Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.) made headlines yesterday with public statements that passing the Affordable Care Act (ACA) (or Obamacare) was a mistake and “blew” the opportunity of the party to pass meaningful legislation that appealed to the middle class. As the third-ranking member of the Senate Democratic leadership, the statement was a rare public rebuke of the strategy of the Obama Administration and the Democratic leadership. Schumer stated that at the time “Americans were crying out for an end to the recession, for better wages and more jobs; not for changes in their healthcare.”
Schumer criticized the decision to push through the ACA in the first term when citizens were demanding actions in other areas. He did not question the value of the ACA as much as its timing and the huge political costs of such legislation:
SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): After passing the stimulus, Democrats should have continued to propose middle-class oriented programs and built on the partial success of the stimulus. But unfortunately, Democrats blew the opportunity the American people gave them. We took their mandate and put all of our focus on the wrong problem — health care reform. Now the plight of uninsured Americans and the hardships caused by unfair insurance company practices certainly needed to be addressed, but it was not the change we were hired to make. Americans were crying out for the end to the recession, for better wages and more jobs, not changes in health care.
This makes sense, considering 85% of all Americans got their health care from either the government, Medicare, Medicaid, or their employer. And if health care costs were going up, it really did not affect them. The Affordable Care Act was aimed at the 36 million Americans who were not covered. It has been reported that only a third of the uninsured are even registered to vote. In 2010 only about 40% of those registered voting. So even if the uninsured kept with the rate, which they likely did not, we would still only be talking about only 5% of the electorate.
To aim a huge change in mandate at such a small percentage of the electorate made no political sense. So when Democrats focused on health care, the average middle-class person thought the Democrats are not paying enough attention to me. Again, our health care system was riddled with unfairness and inefficiency. It was a problem desperately in need of fixing. The changes that were made are and will continue to be positive changes, but we would have been better able to address it if Democrats had first proposed and passed bold programs aimed at a broader swath of the middle class.
Had we started more broadly, the middle class would have been more receptive to the idea that President Obama wanted to help them. The initial faith they placed in him would have been rewarded. They would have held a more pro-government view and would have given him the permission structure to build a more pro-government coalition. Then Democrats would have been in a better position to tackle our nation’s healthcare crisis.
Source: The Hill
Well, like I have said before:
Sooo, now I made a cartoon to help express this!
https://birtherthinktank.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/farside3.png
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Chucky is Trooper’s US Senator. He loves him.
Sally, there aren’t NEARLY enough free clinics to accommodate the millions wihout healthcare, just like in the past. So you pretty much admit you don’t care, it’s ok to admit you’re selfish. Embrace it.
Chuck’s hindsight is 20-20. Good for him. His hindsight vision is the first best example of what makes partisan politicians believe themselves to be so adept. That he and others do not have the foresight to detect unintended consequences is the first best example of what makes partisan politicians so inept.
Inga:
“How would some feel if they had no insurance and no healthcare and had to find a free clinic”
I would think they would feel thankful for the free clinic. That’s what free clinics are for.
It’s time to get a gun, the police in L.A. didn’t even arrest people for blocking traffic on the freeways and public streets. This can only get worse, you give these hoodlums an inch and next they want a foot.
The mistake is electing someone that endorses a bill that that person didn’t read. anyone that votes for a person that doesn’t look out for your best interests
is an idiot
New York is a mess. I don’t think we want anything for the country that comes from someone in NY. If Schumer is saying all that negative stuff, maybe this healthcare debacle isn’t as bad after all. Maybe…
Once again, Inga, I don’t think that is a question for the government. My question for the government would be, “what the devil happened to the cost of healthcare over time that you would have to choose death or bankruptcy for serious treatment? This is not a market operation. If healthcare would have to survive on the merits of own business model, I do not think we would be having this conversation. Any action from here is ugly no matter how you cut it up. I don’t think there is a happy end for the consumer from here.
Maybe our elected officials should take ” The Evelyn Woodward speed reading course”!
OLLY
It is the 99% that determine what the ‘natural’ rights are. OK, if you are a believer of divine creation then we are at an impasse. Myself, I see, throughout history, mankind determining what is right and what is wrong at one time or another. Lincoln signed onto a law, 5 years before he became President, that made it obligatory for the slave free North to return runaway slaves to the South, or in other words acknowledged people as property.
How would some feel if they had no insurance and no healthcare and had to find a free clinic, or use the ER for their healthcare? But of course we shouldn’t mention them.
Oh my DBQ, Squeeky will be along presently to chastise you for voting for someone from a Party that you think best represents your interests.
Isaac:
How would you feel if your insurance went up to $2600.
Would you still think it was wonderful and fair, then? That it was worth it for some people to pay more, if those other people were you???
isaac:
NO. “most people’ do not pay less.
Only the poor are subsidized. You KNOW this is true because there is a big stramash about federal subsidies being ruled invalid because the law was worded to require state exchanges. People are clamoring because if they lose their subsidies, Obamacare is completely unaffordable. Those in the middle class cannot afford it.
The people currently on the exchanges are those who were uninsured before (the poor) and those who are self employed but don’t have enough employees to have an employer policy.
So, yeah, the uninsured, heavily subsidized would find it more affordable, and since they didn’t have a doctor before, they would be unaware that they had far less choice than an insured person did prior to Obamacare.
Rates soared in CA in 2014. And they increased by huge jumps in the couple of years leading up to Obamacare hitting, to prepare for the hit:
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-california-health-insurance-rates-surge-20140729-story.html
If you really believe that Obamacare saves the middle class any money, you are seriously misled.
There is no magic money tree that sprouts up to offer huge coverage to the poor. They took affordable health care AWAY from the middle class.
Isaac,
Even if 99% of the People want something that infringes the natural rights of 1% then they are not empowered to do it. It would be unconstitutional.
Another problem with his statements are that Liberal policies are unable to improve economy.
For example, double the minimum wage, and, yes, you’ve increased wages across the board. Now everyone would need a correlating raise, or else a skilled worker would suddenly be making unskilled wages.
And since no magic money tree would spring up overnight, business owners would either need to go out of business, raise prices on everyone, downscale by laying off, or make cheaper quality stuff at the same price.
The average restaurant franchise owner makes $90,000. Doubling minimum wage would make them LOSE $180,000.
You do the math.
“The purpose of government is to govern in the best interests of the people, not the party.”
Also wrong in many ways…….but for another reason. The Representatives and Senators are elected by their constituents to represent their interests. They were sent there to do the will of the people who elected them. Not necessarily to compromise, to give in to the other party, to pass bills that are counter to what they were sent to Congress to do.
The Dems think that compromise means they get to do what they want. If the Republicans begin to resist and actually represent the wishes of their constituents then it is whining all day long that the Republicans are being obstructionist. Boo hoo. Well that is possibly true. But when they obstruct bills that their voters told them NOT to support they are doing their job.
I don’t WANT my Representatives to work with the Democrats because none of the Democrat policies are in my best interest. NONE.
THAT is how our government is supposed to work.
Karen
Most people pay less. Some pay more. Like most of things in life changes bring good and bad. When one is on the winning side all is good. When one is on the losing side, all is bad. Personally, we pay a third of the $1,300 a month it was costing before. This was through my wife’s job as a pre-school teacher through the beneficence of Aetna. Unfortunately the road to a better system is paved with some rough rocks. If Hillary gets in, I think she will try to make it her legacy to iron out the bumps. Imagine how that would make hay if she not only fixed it but one upped Obama. If a Republican gets in and the unholy trinity 86’s the law then they will, as they are already bought and paid for by the insurance industry, go back. Like the Republican motto says, ‘Take America Back’.
The people do decide or at least they think they do. However, we have an oligarchy which has always been the other part of the government. Plato warned against it. Perhaps it is necessary. However, stop and add up the costs and then look at the alternatives.
The only way forward is through the mess.
Olly
Not in the best interests of ‘We the People’?
“The purpose of government is to govern in the best interests of the people, not the party.”
WRONG!!!
“that to secure these rights governments are instituted..” Those being unalienable rights, so had they stuck to their legitimate purpose, they wouldn’t be in the position of doing the moonwalk away from it.
Isaac:
“The ACA is a dog’s breakfast, but a necessary move in the right direction of getting rid of the parasitical private health care insurance industry which costs Americans five to eight times (depending on a conservative or liberal analysis), in administration than what other countries spend, per capita.”
So you admit that Obamacare was designed to make insurance so unaffordable that the masses would clamor for single payor, which they would never have voted for with Obamacare wrecking insurance.
How very Machiavelian of you.
I, personally, think the American people have a right to decide what’s best for us, without politicians lying, manipulating, and harming us to get what they think is best for us.