RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Boardman writes: "Obamacare threatens to become a deadly serious tar baby for Republicans: the more they mess with it, the more it's going to entangle them in sticky wickets."

Vice President-elect Mike Pence, left, joins House Speaker Paul Ryan at a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington on Jan. 4, 2017, following a closed-door meeting with the GOP caucus. Pence and Ryan promised repeal of President Obama's health care law now that the GOP is in charge of the White House and Congress. (photo: J. Scott Applewhite/AP)
Vice President-elect Mike Pence, left, joins House Speaker Paul Ryan at a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington on Jan. 4, 2017, following a closed-door meeting with the GOP caucus. Pence and Ryan promised repeal of President Obama's health care law now that the GOP is in charge of the White House and Congress. (photo: J. Scott Applewhite/AP)


The Trumpocalypse Is Near! Repent, and Repeal Obamacare!

By William Boardman, Reader Supported News

09 January 17

 

No, seriously – repeal Obamacare!

es, that is what the ideological one-noters among Republicans want to do, so let them do it! Of course it’s not that simple, as even two-note Republicans have begun to acknowledge wanly, since flat-out repeal could make enemies for the party, maybe twenty million of the suddenly uninsured. That’s almost ten times the number of votes Hillary won by. Bring it on.

In reality, Obamacare threatens to become a deadly serious tar baby for Republicans: the more they mess with it, the more it’s going to entangle them in sticky wickets (and forced metaphors). The sensible thing for others is to stand back and watch the spectacle. It can’t end well for Republicans, because they have no connection to the supposed purpose of Obamacare: providing health insurance that makes health care more possible for more people. Obamacare isn’t just an ordinary tar baby, it’s a tar baby designed by Rube Goldberg, managing to provide an unnecessarily complex solution to the wrong question that is only tangentially related to the right question (How do we provide health care for everybody?).

For years, Obamacare has been a Democratic tar baby and Democrats, irrationally, will likely feel compelled to defend it because they built it, they prolonged it, and besides it’s part of Obama’s legacy. That argument is all well and good for sentimentalists and lockstep party loyalists looking for more cliffs to march off, but the rest of us might want to figure out something less suicidal, maybe even something more beneficial to all those strangers sometimes known as “the American people.”

If Obama had been more concerned with his legacy in the first year of his presidency than he was in its last year, he might have made a serious commitment to universal health care, instead of wasting the country’s time and energy on something like half a loaf for half the folks. That would have been difficult, visionary, and correct, but it was technically doable with no Republican votes (the same number Obamacare got). Democrats, and Democrats alone, denied the country the chance to have Medicare for all. So when Democrats talk about defending health care and Obamacare as if those were the same thing, they have no credibility. To regain credibility, Democrats will have to rediscover something like principle, and the courage to stand for principle – qualities they’ve mostly done without since Tip O’Neill played roll-me-over-in-the-clover with Ronald Reagan, a corrupt game in which the “ordinary” American got gutted.

The sensible response to Republican attacks on Obamacare is to urge them to go for it – go ahead, repeal Obamacare in its entirety, but only after replacing it with Medicare for all. That is a rational position, that is an honest position, and that is the best medical and economic position. That is even a strategic political position. Let Republicans tangle tactically with the tar baby, while the principled opposition takes a stand for something that works for everyone. Single payer health care isn’t an experiment, it’s a tested system that works in other countries around the world. Even if standing for Medicare for all is a losing position in the short term, it secures the moral and intellectual high ground for the future.

Democrats lost the election for a host of reasons, one of which was that Democratic voters stayed home in greater numbers (and percentages) than Republican voters. Young voters, who turned out for Bernie, stayed home in greater numbers than in 2012. It’s just possible that Democrats stayed home because their party no longer defends, or even much fights for decent Democratic values. If this self-eviscerated party can’t restore itself, then it’s time for a new party to emerge from the ashes of the old.

Health care is pretty much a universal concern, so why not do it right, or go down fighting? When the only alternative to doing the most sensible, effective thing is just a competition between the hypocritically inadequate and the inadequately hypocritical, why is that considered an alternative at all?



William M. Boardman has over 40 years experience in theatre, radio, TV, print journalism, and non-fiction, including 20 years in the Vermont judiciary. He has received honors from Writers Guild of America, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Vermont Life magazine, and an Emmy Award nomination from the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+56 # PaulK 2017-01-09 15:11
I start by acknowledging that the neoliberals and the neoconservative s are both shifting multinational coalitions of billionaires looking out for their own individual pocketbooks. Experienced players such as Goldman Sachs and Monsanto/Bayer have seamlessly moved from the old into the new cabinet. Mr. Trump is merely the new guy at the poker table.

Pharma doesn't want nationalized medicine. They want a gravy train.

When a Pharma invents a vaccine they want all deaths to go to the special "vaccine court", where the Federal Government pays all damages. Oddly enough, this policy leads to less-safe vaccines, leading to large numbers of human casualties and a shocking amount of secrecy about all this. Doctors defend the vaccines (unless they're the ones ordered to take the Anthrax vaccine, in which case they fight like Hades). In the same vein, mercury fillings are safe, safe, safe, unless you're the dentist in which case you DON'T want to breathe those vapors. You can lose your M.D. for saying that vaccines could be safer or for saying that mercury fillings might be unsafe. It happens!!

A number of doctors have moved into complementary and alternative medicine. Congress will never go there.

Health insurance companies despise nationalized health care because it's the death of their vast gravy train.

So, we waffle between the stupidest two choices: restricted and forced private insurance, or no health care whatsoever.
 
 
+21 # wrknight 2017-01-10 10:03
It seems to me that we are missing an extremely important point here. The simple fact is that Americans are being ripped off by two, not one, major industries involved in health care. The obvious one in these discussions is the insurance industry which provides a middleman between the health care providers and the patients. But the other is the industry that actually provides the health care.

It is well known that health care costs in the U.S. (doctor visits, hospital visits and pharmaceuticals ) are more than twice the cost of most other countries while the U.S. ranks last in health care quality amongst the developed nations. And then we add the cost of the insurance industry on top of that.

As a nation, the U.S. has, by far, the greatest GDP in the world and spending on health care is 17.8% of the GDP. That's a staggering figure. And it's all because we have a bloated, inefficient and notoriously profitable health care provider industry compounded with and extremely bloated, inefficient and notoriously profitable health care insurance industry.

Yes, we need to figure out how we're going to pay for this outrageously expensive health care for all Americans, but we also need to figure out a way to provide better health care at a lower cost.
 
 
+9 # Diane_Wilkinson_Trefethen_aka_tref 2017-01-10 15:04
Quoting wrknight:
It is well known that health care costs in the U.S. (doctor visits, hospital visits and pharmaceuticals) are more than twice the cost of most other countries…


Part I
One large contributor to our exorbitant medical costs was the baby of insurance companies. In an attempt to control costs, the companies decided to identify fair prices by determining the UCR (“usual, customary, and reasonable”) prices for a given procedure, service or product. So what did the healthcare professionals do? They just jacked up the prices for everything… duh! Sure those prices got knocked down to something reasonable AT FIRST. But shortly, since everyone was charging those astronomical prices, they became the UCR’s. In all fairness, without accurate cost accounting figures plus sophisticated computing software, actually determining the true cost of some healthcare items would have been almost impossible. Checking around to see what the going rates were was easily doable.
 
 
+9 # Diane_Wilkinson_Trefethen_aka_tref 2017-01-10 15:17
Part II
Still, the companies could have put in place a two-tiered procedure. Tier 1 could have been to determine the cost of an item and then add a generous percent profit to come up with a maximum price they would pay. This could have been applied to things like bandages, or an hour of nursing care, things with easily identified costs. Tier 2 could have been determining the UCR. No item once in Tier 1 could be removed and over time, as technology and access to cost information improved, more and more items could have been moved from Tier 2 to Tier 1.

But they didn’t do that and now Medicare uses a similar procedure to determine how much it will pay. The cure for this boondoggle is, of course, to implement the two-tier plan. Cost out everything you can and use UCRs for the rest. If a dose of hyaluronic acid costs $80, adding a 10% storage, handling and breakage fee and then a 10% profit brings the cost of the medicine to $96.80, not the $200-$600 charge we often see. Whenever a provider wants to charge more, they’d have to prove they’d paid more.
 
 
+34 # heartofnests 2017-01-09 16:01
@Paul K. Thank you for having such an organized mind that can express everything that was bubbling inside me. Obama had Chase Bank choose a number of his cabinet members, and ex-Monsanto employees served in his administration. So the screws are on tighter and the name of the game is subjugation of those with less than $1 million incomes.
 
 
+33 # anachronis 2017-01-09 16:22
Mr. Boardman:

While I was an "active" academic, one colleague (a Pushcart and Pulitzer winner) manifested an extraordinary fiction-writing talent. He portrayed deeply tragic realities with crazy comedic fiction. Your article bears a tint of such talent.

But you do not observe, adequately, that the healthcare trouble began with Bill and Hillary (in 1993) and continued with Obama (2009-2010).

In another thread, Kropotkinesque recalled, quite correctly:

"When Congress had enough pro-single-paye r votes to pass a single payer health care law, Obama muscled Harry Reid to lie to the Senate to get Obamacare passed. Reid said more single-payer-pl an fine-tuning was needed & assured the Senate that he would submit a single-payer bill in about 6 months. That was 7 years ago. Obama had met with Health Insurance firms & Big Pharma & made a private deal with them. Obamacare gave those leaches what they wanted — a huge & growing profits-hike."

Also, Trump would oppose a plan that lets insurers exclude pre-existing conditions or disallow parents' including their children in their (the parents') coverage.

I oppose Republican "healthcare" inclinations. My point is only that the problem is not Republican, but that of both main Parties and the corruption (or spinelessness) of nearly all members of the Senate and House of Representatives . Few Democrat or Republican Congress-member s will serve the healthcare needs of the world's by-far-most-unh ealthy major-nation population.
 
 
+8 # Ralph 2017-01-09 21:07
Did you read the article? Seriously.

"If Obama had been more concerned with his legacy in the first year of his presidency than he was in its last year, he might have made a serious commitment to universal health care, instead of wasting the country’s time and energy on something like half a loaf for half the folks. That would have been difficult, visionary, and correct, but it was technically doable with no Republican votes (the same number Obamacare got)."
 
 
+12 # Kropotkinesque 2017-01-09 21:21
Ralph 2017-01-09 21:07

I read both West's article & anachronis's comment seriously, carefully — rendered grave attention to every detail of the texts of each.

Anachronis's observation differed from West's in its much greater observance of vital details. I gather that anachronis hoped that West would account for the gravity of the heinous particulars of Obama's treacherous sell-out of our nation's citizenry, its health care & economic needs.
 
 
-10 # Ralph 2017-01-09 21:32
Explain to me how anything you or anachronis's wrote that would educate Mr. Boardman who actually makes a more up-front and cogent attack of President Seinfeld (aka Obama). The presidency about nothing.
 
 
+10 # Kropotkinesque 2017-01-09 21:40
Ralph 2017-01-09 21:32

My observations & anachronis's are clear.

I shall not render a redundancy to suit your inattention.
 
 
+42 # CDMR 2017-01-09 16:26
"In reality, Obamacare threatens to become a deadly serious tar baby for Republicans: the more they mess with it, the more it’s going to entangle them in sticky wickets "


Very true. One thing republicans can't get through their thick skulls is that Americans really, really do like Social Security, Medicare/caid, Obamacare, and the Medicare Drug benefit. They pay for them and they think they are worth it.

I hope this is the issue that sends Paul Ryan back to Wisconsin and to driving the Oscar Meyer Wiener Mobile, right where he began and where he belongs. The guy is a wiener salesman of the first order.
 
 
+15 # Ralph 2017-01-09 21:01
Hate to break this to you but Obama had cat food commissions on SS. There are no third rails in US politics anymore. Why? We are being run by two right wing political parties.
 
 
+10 # lorenbliss 2017-01-10 01:16
@Ralph: Indeed. He labeled his effort to slash Social Security and impose still more cuts on Medicare, Medicaid and food stamps his "grand bargain."
 
 
+9 # RLF 2017-01-10 07:49
shood havve been called "The Final Solution"!
 
 
+5 # lfeuille 2017-01-10 18:48
He tried, but he didn't get away with it. Largely due to the leadership of one Bernie Sanders who never got enough credit for stopping it from the people who benefited most.
 
 
+21 # Ralph 2017-01-09 20:57
The Democratic party as a voice of left leaning politics is dead, kaput, finis. The Republicans have no chance of eliminating Obamacare because it is a massive corporate welfare scheme. The Republicans could give a rat's heinie about piles of dead bodies on the streets. What they can't belly up to is cutting the corporate vultures from the corporate welfare teat. There would be hell to pay from their corporate fascist taskmasters and they know it. They'll repeal it, slap some lipstick on it, a little rouge and voila! TrumpCare. Mark my words.
 
 
+13 # ronnewmexico 2017-01-09 22:56
Ralph no offense but there is more here than meets the eye.

Obamacare contains quite surprisingly a increase on tax rates for the rich hidden deeply within it.

I can only guess they kept that in the main a secret as it did not play into their reelection strategy of go left to draw voters in primaries then go hard right to win general elections.

They probably do really believe in what won Bill Clinton his presidency back way back when is the thing they should be replcating today in all their elections.

That is the only reason I can fathom keeping that secret. But seeminlgy it is in there.Obamacare still sucks amnd universal health care is the key but there are things in it that do not speak entirely of corporation

The solution should have been to lower the age of medicare gradually. A known there would have been no resistance. Obviously they did want a republican plan that would help the insurers most. But nevertheless it does contain some things not really known about.

Intentionally I would have to suppose. Incredibly stupid that. But they tend to actually be that. A vastly incredible in scope political mistake. They never really mentioned that.
Polling shows average americans greatly favor increaseing taxes on the rich.
 
 
+7 # Donna Fritz 2017-01-09 23:29
Great piece!!!!!
 
 
+9 # ronnewmexico 2017-01-09 23:56
The author is showing exactly the tact to take.

Chances this tact will be followed I'd guess are unfortunately slim.
 
 
+7 # wrknight 2017-01-10 09:27
Quoting ronnewmexico:
The author is showing exactly the tact to take.

Chances this tact will be followed I'd guess are unfortunately slim.

Chances are you are right. Demoniacs are likely to defend Obamacare to the death, in spite of it being a weak-kneed, half-assed attempt to fix the broken health care system in this country.

And the more the Demoniacs defend Obamacare, the more voters they will lose.

If the Repugnants did replace Obamacare with something like Medicare for all (a scenario with about a 0.0001 probability) it would probably be the death of the Demoniac party.

That isn't going to happen of course. Repugnants aren't that smart.
 
 
+9 # Kootenay Coyote 2017-01-10 09:48
That would be /tack/, a sailing term.
 
 
+22 # jwb110 2017-01-10 00:11
Does nobody remember that the ACA was taken verbatim from a Health Care Plan designed by the Heritage Foundation which is a Republican Think Tank. The reason it doesn't work as effectively as it should is because it was designed by Conservatives. So now the same conservatives will f#*k it up even more. They are going to lose 20million votes and voters with the strike of a pen. Good riddance.
 
 
+8 # librarian1984 2017-01-10 00:14
One of the links late in this piece talks about who didn't vote. It's a Five Thirty Eight article about a SurveyMonkey poll.

Among Democrats (44% of those registered to vote), 44% actually voted and 35% did not.

Republicans: (43% of those registered), 46% voted, 32% did not.

Those groups are too similar to extract much information but MORE interesting are the figures for those not attached to the DP or GOP; of these voters, third partiers and Independents (and 13% of those registered to vote)*, 10% voted but 33% (!) did not. THESE are the people who really stayed home. This confirms what some here predicted.

Generally, voters ranked both candidates' favorables in the low 40s, but registered voters who didn't vote averaged in the low 30s.

Among those voters who did not like either candidate, Trump won.

Enjoyed the article.

* Normally we hear Independents are 42% of the electorate. Why is this group so different? And what accounts for the people who neither voted nor didn't vote?
 
 
+5 # wrknight 2017-01-10 09:37
I'm confused. Unfortunately, I didn't see that particular article by Nate Silver, but if 44% of registered Demoniacs voted and 35% of registered Demoniacs didn't vote, what did the remaining 21% do?

I am similarly confused about the Repugnant voters.
 
 
+2 # librarian1984 2017-01-10 16:26
Here's the link to the 538 article:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/registered-voters-who-stayed-home-probably-cost-clinton-the-election/?ex_cid=Weekly
 
 
+5 # lorenbliss 2017-01-10 01:32
All of these commentaries overlook the most important element in Obamacare -- its Big Lie of affordable care, intended to fulfill the international propaganda need for alleged "health care" while in fact providing no such thing.

What it does provide is the enormous rip-off by euphemistically named mandatory insurance to fatten the insurance barons' profits. This is combined with prohibitively expensive co-pays that maliciously price use of the insurance far beyond the fiscal capability of the so-called "average" USian -- most likely a person reduced to official low-income status.

(Yes, that's right, fully half the the USian Homeland citizenry is now classified as "low income.")

Hence the Machiavellian cunning of Obamacare: not only does it provide the illusion of insurance, but because of its price structure it boosts the insurance baron's obscene profits even as functions as the continued absence of insurance.

Obamacare thereby provides -- exactly as intended -- a camouflage net behind which to continue the One Percent's policy of eliminating the so-called "surplus population" by slow-motion genocide.

It also, by the way, provided Barack the Betrayer with a shield of Big Lies behind which to accelerate his equally genocidal looting of Medicare.

In the same way a sheriff who is secretly a Ku Klux Klanner is the worst possible sheriff, so is the pathological liar and moral imbecile Barack Obama the worst president of my nearly 77-year lifetime.
 
 
+2 # Diane_Wilkinson_Trefethen_aka_tref 2017-01-10 15:35
I gave you a thumbs up for your last sentence. Obama promised doable acts of conscience and failed miserably to fulfill his promises. I understand biting off more than you can chew. I understand overestimating your ability to accomplish as much as you want. I understand that Fate sometimes puts virtually insurmountable obstacles in your path. However, these are not the mistakes that Obama made. He either promised actions with NO plan in place to actually fulfill them OR after finding he could fulfill them, he turned his back on them. Either way, he lied. He deceived us.

And if perchance he DID find himself stymied by one of those circumstances, he utterly lacked the character to come before the American people and apologize. “I thought I could do this but the task will take more than just me.” “I thought I could accomplish all these positive changes but I didn’t have enough time and clout to do it.” “I never anticipated the degree to which the Republican Congress would block everything I wanted to do for you, the American People. Here is a list of my legislative requests and their efforts to resist these changes. You judge.”
 
 
-1 # Caliban 2017-01-11 01:39
And you, #lorenbliss, are too much given to hyperbolic dismissals of our current president. Instead of dismissing the ACA, why not work to make it the first step to the true tax supported heath care plan for all that it could become if people had the political will to insist on it.

Or if you can't find any good in the ACA, Let us hear what YOU would do about healthcare if you were POTUS and had the dogs of congress panting to hear your healthcare wishes. Clearly you think about such matters, so why not allow us the privilege of reading the product of that thought?
 
 
+11 # tpmco 2017-01-10 01:34
You're on the right track here Boardman--just feed 'em rope.
 
 
-4 # janie1893 2017-01-10 02:29
President Obama did absolutely everything possible and a few things no one thought could be possible to get together the health care package that is now 'Obamacare". At every step he was attacked by the Republican politicians, the insurance companies and the big pharma companies.
I was amazed, not only that he did manage to find a package that finally was enacted, but that the man survived the overwhelming amount of vitriol that was aimed at him by all those enemies.

President Obama's legacy will be seen as much larger and more helpful to the American public in coming decades than it is now.
 
 
+2 # lorenbliss 2017-01-10 04:44
@janie1983: as a physically disabled senior (age 77 next March) who was repeatedly savaged by Barack the Betrayer's "Grand Bargain" cuts in Medicare and food stamps -- food stamps slashed over three years from $130 to $16, Medicare cuts incalculable because of the viciously dishonest way they were inflicted -- I am not only astounded but personally insulted by lies such as your utterly deluded "everything possible" claim.

In ugly truth, Barack the Betrayer -- precisely because he hid his Nazi-hearted, white-supremaci st viciousness behind the double Big Lie of false progressive rhetoric and the endless deceptions he wantonly facilitated by exploitation of his African-America n skin -- was the most knowingly, deliberately malevolent, Evil-hearted president of my entire lifetime.

And his legacy -- once the magnitude of his treachery and betrayals are fully recognized -- will be that of not only the most vindictively tyrannical president in U.S. history, but of the willful enabler of the emergence of the U.S. as the latest manifestation of unabashed Nazism, the de facto Fourth Reich,

I am truly sick unto death of people like you, clinging -- in your stupefied admixture of fear, delusion and ignorance -- to the most ruinously self-destructiv e Big Lie in this nation's uniquely murderous history.
 
 
+12 # WBoardman 2017-01-10 11:43
#janie1893 may believe the passage of Obamacare
required acts of courage.

That is not apparent to me.
Obama campaigned on single payer.
Then he abandoned it without resistance.
Then he abandoned the public option.

Yes he was subjected to vitriol from the right.
But it was the "left" – actually Democrats, since there
is no meaningful left in this country – that gave of
the medical sham of Obamacare.

Is there any other government in the world that
compels you to buy health insurance and then
fines you if you don't?

Seriously. Is there?
 
 
+1 # harleysch 2017-01-11 06:27
Or allows "deductibles" so high that, even with government subsidies (to the insurance companies), people cannot afford medical treatment. Many of my low-income acquaintances had deductibles of $6,000. If you can only afford to buy a policy with a $400 to $600/month subsidy, how can you afford a deductible of $6,000?
 
 
+3 # wrknight 2017-01-10 09:08
"For years, Obamacare has been a Democratic tar baby and Democrats, irrationally, will likely feel compelled to defend it because they built it, they prolonged it, and besides it’s part of Obama’s legacy."

The only part that is of any value.
 
 
-1 # revhen 2017-01-10 12:35
"If Obama had been more concerned with his legacy in the first year of his presidency than he was in its last year, he might have made a serious commitment to universal health care, instead of wasting the country’s time and energy on something like half a loaf for half the folks. That would have been difficult, visionary, and correct, but it was technically doable with no Republican votes (the same number Obamacare got). Democrats, and Democrats alone, denied the country the chance to have Medicare for all."

Memory is short. Obama had to do the "half-a-loaf" approach because certain Democratic senators refused to go along unless the insurance companies could profit. Big business owns not only Republicans, but also most Democrats.
 
 
+2 # lorenbliss 2017-01-10 13:57
@revhen: As I recall, the Betrayer was secretly meeting with the insurance barons even before the Democratic (sic) Party's senators announced their obstructiveness . In other words, the Betrayer had already ensured the fix was already in; the Democratic (sic) obstructiveness was merely to give the Liar in Chief some additional cover for his treachery.

Nevertheless, you are absolutely correct when you say "big business owns not only Republicans, but also most Democrats." Hence I gave you a thumbs up, as that fact is one of the core truths behind the USian shift to overt Nazism that occurs on 20 January.
 
 
0 # Caliban 2017-01-11 14:14
And you know all about this "secret" stuff how?

Where are your sources?
 
 
-1 # lfeuille 2017-01-10 18:59
You got the timeline wrong. Obama had already made secret deals with Insurance Cos and Big Pharma before any Senators got involved so the obstructive Senator thing is just a smokescreen. If any had objected in reality, he could have gone to the people and had those Senators deluged with complaints, but he got exactly what he wanted so he didn't. I don't know is Leiberman was really opposed or just volunteered to play the heavy for Obama, but if his objections were real they could have been handled.
 
 
+1 # WBoardman 2017-01-10 23:53
revhen is correct, of course, as my comment above attests.

In the sentence revhen quotes, the word "technically" refers
to the condition of the Democrats, as does the last sentence.

It's not true that Obama "had to do" anything.
He may not have had appealing options, but he made choices.
One of the choices was not to call out his own party.
Thereby effectively colluding.
 
 
0 # Caliban 2017-01-11 14:22
It is important to remember that there are still a few unreconstructed state Democratic parties in the South.

On issues that seem outrageously liberal (like universal healthcare), they are quite happy to vote with the GOP. And on close votes, this can hurt.
 
 
+1 # Cassandra2012 2017-01-14 03:01
Yes, the blue dog 'Dems' with long term ties to the insurance industry gave him hell.
 
 
+5 # boomerjim 2017-01-10 14:25
Of course, many Republicans also want to get rid of Medicare -- the most efficient healthcare insurer in the U,S. But that would arouse the anger of older voters, who generally lean toward the GOP.

Medicare for all could be a winner. Note that Medicare itself leaves room for private insurance -- Medigap to go beyond what it covers, and Medicare Advantage (Part C) for those who choose a private plan via Medicare. Such limited roles in Medicare for all would not please the private insurance industry, but it would allow "choice" for members of the population who wanted it, and who could pay extra for it. That could be accepted by the American public. (Remember the "keep the government out of my Medicare" nonsense?)
But it would take a resurgence of a Democratic Party under new leadership -- of Bernie-ites and others disgruntled by the DLC-shaped Democratic Party (years after the DLC was dissolved) and the new outrages we will see from the Republicans.
 
 
+4 # Diane_Wilkinson_Trefethen_aka_tref 2017-01-10 16:01
Thank you, Loren, for stating outright what so many of us are tiptoeing around. With the advent of Trump as President, and even more damningly, with the installation of his solidly pro-business, pro-1% cabinet, the United States of America can truly be said to have become a Fascist government. Indeed, the 4th Reich is upon us.
 
 
+6 # jouster 2017-01-10 20:37
Q: What do Republican's hate most about Obamacare.

A: The Name.


Republicans are determined to repeal and replace Obamacare.

I suggest that they replace it with Romneycare.


NOTE:
The Heritage Foundation, a conservative Think Tank, in 1990 developed a proposed framework for Health Insurance.
The Heritage plan was the basis for Romneycare, the name given to Mitt Romney’s health care insurance reform laws passed in MA in 2006.
RomneyCare aimed to reform healthcare by providing all MA residents with affordable quality health insurance. It also offered additional protections to MA residents including the retention of health coverage when switching employers or when they faced financial difficulties. The idea being that all citizens of that state should have health coverage.
The Heritage plan and Romneycare were used as a model for 2010's Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) due to its widely recognized success and popularity within MA.
 
 
-1 # Caliban 2017-01-11 14:16
Better yet (I think), what about "DonaldCare"?
 
 
+1 # Moxa 2017-01-11 10:36
This is a wonderful piece because it avoids the trap that most arguments fall into: If A is right, B must be wrong. If B is right, A must be wrong. People take sides on one side of an argument rather than look at the legitimacy of the argument itself. Both sides can be wrong, for example. That gutting Obamacare as a first priority is definitely misguided, it is also misguided to assume that Obamacare is something that should be defended on its merits. Mr. Boardman's conclusion is exactly right: create Medicare for all and THEN ditch Obamacare. How simple the truth can be!
 
 
+1 # Caliban 2017-01-11 14:26
But how hard it can be to get good things actually legislated.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN