If ACA mandates are upheld, we won't get Medicare-for-All and better health care for a generation.

[Better Believe It]

The insurance industry and big pharma will have a lock on the for-profit health care system under what I call the "Insurance Industry and Big Pharma Protection Act".

The unnecessary insurance industry will add hundreds of billions of dollars every year to the cost of medical care without contributing anything of value that will improve our health.

They are useless parasites feeding off public with the approval and help of the government under the individual mandate.

[ingac70]

1. Medicare for all isn't going to happen....

until most of the Republican "base" dies off.... perhaps in time for me to be an old lady (I'm 40)

[Better Believe It]

2. It can't happen if the insurance industry gets a total lock on the healthcare system.

[FarLeftFist]

18. Bro, most of these justices help elect Bush. U can't be serious.

Obamacare could very well pave the way to single-payer. It already adds millions of new ppl to single-payer.

[Better Believe It]

24. Bush wasn't elected President, he was appointed by the judges. And not one persona is added ....

Last edited Wed Apr 4, 2012, 06:05 PM - Edit history (1)

to a single payer system since Medicare for All doesn't exist under the "Health Insurance Industry and Big Pharma Protection Act".

The purpose of this health insurance industry bill is to stop a single payer system by providing them with a lock on our health care system.

[TheWraith]

28. You are again saying the exact opposite of the truth.

The fact is, the ONLY way that single payer could possibly happen in the US is via Obamacare and states being able to set up their own systems. That's exactly how it happened in Canada, remember. If the reforms contained in the ACA are struck down, and healthcare returned entirely to the control of the insurance industry, healthcare reform is going to be politically radioactive for a generation. No one will want to touch it. And it certainly won't result in the magical passage of a single-payer bill--even Bernie Sanders, by far the most hopelessly optimistic person in the Senate on the subject, admits that there might have been at most 10 votes for it.

If the overturning of Obamacare was anything other than a win for the insurance industry, do you really think the Republicans would be cheering it? This is nothing but the same mindset that says we should let the Republicans have the White House, because if they totally destroy the country than somehow we'll end up with a magical uprising and socialist utopia, instead of what we would actually get, a generation or more spent having to slowly and painfully un-fuck the things they've done.

[bluestate10]

107. The thing that cooks my goose.

Are the constant attacks on President Obama and democrats. May be I missed it, but I have not seen one attack on republicans.

[Firebrand Gary]

3. You think the Supreme Court would allow Medicare for all?

Especially considering the current argument? Really? lol

[Better Believe It]

6. Of course. Because the argument is about buying "private insurance" not public via taxes.

[DonCoquixote]

7. If you believe this court

Cares feather or fig about the mandate, you are sadly wrong...they will not care, all they care about is making sure no rich man pays one penny more than they want to.

[cali]

14. the SCOTUS could do nothing about Medicare for all.

At least that's what the experts say.

[kenny blankenship]

16. And as the Supremes indicated themselves in oral arguments this past week

[NCTraveler]

59. The supreme court would have no say in Medicare for all.

[paulk]

103. why wouldn't they?

"If the Affordable Care Act is voided, and Americans must start over again on a project completed decades ago in all the other advanced industrial nations, then perhaps we should look forward in the direction indicated by Carvin himself, a leading member of the right-wing Federalist Society.

"I want to understand the choices you're saying Congress has (under the Constitution)," inquired Sotomayor. "Congress can tax everybody and set up a public health system."

"Yes," replied Carvin. "I would accept that." In fact, he probably wouldn't — and certainly the Republicans wouldn't without losing an enormous struggle first — but at least now their chosen advocate is on the record suggesting that "Medicare for All" would pass constitutional standards. And considering how popular Medicare remains, even among many elderly voters who identify with the tea party, that might be the right place to begin again."

from a recent Joe Conason column. SCOTUS would have a hard time throwing out the mandate and saying that medicare for all is unconstitutional...


http://www.creators.com/opinion/joe-conason/if-obamacare-goes-will-america-quot-let-him-die-quot.html

[CreekDog]

4. do you have health insurance or coverage right now?

and will you still have it if the law is struck down?

if you answer this question, i would like to discuss this topic.

[robinlynne]

5. We're not going to get it anyway. Maybe one state at a time. that's the only possibility.

[Uncle Joe]

8. It will become far more difficult than it already is because a nationally institutionalized

for profit "health" insurance industry with captured customers will have more power and wealth to control future Congresses via lobbying and bribery.

Thanks for the thread, Better Believe It.

[Better Believe It]

9. You made the point better than I did. Thank you.

[jeff47]

60. You really need to read the other parts of the ACA.

There's two specific areas you're missing:

1) The poorly-indexed "Cadillac Plan" tax - removes the incentive for businesses to provide health insurance, thus severing the insane "Work = healthcare" system we have. That will put everyone on the exchanges, and "public options" will be introduced.

2) The part where it limits health insurance overhead and profits. Combined with #1, that's not going to increase health insurance industry power.

[Uncle Joe]

80. Those two can easily be overcome by the for profit "health" insurance industry.

Why do you believe the for profit "health" insurance industry opposed a strong national public option? The exchanges that you speak of, aren't those just state size exchanges?

What are the limits of overhead and profits if the price of medical products and services go up? If you're limited to 15% of cost, all you need do is make sure cost goes up, 15% of a $1,000 is worth more than 15% of a $100.00.

What kind of incentives would the hospitals, big pharma etc. etc. have for containing cost if the for profit insurance industry wanted those costs to appreciate?

[jeff47]

84. That's not what I said.

Why do you believe the for profit "health" insurance industry opposed a strong national public option?

Why do you lie about me?

The exchanges that you speak of, aren't those just state size exchanges?

Yes. And that's the point. We can't get public options or single-payer through Congress. It's been tried in every single Congress since the Truman administration.

What we can do is get public options and single-payer through blue state legislatures. Then we'll be able to market those successes to less-blue states. Once a lot more states have single-payer or public option, merging those into a national program is a lot easier than creating a national program from scratch. This is how Canada ended up with single-payer.

What are the limits of overhead and profits if the price of medical products and services go up?

Run the math on that and you'll find it creates a diminishing-returns problem for the health insurance company.

What kind of incentives would the hospitals, big pharma etc. etc. have for containing cost if the for profit insurance industry wanted those costs to be appreciate?

That would be the evil, vile "death panels". At least, that's what they really do under the ACA.

[Uncle Joe]

86. I didn't lie about you, I was just literally asking you a question.

"Why do you believe the for profit "health" insurance industry opposed a strong national public option?"

Everybody knows they opposed it, I was asking your opinion as to why you think they did?

I'm convinced the for profit "health" insurance industry knows the state size exchanges won't be near as powerful or competitive in controlling costs and state governments will be easier to dominate.

The "diminishing returns" can and will be replenished by lobbied and bribed future Congresses, all they need do is increase tax incentives or credits to the people in order to pay higher premiums.

It will become a full circle and the for profit "health" insurance industry will have a stronger grip on future Congresses than they already do from lobbying, bribing and virtually limitless money to spend via Citizens United enabling puppets to power.

"What kind of incentives would the hospitals, big pharma etc. etc. have for containing cost if the for profit insurance industry wanted those costs to be appreciate?"

"That would be the evil, vile "death panels". At least, that's what they really do under the ACA."

Evil or not, death panels or not, that's the way capitalism works, if the for profit "health" insurance industry were naturally motivated to pay higher costs for medical products and services whether it was deliberate or a multitude of subconscious efforts, the result would be the same.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

10. That is a rather bold prediction

May not be true though. The insurance industry may eventually get absorbed into the government and become the framework of a single-payer system. They may also just eventually throw in the towel if they get frustrated by all of the new regulation by the government.

[CreekDog]

11. Since you aren't going to answer my question, then when can preexisting conditions get coverage?

right now, by 2014, those with preexisting conditions will:

--not be denied coverage
--such coverage must cover preexisting conditions
--such coverage will be priced at the community rate and not the exorbitant rate based on one's medical condition

---and currently, the law has lifted "lifetime caps" so that those who are covered will not run out of insurance coverage for all conditions.

you're encouraging the law that provides this to be thrown out.

what will you guarantee will be in place by 2014 to replace it?

or don't you give a shit? because you're advocating the end of the current law and it's protections in exchange for nothing but HOPE down the road, which may never come, may take a decade or decades, etc.?

that's why it's relevant to ask your health insurance status.

[blue neen]

39. There was a local couple who had reached their lifetime limit.

She was receiving chemotherapy; he needed heart surgery. They are quite thankful for the current law...and I don't blame them.

I am personally thankful because my 25 year old son with a pre-existing condition was able to get insurance with us until he was covered under his employer.

We can and will continue to strive for healthcare for all.

[librechik]

12. If ACA/mandate IS NOT upheld we won't get Medicare for All for a generation. Either way

this is a very long term goal--and all the most powerful elements are attacking against it. The Dems are not fighting back, just backing up slowly. It's very stupid and unproductive. But ACA has some few things in it which are very valuable, including the student loan reforem and a lot of new free clinics in underserved areas. It will help peopl even if it isn't the sensible thing, i/e/ Medicare for All.

[cali]

13. you can't possibly be this naive.

The way to better health care runs through the ACA. Without it, millions of us are well and truly fucked. thanks for giving a shit.

[scheming daemons]

17. Have you read the OP's threads for the past 3 years?

Nothing but non-stop anti-Obama posts.

All the f***ing time.


This OP is, wittingly or unwittingly, doing the GOP's work for them on this site.

[Better Believe It]

21. Do you plan to continue with your constant personal attacks/smears against DU'ers you disagree with?

Let me know and I'll put you on ignore!

If you want to engage in non-stop trash talk I suggest you find a discussion board that encourages such anti-democratic antics.

[scheming daemons]

25. do you plan to continue your constant attacks/smears of the President?

If so, perhaps you should consider posting on a site with more like-minded Obama-haters like yourself.

[Better Believe It]

26. I and other DU'ers have not engaged in personal attacks or smears against President Obama.

We're just telling the truth and a minority just can't handle the truth.

Progressives who are critical of Obama's anti-liberal policies do not hate him, we just don't support programs that benefit the rich and Wall Street at the expense of the 99%, such as the health insurance industry law.

Why do you seem to have a big problem with that and find it necessary to smear and attack DU'ers who are capable of thinking without being told via political talking points what to think?

Are we suppose to blind ourselves to policies and actions that conflict with progressive values?

It appears from your response that you plan to continue your stream of hate and personal attacks against DU'ers you disagree with.

That being the case I have to put you on full ignore.

Bye.

[scheming daemons]

31. You are, and have been, helping the GOP

Every progressive that you turn away from Obama with your posts puts Mitt Romney one vote closer to the Oval office.

Every progressive that you demoralize into not donating or working for the Obama campaign puts Paul Ryan's budget that much closer to being enacted.

If that is not your goal, then you are naive and misguided.

If it is your goal, then you don't belong on this site.

One or the other is true.

[Autumn]

33. That is just wrong. No fucking way in hell will

any words posted about policy policy or actions demoralize a progressive into not supporting Obama. Progressives know what is at stake. I've never met a stupid progressive. With all due respect, I call bullshit on your post.

[scheming daemons]

34. He will not likely succeed much... but it isn't for lack of tryimg

What positive can be accomplished by BBI's constant bashing of Obama on this site?

[Autumn]

40. Is this one a post you object to? Did BBI try hard enough here?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002517764


Perhaps what you see as bashing of Obama, is commentary by BBI on Obamas policies and actions.

[blue neen]

46. There's something really interesting about that video.

IMHO, the negative images of President Obama that the Republican party emphasizes are strategically placed to get the viewers attention.

[Autumn]

48. I saw no images of Obama other than the one on the

silly republican rally. I will have to watch it again later.

[fascisthunter]

96. Like Bush, they'll just deny the truth

[blue neen]

36. The OP definitely does not speak for all progressives.

I believe that you have explained the dichotomy of these posts very well.

[fascisthunter]

95. if you are deluded, yes

no progressive or liberal would truly defend right wing corporate policies.

[Bobbie Jo]

88. This. nt

[fascisthunter]

94. nope... that's a straight up lie

he attacks policies

[dionysus]

55. "I... have not engaged in personal attacks or smears against President Obama"

who the hell do you think you're fooling? really?

[FSogol]

65. Whenever you are accused of attacking the Democrats, you attempt to deflect the criticism by

mentioning "other DU'ers."

Who are the the Du'ers who constantly attack Obama?

[paulk]

104. that depends on how you define "attack", doesn't it?

I think BBI provides a valuable service to the board - if you agree with Obama's policies, defend them.

Discuss them.


That's what this place used to be about - it's not supposed to be a DNC approved echo chamber.

Democratic UNDERGROUND. Get it?

[bluestate10]

109. The statements made are true.

I have yet to see a single attack on a republican. I too have grave concerns over what is wittingly, or completely unwittingly being done.

[Zalatix]

27. Anti-Obama? The mandate was originally a HERITAGE FOUNDATION idea.

I'm sure you know the difference between the Heritage Foundation and Obama, right?

[joshcryer]

67. Their "mandate" was a tax credit, Obama's is a fine.

Their mandate was hardly a "mandate."

[girl gone mad]

69. So.. Obama's plan is even more fascist than the Heritage Foundation plan.

Got it.

[joshcryer]

71. If you don't pay your taxes under single payer you'd get a fine.

Single payer is not fascist because of that.

The key is that people are drinking right wing talking points about "mandates" when all they did was say "you don't get a tax credit if you don't have insurance."

Totally weak ass "mandate" if I ever heard of one. And regressive to the core.

[emulatorloo]

83. Don't confuse me with logic or facts

Gets in the way of my hyperbolic rant.

[joshcryer]

92. You could get jail time with single payer if you didn't pay your taxes.

In fact, one of the right wing talking points against mandates was that the Democrats wanted to put you in jail for not paying them. Which, of course, is far from the truth. The IRS even said that they can't really enforce the mandate. And if people don't want to pay an insurer they can simply put their money in a health savings account and pow, they're 1) saving money and 2) not paying an insurer. The IRS couldn't touch you.

[bvar22]

41. "Nothing but non-stop anti-Obama posts"

I strongly disagree.
I have not seen a single "Anti-Obama" post.
I can't recall a single attack on President Obama or his family.

What I have seen is a strong stand AGAINST the implementation of Republican/Conservative policy.
When STANDING FOR traditional Democratic party Values becomes twisted into an attack on the President,
or construed as "Anti-Obama",
then Houston, we have a problem.

I STAND for traditional Democratic Party values,
those fought for by FDR, Truman, LBJ....AND MYSELF!

"In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

*The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

*The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

*The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

*The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

*The right of every family to a decent home;

*The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

*The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

*The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being."--FDR

Please note in the above list that access to "adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health"
are listed as basic, human RIGHTS,
and NOT as a Commodity to be sold to Americans by For Profit Corporations.



FDR & LBJ would NOT have approved of forcing every American to pay a yearly tithe to a For Profit Corporation
in order to be granted access to Health Care,
NOT in a MILLION years...
and neither will I!

It is about The POLICY,
and the DIRECTION of the Democratic Party,
not the Person.


---bvar22
a Mainstream/Center, Loyal, Working Class DEMOCRAT



[font color=firebrick][center]"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want a party that will STAND UP for Working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone [/font][/center]
[center][/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font]


"By their WORKS you will know them."

[blue neen]

43. Unfortunately, LBJ did force Americans to tithe For Profit Corporations:

It was called the Vietnam War Machine.

LBJ had some of the best legislative success of any American president, and he deserves credit, praise, and gratitude for them.

He had a failure, and it was Vietnam.

[bvar22]

47. Never did I EVER expect to ever have to say...

...that LBJ was the most Liberal President of the last 1/2 century!

...but his WAR record is a diversion from the content of my post,
which was that he would have NEVER supported a Mandate to purchase Health Insurance from For Profit Corporations.
Medicare was the exact opposite.

gawddamm!!! I miss THAT Democratic Party!

[blue neen]

49. I wasn't speaking of his war "record", either. The reference was to how he paid for it,

and who profited from it...For Profit Corporations, not people like you and me.

I miss many of those Democrats, too.

[SidDithers]

42. "Nothing but non-stop anti-Obama posts."...

Sid

[Better Believe It]

56. So you place your trust in the health insurance industry parasites that don't give a shit about you?

And you think I'm naive?

I don't have any confidence in Wall Street, banksters and big business tycoons.

Better health care does not run through a system run and controlled by the health insurance industry, big pharma and for-profit hospitals.

I know you might find this hard to believe but it's true.

They really don't have our best interests at heart!

They are greedy assholes.

Some day you'll figure that out.

Just hope it's not too late for you.

[jeff47]

64. You don't supply anywhere else to place our trust.

Where's Bernie gonna find 50 more votes for single-payer? Please provide the list of senators who will change their vote.

[Better Believe It]

99. Bernie first has to get President Obama's support for Medicare for All before he can get

49 other Senators and Vice-President Biden to support it.

It's really hard to get legislation passed that isn't supported by President Obama and the Democratic Party.

Isn't that right?

[jeff47]

122. 59 other Senators

You have to break the Republican filibuster.

As for Obama, he's been pressing for a jobs/infrastructure bill for about 3 years now....yet he didn't get one. One might take a moment to reflect on that and decide if Obama's the stumbling block or if Congress is.

So, your list? Where is it? If you don't have one, then you get the pre-ACA status quo no matter what you want.

[cbayer]

15. Could not disagree more.

It is the way to universal coverage.

The fact is that Medicare has been so poorly run and managed that it is not even close to being the model for a single payer. Great strides have been made in the last two years, but in my estimation, it needs probably 4 more years of overhaul before it is ready.

In the meantime, getting everyone enrolled in something creates the perfect opportunity to make the transition to single payer once the system is ready to be deployed in that fashion. In addition, it begins to address the problem of the rising uninsured and out of control health care costs.

Without the mandate, the door will be slammed shut once again.

[Better Believe It]

23. How will an insurance company lock on our medical system promote a single payer system?

Sometimes doing "something" is worse than doing nothing.

[jeff47]

38. Because the mandate isn't the only part of the ACA.

The other key feature is the "Cadillac Health Plan Tax". It's extremely poorly indexed. So more and more companies are going to bump into it. That removes the incentives for companies to provide health insurance. Which tosses more people into the exchanges.

"Ah-ha", you say, "they're still at the mercy of private insurance". And yes, they will be at first. But I think we can count on health insurance companies to be greedy enough to screw people over. In response, blue-ish states will add a public option to their exchanges. Without the need for profit, it should turn out to be the cheapest plan. So people will buy it. Others will see the public option folks aren't falling over dead and receive similar care for less money. So more people buy it, improving the option's cost-sharing. Which makes it even cheaper and help more states add one to their exchanges.

The success in the blue and purple states will deprive the insurance companies of lots of money, reducing their political influence. At the same time, more people won't be dropping dead. That will make even the red states eventually offer their own public option.

Results in de-facto single payer through a Rube Goldberg system. And it will take a while. But it will happen much, much faster than single-payer can pass Congress.

[Robb]

51. You've got it.

[Better Believe It]

54. It's the heart and soul of the "Health Insurance Industry and Big Pharma Protection Act"

Without the mandate the health care deal cooked up with the insurance company parasites and big pharma crooks collapses.

[jeff47]

58. A mandate, either through the ACA or a single-payer system, is necessary

The way both insurance and single-payer work is healthy people pay for care for the ill. If healthy people don't pay, there's no cost-sharing. Which means the sick can't afford health care.

Before the ACA, the concept of pre-existing conditions caused healthy people to pay.

The ACA eliminates pre-existing conditions. So now you need to pay taxes into a single-payer system or you need a mandate to buy insurance.

A single-payer system by itself will not pass Congress. It will not pass Congress for at least a generation. Yes, it would be much better. But it's still not going to happen.

As Bernie Sanders said, there was only 8-10 votes for single-payer in the Senate. You're 50 short. You aren't going to get 50 more votes any time soon. Heck, it's mathematically impossible to get more than 34 new senators every 2 years. And unless you're gonna claim states like SC are going to elect single-payer supporters, you will get nowhere near 34.

What, exactly, do you propose? You claim the insurance lobby is so massively powerful that it produced the ACA, so there's no way in hell they'd allow single-payer to go through. So either they're massively powerful and can get whatever legislation they want, or it's possible to pass single-payer. Let me know when you've decided which it is.

We are left with two choices:
1) Let people die under the old system.
2) Abuse the mandate to produce a single-payer system.

Obama chose #2. Yet you claim he should have chosen #1 because the ideal system is not possible.

[joshcryer]

70. People not paying for health care is a $600 tax on people who do.

Think about that one a bit. It's crazy.

And before anyone goes "only the poor are uninsured" 38% of the uninsured make higher than average:



The top 18% must subsidize the bottom 50%.

"Let people die" is basic Marxist dialectical materialism. Let the world burn first and from the ashes will be a new beginning, etc. It's terribly dystopian and not progressive.

Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_insurance_coverage_in_the_United_States

[Better Believe It]

89. So a single payer system has something to do with "Marxist dialectical materialism"???!!!

mmmmmmm ......

Of course it does.

Does Medicare for All also have something to do with "utopian unscientific socialism", "dialectical" or "undialectical materialism?"

Wow! That was a mouthful!

Perhaps you can explain what you think "dialectical materialism" is assuming you're not just throwing around "Marxist lingo" just for the fun of it.

OK?

How much health care do you think the top 1% should subsidize for the 99% while you're at it?

Right now and under the health insurance industry law in 2014 it will be zero.

[joshcryer]

91. Not what I was saying.

Dialectical materialism basically says that capitalism will go through a process until it collapses and we have socialism. All well and good. But that argument is like the rapture argument (don't do anything about the environment the rapture will happen so we'll be fine). Eventually single payer or something like it would be the outcome, of course. But collapse is already imminent. This is a do nothing or a do nothing that isn't perfect attitude, and it's one reason communism has failed to gain traction in, oh, over a century. It results in millions of people being affected, if the capitalist collapse occurs it will be billions.

Let the world burn is the basic idea. It's why some leftists were happy that Gore's presidency was stolen, because they thought it "had to get worse before it gets better." Of course, to hell with the millions that suffered for it.

[Better Believe It]

114. Did a Marxist tell you that's what dialectical materialism is? Probably not.

It's not exactly what you think it is. It's far more complex.

Dialectical materialism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Dialectical materialism is a strand of Marxism, synthesizing Hegel’s dialectics, which proposes that every economic order grows to a state of maximum efficiency, while simultaneously developing internal contradictions and weaknesses that contribute to its systemic decay. Philosophically, dialectical materialism — that Man originates History through active consciousness — was originated by Moses Hess, and developed by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Moreover, Joseph Dietzgen developed the hypotheses of dialectical materialism independent of Marx, Engels, and Hess. In Marxist philosophy, the proposition that dialectical materialism is the philosophical basis of Marxism is disputed, regarding the ideological status of science and naturalism in the philosophy of Karl Marx."

You may want to study this matter in more detail rather than just throw around the term "dialectical materialism" without having much knowledge on the subject.

This might be a good place to start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectical_materialism

[joshcryer]

116. How does that disagree with what I said? Systemic decay an outcome.

I am quite familiar with Marx, thanks.

[SidDithers]

19. Anyone cheering for the repeal of ACA is willing to throw millions of Americans under the bus...

on the fantastical notion that single-payer or Medicare-for-all will be the only option left.

Single-payer and / or Medicare-for-all will grow from ACA.

Sid

[Bodhi BloodWave]

30. Vermont i think is an excellent example of how Single payer can grow from ACA

While its not reliant on ACA its repeal/removal would seriously put a damper on its progress, and if Vermont succeeds then other states would likely want to copy them as time passes(especially if the people in those states starts demanding it)

admittedly, i think this will be ignored by those opposing ACA

[SidDithers]

52. I agree. That's the road to single payer in the US...

Edit: jeff47 nailed it in Post #38 above too.

Sid

[bluestate10]

111. If ACA goes down, Vermont's plan is finished.

Vermont is relying on billions of federal dollars that will come through ACA to make it's plan work. Anyone cheering for repeal of ACA that claim they are for Vermont's Single Payer plan are either lying, with other motives for their assault on ACA, or are clueless.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

127. which is what i tried to point out

I will not be surprised tho if the section of DU that want to repeal ACA in favor of single payer ignores it tho(seems par the course these days when information goes counter to a persons/groups views/opinions)

[Autumn]

97. Is that how Canada did it Sid? How long did it take your country to get

the healthcare you have?

[SidDithers]

100. Between 30 and 40 years...

Single payer was introduced in a single province, Saskatchewan, in 1946 by then Premier Tommy Douglas.

The Canada Health Act was passed by federal Parliament in 1984.

There were many, many intermediate steps that happened during the intervening years. Single payer in Canada most definitely did not roll out as a complete national program. It wasn't until the early 60's that every province had some form of universal coverage for their citizens.

ACA has within it the ability to allow individual states to move toward single payer. Look at what Vermont is doing. IMO, that's the path to single payer in the US.

Sid

[Autumn]

102. Makes me wish I was a lot younger

What taxes do they use to pay for your healthcare? I would be ticked pink to pay higher taxes or whatever it would take to get something like that.

[SidDithers]

105. Health Care in Canada is administered provincially...

It's basically an amalgam of 13 provincial / territorial plans, each of which has to meet the standards mandated by the Federal government in the Canada Health Act.

At one point, the Federal government paid provinces 50% of what it cost them to provide health care, but that % has declined over the years - I think it's mid 20s now. So our health care is paid by mostly by our provincial governments - provincial income taxes, provincial sales taxes, provincial corporate taxes.

Truly, I think your road to single-payer is going to be a long one. We only had 10 provinces & 2 territories to get on board. 50 states is going to be much more difficult. That's why I think that ACA is a small step in the right direction. It at least provides a means for many citizens who were previously without any coverage, to get access to some health care in the short term. ACA is certainly not without it's faults, but the idea that single payer will be passed nationally if ACA fails is purely a fantasy.

Sid

[Autumn]

106. Too bad our government can't learn from yours.

And the cost for the government went down from 50% to about 20%. It boggles my mind that we can't get that.

Edited to ask
Do the corporations own your politicians?

[SidDithers]

108. I may not have been clear enough...

cost to the federal govt went down from 50% to mid 20s. Cost to provincial governments went up from 50% to mid 70s. Overall, costs haven't gone down, it's just that provincial governments pick up a bigger portion of the tab now, so it's our provincial taxes that contribute most to our health care costs.

We have publicly financed elections so corporate money doesn't have nearly as much political influence. Our election campaigns are also much, much, much, much, much shorter. Our most recent Federal election was held on May 4 of last year. The government called the election on March 26. Our entire election campaign was 6 weeks long. When politicians aren't in permanent campaign mode, they aren't nearly as dependent on donations from "special interests".

Sid

[Autumn]

110. I like your system. It sounds like it works, ours here

is so toxic and dysfunctional. Corrupt and greedy politicians, corporations and an extremely corrupt supreme court. Sometimes I think we don't stand a chance.

[kenny blankenship]

20. ACA was literally written by the Insurance Cartel's lobbyists sitting in the Finance Committee

when physician advocates for REAL health care reform were literally dragged out and locked out.

How could anyone be so naive as to fail to understand that ACA was an industry sponsored preemptive strike against real health care reform? It literally REVERSED the terms that Barack Obama ran on as a Presidential candidate promising health care reform. And yet there are still people running around here claiming that, through the sacred mysteries of compromise, up is somehow down.

[emulatorloo]

37. So if the insurance cartel loves it, why are they trying to get it declared unconstitutional?

Here is the answer. Because it is too much regulation for them. Because they know it can easily evolve into single payer as it becomes more popular.

[joshcryer]

68. +1, there's a reason the Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation, and the dispicible ALEC don't want it.

They know what it leads to.

[kenny blankenship]

72. Wow do you make shit up all the time?

They are not asking the Supreme Court to find the ACA unConstitutional. That is completely false.

From the Brief Itself:

1. This brief does not address the
constitutionality of ACA’s minimum individual
insurance coverage provision, 26 U.S.C. § 5000A
(Suppl. IV 2011). Nor does this brief address the
Anti-Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2283 (1948), or
Medicaid questions pending before this Court.

AHIP (America's Health Insurance Plans) and BCBS are taking NO ISSUE with the Constitutionality of the mandate. Indeed why should they? They were the ones who insisted on it. They explicitly declined to add to any negative arguments that the Court heard on that issue from the States Attys General. They are also not taking issue with the Medicaid expansion, and they likewise have nothing to say about whether the individual mandate is a tax or a fine, which was a source of confusion and embarrassment for the Obama Administration in Court and which may weigh against ACA with the other considerations as the SCOTUS decides whether the law can stand.

The brief asks the court to treat the issue of the mandate as inseparable from certain key provisions of the ACA, such as the requirement to issue policies to all, and the prohibition on denying coverage for preexisting conditions. The Supreme Court is being asked therefore to overrule the 11th Circuit Court which allowed that these were separable, but they are not being asked to strike the whole thing down. Since an Obama administration lawyer, Edwin Kneedler, told the Supreme Court that should the individual mandate be struck down, two of its key provisions would also have to be cut out, (the provision covering pre-existing conditions and the one affecting those patients with a past medical history), that puts the Administration in substantial agreement with the AHIP brief. They are not in perfect agreement about which provisions would have to go, but they are in perfect agreement that some would have to go, and they most certainly are NOT on opposing sides as to the Constitutionality of the act as a whole or the mandate in particular.

AHIP and BCBS argue some ACA provisions are only practical with the individual mandate in place as a precondition. That puts them in agreement on that point with almost every supporter of the ACA on this website, as well as the Obama Adminstration.

[emulatorloo]

82. Don't be so aggressive towards DU members. The endgame is striking down or repealing "Obamacare."

Listen to the rhetoric. Don't fall for the "excuse" the Republicans are giving, you know by now that they lie about every fucking thing they do.

Insurance cos want to continue to cut off coverage to those they consider are too sick and too expensive.
Insurance companies want to continue denying coverage to those with pre-existing conditions
Insurance companies are not happy with the idea of spending 85% of what they take in on actual health care costs of their customers.

[Egalitarian Thug]

73. This is why Democrats lose. We've seen this played out time and again, in state after state,

decade after decade, and every time, this is the response.

This time it will work, this time we will win, this time they're on our side.

Of course it won't and they are not, but you know what this con job will do?

It will, for the first time in our history, place an extra-governmental, private industry in legal control of an entire sector of our national economy.

It legitimizes the republican claim that government can't do anything right or well.

It virtually ensures that the blood sucking middlemen will have the legal precedent and financial clout to block any future attempt to impose sanity in this essential part of everyday life.

And, as if that weren't enough, it will give the republican party full cover and legitimize their next come back with an even worse idea as this debacle unfolds.

The hard-core republican faithful are blind and gullible, we all know that and they demonstrate it every day, but the hard-core Democratic faithful are just the flip-side of that same coin that sits deep in the pocket of the owners this nation.

But, there is always hope, and I think right now our hope lies in OWS and what will grow out of that.

[jeff47]

74. You should probably read the law you're complaining about

It will, for the first time in our history, place an extra-governmental, private industry in legal control of an entire sector of our national economy

Not even close. Why? Because extra-governmental, private industry is in legal control of virtually all 'sectors' of our national economy. Or do you think the government controls what GM builds?

Plus the ACA actually creates coverage standards which used to not exist...if they were in legal control, that wouldn't be the case, now would it?

It virtually ensures that the blood sucking middlemen will have the legal precedent and financial clout to block any future attempt to impose sanity in this essential part of everyday life.

Except that the ACA already imposes a lot of "sanity". Such as limits on medical loss ratio which means limiting their profit.

And, as if that weren't enough, it will give the republican party full cover and legitimize their next come back with an even worse idea as this debacle unfolds.

So....been under a rock the last couple weeks? The Republicans are running away from the ACA as hard as they can.

but the hard-core Democratic faithful are just the flip-side of that same coin that sits deep in the pocket of the owners this nation.

Or we've found out what the bill actually does, instead of leaping to outrage. Perfect bill? No way. But a lot better than the status quo.

[Egalitarian Thug]

76. Ah yes, of course. I was born last night and when that turnip truck I was in hit a pothole

I found myself, tabula rasa, utterly mystified by this grand achievement of benign oversight. (Just to be clear for you, that was sarcasm)

You are going to have to do a much better job if you want to have any hope of winning the honorable post of official playground bully.

OTOH, the people who's opinions I do care about will probably understand exactly what I wrote.

Bored now.

[jeff47]

79. Ah yes, "Bored" yet can't actually come up with a response.

Maybe if you took them one at a time you'd have the energy to respond.

So, how exactly is the government in legal control of, say, the Consumer electronics sector of the economy?

[Egalitarian Thug]

93. Of course I can, I'm just not going to waste my time w/you. n/t

[jeff47]

123. Alright, enjoy fighting for the pre-ACA status-quo!

Gonna celebrate when pre-existing conditions come back?

Sure, single-payer has been introduced in every single Congress since the Truman administration, but this time for sure!!

[woo me with science]

124. +10000 - And carried out as a slick bipartisan scam.

They managed to mandate that *every single American* purchase an outrageously overpriced corporate product for their *entire lives.*

Think about that. What a coup for the one percent. And the way they passed it was an elegant example of how they use the two parties they have purchased as manipulative tools.

The corporate mandate was the goal all along, and it was planned to profit the insurance companies, period. They knew from the outset that neither side would want it, but they fired up one side with the promise of universal health care and they fired up the other side with the fear of government-run health care. They they orchestrated a "compromise" that they knew neither side would want, but that the insurance companies did. That is why it was never presented honestly and why we got the Kabuki theater of the negotiations.

It was a brilliant, bipartisan scam.

[lumberjack_jeff]

22. And if it fails, the next generation will have worse than we have now. n/t

[mmonk]

29. We're no more likely to get it if it fails.

I wish it were different and we lived in a country that gave a damn about its people but we don't. That was the fate chance being born here produced for us.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

32. Single-payer would be better than ACA / ObamaCare

But whether ACA is upheld or overturned, single-payer is dead. The insurance industry already have a lock on congress and will spend whatever it takes to protect their racket.

They are, indeed, useless parasites, and will be so with or without the individual mandate.

[joshcryer]

35. Up is down.

[bvar22]

45. Black is White,

...and pumping BILLIONS of Taxpayer Dollars every year into the pockets of the For Profit Health Insurance Industry is the road to Publicly Owned/Government Administered Health Insurance (National Single Payer)!



The For Profit Health Insurance Industry:

*Manufactures NOTHING

*Produces NO Wealth (Value Added)

*Provides NO Service

*Adds NOTHING to The Commons

Hey.
I've got a GREAT idea.
Lets give them BILLIONS of Taxpayer Dollars every year for their invisible product,
and codify & legitimize them as the only Gateway to Health Care in America!
THAT is a SURE road to Medicare for ALL!

[DevonRex]

44. Obama bad. Must stop. All costs.

Every body to get from street. Yawn. Nuclear winter. Ho hum. Fe fi fo fum. Oops

[SidDithers]

50. Take heart. Election season at DU will soon officially begin...

If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side.

Sid

[Poll_Blind]

57. LOL! And if the Admins don't ban BBI does that mean election season 2012 never began?

PB

[emulatorloo]

85. BBI will need to be more responsible about his sources. And stop misrepresenting by omission

And not doubling down when he is caught.

[FSogol]

61. +1 n/t

[dionysus]

53. and we'll get just that from republicans, if they win. keep trying.

[NCTraveler]

62. RomneyCare is more popular.

You should know that by now.

[bluestate10]

112. Bullshit.

Romney left a plan that was in tattles. The democratic Governor, Deval Patrick is the person that not only saved the plan, but has since worked to start bending the cost curve while providing more choices for people that need insurance or are changing plans. Romney will be proven to be a liar if he attempts to take credit for the Massachusetts health plan that Governor Patrick took a lot of heat to save then make a model for other states.

The claim that I will make here and now is that the state most likely to get to Single Payer first is Massachusetts and that will happen only if that state keep electing a democratic Governor and a powerfully democratic legislature. If ACA gets overturned by a radical court, Vermont won't have the money to fund Single Payer, it will die in Vermont. The criers for the overturn of ACA know that Vermont's plan will die with ACA, but they cleverly claim to be all for Vermont's effort and for Single Payer.

[TheKentuckian]

63. The only way out is to let the cartel suicide, not to feed them customers nor to give them a key to

the Treasury (or the more accurately, the nation's credit card).

The pure fantasy that we will elect a non owned Congress that will produce sound reform, even market based reform or that a law originated by Heritage and literally written by lobbyists will morph into Single Payer are both way past Pollyanna bullshit.

Our option is huge short term pain as this "system" collapses as is it's only natural path or being enslaved by the cartel until it eats up so large a percentage of the economy that it functionally breaks the bank and grinds us all into dust which will result in orders of magnitude more pain when the music stops and a busted nation and people are forced to move along but in a time of resource scarcity that makes today look like a golden age.

Defenders of this trash are bright eyed optimists, paid or unpaid spinners for the cartel and Pharma, limited in holistic vision, or cowards punting a bomb that grows more explosive by the moment a generation or two down the line so they don't have to endure the downside and the devil can take the grandkids, or some mixes.

No, they can't guilt me because this is the path of greater pain both by propping up the predatory cartel and allowing them to milk us dry and because when the collapse comes, it will be a far greater disaster than letting the thing run its course.
They depend on best conceivable outcomes rather than most likely ones to push this Reich Wing, corporate bullshit and to live with themselves.

They are also pretty goofy in their position that there will be no effort on this front for protracted periods of time, which literally isn't possible when one considers the rate of medical inflation alone. The economy cannot bear the growth for a generation. Plug in the numbers, it is optimistic that the system can continue without mandated customers and large and continuous infusions of cash from the government. Without the Wealthcare and Profit Protection Act the cartel is dead in the water and the US deficit balloons out of control in short order.

What percentage of the economy do you folks really think healthcare can be? At the present rates, how long do we have according to your math? There is no perpetual motion machine, resource limits apply to all systems.

Look at the demographics, how many years before the people capable of supporting the system are out of it and what kind of subscriber base is available to the cartel. How many years are they going to have the numbers as the boomers retire/are forced out?

Maybe most importantly, when we look at the wealth disparity that keeps growing, the high unemployment, and critically flat lining and falling wages. How long before most people are forced to drop the ever shittier coverage because incomes can't begin to keep pace with high premiums no matter how many "cost sharing" tricks they throw out?

Neither the government nor the cartel nor other industries can maintain the charade for a single generation.

You don't have to take it from me or any other posters, the CBO has projections for what would happen without doing anything and they were the most used argument for why "reform" was so critical, the moral issues were backburner.

The house of cards is falling, the Wealthcare and Profit Protection Act is to prop it up not to "fix" it or to end it.

[jeff47]

66. Your alternative is........?

So....do you have an alternative that can actually pass Congress? Or should we go back to pre-existing conditions, lifetime caps, and all the joy that caused?

If yes, then you think the system that is MUCH more profitable for the insurance companies will result in them collapsing faster? Perhaps you forgot the parts of the ACA that limits their medical loss ratio and thus their profit. Or do you somehow think lifetime caps will cost insurance companies more money?

[TheKentuckian]

75. I already said the option is to let it crash sooner rather than later.

The short term profits for the cartel are beside the point, I'm talking systemic costs. No amount of short term profits will change the dynamics. Did you just post a random response appropriate to the broad subject?

The profits are not sustainable, the resources aren't there and are diminishing. There is no question that an environment that allows the full avarice of the cartel but does not compel people to take coverage and does not subsidize them will collapse it faster. They will price the population out in short order. The many have too little and it dwindles for the game to work. You are thinking in terms of the perpetual motion machine and seem to be caught up in the narrow focus of the cartel's profits within those terms, which is essentially magic.

The pie is only so large, if one person eats too much there isn't enough to go around. The MIC needs theirs, the banks need theirs, there is a massive security complex that needs theirs, people demand housing and that is profitable, people eat and that makes money, people buy consumer goods, the coal barons need you to have lights on, the frackers need you to turn on the furnace, big oil needs folks driving cars, and it goes on and on.

The economic system cannot tolerate the cancerous growth, it plays havoc with the government deficit due to healthcare commitments, and the big shadow of individual affordability means people will self select out which will raise costs for the fortunate and desperate that remain which in turn repeats the cycle. Cascade failure becomes unavoidable.

Make it real simple and personal, how long till you are priced out? It starts getting clearer once you understand that you have a breaking point. Then all you have to do is get a handle on what percentage of the population prices out quicker and how many price out when you do. Unless you are fairly fortunate or would be homeless before you would drop coverage you will see a pool in a sure death cycle, probably one dead as fried chicken.

Once you can grasp that then you can start accounting for other variables. You'll see the percentage of the economy already occupied by this area and the rate of inflation and it will be scary projected over a fairly short span of time.
The money isn't there for them to suck in for any length of time.

As for the vaunted MLR, even if it works perfectly it is a stupid plan to manage the purse holder. The cartel sets the allowable charges. If the MLR actually worked and was strictly adhered to the cartel only needs to allow more of what they are billed and in response to increased allowables providers raise charges.
There is a fair amount of play between what is allowed and charged anyway.

An MLR type device for providers would be a cost container, one on the gatekeeper is asking for higher systemic costs.

[jeff47]

78. Ok, now maybe you should read my post

Because the old way will make it take much longer to crash because insurance companies get more money with which they can bribe Congress.

And it's very nice of you to volunteer other people to die for lack of healthcare so we can get your preferred system.

[TheKentuckian]

125. Bribing Congress doesn't create more total resources in the system.

What will they buy with those dollars to function longer? Mandated customers and billions and trillions of Federal money to prop them up?

I read your post, you just will not or cannot process what I am saying nor have you used my thought experiment.

I can also ask you the same question, how much are you willing to sacrifice to preserve the current profit centers?

[jeff47]

128. Math. It's your friend.

See...insurance companies make money two ways. One is by having people pay. The other is by not paying for their health care.

The ACA indeed creates a mandate. But it also puts in a whole lot of regulation on the paying for health care part. See, back in the day, insurance companies would charge a ton of money, spend 60% of it on health care. that's called the medical loss ratio. Of the remaining 40%, half was overhead and half was sweet, sweet profit. Those evil, vile, disgusting exchanges created by the ACA require a medical loss ratio of 85%. So now they have to take their overhead and profit from the remaining 15%, instead of 40%. 15% < 40%. They either have to massively cut overhead somehow, or they have lower profits. Meaning they have less lobbying cash because of the ACA, which means less influence.

Now, what you propose is to return to the system that allowed a 60% medical loss ratio, and then magically that will mean insurance companies have less money and thus influence despite having much, much, much, much more profit.

Not only that, but you want to return to a system that allowed insurance companies to dump expensive patients, and thus make even more money.

You make money with insurance not by covering everyone. You make money by covering the people who won't need you to pay. The ACA makes them cover everyone. The old system let them only cover people who are unlikely to need expensive care.

What will they buy with those dollars to function longer?

That is an extremely dumb question.

You want Congress to create a single-payer system. Insurance companies don't. Insurance companies give a lot of donations to Congresspeople and help them via SuperPACs. You complain on a message board. Which do you think will yield results? Your complaints, or their ability to get people elected to Congress who will block any attempt to pass single-payer. You know, what they already fucking do. And the reason the ACA has no public option or single-payer.

I know you have a hatred of mandated private insurance. But your hatred can't change math.

[bluestate10]

113. With modern technology, americans can start insuring each other.

Insurance companies rely on statistics. A web based company can be set up where americans can buy insurance policies from and pay premiums to a company that is owned by them and exists to serve their needs. Americans in each state can band together to apply for and get state insurance liscenses for the web based company. Administrative costs for the company can be held to a bare minimum, no million or half million dollar salaries for executives. No campaign contributions from the web company to politicians. No sponsorship of football or baseball stadiums.

Most people that buy health insurance never need it for anything but routine care. A web company would be a way to cut out for profit insurance companies and insure that people that do have catastropic health care needs get their treatment funded properly.

[bigapple]

115. interesting idea

would people with pre-existing conditions be able to buy insurance from this company at community rates? What's to stop people from buying insurance only when they are at the hospital?

[treestar]

77. If you didn't have insurance to hate on

You'd be blaming the doctors themselves.

Why were the insurance companies against it then?

They will have to insure people who couldn't afford it before.

This is not a good thing for them.

[Better Believe It]

98. Perhaps you didn't notice that the insurance companies and big pharma support the insurance bill.

Their lobbyists and political representatives wrote it.

[treestar]

126. I've seen that meme that they "wrote it"

but no real proof. And if they did, it was to minimize damage they knew was coming, not because they like it. Please, more government involvement and having to insure people they don't want to insure. There is no way they wanted this.

[WeekendWarrior]

81. And if the mandate is knocked down

We'll NEVER get Medicare for All.

[MineralMan]

87. What makes you believe that we'd get single-payer if ACA dies?

Show me a process that will make that happen. First, you trash the Obama Administration at every opportunity, which makes the election of more Republicans a real possibility. Are they going to institute single-payer? That's laughable.

Single-payer is the end goal for all of us. How we get there is where we differ. Since we cannot institute that at this time, ACA helps millions obtain health care and insurance who could not before, and it will help even more when ACA is fully implemented.

The only route to single-payer is to elect more Democrats, the more progressive the better. Your path leads in a different direction, and your continuous trashing of the Obama Administration gives aid and comfort to the Republicans.

I wish you would stop doing that. I really do.

Since I'm pretty sure I'm on your Ignore list, I suppose you won't see this. But I'm writing it anyhow, just in case someone tells you what I said. Please stop damaging the chances for a Democratic President and Congress. Please.

[bluestate10]

118. I agree with you exactly.

The poster claims to favor progressive causes. I can't look into anyone's mind, but I can look at their actions. What I see is a poster who viciously and relentlessly attack President Obama and democrats. I have yet to see one attack on republicans, least yet a sustained attack. I have yet to see one attack on Russ Limbaugh or other corrosive rightwing talkers. I have yet to see one attack on Mitch McConnell and his band of do nothing senators.

[AtomicKitten]

90. If the ACA is struck down, there won't be reform for a generation.

You have it exactly ass-backwards ... as usual.

[dionysus]

119. it truly is herp derp worthy, is't it?

[bluestate10]

120. If ACA goes down.

No politician in their right mind will try to bring about health care reform. I am not sure that the attack on ACA is ass backward. One of Karl Rove's tactics is to attack an opponents strongest asset and cause confusion. In that vain, why not attack ACA as preventing Single Payer to get progressives confused and have them sitting out the coming election, or convince them to waste a vote for Nader in key battleground states?

[Cleita]

101. You identified the culprit. I have always said that we are never going to get

decent universal health care until we drive the insurance industry out of the health care sector. The public option would have done that. So does anyone have any ideas other than boycotting health insurance.

[JoePhilly]

117. If its over turned, it will take 3 or more generations.

Dems won't touch health care for at least that long.

And the GOP will do nothing but try to end Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security at the same time.

[bluestate10]

121. Try 100 years, Joe.

Until everyone alive today is dead and whatever they tell their offspring is forgotten. Only then will health care reform have a chance of political rebirth. The one caveat that can change the picture is if health care become unaffordable for everyone except the rich. As long as the middle class can count on their company paid health care, there will be no craving for change.