Red Planet's picture

    Obama's Historic Opportunity

    By Red Planet on Sat, 07/02/2011 - 4:09am |

    In the back and forth following my post on David Frum's article ("A Dose Of Truth From David Frum"), I averred that "Obama was given a historically huge majority in Congress and a correspondingly huge mandate to change things for the better." brewmn corrected me and was right to do so. I was engaged in a bit of unnecessary hyperbole.

    Going back to the Great Depression, with few exceptions the Democrats enjoyed regular Congressional majorities, sometimes large ones, from 1933 through 1981. 

    I tend to date modern politics to the election of Ronald Reagan. It's just a convenience, and I know that the origins of trends we are seeing played out today predate Reagan by quite a bit. But the Reagan years offer a symbolic and highly visible turning point. During the 30 years since Reagan first took office there has been more variation in the party makeup of Congress. Let's take a look.

    Ronald Reagan

    Of the four Congresses that convened under Reagan, the first three were split, with Rs in control of the Senate and Ds in control of the House. Ds controlled both houses of the fourth and final Congress of Reagan's term. Reagan never enjoyed majority party support in Congress.

    George H. W. Bush

    Two Congresses convened under Bush I, with Ds in the majority of both houses. Bush I fought a Democratically controlled Congress throughout his term of office.

    Bill Clinton

    Ds controlled both houses only during the first Congress under Clinton. Rs controlled both houses during the next three Congresses. Clinton received opposition from the majority Republican party for 3/4th of his two terms. Much of the opposition was bitter, encompassing an extended Congressionally mandated investigation, and Impeachment. 

    George W. Bush

    Bush II's first Congress was split, with Ds mostly in control of the Senate (after Jeffords switched), and Rs controlling the House. Rs controlled both houses during the next two Congresses, with modest majorities. During the fourth Congress, Ds controlled the Senate (Lieberman and Sanders caucused with them) and Rs controlled the House.

    Barack Obama

    During Obama's first Congress, Ds controlled both houses with solid majorities. The two houses are currently split. 

    Obama began his term with a Congressional majority larger than Clinton's first Congress, and quite a bit larger than any majority enjoyed by Republicans during the past 30 years. Under Obama, the Democrats controlled a supermajority (3/5ths) in the Senate for the first time since Jimmy Carter's first term. Republicans have not had a Senate supermajority in modern times.

    So, subtracting my earlier exaggeration, I would not say that Obama was given a historically huge majority in Congress. I would say that he was given solid majorities, including a rare supermajority in the Senate; a better majority than any president has enjoyed since Jimmy Carter.

    And he was given a historic mandate for change. He campaigned on it. He won handily against bitter opposition. And he had the majorities in Congress, and the support of a majority of the people, that he needed to make it happen.

    Moreover, the need for change, the openness to change, and the direction of needed change, were never more obvious than they were on the day that Obama took office. That was, indeed, a historic opportunity.

    On that day most Americans believed that the new President was in a position to redirect the course of the nation, away from the predations of global finance, away from perpetual war and the growth of the security state, away from the policy and regulatory influence of large corporations and extraordinarily wealthy individuals. Toward renewal at home, job growth, better energy and climate policy, universal health care, government transparency and a better future for our children.

    There is no question that, between Obama and McCain, Obama was the better man for the job. There is no question in my mind that, between Obama and the next Republican presidential candidate, Obama will still be the better man. He has done better than any Republican would do. No one expects perfection. But, to the extent that he did not accomplish the goals he laid before us, the goals we supported, while he had a solid majority in Congress, he committed an unforced error and missed a historic opportunity.

    If we are to improve America, it won't be accomplished simply by supporting one candidate over another one for election. That's the easy part. The hard work is demanding improvement during every day of that candidate's term in office, seeing and admitting where we fall short of the goal and pressing, always pressing, for better outcomes, better performance, a better life for all of our people.

    It isn't all about the President, or about the next election. It's about us.

     

     

    Comments

    The lesson of Obama;   YOU CAN'T SERVE TWO MASTERS


    by Resistance on Sat, 07/02/2011 - 6:27am

    I wouldn't call Harry Reid exactly inspiring as the Senate leader. The GOP formed a solid block against Obama there were few cross-over votes cast. There were also Blue Dog Democrats in the mix. Some Blue Dogs got defeated, but so did Feingold and Grayson.

    Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) got voted out with help of a more Progressive candidate, Bill Halter, who ran against her in a primary race. Let's say Lincoln voted for Progressive issues 20% of the time, is that worse than the Republican who got elected and votes for Progressive issues 0% of the time? There are regions not ready at this point in time to vote for a Progressive. How do you solve that problem?

    I say this as someone who has to turn away from the screen when Landrieu is on.

    (Edited to add the sentence about Landrieu)


    by rmrd0000 on Sat, 07/02/2011 - 9:13am

    Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) got voted out with help of a more Progressive candidate, Bill Halter, who ran against her in a primary race.

    More nonsense here.  More progressive primary challengers are to blame when a sitting Democrat loses.  It's not up to the sitting Democrat to deliver enough or at least vote in ways such that she holds the votes of the people who voted her in in the first place.  

    No one actually agrees substantively with progressives--they are the "red-headed children" of American politics.  They are a bunch of fringe kooks mostly.  They should be safe to ignore, because every time you say no to them you will pick up more moderate and independent votes in the course of doing that.  

    But if, somehow, it doesn't work out that way, and you lose your re-election bid, it's the more progressive challenger's fault.  

    Am hoping you can square some of these circles for me.   


    by AmericanDreamer on Sat, 07/02/2011 - 11:17am

    My question was whether a Blue dog was better than a Republican given the demographics of a state like Arkansas.

    I folloed the races in Arkansas because Joyce Elliot, an African-American who was felt to be one of the best in the state Senate, was running for the seat of retiring Progressive Vic Snyder. Max Brantley, an Arkansas pundit who is Liberal, said that Halter's run harmed Lincoln. I got the same impression reading online articles about the Lincoln-Halter race.

    Brantley aldo predicted that Arkansas would not elect an African-American woman to replace Synder. It was the commentary coming out of the state that influence my comment.

    Now back to the question. Is it ever better to have  "sometimey" supportive Blue Dog versus a completely "stonewallled" Republican?


    by rmrd0000 on Sat, 07/02/2011 - 1:31pm

    Now back to the question. Is it ever better to have  "sometimey" supportive Blue Dog versus a completely "stonewallled" Republican?

    If those are the only actual alternatives, then from the standpoint of someone who favors a progressive point of view on all issues (which does not include me), of course it is.  A-man did a great job of breaking down the votes of bluedog House Dems on some key votes such as cap-and-trade and health care (can't recall if he did financial reform and the public jobs bill as well) and showed that roughly as many voted for as against those.  So the perception or charge or what have you that bluedogs are a monolithic bloc, and no better than stonewalling, no-to-everything Republicans on all issues is demonstrably false. 


    by AmericanDreamer on Sat, 07/02/2011 - 3:54pm

    Apparently it didn't come across well, my argument was that in certain states, Blue Dogs were the only likely alternative. My impression from Brantley was that Halter, like Elliot was not going to win. The state was not going to vote for a progressive for the Senate.

     


    by rmrd0000 on Sat, 07/02/2011 - 4:37pm

    A report from "the troops on the ground" here in Arkansas. Blanche was always not going to win the general. She'd alienated Democrats, who stayed away in droves, and Republicans wanted one of their own.

    Halter had a chance, because he had the ability to energize Democrats. But Obama & company threw massive support behind Lincoln and trashed the unions that supported Halter. Good strategy.


    by Red Planet on Sat, 07/02/2011 - 7:39pm

    I think you're right on, AD. Halter did no damage to Blanche Lincoln. She damaged herself, voted against and, moreove, fought against progressive causes, was always one of two or three saboteurs working openly inside the Senate Democratic majority. She alienated Ds here in Arkansas, and, of course, was not a real Republican. Here time came and went. 

    Halter, and the labor unions that supported him were the ones who were most damaged, by the President national Democratic Party leadership.


    by Red Planet on Sat, 07/02/2011 - 7:45pm

    Harry Reid is not an inspiring Senate leader (wonder whatever happened to "Give 'Em Hell Harry" Reid?). Republicans haven't had inspiring leadership in the Senate either. Robert Frist? Trent Lott?

    Being an Arkansas descended from Arkansans, and having moved back by choice after sojourning in California, Florida and New Mexico, I have a few things to say about the Blanche Lincoln debacle.

    Blanche was a losing bet. She'd alienated Democrats across the state but wasn't a Republican, so she was always likely to lose against a strong Republican candidate. Bill Halter put a scare in her, and may have been able to beat the Republican in the general election by energizing Democratic support, but Obama and the national Democratic establishment poured money into her campaign and publicly trashed Halter and the labor unions that supported him, even though she was one of the biggest obstacles to better health care reform and a number of other projects he professed to care about.

    Dumb move. A plus for the R side of the Senate, and a minus for the credibility of Democrats.

    If Democrats don't support progressive candidates, no one else will. 


    by Red Planet on Sat, 07/02/2011 - 4:27pm

    I know there are people who do not believe this, but ACA is huge, and I might I add, historic. And certainly we cannot compare Roosevelt era to our current era.  Of course I believe ACA was the one thing the President and the congress needed to do and Nancy Pelosi is truly a rock star, because she took the lead in passing that piece of legislation. We all know the Senate had a problem, yes they had a numerical super-majority, but it did not exist in any real way. If it had a government insurance company would have been formed to compete with private insurers. Did you really expect Lieberman or Baucus to vote for that? But that is essentially what the public option is, a government insurance company.  ACA, in my opinion, is a huge step forward.

    And of course there have been countless advancement in progressive policies under this Administration.

    1. Launched recovery.gov to track spending from the Recovery Act, providing transparency and allowing the public to report fraud, waste, or abuse

    2. Provided the Department of Veterans Affairs with more than $1.4 billion to improve services to America's Veterans

    3. Signed the Children's Health Insurance Reauthorization Act, which provides health care to 11 million kids -- 4 million of whom were previously uninsured

    4. Issued executive order to repeal Bush era restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research

    5. Signed the Christopher and Dana Reeve Paralysis Act, the first piece of comprehensive legislation aimed at improving the lives of Americans living with paralysis

    6. Developed stimulus package, which includes approx. $18 billion for non-defense scientific research and development.

    Let's discuss scientific research for just one minute, because Republicans don't believe the government should do any real research that might conflict the private industry making money. However, every single day when you use the internet, as everyone now knows you are using something developed entirely by the government, ARPANET (Advanced Research Projects Agency Network), DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency). Without government research we would not even have calculators, we'd still be using slide rules (which most people couldn't use if they tried anyway, and that is 17th century technology) Solar Cells, government research, Cubic Zirconia, yep government research, it is refractory research used to coat the space shuttle. Republicans have indicated they don't believe in funding such research. Instead they would rely private industry to conduct research. We know for a fact that private industry doesn't invest in R&D unless it has a money outcome for them. Government research instead is real research, that doesn't necessarily generate money until the large application for the general public is found, and then and only then do private companies begin to utilize and expand it in a commercial way.

    7. Signed the Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform Act to stop fraud and wasteful spending in the defense procurement and contracting system

    8. Increased minority access to capital

    9. Established Credit Card Bill of Rights, preventing credit card companies from imposing arbitrary rate increases on customers, I don't know about you, but this one seems pretty important to regular people.

    10. Health Care Reform Bill, allowing children to remain covered by their parents' insurance until the age of 26, I like this one personally, since I have kids.

    11. Tax cuts for up to 3.5 million small businesses to help pay for employee health care coverage

    12. Tax credits for up to 29 million individuals to help pay for health insurance

    13. Expansion of Medicaid to all individuals under age 65 with incomes up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level.

    14. Lily Ledbetter act

    15. Eliminated subsidies to private lender middlemen of student loans and protect student borrowers

    16. Significantly expanded Pell grants, which help low-income students pay for college

    There are many more, I won't add them, but the list is quite large.  I want to know why so many people don't acknowledge the progressive legislation that has passed, but why folks continue to beat the drum that this President and his administration hasn't lived up to their promises, when the evidence indicates otherwise.


    by tmccarthy0 on Sat, 07/02/2011 - 1:35pm

    A lot of good programs, except for one thing. You don't put the cart before the horse.

    People are losing their homes, why would I care about pell grants,unless maybe I could sleep in the college library?

    Tax credits are good, if you make enough income to take advantage of them

    Obama says "Let let them eat cake"  when what I really wanted was to be able to make bread. under my own roof, sheltered from the coming storms. Maybe the ability to buy a few groceries without coming to the Government for a handout.  

    Then they can say isnt government good, you need us.

    We tell the Government agents "You've made us dependant upon you, maybe we should move to the reservations too.  Government financed public housing, where you'll make us obey  and where you government agents can keep an eye on us. We give up our freedom and you'll take care of us. Maybe you'll give us some blankets too?"   

    We want jobs, so we be can be free.

    You've allowed offshore outsourcing, (You've killed our bufffalo (life sustaining) and now you want to help us?  

    ( I watched Bury My  Heart at Wounded Knee)

     


    by Resistance on Sat, 07/02/2011 - 2:48pm

    1. Pell grants are necessary for the poor Resistance so they can obtain education to move up in society, the importance of this program is evident, look at our President. He is not from the upper class but he was able to move up because education was available to him.

    2 The President is not Marie Antoinette and there is no evidence he has ever implied what you've stated, let alone said it. You are implying he simply doesn't care, and that is a judgement call, but not an analysis of what happened to all those people losing their  homes. When you state he simply doesn't care, you would be factually incorrect. 

    3. He signed financial reform law establishing a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to look out for the interests of everyday Americans, do you think this does not apply to those who have lost their homes. And you believe that those people who have lost their home see no need in having their children take advantage of the programs they need to attain some sort of higher education, whether that is in a community or technical college or a four year program. We know for a fact that those people who further their education have a greater chance to gain stable employment.

    4. Signed financial reform law requiring lenders to verify applicants' credit history, income, and employment status, this should protect consumers from predatory lending, don't you believe some of the reason people are losing their homes were due to predatory lending practices?

    5. Signed financial reform law prohibiting banks from engaging in proprietary trading (trading the bank's own money to turn a profit, often in conflict with their customers' interests)

    To simply say the President doesn't care, is sloppy and is backed up by no facts. Basically you are saying he must turn all that ails the country around in  years, while it took us more than 30 years to get to where we are currently, by himself.  Does he accomplish what you demand by fiat? Significant deregulation began under Jimmy Carter when he deregulated the airline industry and the country moved towards greater deregulation since then. How can you expect it to be turned around in 2.5 years? 

    But simply saying the President doesn't care, come on, really, that is what you believe, but it is not born out by the facts at hand.


    by tmccarthy0 on Sat, 07/02/2011 - 2:58pm

    Obama didn’t want to lead the revolution against the failed policies of Reaganomics or Bush' ruination of our country 

    When he said he was the only thing between the bankers and the angry mobs, he showed what side he stood. Which side are you on Mr. Obama? Don’t give me talks about cake, thinking I'll be satisfied? 

    All this icing you listed looks good. but it isn’t putting food on the table, it isn’t keeping our houses form being foreclosed upon. It doesn’t bring back the good jobs.” Look at the pretty frosting Obama has given us”.

    Wow!  Minorities can now borrow money to start a business, except where’s the customers?  Hey Mr. and Mrs.  Minority, you borrowed the money you  do need to pay it back. 

    The icing looks good,  but where's the donut? Let them eat cake frosting?  The rich got the bread and the cake.

    Someone tell me, what subjects the kids getting Pell grants should take up? Who pays for it?

    You wrote about reporting waste and fraud, how’s that working out for whistle blowers? 

    Look at all that cake I gave you folks. 

    As Mondale once said "Where’s the beef"

    http://dagblog.com/politics/debt-ceiling-dumb-show-10939#comment-126935


    by Resistance on Sat, 07/02/2011 - 3:32pm

    Health Care Reform and American Politics: What Everyone Needs to Know, by Lawrence Jacobs and Theda Skocpol, is a book I would hope that those who see only negatives, and no positive provisions or possibilities, coming out of ACA, would read.  Its approach is not to lecture those who disliked the legislation about what dirty, smelly, purist leftist freaks they are but to provide additional information on what is in the bill that some who dislike it may not be aware of. 

    I don't know how to answer the hypothetical question of whether or not a public option provision could have been obtained had it been handled differently.  It wasn't handled differently. It was handled the way it was.  I'm certainly one who was upset about it at the time.  

    The individual mandate provision, in particular, was and is highly problematic because people who don't have money to put up out of pocket aren't going to be able to buy coverage. To get tax credits you have to lay out up front and we have so much inequality and so many paycheck to paycheck families, some of whom are already deep in debt or facing foreclosures, that a great many people aren't going to be able to do that.  It's like trying to get blood from a stone.  To then pile on and subject such folks to fines--well, that was handing to the GOP and the government-bashers a red meat issue on a silver platter.

    But continuing to be upset about it isn't going to change what we have.  If there is some practical way of getting a better policy if the House Republicans refuse to fund it, I'd certainly be interested in hearing such proposals.  Otherwise, it seems the best we can do is try to fix the worst parts, take advantage of such positive opportunities as it provides, learn from it, and build on it. There is no question that even with its serious limitations it will help many people.    

    I find the question "is it progressive or not?" an unhelpful question.  It is what it is.  


    by AmericanDreamer on Sat, 07/02/2011 - 4:24pm

     if the House Republicans refuse to fund it,

    But why is the house in Repugnant hands?  It is because Prez & Co. fatally mismanaged the politics of his first two years in office.  Indeed, a public option (let alone medicare for all) would very likely have produced widespread satisfaction with the ACA instead of widespread disillusionment.

    Max Baucus was a very bad choice to walk point on this, and the choice of his old retainer, Jim Messina, as the  present campaign honcho is a serious "tell".


    by jollyroger on Sat, 07/02/2011 - 4:46pm

    They cannot refuse to fund it jollyroger it is already in US Code and has amended Public Health Service Act 27, this provision is one that congressional Republicans are seeking to have voided, because unless the ACA is thrown out, these provisions stand and they are required to fund them. Thank Nancy Pelosi as she knows how the government works unlike the current speaker who literally has no control over those TBags. I included a link in my response below. The house is in Republican hands because so many people demagogue the issue of health insurance, and other issues of course and demagoguery often wins over fact.  Pointing to a blog that supports your opinion that the President fatally mismanaged the politics his first two years in office, is not evidence or fact, it is opinion. I've presented the facts of the many progressive policies passed and implemented during this administration. Ignoring those forward moves is of course your choice, I choose not to ignore them.


    by tmccarthy0 on Sat, 07/02/2011 - 5:22pm

    unless the ACA is thrown out, these provisions stand and they are required to fund them.

    ACA tax credit provisions reimbursing individuals and employers for insurance premium payments are now effectively part of the tax code and therefore don't require the Congressional Appropriations committees to fund them each year.  They are available to any taxpayers who qualifiy for them, whether individuals or businesses.  I had thought that there were some provisions in ACA that don't work through the now amended tax code but do require annual Congressional appropriations, now problematic with the House in GOP hands.  Perhaps someone deeper into the weeds on the details of ACA can answer this question.

    tmac, how do you respond to the criticism made that there are so many families living paycheck to paycheck now, if they even have jobs, under severe duress, that many will not be able to come up with the upfront cash they need to make the premium payments, in order to qualify for and receive the subsequent tax credits, which they would receive only many months later?  And that to further subject these families to fines for not doing so is wrong, no matter how concededly important it is to the whole logic of HC reform to include everyone, or virtually everyone?  Not asking if you agree with that criticism to the point of thinking the bill therefore should not have passed--I gather that you don't.  But do you understand why that is such a huge issue for many progressives, that it doesn't amount to somehow expecting legislative perfection or whining over a relatively small point?


    by AmericanDreamer on Sat, 07/02/2011 - 6:14pm

    They cannot refuse to fund it 

    The hell they can't.  There is a difference between money authorized and money appropriated.

    They are doing a pretty good imitation of defunding so far.

    Recall that Iran-Contra was a desperation move required bycongressional riders refusing funding for the Nicaraguan adventure.

    Not to mention that when the originating house sends a comprehensive bill to the senate with no money for ACA required expenses, there is no remedy but refusal to agree to the funding bill as it stands, and close down.

    Without a budget resolution, furthermore, I think even normal strictures militating against house recalcitrance are limited.


    by jollyroger on Sat, 07/02/2011 - 6:17pm

    But why is the house in Repugnant hands?  It is because Prez & Co. fatally mismanaged the politics of his first two years in office. 

    I don't think that is obvious, and rarely if ever is there just one factor accounting for these kinds of things.  Where does the Senate's unwillingness to change its rules to keep so many House-passed bills from coming up for a vote factor in?   Who is responsible for some wildly inaccurate and damaging perceptions about the HC bill and the stimulus bill gaining traction?  Is 100% of that on the White House?  But I am inclined to agree that was a major factor.  In any case the situation now is what it is.

    Max Baucus was a very bad choice to walk point on this.

    Obama and the White House don't get to decide this kind of question.  Health care's financing aspects inevitably brought in the Senate Finance Committee--unless the Senate would have been willing to make a very rare exception to its customary practices of referring bills to the committee(s) of jurisdiction.  Such possibilities for doing so may have been looked into by the White House or others and may even have been a subject of discussion with Reid at some point. I don't know if the answer to that question is already known now (someone here may know that), or whether the historians will have to let us know down the road a bit, perhaps.  But barring some extremely unusual procedural departure, Baucus was going to be a key player no matter what the White House wanted.  They needed a bill out of his Committee so they had to deal with him. They may have had viable alternative ways of dealing with him--but that's a different question. 


    by AmericanDreamer on Sat, 07/02/2011 - 5:57pm

     They needed a bill out of his Committee

    You may be right vis-a-vis the use of reconciliation as a tactic to outflank the filibuster.

    That said, the White House could have trumped much of the worst Baucusism by drafting a bill in full and presenting it to him.

    Plus, if Baucus was really an unwelcome and uncongenial guest at the table, why Messina as current campaign chair?


    by jollyroger on Sat, 07/02/2011 - 6:10pm

    That said, the White House could have trumped much of the worst Baucusism by drafting a bill in full and presenting it to him.

    They certainly could have drafted and had introduced their own bill.  That is often done by Presidents.  As has been suggested by many they may have "overlearned" from the Clinton HC setback on that.  In any case, had they introduced their own bill to try to have more influence over the terms of debate, members of Congress are entirely free, of course, to work their will on it. And surely they would have.  With a President of their own party, there might have been some deference on some key White House "asks".  Again, perhaps some here happen to know if the White House seriously considered introducing its own bill.  Or we may need to have the historians tell us.  

    Plus, if Baucus was really an unwelcome and uncongenial guest at the table, why Messina as current campaign chair?

    There are reasons for hiring campaign chairs that don't have anything to do with their own personal substantive views.  There are far more important things a White House running for re-election is looking for in someone for that job.  In fact, that person's substantive policy views are probably a very minor factor if they are a factor at all in judging whether or not they are a good person to hire.  Messina's personal views on HC policy may be Baucus' or they may not be in all respects.  Staffers are not supposed to let it be known if they happen to disagree with their boss on policy.

    That said, knowing even what I know about Messina, when I get fundraising solicitations for Obama from him, they get deleted before being read.  I definitely have a negative reaction to the guy.  But as I've already said I have no plans to contribute any money to Obama's re-election campaign.  There are people who, if they asked me to, might make me reconsider.  So far I haven't been asked by any of them yet.   


    by AmericanDreamer on Sat, 07/02/2011 - 6:26pm

    Social security was fixed over the years too, because originally women and minorities were excluded from collecting social security. Yet we look at Social Security as a progressive piece of legislation.

    Let's look at the history of social security: From wikipedia: 

    Most women and minorities were excluded from the benefits of unemployment insurance and old age pensions. Employment definitions reflected typical white male categories and patterns.[13] Job categories that were not covered by the act included workers in agricultural labor, domestic service, government employees, and many teachers, nurses, hospital employees, librarians, and social workers.[14] The act also denied coverage to individuals who worked intermittently.[15] These jobs were dominated by women and minorities. For example, women made up 90% of domestic labor in 1940 and two-thirds of all employed black women were in domestic service.[16] Exclusions exempted nearly half of the working population.[15] Nearly two-thirds of all African Americans in the labor force, 70 to 80% in some areas in the South, and just over half of all women employed were not covered by Social Security.[17][18] At the time, the NAACP protested the Social Security Act, describing it as “a sieve with holes just big enough for the majority of Negroes to fall through.”[18]

    The legislation evolved over the years into what we see now, which does not exclude citizens.

    The thing about an insurance based system means that in order to bring costs down, there must be an "all in" mandate. It is a way to force costs down.  Obviously grants are needed so that the working poor will have access to the system. And those provisions are within ACA,  93.519:

    Consumer Assistance Program Grants

    This amends the public health service act section 27. These are the provisions that the republicans wish to repeal. Although, it will be very difficult for them to do so. But of course there is a gran process for the underprivileged. It isn't as if those democrats in congress didn't realize this would be a necessary provision to provide coverage to those who do not receive any sort of preventive care. In my own mind it is progressive.

    There are steps to take, evolutionary steps to take even in legislation. As I've pointed out previously, forever, in 1911 the UK instituted a Universal Insurance coverage mandate it was called the National Insurance Act of 1911. Germany did it first in 1883 I think.  Under the 1911 Act, every worker who earned under £160/year had to insure themself by paying 4 pence, the employer paid 3 pence, and general taxation paid 2 pence (Lloyd George called it the ninepence for fourpence). I don't believe we are exempt from these steps. It took the UK until 1948 to create and intitutue the NHS, which people pay for in their taxes, no one is exempt from that if they are working, and depending upon how much you make, will determine how much you contribute to the NHS. Of course you can continue to get private insurance in the UK. All in, everyone contributes.


    by tmccarthy0 on Sat, 07/02/2011 - 5:07pm

    Latest Comments