I can’t think of a candidate I dislike more than Delaney in this race, and this photo shows me why. It was taken when he was gaslighting about EIM4A, and Warren called him out. His shit eating grin makes me think he believes he has everyone fooled, and no one suspects he’s a repug. plant in the dem party.
The thing I appreciate about Delaney is he helps give primary voters a clear choice. And, let’s be real here, his healthcare plan is very much to the left of the ACA as it exists now. For example, it includes auto-enrollment in a public insurance plan for those currently uncovered, financed by tax increases on the wealthy. It ties prescription drugs under the plan to Medicare rates negotiated by the government. People can opt-out and receive tax credits for purchasing private insurance, a sort of step up from what happens in single payer UK where 10% of the public gets private insurance, but most with private plans see GPs in the public system.
The real ideological divide is over the role of the private sector. Delaney sees a continued role for it, others don’t. He helps clarify that. Given political realities, my feeling is Delaney’s actual plan, fully implemented, would make lots of Americans pretty happy overall. To me, the fact he represents the “moderate” position only shows the huge swing to the left we’ve taken in the healthcare debate.
Given the fact that this is a political system that runs on money and that the Democratic party is all but obsessed with raising money, it’s not surprising that the party rates candidates so blatantly on their ability to raise money. I can’t help but cringe, though, when I see candidates rated this way. To me it smacks of a bidding war to see who can buy the nomination, not to mention making a mockery of any candidate who talks about getting money out of politics. Yeah, this is the reality of politics in this country, but there has to be a better way.
The system is rotten. We need a new system:
I share your sentiments about money in politics, but also am a bit skeptical of my own views at times and think there are merit-able criticisms. Parties have always raised money. FDR counted Hearst, Du Pont, and the Rockefellers as initial supporters for example, and this was at a time when party rules, nominating contests, and financing were far more opaque than they are today. Moreover, the reality of the current Supreme Court is that 5 justices simply don’t like campaign finance strictures. If you want to change that, there are two ways: a constitutional amendment or putting in presidents that will nominate justices with different views on the Supreme Court. Some progressive quarters seem not to want to think pragmatically about the latter during presidential elections, and seem unable to acknowledge the difficulties in pushing the former save peans to revolution. Finally, there are more constrained election timelines in countries with compulsory voting, multiple parties, and greater public election financing that deliver elections to conservatives on a fairly regular basis.
It’s a difficult subject when you start getting into details and there are valid reasons to be skeptical of some reformist instincts. That said, I think, ultimately, a constitutional amendment may be the best way to go, especially given the legal regime we are under. Money talks, but maybe it shouldn’t so loudly, and giving Congress a stronger hand in regulating electioneering at least puts a tool on the table.
You and I couldn’t be further apart on Delaney’s healthcare plan. I don’t know if he is fully divested from his first corporation, Health Care Financial Partners, or not. If not, he has a personal interest in maintaining the republican based plan ACA. A crappy plan IMO, to maintain public funding for greedy healthcare insurance corporations, passed as I’m sure you know when dem’s had control of both wings of congress and the WH. The ACA was a “bait and switch” plan to tamp down the call for true universal healthcare, it was the least congress could do for the people.
When I looked up his political positions, he does come off as centrist (you say moderate, I say centrist), but in supporting or modifying the ACA, that’s a big fail for me. I have to disagree with you’re statement that we’ve taken a huge swing to the left in the healthcare debate. The only reason the current system that includes insurance companies, has held on for so long is the huge amount of propaganda that’s aimed at the public on this issue. With out that, the people would have demanded universal healthcare long ago.
The ACA wasn’t a bait-and-switch. There was an entire federal election wherein a presidential candidate ran on it. He won. I don’t know where this claim even comes from—it’s outright asinine.
As for Delaney, his plan, such as it is, auto-enrolls everyone in a public plan save those already covered (and happy) or those that choose private care. Dirty little secret—you can get private coverage in countries like the UK as I point out. That’s a huge step up from the ACA as it currently exists.
What’s more, if you are opposed to private insurance—fine. But insurance isn’t the main driver of prices right now. It’s mainly an aging population, providers (doctors and nurses), hospitals, and weak competition on the drug side. Even in a system without private insurance, you have to deal with the latter three to reduce the cost of care. And capping physician payments has never been, and probably won’t be, very popular. Physician organizations were against price disclosures as part of the ACA, and they were a big reason why FDR and LBJ couldn’t implement national systems.
Calling this week’s Dog & Donkey shows “debates” is a joke in itself, especially the one on Wednesday night. Thank goodness ‘Young Frankenstein’ was airing on TCM at the same time — maybe not quite as funny, but also nowhere near as pathetic.
With the exceptions of Bernie, Liz and Tulsi, I cannot help but cringe when I see the candidates. Period. Once the field is winnowed down to these three, plus maybe one or two of the DNC’s morons just for comic relief, I’d like to see four or five REAL debates, with each candidate given ten minutes to explain his or her position on ONE issue and then during the second hour have two minutes to rebut or question each of the opponents’ positions on that one issue. The first debate could be focused just on Health Care, two weeks later have one focused just on Income Inequality and Taxes, after another two weeks focus on Foreign Policy, then one about Climate Change and maybe one or two others another couple of weeks apart.
You don’t know where the claim comes from? Are you kidding? Obama ran on universal healthcare, then that was diluted down to single payer mixed with continued private insurance participation, then when it came time to pass legislation, with a democratically controlled House and Senate, even a single payer option was pulled off the table. The ACA’s main mission is to keep patients money flowing to the healthcare insurance industry, and why the Heritage Foundation invented it.
The healthcare insurance industry might not set pricing, but they dam sure suck billions out of the system while providing nothing for the patients except refusing needed treatments, because they don’t want to cut into their profits. You’re right AMA is against anything progressive in the healthcare industry including a public health insurance program, but more and more doctors are not buying it, and their AMA membership numbers are dropping fast. More than 20% of the AMA’s budget comes from the drug companies, and the majority of their funds come from a “medical coding” business that would more than likely be put out of business if the new EIM4A bill was enacted into law, so it’s no wonder why they’re against it. We have come to the point IMO, where a doctors support or non-support for EIM4A defines the physician himself/herself. If they support the bill, they truly want to help their patients, if they don’t, they’re in the business just to make money.
How long before medical purchases from Canada and Mexico are outlawed?
Obama did not run on single payer or anything like it. Here’s a summary of his plan from during the campaign after he announced it. Aside from the mandate and a few other items, the ACA clearly follows the path he campaigned on.
Also, the Heritage “plan” that gets tossed around didn’t include the ACA’s regulatory reforms, required coverage for large employers, sliding public subsidies for insurance purchases on exchanges, or Medicaid expansion, among other things. Only in weak generalities can the ACA be called the Heritage Plan—which wasn’t really a “plan” to begin with anyway.
If the ACA was as you say, just a way to support the insurance industry, Congress would have passed something like the actual Heritage “plan,” which was all about voucherizing Medicaid, long a conservative goal. Congress didn’t do that though. Instead, it passed a bunch of insurance reforms that insurance companies didn’t like (plain language plan summaries, cost sharing, and quality-of-care over quantity, etc.) and facilitated the largest expansion of public healthcare since the 1960s (Medicaid). Moreover, as passed, the Medicaid expansion was universal. The Supreme Court made it a state-by-state option, not Obama or Congress.
You made my point for me, the title of the article you linked:
“Obama Unveils Universal Health Care Plan”
Sure it’s not a true universal plan, but that’s the point.
Did you read the article or just the headline? Obama did push a universal coverage plan based on the existing insurance market. He never pretended he was doing otherwise. I guess I don’t understand progressives that have to make stuff up—and your whole first paragraph is a blend of half-truths and inaccuracies to make a fake point—it’s a sellout for insurance companies—about the ACA. A single payer “option” was never “on the table,” as you put it. I provided you a link to his announcement of his plan, which he won an election pushing, to unequivocally demonstrate that.
Now, if you are upset because the ACA didn’t reach universal coverage, notice I was careful to note what the Supreme Court did to Medicaid expansion. This has affected poor people (non-citizens make up a quarter of this number) in mainly Southern red states dramatically. As of 2017, uninsured populations were mainly concentrated in these states since Medicaid was supposed to provide coverage. Of course, changes from the Trump administration have given us 700,000 newly uninsured. That said, trends were positive prior to Trump, with 44 million uninsured pre-ACA being cut in half by 2016.
You can throw out words that make you feel good KC, like “make stuff up”, “fake point”, this doesn’t bother me. This is the second debate you and I have had where you have failed, providing links that don’t really make you’re point, but I have no doubt you will brush that aside. Did you read my comment to you’re links? Maybe, but apparently you didn’t get it. I’m not sure what you’re angle is, but you dam sure have one. What could possibly be you’re angle for supporting the present system, and defending the insurance industry? Makes me wonder. In the link below, read carefully where it brings up “public option”.
Now the next link shows the ACA did partly come from the Heritage Foundation’s healthcare plan of 1993.
This will be my last comment on this page.
I did read your comment. It didn’t support your previous statements. And of course, you didn’t say the ACA was “partly” based on the Heritage “plan,” you said it was based on it. I pointed out major provisions that were significantly different and not in the Heritage plan, which you clearly didn’t know, and I noted it was similar only in generalities. Because that’s true.