General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsBarack Obama is officially one of the most consequential presidents in American history
Barack Obama is officially one of the most consequential presidents in American historyby Dylan Matthews at Vox
http://www.vox.com/2015/6/26/8849925/obama-obamacare-history-presidents
SNIP................
After Thursday's Supreme Court ruling, there's no longer any doubt: Barack Obama is one of the most consequential presidents in American history and he will be a particularly towering figure in the history of American progressivism.
National health insurance has been the single defining goal of American progressivism for more than a century. There have been other struggles, of course: for equality for women, African-Americans, and LGBT people; for environmental protection; against militarism in Southeast Asia and the Middle East. But ever since its inclusion in Teddy Roosevelt's 1912 Bull Moose platform, a federally guaranteed right to health coverage has been the one economic and social policy demand that loomed over all others. It was the big gap between our welfare state and those of our peers in Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan.
And for more than a century, efforts to achieve national health insurance failed. Roosevelt's third-party run came up short. His Progressive allies, despite support from the American Medical Association, failed to pass a bill in the 1910s. FDR declined to include health insurance in the Social Security Act, fearing it would sink the whole program, and the Wagner Act, his second attempt, ended in failure too. Harry Truman included a single-payer plan open to all Americans in his Fair Deal set of proposals, but it went nowhere. LBJ got Medicare and Medicaid done after JFK utterly failed, but both programs targeted limited groups.
Richard Nixon proposed a universal health-care plan remarkably similar to Obamacare that was killed when thenSen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) walked away from a deal to pass it, in what Kennedy would later call his greatest regret as a senator. Jimmy Carter endorsed single-payer on the campaign trail, but despite having a Democratic supermajority in Congress did nothing to pass it. And the failure of Bill Clinton's health-care plan is the stuff of legend.
...............SNIP
TM99
(8,352 posts)No, no, and no!
National health care(aka single payer) has been the single defining goal of American progressivism for more than a century.
There is a difference.
There are some positives to the ACA, but there are still negatives. For 45 to 65 year olds, there is often the problem of making too much to qualify for subsidies and too little to pay high deductibles for care, not to mention those that don't have children.
If, and man it is a big if, this ACA eventually leads to a single payer health care plan in the US, it will be worth. Otherwise, it is a poor substitute for what all other civilized nations currently enjoy.
But trying to spin this shit as the greatest victory EVER for progressives is insulting.
babylonsister
(171,079 posts)the previous 'system', whether you like it or not. Ask those who have benefited. I do wish Dems, or 'progressives', would quit demeaning this accomplishment.
TM99
(8,352 posts)for some and not all.
If we don't continue to criticize what needs fixing then we will never get what we truly need - single payer OR universal health care.
I live in a household where I have benefited and my partner has not. So I know the reality intimately.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)That's what that means. National health care would be something like the UK has, which is different from Single Payer.
Single Payer is what Canada has, in which the government manages a single nationwide medical insurance pool.
TM99
(8,352 posts)This is an insurance mandate. It is not single payer like Canada or national health care like the UK and Germany and France and Cuba have.
There is still a difference and you know this.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)You have to pay premiums in many provinces or you can lose your coverage.
TM99
(8,352 posts)have exactly what the Canadians have?
Bullshit.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I'm pointing out that single payer is precisely "national health insurance", which we don't have, though we have a national market framework finally.
sheshe2
(83,871 posts)Thank you apple~