Court’s decision on healthcare law could put progressives back at ‘square one’

[Swede]

Stakeholders agree that Congress certainly wouldn’t try again on healthcare this year, and probably not any time in the near future.

John McDonough, a Harvard University health policy professor who worked for the late Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) during Obama’s healthcare push, noted that big pieces of healthcare legislation have only passed when one party controlled the House, the Senate and the White House.

Republicans aren’t especially focused on expanding coverage — their priority is lowering costs. And even if Democrats roar back to power relatively soon, the specter of “ObamaCare” would loom large if the Supreme Court throws out the law.

“Healthcare comes in cycles,” Pollack said, noting that almost 20 years passed between the Clinton and Obama proposals.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/233987-courts-decision-on-health-law-could-put-progressives-back-at-square-one

[derby378]

2. Or...

...it could re-energize Democrats to tackle HCR with - surprise! - a Democratic solution instead of relying on some half-baked Republican idea.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

3. If the mandatory-purchase-of-insurance was a Republican idea, how is this a progressive issue?

If you want a progressive approach, why shouldn't there be Medicare for all?

[lumberjack_jeff]

4. "Shouldn't" or "won't"?

The answer to a) is none.
The answer to b) is republicans and Joe Lieberman.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

7. Maybe the answer to b) includes all the stock-owning politicians who can make a profit from the

compulsory purchase of health insurance.

What are the odds that those who voted for the mandatory purchase of health insurance, and parties related to them, own stock in health-related insurance companies?

What are the odds that the Republicans who now publicly oppose the mandatory purchase of health insurance own stock in health-related insurance companies?

How many of the Supreme Court justices own stock in health-related insurance companies? If you currently know the answer to answer to that, you can predict the opinion that they are going to issue.

[Chan790]

14. b.) is bigger than Lieberman.

Hartford's economy is health-insurance. You can't run for Congress or statewide office in CT without just about pledging that you will do everything inclusive of commit murder to insure that there will never be a healthcare solution that harms Aetna, Cigna, et al.

Even Sen. Blumenthal can be counted on to consistently oppose HCR and he's a flaming liberal. You have better odds of getting Mitch McConnell to support single-payer or Medicare for All than any Connecticut Congressional representative.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

10. This is one of those inner scream issues for me

The mandate is absolutely horrible on so many levels. And yet, if we lose it we've lost years -- if not decades -- of political capital. We've been fighting this fight for how long? Only to end up with this? Why would the independents trust us with another bite at the apple?

[Autumn]

5. We got off that square? I missed it. We got insurance finance reform,

even Obama called it that.

[jwirr]

6. I have been watching since Truman tried to get this passed. If they overturn the whole thing we

will either reelect President Obama and give him a real majority in both the House and Senate and reform it or we will start the hopeless battle all over again. I don't think that the rethugs if given any kind of control over this will give an inch if the SCOTUS ends it. The rethugs want to end Medicare/Medicaid and there is no reason to believe they will ever help us get a real universal health care program.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

8. Truman tried to get mandatory-purchase-of-health-insurance passed? I remember Truman but I

don't remember that.

[jwirr]

11. Truman wanted universal health care. It is not just the mandatory part that is being decided. They

could overturn it all.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

13. Universal health care = Democratic idea. Mandatory-puchase-of-health-insurance = Republican idea.

Nothing in Truman's character indicates that his desire for universal health care would have caused him to adopt a Republican policy of let's- compel-taxpayers-to-purchase-health-insurance-or-be-subject-to-fines-enforced-by-the-IRS.

[jwirr]

17. I did not say that. I said that if the WHOLE program is ended we will have one hell of a time

getting it passed if we do not reelect President Obama and give him a firm control over Congress. Nothing about the mandatory issue in my statement.

[Democrats_win]

9. The new square one should begin with ending the Supreme joke.

Then move on to election finance reform. Then maybe a medicare-for-everyone system will happen.

[USD79]

12. New to this site, this is the 3rd time

I've seen a reference to a message being hidden by jury decision. Are all posts reviewed by a jury? If not, when is a message so reviewed. Sorry this is off-topic, but I'm confused as always.

[Swede]

15. When posts get alerted on,a jury of 6 random selected DUers will look at the post.

If the consensus is to hide it,it will be hidden,if not,then the post stays. This particular post was spam from some marketer shelling tshirts. Welcome to DU.

[Chan790]

16. No, only those posts that are alerted for violating the site's rules are reviewed. n/t

[Comrade_McKenzie]

18. I'm ready to define taking a stance against free health care as murder...

Environmental laws, too.