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
Inga, I just had a prescription written for a year of a med. I used to pay $25.00 as my copay. Now, no copay, not covered by any drug plan, $200 a month! We are being screwed because Obama wanted us to be screwed. I worked for 30 years; I could have left earlier, but the benefits required 30 years. I wanted to be sure I wasn’t a burden on anyone. Now I have no plan offered as was the case (and we selected the care we didn’t need). Now we go through a Health Enabler (new career choice, some new jobs) who wasn”t very good at enabling, My husband spent most of October getting info on plans and drug plans. They cost much more, especially medication.
Remember when Michelle said “don’t get sick, not in this country”? She’s right! Even if you played by the rules, never took a dime from government, paid for coverage, including dental, eye care,band hearing care. I remember when everyone was crying because seniors were getting crushed with drug costs. Now that is true for me.
Meanwhile I watch people rioting, looting stores, setting fires. I would love to know how many of them get assistance and how much. Actually, if you are caught doing these activities, your freebies should be cancelled forever.
I never said anything about people on government dole before. But then you watch this destruction,,which taxpayers will pay to rebuild, while takers continue to take. And my meds skyrocket for them. What more is it going to cost us?
There will never be a single-payer system passed by Republicans, and rightly so. I go to my doctor if I’m not well. I don’t wait until i’m half dead. That’s the problem. Health and health care require personal responsibility. And there are people in this country that haven’t a clue how to be responsible!
@Karen:
Why does she do it? Oft have I pondered that question over a chilled glass of Franzia’s White Zinfadel, looking upward to the sky, and seeing the Cumulonimbus clouds, whose peaks typically reach to as much as 20,000 feet, with extreme instances as high as 75,000 feet, and are often characterized by a flat, anvil-like top, caused by wind shear or inversion near the tropopause, and may be accompanied by lightning, and silently murmur to myself what Simon and Garfunkel called, the “floating question”, WHY??? Mayhaps, the Muses of Poetry Past can contribute their spectre-like understanding. . .
Inga Management???
An Irish Poem by Squeeky Fromm
There once was a lady named Inga,
Quite good finding poopie to flinga.
Oh, she liked stirring pots
And taking cheap shots. . .
But she luvvvved flipping her middle finga!
Krankenstein???
An Irish Poem by Squeeky Fromm
There once was a very bored nurse,
Whose hobby was strangely perverse.
By constantly fussin’
She derailed discussion,
But her sock puppets, gee, they were worse!
🙂
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Isaac,
“It is the 99% that determine what the ‘natural’ rights are.”
So if 51% of Americans believe anyone with the name Isaac is a burden on society and shouldn’t own property or must be put to death; you’re okay with that? The whole reason civilized society and by extension our form of government is formed is to better secure those rights that we have naturally in the state of nature. Do you know why the Bill of Rights was added to the constitution?
“OK, if you are a believer of divine creation then we are at an impasse.”
Using your position above, this would make winning elections of the utmost importance. However, if your natural rights were respected as unalienable, then believers and non-believers would not fear the results of an election.
“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.”
You can be guaranteed that mankind will ALWAYS want to determine what is right and wrong. What our nation was founded on though was the belief that certain rights shall not be open for debate; they were rights that each of us are endowed with by virtue of our existence. They are not dependent on a belief in a God(s) or a Creator; we exist, therefore our rights exist.
Having unalienable rights does not mean they can’t be alienated; it means that no law can be legitimate that infringes these rights. They are the fixed reference point by which all law should be measured. The beauty of the Declaration of Independence is that it provided a vision for our republic. At our founding, we certainly didn’t represent that vision; so we established a form of government that would lead us to become a “more perfect union” and align with those founding principles.
We will never be a finished product as long as we continue to seek to treat people equally and to respect the natural rights we all possess. We will however be finished as soon as we abandon the founding vision.
Karen, sure copy and paste whatever you want. It still won’t be what YOU stated. Don’t you get it yet? You cannot directly quote someone then goon to paraphrase it as you see fit. When you continue to twist my meaning, because that is what you wish I would’ve meant, it’s simply another way of lying. Try being honest lke Squeeky.
Inga…
To some extent National Health Care would be redistributionist, as much of our current tax code already is.
However, if one believes that a National Health Care System is the best solution then stand up… Debate it honestly and openly. Sell the proposal to the American people with full disclosure and let congress vote on it.
Doing it would require a substantial increase in the tax rates for every citizen. (At least those still paying taxes.)
As others have accurately pointed out, the ACA was sold, voted on, and passed by parliamentary slights of hand, kickbacks, and blatant intentional dishonesty.
Based on my experience with things the government tries to do for “All” is that they don’t provide the service they are designed to provide very well. Schools, Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA immediately come to mind.
Inga:
Shall I copy and past your previous comments about Squeeky?
The salient point is comparing coverage before and after Obamacare. It is well documented that to comply with Obamacare insurance companies not only drastically restricted drug formularies, but they also did away with off formulary benefits. Because here is the simple math: When you add things like subsidized, non paying sick people and poor people, 26 free forms of birth control, etc, they cost money. Which causes premiums and deductibles to rise. That is exactly why people would pick and choose policies that matched their needs and budget. That’s why some people chose catastrophic policies. It would prevent financial disasters and was appropriate for healthy people. My policy covered everything I needed before Obamacare, and every doctor we ever wanted to go to accepted it. None of my husband’s surgeons now accept Obamacare. So if he needs another surgery because of the business he didn’t build, he’s out of luck.
Obamacare made my health insurance less affordable, and lowered the quality of my care by restricting doctor choice, formularies, and facility choice.
Get it?
So no matter how bad insurance was before, now it’s WORSE. Which is not helpful.
And it was not my sister who died, but rather another relative.
The anything is better than nothing line has been used to justify a lot of garbage laws throughout history. Medicaid needed to be improved then. Now it’s worse, again because of Obamacare.
This needs to be about more than feeling good at the voting booth. We have to actually be improving matters, not making them worse but congratulating ourselves on “at least we’re doing something” or “it’s better than nothing”. Those phrases are bandied about daily on the media, blogs, and elsewhere.
When I first started using the internet to do background checks on frauds and malingerers, I found chat rooms where these people discuss how to scam. our insurance premiums skyrocket because of scammers. Medicare is about to go bankrupt because of the skyrocketing number of people on SS Disability getting Medicare. There are people in their 30’s and even younger, perfectly able to work, getting Medicare. And, being self employed, I paid DOUBLE SS and Medicare taxes.
The ACA was one of the best things this country has ever done. It is far from perfect. I do challenge the Republicans to join in making it better. Give everybody the chance to compete. I think the fear is that they will.
For those that think a government provided solution is the best or only answer to healthcare… I would like you to personally experience government provided healthcare before finalizing your opinion.
I served in the military for 20-years. Had excellent healthcare while on active duty, but i was admittedly younger and healthier at that time. After retiring from the service I applied for and was accepted into the VA system.
I utilized the VA for a short period and that system scared me so bad that I will never willingly set foot into another VA facility as long as I live. Despite spending billions of tax dollars every year, the VA quality of care is horrendous. The only thing that works properly at the VA is the bureaucracy.
And guess what Karen, my private health insurance wouldn’t pay for certain forms of medication either. What would your family have done with your sister without the Medicaid she received? A least she had a way of getting healthcare.
As you have for days now Paulie. I’ve ignored it, but I’m done ignoring it now. Stop with the condescension. It’s uncivil and insulting.
Sure Paulie, whatever you say. As long as you keep referring to me as dearie, sweetie or some other condescending label, I will be calling you Paulie, now go run and complain to JT.
Ingie – sweetie, no reason to complain to JT.
Okay Paul, you may call me Ingie. That’s what I’ve been called all my life by my family and friends. I like Ingie far better than Inga.
Karen, “baiting other’s to quarrel” with Squeeky? Seriously Karen? No I’m trying to get her to explain her fiscal liberalism. I like that she so honestly states this. I also am amused at how you try to cause trouble between Squeeky and I just when we have found an area of agreement. Plus I’m sure Squeeky could argue anyone under the table.
Jim:
The biggest problem is that they lied about what voters were deciding on. People weren’t given the right to choose for themselves if they wanted to pay higher premiums to help the poor.
Squeeky – have you noticed how one of the posters keeps baiting other posters to quarrel with you, especially about Hillary? Why do you think she keeps trying to make trouble for you?
Sandi – you’re right. Work small, state by state. Each state is different and needs to find what works for them. All Romneycare basically did was say no more free ride for those who could afford insurance but chose not to buy it, restricting free healthcare to the poor.
Squeeky:
According to the trustees, Medicare will run out of money by 2030, if I remember correctly. It needs to be reformed before we can even consider adding more people. Already, the only way it’s affordable is by using private gap insurance. Otherwise, a long hospital stay would absolutely ruin someone.
And Medicaid has already suffered deep cuts. That was AFTER my terminal relative couldn’t get them to pay for a liquid version of her medicine. They only covered pills. She had a feeding tube. Her doctors fought and fought, but it’s an administrator who makes the call. They wouldn’t pay for her large bandages. On the plus side, she was not restricted to her home state for care, because Medicaid was national. They wouldn’t pay for any home care to check on her while her mom was at work, even though she had no balance. So some good and some bad. There have been more cuts since then, so I don’t know how it compares now.
But you make a very good point, that it’s not really health insurance that’s important. It’s the availability and affordability of health CARE. Big difference. Insurance is just one quiver in the arrow to hit that target.
Inga – “Jim, tell that to Squeeky. I’d like to see how she’d respond to that chrage.”
What no answer from you?
Explain to me how a healthy 25 year old male being forced to pay for healthcare that covers things like pregnancy is not redistribution?
DBQ That is why it is really about redistribution. Inga just won’t admit it. As for Medicare, just turn on the TV and watch all of the commercials for what it doesn’t cover. It’s all you need to know about how great it is.
Inga et al:
“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.”
Is it a reasonable solution to take health care away from the middle class? Or to knock half the middle class into poverty to do it? Is it excusable to harm one group of people to try to help another?
If this was such a great idea, then they should have been honest about it and let people vote on its merits. We are going to increase your premiums by double, and increase your deductible by 1100%, severely limit the types of policies you can choose from, severely restrict doctor choice, and severely restrict drug formularies while simultaneously removing all benefits for all formulary, but it will give health care to the poor. Now go VOTE!
You’re just trading misery.
If you apply this type of reasoning, you could burn your neighbor’s house down because it had termites, and say, “Well, at least I did SOMETHING!”
It’s false logic.