Democrats Running Against/Away From Healthcare?

[whell]

I find this fascinating:

"At least five of the 34 House Democrats who voted against their party’s health care reform bill are highlighting their “no” votes in ads back home. By contrast, party officials in Washington can’t identify a single House member who’s running an ad boasting of a “yes” vote — despite the fact that 219 House Democrats voted in favor of final passage in March."

"And an ad for Rep. Jason Altmire (D-Pa.) quotes constituents who say, “I like that Jason Altmire is not afraid to stand up to the president … and Nancy Pelosi.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/41777.html

[d-ray657]

Democrats running in traditionally Republican districts are the most vulnerable. Millions of Americans bought in to the "Death Panels" and other misinformation that was foisted in the public. If they did, in fact, go against the party leadership because that was what their constituents demanded, that seems like a legitimate thing to tell them. I have confidence that sometime in the not too distant future there are going to be people touting their standing up to protect the public from Republican efforts to gut some of the consumer-protective legislation that this congress passed.

The unfortunate thing about the health care reform is that the misinformation campaign is current, while the benefits from the plan are being phased in slowly. It doesn't have the instant gratification that this society demands.

Regards,

D-Ray

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

Millions of Americans bought in to the "Death Panels" and other misinformation that was foisted in the public.

Yes, it's very disheartening.

[whell]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

Democrats running in traditionally Republican districts are the most vulnerable. Millions of Americans bought in to the "Death Panels" and other misinformation that was foisted in the public. If they did, in fact, go against the party leadership because that was what their constituents demanded, that seems like a legitimate thing to tell them. I have confidence that sometime in the not too distant future there are going to be people touting their standing up to protect the public from Republican efforts to gut some of the consumer-protective legislation that this congress passed.

Regards,

D-Ray

The "death panel" comments abounded when the public option was still on the table in the national health care debate. They were closer to the truth than otherwise, since we were modeling our health reform objectives on the Social - Democratic examples.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/he...n-the-NHS.html

Many on the left are angry because the public option wasn't ultimately part of the PPACA. However, there will still be plenty of opportunity for those who really want it to push for it again in the future.

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by whell

The "death panel" comments abounded when the public option was still on the table in the national health care debate. They were closer to the truth than otherwise, since we were modeling our health reform objectives on the Social - Democratic examples.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/he...n-the-NHS.html

Many on the left are angry because the public option wasn't ultimately part of the PPACA. However, there will still be plenty of opportunity for those who really want it to push for it again in the future.

The insurance companies have their own death panels, the bean counters. If its gonna affect the bottom line, they find a way to cut off services.

Regards,

D-Ray

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

The insurance companies have their own death panels,

that's part of what makes this scare tactic so inane

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by whell

The "death panel" comments abounded when the public option was still on the table in the national health care debate. They were closer to the truth than otherwise, since we were modeling our health reform objectives on the Social - Democratic examples.

I don't really think it's "Social - Democratic" to hand millions of paying customers to for-profit health care corporations? Even if we were following such a model it doesn't follow that we would inherit any and all problems experienced by other "Social - Democratic" health care systems.

Many on the left are angry because the public option wasn't ultimately part of the PPACA. However, there will still be plenty of opportunity for those who really want it to push for it again in the future.

True on both counts and the distinction you draw is one that the Republicans have attempted to gloss over, preferring to leave the impression that all who oppose or are less than happy about PPACA believe it goes to far and erodes our freedoms.

John

[whell]

Originally Posted by Boreas

I don't really think it's "Social - Democratic" to hand millions of paying customers to for-profit health care corporations? Even if we were following such a model it doesn't follow that we would inherit any and all problems experienced by other "Social - Democratic" health care systems.

You're right in as much as the direction that the administration and Congress wanted to go - the public option - was not where we ended up. Its not true that all the insurers are for-profit either. Some of the largest are non-profit, including the dominant carrier here in my home state - BCBS of Michigan. Also on the list are Kaiser - Permanente in CA, and Health Care Services Corporation. These are very large carriers as well. Aetna is one of the largest medical insurance carriers in the country, for example, with over 18 million medical contracts. HCSC has around 13 million contracts by comparison, and Kaiser - Permanente around 9 Mil.

Whether our pursuit of a public option would result in rationing, as has been seen in other countries? Hopefully, we'll never find out.

Originally Posted by Boreas

True on both counts and the distinction you draw is one that the Republicans have attempted to gloss over, preferring to leave the impression that all who oppose or are less than happy about PPACA believe it goes to far and erodes our freedoms.
John

I think what folks are objecting to about PPACA, as they find out more about it, is that the promises that were made are simply not panning out. For example, one of the President's key selling points was "If you like your current plan, you can keep it." It wasn't until PPACA was passed and the definition of "Grandfathering" of current plans was rolled out - in July of 2010 - that it became clear that this promise was just smoke. In fact, when HHS released the rules on Grandfathered plans, their own guidance suggested that around 80% of existing plans would fail to meet the requirements for Grandfathered status.

Then there's that little issue about the requirement to purchase health insurance that is currently being litigated.

[merrylander]

We have had "Death Panels" here as long as I can remember, they operate under names like Aetna, US Healthcare, Kaiser Pernmanente. etc. Under PPACA there is no government run healcare, the lobbyists saw to it that all of that was surrendered to the health insurance companies and big pharma. Given the way the political system here is so screwed-up I am not in the least surprised.

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by whell

Whether our pursuit of a public option would result in rationing, as has been seen in other countries? Hopefully, we'll never find out.

.

what countries?

and public option????? what about single pay???????

that is what is needed.

This is exactly how the GOP has twisted things.