Key Republican in Health Laws Fate Hails From a State That Embraced It

[TomCADem]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by DonViejo (a host of the Latest Breaking News forum).

Source: NY Times

And then the conversation shifts to the Affordable Care Act and what its repeal would mean for the struggling rural workers who have long voted for Mr. Walden, and for children like 11-year-old Rocco Stone. Because of the health law, Rocco has been able to live at home, attend school and have a nearly normal life despite having autism and a rare genetic disorder.

“Our life was completely changed when Oregon and the federal government partnered to provide home and community services through Medicaid,” Rocco’s mother, Dana M. Stone, told the congressman this past week. “We are deeply, deeply concerned about talk at the federal level about a complete repeal of the Affordable Care Act.”

Mr. Walden, the new chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, is not just another backbench Republican dealing with suddenly energized supporters of the health law at town hall-style meetings. The lanky 60-year-old congressman will have a large role in drafting promised legislation to replace former President Barack Obama’s signature domestic achievement and a huge say in decisions about the future of Medicaid, which the health law greatly expanded.

As a former chairman of the committee responsible for electing Republicans to the House, Mr. Walden knows the politics of health care as well as anyone. But in his new role, he must reconcile the political goals of his party, which is committed to repealing the 2010 health law, and the interests of his state, where officials say the law has been a big success. In 2010, nearly one in five Oregonians lacked health coverage. Today, state officials say, 95 percent of Oregonians have coverage.

Read more: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/25/us/politics/oregon-republican-representative-affordable-care-act.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

---

Another story about a key Republican facing and turning his back on constituents in order to serve the ideological interests of the Republican party's right wing base.

[tenorly]

1. Could this be the crisis that finally leads to Single-Payer?

God does work in mysterious ways (sometimes).

[TomCADem]

2. No. The Republicans Are Not Your Friends

There are some "progressives" like Ed Schultz, Jane Stein, Susan Sarandon, Cornell West, Glenn Greenwald who spend most of their energy attacking Democrats while giving Republicans a free pass. Perhaps the idea is that if this get bad enough, a revolution will take place that will lead to progressive utopia.

This is a pipe dream. The election of Trump is leading to increased activism because he is threatening public education, health care, environmental laws, etc. We are going to have to fight simply to return to the baseline that existed before Trump took office if that will be possible. Also, what about the people who have died due to lack of coverage, the families torn apart, etc.?

My take is that some of the so-called progressives above are sock puppets whose real goal is to try to undermine Democrats from the "left." It is no coincidence that so many of these so-called "progressives are featured on RT. By accident or design, they are being used to run interference for Trump.

[tenorly]

3. Friends? Whither the thought!

I certainly didn't mean to imply they are trying to collapse our already badly-strained health care payments system out of any lofty intentions - far from it.

It should be obvious by now the GOP is trying to push society back into 19th century conditions, and that making decent health care unavailable to all but a select few (like in the 19th century) is a major part of that goal.

But the best-laid plans often do go awry, and RW efforts in that direction may just end up creating enough support for real reforms - like the kind Sanders has long espoused - before the whole thing goes to hell in a handbasket.

That's what I was referring to: the rich irony of the Rethugs' ultimately being the unwitting catalyst for such changes to take place.

As for the people you mentioned above, one can only guess. I'd say that for the most part they simply feel rejected by the Democratic Party and are lashing out somewhat (some more than others).

Some may indeed be trying to undermine Democrats - but not to benefit Trump (who's on his way out sometime this Summer anyway, mark my words), and certainly not the GOP which they genuinely detest just as much as you or I do.

They really do seem to believe they are the "new" Democrats and that they can attract enough disaffected ones to somehow eclipse the Democratic Party as such.

Once they see - after 2018 probably - that this is simply not going to happen, most (not all) will come back into the fold you'll see.

[TomCADem]

4. Here Is An Example of Such a "Progressive," the Sane Progressive...

She alternates between being a Bernie Sanders super fan whenever he appears to have disagreement with another Democrat, such as when she talks about Bernie forming a third party a few weeks ago...

Effort to Draft Bernie Sanders to Form People's Party

But, when he joins in the calls for unity and congratulates Perez or condemns Russian interference, the Sane Progressive attacks Bernie Sanders as a sell out...

Bernie Sanders Shilling of Russia Fairytale is Shameful Protectionism of Democratic Establishment:

Of course, if you check out her channel, it becomes pretty obvious that she rarely, if ever, criticizes Trump or any Republican, which is sort of weird. How does anyone, let along a progressive, not notice what is going on in the White House.

[tenorly]

6. Defeat, as you know, is too bitter a pill for some people.

So they lash out at those who handed them their defeat - and lose sight of the real enemy in the process. It's very common in politics unfortunately.

Having said that, I absolutely agree with you that through their intransigence they are unwittingly carrying water for Cheetolini and by extension, Putin - at least for the time being.

[mwooldri]

5. Maybe After Trump.

Single Payer makes the most sense. It'll also be part of reducing healthcare costs. Another part is free medical school training... Doctors, dentists, nurses, other professionals. No need to have huge incomes to pay off huge loans. Other part is the single payer entity having the ability to negotiate its costs.

There will be job losses with single payer, but job gains elsewhere. We will need more health care professionals once single payer is in place.

[tenorly]

7. Absolutely.

Things, unfortunately, will probably get a lot worse before 50%+ of voters realize Medicare For All is the only way out.

Isn't that, after all, how voters in Canada, the U.K., France, Australia, and so many other countries with some form of Single Payer finally arrived at that conclusion?

It was after years of penury and struggles with a health care system which in many cases was designed solely for those with means - and the realization this had been inflicted on them on purpose, since as you know for many decades the elite saw most other people as animals that should be somehow culled.

Man's inhumanity to his fellow man.

[mwooldri]

8. UK arrived with the NHS due to WW2.

The Liberals introduced a national health insurance system at the turn of the 20th Century. Then there was WW1, the Great Depression, and then WW2. During WW2, the Beveridge Report was released; a plan for a total overhaul of the welfare state (itself introduced by the Liberals at the turn of the century. Labour embraced Beveridge; the Conservatives didn't. Labour won in a landslide in 1945. However when Churchill returned in 1951, the vast majority of what Labour did remained.

Also during WW2 an emergency hospital service was established - as it was recognised that there would be lots of casualties from bombings with no money to pay for treatment. This could be viewed as the true predecessor to the NHS of today.

Similar stories of the founding of a nationally organised and planned health system can be found around western Europe thanks to WW2. Canada is a different story, as their system is much more recent (1984) - still a provincial system.

[DonViejo]

9. Locking...

Not LBN. As you aptly write: "Another story about a key Republican facing and turning his back on constituents in order to serve the ideological interests of the Republican party's right wing base."