Wow...Obama actually made Reid kill the Susan Collins deal

[ProSense]

Wow...Obama actually made Reid kill the Susan Collins deal

by ai002h

And hear I thought it was Reid he was telling Obama to hold firm:

White House officials rushed Friday to squash an emerging bipartisan deal crafted by Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) because they viewed it as a worse than proposals from Boehner.

It would have locked in next year’s even-deeper government spending levels and suspended the medical device tax, a key funding stream for Obamacare that’s unpopular with both parties.

White House chief of staff Denis McDonough and Deputy Chief of Staff Rob Nabors called Reid, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.). The president didn’t want Democrats anywhere near that deal, and the Senate leaders, in turn, warned the rank and file to hold back and avoid committing to the deal. The president reiterated his concerns in a Saturday meeting with Democratic leaders, and they made clear that they couldn’t accept the proposal.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/barack-obama-government-shutdown-debt-ceiling-98440.html#ixzz2hyNmj0e1

Wow...they played that beautifully. Obama, as the face of the party, still gets to seem somewhat reasonable while people are calling Reid the real intransigent player on the Democratic side. Yet this whole time its actually the WH thats unwilling to take any deals.

This actually makes sense now cause people were shocked last Saturday when Reid rejected the Collins proposal, since there were already 6-7 Dems on it and it was looking like the vehicle that would come out of the Senate. Collins herself felt Reid's rejection and the subsequent pullback from Dem Senators came out of nowhere and was unexpected. Now we know its cause the WH told them to kill it.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/10/17/1248180/-Wow-Obama-actually-made-Reid-kill-the-Susan-Collins-deal

My Offer is This: Nothing
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023862286

No!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023866933

[Dawgs]

1. Imagine what we could of got in the ACA if he would have done this 4 years ago?

You know, back when the Democrats had the majority in the Senate AND the House.

Public Option

Medicare Age dropped to 55

Started with Single Payer and negotiated from there

Etc..

[ProSense]

2. Republicans had nothing

You know, back when the Democrats had the majority in the Senate AND the House.

Public Option

Medicare Age dropped to 55

Started with Single Payer and negotiated from there

Etc..

...to do with the public option. Do the names Lieberman, Lincoln and Nelson ring a bell?

Hard to unite when there are traitors in the ranks.

[winterpark]

4. Don't forget baucus in that list. n/t

[BumRushDaShow]

40. ^^DITTO^^

I said it out loud right before I saw your post.

Baucus was the "King" directing the effort.

[bullwinkle428]

5. Honestly, Baucus was probably even a worse obstacle, and we're

still having to deal with that guy.

[Aerows]

19. Baucus was a major obstacle

He was definitely part of the group that prevented single payer.

[Dawgs]

6. And if Obama would have pressured them we may have gotten these things.

Just like he apparently did with this shutdown deal.

[Ikonoklast]

27. Lieberman would not have given in under any amount of pressure.

His loyalties are defined by his personal economic interests, see who employs Hadassa Lieberman for the answer.

Holy Joe is stuff I scrape off the bottom of my shoe. I detest that...person.

[Dawgs]

29. Maybe. Would have been to nice to seem him try. n/t

[Ikonoklast]

37. It was tried The answer was that he'd vote with the Republicans against it.

That was one reason it was DOA, you never propose something that has no chance of passing, it makes you look weak and politically stupid...like Teabaggers and their stupid votes against the ACA, wasting time, accomplishing nothing.


Lieberman personally killed single payer, and Obama needed his vote for the ACA to pass, and that fuckface weasel knew it.

[Art_from_Ark]

47. And Obama made a campaign video for Lincoln

for her Democratic primary battle against a more liberal opponent.

[stillcool]

3. we would have gotten nothing

Which is what many people wanted. The idea of progress rather than perfection is a foreign concept.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

9. bingo!

I wish we could get perfection but that's not how things work. Generally, aside from miracles, we don't change by quantum leaps. That applies on the individual level as well as the social level.

[Dawgs]

15. The point is that we may never get any of those things.

Think about how many opportunities we've had to make real change in the past 20+ years. I would say the answer is one; basically Obama's first year as President.

And, can we really afford to wait another 12-20 years before the next big change?

Our leaders need to take advantage when they have a chance. That's all I'm saying.

[Whisp]

12. +++

I think the name Progressive should be replace by Teleporters. You shouldn't have to get anywhere by progress and steps, just take us there, Scotty! NOW.

[Dawgs]

13. Wrong. We may have still got what we have now, but maybe not.

He could have fought and lost, but at least he would have tried.

When he caved immediately by negotiating from the middle we were guaranteed to get the current law.

[ProSense]

16. Sanders: Single Payer Never Had A Chance

Sanders: Single Payer Never Had A Chance

Evan McMorris-Santoro

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) reminded the progressive media gathered on Capitol Hill today that single-payer health care reform was dead before it started in the Senate.

“It would have had 8 or 10 votes and that’s it,” he said, addressing a topic central in the minds of many who the bloggers and left wing talk show hosts gathered for the 4th annual Senate Democratic Progressive Media Summit in Washington reach everyday.

Sanders is among the few in the Senate not afraid to say he supports government-run, universal health care. But his calls for such a program have gone unanswered, much to the chagrin of progressives who still feel it is the best way to solve the nation’s health care crisis.

Sanders said it was still possible for single-payer to come to the U.S. eventually — but he said the road will not begin in Washington. If a state like California or Vermont ever instituted a single-payer system on its own, Sanders said, it would eventually lead to national adoption of universal coverage.

- more-

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/sanders-single-payer-never-had-a-chance.php

Single payer is on its way, and Congress could speed it up.

Single Payer movement in the era of Obamacare

by Shockwave

If you believe that healthcare is a basic human right and understand why Single Payer IS the final destination of healthcare reform and you want to get it done as soon as possible, read on.

<...>

If you are involved in the Single Payer movement in California this diary may help you understand what we face and whet we can do to get things done.

I am one of those Single Payer activists who understands that Obamacare will benefit many and it is truly amazing that this effort, that President Obama should get full credit for, is the best that could come from a dysfunctional and extremely polarized DC.

And I support those who keep up the fight to prevent its sabotage by all the Republicans in red states and in DC.

I consider the ACA a giant first step towards an America where healthcare is recognized as a basic human right and there is a system that allows ALL who live here to have access to affordable medical attention without the fear of going bankrupt.

And I understand that California is leading the country in the implementation of Obamacare. But it's not about being better than other states like Texas and Georgia where Obamacare is being sabotaged or ignored. It's about joining Vermont to help lead the country to a place where ALL are covered, where the private insurance blood suckers are gone, where medical results and costs are in line with other developed nations, where if you need to see a doctor (or a dentist) you make an appointment and you don't worry whether you will be able to pay the rent (given that 76% of all Americans live paycheck to paycheck).

So how do we get it done? <...>

Bill Zimmerman has just published an article that sets the tone;

Why California can lead the way to Single Payer in the U.S.

Recently Public Citizen, a member of California’s AllCare Alliance, released a report entitled, “A Roadmap to Single-Payer: How States Can Escape the Clutches of the Private Health Insurance Industry.” “We’re looking for a few pioneering states with the courage and fortitude to let common sense prevail over the insanity of our current patchwork system, “said Lisa Gilbert, director of Public Citizen’s Congress Watch division. “Once they succeed, we expect most opposition to single-payer and our reliance on privately insured health care to become historical relics.”

By the time California votes to move to a single payer system – the earliest date possible is 2017 when the Affordable Care Act allows states to set up their own systems – Congress will have gone through two more election cycles. Voters will be less white, and probably less conservative, and the changing composition of the House of Representatives may allow for passage of single-payer waiver legislation for states, perhaps even with “state’s rights” support from a few Republicans.

California, Vermont and possibly other states moving to single-payer will put increasing pressure on Congress to grant other state waivers. Once subject to such pressure, Congress could theoretically pass a federal bill to give (improved) Medicare to all, but it is politically far more likely that they will simply let the states set up their own systems, which can then become models for a larger federal program. California, once again, could be the engine driving national change.

One of the features of Obamacare is the "waiver". The idea is that states can apply for this "waiver" and implement their own plan starting 2017 if this new plan covers more people and is affordable.

So lets take a look at what the ACA says about the "innovation waiver";

SEC. 1332 ø42 U.S.C. 18052¿. WAIVER FOR STATE INNOVATION.
(a) APPLICATION.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—A State may apply to the Secretary for the waiver of all or any requirements described in paragraph
(2) with respect to health insurance coverage within that State for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2017. Such application shall—
(A) be filed at such time and in such manner as the Secretary may require;
(B) contain such information as the Secretary may require, including—
(i) a comprehensive description of the State legislation and program to implement a plan meeting the requirements for a waiver under this section; and
(ii) a 10-year budget plan for such plan that is budget neutral for the Federal Government; and
(C) provide an assurance that the State has enacted the law described in
subsection (b)(2).

So this is the milestone that any state has to go through. The Vermont single payer activists lead the way. Even Vermont will apply for the "innivation waiver" to get federal funds starting in 2017 to help pay for their Single Payer system.

Here in California the Single Payer organizations (linked logos below) will announce soon the plan to achieve the "waiver" milestone by January 1st 2017. The Single Payer plan that will be proposed will be based mostly on SB 810, which was approved by SEnate and Assembly twice and vetoed twice by Arnold Schwarzenegger and in 2012 it was stopped by 6 blue dogs in the Senate before it could get to Jerry Brown's desk.

In California, one of the key issues is that Obamacare will leave out over 3,000,000 undocumented workers. These 3,000,000 are an integral part of our society and mostly but not all are Latinos. And as Joan McCarter pointed out, Latino organizations worry about funding for Obamacare outreach efforts;

Hispanic health centers and community organizations say they don’t have the funding or resources to carry out the complicated sign up process for the 10 million Latinos who will be eligible for new public and subsidized health coverage options.

Latino organization outreach is a key to success.

And we should coordinate the efforts around the country.

So here in California we need to work with Sacramento at all levels. It will be a lot of hard work but there are thousands of committed activists.

One way you can help is by joining one of the Single Payer organizations and help us organize and direct the grassroots movement that will be instrumental in convincing Sacramento to go along.

And this week on Thursday August 1st you can join other activists to watch The Healthcare Movie in Santa Monica at 7:30PM and celebrate the 48th anniversary of Medicare. You can buy tickets here.

- more -

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/07/30/1226609/-Single-Payer-movement-in-the-era-of-Obamacare

Note:

Kos Media, LLC Site content may be used for any purpose without explicit permission unless otherwise specified

Remember Section 1332 of the health care law?

State single payer waiver provisions in the Senate healthcare bill - legislative language and fact sheet from Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders

Why the 1332 Waiver in the Senate Health Reform Bill is the Only Opportunity for State Single Payer Systems Under the Bill

The health care reform bill passed by the Senate requires that all states set up Exchanges through which private insurance companies could sell their plans. Because federal laws preempt state laws, the federal health care reform bill would supplant any state attempt to set up a single payer system in lieu of an Exchange, which by its nature calls for multiple payers to compete. If the Senate bill is enacted, the only opportunity for states to move toward a single payer system is found in Section 1332. This section would allow a state with a plan that meets certain coverage and affordability requirements to waive out of the requirement to set up an Exchange for private insurance companies. Only with such a waiver could a state move in the direction of a single payer system.

- more -

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2010/march/state-single-payer-waiver-provisions-in-the-senate-healthcare-bill-legislative-langu

Release: President Endorses State Waiver Proposal

Vermont Delegation and Gov. Shumlin Hail Obama Endorsement of State Health Reform Waiver Legislation

WASHINGTON, Feb. 28 - The Vermont congressional delegation and Gov. Peter Shumlin today hailed President Obama's endorsement of legislation allowing states to provide better health care at a lower cost starting in 2014.

At a meeting of the National Governors Association Monday morning, Obama announced his support for amending the Affordable Care Act to allow states like Vermont to seek a federal waiver to the new law three years earlier than currently allowed. States would be required to design plans that are at least as comprehensive and affordable as the federal model and cover at least as many people

Last month Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) introduced in the Senate and Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) introduced in the House legislation that would advance the date waivers would be accepted from 2017 to 2014. The three joined Gov. Shumlin at a Montpelier press conference to announce the legislation, which would provide Vermont the flexibility it needs to adopt reforms Shumlin is pursuing.

Leahy said, "This is a wise decision that keeps in focus the goal of continually improving health care in America. I applaud President Obama and Secretary Sebelius for supporting efforts by Vermont and other states to go above and beyond what the Affordable Care Act requires. They know that the federal government does not have a monopoly on good ideas, and innovations by the states will prove - and improve --- the benefits of health insurance reform, on the ground, and in practice. While some in Washington want to turn the clock back and repeal the new health reform law, Vermont and other states want to move ahead. Vermont has already been working hard to improve the state's system of health care, and passage of the delegation's waiver bill will move our state one step closer to that goal."

Sanders said, "At a time when 50 million Americans lack health insurance and when the cost of health care continues to soar, it is my strong hope that Vermont will lead the nation in a new direction through a Medicare-for-all, single-payer approach. I am delighted that President Obama announced today that he will, in fact, support allowing states to innovate with health coverage models sooner rather than later. I worked hard to draft and secure the waiver provision in the health reform law and I am very pleased the president now agrees that we should make it available in 2014 as originally intended. While there is a lot of work to be done, I look forward to working with Sens. Leahy, Wyden, Inouye, Brown and others in the Senate and Rep. Welch and others in the House to get this done as soon as possible."

Welch said, "President Obama's support for allowing states to innovate sooner is a good news for Vermont and all states looking to tailor health care reform to individual states' circumstances. This legislation will give Vermont a green light to lead the nation in providing quality health care at a lower cost. I'm hopeful that Democrats and Republicans alike will support this practical step to give states flexibility to achieve progress their own way."

Shumlin said, "I was excited to learn about this today during a visit to the White House. All along officials from Health and Human Services have expressed a willingness to work with us, as long as we don't compromise standards under the law. I think this is an excellent example of how we can work together to control skyrocketing health care costs and implement meaningful health care reform as soon as possible."

A fact sheet on the delegation's "State Leadership in Healthcare Act" is available here.

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=44a664de-8e92-43f4-a871-d26e0b5a252d

FACT SHEET

"State Leadership in Healthcare Act‟

Section 1332 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act – the “Waiver for State Innovation” – allows states to waiver out of some of the requirement of federal health reform if they meet certain standards. The provision in the new law was authored by Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and strongly supported by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.).

The Sanders-Leahy-Welch “State Leadership in Healthcare Act” moves the availability of state waivers from 2017 to 2014. This would allow a state to avoid the expense of setting up an exchange – which is otherwise required in every state in 2014 – only to dismantle it later.

The federal waiver would allow a state to:

a) Collect all the federal funding and use for financing coverage for individuals through a plan designed by and for that state.
b) Coordinates this waiver process with Medicare, Medicaid and CHIP waiver processes that may be required depending on the design of the system. The state

The federal waiver would not allow a state to:

a) Offer lower quality or less affordable care to their residents than would be available in the exchange.
b) Obtain waivers from the health insurance market reforms implemented under the law such as those benefiting ending the use of pre-existing conditions to exclude individuals from coverage or those allowing young adults to stay on their parents’ plans longer.

How does the waiver provision of the law work?
Step 1: The state passes a law to provide health insurance to its citizens.
Step 2: The Secretary of Health and Human Services and Secretary of the Treasury review the state law and determine that the plan is:

a) At least as comprehensive as its residents would receive in the exchange;
b) At least as affordable;
c) Deficit neutral to the federal government; and,
d) Covers at least as many people.

Step 3: If the federal government finds that the alternative state system meets these requirements without certain federal rules, states can get a waiver. The state plan could receive waivers from:

a) The section requiring establishment of the exchange
b) The designs for how federal subsidies would have to reduce premiums and co-pays.
c) The employer penalty for providing coverage
d) The individual mandate.

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/graphics/011411state_waiver_fact_sheet.pdf

The Affordable Care Act: Supporting State Innovation
http://www.healthcare.gov/news/factsheets/2012/02/state-innovation02222012a.html


http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023715400#post10

[Dawgs]

18. Not AT ALL relevant to my argument.

I was saying Obama and the Democrats should have started the healthcare reform debate with Single Payer and negotiated from there. Instead, Obama let the Democrats start from the middle with Romneycare.

Once again you wasted your time.

[ProSense]

24. It's relevant, and

"Not AT ALL relevant to my argument.

I was saying Obama and the Democrats should have started the healthcare reform debate with Single Payer and negotiated from there. Instead, Obama let the Democrats start from the middle with Romneycare.

Once again you wasted your time."

...no, I didn't.

The fact is that you're arguing about where you believe a process should have started to end up with something that the people involved (Lieberman, Lincoln and Nelson) weren't going to support anyway.

I mean, Lincoln, Neloson and Pryor (I forgot to mention him) voted against the final bill that passed via reconciliation.

That would be "wasted" time, and the end result would likely have been nothing.

[Dawgs]

28. Nope. Still not relevant. And, I'm not sure you understand how negotiations work.

If one side starts in the middle and the other side starts on the right, you are guaranteed to get something center-right.

The fact is that you're arguing about where you believe a process should have started to end up with something that the people involved (Lieberman, Lincoln and Nelson) weren't going to support anyway.

You have NO IDEA how Lieberman and others would have voted if negotiations were started with something much more progressive. You're just guessing.

Also, starting with something more progressive doesn't mean we would have gotten nothing. That's just stupid.

[ProSense]

30. I understand how "negotiations" work. I also understand handwringing hindsight. n/t

[stillcool]

41. things could have been different..

If things had been different.

[uponit7771]

14. +1

[Pretzel_Warrior]

20. Too bad others can't understand that

[Dawgs]

25. I understand perfectly fine. Started negotiations with a center right bill is progress to some. nt

[Pretzel_Warrior]

26. Center right. Lol. The choice was expand Medicaid

And force insurance companies to cover everyone--or same old same old nothing we had before.

[Dawgs]

32. The ACA was originally the Heritage Foundation's baby.

And, the insurance companies helped write it.

Sounds very progressive.

[MynameisBlarney]

11. But we really didn't have a majority did we?

The GOP had a stranglehold on us then as well.

[Dawgs]

22. Uh, we have much less of a majority now and Obama refused to negotiate is the point. n/t

[MynameisBlarney]

38. Weren't we waiting on

a couple of Senate elections that were in dispute?
And Senator Kennedy passing away left his seat unfilled for a while.
And in the House (if I'm not mistaken) we didn't have the supermajority needed to pass anything.

[jeff47]

21. Nope. Lieberman was still in office.

And very, very interested in being very, very important. He personally killed what you are claiming we could have gotten.

Even the lower Medicare Age, which was his own proposal. He killed it.

[Dawgs]

23. Did Lieberman make the Democrats start with Romneycare instead of something more progressive?

Didn't think so.

[jeff47]

31. Yes, him and people like him did.

But it's a lot easier to forget what was actually going on back then, and complain about current office holders failing. That way you can leap all over them when something mildly annoying happens today.

There was no way in hell something "more progressive" was going to happen. If you want to know why, look back to Clinton trying to get something "more progressive". How'd that work out? Lots of dead people on that altar.

The good news is if you take a moment to consider the design of the ACA, it's fantastically designed for us to end up with a much more progressive system. Breaking the exchanges into states means we only have to fight for "more progressive" in blue states. The lack of dead people when CA implements a "Public Option" or VT's single-payer plan destroys the FUD used to block those ideas nationally. With blue state after blue state having success, we will have the ammunition to roll out a national public option or single-payer. The same way Canada got single-payer.

OTOH, demanding single-payer in 2009 would result in exactly the same thing that demanding single-payer in 1993 did.

[Dawgs]

33. Right, fantastic. Breaking it up to let states decide has worked out great for the poor.

STUDY: Steadfast GOP Refusal To Expand Medicaid Leaves 5 Million Poor Americans Without Health Care

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/10/16/2787881/kaiser-study-medicaid-expansion/

[jeff47]

34. Yes, and those failures are how we will succeed in the end.

Again, there was no way in hell to get the proper system in 2009. None. Not gonna happen. Never pass.

Stop pretending it was an option. Because all it's doing is making you focus on 2009 instead of focusing on the battles ahead.

[Dawgs]

35. Fighting for something more progressive was ABSOLUTELY an option.

That's what I said. I never said suggested that any of things I wanted was guaranteed to pass.

[jeff47]

36. An option based on what?

Based on Clinton trying that and getting nothing? How many people died without healthcare in the last 20 years because we fought for something more progressive in 1993?

Is the ACA wonderful? Fuck no. But it gave us fantastic tools to create a better system.

[Dawgs]

42. Everything in your post is ridiculous. n/t

[jeff47]

44. Whelp, keep fighting 2009. I'm sure it'll help any time now. (nt)

[sabrina 1]

39. Yes. Now we know, when they really do not want to compromise, they don't. Let's hope they now apply

that backbone to the upcoming attempts to cut SS benefits, to the Chained CPI proposals which should be dead in the water by now.

[Tarheel_Dem]

45. You guys sure wanted a lot done in 72 days. That's how long we had a supermajority. Please proceed.

[Coyotl]

7. The man with the pen!

He decides if he will sign a bill into law or not. Simple enough.

[sheshe2]

8. Kicked and Recommending!

[northoftheborder]

10. The two Democrats on the committee now are excellent. I think they will represent us wel.

[flamingdem]

17. Good, it was a crappy deal

[DevonRex]

43. He didn't want anybody peeling off. MMJ: "I'm Amazed"

I'm amazed everybody stood together the whole way! My Morning Jacket (who will also promote the ACA) performing "I'm Amazed' at Red Rocks in Morrison, Colorado in August 2012. we were there. Best live band out there now. They'll keep going until YOU drop.

&feature=youtube_gdata_player

[Cha]

46. Thank you President Obama Long Live Obamacare!!

thanks PS