Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

It's remarkable how long the Kool-Aid persisted

I'm some research on who said what when ObamaCare was passed. This is from the transcript of the signing ceremony at the White House

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. (Applause.)

AUDIENCE: Fired up! Ready to go! Fired up! Ready to go!

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Thank you.

God, remember when Obots would actually chant that?

March 23, 2010. Seems like a long time ago, doesn't it? They're not chanting now, for some reason. Unless they do it in the privacy of their homes.

UPDATE And this:

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Yes, we did. (Laughter.)

Silly, sad. And also grossly deceived by a con artist.

0
No votes yet

Comments

upyernoz's picture
Submitted by upyernoz on

I find this to be completely fascinating. You have built your own bubble here and seem to be completely unaware that ObamaCare (while certainly riddled with problems) is not viewed as an unquestionable failure across the land. Every time I visit here, the denizens of Correntestan really do remind me of the wingnuts. Just as they are in their own self-contained bubble of fox news propaganda, you guys don't seem at all aware that people on the left differ about the ACA. Or maybe you do see that on some level for a split second before dismissing anyone who thinks differently from you as an "Obot" or "not a true progressive."

I have definitely mixed feelings about the health care law, but I can at least see the diversity of opinion on the left about it. (I also have to deal with the details of the law fairly regularly, as a labor lawyer who represents some union health plans).

upyernoz's picture
Submitted by upyernoz on

It is certainly not hard to find people complaining about the ACA, calling it a disaster, et cetera. Indeed, priority #1 of the entire Republican establishment is to give every complaint about the law the biggest megaphone possible. That's their midterm election strategy. If you want to cherry pick your info to create the impression that ObamaCare is an unmitigated failure, it is not hard to do. And there are plenty of people who think that it is. I acknowledge all of that.

My only point is that, "ObamaCare is a disaster" is not a universal view. Lambert's point seems to be (and correct me if I'm wrong, Lambert!) that diehard Obama supporters (i.e. "Obots") are also no longer cheering the law. But I don't see much evidence of that. Despite all the horror stories and attempts to spin the tale that the ACA has already failed among the wingnuts and correntenuts, there are people who like the law (because it has personally benefited them), and most health economists seem to think that it is too early to tell how the law will ultimately pan out. In my mind, it has been at least a partial success by reducing the number of uninsured substantially. A lot of that reduction has been from the single-payer component of the law (that is, the medicaid expansion), but some of the newly ensured have gotten coverage through the exchange (another big area of expansion is the new requirement that kids stay on their parents' insurance until age 26). But all of those positive aspects of the law does not mean that I think it has been an unqualified success either. Believe it or not, it is possible to see both pluses and minuses about the same law.

upyernoz's picture
Submitted by upyernoz on

No one disagrees with that!

But I thought we were discussing Lambert's post, which seemed to be about his claim that "They're not chanting now, for some reason"--in other words even Obama supporters are no longer cheering the law. That seems to be false. At least from where I sit. So when I read his post it occurred to me that Lambert is living in a self-reinforcing bubble where it seems to him that his views are shared a lot more widely than they actually are, just like a consumer of the rightwing media is. Which is what prompted my comment.

Submitted by lambert on

People aren't cheering as they did in 2008 or 2010; it's a simple question of fact.

My guess: It's because he sucks as a President, just like the Democrats suck as a party. Obvious from the get go, for anybody somebody paid by the word in a mid-term year.

Next!

Submitted by Dromaius on

Yes, apparently to upyernoz, it doesn't matter if Obamacare is actually a disaster, it's only about whether it's "viewed" that way or not.

Just as with Obama himself, the vaporware is more important to his supporters than the reality is.

When premiums double next year maybe even uppyernoz will change his/her mind.

But I suspect that uppyer doesn't pay his/her own premiums, because (s)he is sheltered either by an employer or a parent.

The reality is that sometimes "the right" states some facts. The whole idea that "you can't say that because the right says that too" is a non-argument.

upyernoz's picture
Submitted by upyernoz on

Yes, apparently to upyernoz, it doesn't matter if Obamacare is actually a disaster, it's only about whether it's "viewed" that way or not.

Hey, I'm right here! There's no reason to guess what I "apparently" think. You can just ask.

Look, the post was about Obama supporters' perception of the law. That is, whether they are still cheering the ACA like they were back in 2010. That's why I was talking about perceptions, because that's what this post is about. I hardly think that " it doesn't matter if Obamacare is actually a disaster." In fact, nothing I said here would suggest that is what I think.

When premiums double next year maybe even uppyernoz will change his/her mind.

Once again, you're assuming that I have completely made up my mind about the ACA. Actually, the bottom line is that it is a big complex law with stuff I agree with and stuff I don't agree with in it. We don't know whether the premiums will double next year. There was that piece by "The Hill" almost two weeks ago claiming that premiums would "skyrocket." That piece was picked up across right blogistan, and at Corrente. But it was picked apart elsewhere (the main points is that the text of the Hill piece contained a lot more qualifications than the headline, the "doubling" prediction was based on anonymous sources while people who were willing to go on the record predicted must lower cost increases, and the projected increases were based on enrollment numbers that were already out of date). But rather than get into the thicket of that fight, the bottom line is we don't know what the ACA will do to premium costs in a year. People can make predictions, but it's foolish to talk about the future in definite terms about anything. That's why I haven't fully made up my mind whether it is a net positive or negative. If premiums really do double in only one year that would clearly be a major negative. But with so many people trying to use the data for clear political agendas, I don't see how anyone can be certain with anything about the future of the health care in this country.

But I suspect that uppyer doesn't pay his/her own premiums, because (s)he is sheltered either by an employer or a parent.

Well since you (almost) asked, I get my health coverage through my employer. Which means I indirectly pay my premium (although that indirect relationship is real as my employer has specifically tied pay raises and bonuses to how much our health plan's costs have gone up in the prior year)

The reality is that sometimes "the right" states some facts. The whole idea that "you can't say that because the right says that too" is a non-argument.

I totally agree. People should evaluate the merits of an argument. They shouldn't look at what team the author of the argument plays on and dismiss it if they don't like his team. That's basically why I think the entire "Obot" framing is so stupid.

mellon's picture
Submitted by mellon on

I think its the Obama folk who built themselves a little groupthink bubble on blogs where they can have massive numbers of posters who incessantly down out any non-conforming information.

Sure, the GOP is trying to take advantage of all the lying they have been doing. But the GOP is mistaken if they think they are going to pick up "disaffected former Obama supporters".

What's happening (maybe this was the intent) is IRL people are saying "a pox on both of your houses".

That's my impression. Dems and Republicans are finding common ground there!

Maybe we'll see a new paradigm emerge which figures out a way to function effectively in this Internet age without the spamming/gaming.

Submitted by hipparchia on

ObamaCare (while certainly riddled with problems) is not viewed as an unquestionable failure across the land.

alas, 'tis true, too true.

all that most people here know and have ever known is corporatized medicine and profitized underinsurance. if they really knew and understood what people in all other industrialized countries have, obamacare would be much more widely regarded as a failure.

mellon's picture
Submitted by mellon on

No expense is being spared, I hear. Something like $700k a day.

Its not surprising how much money theyhave to spend when I look at studies like this one http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1361028/

which tells me that the lifetime distribution (per American) of healthcare costs in 2000 was $316,000 per person (in year 2000 dollars.)

You wouldn't know what the rate of healthcare price inflation is do you?

Barmitt O'Bamney's picture
Submitted by Barmitt O'Bamney on

Obamabots are in a frenzy this morning trying to create a perception that Obamacare is a great success. It's SURGING! they cry. (Yes, I am sure it's surging - like in Iraq. If you think about it, Obamacare is a lot like Iraq.) Because of its basic nature (and the basic nature of Obamabots and their wooden god) success for Obamacare simply means its own survival, if necessary at the expense of its enrollees, rather than the survival of the enrollees. Success in this case has nothing to do with the ostensible purpose of health care, but is purely political and wholly cynical. By nature and design, Obamacare will slowly liquidate its "beneficiaries", and bleed the remnants of the middle class, to sustain the life and healthy profit curves of the insurance sector, and retain them as clients of the Democratic Party.

I truly don't know whether Obamacare is going to be entrench itself and become impossible to replace, or whether it will quickly crash and burn and be abandoned by all but the sickest of Obama's personality cult members. Polling has shown the program steadily trending down, with majorities disapproving of it, as people have had more time to see what it means. Has the Kool-Aid worn off? It may have, and it may not even matter that it has worn off. For in this country the rulers don't have to care what the people think or feel, so long as they bow their heads and pay. Americans are very easily cowed by fine print and end user agreements and terms of service. Most of our lives are governed now by "contracts of adhesion" with the government/corporations changing terms of the agreement as they go along. We accept that the price always goes up and the service gets worse, and our options for recourse dwindle. We are taught that a deal is a deal, a contract is a legally binding deal, and a fucking scam is a contract, too. Once you get the loop over their heads, the people will turn left or right as directed and pull that debt plow 'til they drop in the harness. On one hand it seems that more and more people have shed their blinders about Obama and his "care" program; on the other we have been successfully conditioned for lifelong servitude. I don't know what will happen.

What I do know is that Obamacare is a great crime against the people of the United States, and an overthrow of this country's basic law. If it "succeeds", it will not be the last scam of its kind but the forerunner of many.

upyernoz's picture
Submitted by upyernoz on

I don't agree with everything in your comment, but aren't you take a position that is contrary to what Lambert is saying in this post?

If Lambert is right and there has been a change from the days that "Obots" cheered ObamaCare, then they wouldn't be crowing about the ACA surge now, would they?

Submitted by lambert on

Now it's just apparatchiks going through the motions; yourself, for example.

I've noticed an uptick in trolling, here and elsewhere, so I assume walking around money is being passed out.

upyernoz's picture
Submitted by upyernoz on

Once again, I am reminded of my visits to right blogistan. Why not just respond to what I say rather than slap me with a label ("apparatchik") and accuse me of being paid for my comments?

The funny thing is I'm not the one who is acting like a troll here. I am trying to be constructive, focus the people I am speaking with on the topic of the post. I'm not trying to derail things or insult anyone.

I can't say that you extend the same courtesy to me, Lambert. People get pissed off when other people disagree with them. I get that. so I'm sorry if I piss you off for my impertinence of airing a view that does not tow the usual Corrente line. I'm not trying to piss you or anyone else off. There really is no need to be so thin skinned about this (and I'm curious where else you think I have been "trolling"--or are you just referring to other recent posts on Corrente where I have dared to say something that isn't 100% negative about the ACA or the current administration). Seriously, why so prickly?

P.S. Have you seen this? I thought of you when I did.

Submitted by Dromaius on

I think it was astroturfing then and I think it's astroturfing here today.

Barmitt O'Bamney's picture
Submitted by Barmitt O'Bamney on

Obamabots say lots of things and usually they all turn out to be lies, bluster and centrally scripted propaganda. They are never more shrill and voluble than when they are on the defensive and desperate. Quite a few Democratic voters have turned against Obamacare since it was foisted upon us. Check Gallup figures for overall general approve/disapprove numbers. A majority of the polled disapprove - that's not exactly a popular program. And we've yet to see how things develop once the Juicemaster spins up and begins squeezing the enrollees. No, my post is not contrary to Lambert's. The "surge" they speak of is stragglers squeaking under the deadline, as you will have with any deadline. How many of those late filers will actually pay their premiums? How many were people who previously had insurance, but had it nullified by the all-wise Obama? This "surge", as I mentioned, is probably about as real as the surge in Iraq. Something a defeated power does to claim that it is leaving the battlefield victoriously. If you let Obamabots and the stupid lying shit they say be your guide, you are guaranteed to perceive the world falsely.

upyernoz's picture
Submitted by upyernoz on

And if you dismiss anyone who points out a seeming logical inconsistency in what you say as a "lying Obot" then you're not going to understand why you seem to have been contradicting Lambert's original post with your above comment.

You can of course think whatever you want to think. It just seems to me that if most of your point relies on labeling the person they are talking to (whether the label is "Obot", "apparachek", "troll", as I see in this thread, or "socialist", "communist", "Nazi", like I see when I visit some sites on the other side of the spectrum), you're not making much of a coherent argument.

Barmitt O'Bamney's picture
Submitted by Barmitt O'Bamney on

You're not very good at this. Up to your last post, I was not labeling you as an Obot, nor assuming that you were one. I wasn't laying traps, wasn't looking for proof either way, but WOW you just couldn't stop yourself.

upyernoz's picture
Submitted by upyernoz on

Ah, my mistake. I read your comment after responding to Lambert's elsewhere in this thread. So that was the lense I was viewing it through. But you are right. Looking at it again, that is not what you were doing.

mellon's picture
Submitted by mellon on

ere these days.

Anything that discusses Obamacare, or single payer and around a dozen other subjects that I assume have entities paying the companies that supply this service to do their bidding..
The "bots" style is quite recognizable. They may be AI's - I think that is highly likely, or they may be the US equivalent of -what's it called the "fifty cent army"? "Fifty cent party"?

Online drowner outers who make unreadable any kind of intelligent conversation.

Its a very characteristic style. The closest I've seen as far as simulating the effect would be the online conversation with TWO ELIZA therapists

So dont act so indignant, I'm sure you've seen it too.

Submitted by lambert on

"Don't feed the trolls" doesn't apply because they feed each other. A self-licking ice cream cone....

Barmitt O'Bamney's picture
Submitted by Barmitt O'Bamney on

As it is a Republican plan in origin and essence, Republicans can be counted on in the long term -if there is a long term for Obamacare- to help it evolve into a more perfect version of itself. I'm sure the President will want to take their constructive suggestions on board, perhaps in exchange for a little help cutting Social Security?

albrt's picture
Submitted by albrt on

I think Lambert's post is perfectly accurate. There are no thunderous and unquestioning chants of "Fired up! Ready to go!"

Some of the former chanters are now equivocating. Some continue to support the administration and/or the ACA, but generally with sophistical arguments or personal attacks rather than infectious enthusiasm.

The consensus on this site is that Obamacare is a bad deal that mainly benefits corporate parasites, and only incidentally benefits certain people who need healthcare. I don't think anyone on this site believes that everyone agrees with us, so your statement that site members are "completely unaware that ObamaCare . . . is not viewed as an unquestionable failure across the land" is utter trolling bullshit, and well deserves the response you are getting.

In any event, the only poll that matters is scheduled in a few months, and it seems pretty clear the Democrats under their current leadership are going to lose seats. Maybe they can turn it around, but I don't see how.

upyernoz's picture
Submitted by upyernoz on

In any event, the only poll that matters is scheduled in a few months, and it seems pretty clear the Democrats under their current leadership are going to lose seats. Maybe they can turn it around, but I don't see how.

I agree with that, although it's also rare for the President's party to gain seats in the midterm election of his sixth year in office (the only time anyone has pulled it off in the last few decades was Clinton in 1998, and that was only because the GOP impeached the President, causing his approval ratings to soar). So I'm not sure how much can be attributed to the ACA as opposed to Obama-fatigue in general, and the fact that the opposition to a president tends to be more motivated to turn out and vote in off-years than the president's own supporters.

mellon's picture
Submitted by mellon on

The fact that they have hidden their framing and goals in the FTAs so dilligently raises the biggest possible red flag for me. It should for everybody.

Skala's paper really strongly suggests to me that the (thing that is actually both parties conspiring to control without democracy -in secret) had such a VERY limited set of things they could do in 2008 because of the FTAs like GATS- and because of the US's ideologically extreme " trade liberalism" that they must have been presented with a huge problem by the huge disconnect between what the people expected and thought the Democrats represented and what they really represented which was something many Americans would have serious problems with.

So - the GOP and the trade liberal branch of the Dems were probably terrified by the imminent Democratic victory and the "mandate" that would ensue because these FTAs like GATS especially its "Understanding on Commitments in Financial Service" - GATS and its ilk which the US largely wrote- had committed them US trade negotiators for decades to a position fighting all the things which people wanted.. national desire for REAL not fake healthcare reform.

For a good, unbiased view of what GATS in particular represents read this: Putting Health First

So I suspect maybe Obama was tasked with a number of things, none of them good, and many of them the exact opposite of what he claimed to be trying to achieve. For example, I think its at this point obvious I think that they are desperately trying to lock us in before some critical mass of Americans realizesthe FTAs are poison for our natioal (meaning our peope's) interests.

So, both parties are working together, good cop bad cop fashion, to use WTO trickery (such as what happened with Antigua) trap us in privatized for profit healthcare irreversibly. They want it to basically simulate democracy but not be democracy. They probably all already made deals as to who gets blamed for what. Its I am sure all scripted. They probably rationalize it thinking that they "have to" because thats been their ideological stance in the FTAs and trade policies all along and these overseas markets for things like drugs dwarf the US one. Have people read the book "Manufacturing Consent"? Basically, I think we are witnessing a sort of staged fake democracy.

mellon's picture
Submitted by mellon on

Its really quite horrible how many straws they have grasped at in their quest to claim that Obamacare would save money that we already know don't. One can see some of them represented at least in part here.

Additionally, at the very beginning at one point very quickly Obama made a list of the things he would NOT do, and THAT list contained ALL the things which are known to save money! And of course in places like the WTO services agreement and what we know about the other FTAs like TPP, TAFTA, goals they conflict directly with "affordable health care". So its clear that something is very, very wrong. The fact that they have managed to keep so many people ignorant of all this is terrifying because it shows how everything which determines what is seen as what the people want can be manipulated by throwing enough money at it. And that's definitely what they are doing.

Nothing is as they claim it is. They are all crooks for lying about things as important as the FTAs while trying to bypass democracy. That should be seen as a very scary evil thing.

jo6pac's picture
Submitted by jo6pac on

Yep scary indeed but with the mass very effectively at each others throats while the 1% are stealing everything from our rights to what little money we might have left. I'm glad I'm 65 and hoping I don't see it all come unraveled in my short time left. My late mother and father saw this before they passed away 10yrs ago it really hurt them to see this happening in Amerika.

mellon's picture
Submitted by mellon on

an interesting series of papers a number of years ago that integrated matchbook sized remotely controlled (very simple) robots that were daubed with cockroach phenemerones into cockroach societies.

Halloy, J., Sempo, G., Caprari, G., Rivault, C., Asadpour, M., Tache, F., Said, I., Durier, V.,
Canonge, S., Ame, J. M., Detrain, C., Correll, N., Martinoli, A., Mondada, F., Siegwart, R. and Deneubourg, J.-L. (2007). Social integration of robots into groups of cockroaches to control self-organized choices,
Science 318, pp. 1155–1158.

Its interesting and very much worth reading.

It was discovered that by using these robots the research team could get the real cockroaches to do things that were against their best interests by commanding the robotic cockroaches who were placed among them - to do those things.

This turned into a general theory of social animal (including human) behavior.

I was told that the paper also attracted some attention from advertising people, etc.

jo6pac's picture
Submitted by jo6pac on

Yes Edward Barneys and Joseph Gobbels would be proud. It does work, in the fact before the 2008 crash listening to the radio while driving all you heard was buy a home it's cheaper than renting. In my last job in a corp. job I came in contact so many people that bought into that and lost everything. People making 30,000 to 35,000 a yr buying 500,000.00 plus homes. So sad.

Oh well time for me to open a bottle of wine and watch it rain in my part of Calli. We do need it.

quixote's picture
Submitted by quixote on

Which is that Obamacare is helping some people and there are those who are focusing on that. And it's great that some people are getting more help than before. The thing that drives us (correntenuts) so crazy is that we could have had so much more and paid less in time, money and aggravation. We're hugely disappointed that all we (meaning the US) have is crumbs of health insurance when we could have had single payer health care.

I see one aspect of Obamacare that may actually make a backhanded contribution to a real solution. The US seems to have finally absorbed the notion that it may be a good idea to have the federal government providing more equal access to health care. Since the ACA is an insurance welfare scheme, I didn't initially think it would have that effect. But apparently the Rove-type Republican campaign strategists, i.e. the ones grounded enough in reality to use it for their own ends, have decided that repeal of Obamacare is not a winning slogan. People don't want it repealed. They (preponderance of voters) want it turned into something where you can get health care without aggravation.

Now the big question is whether there's a snowball's chance that the inevitable disappointment with Obamacare can become a teachable moment showing that single payer actually solves the problems.

This is where you, upyernoz, could be a bigger force for good since you actually talk to the people who don't already have that information. :D

DCblogger's picture
Submitted by DCblogger on

Judging from my Facebook page there are people who re genuinely pleased with it, who bought policies which cost them less. How they will fare with the narrow networks once their health breaks down (and my facebook page has many self employed business people who are in their early 60's) is another matter.

On the other hand, most of the people I know who approve of it have employer based insurance or Medicare, in other words, they have no personal experience of it. I am on Medicaid and I can tell you it made a bad system worse, much worse.

Alexa's picture
Submitted by Alexa on

to the 3 million young people under the age of 26 allowed to be retained on parents policy.

Need "hip waders" for his "spiel."

Will post a audio/video of this speech, if one becomes available later.

PBO just announced that the ACA is "here to stay"--waiting to see if he mentions that he and the Establishment Dems are proposing legislation to adopt "CoburnCare!"

Have another Politico piece to post on this--it's going to be pushed by Senate "Blue Dogs" (and I believe Lambert's guy--Independent and "No Labler" Angus King!

[Hey, not picking on you Lambert, but seriously, this guy needs to be reined in--you know, he is a "regular" on XM Radio--several program), and, I don't know what he says in Maine, but King is always pushing "austerity." ;-)]

Unfortunately, podcasts are not available (that I've found, anyway). Michael Smercomish has his own separate web site, where selective clips from his program are available, so does Josh King (PoliOptics). But the show that I'd really love to post audio of--"The Press Pool"--has no such animal, that I've found.

Alexa's picture
Submitted by Alexa on

for those who still have/watch TV, one of Abby Huntsman's "No Labels" proteges, formerly of MSNBC and XM Radio Talk Show Host, Michael Smerconish, apparently kicked off his new "No Labels" (not that he would acknowledge this, of course) CNN Program which is in Piers Morgan's old slots--9:00 EST.

Not sure, but I believe the name of it is "Smerconish."

Not this dude's another piece of work, and if you close your eyes, you'll think that you're listening to Abby Hunstman--just with a deeper voice, LOL!

Not sure if I've mentioned that No Labeler and MSNBC Host Joe Scarborough is weighing a run for President.

This group of Dem (with a sprinkling of Republican) corporatist neoliberals are "determined" to completely take over the government.

Their ideology is DLC/Third Way/New Dem--sharply emphasizing "fiscal austerity" and the dismantling of "entitlements."

All under the guise of "bipartisanship."

At first glance, these "No Labelers" seem real nice--just a "reasonable" bunch of people, all tired of congressional gridlock and partisan infighting. But a much closer looks reveals that this organization functions as the ultimate bipartisan extension of the DLC.

As I said in an earlier post, where I posted their "class" pictures"

"Civility is their name, austerity is their game"

Alexa's picture
Submitted by Alexa on

On today's radio program, Smerconish just interviewed Cass Sunstein.

Creepy--he backs "presumptive organ donation."

Such a "personal" decision--can't imagine the government imposing this policy on its citizens.

We recently decided to become organ donors, after several years of deliberation.

However, the idea that it becomes mandatory unless you "opt out," is beyond the pale.

To his credit, Professor Sunstein does not agree that his "nudge theory" should apply to organ donation.

As far as I can tell, the "nudge theory" is the backbone of the ACA.

If "CoburnCare" [or a variation thereof] is adopted sometime this year in order to save the 2014 and 2016 elections, I suppose I'll have to applaud the nullification of the individual mandate.

The rest of the policies are even more toxic than most of the ObamaCare planks. I am "hoping against hope," that the Dem Party Base will oppose this very rightward swing in healthcare policy. But I fear that the usual "double-speak" will serve to obscure the real nature of these "amendments"--and Dem politicians will be able to manipulate the Base, just as they did during the so-called national "discussion" of the ACA. We'll see.

When Medicare was "sold," it wasn't necessary to lie. Nor was a mandate a necessity.

After all, if a "deal" is a half-way decent one, people will flock to it--without coercion.

mellon's picture
Submitted by mellon on

lists.

The economics of transplants are really scary. I think its horrible that people who could never afford to go to the hospital in life (and that not really going to change under romney/obamacare) are "going to the hospital" when they are dead, as a source of spare parts for the wealthy.

I highly recommend seeing a science fiction film "The Island" from I think 2006, with Scarlett Johansson. Its about a future society where ... no spoiler, sorry.

Very topical in today's healthcare apartheid America.

In a report which was prepared for the leukemia and lymphoma society recently it emerged that the exchanges had very narrow provider networks, which the Milliman report suspected may exclude ACA patients they said it appears to- and if so, its almost certainly NOT an isolated incident, its their plan- from crucially important regional "cancer center" hospitals which feed into a national bone marrow transplant program. I think this exclusion may have been at all metal levels. If this holds true for Leukemia and lyymphoma, The ACA will be a very scary thing indeed if it reduces the legal standard of care nationally to 1980s levels when transplants were considered to be experimental procedures and not coverd by insurance.

I know that the patients insurance status (what kind of insurance they have or if they are a wealthy self pay- plays a very large role in who is listed for transplants already.

Thats one of the things that foreign doctors often bring up about US medicine. the apartheid system with transplants.

Preventing doctors from discussing treatments the insurer doesnt want to pay for with the poorer insureds, and generally helping lower the legal standrd of care for any given area may be the main reasons for the proliferation of gag clauses.

Also so called "risk sharing" agreements force doctors to assume the legal risks of the withholding of the care - when its really the insurers fault -they force doctors to assume the legal responsibility or they cannot participate in the network and continue to see their poor patients,

Truly the devil is in these details.
I've read quite a few variations on the ttheme that say a patient catches on to this and checks into a clinic in a different town under an assumed name claiming to be uninsured. Suddenly they find themselves talking with a real doctor and discussing options that their HMO doctor pretended did not exist.

I can see how the ACA wants to make this impossible.

mellon's picture
Submitted by mellon on

Or THX1138, an truly great film. I used to live in the room the female lead lived in while that film was fimed

Its already like that in China you know.

Remember Avatar?

I think thats where we are headed, I see them putting people who have inadequate insurance in suspended animation and borrowing their organs, and if their families can pay their ransom then they will be revived, if not, ...

Of course they will have an expiration date.

Alexa's picture
Submitted by Alexa on

the "White Paper" that I've linked to.

Michael Smerconish is a member of "No Labels"--and off-the-chart fiscal conservative and neoliberal.

This does not surprise me--it is in keeping with his radio meme, I assure you. (I listen to hear off-and-on to know what his ilk is thinking.) He was most definitely serious.

Scary, huh?

And he's just landed a brand new show on CNN, LOL!

Jeeeeeezzzzz!!!!!

Alexa's picture
Submitted by Alexa on

the ranks of the "anti-ACA" crowd, eventually.

They are impacted quite a bit by this law because of various aspects of it, including the "Cadillac Plan" surtax.

And here's a link and excerpt below to an excellent McClatchy piece that was posted by weldon on this topic (there are a couple more, but I'm pushed--this one does make some very salient points, however.)

Analysis: Tens of millions could be forced out of [group] health insurance they had

. . . And a report in 2010 said that as many as 69 percent of certain employer-based insurance plans would lose that protection, meaning as many as 41 million people could lose their plans even if they wanted to keep them and would be forced into other plans.

But a closer examination finds that the number of people who have plans changing, or have already changed, could be between 34 million to 52 million. That’s because many employer-provided insurance plans also could change, not just individually purchased insurance plans

Administration officials decline to say how many employer-sponsored plans could change. But those numbers could be between 23 million to 41 million, based on a McClatchy analysis of estimates offered by the Department of Health and Human Services in June 2010. . . .

Already this year, only 36 percent of employer plans were pre-2010 plans, compared with 56 percent in 2011, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, a leading health care research organization. That means that millions of people’s plans already had changed or were canceled in the three and a half years since the law was enacted in March 2010. . . .

And this piece doesn't even cover the affect on self-funded employer-sponsored plans.

In some aspects, the impact on employees enrolled in these plans is even more detrimental.

I can understand "why" the Democratic Party Leadership desperately wants to make changes to the ACA.

Personally, I wish they would repeal it, and replace the entire bill--immediately--so that those in Medicaid for instance, would not be thrown to the wolves. And, the entire MERP should be repealed--and I mean for ALL those enrolled, not just a handful.

But the idea that Dems appear to be contemplating even more right-wing policy solutions, is appalling to me.

The only appeal that most of the "CoburnCare" changes could have are to business--small and large.

So much for the notion that "the Democratic Party is the party of the little guy."

mellon's picture
Submitted by mellon on

did anything that worked :o

it would come back to haunt them in their next trade negotiation. Other countries would want the same savings. So they absolutely have to give us the worst deal of all, to maintain their profits overseas.

So, we end up with more of the same old tired policies

Soon half of the nation will be so tired out from working three jobs that they won't be able to remember their own name, let alone the 2008 election.

mellon's picture
Submitted by mellon on

in the history of humanity. A very large number of jobs are going to vanish, for good.

Whether we rise to the challenge of training our country's potential future workforce to capture and do the much smaller number of jobs that will be created (somewhere in the world) is up to us but it certainly doesn't look good. Instead they seem to be focused on revenue extraction. (looting the country of its value)

The Obama branch of the inner Party seems to have been tasked with completely frustrating and nullifying the mandate for change which emerged out of 2008's victory as well as assisting in "rebuilding" the Republican brand/branch from its low point without it actually having to become even the slightest bit more responsive to anything or anybody.

Nobody can accuse Obama of being a bad actor.

mellon's picture
Submitted by mellon on

what is that poem

"Niemöller is perhaps best remembered for the quotation:"

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.

Thats whats happening here.