In spite of everything, Biden reaffirms dislike of M4A

[crimson5pheonix]

Biden Defends Undying Allegiance to For-Profit Healthcare During Interview With Dying Medicare for All Advocate Ady Barkan

The question: "What does preserving private insurance really do for people?" Biden's answer: "It depends on the plan. Look..."

www.commondreams.org

In an interview with Ady Barkan, a man suffering from ALS who is financially and emotionally strangled by the private healthcare infrastructure, Biden has once again declared that he does not support M4A. He continually deflects examples of the failure of the healthcare industry, ACA or otherwise.

 

[Trunkage]

Not suprising. Biden isnt much better than Trump. Don't expect the next years to be good whatever happens in November

 

[Silvanus]

Not suprising. Biden isnt much better than Trump.

His plan involves a cap on chargeable premiums, a new public health insurance option without the eligibility criteria of Medicare, and premium-free healthcare for those who would be Medicare eligible but live in states that didn't roll out the expansion under the ACA.

Trump's plan, on the other hand, involves no expansion, and a $800-$900 billion cut over 10 years.

D'you believe the former isn't much better than the latter, because it won't entirely restructure the whole system?

 

[Trunkage]

His plan involves a cap on chargeable premiums, a new public health insurance option without the eligibility criteria of Medicare, and premium-free healthcare for those who would be Medicare eligible but live in states that didn't roll out the expansion under the ACA.

Trump's plan, on the other hand, involves no expansion, and a $800-$900 billion cut over 10 years.

D'you believe the former isn't much better than the latter, because it won't entirely restructure the whole system?

I don't believe much of what Biden says. I don't think he has any intention of doing that. It's like Trump's wall. Good campaign promise for the base but minimal delivery.

The best I can say is that I can believe Biden more frequently than Trump.

 

[Silvanus]

I don't believe much of what Biden says. I don't think he has any intention of doing that. It's like Trump's wall. Good campaign promise for the base but minimal delivery.

Y'don't believe he'll do any of it at all? Even though most of it is building on the basis of the ACA, which he was involved in? The premium cap and the expansion of coverage for the Medicare-eligible in uncovered states are both moves that are pretty logical improvements of ACA provisions.

And even if you don't believe he would, in order to believe he's "not much better than Trump", you'd have to believe that Biden would also carry out the equivalent of an 800 billion cut. Which absolutely nothing in his record or his platform would indicate.

The equivalence doesn't stand up to scrutiny at all.

 

[Trunkage]

Y'don't believe he'll do any of it at all? Even though most of it is building on the basis of the ACA, which he was involved in? The premium cap and the expansion of coverage for the Medicare-eligible in uncovered states are both moves that are pretty logical improvements of ACA provisions.

And even if you don't believe he would, in order to believe he's "not much better than Trump", you'd have to believe that Biden would also carry out the equivalent of an 800 billion cut. Which absolutely nothing in his record or his platform would indicate.

The equivalence doesn't stand up to scrutiny at all.

I think he WILL make massive cuts. I don't think he cares about it more than it might get him some votes. But I'll grant you, it might not be as big as a $800B cut . If he proves me wrong, great. I wont be surprised if he doesnt.

 

[Schadrach]

Y'don't believe he'll do any of it at all? Even though most of it is building on the basis of the ACA, which he was involved in? The premium cap and the expansion of coverage for the Medicare-eligible in uncovered states are both moves that are pretty logical improvements of ACA provisions.

The ACA, a Republican health care plan (it's directly based on what Romney did in MA) that was proposed already with compromises in place, then compromised further on?

It's pretty emblematic of what I expect from Biden - he's going to promise things that don't go far enough, then he's going to compromise down from that before a bill is proposed, then compromise further before it passes.

 

[Silvanus]

I think he WILL make massive cuts. I don't think he cares about it more than it might get him some votes. But I'll grant you, it might not be as big as a $800B cut . If he proves me wrong, great. I wont be surprised if he doesnt.

Fine. But if you're expecting anything even anywhere close to a $800 billion cut, then you're making assumptions drastically outside of anything in his record would indicate, and outside anything he's said would indicate. You're also expecting the vast majority of Democratic Reps to drop the entire party platform and go full-tilt in the other direction, further than ever before-- it would be a greater reversal than any US election has ever seen. None of this is remotely realistic.

For the equivalence to work, enormous assumption needs to be piled on top of enormous assumption.

The ACA, a Republican health care plan (it's directly based on what Romney did in MA) that was proposed already with compromises in place, then compromised further on?

It's pretty emblematic of what I expect from Biden - he's going to promise things that don't go far enough, then he's going to compromise down from that before a bill is proposed, then compromise further before it passes.

Firstly, the ACA went quite a lot further than Romney's plan for Masschusetts ever did. The difference in Medicaid provision alone is enormous.

Secondly, which compromises specifically are we talking about? A number of them-- such as the limited expansion of Medicare-- were forced onto it by the Supreme Court, quite outside Executive control, and are explicitly addressed in Biden's 2020 plan.

If you don't want compromise, and you also don't believe him when he says he'll end that compromise, then... there's not actually anything he can do, is there?

 

[tippy2k2]

It honestly baffles me. Maybe pre-Corona, people could "See no Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil" themselves into believing our current health care system isn't a roaring dumpster fire but how anyone can now look at it and go THIS IS FINE is something I will never ever ever understand.

Maybe people are still too insulated from how shittastic our system is. I've been having to deal with this shit for months trying to figure out what I can and can't afford, what shit is going to cost, if this doctor or that doctor or that place is part of my coverage, etc. All I know is our Health Care system needs a drastic overhaul and Biden is downright refusing to do it.

 

[dreng3]

It honestly baffles me. Maybe pre-Corona, people could "See no Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil" themselves into believing our current health care system isn't a roaring dumpster fire but how anyone can now look at it and go THIS IS FINE is something I will never ever ever understand.

Maybe people are still too insulated from how shittastic our system is. I've been having to deal with this shit for months trying to figure out what I can and can't afford, what shit is going to cost, if this doctor or that doctor or that place is part of my coverage, etc. All I know is our Health Care system needs a drastic overhaul and Biden is downright refusing to do it.

Unless you get a filibuster-proof majority, that will also agree to your reforms, in both chambers you will need to make compromises in order to change anything, that's just how politics work. Biden does however intend to expand the system already in place and improve it, I recommend checking post #3 for more info.

And even then a large part of americans don't seem to give a damn about healthcare, otherwise people would be rioting over the recent attempt to kill ACA while in the midst of a pandemic, so many people seem perfectly capable of ignoring the ills of the system.

 

[Tireseas]

I don't believe much of what Biden says. I don't think he has any intention of doing that. It's like Trump's wall. Good campaign promise for the base but minimal delivery.

This is actually one of the things I most hate presidential campaigns is the over-focus on policy that the president doesn't have more than be ability to adjust when the real power to actually create or enhance systems (such as medicare expansion) lies in congress. It's fundamentally like blaming a theme park ride operator for a less-than-satisfying: they may have had a part in your ride, but the machinery (i.e. the law) was built by an entirely different entity.

Now, we talk about veto power and all that, but I'm extremely skeptical that Biden would veto something passed by a democratic congress, especially if it advanced a progressive priority. If he disagrees with it enough, he might say something along the lines of "not how I would have preferred this" or something along those lines, but the odds of him actually stopping a major domestic policy initiative once it's passed congress doesn't match even the most craven descriptions of Biden who very much wants to be a president that signs bills (possibly to a fault).

 

[SilentPony]

Biden is, at heart, still a old white conservative dude. And I say that as a white dude myself, age and politics not withstanding. Any other election Biden would be the old fuddy duddy longshot candidate complaining about the kids on his lawn and how there are too many flavors of ice cream these days.
That he's seen as the sane liberal candidate is sad.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

For anyone still talking about compromise and how Biden will push for a public options, some more use out of history.

The Democratic Party's deceitful game

They are willing to bravely support any progressive bill as long as there's no chance it can pass

www.salon.com

The Obama White House did the same thing. As I wrote back in August, the evidence was clear that while the President was publicly claiming that he supported the public option, the White House, in private, was doing everything possible to ensure its exclusion from the final bill (in order not to alienate the health insurance industry by providing competition for it). Yesterday, Obama -- while having his aides signal that they would use reconciliation if necessary -- finally unveiled his first-ever health care plan as President, and guess what it did not include? The public option, which he spent all year insisting that he favored oh-so-much but sadly could not get enacted: Gosh, I really want the public option, but we just don't have 60 votes for it; what can I do?. As I documented in my contribution to the NYT forum yesterday, now that there's a 50-vote mechanism to pass it, his own proposed bill suddenly excludes it.

We could have had a public option before, there was more than enough votes for it at the time. Until it actually came up for vote in a way that would pass, then suddenly votes dried up and Obama (and Biden) stopped pushing for it.

Don't believe a word of him saying he'll even push for a public option, the half-assed compromise position is too daring for people like Biden.

 

[tippy2k2]

Now, we talk about veto power and all that, but I'm extremely skeptical that Biden would veto something passed by a democratic congress, especially if it advanced a progressive priority. If he disagrees with it enough, he might say something along the lines of "not how I would have preferred this" or something along those lines, but the odds of him actually stopping a major domestic policy initiative once it's passed congress doesn't match even the most craven descriptions of Biden who very much wants to be a president that signs bills (possibly to a fault).

Biden himself has said if hypothetically M4A came across his desk, he'd veto it. Yeah, he threw in some political BS about balanced budget and shit so that he could pretend like he was vetoing it for a "good reason" but the man himself has said he'd veto it.

If the man wouldn't even let M4A pass in a hypothetical situation, I have no idea why you would think he wouldn't veto it.

 

[Silvanus]

We could have had a public option before, there was more than enough votes for it at the time.

D'you have a citation for that? Not saying it's untrue, but the explanatory link in that article is defunct, and the only whip count I could find came to 41 in favour.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

D'you have a citation for that? Not saying it's untrue, but the explanatory link in that article is defunct, and the only whip count I could find came to 41 in favour.

List of 51 Senate Democrats Who Support a Public Option: What's Stopping Them Now? - Shadowproof

Should we conclude that the 51 Democrats in the Senate who said they support a public option when 60 votes were needed were all full of shit, now that the bar is down to 50 and they're still not moving? Here is a list of the 51 Democrats who said they support a public option:

shadowproof.com

It went down when reconciliation came up because with reconciliation 50 is enough. When the limit was 60, we had 51 Democrats ready and willing to fight tooth and nail for a public option. Then when we had enough votes to actually do it, a handful of them lost their spine, and the white house enabled them.

 

[Silvanus]

List of 51 Senate Democrats Who Support a Public Option: What's Stopping Them Now? - Shadowproof

Should we conclude that the 51 Democrats in the Senate who said they support a public option when 60 votes were needed were all full of shit, now that the bar is down to 50 and they're still not moving? Here is a list of the 51 Democrats who said they support a public option:

shadowproof.com

It went down when reconciliation came up because with reconciliation 50 is enough. When the limit was 60, we had 51 Democrats ready and willing to fight tooth and nail for a public option. Then when we had enough votes to actually do it, a handful of them lost their spine, and the white house enabled them.

Right, so there weren't 51 who gave stated support when Reconciliation was brought in?

(Putting aside that this list isn't based on any actual whip, but often just on broad statements they've made on the principle of the matter).

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Right, so there weren't 51 who gave stated support when Reconciliation was brought in?

(Putting aside that this list isn't based on any actual whip, but often just on broad statements they've made on the principle of the matter).

There were not 51 who gave support when reconciliation was brought up. There was 51 when it was deadlocked and wasn't going to pass, but several of the ardent public option supporters gave up support when it started to look like it would pass. That is the point, strong policy stances are only for getting elected, not for acting upon. When it comes time to act it becomes a game of self-sabotage. Refer to the lede quotes of the article I posted.

Jay Rockefeller on the Public Option: "I Will Not Relent"

Jay Rockefeller has waited a long time for this moment. . . . He's [] a longtime advocate of health care for children and the poor -- and, as Congress moves toward its moment of truth on health care, perhaps the most earnest, dogged Senate champion of a nationwide public health insurance plan to compete with private insurance companies.

"I will not relent on that. That's the only way to go," Rockefeller told me in an interview. "There's got to be a safe harbor."

President Obama often says a public option is needed to drive down costs and keep insurance companies honest. To Rockefeller, it's both more basic and more vital: The federal government is the only institution people can count on in times of need.

Rockefeller Not Inclined To Support Reconciliation For The Public Plan

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.V.) threw a wrench into Democratic efforts to get a public option passed through reconciliation, saying that he thought the maneuver was overly partisan and that he was inclined to oppose it. . .

"I don't think the timing of it is very good," the West Virginia Democrat said on Monday. "I'm probably not going to vote for that" . . . In making his sentiment known, Rockefeller becomes perhaps the most unexpected skeptic of the public-option-via-reconciliation route. The Senator was a huge booster of a government run insurance option during the legislation drafting process this past year.

It's why I don't trust Biden, he's cut from the cloth of these Democrats who will talk a big game to get elected, then immediately turn when they would actually have to perform. That he's very publicly against anything that would hinder private insurance companies just screams 'do not trust me to help you'.

 

[Tireseas]

Biden himself has said if hypothetically M4A came across his desk, he'd veto it. Yeah, he threw in some political BS about balanced budget and shit so that he could pretend like he was vetoing it for a "good reason" but the man himself has said he'd veto it.

If the man wouldn't even let M4A pass in a hypothetical situation, I have no idea why you would think he wouldn't veto it.

Because, and I cannot stress this enough, talk is cheep, action is not. Biden has crafted the image of the consummate legislator, the person who wheels and deals to try to make legislation better (whether he did or not is up to substantial debate) and get signed. It would be off-brand for him substantially to block a otherwise priority item for the party once it got to his desk, especially as the news reports saying "a major initiative got through congress" alone would be a major pressure to sign it absent language requiring puppies to be drowned. Biden, surrounded by political advisors who will easily point to this as being a major policy goal of the democratic base and can be used to craft the image of "building on the ACA," doesn't seem like the type to take a position that would cost him so much political capital in exchange for very little. I suspect if there even is a real M4A bill that is making its way through the legislature, he'll either support it, provide via legislative allies an alternative, such as the public option, that tries to address the issues without M4A's biggest unpopular elements (eliminating private insurance in some versions, for example), or just stay out of the fight altogether (which may help get it passed as a presidential stance can increase partisan opposition).

Not helping is that M4A has largely become a Rorschach test for activists and voters alike and any attempt to pin down details on what it actually means or how it is funded often creates substantial conflicting information and, well, grossly impacts opinion. Even the polling on it is mixed when compared to ACA expansion, which Biden supports.

 

[CM156]

Could someone provide me with some information on how a Medicare for All plan would differ from, say, a Canadian-Style system (something I favor as a possibility for the USA)?