Our Future: Heather Digby Parton: 'ObamaCare Is Up And Running. But That's Not The End Of The Story'

Source:Common Dreams- Blogger Heather Digby Parton.

Source:The New Democrat

"When Capitalism: A Love Story came out I was lucky enough to be at a screening with Michael Moore present and there was, as you might imagine, quite a bit of discussion about the Health Care Reform that was ending its way through congress since Moore was so influential in raising the public consciousness about the horrors of the system with his previous film Sicko. He was, at the time, very positive about President Obama and optimistic about the eventual outcome.

But he's been watching the law unfold with clear eyes and is unsparing about the shortcomings of the new program. In an op-ed in the NY Times he pointed some of them out including this one:

For many people, the “affordable” part of the Affordable Care Act risks being a cruel joke. The cheapest plan available to a 60-year-old couple making $65,000 a year in Hartford, Conn., will cost $11,800 in annual premiums. And their deductible will be $12,600. If both become seriously ill, they might have to pay almost $25,000 in a single year. (Pre-Obamacare, they could have bought insurance that was cheaper but much worse, potentially with unlimited out-of-pocket costs.)" 

You can read the rest of Heather Digby's article at Our Future

"In Vermont, incumbent Democratic Gov. Peter Shumlin has nearly been unseated in a shocking upset. In a process unique to Vermont, projections now show the governor’s race will be decided by the state Legislature after neither Shumlin nor his Republican challenger reached the necessary threshold of 50 percent. The state Legislature remains solidly Democratic, so Shumlin will likely keep his seat. But Shumlin was not considered a vulnerable candidate before last night, and Scott Milne, his challenger, was a relative unknown. The election is seen as a possible referendum on healthcare reform after Shumlin has vowed to make Vermont the first state with a single-payer healthcare system. The state’s embattled health insurance exchange implemented under Obamacare has been down since September." 

Source:Free Speech TV- Governor Peter Shumlin (Democrat, Vermont)

From Free Speech TV

Heather Digby, who is no one's centrist or conservative, is making the case for federalism when it comes to health care and health insurance in America. She's saying that blue states should offer the health care plans that they want, including a public option and that if red states continue to decide to leave millions of their own people without affordable health care, then that's on them. And perhaps democracy will take care of that for them. 

For all of you so-called Progressives out there (Democratic Socialists, in actuality) or people who define your politics as progressive (even if you are not vert progressive) who may read this post: federalism is not about centralizing more power with the Federal Government and having less for the states, locals, and individuals. The opposite is true. 

But for you leftists (Democratic Socialists or Social Democrats) who like to see some type of public healthcare system available to all Americans, whether it be single payer or something else, federalism is the route you should be looking at. Because it could actually accomplish your goal, instead of you running to the Federal Government and holding protests and rallies at Congress and the White House and other places demanding that they pass Medicare For All single payer. Just so we clear that up.

One of the public option proposals that I’ve seen that I’m in favor of comes from perhaps the two least federalist members of Congress. From Senator Bernie Sanders (Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont and Representative Jim McDermott (Democrat, State of Washington) two of the most leftist members of Congress, that leftist hippie could possibly dream of, on his best marijuana high. 

Senator Sanders and Representative McDermott have a different Medicare For All proposal.  What they do is to say: “We’ll allow each state to set up their own Medicare plan and system that would have to meet basic federal standards. But each state would be able to run their own Medicare system and manage their health insurance system themselves coming from Medicare.” Instead of the Federal Government running the health care system for everyone in the country on their own. 

Most of the single payer proposals have been Medicare For All run completely by the Federal Government. But the Sanders-McDermott plan would be a federalist, Medicare For All, single payer plan and each state would have their own Medicare system. Which is probably the only way we’ll ever get Medicare for all. Meaning no other form of health insurance in this country private or public. We are already seeing states trying to pass something like this like in Vermont and California. 

Vermont and California (to name a couple of states) are trying to set up their own  public option plans, that I’m in favor of, that I mentioned last night, would be done with a federalist system. Meaning the states would be able to run their own Medicare public option. And this is how you get a country behind you. Instead of trying to force things down their throats, you give them choices and options and the freedom to manage their own affairs.

The New York Times: Michael Moore: 'The ObamaCare We Deserve'

Source:Michael Moore- should go back to Detroit and leave government to people who know how to govern.

Source:The New Democrat

“Today marks the beginning of health care coverage under the Affordable Care Act’s new insurance exchanges, for which two million Americans have signed up. Now that the individual mandate is officially here, let me begin with an admission: Obamacare is awful. 

That is the dirty little secret many liberals have avoided saying out loud for fear of aiding the president’s enemies, at a time when the ideal of universal health care needed all the support it could get. Unfortunately, this meant that instead of blaming companies like Novartis, which charges leukemia patients $90,000 annually for the drug Gleevec, or health insurance chief executives like Stephen Hemsley of UnitedHealth Group, who made nearly $102 million in 2009, for the sky-high price of American health care, the president’s Democratic supporters bought into the myth that it was all those people going to get free colonoscopies and chemotherapy for the fun of it.

I believe Obamacare’s rocky start – clueless planning, a lousy website, insurance companies raising rates, and the president’s telling people they could keep their coverage when, in fact, not all could – is a result of one fatal flaw: The Affordable Care Act is a pro-insurance-industry plan implemented by a president who knew in his heart that a single-payer, Medicare-for-all model was the true way to go. When right-wing critics “expose” the fact that President Obama endorsed a single-payer system before 2004, they’re actually telling the truth.

What we now call Obamacare was conceived at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, and birthed in Massachusetts by Mitt Romney, then the governor. The president took Romneycare, a program designed to keep the private insurance industry intact, and just improved some of its provisions. In effect, the president was simply trying to put lipstick on the dog in the carrier on top of Mitt Romney’s car. And we knew it. 

By 2017, we will be funneling over $100 billion annually to private insurance companies. You can be sure they’ll use some of that to try to privatize Medicare. 

For many people, the “affordable” part of the Affordable Care Act risks being a cruel joke. The cheapest plan available to a 60-year-old couple making $65,000 a year in Hartford, Conn., will cost $11,800 in annual premiums. And their deductible will be $12,600. If both become seriously ill, they might have to pay almost $25,000 in a single year. (Pre-Obamacare, they could have bought insurance that was cheaper but much worse, potentially with unlimited out-of-pocket costs.)

And yet – I would be remiss if I didn’t say this – Obamacare is a godsend. My friend Donna Smith, who was forced to move into her daughter’s spare room at age 52 because health problems bankrupted her and her husband, Larry, now has cancer again. As she undergoes treatment, at least she won’t be in terror of losing coverage and becoming uninsurable. Under Obamacare, her premium has been cut in half, to $456 per month.”  

From The New York Times 

“Michael Moore marked the start of the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate Wednesday with a blistering op-ed in The New York Times in which he admits something he says “many liberals” have been too scared to say out loud before now: “Obamacare is awful.”..

Source:Secular Talk- Michael Moore is the perfect example of a filmmaker, who should just stick with fiction and making films. Because he's not good with reality.

From Secular Talk

"Jared Bernstein says on CNBC that Obamacare is not a jobs program (March 8, 2013)" 

Source:GOP War Room- former Obama White House adviser Jared Bernstein, on CNBC. But for why, I don't know.

From GOP War Room

It is easy for Michael Moore living in Los Angeles or Michigan and never working for the Federal Government at least in Washington, to say what the Obama Administration should’ve tried to pass as it relates to health care reform in 2009-10. But as Progressive economist Jared Bernstein said who worked for Vice President Joe Biden during this period, who knows quite a bit about Congress and the Federal Government in general, there were never the votes in Congress for Medicare For All.

There were never the votes even in a Democratic Congress with large majorities in both the House and Senate, for a single-payer, Medicare for all program nationalizing the health insurance industry and eliminating the private insurance system. And telling Americans who tend not to like being told by government what they can do with their own money, that they have to take Medicare and have no choice in where they get their health insurance.

And if you are wondering why the votes were never there for single payer, I just explained why. You think the Affordable Care Act is now unpopular, pass single payer and take away Americans ability to choose their own health insurance. And we are looking at a total Republican Congress right now and not just a Republican House and perhaps a Republican president as well with single payer being repealed and we are back to square one on health care reform.

Single payer never had the votes and anyone who disagrees doesn’t know much about the U.S. Congress. Or Americans in general when it comes to their politics and spends most of their time in the Northeast or Northwest or California living in their socialist utopia’s. And not talking to the rest of the country. But the public option, had a real shot and it did pass both chambers of Congress in late 2009. But then got stripped away from the final bill by the Democratic Senate. Because some Democratic Senators perhaps worried about their reelection possibilities.

The public option is exactly that and would give Americans under sixty-five the ability to pay into Medicare. And use it as their main, if not sole health insurance plan. But at the end of the day, the same people would make that choice and not government telling them what they can have. You could even set up a Medicare public option that the states would like, even Republican governors, by allowing for them to run their own Medicare plan in their state. Which is something that Democratic states are looking into right now and creating their own public options.

The difference between fans and players when it comes to government, is that players have to govern and at the end of the day get something done in a liberal democracy like America. That means working with different people and different factions who do not agree with each other on everything. And coming up with the best plan that everyone can support and agree to and say: “This is a good plan and something that we should do.” Which is a big reason why we got the 2010 Affordable Care Act. 

MLB Classics: MLB 1986-ALCS-Game 5-Boston Red Sox @ Anaheim Angels: Full Game

Source:The New Democrat

Perhaps the best MLB playoff game at least in my lifetime. And the biggest choke in my lifetime at least in MLB with the Angels blowing a 3-1 series lead with the opportunity to win the American League Championship at home with their offense, defense and pitching. And they simply didn’t close the door to a team they probably should’ve beaten at least in six games if not five. Wally Joyner not in the Angels lineup certainly hurt them in-game 5. But you got to know that they had the Red Sox beat in the ninth inning with their closer Donnie Moore who was lights out most of the 1986 season on the mound. He makes a bad pitch to Dave Henderson and that forces the game to extra innings. But Joyner would’ve been a big force in the Angels lineup in-game 6 and 7, when the Red Sox blew out the Angels at Fenway Park.

The Hampton Institute: Josh Hatala- 'The Socialist Party of America- A Historiographical View'

Source:The New Democrat- Multiple time Socialist Party nominee for President, Eugene Debs.

Source:The New Democrat  

"The Socialist Party of America: An Historiographical View." Originally from Joshua Hatala from The Hampton Institution, but the link for his article seems to have been deleted. 

"Russia Today host Thom Hartmann invited Libertarian Republic Editor Austin Petersen to debate the merits of San Francisco's city council voting to push chain store retailers out of the area. Hartmann questioned whether it was valid for citizens to vote if they don't want certain businesses in their area." 

Source:Austin Peterson- debating Thom Hartmann about socialism.

From Austin Peterson

Where I disagree with Josh Hatala on this where I could probably make this whole post about, is that there are still two somewhat viable democratic socialist parties in America: Democratic Socialists USA and the Green Party, as well as many leftist Democrats who are mainly in the Democratic Party for political reasons in order to get elected and be active in a major leftist party, even a center-left party. Socialism has failed as far as producing a major social democratic party that can compete and beat Democrats and Republicans on a regular basis.

But you got to know that U.S. Senator Bernie of Vermont (the only self-described Socialist in Congress) is a Socialist, as well as several members of the so-called Congressional Progressive Caucus, both in the House and Senate that Senator Sanders is a member of. But most of the members of the CPC prefer to be viewed as Progressives because of the negative stereotypes that come with being viewed as a Socialist or even a Social Democrat.

Socialism hasn’t failed in the sense that their ideas have failed or are considered too extreme. At least what would be viewed as mainstream both in America and in Europe that is democratic socialism, that combines both capitalism, a vibrant private sector, but that is heavily taxed and regulated to fund a very large welfare state to provide a lot of the services that people need to live well. From education to healthcare that is common in Scandinavia. A long with a safety net for people who are unemployed and so-forth.

That is basically Scandinavian or Nordic capitalism, which is the mainstream form of socialism in Europe. But even in America where capitalism was basically invented, we have a socialist component to our economic system as well in the form of our safety net for people who can’t take care of themselves. Who are out-of-work or can’t afford services that they need in order to survive like health insurance and food, even if they are working. It is just that our national social insurance system is a lot smaller in America than it is in Scandinavia.

It is not that so much that socialism has failed in America, because the democratic form of it that I just explained is alive and well. Just look at the popularity of Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, Medicare and Medicaid. All of which could and have been labeled specially by their opponents and proponents as well as socialist programs. 

It is Marxism or Marxist socialism, where the state essentially is responsible for running the entire economy and to large extent the people’s lives, that has failed everywhere that it has been tried. Which is why most of the world has moved away from it.

Salon Magazine: Hamna Zubair: Jon Stewart Defends Duck Dynasty Star's Right to Free Speech

Source:The New Democrat

I’ve gone out of my way not to comment on the so-called Duck Dynasty controversy. From either the way so-called Progressives have responded to what Phil Robertson has said, or of course how the right-wing media has defended not only what Mr. Robertson has said, but his constitutional right to say what he believes and thinks. For one I do not watch the show and yes I’ve seen a few moments of it from time to time to time. Flipping around the tube when I’m up too late or turning on A&E when I’m waiting to see the A&E shows I’m actually interested in. Longmire, American Hoggers and now Rodeo Girls.

So I’m not a regular viewer of Duck Dynasty to so say the least. But also I’m not surprised by what Mr. Robertson said. I mean let’s be real about this show. It is in a part of the country where these views are fairly common. This is where the anti-sodomy laws are still in existence and where the same-sex-marriage bans come from. Not saying that everyone from the Bible Belt and rural America are bigots. Just a lot of ignorant people there to put more faith into their religious views, than education and America. But lets face it this is where these views tend to come from. But also so what if some asshole on a TV show doesn’t like homosexuals and sees homosexuality as a sin.

How is some ignorant redneck’s views on homosexuality news. And besides Phil Robertson has a constitutional right under the First Amendment to say these things and any ignorant garbage he wants to express. And of course A&E under that same constitutional amendment has the right to run their network under few exceptions the way they want to. But to kick off or suspend one of their cast members because he doesn’t like gays and made that public on one of their shows, looks like nothing more than political correctness leftist fascism politics run amuck.

And doing it to avoid being sued out of business by so-called Progressives activists who want to outlaw any type of hate speech that may happen to offend minorities they care about. Phil Robertson is basically only famous because he happened to say on a TV show something negative about gays. And of course the national media and so-called Progressive media going out-of-their way to keep the story alive to bring attention to hate speech in America. And perhaps promote one of their lost causes of outlawing hate speech in America. Which of course is protected by the first amendment whether it comes from the Right or Left. That the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled time after time.

The New York Times: Thomas Edsall: 'Is The Safety Net Just Masking Tape?'

Source:New York Times- columnist Thomas Edsall.

Source:The New Democrat

"It’s easy for liberals to explain away setbacks to programs and policies that they favor — ranging from infrastructure investment to food stamps to increased education budgets — as the result of the intransigence of the Republican Party, with its die-hard commitment to slashing government spending on nearly every front. 

But that explanation is too facile.

A mix of economic, social and political forces have weakened the clout of those in the bottom half of the income distribution. The list of forces is long, but its signal features are the decline in manufacturing jobs, the strengthening of the bargaining power of corporations, the gutting of middle income employment and competitive pressures to limit wage growth.

How did the Democrats let these developments gain momentum? It depends on how you see the world. Some progressives argue that the Democratic Party stood by and let it happen passively; others suggest that key segments on the left simply sold out to #Wall_Street.

The same forces that have pushed the country to the right are attempting to define those on the bottom rungs – the infamous 47 percent — as mired in “dependency,” “an army of moochers and slackers.”

In the conservative worldview, social insurance programs undermine initiative and self-reliance and encourage those out of work or struggling to make ends meet to turn to the state for support.

In fact, structural economic obstacles to upward mobility for the bottom half are as important as personal behavioral decisions like dropping out of high school or not getting married when you have children. Such decisions often originate in or are reinforced by a lack of economic opportunity. Behavioral norms and structural economic issues are clearly intertwined, but in my view, structural issues have pride of place.

The economics of survival have forced millions of men, women and children to rely on “pity-charity liberal capitalism.” The state has become the resource of last resort consigning just the people progressives would like to turn into a powerful force for reform to a condition of subjugation — living out their lives on government subsidies like Medicaid, the Earned Income Tax Credit, and now, Obamacare.

In many respects, the safety net has worked to hold society together, and it has the backing, explicit or implicit, of Democratic elites. This system also has the support of much of corporate America, especially of major low-wage employers like McDonald’s and Wal-Mart. These companies are themselves subject to brutal market competition and use government programs that benefit their employees as a means of sustaining inadequate wages and fringe benefits.

The call of Konczal and his colleagues on the progressive left for an empowerment agenda — for structural economic reform — faces roadblocks far higher than many people realize. The loss of a political movement (economic liberalism) and its political vehicle (a stable progressive coalition) has put the left into a position of retreat, struggling to protect besieged programs that are designed explicitly for the poor and which therefore lack strong public backing.

The shift of the Democratic Party from economic to “#pity-charity” #liberalism has put the entire liberal project in danger. It has increased its vulnerability to conservative challenge and left it without a base of politically mobilized supporters. Progressives are now dependent on the fragile possibility that inequality and socioeconomic immobility will push the social order to the breaking point and force the political system to respond." 

From The New York Times 

"Author Charles Murray (American Enterprise Institute) and Larry Reed (Foundation for Economic Education) compare policies of the Roman welfare state to America's.  Liberty Pen" 

Source:Liberty Pen- economist Charles Murray.

From Liberty Pen 

First of all, just to correct the record on a couple things: America doesn't have a welfare state. We've never had a welfare state, as much as Socialists may hate that. 

A welfare state is a universal economic insurance system for anyone, regardless of income, can collect from it and then spend that money to subsidize their lives. We have a public social insurance system that's just for people who truly need it. Meaning they can't financially support themselves without some type of outside financial assistance, whether it's from government, private charity, friends or family, whoever might help them when they're living in hard times. 

And the 2nd correction which is just part of a pet peeve of mind, welfare statism is not liberal. Neither is social insurance or safety net. People who want a welfare state in America and who support it outside of America, the Bernie Sanders of the world and his supporters and ideological colleagues in Congress, are not Liberals. Believing that people are entitled to live off government (meaning the taxpayers) and shouldn't even be asked to go to school or get a job, is actually very illiberal. Socialists believe in government dependence, including unlimited government dependence, but no one else. 

A safety net, like with any car or any sports franchise, any local business, is only as good as you use it and make it. 

You let people stay on public assistance forever and even incentivize them too and punish them when they try to become independent, they'll be on public assistance their whole lives. 

But if you empower them to get a good education, help them get a starting job and eventually when they have the skills that they need, help them find a good job, if they still need your assistance, then the safety net can really good investment for taxpayers that everyone would benefit from. Because of all the new taxpayers, customers, and well-skilled workers that it could create, along with fewer people on public assistance and in poverty, which also benefits everybody.

Thom Hartmann: Follow The French On The Millionaire Tax

Source:PLYT-

Source:The New Democrat 

You want everyone paying their fair share of taxes at all economic levels. Which is one of the reasons why I’m in favor of what I call the Progressive Consumption Tax. Which would accomplish most of that especially by eliminating all the wasteful tax loopholes in the tax system, including corporate welfare. But you don’t want taxes so high on anyone that it discourages people to be productive and successful. And gets them asking the question, “why should I work hard and be productive when Uncle Sam takes most of the money that I make anyway?”We do not want taxes so high to that point which is what we saw in the late 1950s and early 1960s, with a recession, followed by weak economic and job growth. Similar to what we’ve grown through the last five years. And even though the Great Recession wasn’t a result of taxes being too high, taxes that are too high can play a role in creating recessions with people not having enough money to spend to create strong economic growth. And what we saw as a result in the mid 1960s was a Progressive Democratic president in Lyndon Johnson and a Democratic Congress with Conservative Republican help, is cut taxes across the board for everyone. Which contributed to an economic boom of the mid and late 1960s.
Source:Thom Hartmann