The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
President Obama on the Twelfth Anniversary of the ACA
The namesake of Obamacare took a victory lap at the White House.
My first book, Unprecedented, told the story of the Affordable Care Act during President Obama's first term, culminating with NFIB v. Sebelius. My second book, Unraveled, recounted the ACA during Obama's second term, including Hobby Lobby, King v. Burwell, and Zubick. I am working on the third book in the trilogy, Undefeated, which recounts the ACA during President Trump's term, and into the Biden administration. This book will focus on Little Sisters of the Poor and California v. Texas, among other topics. From beginning to end, this twelve-year arc represents, I think, the complete debates over the ACA. To be sure, people still will object to Obamacare, but now the law has been woven into the fabric of our society.
Yesterday, former-President Obama visited the White House. And the namesake of the law took a victory lap. His light-hearted remarks offer a useful summary of Obamacare's many twists and turns since 2010.
I think it's been well documented just how difficult it was to pass the ACA. (Laughter.) There — there's — you can get a lot of testimony here, in case folks haven't heard.
As a country, we had been talking about reforming healthcare for 100 years. Unlike almost every other advanced economy on Earth, we didn't have a system that guaranteed access to healthcare for all of its citizens. Millions of people didn't have health insurance, often because their employers didn't provide it or because it was too expensive.
But despite the fact that our healthcare system didn't work well, it was hard to change. Healthcare represents about one-fifth of our economy; that's trillions of dollars that are involved. So there were a lot of different economic interests that were vying to maintain the status quo.
And because the majority of Americans did have healthcare, some people naturally worried that they'd lose what they had. The media was skeptical of past failures. There was a lot of misinformation, to say the least, flying around. And it's fair to say that most Republicans showed little interest in working with us to get anything done. (Laughter.) That's fair to say.
But despite great odds, Joe and I were determined, because we'd met too many people on the campaign trail who'd shared their stories, and our own families had been touched by illness.
And as I said to our dear friend Harry Reid, who is missed — wish he was here today, because he took great pride in what we did — I intended to get healthcare passed even if it cost me reelection — which, for a while, it looked like it might. (Laughter.)
But for all of us — for Joe, for Harry, for Nancy Pelosi, for others — the ACA was an example of why you run for office in the first place, why all of you sign up for doing jobs that pay you less than you can make someplace else; why you're away from home sometimes and you miss some soccer practices or some dance recitals.
Because we don't — we're not supposed to do this just to occupy a seat or to hang on to power. We're supposed to do this because it's making a difference in the lives of the people who sent us here.
And because of so many people, including a lot of people who are here today, made enormous sacrifices; because members of Congress took courageous votes, including some who knew that their vote would likely cost them their seat; because of the incredible leadership of Nancy and Harry, we got the ACA across the finish line together. (Applause.)
And the night we passed the ACA — I've said it before — it was a high point of my time here, because it reminded me and it reminded us of what is possible.
But, of course, our work was not finished. Republicans tried to repeal what we had done — again, and again, and again. (Laughter.) And they filed lawsuits that went all the way to the Supreme Court three times. I see Don Verrilli here who had to defend a couple of them. (Applause.)
They tried explicitly to make it harder for people to sign up for coverage.
And let's face it: It didn't help that when we first rolled out the ACA, the website didn't work. (Laughter.) That was not one of my happiest moments. (Laughter.)
So, given all the noise and the controversy and the skepticism, it took a while for the American people to understand what we had done. But lo and behold, a little later than I'd expected, a lot of folks, including many who had initially opposed healthcare reform, came around.
And today, the ACA hasn't just survived; it's pretty darn popular. And the reason is because it's done what it was supposed to do. It's made a difference.
First, 20 million and now 30 million people have gotten covered thanks to the ACA. (Applause.)It's — it's prevented insurance companies from denying people coverage based on a pre-existing condition. It's lowered prescription drug costs for 12 million seniors. It's allowed young people to stay on their parents' plan until they're 26. It's eliminated lifetime limits on benefits that often put people in a jam.
So, we are incredibly proud of that work.
But the reason we're here today is because President Biden, Vice President Harris, everybody who has worked on this thing understood from the start that the ACA wasn't perfect. To get the bill passed, we had to make compromises. We didn't get everything we wanted. That wasn't a reason not to do it. If you can get millions of people health coverage and better protection, it is — to quote a famous American — a pretty "big deal." (Laughter and applause.) That's what it is. (Applause.) A big deal.
But there were gaps to be filled. Even today, some patients still pay too much for their prescriptions. Some poor Americans are still falling through the cracks. In some cases, healthcare subsidies aren't where we want them to be, which means that some working families are still having trouble paying for their coverage.
Here's the thing: That's not unusual when we make major progress in this country. The original Social Security Act left out entire categories of people, like domestic workers and farm workers. That had to be changed. In the beginning, Medicare didn't provide all the benefits that it does today. That had to be changed.
Throughout history, what you see is that it's important to get something started, to plant a flag, to lay a foundation for further progress.
The analogy I've used about the ACA before is that: In the same way that was true for early forms of Social Security and Medicare, it was a starter home. (Laughter.) It secured the principle of universal healthcare, provided help immediately to families. But it required us to continually build on it and make it better.
And President Biden understands that. And that's what he's done since the day he took office. As part of the American Rescue Plan, he lowered the cost of healthcare even further for millions of people. He made signing up easier. He made outreach to those who didn't know they could get covered — make sure that they knew; made that a priority.
And as a result of these actions, he helped a record 14.5 million Americans get covered during the most recent enrollment period. (Applause.)
That, ladies and gentlemen, is what happens when you have an administration that's committed to making a program work. (Applause.)
And today — today, the Biden-Harris administration is going even further by moving to fix a glitch in the regulations that will lower premiums for nearly 1 million people who need it and allow 200,000 more uninsured Americans get access to coverage.
I'm a private citizen now, but I still take more than a passing interest in the course of our democracy. (Laughter.) But I'm outside the arena, and I know how discouraged people can get with Washington — Democrats, Republicans, independents. Everybody feels frustrated sometimes about what takes place in this town. Progress feels way too slow sometimes. Victories are often incomplete. And in a country as big and as diverse as ours, consensus never comes easily.
But what the Affordable Care Act shows is that if you are driven by the core idea that, together, we can improve the lives of this generation and the next, and if you're persistent — if you stay with it and are willing to work through the obstacles and the criticism and continually improve where you fall short, you can make America better — you can have an impact on millions of lives. You can help make sure folks don't have to lose their homes when they get sick, that they don't have to worry whether a loved one is going to get the treatment they need.
President Joe Biden understands that. He has dedicated his life to the proposition that there's something worthy about public service and that the reason to run for office is for days like today.
So, I could not be more honored to be here with him as he writes the next chapter in our story of progress. I'm grateful for all the people who have been involved in continuing to make the ACA everything it can be.
And it is now my great privilege to introduce the 46th President of the United States, Joe Biden. (Applause.)
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"And today, the ACA hasn't just survived; it's pretty darn popular. And the reason is because it's done what it was supposed to do. It's made a difference."
Diffuse costs and concentrated benefits, the same reason for every other entitlement program being 'popular'. The only chance we ever had of killing it was right at its inception, now it's immortal.
This vile, Ivy indoctrinated lawyer took my insurance and gave it to his tax sucking supporters. My deductible went from $500 a year to $6000 the next. The cost of the premium doubled for basically only catastrophic coverage, and really no insurance.
Contrast this to the Health Savings Account which died of non-use. Every person, including the poor puts away $3500 a year for health. Insurance only covers catastrophic care with a deductible of $25000. That cuts out the real bosses of the vile, Ivy indoctrinated lawyer, the insurance companies from 90% of the business. Patients do their own prior authorizations, not some high school grad who will be fired for allowing any care whatsoever.
Does Blackman cover this lawyer catastrophe in his books?
Blackman needs to speak to some patients and to some doctors. Stop covering the vile Ivy indoctrinated lawyers of the Supreme Court, the stupidest people in the country.
OH it can be killed once and for all...once the currency goes down, this program will be toast way before the congress touches SS or Medicare or Defense. It was an unconstitutional program to start but then again a GOP President SC Justice goes all wobbly kneed. My private healthcare insurance has gone through the roof (monthly payments) and my deductable is $8K! I'm subsidizing folks who want to sit home, maybe work a few months a year, play video games or sit on twitter all day and show how fing woke they are. Most of the Federal Govt should be shut down at this point..all agencies and programs created after 1960 should be shut down tomorrow. And the Defense Dept cut in half.
Posts are so much better if you mute that David Guy; not sure what his deep obsession with lawyers is - but I kind of wish someone would just yeet this dude into the sun.
As a guy who got ruined in a divorce, (And it was MY lawyer who bankrupted me, not my ex-wife's!) I can perfectly understand the obsession. Not all lawyers are scum, but the ones who aren't don't do enough to police the ones who are, and the legal community accepts as uncontroversial some remarkably abusive practices.
Which he carries way too far, but we didn't get lawyer jokes from their not having an element of truth.
Brett - I deal with quite a few lawyers in my profession. Divorce lawyers seem to be especially prone to bad behavior. Likewise with estate litigation attorneys (will constests). Civil litigation attorneys other than divorce or will contests, generally are okay. On the flip side, the transactional attorneys, estate & probate attorneys and appelette law attorneys that I deal with have been very good and professional
Fair enough, I've had dealings with estate and probate attorneys, as executor of my sister's estate, and had no particular complaints there.
The divorce attorney, though, led me to believe the deposit for my uncontested 1 year divorce without children would cover the whole thing, then came back with a bill several times larger. For five pages of boilerplate. I probably should have been suspicious when everybody working at the local office of ADAM was a woman, but suicidally depressed people make easy marks.
My experience with divorce lawyers is they have a strong tendency to fuel the fire, stoke the hate, etc instead of calming the client down. I can only recall twice in approximately 40 divorces where the divorce attorney told the client that "judge aint going to care about such and such and it aint going to affect the property split or the child custody '
"The divorce attorney, though, led me to believe the deposit for my uncontested 1 year divorce without children would cover the whole thing, then came back with a bill several times larger. For five pages of boilerplate. I probably should have been suspicious when everybody working at the local office of ADAM was a woman, but suicidally depressed people make easy marks."
Unreasonable, tone deaf, belligerent conduct by the client (especially one who is an avid consumer of conspiracy theories) tends to increase the time one must devote to a matter -- and with it, in most cases, the bill.
Artie. Stop the woke talk. Start acting woke. Resign and interview your diverse replacement. Until you do, you need to STFU.
Brett. You were not a violent crime victim thanks to the vile, toxic lawyer profession, protecting, privileging, and empowering violent criminals.
Hi, Chris. Please Mute User me.
"Diffuse costs and concentrated benefits" also defines any kind of insurance.
My health insurance premiums are up 176% since 2009 (was $4212/year, now $11625). So much for ACA making health insurance more affordable.
Billy, you are Exhibit A for why we need single payer.
No. That would allow poor people to get affordable health care and that is not allowed.
"poor people " get medicaid already
That depends on how you define poor, how you define affordable, and how you define care.
If you approached poor people and food in the same way the ACA approached poor people and medicine, you'd mandate that grocery stores sell groceries below cost to the poor, and then require everybody else to continue buying groceries there despite the prices having to become unreasonably high to pay for the subsidy.
Instead we have programs like food stamps. Why treat medicine differently?
Because it was a super expensive entitlement program, and they wanted to keep the expense off budget.
Because of the sheer inefficiency. Between Medicare, Medicaid, and various other government programs that pay hospitals to treat poor people, we already have single payer for the poor. The poor didn't have access to preventative care that might have kept them from being hospitalized in the first place. And putting all of that together under a single roof would have been a huge efficiency. It's why we spend three times as large a percentage of our gross national product on health care than single payer countries do.
And you think there are no inefficiencies in forcing insurers to sell insurance below cost to customers the government favors?
That's not how single payer works. And what we now have most definitely is not single payer.
No, that's how the ACA works. Single payer would be worse.
Worse, because if the government decides it sucks to be you, it does. The idea that the government isn't going to misuse a monopoly on paying for medical care is ludicrous.
Right now, for instance, the government is merely discouraging PSA tests, like the one that saved my life. Under single payer, the government deciding that they were a bad idea would make them practically impossible to get.
Note that most countries that are described as "single payer" still allow private health insurance, and private medical treatment, outside the government system. By contrast, the Democrats' proposal actually would outright outlaw private sector health insurance, creating a genuine government monopoly. They pretend it's just replicating Canada or Europe's system, when it's much more radical.
Similar, I suppose, to the way Democratic abortion laws are hugely radical compared to the European legal environment they purport to imitate.
Regardless of predictions, the attitude of contempt towards the public means that people won't trust single-payer advocates. Covid expanded that mistrust a lot.
And health care is existential to people so there may not be a limit on what people will do to defend themselves.
COVID didn't expand that, right-wing politicians figuring out that COVID misinformation could help drive the base expanded that. I'm curious to see if the higher death rate in counties that voted for Trump has an impact on the next set of elections.
And speaking of pre-existing conditions coverage... how 'bout that long COVID?
It's not "inefficiency" Krychek...
And the numbers you have are wrong, in terms of GDP. We spend about 18% of our GDP on healthcare, compared to ~12% that some other countries spend.
One of the large drivers is the difference in salaries for doctors and nurses in the US compared to other countries. The UK is a decent comparison, if you're looking at a true "single payer" system. In the UK, they do only pay 12.8% of GDP in healthcare costs. Of course, their doctors are paid FAR less. The average physician in the UK only makes $138,000 a year, compared to $316,000 a year in the US. The starting salary for a nurse in the UK is just $22,000, while in the US it's $66,000.
This is only part of the picture. Medical school tuition in the UK is dramatically lower than in the US, the NHS pays 5th year students a stipend, and malpractice insurance isn't needed if you're an NHS doctor performing NHS work as your employer covers you.
Further, doctors are still considered highly paid in the UK. A simple comparison in dolars doesn't tell the whole picture.
But only the poor people that are ideologically pure, right Molly? Wouldn’t want to give care to those smelly dirty unvaxxed. Fuck those guys.
I favor care for the unvaxed, as well as for smokers who develop lung cancer, as well as for people who live on fast food and then end up with heart disease. Yes, it's their own stupidity that got them where they are, but we're not barbarians.
Get rid of ALL govt subsidized healthcare and we would have a robust free market system where "po folk" could buy policies through voluntary community self-help groups like we did before LBJ screwed up the system. The price distortions in healthcare caused by govt is the problem. Ron Paul was the last guy in DC who understood the problem and the solution.
The best way to make something more expensive is to put government in charge of it.
Well, since people here (esp re health care) love anecdotes. My own health care, pre ACA was a Blue Shield HMO. In the 8 years preceding the ACA, the premiums went up 200% (ie, tripled in price). For worse coverage, with one's GP getting kicked off the plan fairly regularly, and then reappearing months or a year later. I had high cholesterol (it's perfect with a daily statin that's incredibly inexpensive) and a bad back. So, I was captive to this insurance. Didn't matter how much Blue Shield raised the monthly premium or worsened the benefits. I *had* to stay with it, because not a single insurance company would even consider covering me at any price.
Obamacare saved my life. Well, my financial life. Just the "no pre-existing conditions" bit saved me. I remain a Republican. But nothing drove me closest to re-signing withe the Dem party than the repugnant way R's have handled health care. We didn't do a fucking thing for decades. And then we refused to help Ds when the ACA was passed, and directly refused to make it better ("Change one comma and we will not let any modification go to reconciliation.") And, when we controlled the House and Senate, and had Trump in office (after he SWORE that he'd pass a tremendous health plan that was much better than Obamacare) . . . nothing. Fucking nothing.
At least the Dem's actually did something, in an attempt to help the American people. Unless one is a total moron, everyone agrees that health care sucked (overall) for America. I wish my party would stop bleating and whining about how awful ACA healthcare is, and put forth some *real* fleshed-out proposal. We've had 40 or 50 years to do this. We've had additional years since the ACA. What the F are we waiting for now?
Let me know when California can figure out how to afford single payer. Until then, it's a pipedream.
No, he's not. In fact, that's strong evidence against single payer. Government got involved and prices went up while service levels stayed the same or went down. Single payer just makes that worse in every country where it's tried.
Rossami, you do know that "post hoc, ergo prompter hoc" is a logical fallacy, right? As is "your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise"? The problem is the specifics of the ACA itself and not the mere fact of government involvement.
"Single payer just makes that worse in every country where it's tried."
Evidence. please. There are good economic reasons to think that in the specific case of healthcare, it would make things better.
And what reasons beyond you being a delusional marxist who believes in Santa Claus would those be?
First how would you allocate healthcare? You have the caculation problem of all socialists. Who gets what? Resources are limited. Pricing based on what? "cost plus"..we know how that works. And when something doesn't work, does it get terminated or does the program continue to grow because of political connections/influence/vote getting. How about ending all govt subsidizes in the healthcare market? My out pocket costs were much less 20 years ago in real dollars than today for healthcare and I'm paying more for insurance. Face it, govt is the problem...
“REFUSE TREATMENT FOR THE UNVACCINATED!!!!” is exhibit nos. 1 through 10,000,000 as to why we don’t want you political types anywhere near control of our healthcare. Denying healthcare to people we hate ain’t a good advertisement for single payer.
Is there anyone who has actually seriously suggested denying health care to the unvaccinated? I haven't heard it. If anyone did they would almost certainly be ignored or shouted down.
Yes, gaslighter. Yes.
People were denied treatment because they were unvaccinated.
Example:
https://www.newsweek.com/3-year-old-reportedly-denied-heart-treatment-because-parents-were-unvaccinated-1674707?amp=1
Yes. There were prominent people in the left and in the media who suggested it. Insisted that it was the right thing to do. Angrily.
Single payer won’t work in this political environment where the primary aim of getting power is to hose the enemy. I wouldn’t trust either side as far as I could throw them.
Another example: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-60132765.amp
Took less than a minute of Google searching to find two examples.
Saying some variation of it never happens or no one is saying that is the new hallmark of elitist dismissiveness of the concerns of the concerns of the public.
OK, I misunderstood the claim you were making. I thought what you were talking about was saying that people who are unvaccinated should not be treated for Covid because they deserve to get Covid. Similar to the claim that smokers should not be treated for lung cancer because they deserve it. To the best of my knowledge, no one seriously did make those claims, and in fact unvaccinated people who got Covid were treated for Covid.
With respect to the boy who was denied heart treatment, that's a different issue. His unvaccinated family was asking the hospital to put their staff and other patients at risk, and it was legitimate for them to be unwilling to take the risk. Had I been the hospital administrator, I would have tried to find a less drastic solution, but you can't really fault the hospital for not being willing to assume a risk that had been created by the parents.
The hospital staff put a small risk to staff ahead of a life and death risk to the patient.
But that’s not the point, of course. The point is that being dismissive is a losing argument because it only takes a couple of examples to disprove the no one is saying, it never happens, no evidence nonsense. Government health care advocates seem to always have that dismissive attitude towards the public and it’s an obvious red flag to non-elitists. But the self-styled ruling class is completely blind to it.
Well, with 8 billion or so people on the planet, I suppose you can always find someone somewhere who said just about anything. But was it ever put forth as policy by people actually in a position to implement it? Nope.
His link was literally to a case of somebody being denied a heart transplant because he wasn't vaccinated for Covid. How did that happen if nobody was in a position to implement it?
It was the first link in the Google search with a US example. I didn’t try hard to find a good case.
Because we're talking about different things; see my comment at 12:14 p.m.
Why do you even want universal health care if you don’t like the public enough to even pretend to listen to their concerns?
We saw this with the vaccine advocates. They showed obvious unfriendliness towards people and then wondered why those people didn’t trust them. "We hate them so much. Why won’t they let us inject them with this experimental substance? They’re just insane and deserve whatever they get. Seriously roll up your sleeve! Come on!"
Why do you even want traffic laws if you don't like the public enough to even pretend to listen to their concerns? The police show obvious unfriendliness to people who don't wear seat belts; they give them tickets and occasionally even arrest them and the fact that they weren't wearing seat belts is relevant if there's an accident and somebody gets sued. Obviously you hate the driving public, so we need to just not have the government involved.
Ok, cool. Don’t even try to understand.
Healthcare, like so much policy, is about tradeoffs, Ben. You ignore these. You regularly pretend there is never any costs on the other side of the ledger when you get your victims of liberals blood up.
Sarcastr0 at the end of the thread with the non sequiturs.
What happened to your deductible?
I am doing TurboTax again this year. Pity the poor people who received 1095-As and have to fill in the Forms 8962 and wo be to anyone who (other than in 2020 or 2021) earned $1 over the subsidy cliff.
Cliffs in the tax code are the stupidest portions of it. All of them need to be replaced with phase outs.
It should be noted that it is darn near impossible to see a doctor in the US without a valid ID. (Obamacare provision ?) Kills the bogus claim that minorities can get a valid ID
Also near impossible to even get an appointment with a doctor without providing proof of insurance.
Doctors are prepaid under this scheme. Any care they give you comes from their pockets with razor thin margins. Instead of making more from your illness, they can now go bankrupt if they provide care. So guess what, you are dead, from minimal care. Welcome to Soviet Union care.
Commie Care and Princess Diana, right? Took 45 minutes to get her out of the car. She was talking. No Jaws of Life, $500 on EBaey. These Commie assholes took 1.5 hours to get her to the hospital, 4 miles away, at midnight, with no traffic. They kept doing street CPR.
In the poorest county of the US, out of the car in 5 minutes. On a helicopter, in the OR with a chest surgeon at the Trauma Center, in 20 minutes, for her torn pulmonary artery. Helicopter with Commie Care? Forget it. The concept of the Golden Hour after trauma was discovered in Vietnam, and established in the Sixties. Thus the helicopter in health care. It was basic care in the Nineties.
Commie Care is good for cheap care. If you are ill, you just die on a waiting list. Welcome to Commie Care, you American morons.
Princess Diana????
Um, maybe you should lie down and rest for awhile.
Or turn off the computer for a day or two and take in some nature.
I see my doctor, and the occasional specialist, without showing an ID.
Well, I can, too, but only because I previously provided it, and they take my word for it not having expired so long as the bills get paid.
That is because the doctor has your ID on file
It should also be noted that neither of your statements are supported by any evidence.
Why? Because neither of them are true.
My statements are absolutely true
Have you tried to get a doctors appointment with having proof of insurance - The vast majority of doctors wont even allow you to schedule an appointment without proof of insurance (or have proof of insurance on file from prior visit)
Same with arrival at the doctors office, unless they have ID on file, they wont let you get past the waiting room.
I'm pretty darned sure that it IS possible, because well off people often self-insure.
Brett Bellmore
April.6.2022 at 12:40 pm
Flag Comment Mute User
I'm pretty darned sure that it IS possible, because well off people often self-insure.
concur - though it can be difficult
"Have you tried to get a doctors appointment with having proof of insurance"
Yes. I periodically see a doctor outside my health network. When I called for the first appointment I told them I'd be paying cash. That was the first and last time they raised the subject.
"Same with arrival at the doctors office, unless they have ID on file, they wont let you get past the waiting room."
Lol. The only thing with my name on it they've ever seen is the check I give them at the end of the appointment.
Obama should have implemented single layer health care when he had the chance. That failure will haunt us for decades.
Obama didn't have the votes for single payer in the Senate, even with a majority. The ACA is essentially what he was able to get past the Senate. A lot of moderate Democrats, like Ben Nelson of Nebraska, just simply were not on board with what they saw as socialized medicine.
The ACA lost support in Congress even before it passed, which is why it had to be passed by reconciliation in a preliminary form, before going through the normal back and forth legislation goes through to fix problems.
The original version passed the House 220-215, with only one Republican vote, and 39 Democratic votes against.
The Senate passed their own version 60-39, with no Republican votes, and promptly lost their 60 vote majority in a special election, so that they could no longer beat a filibuster.
So the Senate version, without any fixes, was sent to the House, and passed 219-212, with every Republican and 34 Democrats voting against it. A sub-party line vote.
And in the very next election Democrats lost control of the House, and almost lost the Senate, largely on the strength of Republicans campaigning against it.
It was a real skin of the teeth enactment.
Brett, for once I almost entirely agree with your recitation of the facts. Sorry to harp on my favorite subject, but we got the Frankenstein's monster that the ACA candidly is because that's what happens when the political minority has way too much power relative to their actual numbers. Your side wasn't able to block the ACA, but you were able to turn it into a Frankenstein's monster.
There are things to be said for and against the free market. There are things to be said for and against single payer. What we ended up with is the worst of both of them. Because even though there was majority support for single payer, under our system, that wasn't good enough.
Maybe they should have negotiated with, say, Collins. Only needed 1 vote.
Nope, O and Pelosi wanted all the imagined political benefits.
O and Pelosi went it alone once it was clear they weren't going to get any GOP votes. Any specific suggestions for what they could have offered that would have gotten Collins on board?
No Republican was coming on board.
Collins only does it when she gets McConnell's permission.
No Republican was coming on board because it was a steaming heap so far as Republicans were concerned.
Sure seemed more like it was because they didn't want to give Obama a win.
It was not a very liberal plan to begin with.
"Sure seemed more like it was because they didn't want to give Obama a win."
You don't think there's any connection between not wanting to give Obama wins, and Obama 'wins' being almost uniformly things Republicans were already opposed to?
"It was not a very liberal plan to begin with."
Only in the sense that there was a more 'liberal' (In an Orwellian sense.) plan that they knew damned well they didn't have the votes for. It was about as 'liberal' as any plan you'd expect Democrats to originate: A gigantic new entitlement program run off budge by conscripting the private sector.
Classic economic fascism: Maintain nominally private industry, in this case insurance, while dictating what will be sold, to who, and for how much. The 'more liberal' plan was to openly take over the insurance industry, instead of treating it like a puppet to obscure what was going on.
Republicans turned on a dime as to what they were opposed to, Brett. Everyone knew the current system needed reform. The GOP Presidential debates talked about their reform plans, even. Then suddenly the status quo was the best and we had the best system in the world.
It was quite obvious to see at the time.
Only in the sense that there was a more 'liberal' (In an Orwellian sense.)
Dude, it was a conservative idea initially. Is this your thing where you declare Republicans and conservative think tanks to have been secretly liberal this whole time?
Oh, come on. Just because you agree something needs to be done, "and this is something", doesn't mean you're obligated to support it.
And, NO, it was NOT initially a conservative idea. Unless you're reaching back decades earlier to ideas the right gave up around the time I was in kindergarten.
Obama's health reform isn't modeled after Heritage Foundation ideas
" First, Heritage did not originate the concept of the health insurance exchange. Furthermore, the version of the exchange we did develop couldn't be more different than that embodied in this law.
For us, the health insurance exchange is to be designed by the states. It is conceived as a market mechanism that allows individuals and families to choose among a wide range of health plans and benefit options for those best suited to their personal needs and circumstances. People would have a property right in their health policy, just like auto or homeowners' policies, and be able to take it with them from job to job.
Under the Heritage design, individuals could choose the health plan they want without losing the tax benefits of employer-sponsored coverage. The exchange we propose would be open to all state residents and -- very importantly -- be free of federal regulation.
Under the president's law, however, the congressionally designed exchanges are a tool imposed on the states enabling the federal government to standardize and micromanage health insurance coverage, while administering a vast and unaffordable new entitlement program. This is a vehicle for federal control of state markets, a usurpation of state authority and the suppression of meaningful patient choice. Heritage finds this crushing of state innovation and experimentation repugnant. "
" but we got the Frankenstein's monster that the ACA candidly is because that's what happens when the political minority has way too much power relative to their actual numbers."
We got it because that's what happens when a narrow majority decide to do something big and unpopular. You should only be doing big things when you have big majorities. Small majorities say, "Be modest in your aims, the voters don't trust you all that much!".
I personally think we'd be better off if all laws that don't pass by a supermajority were automatically sunsetted if they were not reenacted after the next election. Instead of having one party in particular trying to hugely change things through razor thin, transitory majorities.
But those majorities are only razor thin and transitory because of our anti-democratic system of governance.
No, they're only razor thin and transitory because your party has become obsessively urban, and turned its back on everybody outside of city centers, except for demanding to order them about. Our system was no more undemocratic between the 1930's and 90's, and the Democratic party dominated Congress most of those years, the Republican party was on the verge of extinction at the federal level at times.
But, back then, the Democratic party still thought it was worth listening to people who didn't live in cities.
Back then a far higher percentage of our population was rural. And back then the rural population hadn't been polarized into thinking the federal government is Satan.
Exactly. And the rural voters hadn't been indoctrinated into thinking urbanites were elitist, out-of-touch monsters.
And I have no clue what Brett means by "obsessively urban." I do know that you hate the cities - you know, where people live - so I'm not inclined to take remarks of that kind very seriously.
Do you have any familiarity with the history of the 20th century US?!
Also because the idea of saving money with government health care is more-or-less a complete fantasy but government health care advocates all believe it 100%. So they keep proposing schemes and keep seeing them fail to save money and can never understand.
60-39, or call it 59-40 if you prefer, is hardly "skin of the teeth."
It's skin of the teeth compared to the votes big programs used to get to pass. Look at how lopsided a vote SS was enacted by. A true bipartisan majority: A majority within both parties.
These days the Democratic party really does think they're entitled to completely and irreversibly overturn things based on a narrow House majority and having the VP resolve ties in the Senate.
Which is exactly what the Republicans would think if they were in that position.
I can just hear McConnell saying, "Well, I'd like to pass this, and we all support it, but we only have a narrow majority, so it really wouldn't be appropriate."
Yeah, right.
"Which is exactly what the Republicans would think if they were in that position."
In point of fact, Republicans were in that position, or rather, somewhat better than that position, for the first two years of the Trump administration, and what did they pass without Democratic support? A tax reform bill, and that was it. Nothing irreversible.
I think if Democrats had FDR style majorities, or there was no filibuster, so that Obamacare couldn't practically be blocked by Republicans, a lot of Republicans would have said "this is Mitt Romney's health plan" and supported it, and Obamacare would have a bipartisan majority like SS did.
But since they felt they had a chance to stop it, they voted against it en masse.
My criticism of Obamacare is that it created new stakeholders like the Kushner family—it should have been Medicaid to 250% FPL and then just a $2500 refundable tax credit for the preexisting individual market or if one had a preexisting condition one could buy into Medicaid and that portion of Medicaid would be funded with federal dollars.
Too bad Ted Kennedy couldn’t compromise with Richard Nixon on the 'National Health Insurance' program Nixon supported in his 1974 SotU (though that was partially motivated to try to get at least a little Democratic support as Watergate was gaining momentum).
Though not the single payer system Kennedy wanted (it proposed govt-regulated standardization of the existing patchwork of private/govt healthcare insurance plans), it likely would have been the entry point to increasing government coordination as evolution toward something like Canada had started working on in the mid-1960's.
Approaching 50 years later, it might be no more controversial today than Canada's full-population nationally coordinated/financed but Province (state) managed Medicare, and U.S. Elder-coverage national Medicare and full-population Social Security.
"It's made a difference."
Sure. Higher premiums, higher co-pays and higher deductibles.
Bonus, employer plans require more employee participation.
Wait...Weren't we promised ACA would reduce premiums by 2400 bucks a year for the 'average' American family? And that if we liked our plan, we could keep our plan? And that if we liked our doctor, we could keep our doctor?
Reality worked out very differently than what the American people were told 12 years ago.
I have some shocking news for you; politicians lie.
Oh come on, XY.
Do you think premiums never went up before ACA?
Do you think they wouldn't have gone up without it?
Yeah, health insurance premiums went up before the ACA. And went up afterwards, too. No significant change in the rate of increase.
But I can tell you that my my more expensive insurance now has worse coverage.
And what did Obama say would happen? Did he say it wouldn’t make much difference, or did he say the average family would save $2500?
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/521/cut-cost-typical-familys-health-insurance-premium-/
Why doesn’t the falsehood matter to you guys? What does that say?
Don't forget increasingly thin provider networks, along with a corresponding increase in balance billing.
Shockingly, there was no free lunch to be had.
The irony is Trump’s corruption paid off for Democrats because the Kushner family is heavily invested in the ACA Exchange subsidies and so once Trump won the Republican nomination in 2016 Obamacare was in safe hands.
BlueAnon
Oscar Health exists and Josh Kushner is member in good standing of the liberal elite—they vacation on super yachts together.
A grown-up who had to deal with petulance, ignorance and bad faith, and had to make a lot of compromises, but who persevered. That's life.
"grown-up who had to deal with petulance, ignorance and bad faith"
Agreed, he is petulant, fed on lib ignorance and always operated in bad faith.
Tells "lie of the year" to sell a fraudulent scheme, gets called a grownup by people who benefit from the fraudulent scheme.
A big f*****g deal indeed.
Obamacare got you guys ten years of majority leader Mitch McConnell.
And get ready for more similar years 2023-2025 at the very least. Probably much longer. Might not be Mitch himself the whole time though.
That’s the price of sacrificing most Americans' needs for giveaways to a few. Lesson learned? (Heh, no, never. Not while there’s still a dramatic story to be spun.)
I think the lesson they learned is that they didn't get kicked out of power forever, but the Republicans never repealed the ACA anyway.
One thing I'll say about the Democratic party, they are not afraid to suffer temporary political setbacks to win permanent victories. Unlike the GOP, which generally fritters away it's time in power without accomplishing anything that sticks.
the Republicans never repealed the ACA anyway.
Of course they didn't. For two reasons;
1. Having sold their voters on how diabolical it is they preferred to keep it as a club.
2. They knew repeal would be chaotic.
I've said before that the federal GOP is a bait and switch con. That doesn't mean that there weren't conservative alternatives to the ACA. Just that the nominally conservative party didn't have any interest in enacting them.
You guys got your wars and all of the slaughtered Muslims when you voted for Bush in 2004…so don’t say Republicans never did anything for you.
But... Brett's kind of right. A great example of this would be Trump's border wall. That's the type of thing that one could look at as a Republican analogue to Obamacare- something they could have built that would be politically difficult to tear down. Whether you support it or oppose it, objectively, that's true.
The problem is a lot of GOP is resistant to putting facts on the ground like that- they focus on tax cuts (which get repealed when the Dems get in power) and culture war stuff instead.
The border wall is asinine but obviously we need more barriers…but I very seriously doubt Texans want a wall through Big Bend.
But Trump could have gotten his wall funded by holding up judicial appointments and McConnell would have funded it within minutes. If you actually listen to Trump he admits to making a lot of mistakes in his first two years because he didn’t understand McConnell and Ryan and boomer generals and Rosenstein and McGahn were his adversaries.
That's true. He stupidly thought that getting elected as a Republican would make them act like allies. And thought that they actually wanted to fulfill their campaign promises.
I don't know that he could have gotten the wall by holding up judicial nominations, though. Keeping the border porous is a pretty high priority for the 'uniparty'. He may have been on notice that if he attempted it, the GOP would flip on impeachment.
They focus on tax cuts. On the culture war stuff they limit it to talk; The most they do is obstruct the Democrats' advances, they never lift a finger to push things the other way.
Really, the only thing the GOP establishment cares about are economic issues and kickbacks, and the most the base gets out of them is obstructing the left's attacks, never any action to roll them back.
No, two senators per state regardless of population got us ten years of majority leader Mitch McConnell.
I think overall Democrats are more willing to stand on principle even if we lose elections because of it. Democrats ended Jim Crow, knowing that it would cost the the South, which in fact it did. It was still the right thing to do.
The public in a bunch of states learned that they can’t risk voting Democrat even once in a while, because Dems see the public's concerns as something to be overridden instead of listened to.
One of my pet peeves about conservatives is that they talk and act as if Democrats lose elections because they are out of touch with public opinion, when in fact Democrats lose elections because of the electoral college and two senators per state. National polling on issues like single payer health care consistently shows that the Democrats are far closer to national public opinion than the Republicans are.
That’s the same sort of dismissiveness though. They're only 38-49% so fuck them and their concerns.
And then you do it with Covid and schools and alienate previously friendly mothers with children — mothers who can’t work because the schools are closed see their concerns treated with the same dismissiveness as everyone else that didn’t go along with elitists before.
Dismiss the concerns of 38-49% on enough different issues and learn that it’s not always the same 38-49% and now a plurality has learned you use people for a while until they're no longer useful, and then they get thrown in the basket of deplorables.
No, it's not being dismissive. It's recognizing that on every issue there will be winners and losers, and it's not tyranny if you lose a democratic vote. And that living in community means that everyone -- including us so-called elites -- occasionally has to do things we'd rather not do because it makes better communities. And that when interests are in conflict, sometimes a balance has to be struck, and sometimes that balance will favor one side.
In other words, it's being an adult.
A balance takes different needs into account and results in a compromise law. There have been about zero of those on anything substantial since at least 2007 when calling the President "Bushhitler" was in fashion.
Also, selling the plan with the "lie of the year" shows very obvious contempt for the public.
And Ben, what I am hearing from the right is that you guys have some basic fundamental right to always win. You're not just looking for a place at the table, or to have your voice heard, or to participate in the democratic process. No, you want a system that essentially gives you a veto over everything. And there ain't no such right.
It’s about listening to the public, not about the final vote.
Y'know, I've heard that as satire before...but rarely with this level of complete, unquestioned credulity.
You raise this gripe a lot. Our legislative system was set up from the beginning with safeguards against pure mob rule, and thankfully will stay that way for exactly the same reason.
Maybe you should acquaint yourself with the Serenity Prayer. Or move.
Why should I take seriously someone who insults the voters by equating them to a mob?
Let me guess: had I used a different turn of phrase you would have been completely on board, but now you have no choice but to soldier on with your pointless bitching.
He always has a choice to be reasonable, and he always chooses poorly.
Turn of phrase has nothing to do with it. Your choice of phrase indicates that you hold the voters in deep contempt (which is really kind of funny since Ben is here accusing the liberals of being the ones who hold voters in contempt.) It's a deep reflection of your attitude toward the voters. The voters can't be allowed to run things because it would be mob rule if they did. I'm not sure you even get how deeply, deeply offensive that is to your fellow Americans.
Selling schemes with the "lie of the year" isn’t allowing voters to choose either. (A majority of voters opposed it anyway.)
You sure do move goalposts a lot.
Assuming it actually was a lie -- and I think Obama believed it to be true when he said it, even though it turned out not to be -- lying to voters, versus not even allowing the voters to set policy, are not the same thing. Neither one is laudable, but under the first one, at least the voters are still the ones making the decision.
No they aren’t.
Nah, we know from extensive evidence that he knew at the time that it was a lie.
Obama Officials In 2010: 93 Million Americans Will Be Unable To Keep Their Health Plans Under Obamacare
And he kept telling that whopper long after people started losing their policies. Believe me, it takes a lot to get a site like Politifact to declare something a Democratic President said was the lie of the year. It wasn't a near thing, he knew he was lying.
I suspect that hot take says a lot more about your view of the world than mine.
What I actually think is that the voters shouldn't be able to make impulsive, broad, sweeping decisions for the entire country whenever they can cobble together 50.0001% for a fleeting moment. Group dynamics make people behave differently than they would individually -- sometimes shockingly so. Whether you choose to call it mob behavior or something more euphemistic, the Senate quite fortunately dampens that phenomenon.
And even in a pure democracy the likelihood of 50.0000001 percent of the voters making a sweeping change on a whim is virtually nil. All these horrible things that democracy supposedly causes are just not the experience of parliamentary democracies like Canada, England or Japan.
And what I think is that politicians should be able to keep their promises and enact the stuff they promised when they were running. If those turn out to be bad ideas there will be another election in two or four years and the voters can fix it. In the meantime there’s a Bill of Rights to keep them from going too far afield.
This, right in the middle of a thread discussing a recent circumstance where that's effectively exactly what happened. You can't make this stuff up.
Like I said, it sounds like a move is in order. Whatever checks and balances those countries may have in place to deal with flash-mob "democracy," you're not going to get that here by simply nuking the Senate or otherwise neutering its calming effect and leaving the rest of the US system as it is.
No that is not what happened with Obamacare. It polled well above fifty percent at the time it was passed; it only looked close because of the way Congress is structured.
I don’t favor nuking the Senate though I do favor making it proportionate by population. Which is not going to happen. So what you’ll see instead is my side simply finding creative ways to do end runs around it. Hey, if your side can be perfectly blatant about ignoring the will of the voters, my side can be just as blatant about ignoring a 230year old document that has mostly outlived its usefulness.
Oh, stop. That was the legislation Pelosi infamously said we had to pass so we could figure out what was in it. There was no "it" to honestly poll.
"Free cookies for all" of course polled well -- as it always does. But it's disingenuous to use slanted poll questions testing cherry-picked benefits as a proxy for popularity of the good/bad/ugly package deal.
Democrats always pay attention to the "do you want a pony?" polls, and demand we ignore the "do you want to muck out a stable?" polls. As though there were no connection between the two questions.
Tl;dr, Democrats propose something Republicans have been advocating for years, result: Republicans almost to a man fight it to the death.
Fun fact: The first two presidents to propose national health care were Teddy Roosevelt and Richard Nixon, both Republicans.
The collapse of the USSR caused the right to reassess the intelligence of nationalizing industries, they eventually figured out it was a bad idea. The left is still hung up on the notion that everything is done better by government, and ideally the federal government.
In fact, single payer had stopped being a mainstream Republican idea long, long before the ACA.
No, "the left" doesn't think "everything" is done better by government, but it does think "some things" are done better by government, as opposed to the right which thinks the government is Satan.
Well, I believe if you check, you'll find an interesting Harry S Truman proposal not long after he became President. I believe Harry served sometime between Teddy and Dick.
Don't know what planet you're from but on this one that has no resemblance to reality.
What an awful president he was.
Yea, what did he do, besides the following:
- Brought the economy back from a deep recession;
- Passed health care reform;
- Nominated three judges to SCOTUS and got two appointed;
- Tracked down and brought OBL to some justice;
- Gave some hope to Dreamers
There is a reason that Barack Obama will go down in history as one of the very good Presidents. All your whining will not stop that.
Dreamers would probably have permanent status without Obama.
A President who could be trusted to faithfully execute the laws would have been able to make a deal and get a compromise bill passed and signed.
Obama may never be able to live up to Ben's hypothetical President.
But then, who can?
I just remember it from that time. There was talk of making a deal but no one trusted Obama to keep his part of the bargain so it was impossible to craft a deal.
That’s when the wall talk really got going, because the belief is that Obama and successors will cheat on any deal and renege on any enforcement pledge, but even they won’t go so far as to tear down a border wall.
Wall in exchange for Dreamer permanent status is probably a deal that could be made right now. Or any time. Trump would have made that deal.
I think it's unfair to blame that dynamic on Obama. To be sure, no one trusted him to keep his side of any deal, but that was because of precedent set much earlier. Democrats have been welshing on their sides of "grand bargains" for decades, goes back at least to Reagan trading amnesty for illegals in return for enhanced border security, and never getting the border security. Or the '93 Motor Voter act, that traded easier registration to vote for regular purges of voter rolls, and the latter was never delivered on.
That you couldn't trust Democrats to deliver on their end of the deal was established long before Obama hit the scene, even if he did nothing to change that conclusion.
It bears occasional reminding that those who spent four years reflexively defending Donald Trump abandoned all right to be taken seriously. Mute their comments and what remains is a potentially worthwhile discussion of the merits and defects of Barack Obama.
When Obama loses ML, well, he's can hang out in good company with Abraham Lincoln, and most of modernity.
What about all the racial healing he brought America?
Turns out that a race grievance organizer doesn’t promote races getting along. Who would have guessed?
I actually blame the racists for continuing to be racist, myself.
When everyone who doesn't 100% agree with you is a "racist", you'll never have a shortage of "racists" to blame for everything.
When America enacts universal health care, I hope it is formally named Obamacare.
Medicare for All actually makes more sense at the state level…and the fact Warren and Bernie don’t provide leadership to make it happen in Mass and VT should tell you everything you need to know about the prospects of M4A on a national level.
States have to balance their budgets and don’t pass that stuff because the financial numbers don’t work out.
All of the money necessary to fund a M4A program is currently being spent in states like Mass and VT. So as long as the goal is eliminating private health insurance it would be very easy to find a M4A program. The reason the attempts have failed is because state employees and university employees like their health insurance benefits and those people would be the first people to be switched to M4A.
Yeah, if people would support it then it would have public support.
If it was possible to get the money for it then the money might be there for it.
It’s a good idea if we ignore all the things that make it a bad idea.
Canada and UK make it work and obviously Mass and VT could make it work. I don’t think it’s a big deal one way or the other.
Other countries had different price dynamics 50-75 years ago when they came up with their systems. No one ever went from a high cost system to a low cost system.
That’s why it would have to start in the states by transferring the people with the best health insurance (state employees and university employees) into the M4A program first because those policies have the highest reimbursement rates. The process would take 5 years and in the end everyone would be in the M4A program and you would just keep premiums and co-pays but have CSR payments based on income. Quite frankly the logistics aren’t difficult at all because every state already runs a health insurance program AND the states are heavily involved in private heaven insurance market and obviously the federal government funds the rest of health care spending. Obviously the difficult part would be the politics part because nobody really wants to change the status quo…which is M4A is a dumb issue.
These things work well when it’s a story about something and the ending of the story is written so it works well.
The architects of the ACA build a market-based system based on conservative ideas that were initially put forth by the Heritage scholars and used by a Republican governor in MA. Instead of claiming credit for the idea, conservatives ran from their own ideas. This left them with no alternatives. This was evident to all when they could not come up with a replacement they had promised.
The success of the ACA shows a failure in conservatives because they put politics ahead of their own ideas.
Finally, before anyone comes up arguing that the ACA is not a conservative idea, I would point out that the paper trail is there showing its pedigree.
The least popular part of Obamacare is the Heritage plan outside of Florida and a few other states. So Florida wanted to attract wealthy 60 year olds and so Rick Scott made sure the Florida ACA Exchange had a robust amount of plans and healthy competition. In states like Texas Republicans wanted it to fail because Texas wants healthy young workers and not retirees.
I can't tell if you are parody posting here, but if not - You've obviously never read any of that paper trail.
The Heritage Foundation did the unthinkable - it published an entire collection of diverse viewpoints about health reform, including non-conservative viewpoints. The same collection include arguments against ACA-like mandated purchase schemes as well, why you don't attempt to assign that view to all conservatives, hmm? What about the essay opposing all government health insurance; is that also the policy of all conservatives?
In MA, Romney proposed his own health-reform bill, but was ignored by the Democrat controlled legislature, which passed its own version. And Romney tried to veto the version that passed, and had his veto overridden (just like the other 250+ vetos he tried that year). His main involvement was that after it became law, he actually implemented the law as required. I guess that proves the idea's conservative origins, right? A law proposed by Democrats, passed by overriding a Republican veto, but implemented as required by a Republican means it originated from Republicans?
Or... not.
Last things first, Gov. Romney signed the Massachusetts into law. He vetoed sections of the bill, but not the bill in its entirety. You are correct that once passed into law he did administer it effectively. That is why I think he made a mistake in 2012 by saying he would repeal the ACA. He would have done better to have campaigned on saying he would be a better administrator of the law.
As to the first part of the reply, I think you confirmed that the ideas for ACA did have their origins in conservative thought. Because it was a conservative idea there was little opportunity to develop a conservative alternative. There is conservative thought that health care is a product and should be treated as such. That an individual is entitled to the health care they can afford. The problem with this approach is that no conservatives will run on that idea. Instead, they suggest there is a cheaper and better alternative to the ACA, but they cannot tell what that is.
"As to the first part of the reply, I think you confirmed that the ideas for ACA did have their origins in conservative thought."
Then you're starkly delusional.
Now if the IRS would only enforce the advance premium tax credits (APTC) as they should to prevent abuse...
I know two people who, since the first year of the ACA subsidies being implemented, have been taking an APTC they are not entitled to because their income has been too low and they should be on Medicaid instead.
They have never filed a single federal income tax return in their ~60 years on this Earth (both lived with a parent their entire life until their last parents' death at which time they inherited everything) even though the forms to apply for the APTC make it clear, as does the annual form 1095-A they do receive, that one MUST file a federal tax return if they took the APTC regardless of income.
These people rarely if ever utilize healthcare so the federal government is shoveling money into the coffers of the likes of Aetna and Cigna and those companies are incurring virtually no expense related to the coverage.
The IRS just doesn't care enough to even send a threatening letter and follow up to stop them from doing this. These people actually do have assets which they inherited from mommy/daddy so the money could even be recovered. (Due to the ACA's ridiculous elimination of an asset test for Medicaid, these assets wouldn't prevent them from getting Medicaid).
(Yes, I know the requirement was retroactively suspended for TY 2020 - but they still lied on the forms to get the APTC even for 2020).
ACA should have simply been Medicaid up to 250% FPL and people with preexisting conditions that make under a certain amount can buy into Medicaid.
Was Harris—who was the San Francisco District Attorney at the time the ACA was enacted—involved in any way?
I don't rule out the possibility, of course, but I don't think I've ever heard it suggested before, and it's a little hard to imagine how she would have been.