Left In Alabama Follow leftinbama on Twitter

Robamacare, Obamneycare, or Medicare for All

by: DrAbston

Wed Aug 15, 2012 at 17:14:22 PM CDT


Mitt Romney’s choice of Paul Ryan for running mate has set off a flurry of campaign excitement. This could be the best news for Medicare in a long time—Ryan’s not-so-subtle Medicare killing plans might turn 2012 into the “Medicare Election” after all. If so, privatizing Medicare could become a new 3rd rail no politician will dare to even glance towards any time in the near future. This is a great time for people in both parties to take a strong position on Medicare—we need to let folks know we are NOT willing to let granny get shoved off the cliff.

 

 

 

It’s important for Dems not to get too lulled by their own campaign ads, though. There are other ways to ease granny off that cliff. Some are sneaky enough that we might not be able to haul her back up by the time we realize she’s rolling.

 

It ought to be pretty easy to see the risks in converting Medicare to a voucher or “premium support” system, where rising costs could easily render our elderly either uninsured or unable to afford to use their insurance. Interestingly, the idea is very similar to what the ACA does in the upcoming “exchanges”, and we will see the same problems there. Low income families are highly likely to forgo needed care and leave that brand new insurance card in their wallets, because of the still daunting co-pays. If you doubt that, come hang out with me at work for a few days and listen to the parents with minimum wage jobs who have employer-provided insurance.

 

 

There are FaceBook memes popping up on the pages of my intelligent friends saying Obama is using the Medicare cuts to save Medicare—that this money was cut by reducing fraud and excess payments to Medicare Advantage plans (private insurers who cover Medicare patients at higher cost than traditional Medicare), whereas the Romney/ Ryan plan would line corporate pockets. Not exactly! Some of the ACA cut is to hospitals, in the form of DSH reductions and value-based payment cuts to hospitals that serve the uninsured. It is true that the ACA cut Medicare Advantage payments, which should have been just eliminated. Then Obama’s administration (not Congress, mind you—this was an executive action) turned right around and began handing the money back as rewards to Medicare Advantage plans with only average performance. Corporate pocket-lining is a bipartisan effort.

 

 

The ACA generally works to direct more money into the private insurance system, including taxpayer subsidy of pricey overheads. For those who believe the ACA clearly benefits some specific groups and so is a step in the right direction, I have thought of a better metaphor than steps. It is like global warming. Sure, there are some chilly areas that will benefit from temperatures rising—more tourists, longer growing seasons. The net effect is detrimental.

 

 

I have been mulling over partisanship a lot in the last few weeks. I was raised a Democrat and even though I knew the party had problems, I made some unquestioned assumptions I now believe were incorrect. I have decided to join the Green Party.

DrAbston :: Robamacare, Obamneycare, or Medicare for All
 

Mitt Romney’s choice of Paul Ryan for running mate has set off a flurry of campaign excitement.  This could be the best news for Medicare in a long time—Ryan’s not-so-subtle Medicare killing plans might turn 2012 into the “Medicare Election” after all.  If so, privatizing Medicare could become a new 3rd rail no politician will dare to even glance towards any time in the near future.  This is a great time for people in both parties to take a strong position on Medicare—we need to let folks know we are NOT willing to let granny get shoved off the cliff. 

  

It’s important for Dems not to get too lulled by their own campaign ads, though.  There are other ways to ease granny off that cliff.  Some are sneaky enough that we might not be able to haul her back up by the time we realize she’s rolling.

 

 

It ought to be pretty easy to see the risks in converting Medicare to a voucher or “premium support” system, where rising costs could easily render our elderly either uninsured or unable to afford to use their insurance.  Interestingly, the idea is very similar to what the ACA does in the upcoming “exchanges”, and we will see the same problems there.  Low income families are highly likely to forgo needed care and leave that brand new insurance card in their wallets, because of the still daunting co-pays.  If you doubt that, come hang out with me at work for a few days and listen to the parents with minimum wage jobs who have employer-provided insurance.

  

There are FaceBook memes popping up on the pages of my intelligent friends saying Obama is using the Medicare cuts to save Medicare—that this money was cut by reducing fraud and excess payments to Medicare Advantage plans (private insurers who cover Medicare patients at higher cost than traditional Medicare), whereas the Romney/ Ryan plan would line corporate pockets.  Not exactly!  Some of the ACA cut is to hospitals, in the form of DSH reductions and value-based payment cuts to hospitals that serve the uninsured.  It is true that the ACA cut Medicare Advantage payments, which should have been just eliminated.  Then Obama’s administration (not Congress, mind you—this was an executive action) turned right around and began handing the money back as rewards to Medicare Advantage plans with only average performance.  Corporate pocket-lining is a bipartisan effort.

 

 

The ACA generally works to direct more money into the private insurance system, including taxpayer subsidy of pricey overheads.  For those who believe the ACA clearly benefits some specific groups and so is a step in the right direction, I have thought of a better metaphor than steps.  It is like global warming.  Sure, there are some chilly areas that will benefit from temperatures rising—more tourists, longer growing seasons.  The net effect is detrimental.

 

 

I have been mulling over partisanship a lot in the last few weeks.  I was raised a Democrat and even though I knew the party had problems, I made some unquestioned assumptions I now believe were incorrect.  I have decided to join the Green Party.

 

 

Between the two major parties, there are some clear differences.  The Republicans yearn to undo Roe v. Wade, bring back sexual repression, and rein in women/ minorities to their liking. They would love to end critical scientific and historical education, because the particular biases of the far right are unstable in an educated public. They worship guns and encourage the bizarre belief of some right-wingers that it would be possible to fight off an out-of-control government (complete with weapons of mass destruction) by personal armaments. The Democrats don’t so much offer improvements in those areas as they do a little more security in the status quo.

 

 

Both parties, however, have the same underlying primary purpose—to protect the interests of big money.  I doubt if this is a conscious purpose on the part of all involved—I’m not that cynical.  But in practice, in history, it doesn’t matter, because that’s what happens. The Republicans serve big money by trying to lower regulation and by cutting the “social wage” (the provision of a floor for fundamental human needs like food, shelter and medical care), so that the poor are forced into jobs they might not otherwise accept and are kept so busy scrambling for their lives that they don’t have time or energy to organize an opposition. To their base, they frame it as Personal Responsibility.

  

The Democrats serve money by increasing regulation to stabilize and rescue corporations when they are at risk of collapsing from their excesses and by increasing the social wages when public destabilization looms.  To their base, they frame it as a Safety Net.  The party appears to be more socially evolved for a few reasons—it is partly because they needed the progressive, socially generous block of voters (the ones Republicans bypassed in favor of Randians and religious fundamentalists).  It is also partly because some of those social policies serve particular corporate interests better, and partly because the appearance of social responsibility attracts candidates who really do believe we have a social duty to each other (even though they find, once in office, that they can’t do nearly what they hoped for).

 

Besides serving the interests of big money, both parties have more in common than either side would like to believe, in terms of aggression and erosions of civil liberties.  Worse, they are both creating an inexorable trend towards loss of democratic functioning in our government.  They are both making our votes count for less and less, by subverting orderly representative and judicial processes.  

Most of you probably already know this—I’m saying it mainly to lay some groundwork for the rest of this post.  There are some very different possible responses to seeing this sad scenario.  One option is to say we should work within the Democratic party itself, to turn it in a better direction. This was why I stayed in the party so long.  It’s a little better reasoning than the old story that ends “with all this shit in here, there must be a pony”—and it goes like this:  “with all these great progressives in the tent, there must be hope for this party.”

 

 

After arguing this point with a new email friend, where I vigorously took the side of the Democrats, I read a book this friend recommended, and I have changed my mind.  It isn’t the repeated offenses of the Democrats, or the examples proving it is just as much a corporate party as the other, because like you, I knew that.  What got me was the history of progressive movements.  Time after time, when progressives have allowed themselves to be folded in, they lost their battles.  The only times they won any major ground—Civil Rights, for instance—were because of intense independent grassroots pressure.  I didn’t want to believe that and tried to find an exception the author forgot.  I couldn’t.  Can you?

 

 

Being scientifically minded, I just can’t ignore empirical evidence.  You should read the book—it is like watching Lucy pull the football away from Charlie Brown way too many times. 

  

We can’t do the significant things we need to do by working within the two party system. If we want big deal changes like real healthcare reform, not just rolling off the cliff instead of being thrown off, we need to take this seriously.  By staying under the big Democratic tent, we give those elected an easy out—they know we are terrified of the openly vicious alternative and will generally forgive them by blaming their failures on the other party, so our vote is in the bag.  This means they only have to please their corporate masters.

 

 

I saw this in action just last week, when a Democrat friend of mine heard me say some true but unpleasant things about the ACA.  She said she agreed, but that we should be careful NOT to report any of those things until after November 6, because it would give ammunition to the other side. Think hard.  If you have to lie to others or yourself to support a party, there’s a problem.

 

 

One way a third party can influence policy is by threatening or throwing elections in swing states—that could get us some important things and possibly even a change as significant as single payer health insurance.  But only if we don’t wuss out and throw darts at Ralph Nader for doing the right thing. Another way would be if folks stuck with it and didn’t go back to the Democrats every time a small point was won, allowing the US to gradually build a true third party free of corporate control.  The time to start is now.  If we wait until it looks like an independent party can do something substantial, we will never start.  That’s an idealist point of view, I know, but it isn’t impossible.  All other developed democratic countries have some form of Labor party except us.

 

 

To succeed, we have to focus on one central objective—attaining responsive representation in government, so big money can’t rule the day.  Without that, it doesn’t really matter about the rest, because once we’ve fully lost the power of our votes, we will have only as much civil liberty as suits the most powerful big money interests.  We have to keep our focus on representation, the same way meditators deal with distractions.  If we get stronger, the efforts to distract us will intensify—be ready for it.  They’ll wave gay marriage at us, reproductive rights, maybe even changes in drug policy—don’t bite unless it comes attached to democracy.

  

Some folks, like Morris Berman, believe it is already too late and no road forward is possible for the United States.  If he is right, my Dem friends are probably doing the best thing.  Either one should expatriate, as Berman did, or one should at least hang with the party who won’t rape us with ultrasound probes.  It is not unreasonable, if one must go off the cliff, to choose being rolled over being thrown.

 

 

If it is NOT too late, there is only one real choice for progressives.  We must refuse to serve as arm candy that makes the Democratic party look safe.  We must stop letting Lucy hold the football.  We must stay out, and we must do our best to gather a coalition of others who will challenge the powers that be. 

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Share |

Just Say No To The Status Quo (0.00 / 0)

THIS: 

" We must refuse to serve as arm candy that makes the Democratic party look safe.  We must stop letting Lucy hold the football.  We must stay out, and we must do our best to gather a coalition of others who will challenge the powers that be. "

Corporate cash is doing some nasty things to this country...and it's only going to get nastier, I fear. 

The dialogue has been moving steadily to the right. The right is about as far-right as it can get. It's been pushed there thanks in large part to the Koch brothers. Their "Americans For Prosperity" (AFP) has 35 well-paid ($100,000 or more per year) State directors (many of them Republican politicians). There really is, and never was, a "grassroots" Tea Party -- it's now almost entirely a front group for AFP, yet the media still reports breathlessly about "the Tea Party". 

Kansas: Koch money funded about half of a $250,000 campaign to dump moderate Republicans and take control of the State senate (radical Republicans already control the governor's mansion and the House). They succeeded. The radical right now owns Kansas.

Add the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which is also heavily bankrolled by the Kochs.

And now David Koch has been named a delegate to the Republican convention.

 Once they've got the Republican Party firmly in their grasp, they'll slowly buy more Democrats.  

The Kochs and the right have been steadily working on this for years, with multiple Koch-funded groups and other rightwing groups. It allows them to keep their money hidden and affords them a megaphone effect, with the same message coming from multiple sources. 

And that's why, with a long-winded explanation,  I'm also attracted to the Greens.

No

Corporate

Money

  



"Madness is rare in individuals - but in groups, parties, nations, and ages it is the rule."
Friedrich Nietzsche


The "Ralph Nader Stole The Election" Myth (0.00 / 0)

Actually the popular meme that Ralph Nader stole the election from Al Gore is a bit of very successful Democratic Party propaganda (the Dems view the Greens as competitors and often wage attacks on the Greens--this was perhaps the most successful).

There are MANY reaons why Al Gore lost the 2000 election. Ralph Nader is not the reason.  E.g., how about those 308,000 Democrats who voted for Bush?

But you can see, from the popular "not another Nader" meme how successful the lie was.

If you continue to vote for the least worst (of two candidates), you've bought into The Illusion of Choice



"Madness is rare in individuals - but in groups, parties, nations, and ages it is the rule."
Friedrich Nietzsche


[ Parent ]
I suspect that most of us, like damnedliberal, are "attracted to the Green Party" (4.00 / 3)

We probably all see things we would like to change in the Democratic Party, but the differences between the GOP and the Democrats are so major, and so important, that I will continue to vote with and work for the re-election of Barack Obama and other Democratic Party candidates.

That said, I would love to see the Green Party's influence start moving the Democratic Party in a more Progressive direction.

I'm simply not willing to contemplate Jill Stein becoming the next Ralph Nader.



Only after the last tree has been cut down. Only after the last fish has been caught. Only after the last river has been poisoned. Only then will you realize that money cannot be eaten. Cree Nation Tribal Prophecy

Amen, piggieheart! (4.00 / 2)

The differences between the Democratic party and the Republican party are real and non-trivial.  Do you think Al Gore would have ignored the Al-Quaeda threat?  Started two unpaid for wars?  Busted the budget with tax breaks for the wealthiest?  No.  

For a more recent example, just look at the difference between the actions of then Speaker Pelosi and current Speaker Boehner.  Big difference.  Closer to home, look at the horrible bills -- including the forced ultrasound one -- that have passed or almost passed the Alabama Legislature since Republicans seized control there.  The Democrats we had before, disappointing though they were, would not have brought us HB56 or the flood of anti-women bills we've seen under the GOP leadership.

Right now we're in an ideological battle for the future of this country and the outcome is far from certain.  It seems to me that progressive people voting for a 3rd party is just a panacea, a way for good people to stand on the sidelines and absolve themselves from guilt as conservatives take us to hell in a handbasket.  I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but this is no time to make an empty statement. 

Complain about Obama all you want, complain about corporate money and its corrupting influence on government -- but remember that if Mitt Romney wins in November, corporations will be the only people who matter.  Heck, Romney might fill the next Supreme Court vacancy with Exxon-Mobil.



Work harder and work smarter!

[ Parent ]
Another view (2.00 / 1)

" remember that if Mitt Romney wins in November, corporations will be the only people who matter."

We've already reached that point.

Who did Obama meet with behind closed doors to craft Obamacare? (The healthcare and the pharmaceutical industry.)

Wall Street Is Giving To President Obama
How many Wall-Streeters serve as Obama advisers?
How many Wall Street crooks have gone to jail for throwing the world over the cliff?
Why have no meaningful reforms been enacted on the banking industry? 

 Look who's buying Harry Reid.

 Nancy Pelosi's contributions look better, but, hell, she's even gotten money from Bain Capitol! 

Politicians arrive in DC driving a beat-up pickup truck and leave 20 or 30 years later driving a Mercedes and owning a mansion. (If they don't, they're doing something wrong.)

"What happens if Romney wins" is a scare tactic.

What about this?

Get Their Attention: 

What if third parties get enough votes to scare the hell out of the corrupt two-party politicians?

It's like the old joke about the farmer who sold a mule to a guy from the city.  The city-slicker just moved to the country and wanted a mule. A farmer offered to sell him one, telling the city-slicker, "And he does what you tell him".

A week later, the farmer found the city-slicker and the mule stopped at a bridge. The city-slicker said, "This mule is worthless. I can't get him to do anything. Look, I can't even get him to walk across this bridge."

The farmer picked up a fallen tree limb, walked over to the mule, SMACKED the mule in the head with the tree branch, then whispered in the mule's ear. The mule walked across the bridge.

The city-slicker said, "Why did you hit him in the head?" and the farmer said, "Well, like I told you, he will listen but you've first got to get his attention." 

 

 

 




"Madness is rare in individuals - but in groups, parties, nations, and ages it is the rule."
Friedrich Nietzsche


[ Parent ]
it's not the ideology (0.00 / 0)

of the parties that will kill us-- it is the steady sell-off of our government to big money.  There is no demonstrable difference between the two parties in this regard-- they just use different means, but the end effect is the same.

So I totally agree with the part about Repubs being very bad and the significant ideological differences.  These are real and very meaningful.  But once we have fully lost voter influence, it won't matter at all.  And by then, we won't be able to fix things that have gone south.

I am afraid we are winning battles and losing the war, because we are not focusing on the critical elements of democracy. 

The panacea is not in the 3rd party-- it is in thinking that getting Dems in will prevent the destruction of our democracy, when all the evidence is to the contrary.  This is short term thinking, and if we keep indulging in it, we are done for.

 



[ Parent ]
Thank you, Mooncat!!!!! (4.00 / 1)


PREMIUM AD

blog advertising is good for you

SEARCH




Advanced Search



A community blog for progressive politics, ideas and current events in Alabama. Register now to join the conversation.


Friend and Follow Left In Alabama:

Join LIA's Facebook Page Go To LIA's Twitter Page Go To LIA's Flickr Photo Album Go To LIA's YouTube channel

MENU
- Mobile

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


LiA Contributors
- Admin
- Admin
- Economics & Aeronautics
- National Political Issues
- Political Strategy & Messaging
- Health Care
- Education in the Black Belt
- ADP Watch
- Climate & Alternative Energy
- Labor
- Alabama Legal Issues
- From the Center
- Equal Rights & GLBT Issues
- Roving Reporter

Please take our Blog Reader Project survey.

Support Left in Alabama with a Donation!

Your Amazon purchases can help fund this blog:
Support Left in Alabama
Buy Phones & More at Amazon Wireless


STANDARD ADS

T.H.E. Social Work Agency
Adoption home studies & care management services in the North Alabama area.
Licensed, certified, caring social workers.

Democracy Interactive
blog advertising is good for you


Arise Daily News
ALABAMA BLOGS
Bessemer Opinions
Decaturish
Birmingham Blues
Birmingham Science Examiner
freeThinkBham
Greg Varner's Blog
The Haze Filter
Hard Boiled Dreams of the World
King Cockfight
Legal Schnauzer
Loretta Nall
OsborneInk
Peace Takes Courage
Pippa Abston's Blog
TJ Beitel
Thoughts & Rants of an Independent
Time is Spherical, Not Linear
WriteChic Press

ALABAMA RESOURCES
ACLU of Alabama
Alabama Arise
Alabama Citizens for Constitutional Reform
Alabama Conservationist
Alabama Democratic Conference
Alabama Democratic Party
Alabama Legislature
Alabama Poverty Project
Alabama Secretary of State's Office
Encyclopedia of Alabama
Equality Alabama
Greater Birmingham Ministries
League of Women Voters of Alabama
Madison County Democrats
Marshall County Democrats
Over the Mountain Democrats
Alabama Political Reporter

SOUTHERN BLOGS
Blog for Democracy
Blue Oklahoma
Burnt Orange Report
Daily Kingfish
Facing South
KnoxViews
The Old Black Church
plezWorld
West Virginia Blue
Juanita Jean - Texas

BLOGROLL
African American Political Pundit
AmericaBlog
An Examination of Free Will
Bartcop
Blog for Rural America
Balloon Juice
Blue Gal
Booman Tribune
Borowitz Report
Science Blogs
Corrente
Crooks and Liars
Daily Kos
Docudharma
Eschaton
Firedoglake
First Draft
FiveThirtyEight
Hullabaloo
Jack and Jill
Juan Cole
La Vida Locavore
The Left Coaster
MyDD
My Left Wing
NASA Watch
Notion's Capital
Oliver Willis
Paul Krugman
Political Cortex
Scoobie Davis
Senate Guru
Spocko's Brain
Elections@DailyKOS
Suburban Guerilla
Talk To Action
Talking Points Memo
The Field Negro
The Oil Drum
Think Progress
US Politics News

RESOURCES
Racetracker
Anzalone Liszt Research
Center for American Progress
FEC Electronic Report Retrieval
Follow the Money
In Their Boots
New Organizing Institute
Opensecrets
Pew Research Center
Pollster
Progressive States Network
Stateline
The Contributor

Subscribe

 Subscribe in a reader

Subscribe in NewsGator Online

Subscribe in Bloglines

Add to My AOL

Add Left In Alabama - Front Page to Newsburst from CNET News.com

Add to Google Reader or Homepage

Powered by FeedBurner

Add to Technorati Favorites


Powered by: SoapBlox