We recently discussed the stinging criticism of Sen. Chuck Schumer who called Obamacare a colossal political mistake and something that was not a priority for the American people. It was a remarkable admission from the third ranking and one of the most liberal Senate Democrats. Now, perhaps the most liberal departing member has given his own departing shot at the White House and Democratic Leadership. Retiring Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa has gone public with criticism that the Affordable Care Act was badly written and should not have been passed. Like Schumer, he is not questioning the value of health care but said that the current law was not worth doing because of its inherent flaws.
Harkin’s criticism was a bit different from Schumer, who indicated that he would have preferred not to have passed health care in the first term at all. Harkin told The Hill newspaper that ObamaCare that the leadership and White House blew it when they had the majority and should have gone all the way to guarantee funding and a more logical structure to the program: “We had the power to do it in a way that would have simplified healthcare, made it more efficient and made it less costly and we didn’t do it. So I look back and say we should have either done it the correct way or not done anything at all.”
I spoke on Capitol Hill before the passage of the ACA and remarked that the legislation was in the worst condition that I had seen in 30 years in terms of a major piece of legislation. As someone who supports national health care, it was very disappointing, if not alarming, to see the condition of the law. The few sections that I reviewed read like a first draft from a LA’s computer. Democratic staffers told me later that they agreed and that the legislation was not ready. However, with the death of Kennedy (and the replacement by Brown), the Democratic leadership and the White House decided to push through the poorly crafted law on a muscle vote — which led to a number of Democrats being defeated on the marginal vote. The result is that the ACA has been a continual struggle as hundreds of serious drafting errors and flaws have had to be addressed.
Harkin is the retiring chairman of the Senate health panel and helped write the law.
Is there some assumption that single payer would cut the waste and operate strictly non-profit?
Is anyone, anywhere, aware of a government agency that operates without pork, wasteful spending, and unsustainable perks to its government employees and cronies? Does the whole broken government procurement system, where we overpay and they under deliver, sound at all familiar? Kind of along the lines of the Exchanges that still are not finished? Or the $300 million computer system for the SSA that still is not online after 6 years? The VA where our vets, who should be honored, were left to languish and die on 9 month waiting lists to see a doctor?
Only a fool would keep repeating an experiment and expect a different result.
Alan:
Gruber admitted that the point of the ACA is for the young and healthy to pay a lot more so that the poor could get insurance. So, even the architects disagree with you that a young and healthy unsubsidized guy paid more before the ACA.
The ACA doubled my premiums, increased my deductible by 1100%, and none of my doctors, nor any recommended doctors, accept it. So after paying over $900/month for a family of 3, plus $6,000 deductibles, I still have to pay out of pocket to see a doctor. My previous insurance had excellent coverage, and I never had a doctor or surgeon not accept it. Obamacare has brought me nothing but trouble, and I’m just middle class.
The CA Medical Association has published articles about how doctors just cannot keep their doors open with what Obamacare pays them. The only way to do it is to adopt a factory model, with doctors spending barely any time with patients. Does that sound like improving health care to anyone at all?
Dems can try to run from their role in inflicting Obamacare, but they can’t hide. And boy, will they want to, when the employer mandate hits. Just wait until everyone is in the same boat with me.
The Democrats are now coming out against ACA because they know it is unpopular and want to distance themselves from Pres. Obama in order to help Hillary Clinton.
We need to repeal the law that gives Congressmen and Congresswomen free health care for life from serving one day in Congress. The same is true for federal judges. Make them buy health insurance from their salary money like the rest of us.
Chip S. Thanks for the informative statistics on cancer cure rates in various countries, though I find it odd that they left out France, the one country whose rates are supposed to be most comparable to ours.
I’m surprised that Spain’s cure rates are lower than ours. When we go to a national health plan, as we surely will, there is no reason we can’t maintain the same rates we have currently. It is the case, sadly, that countries less affluent than America can’t always afford the latest and most expensive equipment, but there are some diseases, like diabetes, that other countries are more successful at treating than we are.
I do not challenge that the American medicine is among the best in the world. Wouldn’t that lead you to wonder why it’s the 37th ranked system in the world?
Might that be because 41 million people don’t have medical coverage, and people without it are 40% more likely to die? In one of your comments you claimed that the American left would never tolerate a medical system that had a great disparity between the rich and the poor, and you’re correct. That’s we fight for a national health plan. You never mention the huge number of Americans with no health coverage, who are significantly more likely to die. It’s the American right who tolerates it.
Thanks, isaac. I enjoyed reading your thoughtful post. (9:28am)
The provision of medical care is pure capitalism. The obamacare aspect just makes people buy. There is no socialization. Doctors can charge huge fees, hospitals can do so, pharmaceuticals can cost a hundred thousand per dose. We need real socialized health care. Live free or die. You will die if you rely on American health care and you are not a millionaire.
Hate to say “I told you so.” But we, PROGRESSIVES, told you so!
Someone said that it is a step in the right direction, I think that commenter just does not understand the complexities of life.
Is he serious? I’m a cab driver in Las Vegas,Nv. we went on strike because drivers were being forced to keep up with the “long haulers” and because for decades the cab companies paid some shift drivers less than minimum wage. When the strike was over the drivers were promised that if they went back to work their health insurance would be reinstated. Guess what? it did not happen. The one and only thing that got them their health coverage was “Obamacare”. Whatever the problems, correct them but do not pay for the same “political real estate” twice and put those who were helped back in the same uninsured situation.
Our status quo health care system was wrecked long before the ACA.
I’m not sure if this is the petitio principii or the “no true Scotsman” fallacy, but it’s some form of circular logic.
Not surprising that in your mind it’s Pogo who’s the ideologue.
Our status quo health care system was wrecked long before the ACA.
“No, seriously, trust us.
We to-o-otally screwed up the ACA.
Hell, we didn’t even read the damn thing, truth be told.
But we socialists will do a great job fixing what we wrecked.
Just sign here.“
Pogo, I sure hope you check your ideology at the door of the examination room.
http://verdict.justia.com/2014/11/20/disdainful-economists-hubristic-jurists-fanatical-republicans
“Disdainful economists, hubristic jurists and fanatical republicans..”
Here’s an interesting article from Neil Buchanan, economist, legal scholar and law professor at George Washington University no less.
Leftists never learn.
The ACA has been enough of a debacle that some of the original authors are disowning or at least dissing it.
So our resident socialists’ advice?
MOAR SOCIALISM!
The problem was, it turns out, not nearly enough government intrusion.
http://www.sbsun.com/opinion/20140822/expand-medicare-to-improve-access-and-reduce-costs-guest-commentary
Expand Medicare to improve access and reduce costs.
Medicare has a single payer, but isn’t a single payer system.
Medicare for all would be a single payer, like the VA, but somehow would not be a single payer system like the VA.
That is what “single payer” means — a government monopoly on payment will mean a government monopoly on service (even if ‘privately owned’), and that always guarantees worse service.
Chip, it exploits it? Ohhhh poor poooor private health insurance companies. There are still various forms of Medicare for All, it’s still being formed, a consensus hasn’t been reached yet that I know of. I’m in favor of one that is just like the one we have NOW, which is a combination of private health insurance for the supplemental and premiums for Parts B and D. Medicaid to be used as a supplemental for the VERY poor. These systems are in place right now, just needs expanding.
Medicare is not a single payer system, get it?
Medicare exploits the existence of a private system that wouldn’t exist under “Medicare for all.”
Get it?