Pam, I love ya but with all due respect hun, your first paragraph sums up the initial problem. Many of us said single payer universal healthcare, ie medicare for all. No matter how loudly, and how frequently we said it, obama and his supporters didn’t want to hear it!

This is my issue with those opposed to Obamacare — fine, you want to repeal it. What is your plan to handle the myriad issues related to health care reform: people without insurance (we’re already paying for them in the most expensive way possible, through the ER), those with pre-existing conditions, the under-insured (an illness can bankrupt a family)?

Tell people to be more cautious.

This is my issue with those opposed to Obamacare — fine, you want to repeal it. What is your plan to handle the myriad issues related to health care reform: people without insurance (we’re already paying for them in the most expensive way possible, through the ER), those with pre-existing conditions, the under-insured (an illness can bankrupt a family)?

This is inaptly phrased. There are plenty of plans out there, and the author knows this. The most prominent of these plans is called “single payer.” There are a sizable number of people in favor of this plan. The problem is not the absence of plans but rather the absence of political traction. The answer is simple: there will be no political traction now, and the system will have to decay further before it is fixed again. The problem is that “Obamacare” slows this rate of decay, so that real change has to be put off further.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marcia-angell-md/roberts-romney-health-care_b_1637397.html

It not a left vs right issue…. The issue is corporate power imposing its will on the governed by buying law essentially usurping the will of the governed. Psalongo is correct. They never listened to US. Only the corporations!!!

The moment you fall into the spin from either side your no longer on point!!!!

The Republicans don’t have another plan because “Obamacare” is their plan, and it’s been their plan for over 20 years.

The protests on the right are ridiculous theatre, an attempt to convince their ignorant voter base that they’re doing everything they can to do their ignorant bidding, if not for that big bad “socialist” Obama.

It’s conservative, corporatist welfare policy, that while the republican base detests it (albeit for the wrong reasons), the democratic party base got frauded wholesale into supporting.

Agree with prior comments.

There are other plans out there, including Single Payer & Medicare for All which have been discussed. Both of these are very popular, even with conservatives – IF conservatives are correctly informed exactly what those programs would mean (and not buried in a ton of dittoheaded spin, hype and racism).

But both of those options – and variations on those themes – were resoundingly kicked to the curb when Pres Obama made his backroom deals with BigIns & BigPharma and foisted RomneyCare (as written by the rightwing Heritage Foundation) onto us, including taking Dennis Kucinich “to the woodshed” via AirForce One.

Does ACA have some good provisions? Yes, it does. But certainly not enough, and it has a draconian TAX which is yet another way to suck the lifeblood out of the middle/working class for the benefit of the 1%.

Rightwingers “claim” they have no other plan for now because they simply do NOT want another plan – no matter what they *say* to their dittoheaded base. ObamaCare IS the “plan” that the right wants bc it inures to the benefit of their 1% Masters.

That’s why Roberts is paid the big buck$: to twist and shred the constitution to make it seem, somehow, that ACA is lawful. It’s not: it’s awful.

With respect, I cannot agree that there are “no other plans.”

Well said, cassiodorus.

And one thing that the public doesn’t seem to understand about Emergency Room visits – these are not necessarily a cost to the tax payer. If someone who is older and owns their own home and gets sick and ends up in the ER, they could well lose their home.

The cost of an uninsured does not automatically fall to the tax payers or to the hospital itself. It often falls on the person who is sick or injured. Some 700,000 households a year enter into medical bankruptcies on account of this. Many people spend their retirement monies either trying to pay for health care insurance premiums or trying to pay off doctor and ER visits.

That is one reason why the banking institutions themselves fought tooth and nail against the idea of Single Payer Universal Health Care. It used to be that banks enjoyed repossessing a person’s home. And it must be that they still enjoy it – they have done everything possible to avoid making use of the 50 billion dollar program HAMP that is set to help people behind on their mortgages from losing their home.

lechero is correct. Obamacare is exactly waht the Rethugs would have done if they had been able to do it first (See: Romneycare).

Theoretically, whichever Party gets to be the one which funnels boatloads of cash (extracted from us plebes) to the Private Insurance Mafia (aka the HIPA lobby) will be the beneficiaries of massive campaign support (aka legal bribery).

Of course, HIPA naturally prefers the R Party because the R Party (in theory) will let HIPA fuck us more.

I’ve got a plan; elect a president who believes that the amounts of money made off of sickness and ageing in america are obscene, and who will work like a Trojan to get us a single-payer system, or, at minimum, a real public option…

And whom will NOT work to further enrich the HMO bandits by mandating 30 million new customers for them.

Did I mention that he, or she, (unlike Barack Obama) could start by using his clout to strip those HMO’s of their exemption from our anti-trust laws?

And could also work to get legislation passed that would allow for the reimporting of cheap generic drugs?

That’ll do for starters.

And, OT, here’s some good political fun, with Romney using Hillary’s campaign statements about Obama, in his campaign ads:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/hillary-clinton-attacks-obama-latest-romney-ad-172627886.html

tanbark is correct.

Another important point:

Just as Obama boasts about spending cuts during a recession and cutting Federal jobs as he insists that the Government cannot create jobs,

Obama bragged that Obamacare is a Republican Design.

“…. a small first crack at altering a broken system that leaves millions without any coverage ….”

And there is the heart of the problem; people don’t need “coverage“, they need health care.

If the freaking feature showcase number one highlight of Obamacare is that children can stay on the parents’ plan til age 26,

You know you’ve been had.

elise, do you have info on banking opposition to single payer universal healthcare?

fine, you want to repeal it [ACA]. What is your plan to handle the myriad issues related to health care reform:

I guess you’re just not paying attention to, or getting who republicans really are even though they state it plain as day.

republicans don’t give a rat’s-ass about people dying or suffering for lack of healthcare as long as they have theirs, i.e., for republicans, there is NOTHING to fix – the system is working perfectly just as republicans would have it: they get fat off of the suffering of those they consider inferior to them. Its very simple.

some advice: STOP PROJECTING your values onto the fetid, rotting, indecent sorry-ass excuse for humans known as republicans. You will achieve nothing except your own frustration – they are not you.

Here’s a goodie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfUikax0U5E

Medicare for all wouldn’t have passed (even the buy-in for people above 55 was shot down) and waiting for the collapse of the old system just means that people continue with the plan Alan Grayson described (“be rich or die quickly”).

Waiting for the collapse of the old system is what we’ve got. Did you read the link I provided?

“This is my issue with those opposed to Obamacare — fine, you want to repeal it. What is your plan to handle the myriad issues related to health care reform:”

This is my issue with those in favor of Obamacare- they create a false choice argument: either accept fascism or have no health care.

(Actually, I admit that’s not strictly true. Most mouth-breathers on the Left, haven’t bothered to think it through far enough to frame the issue even a as an either/or false choice. At most they’ll blather vaguely about not letting ‘the perfect become the enemy of the good’ without having the faintest idea of what they’ve just traded away, and more importantly, not caring either- Go team!)

Somehow almost every other first world country has been able to find a third or fourth or a fifth way, and yet fascism or the emergency room are our only two choices here in the land of brain-free.

Partly the fruit I suppose, of the ‘lesser of two evils’ mindset and the ‘go along to get along’ culture that has destroyed our country over the last forty years.

But clap hands everyone, Our Team won!!!!!

Obamacare is not fascism. Everyone that claims that is obviously clueless and delusional.

You have no idea how relieved I am to hear it.

I was laboring under the impression that the Federal Government was about to compel the citizens of the United States to purchase a financial product from a small set of privately owned corporations run for the profit of an monied elite that holds utter political power only by virtue of wealth.

Phew- glad that’s not the case!

Germany has a similar system for a long time. Public insurance funds are not really different to non-profits (they aren’t much less corrupt, for example).

Of course, single payer would be better, but you still have to pass it and it is not sensible to wait. What is the evidence against incrementalism?

I see the same claim in the European fiscal/monetary hostage crisis: The Northern countries claim that easy fixes would make reform impossible in Southern Europe. I doubt that having it bad makes people long for reform, it also increases fears and the desire to keep what you already have.

That’s not fascism, not even remotely. The word has a meaning. You should think about growing up.

You forgot to mention why the mandate is necessary. Your argument is nothing but illogical. The fact that you have to pay for health insurance to a private company isn’t really different than if you have to pay to the government. Single payer and a public option are effectively a mandate with a public product.

It’s not just a “financial product”, it’s a very special one, health insurance. Single payer is also just a social insurance, even if some people don’t want to call it that way.

Obamacare isn’t simply a mandate for the insured, but also for the insurers. Isn’t it funny, how the nutters always forget that part? Among these restrictions are measures to reduce the profit of the insurers can make.

Moreover, states can do something against the mandate. That’s also in the law.

Even if your inital claim were true, it wouldn’t be fascism. Again, the term has a meaning and even a loose interpretation doesn’t fit. The tax isn’t that high, given that being uninsured means that the public has the risk of paying for your costs, a negative externality.

And states already make you purchase private insurances. So stressing that the Federal government does it, is strange.

The Definition of Fascism has “evolved” (been changed) by the Fascists to deflect criticism and analysis of the Fascists.

Rampant Nationalism, Militarism, Patriotism is the lesser element. This has become the featured element of the modern definition.

The real crux of fascism and the harm it inflicts on the commoners is the collusion between government and big business.

This is the aspect that has been seriously downplayed. Nearly eliminated from modern definitions. It makes them look bad.

I think it’s a form of neo-fascism, in which the government colludes with the corporate powers (I definitely include our military in this…) to promote policies to further the corporate takeover of the american “experiment” for their own benefit and purposes.

While I’m at it, It’s telling that there is, practically speaking, one threader on here, Kevin, who will talk about Obama’s bloody sustaining and ratcheting up of bush’s foreign policy.

We need to do better.

Then I’m right that the court has cleared the way for the government to compel private citizens to purchase products from corporations that in turn use their wealth to control legislation and the wheels of government?

And I’m wrong in the sense that that’s not fascism?

I had thought fascism was the marriage of state and industry/business.

Or, does political oppression need storm troopers parading in jackboots with splosions and tanks to qualify?

Anyway, the ‘specialness’ of this particular financial product, health insurance, springs only from the fact that we have counter intuitively chosen to entrust the organization and distribution of our health care resources to gangs of middle men in the financial industry whose single and prime motive is, quite properly, to simply make money.

So the ‘specialness’ unique to health insurance emerges from the practical dissonance that occurs from us forcing a round peg into a square hole. Health Insurance is ‘special’ in the same way that Freedom
Insurance would also be special. In short, special here = ridiculous.

Be that as may, no state I’ve lived in has ever forced me to buy private insurance or any other privately produced product. But if they did, in your view that would make the concept less wrong somehow I gather…

As far as your observation that the “The tax isn’t that high…”? When I look over the precipice of this defense into the abyss of happy complacency it opens up before me, I’m speechless. Wow, ya sure got me there!

In the end, there are indeed those like yourself, who will never understand how paying a private corporation is actually quite different from paying the government. For you and those who share your view, this is a great moment- you’re one step closer to a completely privatized United States, and one step closer also to whatever word you would choose to define that political system.

Um, there are plenty of ways in which Germany’s system is not “similar” to the ACA.

Of course, single payer would be better, but you still have to pass it and it is not sensible to wait. What is the evidence against incrementalism?

Please name one country in which single-payer started with something like the ACA (and, no, Germany’s plan is not “something like the ACA.”) Provide evidence.

I love it when Obamabots such as Chris from Old Europe come strutting in to this site acting like they know what they’re talking about and get cut to ribbons by people who have been watching every aspect of this issue very closely and for many years. Nicely done, folks.

Obamacare isn’t simply a mandate for the insured, but also for the insurers.

I expect large-scale evasion of those mandates, and slap-on-the-wrist penalties. Income tax evasion, OTOH, will be prosecuted as it is now.

Among these restrictions are measures to reduce the profit of the insurers can make.

Is this about medical loss ratios? Because the ACA already sets those high enough that insurance will still cost at least twice what it does in Europe. Any possible reduction in medical loss ratio caused by the new law will be evaded through clever accounting practices.

And I’m wrong in the sense that that’s not fascism?

I’d recommend leaving this alone. The ACA, as we all know, is in place to preserve insurance company profit rates against the doom foretold for the insurance business in John Geyman’s book “Do Not Resuscitate.” Fascism, on the other hand, was intent upon forcing individuals to support the corporate state in an era of expanding capitalism. This is merely an attempt at corporate, authoritarian crisis prevention, and in the long run it won’t work.

Good catch!
Anyone who thinks “Free Riders” getting insurance will significantly offset the cost of medical “coverage” has rocks in their head.
I see the costs going up, not down.
IMHO

I’m neither a Obamabot nor have I am been “cut to the ribbons”.

All I see are a lot of totally unfounded claims. The single fact that the ACA allows states to implement their own program that can be single payer or simply put a state-controlled non-profit plan in the exchange, shows that most of the claims of the anti-ACA folks here are bullshit.

The argument that the ACA is fascism or neo-fascism is ridiculous and the supporters here seem to be conspiracy theorists.

@cassiodorus:
Germany’s system is certainly very similar the ACA, just without exchanges. You have to be insured by either public insurance funds which are roughly equivalent to non-profits (including the problems) or private for-profit insurers. Nothing prevents US states to found their own AOKs under the ACA.

But to be clear: Germany’s system isn’t exactly the best of the European system. I just argue that the rambling here is largely nonsense. The act was an improvement to the status quo.

Oh, a question: Were some of Roosevelt’s programs also fascism or neo-fascism? He also forced people into the market and the right didn’t exactly take it well.

I don’t see how mandating 30 million new customers to the Health Insurance industry is an improvement to the status quo.

That is, unless you’re a stockholder in Humana or Wellpoint, etc…

@cassiodorus:
Germany’s system is certainly very similar the ACA, just without exchanges.

Well, for starters there’s that big difference, no cost controls in the ACA.

You may not believe they’ll work, but there are measures intended to control cost. The institute established by the ACA is even a copy of the recent German healthcare reform.

@tanbark

That is, unless you’re a stockholder in Humana or Wellpoint, etc…

No, that’s not necessarily good for you as a stockholder. There will be quite a few new costumers that aren’t desired by them. Higher volume alone doesn’t imply any benefit for the stockholder, except *maybe* lower risk. The ACA also includes measures that could reduce profitability. And the ACA could even result in the big private insurers losing customers to potential state programs (Vermont) and state-controlled non-profit plans.

Profitability could easily be reduced by the elimination of pay-out caps and preexisting conditions as well as by the requirement to spend most of the revenue on actual healthcare.

Also, you can pay the tax. Given the increases for Medicaid and other public health measures, it’s certainly justified. Even if you can pay for your own medical needs now, that can easily change and then both the state and other insurance customers would have to shoulder it.

The mandate could bring cost down alone by the fact that overcharging insurers and Medicare would be less justified.

Oh and thinking about the accusation of fascism: The whole Western world effectively forces (at least as much as the ACA “forces” anyone) people to buy at least some insurance products. The whole Western world is “fascist”.

And then there are the for-profit private insurers in the US, which aren’t going away. ps — weasel-wordings don’t help. “You may not believe they’ll work, but there are measures intended to control cost.” Intentions are very pretty.

It not a left vs right issue…. The issue is corporate power imposing its will on the governed by buying law essentially usurping the will of the governed. Psalongo is correct. They never listened to US. Only the corporations!!!

The moment you fall into the spin from either side your no longer on point!!!!

Exactly this.

From Marcia Angell, M.D., senior lecturer at Harvard Medical School:

Although there are some provisions to curb the worst abuses of the insurance companies, such as excluding people with preexisting conditions, there is nothing in the law that would stop insurers from raising premiums. A senior executive of the industry’s trade association, America’s Health Insurance Plans, told me privately that that’s exactly what the companies will do if regulations cut into their profits. Thus, costs under Obamacare will almost certainly rise even faster than at present. No reform can work well or very long if its costs are unsustainable.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marcia-angell-md/roberts-romney-health-care_b_1637397.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

Germany also has for-profit insurers with many problems. That’s no difference.

The fact that states can do away with the mandate or provide their own non-profit plan is as much a cost control as the public option. Your example depends on the exchanges not being effective in respect to what they are supposed to do.

Furthermore the insurance companies would have to increase spending on healthcare as much as their profits. Maybe they already know how to do that, but there are still various options to counter that.

Once the system is established and some states have demonstrated that their alternative program works, it should be easier to move to a real, federal public option or single payer.

It not a left vs right issue…. The issue is corporate power imposing its will on the governed by buying law essentially usurping the will of the governed. Psalongo is correct. They never listened to US. Only the corporations!!!

Virtually every law is bought today. And negotiating a cease-fire is not the same as passing an actually desired law.

As long as there is no strong public financing and disclosure, you need to convince your members of Congress to vote against their donors, after all.

The fact that states can do away with the mandate or provide their own non-profit plan is as much a cost control as the public option.

No, it’s not. State “non-profit plans” aren’t as viable as, say, Medicare, because they aren’t “competitive.”

http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/17/so-whats-a-health-insurance-coop-anyway/

Medicare is single payer, not a public option. I don’t see anything in the article that contradicts that state public options and state non-profit plans are as viable as a public option.

It’s not ideal, but it’s certainly not as definitively bad as some want it to be.

Oh and thinking about the accusation of fascism: The whole Western world effectively forces (at least as much as the ACA “forces” anyone) people to buy at least some insurance products. The whole Western world is “fascist”.

No Chris, this is just wrong. What most of the Western world does is include its citizens in a National Health System of one form or another, chiefly paid for out of the tax structure, with direct governmental operation or at least supervision. The involvement of private corporations in collecting money from citizens, under threat of governmental punishment, is actually quite rare and those systems that do that tend to operate the corporations as heavily regulated public utilities. That is a LONG way from the system that we are putting in place in the US right now.

I lived in Canada and believe me no one was forced to purchase insurance from a private corporation.

I don’t argue that a few groups and individuals will do better in the short run. What most FDL’ers are concerned about is the long run. And the long road we are following is one of expanding corporate feudalism. This is exemplified perfectly by the banking-Wall Street-media-political-military nexus, and now the entrenched medical industrial complex where we are forced to purchase a corporate product that you do not want AND EXCLUDES ALL FORMS OF GOVT PROVIDED MEDICAL CARE SUCH AS THE PUBLIC OPTION OR SINGLE PAYER. This can reasonably be termed fascism or heading down the road to soft fascism at least. I don’t think that’s too harsh a term in a nation that is increasingly militarized on all fronts, and shows little hesitation in using military force on its own citizens.

I don’t see anything in the article that contradicts that state public options and state non-profit plans are as viable as a public option.

The point made in the link is that “state non-profit plans” were tried, and failed, because the big insurance companies managed to contract with the hospitals and pushed them out of business.

those systems that do that tend to operate the corporations as heavily regulated public utilities. That is a LONG way from the system that we are putting in place in the US right now.

It’s really too bad that Chris from Old Europe can’t see this.

I believe the logical argument train has already left the station;
Actually it never pulled in so far as I can see.

But I tend to think Chris may not be as dumb as he makes himself out to be here, and that he full well understands the significance of this law, and the consequences that will follow from this court decision.

To put it another way, “Virtually every law is bought today” is not an argument, but rather a confession.