The actual, as opposed to imaginary, health care plan that Paul Ryan put forth and the entire Republican Party signed onto (pdf) has many, many pieces but I’d like to point to the provisions for covering the uninsured. There aren’t any. The GOP health care plan repeals the parts of the PPACA that cover the uninsured, and replaces them with nothing.
Considering that we just had a two year debate on some hypothetical, abstract group we called “the uninsured” I’m a little confused as to why they aren’t popular anymore. The uninsured didn’t really go away. Nothing changed for them when Paul Ryan shot to stardom. Ryan’s awesome charisma is apparently powerful enough to completely eclipse the (formerly) urgent needs of tens of millions of people. That’s a little disconcerting. Where’d they go?
Ryan’s plan repeals the PPACA, except for the portion where 500 billion or so is cut from the privatized portion of Medicare, Medicare Advantage. Despite what the honorable Paul Ryan is telling FOX News personalities and viewers, Ryan’s plan retains the 500 billion or so in Medicare Advantage cuts.
Back when the uninsured were popular we discussed the provisions within the PPACA to cover the uninsured endlessly. What we didn’t do is talk about who they are, as a broad group.(pdf)
I think the broad demographic and class information on the uninsured goes a long way towards explaining why it took 30 years to pass anything at all to address their health care access problem. I think the same information also may explain why tens of millions of people have mysteriously dropped out of the fawning media coverage of the GOP health care plan.
This is who they are:
More than three-quarters of the uninsured are in working families—sixty-one percent are from families with one or more full-time workers and 16% are from families with part-time workers.
The vast majority of the uninsured are in low- or moderate-income families. In total, nine in ten of the uninsured are in low- or moderate-income families, meaning they are below 400% of poverty. The new health reform law targets these individuals through broader Medicaid eligibility and premium subsidies through health insurance exchanges for eligible individuals with incomes up to 400% of poverty that do not have access to employer sponsored insurance.
Adults are more likely to be uninsured than children. Adults make up 70% of the nonelderly population, but more than 80% of the uninsured. Most low-income children qualify for Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), but low-income adults under age 65 typically qualify for Medicaid only if they are disabled, pregnant, or have dependent children. Income eligibility levels are generally much lower for parents than for children, and adults without children are generally ineligible. Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), Medicaid will be expanded in 2014 to provide eligibility to nearly all people under age 65 with income under 138% of the federal poverty level.
Young adults, ages 19 to 29, comprise a disproportionately large share of the uninsured, largely due to their low incomes. Young adults have the highest uninsured rate (32%) of any age group. More than half of uninsured young adults are families with at least one full-time worker, but their low incomes make it more difficult for them to afford coverage.The median income of uninsured young adults in 2008 was $15,000.
More than half (63%) of nonelderly uninsured adults have no education beyond high school, making them less able to get higher-skilled jobs that are more likely to provide health coverage. Thosewith less education are also more likely to be uninsured for longer periods of time.Minorities are much more likely to be uninsured than whites. About one third of Hispanics are uninsured compared to 14% of whites. The uninsured rate among African-Americans (23%) is also much higher than that of whites
It is not now and has never been politically advantageous to address the health care access problems of the working poor and lower middle class- particularly younger people within those groups- because “the uninsured” don’t have any real cohesive organized advocacy or lobbying clout.
That’s why politicians didn’t get anything done on this, prior to the PPACA. There was little or no anticipated political return on the huge political risk inherent in actually doing something to address the chronic problem.
The same uninsured who were (supposedly) vitally important to our national conversation a year ago have gone missing again. Nothing changed for them, yet Paul Ryan somehow succeeded in leading the circus away from any discussion of how his bold and brave plan leaves them, once again, high and dry. Weird how this particular group of Real Americans keep dropping out of our national conversation. If I didn’t know better, I’d think they weren’t important.
piratedan
well if they were Republican voters in Wisconsin, you could bet your ass that they would be covered.
El Cid
First, probably none of them pay federal income taxes, so obviously they have tons of money to pay for their family’s health insurance; instead they’re buying flat-screen TV boxes and T-bone steaks.
Second, most of them are probably fat and ugly and eat all kinds of crap because they’re stupid and lazy, so they deserve all the health problems that they and their disgusting kids get.
Third, a helluva lot of them are black or Mexican.
Finally, we’re giving it all to illegal immigrants anyhow.
From Both Sides
You’d think big business would get behind the idea of going even farther to universal coverage. I find it hard to believe that offloading all their health insurance coverage onto the government wouldn’t be cheaper in the long run for them, even with the uptick in taxes it likely would require. Considering Medicare’s success in retarding cost inflation compared to private insurers, and the lack of profit skimming – why would companies deliberately prefer having to pay someone else inflated fees that slice into their own company’s profits?
Bulworth
This is a feature, not a bug, of the GOP non-plan.
kay
@El Cid:
There’s going to be more “health care” to go around, from our fixed supply, w/out all those old people and poor people hogging it all.
I think that’s the working theory of conservatives. Freeing up some health care units, where it will then fall down like a gentle rain on ALL of us, evenly.
ericblair
@From Both Sides:
This has been a bit of a mystery to me, too: I can think of three reasons. First, whatever the pain in the ass it is to big businesses, it’s worse for small businesses, and so big businesses find it useful to keep competition down from smaller ones. Also, it’s even worse for independent contractors and unemployed, so keeps employees scared and prevents them from straying. And third, which is probably the biggest factor, is that it’s a class marker and coming out in favor of universal coverage would mean that Mr. CxO will get booed out of the country club. Since big companies are the ones with political influence, and small businesses are co-opted or ignored, there you go.
arguingwithsignposts
It also makes it easier for larger companies to attract people who might work at smaller companies, but that don’t have attractive benefits packages.
ETA: If I’m not mistaken, health care benefits can be written off on taxes?
dianne
I would be a little more concerned except for the fact that half of them are probably going to vote Republican,yet again. They aren’t worried – why should I be. They aren’t worried about Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security,either.
I’m sick of those half wits and and the half wit Dems who keep throwing every advantage we get away. I have gone beyond sad and am now fatalistic about 2012. It sickens me that my kids will live out their lives in deprivation and squalor and our party seems to be helpless to do anything about it for my kids or anyone else’s.
Vote? Of course! Can’t wait to see what howls of laughter that will bring.
DFH no.6
In a similar fashion to the Dems, as LBJ put it, “losing the South for a generation” by doing the right thing enacting Civil Rights (and as it turned out not just the South, and not just for a generation, but a whole lotta white people all over the land for several generations and counting) the Dems got their clocked cleaned in 2010, at least to a large extent, by enacting ACA, whose primary function was to bring health care coverage to tens of millions of unfortunate fellow Americans who – from what I can tell – over half the country cares little for (unless you count “contempt” as caring).
And who most of the media couldn’t give two shits about (would anybody even wonder about Republicans, good, caring “Christians” that they proclaim they are?).
The Sermon on the Mount means fuck-all to these fascist monsters and their mouthpieces.
NR
So under the Republican plan, if you get sick, you’re fucked.
Under the Democratic plan, you are forced to pay exorbitant amounts of money to an insurance company which then won’t pay for health care when you need it, so if you get sick, you’re fucked.
Welcome to modern American politics. Can we just let the Chinese take over now and be done with it?
Nemesis
@From Both Sides: From Both Sides
Ive been asking the same question for years. Logic dictates that US businesses would reap huge cost savings from off-loading HC to the gummit.
However, I believe US companies have become extremely good at managing and passing on costs to the employees, combined with tax incentives from the gummit.
In the end, US businesses LOVE having the HC issue to threaten employees with. Helps keep wages and bene’s lower.
DFH no.6
@dianne:
I don’t have facts and figures handy, but my political antennae, “honed” (to mix and murder the metaphor) by over 40+ years closely watching American politics, tell me that only a small fraction of the uninsured population votes Republican.
Some, surely, do.
The bigger problem here is that many (likely most – there’s my antennae again) don’t vote at all, when they should be a natural constituency of the Democratic Party, who at least talk about them and try to work in their interest (yes, yes, often ineffectively and so forth).
That’s certainly the case here in crazy-ass AZ, where, for instance, the Hispanic community (disproportionately in the poor and uninsured ranks) is largely Democratic when they do vote, they just don’t vote in nearly the percentage of their population that the (mostly conservative Republican, and mostly wealthier) white folk do.
CJ's dad
Why isn’t the “lame media” talking about this? Oh I forgot, they are too “engrossed” with WienerGate.
Martin
@From Both Sides:
Depends on the business. Insurers and health care, which are, let’s not forget, about 15% of GDP hate the idea. So that’s 1/6th of big business right there – and a lot more depending on the state [cough]Liberman, Nelson[/cough].
Then, take out all of the businesses that employ part time labor like retail, food service, etc. who don’t need to provide any health insurance. It’s a net cost to them, no matter how you do it. That’s probably another 1/4 or so of GDP. Then take out all of the small business GDP that have no lobbying power, and universal health actually roughly splits the field.
So, you’ll see it develop based on state. CA is still likely to make a run at it in the next year or so. There’s enough manufacturing, shipping, high tech here to swing it into the favorable column.
Lawnguylander
@dianne:
Do you have similar views on environmental issues? Let’s not do anything about pollution of any kind because Republican voters are going to suffer too? It would actually make more sense to say something like that because it would then actually be closer to half the affected population than it would be for the uninsured.
Brachiator
Sadly, this statistic is red meat to the wingnut Tea Party crowd. Their response would be that these people don’t deserve health insurance. You are not going to get far trying the compassion option with the GOP.
Martin
@Nemesis: Well, let’s not forget simple corporate laziness. Fucking with benefits is viewed as a competitive advantage. If you’re trying to gain an advantage on your competitors, you can either make your product/services better (ZOMG, that’s so hard!) or you can simply undermine your own costs and compete on price.
That’s basically the innovation WalMart has brought to US business, with an assist from commoditized sectors like computers and consumer electronics. When price is the only metric that consumers value, you’re pretty much stuck driving costs down, and sooner or later you’re going to have to cannibalize your own employees when you run out of other stuff to trim. Health care is a fairly large variable that businesses can manipulate to either attract talent or cut expenses. With universal health, it’s no longer a variable at all, and business needs to actually, you know, do stuff.
Valdivia
Great post Kay. Thanks for saying this.
Sly
@From Both Sides, @Nemesis: :
Health benefits aren’t subject to payroll taxes. Wages are. Every dollar paid out in wages necessitates six cents be paid into FICA. If you’re a large company with payroll in the multiple millions, that’s a whole lot of cheddar. Letting wages stagnate and offering “more” benefits saves money.
Plus tying health benefits to employment grants employers a greater degree of managerial control over the bargaining power of labor, which I’d argue they prioritize over maximizing profit.
DFH no.6
@NR:
Yeah, sure, “both sides do it”, and there’s really no difference between the parties. The policies espoused and enacted by the Democrats are pretty much the same as the Republicans.
You know, I’m not going to cuss you out, or engage in the ad hominem thing, but Christ on a cracker, if you have really looked into it and truly believe that is true I have only one thing to say to you – you are dead wrong.
The Dems have many faults and flaws, no doubt, and some of them (too many) are barely (if at all) better than their supposed political opponents (Evan Bayh, anyone?).
But what good the government does do (federal and state) is almost entirely due to Democrats.
Modern Republicans, on the other hand, are goddamn fascists, as is the entire modern conservative movement, and they work almost exclusively for the advantage of the true elite (the wealthiest) and to the detriment of most everyone else (including the vast majority of the tribal fools who vote for them).
It’s not just conservatives whose political worldview reflects an alternate (un)reality.
goblue72
And this is why anyone who claims there is no difference between the GOP and Democrats is a firebagging moron who should be roundly pummeled with snark and derision.
Because when Democrats controlled by the WH and Congress, THE major legislative push the party engaged in was to take steps to insure the uninsured. Just like the LAST time Democrats controlled the WH and Congress (1st 2 years of Clinton admin – we didn’t get universal healthcare out the “Hillarycare” debacle, but we managed to at least squeeze out S-CHIP, the largest expansion of Medicaid since the 1960s, no small accomplishment). And we did that even if it meant losing Congress.
What happened the last time the GOP controlled Congress and the WH? Tax cuts for the rich and two wars in the Middle East.
And that, in a nutshell, explains the fundamental difference between the two parties. Everything else is just noise.
madmatt
Plenty changed for them, now they will HAVE to buy shitty products that don’t cover anything from corporate scum or face the IRS.
madmatt
@goblue72: LOL then why did they do it with a REPUBLICAN PLAN from the 90’s? And in case ya didn’t notice we got tax breaks for billionaires fromthe dems as well so 2 wins for the rich, zero for the poor and middleclass.
DFH no.6
@madmatt:
You and NR should get together and help form a third party or something.
Then we’ll have the soshulist paradise (with single-payer health care coverage for EVERYONE! Just like Cuba!) that the weak-willed (and/or “sell-out”) Democrats have been denying us for too long.
I bet Nader’s available.
Lawnguylander
@madmatt:
“They,” huh? A group that doesn’t include you. So you’re one of the people who already pays for a shitty product that doesn’t cover anything from corporate scum but you’re resentful of the fact that they will be able to buy an improved, much more tightly regulated and, in many cases, government subsidized product. So will you. Most all those 30 million people would tell you to go fuck yourself if they were so, go fuck yourself. And you’re a chump if you think the Republicans ever really planned in the 90s or now (the post, did you read it?) to insure all the uninsured
Moonbat, not the opposite of wingnut.
Frankensteinbeck
Dear Matt:
The similarity to the Republican plan is that it uses a universal mandate and works through the existing insurance industry.
The reason this is not the same, the Republicans hate it, and the health insurance industry hate it is the REST of the ACA. There is a lot of ‘the rest’. Regulations, price controls, a new regulatory agency, and a system to adapt and implement new controls. Without them, absolutely, the plan would be a giveaway to big business and a pre-loonytown Republican solution. Without a buttload of fuel, a space shuttle is a useless hunk of metal. Those regulations and price controls are there, and there’s 2000 pages of them.
DFH no.6
@madmatt: (and NR, as well)
I understand your frustration, I really do.
My own political outlook is far to the left of the mainstream of the Democratic Party.
But here’s the thing – I recognize that I am in the minority. Waaay in the minority, in fact.
Democratic (small “d”) politics is the art of the possible, for the most part.
ACA, for all its flaws, at least moves in the right direction (IMAO). It’s not what I would have wanted (single-payer, with heavy doses of cost controls for providers, including doctors, pharmaceutical companies, the whole shebang) but it was as far as we could feasibly get. In fact, we very nearly lost it completely when Ted Kennedy died.
And it really was, as Biden put it, a big fucking deal, when you understand the social/political realities of our fair land. Lawnguylander has it right on what it really means for the previously uninsured.
Doesn’t mean you don’t push as hard as you can from the left, or that you are happy with the results. It just means you realize you are not going to get the unicorns and rainbows of your dreams, at least not all in one fell swoop.
Stay angry, but find a way to work productively, is all I’m saying.
arguingwithsignposts
@madmatt:
Well, the tax cuts went to the middle class as well, so that’s not exactly “zero.”
Is it possible for people to understand that we all get that we’re still eating a shit sandwich, with just a little more bread at the moment. unfortunately, the menu is filled only with shit sandwiches. And if the GOP gets the white house and/or the senate, there won’t even be any bread on the menu.
And no matter how much we scream and piss and moan on a blog, that ain’t gonna change anytime soon.
DFH no.6
One more (lengthy – sorry) comment on this so far lightly-attended thread, then I have to bug out for a while (work and all that).
I am in management at a small but not tiny business (around 400 employees) and I’m fairly well involved in our benefits selections, including health insurance (we’ve had Blue Cross/Blue Shield for some time, and the coverage is good, just costs too much, of course).
On the reasons why businesses (meaning, top managers and executives) in America are not behind, say, single-payer, or any of the myriad health coverage plans that other developed nations have that are superior to ours and get businesses out of health coverage responsibility, this is what I see:
The comment from Martin at 17 about “simple corporate laziness” is a good part of it.
“Inertia” (of all kinds) plays a large role in business operations, and health insurance certainly falls in that category. Businesses, for the most part, compete on fairly commensurate grounds with other business like them. Pay scales and benefits tend to be very similar (good and bad) in similar businesses. There’s not much percentage in businesses getting far afield of their particular industry in pay and benefits, so they mostly don’t.
Another key reason is fear of the unknown.
Businesses really, really hate unknown factors that could impact their costs, and having America move from the employer-provided health insurance model to something else is a huge unknown cost-factor to them. Particularly since they are certain that corporate taxes would have to go up (and they would) to help fund any sort of universal government-provided health coverage, whether it was Canadian-style, or UK-style, or Netherlands-style, or anything else you could find in the rest of the First World. They’re concerned that the costs of those higher taxes could potentially outweigh any cost-savings from dispensing with health coverage for their employees (and for some, at least, they just might).
And it’s not just corporate taxes these universally-well compensated top managers and executives are concerned about. It’s their own taxes.
This is not an unknown factor to them – they know full well that getting American businesses out of the health coverage game means their own personal taxes go up. And that would be a net loss to most of the people in this country who make decisions about what their companies do in regards to health care coverage (including lobbying for getting businesses out of health coverage). Looking for them to have a sense of “civic duty” or any such thing when it takes money out of their pocket is a fool’s errand.
And finally, most of these business decision-makers are Republicans.
Smart and savvy businessmen they may be (and in my experience that is mostly the case) but many, if not most, of them are quite well-ensconced within the rightwing tribe. And espousing belief in the evils of “soshulist medicine” is, as we all know, a key tribal marker. All but one of my own bosses (Republicans to a man) are convinced that America has the best health system (including coverage) of any in the world, notwithstanding easily-discoverable facts to the contrary. It’s tribal.
NR
@DFH no.6:
Don’t talk to me about “the minority.” 70% of the people wanted a public option. 70%. And this number held up even after the months of nonstop demagoguery by the Republicans and Fox News, etc. Obama and the Democrats killed it against the express wishes of a large majority of the American people.
The simple fact is that not only is the progressive agenda ethically and morally right, it is also popular. Poll after poll shows that a majority of the country supports things like a sensible progressive tax policy, environmental regulations, financial regulations, etc. The reason the Democrats refuse to implement these things is not because they are unpopular, it is because the corporate money men who control the party (along with the Republican party) don’t want them. That’s it.
At this point, what is unproductive is continuing to support a party that is just as much if not more of an obstacle to real reform than the Republicans.
El Cid
@DFH no.6: Also, what if all the smaller companies which really did make sure they could offer health insurance to their employees as a true job benefit find that their employers feel no tie to their jobs due to that benefit? Suddenly you’ve got other issues.
Well, at least maybe when we don’t have so many people out of work that people who have jobs don’t want to lose them.
El Cid
@NR: Given that there are in fact elections, here, I’m not really clear often what is meant by either “support” or “not support” Democrats.
Is it about what to do in the voting booth? Does it have to do with money? Types of discussions to have on blogs, or with people I know, or protests?
A call for some alternative party or sets of parties which outside miraculous expectations and the backing of heretofore unseen forces would do what mathematically will be expected in a system which must narrow to two major parties with quite similar overall policies, i.e., aid one party in winning or losing? In this case, presumably Republicans?
A projection that Republican victories in elections and therefore the power of government would have more of a negative effect on the population which has them unite via currently non-existent mechanisms to somehow exert power to change the basic power structure of our political system?
Or that there would not be a significant enough difference if Republican rule were achieved and this would allow for changes in or replacement of the Democrats as the currently available alternative to Republican governance?
Actions which are much broader in focus than a concentration on electoral matters?
Or am I even supposed to ask such basic questions? If I do, does that mean I have now become a dupe for one of the right wing parties in this country?
DFH no.6
@El Cid:
Certainly, some companies would find some loss of “loyalty” from their employees if health coverage was government-provided (in some fashion) and no longer provided as a company benefit.
But my business and management experience tells me this really wouldn’t be an issue for most companies, and probably doesn’t factor much at all in corporate decisions to (so far) not support a move away from employer-based health coverage.
Even when (if, I will skeptically say) we truly emerge from these economic doldrums and get significantly lower unemployment (I have serious reservations that we will make any progress on that for a long time – unfortunately, most of the unemployed are low-education, low-skill workers whose former jobs are largely gone forever).
Marc McKenzie
@DFH no.6:
“The Dems have many faults and flaws, no doubt, and some of them (too many) are barely (if at all) better than their supposed political opponents (Evan Bayh, anyone?).
But what good the government does do (federal and state) is almost entirely due to Democrats.”
Yep. All one has to do is simply take a look back–at least over the past, say, eighty years–to see that what you wrote is the cold, blunt truth.
Marc McKenzie
@goblue72:
“And this is why anyone who claims there is no difference between the GOP and Democrats is a firebagging moron who should be roundly pummeled with snark and derision.
“What happened the last time the GOP controlled Congress and the WH? Tax cuts for the rich and two wars in the Middle East.”
Yep. Amazing how some have forgotten this. But then again, I’m sure that they were the ones who voted for Nader in 2000 because “there wasn’t a dime’s worth of difference” between the two parties.
Fast-forward ten years later….can they admit that they were wrong? Or are their heads still firmly shoved up their nether regions?
DFH no.6
@NR:
*Sigh*
The majority of the people (and particularly, the voters) in this country are not politically liberal (however you want to reasonably define that), that’s just the way it is. That is not how most people see themselves (whatever policies they actually support).
If you self-identify as politically leftwing at all, you are in the minority in this country, period. And being as far leftwing as I am (and as you seem to be) puts us, as I said, waaay in the minority. Not recognizing these basic facts shows you to be, at the least, badly misinformed, and, I’m sorry to say, misguided.
Polling showing a large majority supporting a “public option” during the health care debate doesn’t change a thing.
Whenever the individual components of ACA were polled (pre-existing conditions, covering children till they’re 26, etc.) they always garnered majority support. Because each one, on its own and in a political vacuum, is seen as an obviously good thing. Same is true of the public option (which, by the way, could have never, ever passed the actually-existing U.S. Senate).
But ACA as a whole was, and still is, fairly unpopular (and what popularity it did have was far outweighed by its unpopularity in the 2010 elections). Do you understand why this seeming contradiction exists?
You say this:
And I say you are on to something real. I’m not quite that cynical, but I do understand that a large swathe of Democratic operatives at all levels (and most important of all, in the undemocratic U.S. Senate) are much too beholden to the real elite in America (the wealthiest).
But when you further say:
I have to conclude you are either delusional or are being willfully obtuse. Democrats governing in contemporary America can be quite a mixed bag, with much to criticize and be unhappy with. Republicans governing are a perfect horror.
Not recognizing the difference is, I am sorry to say, about as ridiculous as anything the ditzy asshole grifter from Wassila ever says. And that’s pretty fucking ridiculous.
debg
Kay, thanks for a great post–I had forgotten about this issue entirely. We need to be shouting about it from the rooftops.
dollared
@DFH no.6: I agree, but the problem is the weak Democrats, and the focus has to be on driving an alternative philosophy and alternative career path for the professionals.
Just shrugging and supporting the Dems, while joining in the hippy punching, is simply admitting failure.
NR
@DFH no.6:
The ACA is unpopular because it is, objectively, a terrible piece of legislation. It puts everyone in America on the hook for funding CEO bonuses and corporate profits. The American people can see that, and they don’t like it.
If the Democrats had passed a better piece of legislation–such as one with an extremely popular public option–it would not be nearly as unpopular as the ACA is. But the Democrats didn’t want to. They wanted the bill that they got because that’s what their corporate bosses wanted. That outweighed all other concerns for them, including the 2010 elections.
From my point of view, these days Democrats governing is actually worse than Republicans governing. Either way, we get conservative Republican policy (such as the Republican health care bill), but when that policy is implemented by Democrats, that ensures that the left will get blamed for the consequences, because the public still believes that the Democrats are a leftist party even though they are nothing of the sort. If we’re going to get conservative Republican policy either way, I’d much rather that it be implemented by actual Republicans. That way, when it fails (as conservative Republican policy inevitably does), the left might actually have a chance to present an alternative.
dollared
@kay: “Evenly?” Hah! Kay, where do you get these ideas? They want personal physicians for the top 1%, and telemedecine from Pakistan for the rest of us.
BTW, Kay, I am continually perplexed by your posts. You keep talking about invisible people. This time, 30 million of them. Who are they and why can’t anyone with a journalism degree see them?
DFH no.6
@dollared:
I don’t just shrug and support the Dems. And I certainly don’t join in on any hippie (proper spelling) punching.
My worldview is pretty leftwing, but I’ve been at this for some time and I’m also a pragmatist (so I like to think, anyway). I work with what I have, where I’m at.
Which helped (in a very, very, very small way) to get Janet Napolitano elected governor, as well as Harry Mitchell as my U.S. House Rep (unseating the fascist buffoon JD Hayworth). Along with Dave Siebert (don’t worry, you never heard of him. PHX City council).
And any number of others over the years (most lost – we went at Hayworth for 12 years before winning).
Napolitano is no leftist, and neither is Harry (nor was Dave). But they were all electable Democrats who were better than the Republican alternative.
When I lived in Cleveland in the long ago time, I similarly supported (canvassed and phone banked for, donated, etc.) Dennis Kucinich, and other more left-leaning Dems (some who won, some who didn’t).
I still send Dennis money. I did a lot of these things for school board and city and state and national elections in Ohio (my first such foray into political action was in ’68 for Eugene McCarthy!).
Now I’m in AZ (the really, really red part – you know, the one that keeps re-electing Arpaio over and over and over) and getting anyone to the left of blue-dog Harry elected to anything is, let’s just say, impossible.
Tucson is different, but I don’t live there. So I do what I can with the Democratic Party locally (I have a regular job, so any involvement in politics beyond that typically only happens during presidential elections, like in ’08 when I took some time off to canvass for Obama in New Mexico). MoveOn gets donations from me, but I haven’t really been involved with them since ’04. I more often donate to stuff here at BJ.
Believing there is some third-party leftwing option is foolishness, and displays a total lack of understanding of how our non-parliamentary (and that’s the key) system is constituted.
Stating, as NR just did, that from a leftwing perspective “these days Democrats governing is actually worse than Republicans governing” is truly beyond foolishness.
And now this must be a really most sincerely dead thread. Later.
El Cid
@DFH no.6: That was one of the reasons frequently discussed by the largest employers such as GM: they worried that if a single-payer (etc) health program were begun, yes, it could save them tons of money on offered benefits, but it likely would lead to valued and skilled workers seeking better opportunities. They felt themselves in a quandary.
As to whether that explains the lack of lobbying from such companies in favor of such health programs, I think it’s more the realization of what a shitstorm it would stir up for them from insurers, anti-soshullists, etc.
During the Great Depression, however, that desire for a publicly run plan to remove the burden and variability of private pensions led many of the super-rich and their proxies to back and help develop the program which became Social Security.
Caz
How about we just pass an omnibus bill that provides everyone with free comprehensive health care for life, free housing, free food, free gas, and a job with a livable wage, say $20/hour. Then everyone will be prosperous, there will be no more class struggles, the unions will be happy, and society will be perfect. No one will have to worry about anything – the govt can just provide for our every need. We can keep rasing the debt ceiling to pay for this initiative forever. I mean, let’s just cut to the chase already. If you want a communist society, just come out and say so. Quit being so dishonest and just admit what you want this country to be like.
mclaren
The situation is actually worse than Kay describes. Preliminary evidence suggests that employers are going to simply drop insurance for their workers en masse. While the ACA mandates plenty of requirements for employer-offered insurance, it doesn’t require employers to offer it. The logical and obvious result of the ACA’s increased regulations will be that employers will simply stop offering insurance of any kind, leaving workers to fend for themselves.
A recent business survey suggests that “the shift away from employer-provided health insurance will be vastly greater than expected,” essentially ending employer-copayed health insurance in America.
Of course this is no surprise. Health insurance in America in which employers contribute part of the payment was bound to end anyway because of the unsustainable rate of increase in the underlying cost of medical care. Employer-offered insurance has been on track to become completely unaffordable both to workers and to businesses for decades now: we’ve simply accelerated the process with the incredibly bad policy idea implemented by the ACA of forcing everyone in America to buy unaffordable for-profit insurance (with no meaningful cost controls) offered by corrupt medical devicemaker-doctor-hospital-imaging-clinic-health-insurance cartel monopolies which systematically engaged in bribery and collusion and nondisclosure agreements and sweetheart contracts to increase prices and prevent competition.
The only real way to reduce the cost of medical care in America is obviously something the ACA ignores. Namely, disbanding all the corrupt collusive cartels and setting up a national single-payer not-for-profit health care system.
It’s entirely predictable what’s going to happen as a result of the ACA. We’re already seeing the early signs. States are reducing or entirely shutting down medicaid payments (because they can’t afford them); doctors are refusing to accept new patients (because the doctors can no longer squeeze unlimited amounts of cash out of ’em); employers will stop offering health insurance to their employees; and the poor people who get mandated coverage by the ACA still can’t get health care because they can’t afford the unaffordably high co-payments, even for life-and-death treatments like cancer therapy.
So the net result of the ACA is: fewer poor people with access to health care (even though they nominally will have access, as a practical matter they won’t be able to afford the co-payments, so people who before the ACA got cancer treatments will stop getting cancer treatments now), fewer middle-class people with access to health care (when employers stop offering health insurance, white collar workers will discover that they can’t afford the payments for health insurnace on their own), higher medical costs (the ACA does essentially nothing to control medical costs), richer doctors and medical devicemakers and hospitals, and more people dying every year from lack of access to health care.
Ezra Klein remarks on this situation: