Obama's doctor on Obamacare

[dramaturge]

(05-11-2012 10:53 AM)Persnickety Polecat Wrote:  

(05-11-2012 10:49 AM)Donb123 Wrote:  That is technically true but more an obfuscation than reality. Obama is not just "The White House" he's also the presumptive Democratic party nominee. As such his delegates will have the opportunity to define changes to the party platform. To assume that this isn't a form of "control" is a bit naive. I'd settle for "influence" if that works better for you.

As far as Congress, we too see that there is a form of influence that is exerted. Presidents in the past have called it "bully pulpit." Obamacare, also known as Pelosicare, was passed on the strong arm tactics of the White House along with Pelosi and Reid working back room deals. It was a concerted effort between the three of them. This is but one example of this kind of influence that mere mortals, aka citizens/electors/voters/we the people, do not have.

I've never heard it called Pelosicare, but I've heard it called Romneycare more than a few dozen times. It's pretty darn near the same plan, you know, just on a national, rather than state, level.

RepublicanCare '93 would also be an appropriate nickname. I propose to start using that one. :-D

[C_Fresh]

(05-11-2012 01:27 PM)dramaturge Wrote:  RepublicanCare '93 would also be an appropriate nickname. I propose to start using that one. :-D

I thought that was Hillarycare

[Donb123]

It's legal on a state level- not federal. But never-the-less, it just goes to show that Romney is Obama-lite.

[Donb123]

(05-11-2012 01:25 PM)dramaturge Wrote:  I will agree that the POTUS does have influence on the party platform, but as he made his statement, what...2 days ago?, I think it's a bit early to expect some kind of definitive action on that. One thing the POTUS is not, is a hasty actor. He plays the long game, and I expect to see him do that on this issue, as well.

According to the articles and public statements in question he has already made a definitive statement. It's that he won't be doing anything about it. Then again, maybe he'll "evolve" some more.

[dramaturge]

(05-11-2012 01:40 PM)C_Fresh Wrote:  

(05-11-2012 01:27 PM)dramaturge Wrote:  RepublicanCare '93 would also be an appropriate nickname. I propose to start using that one. :-D

I thought that was Hillarycare

From what I can tell, the main differences between Hillarycare and RepublicanCare '93 was related to the employer mandate (HillaryCare required employers to contribute a certain percentage of salary to health insurance for employees, and RepublicanCare required employers to offer insurance plans but did not require them to pay towards them) and the way they handled the individual mandate (HillaryCare set up "regional alliances that were basically huge groups wherein everyone was covered, so a bit like power companies do here--one company covers all the people in a certain region--while RepublicanCare just carried an individual mandate--you had to get your own coverage through whichever provider). Both proposals were individual mandate proposals, RC was proposed in order mainly to counter the strict employer mandate of HC. Interestingly, I absolutely recalled HC being a single-payer proposal until I did some research. Guess that conservative talk radio I was always hearing wasn't exactly fact-based in its presentation....

fun chart