"Both" parties created "Obamacare" — in cahoots

[superstition]

An excellent summary I found in a comments section elsewhere:

Obamacare is a misnomer since the GOP did its part to make it what it is.

Obama made a deal with the industry at the start of the process to give them everything they want. What they wanted is no single-payer, no public option, and the mandate from the Supreme Court to force citizens to bankroll their lobbyists, advertisements, and CEOs.

The GOP's role was to scare the public into submission about the public option, something that was successful over the course of the charade where initial polling showed something like 73-76% of the public wanting a public option.

The Dems' kabuki was particularly droll when Glenn Greenwald wrote an article here talking about how the Dems whipped against allowing Sanders to bring the public option to a vote. This was, as I recall, the whittled-down-to-nothing version of the public option (in contrast with the so-called "robust" one) that was designed to be seen as a failure so it could be tossed aside. The art of incremental degradation of policy representing the public's needs.

The GOP lifted its stonewalling of "Obamacare" the day before Christmas Eve in the early morning when it hoped no one would pay attention. They were successful with that tactic, thanks in large part to the media.

So it came to a vote and passed. This allowed the GOP to howl its howls of rage and use "Obamacare" as election leverage to get more GOPsters into positions of power so corporations and their elites would get more of our resources than ever before.

The Dems made sure all remnants of actual populism were squashed. Dennis Kucinich, who delivered an impassioned "Is this the best we can do?" speech was hustled onto Air Force One and capitulated. Howard Dean, who also said the bill needed to go back until it had a public option added was called INSANE at the behest of the White House via "progressive" media surrogates like Markos Moulitsas and John Aravosis. That was the White House messaging: If you oppose our Trojan Horse you are heartless (because you want people to die) and insane.

After being Dean Screamed a second time, this time by the Obama people, Dean folded like a cheap suit as Kucinich did. So much for populism in the Democratic party. So much for even a basic public option.

What did "both" parties want? They wanted what the industry prized above all: the mandate — a euphemistically-named precedent for force-feeding Americans corporate welfare.

Money on a loop! Rich people, via their corporations, bribe politicians. Politicians force the citizenry to buy their products, subsidizing that bribery. This means more money to bribe the politicians with. And, if a CEO doesn't do well enough in getting more money forced out of us then he/she can take a golden parachute and be replaced by someone worse.

We do not have two parties. We have one party with two brand names, like the corporation that puts Marathon and Speedway on the same corner to give the public "choice". One choice in red, the other in blue.

Don't forget how complicit the media was in all this, with fake progressives like John Stewart and Stephen Colbert holding a "Rally to Restore Sanity". Only a small sliver of media, like Glenn Greenwald, gave us peeks into the real circusworks. And even he has blinders, like his support of Islam despite there not being a single shred of support for gay people like him in Islam anywhere in the world or in history.

Here's that article (shortened a little):

Democrats' Scam Becomes More Transparent

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote about what seemed to be a glaring (and quite typical) scam perpetrated by Congressional Democrats: all year long, they insisted that the White House and a majority of Democratic Senators vigorously supported a public option, but the only thing oh-so-unfortunately preventing its enactment was the filibuster: sadly, we have 50 but not 60 votes for it, they insisted. Democratic pundits used that claim to push for "filibuster reform," arguing that if only majority rule were required in the Senate, then the noble Democrats would be able to deliver all sorts of wonderful progressive reforms that they were truly eager to enact but which the evil filibuster now prevents. In response, advocates of the public option kept arguing that the public option could be accomplished by reconciliation -- where only 50 votes, not 60, would be required -- but Obama loyalists scorned that reconciliation proposal, insisting (at least before the Senate passed a bill with 60 votes) that using reconciliation was Unserious, naive, procedurally impossible, and politically disastrous.

But all those claims were put to the test -- all those bluffs were called -- once the White House decided that it had to use reconciliation to pass health care reform after all. That meant that any changes to the final health care bill -- including the addition of the public option -- would only require 50 votes, which Democrats assured progressives all year long that they had. Great news for the public option, right? Wrong. As soon as it actually became possible to pass it, the 50 votes magically vanished. Senate Democrats (and the White House) were willing to pretend they supported a public option only as long as it was impossible to pass it. Once reconciliation gave them the opportunity they claimed all year long they needed -- a "majority rule" system -- they began concocting ways to ensure that it lacked 50 votes.

All of that was bad enough, but now the scam is getting even more extreme, more transparent. Faced with the dilemma of how they could possibly justify their year-long claimed support for the public option only now to fail to enact it, more and more Democratic Senators were pressured into signing a letter supporting the enactment of the public option through reconciliation; that number is now above 40, and is rapidly approaching 50. In other words, there is a serious possibility that the Senate might enact a public option if there is a vote on it, because it's very difficult for these Senators to vote "No" after pretending all year long -- on the record -- that they supported it. In fact, The Huffington Post's Ryan Grim yesteday wrote: "the votes appear to exist to include a public option. It's only a matter of will."

The one last hope for Senate Democratic leaders was to avoid a vote at all on the public option, thereby relieving Senators of having to take a position and avoid being exposed. But that trick would require the cooperation of all Senators -- any one Senator can introduce a public option amendment during the reconciliation and force a vote -- and it now seems that Bernie Sanders, to his great credit, is refusing to go along with the Democrats' sham and will do exactly that: ignore the wishes of the Senate leadership and force a roll call vote on the public option.

So now what is to be done? They only need 50 votes, so they can't use the filibuster excuse. They don't seem able to prevent a vote, as they tried to do, because Sanders will force one. And it seems there aren't enough Senate Democrats willing to vote against the public option after publicly saying all year long they supported it. So what is the Senate Democratic leadership now doing? They're whipping against the public option:

Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) acknowledged Wednesday that liberals may be asked to oppose any amendment, including one creating a public option, to ensure a smooth ride for the bill. "We have to tell people, 'You just have to swallow hard'"

If -- as they claimed all year long -- a majority of Congressional Democrats and the White House all support a public option, why would they possibly whip against it, and ensure its rejection, at exactly the moment when it finally became possible to pass it? If majorities of the House and Senate support it, as does the White House, how could the inclusion of a public option possibly jeopardize passage of the bill?

I've argued since August that the evidence was clear that the White House had privately negotiated away the public option and didn't want it, even as the President claimed publicly (and repeatedly) that he did. They're actually whipping against the public option. Could this sham be any more transparent?

What Greenwald's article doesn't discuss is how the stonewalling of the bill by the GOP was suddenly lifted in the early morning the day before Christmas Eve which is when it passed.

 

[Jaskalas]

Yes, the compromise of an insurance company boondoggle via forced purchase and insane prices...
Is a half measure that has utterly failed.
And it's likely responsible for all of Democrat's losses since 2010.

 

[superstition]

Yes, the compromise of an insurance company boondoggle via forced purchase and insane prices...
Is a half measure that has utterly failed.
And it's likely responsible for all of Democrat's losses since 2010.

Consider who is employing Howard Dean right now. First he's allegedly on the side of the public option and a "progressive". Now he's a lobbyist for the same industry that made sure it was nowhere near their mandate horse.

And he's apparently the front-runner for taking over the DNC.

One party. Two brands.

http://observer.com/2016/11/clinton-wounded-the-party-now-howard-dean-wants-to-kill-it/

I disagree with that headline, though. Clinton and her people did kill the party. No one wants to admit that, though.

 

[superstition]

Howard Dean is leaving his role at Democracy for America (DFA), the progressive group he founded.

Dean was at odds with his own group during the Democratic presidential primary.

While DFA endorsed Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Dean backed Hillary Clinton.

After major Democratic losses at the top of the ticket and in Congress on Tuesday, the party is eyeing new leadership for the top DNC post.

Dean announced on Thursday that he’s running.

Remember Howard Dean, the former long-time Vermont Governor and single-payer health insurance advocate? These days he's quoted briefly or interviewed in the media for his political observations. But behind the scenes, he has become a wealthy lobbyist for the drug industry. Blandly called a "senior advisor" to the giant corporate law firm Dentons, along with Newt Gingrich, Dean is an all-purpose wheeler-dealer from working to influence state attorneys general, state, regional, municipal and other government bodies, to developing the notoriously wasteful, unaccountable public-private partnerships dominated by profiteering corporatism.

Readers of articles containing comments by Mr. Dean are not told of the "other Dean," now opportunistically opposing single payer healthcare or full Medicare for all with free choice of doctor and hospital, that he once called "by far the most economically efficient system."

Readers would not be aware that he has another profitable agenda when he lambastes Bernie Sanders' single-payer health care plan. The media is derelict in not identifying him as a full-time corporate lobbyist for the interests of the drug and health insurance companies and their trade associations. Law firms like Dentons, which has recently hooked up with Dacheng ― an influential Chinese law firm ― provide convenient, velvet glove cover for monetized pitchmen like the turncoat Dean.

The media often falls for this misidentity trap and fails to inform its readers, viewers and listeners who the persons being interviewed really are beholden to for their bulging paychecks. For example, lawyer Philip Howard, who writes op-eds for the "Washington Post," "New York Times," and "Wall Street Journal" critical of the law of torts and the civil justice system, is described as founder of the non-profit group The Common Good. Remarkably, he is not identified as a partner in the corporate law firm of Covington and Burling in Washington, D.C. Giant Covington is a no-holds barred law firm for the drug, tobacco, chemical, energy and other big industries that want the courtroom door blocked or difficult to open for wrongfully injured persons seeking their full day in court with a right of trial by jury under our Constitution.

It's not a trap. It's purposeful hiding of information.

A few years ago I challenged Philip Howard to a public debate. He took quite a while to respond. When he did, it had one proviso--that there be no mention of his being a partner at Covington and Burling. I denied his precondition.

lol

 

[superstition]

Health bill's architects reap windfall as Washington lobbyists

ObamaCare has become big business for an elite network of Washington lobbyists and consultants who helped shape the law from the inside.

More than 30 former administration officials, lawmakers and congressional staffers who worked on the healthcare law have set up shop on K Street since 2010.

Major lobbying firms such as Fierce, Isakowitz & Blalock, The Glover Park Group, Alston & Bird, BGR Group and Akin Gump can all boast an Affordable Care Act insider on their lobbying roster — putting them in a prime position to land coveted clients.

“When [Vice President] Biden leaned over [during the signing of the healthcare law] and said to [President] Obama, ‘This is a big f'n deal,’ ” said Ivan Adler, a headhunter at the McCormick Group, “he was right.”

Veterans of the healthcare push are now lobbying for corporate giants such as Delta Air Lines, UPS, BP America and Coca-Cola, and for healthcare companies including GlaxoSmithKline, UnitedHealth Group and the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association.

"Healthcare lobbying on K Street is as strong as it ever was, and it's due to the fact that the Affordable Care Act seems to be ever-changing," Adler said. "What's at stake is huge. ... Whenever there's a lot of money at stake, there's a lot of lobbying going on."

The voracious need for lobbying help in dealing with ObamaCare has created a price premium for lobbyists who had first-hand experience in crafting or debating the law.

Veterans of the healthcare push are now lobbying for corporate giants such as Delta Air Lines, UPS, BP America and Coca-Cola, and for healthcare companies including GlaxoSmithKline, UnitedHealth Group and the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association.

Ultimately, the clients are after one thing: expert help in dealing with the most sweeping overhaul of the country’s healthcare system in decades.

Experts say that those able to fetch the highest salaries have come from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) or committees with oversight power over healthcare.

Demand for ObamaCare insiders is even higher now that major pieces of the law, including the healthcare exchanges and individual insurance mandate, are being set up through a slew of complicated federal regulations.

“Congress is easy to watch,” said Tim LaPira, a politics professor at James Madison University who researches the government affairs industry, “but agencies are harder to watch because their actions are often opaque. This leads to a greater demand on K Street” for people who understand the fine print, he said.

Watchdogs say the rise of the ObamaCare lobbyist is another example of the “revolving door” that turns public service into private enrichment.

“After passage of major legislation, those who have networks on Capitol Hill take exceedingly lucrative jobs with the same industries subject to the legislation,” said Craig Holman, a lobbyist for Public Citizen. “It raises questions about the [bill's] integrity.”

 

[agent00f]

Yes, the compromise of an insurance company boondoggle via forced purchase and insane prices...
Is a half measure that has utterly failed.
And it's likely responsible for all of Democrat's losses since 2010.

There a lesson in this for centrist democrats. Passing conservative legislation will not go unpunished, by conservatives.