I recently made this post on my FaceBook page and it stimulated a lot of discussion:
It
has been suggested that I "stop bitching" about Obamacare with the
question following: What did we get from the Republicans? The suggestion
being that Obamacare is better than the Republican "plan."
Here is my response:
Obamacare is based on RomneyCare which is based on a scheme devised by
right-wing think tanks. So, to answer your question: What did we get
from the Republicans? We got Obamacare.
These are my responses to questions and comments:
I was accused of being against single-payer.
My response:
I
never said that single-payer universal health care was "bad." In fact,
as an elected delegate and as an elected member of the State Central
Committee I led the six year fight to get the best resolution in the
United States passed by a 72%
majority by the State Convention of the Minnesota Democratic
Farmer-Labor Party. (the resolution was later altered to conform to
Obamacare but that is another story of how the Democratic Party is
manipulated and controlled by big-business interests.)
But,
in leading this struggle to get this resolution passed, I always made
the point that single-payer universal health care like they have in
Canada should be considered as a first step towards a national public
health care system.
Had
I not presented single payer in this way, we never would have recruited
the huge number of delegates we needed to pass this resolution--- some
600 delegates; there were about 1,800 delegates at the state convention.
As
Canadians are finding out, and as Tommy Douglas himself warned,
single-payer is only a short-term fix for a problem which requires
nothing less than socialized health care and from his death bed he
repeated this message.
We
need a health care system based on the same universal system as public
education. If anyone suggested that we have education "privately
delivered" in our public schools we would look at them as some kind of
freaks and kooks.
Public education is is:
1. Publicly financed.
2. Publicly administered.
3. Publicly delivered.
Why wouldn't we have the exact same approach to health care?
In
Canada, Tommy Douglas "settled" for single-payer as an important reform
to health care but NEVER viewed single-payer as THE solution.
If
the Democrats and Republicans want to agree to single-payer, fine; but,
they don't. They are not as far-sighted as Canada's ruling elites were
when they made Tommy Douglas the deal.
Francis
Perkins, FDR's Secretary of Labor, insisted that a National Public
Health Care System be part of the New Deal and she was allied with
Communist labor leader Harry Bridges, Minnesota's socialist Farmer-Labor
Party and liberals, progressives and leftists across the country on
this point. She wanted a National Public Health Care System to be
financed from a payroll tax placed on workers and employers just like
Social Security (in fact, this is the way Canada finances its
single-payer system.)
In
fact, Linda, single-payer is not THE cheapest way to cover most
people--- a National Public Health Care System is... with the added
bonus that it creates more than four times the number of jobs!
If,
in fact, you believe single-payer with private delivery of health care
is the cheapest way out then you must believe that when it comes to
public education private delivery of education is the cheapest way to
provide public education and I seriously doubt you are prepared to make
this argument... and we both know why you wouldn't try to do this.
And; the fact is, it is cheaper to provide people with health care than it is to provide them with education. This is FACT.
this is an important fact because I am always asked: But how much will such a National Public Health Care System cost?
My
answer is: I don't know; but if we compare the amount spent on public
education to the amount spent on militarism and these dirty wars,
spending on public education comes in far behind that which is spent on
militarism and wars so the cost of providing the American people with
free health care shouldn't even be an issue--- just stop this military
insanity and these dirty imperialist wars that no one but Wall Street
wants just like Wall Street backs Obamacare because, like with wars,
there are profits to be made.
And
if Wall Street were forced to take its greedy hands out of public
education we could provide public education much cheaper. One text book
cost the public school systems as much as a visit to the doctor. Of
course, the real comparison is how many visits to the doctor could be
had for the cost of a drone.
And the discussion continued...
It was pointed out to me, correctly, that this ACA scheme goes back to Nixon.
My answer is this:
I
don't know how far back we can trace the ACA's history; but, one thing
for certain: it is a thoroughly reactionary scheme. Every single
reactionary scheme has to have some elements that make it appear to be
good because otherwise these reactionary schemes couldn't be packaged
and sold to the people.
Obama himself is an example of a reactionary being prettied up with progressive sounding rhetoric.
Can
anyone imagine Obama getting elected pitching the kind of legislation
he has brought forward? No. Obama is all lies. But lies fabricated in a
way to make them sound appealing. Same thing with the ACA.
That
we need to hire an attorney to find out just what we are entitled to
with Obamacare should tell us everything we need to know.
An
entire new and very lucrative industry has popped up teaching employers
how to get out from under their health care obligations to employees
under Obamacare.
Again;
Obamacare is the "Health Insurance and Pharmaceutical Industry Bailout
and Profit Maximization Act of 2010." And doctors profit very handsomely
from this legislation, too.
I asked a question:
Have
you ever sat for a day in a bankruptcy court? I have. About 80% of the
cases I heard involved huge health care costs and every single one of
the people had "health insurance."
My response to a New York Time's article:
The
ACA classifications of health insurance: Bronze, Silver, Gold and
Platinum. What kind of shit do you call this? The rich get Platinum; the
poor get shit called "Bronze."
My further comment:
Every reactionary scheme like ACA needs a few good things to suck people in.
And this response from me:
Did
you read the article from the New York Times that you posted, David,
saying about 7 million poor would receive government subsidies?
"The bulk of these plans are so-called bronze policies, the least expensive available. They require people to pay the most in out-of-pocket costs, for doctor visits and other benefits like hospital stays."
Does this make sense? The poorest people will pay the most in out of pocket expenses.