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
Jim, tell that to Squeeky. I’d like to see how she’d respond to that chrage.
Squeeky is national healthcare wealth redistribution? Also Jim, maybe you should pose that question to Professor Turley, “Is national healthcare wealth redistribution?” I’d love to hear his take on what form of national healthcare he’d lke to see. He’s stated he is for a form of national healthcare.
I’m not for mandatory Government Health care either. It should be available for those who want it and to provide for those of limited financial means. However, I want the option to buy real insurance coverage that will cover me for the health care options that I need. Not the things the government THINKS that I need.
That was my biggest problem with ACA. The mandatory coverages for things that are not of any use to me. It forced the cost of the mandatory insurance much higher than it needed to be. I want the option of a medical savings account available coupled with a high deductible plan. I want CHOICES.
If you or others choose to use the government plan, then great. I don’t want to be forced to do so.
Inga, Who uses Medicare? No one that wants full coverage.
Inga, I think you are more for a redistribution of wealth system than a national healthcare system. Call it what it really is.
And Sandi my suggestion for a solution, which I’ve discussed MANY times here at RIL, is to expand Medicare. Medicare for All. There is a Bill that needs to be debated and voted on in the House regarding Medicare for All. However, our useless Congress will get to it anytime soon, nor would it ever pass a majority Republican Congress.
Sandi, once again,
I never said the ACA was healthcare in any way shape or form. I know full well it’s insurance with a few mandates that the insurances companies must follow. I don’t like the ACA, I never defended the ACA. I’m pretty sure I’ve told you all this before. I’m for a form of national HEALTHCARE, NOT health insurance. Just like Squeeky is and like Professor Turley is. Please don’t keep implying I am for healh insurance companies being involved in our healthcare. I DON’T.
I know my comments are too long, but I worked in a business environment where you don’t just identify a problem. You offer suggestions on solutions. Complaining doesn’t help. Small, useful suggestions work well.
Inga, ACA is not health care. It is insurance. There are costs for insurance and again if care is received. I knew it was a sham, especially when this most transparent of administrations wouldn’t let us read it. This should have been a conversion with many baby steps, lots of actual testing. Also, comparing what other countries have with what we have available is irrational. The level of medical treatment is incredibly high in comparison. We’ve added who knows how many to Medicaid, they won’t tell us. National Health Care in our country is impossible. We are too big, too widespread, and too many people. To run anything efficiently it should be at the lowest level possible. Counties are closer to the people, but large enough to have doctors, hospitals, specialized treatment. Give this idea to one of the small insurance companies, provide locally accepted treatment rates. Doctors in LA county cost much more than those in smaller counties. Track the insured. Do they go to a doctor or wait until seriously ill and go to ER, which is the case today. New to having insurance requires some amount of education. They must have a GP that has evaluated them and agreed rates are established. Some people will require more of the doctor’s time. The agreed rate would be established with the county. Office costs can be higher for one doctor and another.
These types of thinking were never used. They started with our huge government and worked down. You should start at the bottom and work up. Once the test counties (one in each state) are running smoothly, add more. We have wasted four years, which if used properly may have had us close to everybody at least in the system.
It has been messed up from the beginning and the smart thing to do is start the county systems now. Lots of having to interact with big government, but hire people who want to work, not watch pornography!
In two years do a study, not by federal employees. Results will show where changes must be made.
Inga – “*What do you think we should replace the ACA with?*”
Anything that doesn’t involve the govt. since they screw everything up that they touch.
Woohoo, we agree Squeekers!
It’s amazing how all these people without health insurance can pump out dependents to get more welfare being legal or illegal citizens
Inga, if half those people would get off their asses and get jobs maybe they could afford health insurance, Maybe if Obama enforced all the immigration laws on the books there would be more jobs available. Obama wants to keep people poor and under his thumb, it’s not that hard to see
@Inga
I think we need national health care, not national health insurance. Either expand Medicaid or Medicare to cover everybody. Plus, we need to end the medical monopoly and cartel by subjecting medicine to the provisions of a Sherman Anti-trust like law. That would lower the cost of medical care. Here is a link with a brief explanation:
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?singlepost=3363559
Add to that the way we permit Big Pharma to sell medicine overseas cheaper than they are sold here, without us being able to order the same pills overseas.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Senator Schumer conveniently forgets his personal history. When the public was crying for government action to end the recession, the Senator preached that we had to balance the budget and consistently acted to protect his patrons on Wall Street. Obama pushed hard for government programs and funds to create demand in the economy. If he didn’t get more for the “middle class” then we should look at the Democrats who were in leadership positions in Congress who failed to deliver. They would include Senator Schumer.
DBQ, I’m talking about BOTH, that should be self explanatory “if you were” an honest commenter and not just looking for a fight. I asked Squeeky a question, not you.
What do you think about preexisting conditions and healthcare? What’s your opinion?
Are you discussing health care or health insurance? Those are two completely separate issues. You should know this if you were in the medical field.
If you mean insurance and pre-existing conditions, then people are not eligible to be insured for an occurrence that has already happened. Just like fire insurance. You can’t get it after your house is already on fire. Too bad.
If you mean health care, well then if you are already sick with cancer, diabetes or any other chronic health condition, you should be able to get access to health care even if you are not insured. You just don’t have the right to force other people to pay for YOUR care by making the cost of their insurance unaffordable.
IF the intent was to provide healthcare for those people, then that could have been accomplished with a high risk pool for coverage for those instances. The pool could have been provided by the government similar to Medicare or Medicaid……two programs which ALREADY exist. There was no need to blow up everyone’s insurance for this.
*What do you think we should replace the ACA with?*
Then Democrats would have been in a better position to tackle our nation’s healthcare crisis.
The real healthcare crisis in the US is that healthcare is treated as a commodity to be bought and sold rather than human necessity available to all persons regardless of ability to pay.
The fact that the US government can squander tens upon tens of trillions of tax payer dollars while waging elective wars based wholly upon lies and bailing out banks, insurance companies and corporations is quite telling. This indisputably exposes the US political system for the fraud it is.
Hey Squeeky, have you ever indicated what form of healthcare you think the US should have? You never expressed your opinion on that IIRC. What do you think should replace the ACA? Would you go along with Hillary’s form of healthcare? What do you think about preexisting conditions and healthcare? What’s your opinion?
Inga – dearie, how about we go back to the old system of health insurance before the Democrats broke it.
Ooops! Here is the cartoon without the typo!
https://birtherthinktank.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/farside31.png
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter