or public option. Everything else is irrelevant. Look at the votes. Look at the ideology. The GOP NEVER wanted single payer. This is common knowledge. But look who I'm talking to.
The Democratic controlled Congress easily had the votes necessary to pass a single payer or public option. The Obama administration, who let the lobbyists write Obamacare, did not want it.
The Origins And Demise Of The Public Option summary I posted clearly outlines both the timeline and the facts regarding the lack of support from the Obama administration for a public plan.
I would urge you to read it in detail and get educated.
And just when did this requirement for an ungodly amount of paper work begin? What caused it? It didn't use to be that way. hmmmmACA eliminated the cap on the maximum insurance would pay. In the typical 'single payer' system, like medicare, which is termed 'single payer' but is actually a dual payer system with optional third party payer. The way these systems are intended to work is entitlement contributions pay for a major fraction, and the patient pays for a lesser fraction, say 20%, and the patient has the option of taking out insurance to cover the 20%. When everyone is covered there are no unpaid hospitals (in theory).
The situation in the U.S. is unique among developed countries. Because the U.S. system amounts to a blood sucking cartel, before the ACA, all manner of measures against the sucking arose in the form of ungodly amounts of paper work piled on top of ungodly amount of government regulations and still more paperwork (one third, or more?, of the cost of care is paperwork cost), hospital admission pre-clearance, 'out of network' stuff, pre-existing conditions stuff, out patient-in patient stuff, pharmaceutical tiers, approved supplier stuff, and on and on and on, blah, blah, blah forever, and ever, amen. And the ACA only managed to do away with some of this. Unbelievably high costs, 7$/ box of kleenex, 15$/aspirin tablet, etc. resulted in astronomical bills and rampant bankruptcies. Even with insurers paying 80% of costs, 20% of a quarter of a million was difficult for some families to come up with. And the rates for supplemental insurance to cover the additional 20% were (are) high.
So the real problem is out of control costs. Any proposal that doesn't address cost in a serious way won't do much to solve the healthcare problem in the U.S.
One approach that has been proven to work is coercion. The two main economic classes in modern social democracies are Capital and Labor. While the American medical cartel serves Capital splendidly, from Labor's point of view it sucks. Capitalism does not work for Labor unless there is a free market. And pure free markets, other than on a local scale, seldom exist in modern America, and they don't exist at all in U.S. healthcare. Denying this is like denying that the Earth is round.
And just when did this requirement for an ungodly amount of paper work begin? What caused it? It didn't use to be that way. hmmmm
You can't blame ACA for the excess medical paperwork, this was in place before ACA started. ACA did nothing to improve the paperwork problem except for its provisions pushing electronic systems.
We are talking about medicare. I'm going deep before the beginning. Man vs Government good intentions. It takes a thousand rules to prevent man from doing what comes naturally. And two thousand to grease the right palms.You can't blame ACA for the excess medical paperwork, this was in place before ACA started. ACA did nothing to improve the paperwork problem except for its provisions pushing electronic systems.
The Democratic controlled Congress easily had the votes necessary to pass a single payer or public option. The Obama administration, who let the lobbyists write Obamacare, did not want it.
The Origins And Demise Of The Public Option summary I posted clearly outlines both the timeline and the facts regarding the lack of support from the Obama administration for a public plan.
I would urge you to read it in detail and get educated.
No they did NOT! They could not be sure if they did. If even TWO fucking republicans were for it it would have happened. Please stop with the black is white stupidity.
He's trolling, see how he's following me around today?No they did NOT! They could not be sure if they did. If even TWO fucking republicans were for it it would have happened. Please stop with the black is white stupidity.
No they did NOT! They could not be sure if they did. If even TWO fucking republicans were for it it would have happened. Please stop with the black is white stupidity.
Go read the article from Health Affairs and get educated. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
It is true that they would have had enough votes among all who called themselves democrats, or caucused with the Democrats, but of course there were Democrats who were holdouts and were not going to go along with the public option. There were just enough holdouts to kill it without a couple Republican votes. All manner of schemes were proposed to try and bring these holdouts on board, but in the end it wasn't going to be possible to get the option through without at least a couple Republican votes. The Republicans held firm however. And then, in the Senate, Lieberman who caucused with the Democrats, said he would filibuster the option, and Harry canvassed the Senate and couldn't muster enough votes to break a filibuster if it occurred. I get the sense that both Obama and the Congressional Democrat leadership would have preferred the option remain in, but they weren't ready to kill the bill if they couldn't get it. The record shows they tried but failed. What I take from this is that Democrats are not immune to pressure from lobbyists any more than Republicans. On balance though, it is pretty clear that on this particular issue, opposition was greater among Republicans than among Democrats. [added in edit: It is also fair to say that there were folks in BOTH parties that were responsible for killing the public option. In that sense we can say that killing the public option was a truly bipartisan effort! Arguably this was the most momentous, bipartisan achievement of the 111th Congress!]The Democratic controlled Congress easily had the votes necessary to pass a single payer or public option. The Obama administration, who let the lobbyists write Obamacare, did not want it.
The Origins And Demise Of The Public Option summary I posted clearly outlines both the timeline and the facts regarding the lack of support from the Obama administration for a public plan.
I would urge you to read it in detail and get educated.
Last edited:
It is true that they would have had enough votes among all who called themselves democrats, or caucused with the Democrats, but of course there were Democrats who were holdouts and were not going to go along with the public option. There were just enough holdouts to kill it without a couple Republican votes. All manner of schemes were proposed to try and bring these holdouts on board, but in the end it wasn't going to be possible to get the option through without at least a couple Republican votes. The Republicans held firm however. And then, in the Senate, Lieberman who caucused with the Democrats, said he would filibuster the option, and Harry canvassed the Senate and couldn't muster enough votes to break a filibuster if it occurred. I get the sense that both Obama and the Congressional Democrat leadership would have preferred the option remain in, but they weren't ready to kill the bill if they couldn't get it. The record shows they tried but failed. What I take from this is that Democrats are not immune to pressure from lobbyists any more than Republicans. On balance though, it is pretty clear that on this particular issue, opposition was greater among Republicans than among Democrats.
The bottom line... if all the Democrats in Congress had voted for the public option then it would have passed. I will ignore the fact that the Obama administration, who hired insurance and healthcare lobbyists to write ACA, wanted nothing to do with the public option.