US Politics Mega-thread - Page 323

On July 10 2013 11:35 ziggurat wrote:

The ACA was written by house democrats and passed in a party line vote. There were no concessions to republicans. It's hard to think of a clearer example of a case where one party is 100% responsible for a shitty piece of legislation.

However this is actually nothing to do with the post that you were responding to. I am really interested to know what people think about Obama's recent decision to announce that the ACA won't take effect for businesses until a year later than originally scheduled. Here are a couple links in case you haven't heard about this.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323823004578591503509555268.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324507404578591671926459776.html

Aside from being (one would think) rather embarrassing for the administration, it also appears that the president doesn't actually have the power to do this under the constitution.

The plan that ultimately became the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act consists of a combination of measures to control health care costs and an insurance expansion thought public insurance (expanded Medicaid eligibility and Medicare coverage expansion) and subsidized, regulated private insurance. The latter of these ideas forms the core of the law's insurance expansion, and it has been included in bipartisan reform proposals in the past. In particular, the idea of an individual mandate coupled with subsidies for private insurance, as an alternative to public insurance, was considered a way to get Universal Health Insurance that could win the support of the Senate. Many healthcare policy experts have pointed out that the individual mandate requirement to buy health insurance was contained in many previous proposals by Republicans for healthcare legislation, going back as far as 1989, when it was initially proposed by the politically conservative Heritage Foundation as an alternative to single-payer health care.[157] The idea of an individual mandate was championed by Republican politicians as a market-based approach to health-care reform, on the basis of individual responsibility: because the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), passed in 1986 by a bipartisan Congress and signed by Ronald Reagan, requires any hospital participating in Medicare (nearly all do) to provide emergency care to anyone who needs it, the government often indirectly bore the cost of those without the ability to pay.[158][159][160]

When, in 1993, President Bill Clinton proposed a health-care reform bill which included a mandate for employers to provide health insurance to all employees through a regulated marketplace of health maintenance organizations, Republican Senators proposed a bill that would have required individuals, and not employers, to buy insurance, as an alternative to Clinton's plan.[159] Ultimately the Clinton plan failed amid concerns that it was overly complex or unrealistic, and in the face of an unprecedented barrage of negative advertising funded by politically conservative groups and the health-insurance industry.[161] (After failing to obtain a comprehensive reform of the health care system, Clinton did however negotiate a compromise with the 105th Congress to instead enact the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) in 1997).

The 1993 Republican alternative, introduced by Senator John Chafee (R-RI) as the Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act, contained a "Universal Coverage" requirement with a penalty for non-compliance.[162][163] Advocates for the 1993 bill which contained the individual mandate included prominent Republicans who today oppose the mandate, such as Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Charles Grassley (R-IA), Bob Bennett (R-UT), and Christopher Bond (R-MO).[164][165] Of the 43 Republicans Senators from 1993, almost half - 20 out of 43 - supported the HEART Act.[157][166] And in 1994 Senator Don Nickles (R-OK) introduced the Consumer Choice Health Security Act which also contained an individual mandate with a penalty provision[167] - however, subsequently, he did remove the mandate from the act after introduction stating that they had decided "that government should not compel people to buy health insurance."[168] At the time of these proposals, Republicans did not raise constitutional issues with the mandate; Mark Pauly, who helped develop a proposal that included an individual mandate for George H.W. Bush, remarked, "I don’t remember that being raised at all. The way it was viewed by the Congressional Budget Office in 1994 was, effectively, as a tax... So I’ve been surprised by that argument."[157]

An individual health-insurance mandate was also enacted at the state-level in Massachusetts: In 2006, Republican Mitt Romney, then governor of Massachusetts, signed an insurance expansion bill with an individual mandate into law with strong bipartisan support (including that of Ted Kennedy (D-MA)). Romney's success in installing an individual mandate in Massachusetts was at first lauded by Republicans. During Romney's 2008 Presidential campaign, Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) praised Romney's ability to "take some good conservative ideas, like private health insurance, and apply them to the need to have everyone insured." Romney himself said of the individual mandate: "I'm proud of what we've done. If Massachusetts succeeds in implementing it, then that will be the model for the nation."[169]

The following year (2007), Senators Bob Bennett (R-UT) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) introduced the Healthy Americans Act, a bill that also featured an individual mandate, and which attracted bipartisan support.[160][169] Among the Republican co-sponsors still in Congress during the health care debate: Senators Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Bob Bennett (R-UT), Mike Crapo (R-ID), Bob Corker (R-TN), Lamar Alexander (R-TN), and Arlen Specter (R-PA).[170][171]

Given the history of bipartisan support for the idea, and its track record in Massachusetts; by 2008 Democrats were considering it as a basis for comprehensive, national health care reform: Experts have pointed out that the legislation that eventually emerged from Congress in 2009 and 2010 bears many similarities to the 2007 bill;[163] and that it was deliberately patterned after former Republican Governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney's state healthcare plan (which contains an individual mandate).[172] Jonathan Gruber, a key architect of the Massachusetts reform, advised the Clinton and Obama Presidential campaigns on their health care proposals, served as a technical consultant to the Obama Administration, and helped Congress draft the ACA.

Health care reform was a major topic of discussion during the 2008 Democratic presidential primaries. As the race narrowed, attention focused on the plans presented by the two leading candidates, New York Senator Hillary Clinton and the eventual nominee, Illinois Senator Barack Obama. Each candidate proposed a plan to cover the approximately 45 million Americans estimated to be without health insurance at some point during each year. One point of difference between the plans was that Clinton's plan was to require all Americans to obtain coverage (in effect, an individual health insurance mandate), while Obama's was to provide a subsidy but not create a direct requirement. During the general election campaign between Obama and the Republican nominee, Arizona Senator John McCain, Obama said that fixing health care would be one of his top four priorities if he won the presidency.[173]

After his inauguration, Obama announced to a joint session of Congress in February 2009 that he would begin working with Congress to construct a plan for health care reform.[174] On March 5, 2009, Obama formally began the reform process and held a conference with industry leaders to discuss reform.[175] By July, a series of bills were approved by committees within the House of Representatives.[176] On the Senate side, beginning June 17, 2009, and extending through September 14, 2009, three Democratic and three Republican Senate Finance Committee Members met for a series of 31 meetings to discuss the development of a health care reform bill. Over the course of the next three months, this group, Senators Max Baucus (D-MT), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Kent Conrad (D-ND), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), and Mike Enzi (R-WY), met for more than 60 hours, and the principles that they discussed (in conjunction with the other Committees) became the foundation of the Senate's health care reform bill.[177] The meetings were held in public and broadcast by C-SPAN and can be seen on the C-SPAN web site[178] or at the Committee's own web site.[179]

With universal health insurance as one of the stated goals of the Obama Administration, Congressional Democrats and health policy experts like Jonathan Gruber and David Cutler argued that guaranteed issue would require both a (partial) community rating and an individual health insurance mandate to prevent either adverse selection and/or free riding from creating an insurance death spiral.[21] They convinced Obama that this was necessary, which persuaded the Administration to accept Congressional proposals that included a mandate.[22] This approach was preferred because the President and Congressional leaders concluded that more liberal plans (such as Medicare-for-all) could not win filibuster-proof support in the Senate. By deliberately drawing on bipartisan ideas - the same basic outline was supported by former Senate Majority Leaders Howard Baker (R-TN), Bob Dole (R-KS), Tom Daschle (D-SD) and George Mitchell (D-ME) - the bill's drafters hoped to increase the chances of getting the necessary votes for passage.[180][181][182]

However, following the adoption of an individual mandate as a central component of the proposed reforms by Democrats, Republicans began to oppose the mandate and threaten to filibuster any bills that contained it.[157] Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), who lead the Republican Congressional strategy in responding to the bill, calculated that Republicans should not support the bill, and worked to keep party discipline and prevent defections:[182]
“ It was absolutely critical that everybody be together because if the proponents of the bill were able to say it was bipartisan, it tended to convey to the public that this is O.K., they must have figured it out.[183] ”

Republican Senators (including those who had supported previous bills with a similar mandate) began to describe the mandate as "unconstitutional". Writing in The New Yorker, Ezra Klein stated that "the end result was... a policy that once enjoyed broad support within the Republican Party suddenly faced unified opposition."[160] The New York Times subsequently noted: "It can be difficult to remember now, given the ferocity with which many Republicans assail it as an attack on freedom, but the provision in President Obama's health care law requiring all Americans to buy health insurance has its roots in conservative thinking."[159][166]

The reform negotiations also attracted a great deal of attention from lobbyists,[184] including deals among certain lobbies and the advocates of the law to win the support of groups who had opposed past reform efforts, such as in 1993.[185][186] The Sunlight Foundation documented many of the reported ties between "the healthcare lobbyist complex" and politicians in both major parties.[187]

During the August 2009 summer congressional recess, many members went back to their districts and entertained town hall meetings to solicit public opinion on the proposals. Over the recess, the Tea Party movement organized protests and many conservative groups and individuals targeted congressional town hall meetings to voice their opposition to the proposed reform bills.[175] There were also many threats made against members of Congress over the course of the Congressional debate, and many were assigned extra protection.[188]

To maintain the progress of the legislative process, when Congress returned from recess, in September 2009 President Obama delivered a speech to a joint session of Congress supporting the ongoing Congressional negotiations, to re-emphasize his commitment to reform and again outline his proposals.[189] In it he acknowledged the polarization of the debate, and quoted a letter from the late-Senator Ted Kennedy urging on reform: "what we face is above all a moral issue; that at stake are not just the details of policy, but fundamental principles of social justice and the character of our country."[190] On November 7, the House of Representatives passed the Affordable Health Care for America Act on a 220–215 vote and forwarded it to the Senate for passage.[175]

With Democrats having lost a filibuster-proof supermajority in the Senate, but having already passed the Senate bill with 60 votes on December 23; the most viable option for the proponents of comprehensive reform was for the House to abandon its own health reform bill, the Affordable Health Care for America Act, and pass the Senate's bill (The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) instead. Various health policy experts encouraged the House to pass the Senate version of the bill.[214] However, House Democrats were not happy with the content of the Senate bill and had expected to be able to negotiate changes in a (House-Senate) Conference before passing a final bill. With that option off the table (as any bill that emerged from Conference that differed from the Senate bill would have to be passed in the Senate over another Republican filibuster); the House Democrats agreed to pass the Senate bill on condition that it be amended by a subsequent bill (ultimately the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act), which could be passed via the reconciliation process.[211][215] Unlike the regular order, reconciliation is not subject to a filibuster (which requires 60 votes to break), but the process is limited to budget changes, which is why it was never able to be used to pass a comprehensive reform bill (with its inherently non-budgetary regulations as in the ACA) in the first place.[216] Whereas the already passed Senate bill could not have been put through reconciliation, most of House Democrats' demands were budgetary: "these changes -- higher subsidy levels, different kinds of taxes to pay for them, nixing the Nebraska Medicaid deal -- mainly involve taxes and spending. In other words, they're exactly the kinds of policies that are well-suited for reconciliation."[215]

On July 10 2013 23:42 oneofthem wrote:
privatization in practice is also often accompanied by court and govt power exercised in favor of corporate interests, especially when we are talking about privatizing an existing public effort. whether that initial process of dividing up the territory and resources is critical to whether the privatization result is any less free of corruption.


also, power, whether exercised by a government, a lord in his castle, or a private organization, is still power. getting bullied by a private power is no more enjoyable than getting bullied by a government. even an ideal market model is only ideal because none of the players have that much power.

On July 10 2013 23:42 oneofthem wrote:
privatization in practice is also often accompanied by court and govt power exercised in favor of corporate interests, especially when we are talking about privatizing an existing public effort. whether that initial process of dividing up the territory and resources is critical to whether the privatization result is any less free of corruption.


also, power, whether exercised by a government, a lord in his castle, or a private organization, is still power. getting bullied by a private power is no more enjoyable than getting bullied by a government. even an ideal market model is only ideal because none of the players have that much power.

On July 10 2013 13:18 farvacola wrote:

lol, that is some amazing revisionist history at work. In fact, your willingness to so actively ignore actual history in pursuit of placing blame on Democrats speaks to the very thing I pointed to, that being partisan politics.

It is important to note that the abbreviation ACA is deceiving, as it is the name for the House bill that was eventually scrapped while also being the casual abbreviation for the PPACA, the senate bill that would replace the House bill and go on to become Obamacare.

Here, you should read this, as it seems you have absolutely no idea how Obamacare came into being and yet seem to have strong opinions on the subject. I've highlighted the important parts in case you can't be bothered to read everything, but this is actually one of the better written articles on wikipedia, so I highly recommend it if one is looking to get a good understanding.



Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

On July 10 2013 07:13 ziggurat wrote:

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Care to elaborate?

On July 11 2013 00:26 Klondikebar wrote:


Yeah privatization that involves a heavy amount of rent seeking is called corporatism. And no free market advocate enjoys that. And it's not really privatization. It's just a form of mercantilism.

On July 10 2013 23:03 ziggurat wrote:

He said there were "concessions" to the republicans to make the bill the way it is. That was incorrect. The bill was written by democrats, and every single republican voted against it in both the house and the senate. The fact that democrats, when writing the legislation, may have cut and pasted from some other sources doesn't make it a bipartisan process.

I think liberals are feeling a bit of cognitive dissonance about the ACA at this moment. Most liberals strongly supported the bill when the democrats were ramming it through. It's now become apparent that it's embarrassingly bad legislation - in one of the posts at the top of this thread Farvacola called it a "debacle" (nice to see we can agree about something )! So people who supported it, rather than just admit that they made a bad call, are now coming up with all kinds of excuses for why they it sucks so much.

Farvacola apparently now believes that the legislation sucks because of "concessions" that the democrats made as part of the "partisan process". But there were no concessions. The democrats wrote the bill and 100% of republicans opposed it. When I pointed out these facts, Farv's response was to say "lol", call me ignorant, and quote a wikipedia article which confirms them.

On July 10 2013 11:35 ziggurat wrote:

The ACA was written by house democrats and passed in a party line vote. There were no concessions to republicans. It's hard to think of a clearer example of a case where one party is 100% responsible for a shitty piece of legislation.

On the Senate side, beginning June 17, 2009, and extending through September 14, 2009, three Democratic and three Republican Senate Finance Committee Members met for a series of 31 meetings to discuss the development of a health care reform bill. Over the course of the next three months, this group, Senators Max Baucus (D-MT), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Kent Conrad (D-ND), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), and Mike Enzi (R-WY), met for more than 60 hours, and the principles that they discussed (in conjunction with the other Committees) became the foundation of the Senate's health care reform bill. This approach was preferred because the President and Congressional leaders concluded that more liberal plans (such as Medicare-for-all) could not win filibuster-proof support in the Senate. By deliberately drawing on bipartisan ideas - the same basic outline was supported by former Senate Majority Leaders Howard Baker (R-TN), Bob Dole (R-KS), Tom Daschle (D-SD) and George Mitchell (D-ME) - the bill's drafters hoped to increase the chances of getting the necessary votes for passage.

On July 10 2013 22:24 Klondikebar wrote:


Yeah, farv is very correct. A lot of elements of Obamacare came from Republican bills at the state level and some at the national level. It's very clearly a mixed party bill but, gotta play the politics game man. It's coming from a democratic president so Republicans gotta fight it tooth and nail. It'd go the exact same way with Democrats if it was coming from a Republican president. It's maddening that any sort of real economic analysis of the bill was almost completely ignored in favor of the "us vs them" narrative that politicians and the media shove down our throats.

Also, sidenote about the mandate: it's a super weird thing economically. Insurance is an incredibly weird good. Mandating car insurance vastly improved the state of the car insurance industry (for consumers as well as producers I mean) so economists tend to like it, but it still came with an opt out. If you don't want car insurance you can just not buy a car.

This health insurance mandate plays at the same improvement but without said opt out. You can't really opt out of having a body. So it has some negatives that the auto insurance mandate doesn't have.

Not really making an argument but just wanted to make some points about it. If you disagree, I love to discuss this stuff. If I'm not saying anything interesting or useful, ignore me and move on.

On July 10 2013 07:36 farvacola wrote:

I'm saying that the Obamacare we ended up with at the end of the day looks nothing like it should have, and this is due in large part to what happens as a result of the partisan process. What are called "concessions" end up being distorting enough to render the original concept unrecognizable.

On July 11 2013 00:26 Klondikebar wrote:


Yeah privatization that involves a heavy amount of rent seeking is called corporatism. And no free market advocate enjoys that. And it's not really privatization. It's just a form of mercantilism.

On July 11 2013 00:29 Shiori wrote:


While I don't dispute that you're against this abuse of power, it seems to me like this is a sort of semantic distinction that you're making which borders on being a no true scotsman. I might be misunderstanding you, though.