Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Politics In General Is it too soon to be talking 2020?

Nope, it's a piece of paper describing a law, and that's about it.
Case in point, my disabled son, who among those in need of adequate health insurance, is now uninsurable once again, just as he was prior to the ACA.
We are hoping he can manage until he gets put on Medicare for SSI, but administration cuts to both will impact him as well.
And it may be up to eighteen months before he ever gets approved for Medicare anyway, so in the meantime the ACA is meaningless for him.

A kid who got three open heart surgeries before age five, has a baseline oximeter O2 average of 78, and the following heart defects, is a valid need for health insurance if ever there was one.

1. Transposition of the Great Arteries
2. Double outlet right ventricle
3. DSV
4. Mitral valve defect
5. Pulmonary stenosis

He is a Fontan patient.

Fontan procedure



Daryl is in that 20-30 percent category.
And yet, this "ACA" you speak of, which is "the law" will no longer help him. That's directly due to successful Republican efforts to destroy the ACA. They WON...the battle is over.

Say what you wish, but I am showing you real world evidence that the ACA does not exist anymore in any practical sense whatsoever.

It's just like the fact that you ignore other facts that I presented to you. LOL, they don't align with the agenda you promote, therefore they don't count, I guess.
You're a good man, Perotista, but you need to come out of that silo and face reality, just a little bit.
The reality is, the Party of Trump is destroying basic and essential American institutions.

It is and always has been their openly stated intention.

Jeffery, I never been a political activist and am too darn old to change now. I've always been more of a political strategist, a forecaster if you follow my monthly forecasts on DP. I was born and raised on a farm where we were pretty much self sufficient. Then I made the military a career, 21 years active duty, another 26 working for the army as a civilian.

Now I became interest in politics watching the democratic and Republican conventions on TV back in 1956. I liked IKE although most around me liked Stevenson. Even then I started thinking what IKE would need to do to win. The answer was nothing really, just be IKE cause everybody liked IKE. So even back at the age of 10 I started thinking political strategy. Even in the military, I could tell you who would win and why. I could tell you why so and so lost.

I never delved deep into policies or the issues. I still don't. What I want to see is both major parties working together for the good of the country, not just for the good of their party which has become the case today. If a party or a president wants to move on to bigger and better things tomorrow, sometimes the party or the president has to give up on that policy, issue or agenda today. A president has so much political capital to use before he ceases to be a factor.

JFK realized this with Medicare, civil rights etc. He knew the time wasn't ripe, pushing it and using up all his political capital would doom these things for the near and perhaps even far into the future. In 1964 and 65, LBJ realized the time had come. He jumped. But if JFK has pushed those things, you could be talking 1974 or 75 before they happened, if then. You have to get the American people on your side, that takes times.

Strategy wise the ACA was a mistake, the people weren't ready. It passed, then we got 6 years of nothing. 6 years of using up every bit of political capital Obama had just to keep it. 6 years of fighting tooth and nail by the democrats in congress to keep it. I'd have let it drop in 2009/10 and moved on to other bigger and better things until the time was ripe.

Sure you can say the ACA is a failure due to the Republicans, but if the people were behind the ACA to begin with, the GOP couldn't dismantle it as you put it. Not without huge electoral consequences. That's the difference, my thinking is dealing with strategy. What could Obama have accomplished with a Democratic congress throughout his entire eight years? We'll never know because he and the democrats decided to go against the majority of the peoples wishes in 2009/10 with the ACA. They weren't ready for it and rebelled. Now with Trump and company, what do you have left of that? There's an old saying, there's a time and a place for everything. The time wasn't right for the ACA. Not for the major overhaul anyway. Bits and pieces, you bet. Perhaps one should study history and learn from it.

Perhaps I'm dealing with what could have been, you with what was.

I did like the silo metaphor.

Pero, the problem seems to be that you did not read Wendell Potter's account of how CIGNA and all the other health insurance megacorps SHAPED public opinion.

They SHAPED IT, Potter comes right out and explains exactly how HE and his counterparts at the other companies did it, the how, the why and the wherefore.
Potter explains it all in clear and concise fashion, on his site, his blogs and even in the docu "Deadly Spin".

So, when you SAY things like:


AND


it is crystal clear that you've missed the entire point about the role the companies played in SHAPING all of that.
As I've said countless times, when persons and groups spend enormous sums to shape public opinion, they generally expect results, and they get them.

So, to say that "the people weren't ready" is nonsense.
The people, "THE PEOPLE" were led around by the nose like Ferdinand the Bull, and told what they should think, and the media was told in no uncertain terms that their revenue might be in danger if they didn't play along as well, because the media (not JUST the news, the entire media industry) is dependent upon health insurance and pharmaceutical advertising...NEITHER OF WHICH were even LEGAL back in JFK's time...remember?

Doctors, lawyers, liquor, drugs (except OTC like aspirin) and health insurance were for the most part BARRED from direct advertising on television up until the mid-1970's, with liquor being among the LAST to finally be allowed on TV.

Liquor finally snuck in, but it took almost TEN YEARS after cigarette ads were banned. Most people though liquor would never be allowed.
In fact, up until a few years ago, the act of drinking beer, wine or liquor wasn't allowed either.

And now that these industries ARE allowed, television is now dependent upon their ad revenue, heavily so.

Sorry Pero, claims that "the people were not ready" fall flat because "it is an easy matter to drag the people" along wherever you need them.

Just deny them access to the facts, and inundate them with scary stories and fearmongering.
Works every time.

And voila! President Trump... were the people ready for that?

Its interesting. Was hitler on the right or left? Seems to be a big deal. I also note that some are suggesting, now, that the germans were "democratic socialists". Nope, they were members of the "German Nationalist Socialist Party". They were, in every sense, SOCIALISTS! They socialized just about everything from transportation to healthcare. Here is a link:
https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/09/05/were-nazis-socialists/

In case that one is too offensive here is a paragraph:
The Nazis were left-wing socialists. Yes, the National Socialist Workers Party of Germany, otherwise known as the Nazi Party, was indeed socialist and it had a lot in common with the modern left. Hitler preached class warfare, agitating the working class to resist “exploitation” by capitalists , particularly Jewish capitalists, of course. Their programs called for the nationalization of education, health care, transportation, and other major industries. They instituted and vigorously enforced a strict gun control regimen. They encouraged pornography, illegitimacy, and abortion, and they denounced Christians as right-wing fanatics. Yet a popular myth persists that the Nazis themselves were right-wing extremists. This insidious lie biases the entire political landscape today.

In other words nazis were socialists (regardless of what other word you want to add, like, "democratic". If you read much about them you will find that Bernie would have fit right in, at least in the beginning. its also true that most socialism starts without one person, or a small group, taking over EVERYTHING! That is, however, how all socialist operations try and go to in the end.

Its interesting. In Italy Mussolini is still remembered as a "wonderful man" and he only went bad when he joined up with Hitler. His family home still exists as does his family and they are also well thought of by many. When you talk to those who admire they all blame everything on Hitler. Again, its interesting.

Because I cannot resist I will also add that Bernie has lost. It is agreed, by many, that he lost because he made sure the word "Socialist" accompanied his name. Its always been there because that is, exactly what he is. (the 'democratic' part came later but doesn't change the facts). Bernie has remained exactly the same for over 30 years. He has not given an inch. This is also the reason he has so very little legislation with his name on it. He claims to have led this, or that, over the years. Maybe so, if so, his name was never on it because he lost. One would have thought he would have figured it out but, nope, he did not. He was/is absolutely right and that is the one thing he is absolutely sure of. I also find it interesting that he is claiming the support of 'all' the young people. Even that is, and was not, true. He did/does have a young following but as far as the voting goes more of the young supported Biden than Bernie (I was not for either one - they are too damned old)

Anyway - I apologize for upsetting those of you who are for Bernie. In politics there are always two sides and I am on the anti-socialist, anti-Bernie side. Sorry about that. I think the difference is that I really don't want to hurt any of those who support Bernie, I am not sure about how those who support Bernie feel about those like me but, I suspect, its not a good feeling. What makes it all interesting is that I actually support a lot of what Bernie claims he wants. I just don't agree on how he wants it done. I have said it before and will repeat. I think that Bernie wants it his way no matter what anybody else thinks and that, I think, is the real problem.

I think the real problem is that you are lost in the dismal swamp of variable word definitions and can't find your way back to where reasonable people can discuss ideas with an open mind.

What do you think?

Jeffrey, we are arguing apples and oranges. I'm talking about the majority of people being against the ACA, when passed. Thus resulting in the 2010 whipping the democrats took. Any political strategist or even politician, elected official could look at the numbers and come to the conclusion they would be paying a huge political price. Obama and the Democrats decided to go ahead anyway, they accepted the price they would pay which passing the ACA meant losing the House.

Now there may be tons of reasons why the majority of Americans were against it. But the fact is they were. It's also a fact the Democrat choose to go against public opinion at that time.

Perhaps the best course once they viewed the numbers was to say, oops, perhaps we need to postpone this until we can get more information out to the people on the pluses and minuses. We need the peoples support. Why the people thought the ACA was bad and got them all riled up, is irrelevant to me. I'm a numbers guy, not a policy wonk.

If you grab a political history book, look under why the democrats lost 63 seats in 2010, the number one reason is passage of the ACA against the wishes of most Americans. At least a majority of Americans. Now you can fully believe in the ACA and that it is the best thing since sliced bread to happen. That's fine, that's not what I'm talking about. I talking about the number one reason for the 2010 defeat.

Raising federal taxes, especially on social security taxable amount in 1993 was the number one reason the democrats lost the house in 1994. The never ending wars and the beginning of the recession is why the Republicans lost the house in 2006. People were just plain tired of Republican rule. The dislike of Trump with his obnoxious, uncouth ways and very unpresidential behavior led to the Republicans losing the house in 2018.

When swing voters get angry at the party in power for what ever reason, just or not, they vote the other party in. There's more to it than that little short synopsis. Just look at this, how independents, swing voters swing back and forth when they get angry.

1992 Democratic house, independents/swing voters 52-45 Democratic, 1994 independents voted Republican 55-40, the Democrats lost the house for the first time in 40 years.

2004 Republican house, independents voted 53-44 for Republicans, 2006 swing voters voted Democratic 57-39, Democrats regained control of the House

2008 Democratic house, independents voted 52-45 for Democrats, 2010 independents voted 56-39 for Republicans, the GOP regained the House.

2016 Republican house, swing voters voted 51-47 Republican, 2018 independents voted 54-42 Democratic as the democrats regain the house.

You had a 22 point swing between 1992/94, a 27 point swing between 2004/06, a 24 point swing between 2008/10 and a 16 point swing between 2016/18 among one group of voters, independents/swing voters. Dissatisfaction and anger among them at the party who held the house and the president.

Funny how difficult it was for Trump and the Republicans to finally tear it down, even in Red states.
See, now that the paid hysteria has died down and Americans finally had a chance to see that it's a good idea, now they want Trump to leave it alone.

You're still ignoring the role that was played by paid special interests and astroturf, and you're calling it the will of the people, when it's clearly not.

If Democrats had backed off and taken a second run at it after the midterms we might be living in an entirely different world.

You know, I think the numbers back you up on that. But it didn't work out that way, so we'll never know for sure.

By the way, Biden has been declared the winner in both Florida and Illinois. Polls close in Arizona 2200 eastern. With 82% of the precincts reporting in Florida, its Biden 61-23% over Sanders. Biden has nabs 130 delegates to 48 for sanders so far. In Illinois it's Biden 55-40 over Sanders with 11% counted. Delegates 93 Biden, 46 Sanders.

real close to what the polls were showing for the last week.

One of the biggest reason the democrats rushed the ACA through was when Teddy Kennedy died, their filibuster proof majority in the senate vanished. They had to get it through before Scott Brown was sworn in.

It's my understand the bill wasn't ready, still needed a lot of fixing but that the democrats thought they could fix anything wrong with it after it was passed and signed into law. They never dreamed they would lose the house. But putting it off until after the midterms or even in Obama's second term as president certainly would have caused history to be different. The ACA became a rallying cry for Republicans once it passed and it worked. first by the GOP gaining 63 seats in the house, folks forget the democrats also lost 8 senate seats in 2010. Luckily, they had 59, so they still remained in control with 51 until 2014. They lost 7 governors that year and 12 state legislatures switch parties. I'd say that was a bad year election wise.