My problem with Obamacare

[edhopper]

This is just some thoughts I have about it and wanted to discuss it further. I am not trying to attack Obamacare or defend it, just discuss it.
First, I accept it is the law we have and we should accept it and work with it while hoping we can move on to a better system like single payer. And I do think it is an improvement over what we had.
But we must acknowledge that Obamacare is based on a Heritage Foundation conservative plan. When progressives first looked at these ideas there were many valid criticism showing it's shortcomings. (I tried a google search for that time period but all the results were only from the last few years.)
Beyond the fact that conservatives are now attacking their own plan, we have liberals embracing a plan they once thought inadequate and flawed.
Aren't those same problems present in this plan? If we saw serious problems when the plan was presented by the HF, what do we do about them know. And are they so problematic that the system in the end can't be successful?

There is the politics that say Democrats need to embrace Obamacare. But on the intellectual side, we can't turn away from reason and critical thinking. (that is the GOPs wheel house)

[JoePhilly]

1. Pick the parts we don't like, and improve them.

There are lots of parts of this that we like. So let's keep those, work on the others.

I'd assume that any liberal plan would include no life time benefit caps and no ability to reject folks for pre-existing conditions.

So the fact that much of this came from Heritage does not mean there aren't parts we like. Keep those. Fix the others parts.

[edhopper]

2. Hopefully

but is a system based on the for profit corporate insurance doomed to failure? Will the costs to middle class workers become untenable. (a $4000 to $8000 deductible is quite oppressive to me.)

[Doctor_J]

18. I don't know how we're going to "improve" the part about Big Insurance grabbing

20% of the money that should be going to health care. That is now the law of the land and they'll let go it right after hell freezes over.

I am ecstatic that a few million are being helped by it. But it is badly flawed and no amount of misdirection is going to change the fact that is was written by the insurance industry and a far right propaganda outlet.

[JoePhilly]

28. We could sit in a corner curled up in a fetal position.

Or, I know, maybe we can repeal it.

Personally, I'm going to work to support States adding POs to their plans, or even going further. Then use that to push for a Federal plan, like Medicare for All, as an option in the exchanges.

Who "wrote it" is irrelevant to such efforts.

[edhopper]

30. Who wrote it is relevant

if it is a flawed policy that won't get to the results we want.

The conservative idea that tax cuts to the rich stimulate the economy just doesn't work, whether enacted by a Dem or Rep. Neither does deregulating the Financial sector.

Is this just too ass backwards a plan to result in true healthcare for all?

Not discussing the flaws because we own it now seems shortsighted.

[JoePhilly]

35. Did I say to not discuss the flaws? No.

But I do think talking about who wrote it is a great way to NOT talk about the flaws.

It moves the discussion AWAY from the flaws.

Who gives a $#$% who contributed which parts ... let's talk about the actual provisions.

Unless ... talking about the flaws is NOT the goal.

I mean, if the goal is to COMPLAIN abstractly, then talking about (and complaining about) the role Heritage played, is a GREAT way to shift the discussion away from the actual provisions.

[Turbineguy]

3. Considering the history of getting any sort of program in the US,

it is a magnificent achievement. That said, it's baby steps. There will be loads of problems, partially due to the 15% administrative limit. Upper management will not be able to fleece the policy holders. Their exhorbitant pay packages will have to come from other workers in the companies. This will lead to problems with incompetence as skilled people quit. Eventually we will have to go to single payer.

[ProSense]

4. I think

"But we must acknowledge that Obamacare is based on a Heritage Foundation conservative plan. When progressives first looked at these ideas there were many valid criticism showing it's shortcomings. (I tried a google search for that time period but all the results were only from the last few years.) "

...people take the comparisons too literally. The Heritage proposals were really abstract.

Krugman explained the disconnect best, citing what Jonathan Chait calls the "Heritage uncertainty principle":

And here’s the thing: Republicans don’t want to help the unfortunate. They’ll propound health-care ideas that will, they claim, help those with preexisting conditions and so on — but those aren’t really proposals, they’re diversionary tactics designed to stall real health reform. Chait finds Newt Gingrich more or less explicitly admitting this.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/13/a-health-care-mystery-explained/?_r=0

Republican proposals are hypothetical and theoretical BS. They have no intention of doing anything positive. They get credit for pushing things that they don't actually support and would never enact.

It's like Romney's veto of the most significant parts of the MA health care law, which is what Obamacare is really based on.

Compare it to the MA health care law, which was a product of the MA Democratic legislature. Democrats made significant changes to Mitt Romney's proposal. In fact, Romney opposed those changes, and upon signing the bill into law, vetoed them. Romney's vetoes were overturned by the legislature.

In Fall 2005, the House and Senate each passed health care insurance reform bills. The legislature made a number of changes to Governor Romney's original proposal, including expanding MassHealth (Medicaid and SCHIP) coverage to low-income children and restoring funding for public health programs. The most controversial change was the addition of a provision which requires firms with 11 or more workers that do not provide "fair and reasonable" health coverage to their workers to pay an annual penalty. This contribution, initially $295 annually per worker, is intended to equalize the free care pool charges imposed on employers who do and do not cover their workers.

On April 12, 2006, Governor Mitt Romney signed the health legislation.[23] Romney vetoed eight sections of the health care legislation, including the controversial employer assessment.[24] Romney also vetoed provisions providing dental benefits to poor residents on the Medicaid program, and providing health coverage to senior and disabled legal immigrants not eligible for federal Medicaid.[25] The legislature promptly overrode six of the eight gubernatorial section vetoes, on May 4, 2006, and by mid-June 2006 had overridden the remaining two.[26]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_health_care_reform#Legislation

I mean, that's a good start, and while the ACA improved on that, there is still room for improvement.

[edhopper]

9. Thanks

that's good info.

[JoePhilly]

31. Ding ding ding!!!

We threw "RomneyCare" in Mitt's face, to get him in trouble with the RW nut jobs.

We did so knowing that the best parts of the plan are the parts he hated.

[DinahMoeHum]

5. It's a step toward eventual single-payer/public option for all.

And no need to re-invent the wheel here, there's already a single-payer system in place called Medicare.

[edhopper]

10. True

I wonder if we would have succeeded with the public option or Medicare for all proposals. I do think Obama took what he could get and didn't push hard enough.

[Dawgs]

15. Based on what? How is it a step towards single payer?

I keep hearing this from DUers but I have yet to hear an explanation, other than it being stated as fact.

[edhopper]

16. That is a very good point

This system not working well will either lead to a return to the old system, or a turn to single payer.
The political climate for single payer might not come about for years or decades.

[Puzzledtraveller]

56. Exactly

somewhat careless mindset to be in also, 10, 20, 30 years from now, "it will eventually lead to single payer, just wait and see"

[Egalitarian Thug]

78. It's based on "because we say so".

As the OP and subsequent thread shows, merely pointing out the obvious and fundamental failures of the plan precludes any discussion.

[Doctor_J]

20. No, it's not. that is a ridiculous statement.

It is a giant step AWAY from SP. It makes every man, woman, and child a paying customer of Big Insurance, and guarantees them 600 billion dollars of legal money (they will steal much more than that). This is a step directly away from what the civilized countries have.

[Sgent]

74. How so

with the exception of the UK and Canada, almost all "civilized" countries have healthcare driven through private markets -- Germany, France, all Scandinavian countries, Switzerland, etc.

They are infinately more regulated than the US health insurance companies were, but in almost every case there is no government healthcare (see VA system, UK) or government insurance (see Medicare, Canada).

[Doctor_J]

76. Let me type this more slowly. MAKING IT A LAW THAT INSURANCE COMPANIES GET

600,000,000,000 DOLLARS PER YEAR IS NOT A STEP TOWARD GETTING THEM OUT OF THE SYSTEM. Anyone who cannot see this point is being intentionally stupid.

[Sgent]

81. The bigger question is WHY do you want insurance companies out of the system

What makes single payer a better system than having multiple insurance companies? Your statement above that "This is a step directly away from what the civilized countries have." is false -- every "civilized" country but two uses some sort of insurance based system.

The UK and Canadian systems are flawed -- not nearly as badly as the US -- but when compared to other countries they have serious issues. The idea that we would radically change our system to emulate the 2nd and 3rd worst systems in western medicine, rather than adopt a system that both integrates better with our current one and is better ad achieving health incomes with higher patient satisfaction seems to be what worries me.

The US system is the worst in the western world -- but adopting the 2nd or 3rd worse system is not the way to go. The ACA moves us toward a French or German system -- which both have insurance companies as highly regulated participants.

[Doctor_J]

82. Because medicare is immensely popular and successful, and because giving

profiteers 1/5 of the pie is very,very bad. Brits and Canadians love their respective systems and wouldn't trade it for anything in the world, despite your ridiculous claim that it's the "second wort". Meanwhile our system is an unpopular failure, costing 3 times as much as many places while delivering substandard care and leaving millions without. Finally you are ignoring the main point, that the ACA is not, in any way, a "step in the right direction".

[Bandit]

70. Medicare cost money and only pays 80%

It certainly is not single payer....

[edhopper]

72. Single payer

doesn't mean free. But Medicare overhead is under 3% and would bring our costs in line with the rest of the Globe.

[Hoyt]

80. It's really more than 3%, and insurance companies do most of the administrative work and provide

the investment for systems, etc. That's not to say there are not lots of ways to improve things.

[Doctor_J]

75. Medicare isn't single payer???

where the hell do the pro-insurance folks get these absurd statements?

[840high]

79. I doubt it.

[solarhydrocan]

6. k/r

If McCain had won in 08 (YES I'm glad he didn't) and a Republican Senate and Republican House had passed a law requiring every citizen to buy corporate insurance with no promised public option

how many Democrats would have supported it?

Not Keith Olbermann that's for sure

[Doctor_J]

22. Candidate Obama was a populist liberal anti-Republican

President Obama is a far right corporatist Republican. I think Hillary is going to be damaged by Obama's bogus campaign too. She'll probably try to paint herself as an anti-Wall Street liberal but after viewing Obama's presidency people aren't going to fall for it again.

[bvar22]

48. Would Obama have even been elected IF he had run on...

....Mandated Purchase of Health Insurance from For Profit Corporations
with no Public Option?

I don't think so.

[lumberjack_jeff]

7. Sure, there's lots to dislike. Being worse than the status quo isn't one of them.

It's a major improvement that will pay dividends in public health and in the economy.

And a mandate was necessary. Not mandatory = not universal.

[Scuba]

8. I'm an advocate of Medicare for All, inluding dental, optical and hearing aids, but ...

... perfection is the enemy of progress. The ACA is better than what we had without it.

[frazzled]

23. FYI: Medicare does not cover hearing aids (or even hearing exams)

In general, Medicare does not cover routine hearing exams or hearing aids of any type. In some cases, diagnostic hearing exams are covered by Medicare Part B, but this is only when they are ordered by a doctor. If your hearing problem is due to a specific injury or disease—such as removal of a brain tumor or head injury—Medicare may cover the charges. Your doctor or hearing specialist will be able to explain which hearing exams are covered by Medicare, and the conditions for a diagnostic hearing exam.
You pay 100% of charges for routine hearing exams and hearing aids. If you are approved by your physician for a Medicare-covered diagnostic hearing exam, you pay 20% of the charges. You must pay your deductible for any Medicare Part B services and supplies before Medicare begins to pay its share. If a doctor, health care provider or supplier does not accept assignment, the amount you pay may be higher.

http://www.medicare.com/equipment-and-supplies/daily-living-aids/hearing-aids.html

I'm a bit of an expert on this, because I have a daughter (now 32) who is hearing impaired and has worn two hearing aids since her loss was diagnosed as a toddler. And my father (now 97) who suffered ear damage during World War II (an Army surgeon cut his eardrum) and now, due to age, is extremely hard of hearing. In the first case, we've never had insurance that has covered hearing aids, and such insurance is rarer than hen's teeth. It almost doesn't exist. In the latter case, my father finally, in his late 80s, was convinced to go to the VA: he was covered for hearing aids there, because it was due to a service-related injury. But Medicare, no. (Unfortunately, he hates them and hardly even ever wears them: to hard to get used to when you're old).

In both cases, the young and the old, this is really bad policy. Especially for the young. Many children go undiagnosed, and their entire education and thus future life and earning potential is affected. Hearing aids are mucho expensive--usually between $3,000 and $6,000 apiece. So, unlike eyeglasses, which can be bought relatively cheaply, access to this essential corrective device is outside of the reach of many people.

[Scuba]

29. Medicare doesn't cover dental or optical either, which was my point.

The lack of dental services, what with dental care being critical to the overall health of everyone, is actually costing Medicare money, not saving it.

Good luck to your daughter and father.

[RC]

11. This is what happens when the Left moves too far to the Right.

We get Republican ideas, repackaged as "Liberal" and many people buy into them, as if were something that was invented here, when in fact, it was not.

We can do better than this. Cut out the middle man. Single Payer, Universal Health Care.

[edhopper]

12. I think most of us would agree

that single payer would be better. But did Obama and the Dems correct the flaws in this conservative plan to overcome it's weakness.
If it fails to deliver (and if it was instituted by the GOP it would be nothing but a windfall for the Insurance Co.s) doesn't it set back improvement and a move to single payer by decades?

[Nite Owl]

13. All the deductibles

and co insurance is way too high. That has to be fixed.
There are good things but you have to be able to afford the insurance or it's still a matter of don't get sick.

[edhopper]

14. That is one of the problems I see as well

you could make $35,000 to $40,000 a year, to much for a subsidy, and pay up to a quarter of your income to healthcare. Seems way too high. The tax deductions won't add up to much at that level.

[TBF]

17. Where were you?

We discussed this ad naseum as all this was being planned. Most of us on the site, aside from the BOG, wanted single payer. We weren't in favor of a give-away to the insurance companies (mandatory buy-in, hello). They informed us that this is what would pass.

Reality.

So, now we continue to advocate to turn Obamacare into single payer.

[edhopper]

19. I was here

and advocated SP as well. But I am not talking about which would have been better. I am asking if the flaws with this type of plan too much for it to be ultimately effective.
In other words, is there ever a conservative plan that is worthwhile?

[TBF]

21. Honestly I think you're just stirring the pot.

We've all been over this a zillion times.

[edhopper]

25. I recall the argument of why SP would have been better

But not whether this plan would ultimately succeed or fail.

I am not 'stirring the pot', as you say. i am looking for an honest discussion.

And I am not attacking Obama or the Dems, because I don't really know if this was the best we could have done politically or not.

But we must be realistic about what this all means.

[TBF]

45. Your concern is noted. nt

[FatBuddy]

24. it IS NOT a path to single payer

that is the biggest goddamn lie out there.

once you set up a government sponsored revenue stream to private insurance companies, they are not going to turn that off.

money talks, bullshit walks and our government is bought and paid for by capitalist gangsters.

[ProSense]

26. Sure

...it is.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024088636
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024088437
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024090281

[edhopper]

27. So we will have a two tiered country

progressive Blue States with SP and regressive Red States without even Medicaid expansion and doing whatever they can to stop the ACA.

Doesn't sound promising.

[ProSense]

32. That's

"So we will have a two tiered country

progressive Blue States with SP and regressive Red States without even Medicaid expansion and doing whatever they can to stop the ACA."

...what happens until the Republicans come around. Look at marriage equality.

It took Arizona nearly 20 years to join Medicaid.

<...>

Medicaid got a chilly reception when it launched in January 1966. It was up to the states to decide whether to participate and only six initially signed up: Hawaii, Illinois, Minnesota, North Dakota, Oklahoma and Pennsylvania. Twenty-seven followed suit later that year. Across the country, governors weighed the boon of new federal dollars — Washington would foot half of Medicaid’s bill — against the drawback of putting state money into a new program.

Nascent Medicaid programs quickly faced threats: Republican legislators in the New York introduced a bill in 1967 calling for the state to “live within its means” and repeal its Medicaid program.

Doctors, meanwhile, lamented the program's bureaucracy and griped that payments often arrived late. "Doctors' complaints tie up our telephone lines all day, every day," Frederick W. Richmond, chairman of the Citizen's Committee for Medicaid, told the New York Times in 1967. Some pharmacists voted to boycott the program altogether.

Over time, however, the lure of federal dollars proved strong enough to win over resistant states. Eleven joined the program in 1967. Another wave of eight, largely Southern states came on board in 1970. Arizona proved the last holdout, not joining Medicaid until 1982.

<...>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/07/09/six-governors-say-they-will-opt-out-of-medicaid-how-long-will-they-hold-out/

Single payer is going to come state by state.

[edhopper]

33. Sounds like a long slow

painful process. But it might be the reality of it.

[ProSense]

38. I doubt it will be

as long and slow as in the past. Things change, dominoes fall a lot more rapidly these days.

[JoePhilly]

41. Sounds like we need to stop electing GOP Goveners.

Soon, folks in Red states will look at what's happening in Kentucky and wonder why their states aren't following that model.

The GOP would have had all of the US look like the worst of the red states. And they came close to achieving that.

Sometimes the patient has to realize that it is their own behavior that is damaging their health. Hopefully the folks in the red states will figure that out sooner rather than later.

[TBF]

46. ^^this^^

When we have difficulty affecting change at the national level we look to the next level - states. Unfortunately the republicans were ahead of the ball on this and are filling the states with their candidates. You are 100% spot on that this is where we need to attack.

[Corruption Inc]

65. +1

"the path to singer payer" is just another false paradigm built on a propaganda premise, in other words it's all BS, just as you said.

[NuclearDem]

34. Still waiting for the guilt-by-association crowd to oppose the ACA

What with it being a Heritage Foundation idea floated by the 90s Senate GOP and implemented by Mitt Romney.

[edhopper]

36. No

but given it's origins, we should be suspect.
Can you name another conservative plan of merit that it should be implemented?

[DevonRex]

68. Two things. First, it helps a lot of desperate people

in the immediate future. Mostly those with preexisting conditions andnthjose who had had lifetime caps. Then quite a lot who couldn't get affordable care at all because of high risk. Then, getting young people insured with low premiums. And the big one was Medicaid expansion, which half the stupid Republican govs rejected. But in the states that did it, MANY people are getting Medicaid and seeing doctors for the first time in their entire lives. We forget that was part of ACA.

Second, it is my firm opinion that the insurance companies will continue to act like greedy bastards. Just look at how they acted with the ACA rollout and all those cancelation letters which only told half-truths so they could bilk their long term, paying, good customers.

People noticed after awhile that it wasn't ACA but the corporations. And since the insurance corporations will continue to try to screw their customers with fine print that ACA didn't anticipate, people will get even angrier at the corporations. AS LONG AS we are smart enough to point out that it is the free market that's the bad guy and not the govt.

That can, if we campaign for it intelligently, lead to single payer.

[NuclearDem]

69. My point exactly.

I have problems with the ACA, but overall I don't hate the idea. I was pointing out how ridiculous it is to play the guilt-by-association fallacy and attempt to discredit something based simply on who's tied to it.

[DevonRex]

71. And you were right. Esp since the association is flimsy at best.

It doesn't work on any level at all, even the one it uses, haha!

I find guilt by association to be sometimes a reason to investigate more fully, but not a reason to condemn prior to that investigation. The first* thing that has to be determined is the existence association itself. Then, if it does exist, whether that association actually affects the matter at hand. If not, it is a red herring.

*Unless there is obviously no relation whatsoever between the association and the issue.

[edhopper]

73. All good points

as i said the origins make me suspicious, but I am not condemning the ACA. Just want to take a hard look.

[frazzled]

37. Sorry to be blunt, but "deal with it."

This horse has left the barn and the train has left the station: it is the law of the land. If you're sitting around fretting about it and rehashing old arguments, and bemoaning why another plan wasn't passed (as if even this less than ideal one didn't get though by the skin of its teeth, and after much compromise)—especially if you're not applying for and in need of an individual plan yourself—then I have to say you're part of the problem and not part of the solution.

I imagine you might have been having "problems" with Social Security, too, when it first was passed and was being initiated. Because it was really pretty deficient. It left out a vast majority of people--mostly women and African Americans. There were no cost of living adjustments until 1975! (http://www.ssa.gov/cola/facts/ ). There were no survivor or disability benefits until 1956. It took decades to refine it to the program it is today.

For people who have been unable to get insurance in the past, it is already proving to be a godsend. For those of us who have been lucky to have employer insurance, even we are benefitting in large and small ways (I got a flu shot for free this year, when I used to have a co-pay for it; a colonoscopy, an expensive procedure, was also free). So even if you're not using the exchanges or getting Medicaid coverage, you're still benefiting.

Insurance companies are now regulated under this bill in ways they NEVER were before—they must spend a certain percentage of premiums on actual health care, not profits or executive compensation. Is it perfect? No. Far from it, but it will be improved over the years as Social Security was. If you aren't buying insurance on the exchange, I don't even know if you're entitled to an opinion on this.

But most of all, it's the law. It's here. Deal with it (and provide constructive ideas for implementing improvements). Doubting it is just destructive at this point in time.

(Apologies for being cranky in the holiday season.)

[edhopper]

39. I agree

and I am not attacking it. I don't have enough information to know.
I said it is the law of the land and we have to accept it. But looking at it's origins and figuring out the flaws in the ideas is one of the ways we can improve it.
Just because it was passed doesn't mean we have to stop looking at it critically.

[frazzled]

43. Then maybe you should start a thread

with a header like "Next Steps: Ideas for Improving the ACA." You should be asking for specific ideas about new measures we can get behind that could be the next step in improving parts of the law. Things that could have a real chance of being enacted, too.

But carping about it being a conservative "Heritage" plan is just going back to 2009, and it seems intended to revive dissatisfaction (even though, believe me, I don't think Heritage ever thought of expanding Medicaid). Those arguments are five years old, and they're not helpful to anyone seeking better health care in this country.

The status quo was HORRIBLE. Unfair and unacceptable. The ACA goes a long way to righting some of those wrongs. Not all, but some. It was a miracle we got as much as we did. Now we look forward, not backward. Let's drop the old arguments, as well as the pipe dreams, and be proactive.

[edhopper]

44. Well my intent was for

discussion. But i see your point that my OP (or at least the title) does seem more negative than it could be.

But i was thinking out loud and not writing a thesis.

[Doctor_J]

49. Well, when we complain BEFORE it's passed, we're told, "don't complain until you know what it is"

and "doubting it" is the only way it's going to be changed. We could try electing a Dem president and Congress, but that's how we got this insurance handout in the first place.

[edhopper]

40. BTW

I do think the expansion of Medicaid was major part of what made this law work. And the fuckers in the SCOTUS really screwed the country with allowing States to opt out.

[Gothmog]

42. My Obamacare story

My middle child turned 26 and got dropped from the plan at my law firm. I tried to get her and her younger sister on a new individual plan back in August and both got rejected for pre-existing conditions (one is overweight and the other is taking ADHD and anti-depressant medications). I got coverage for both kids at less than I was paying last year for dependent coverage on my firm plan. I am still using my firm coverage this year but the ACA plans that I liked were close to the price that I would be paying on my firm plan.

For me the ACA is a good deal. I was really pissed when both children were rejected last fall and I am glad that I could get them covered.

[quinnox]

47. The next president will determine what happens with it

If its a Republican, most if not all of Obamacare will probably be repealed. If a Democrat, then I still expect major changes to it, hopefully for the better.

[bvar22]

53. The Mandate to BUY Health Insurance from For Profit Corporations will NEVER be repealed,

at least in this generation.
We will be stuck with this for a LONG time.

Wall Street got their "bailout",
and NOW Wall Street's Incestuous First Cousin will be receiving a permanent yearly Bailout in the form of BILLIONS in Tax payer funded Subsidies.

The Smart Money is betting that Mandated Customers, Billions in subsidies, and a guaranteed 20% Rake Off will be a bonanza for the Health Insurance Industry.


Not bad for an Industry that:

*Manufactures NOTHING

*Produces NO Value Added Wealth

*Keeps and Maintains NO Inventory

*Provides NO Useful Service

Great Work if you can find it.
Why.. That IS the "Uniquely American Solution".

[Doctor_J]

54. I think the president's remaining goals for his term are

1) Pass TPP and keystoneXL
2) Corporatize education, like he did with health care

this Fan Club meme that corporatization and guaranteed profits are somehow the first step toward SP is soul-crushingly stupid. It makes me realize that the Dem party that might stop our slide to fascism is gone.

[bvar22]

58. I believe there is one more goal:

The initial cutting of Social Security benefits.
A Republican could never get away with this.

In the last 5 years, Social Security, the once inviolate, untouchable 3rd Rail,
has been reduced to just another chip on the table to be bargained with in every future budget negotiation.
This IS the beginning of Death by a Thousand Cuts.

[Doctor_J]

62. True that. A different DEM floats the cuts every month or so, invoking the "deficit" lie

Last edited Wed Dec 18, 2013, 10:54 PM - Edit history (1)

I have a feeling all of this capitulation is going to weigh heavy on the (D) candidate in 2016, driving indies and undecideds who voted dem in 2008 to sit it out.

[quinnox]

57. I'm not that pessimistic

I just hope you are wrong, but you might be correct. I hope not.

[bvar22]

60. The Mandate for every American citizen to Buy Health Insurance is already settled LAW,

....upheld by the Supreme Court.
This will be very difficult to undo.
THIS is the center piece of ObamaCare.

Everything else (all the good parts, from the regulations to the Medicaid Expansion)
is "negotiable and will depend on who is in power,
and how much the lobbyists pay them.

[quinnox]

61. That is true, but there are still edges and pieces of it that can change

By legislation. I guess I don't think what we have now will end up being the final picture of Obamacare. Maybe its wishful thinking on my part, but thats my story, and I'm sticking to it!

[bvar22]

63. We will see.

I envy your optimism.

2014 will be an "interesting" year.
Healthcare.gov was just the beginning....the easy part.
In 2014, Americans will start trying to convert their Mandated Policies into actual Health Care, and those who choose NOT to buy Health Insurance will become criminals.

Yes, 2014 will be an interesting year.

[Doctor_J]

66. For myself I took quite a hit

I have employer-included HC. The premiums went up like they do every year, but the deductibles, co-pays, and co-insurance went through the roof - from $500/year to the ACA maximum, $6,500/year (for spouse and me). We are in our late 50's and have saved enough to survive an illness, so we'll get by, but it's a burden that NO American should have to bear.

[edhopper]

67. People should not have to use savings

to pay for ordinary health care costs. In your late 50s I bet the normal wear and tear makes your costs in the thousands without a serious illness.
Some don't understand how harsh this will be for some people.

[Romulox]

50. ACA is mandatory, for-profit health insurance. All progressives know in their heart

that it can't work.

Third-wayers and "public/private partnership" types are ecstatic, because it is a powerful new source of guaranteed corporate profit.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

52. Nothing happens until at minimum GOP loses house in 2014

If that doesn't happen then it could well be many years before this is improved legislatively.

[bvar22]

55. Bill Moyers has some of the same issues with ObamaCare.

So we should be clear on this, Obamacare, as it’s known, is deeply flawed. Big subsidies to the health insurance industry. A bonanza for lobbyists. No public option. And as The New York Times reported this week, “Millions of Poor Are Left Uncovered by Health Law.” Largely because states controlled by Republicans refuse to expand Medicaid.

http://billmoyers.com/segment/bill-moyers-essay-shutdown-showdown/

There are parts of the ACA that WILL help a lot of people, myself included.
But I have trouble getting All Fired Up over policy that the Democratic Party would condemn if it had been proposed by Republicans.

This is POLICY (Mandate to BUY from Private Corporations) that I have fought against all my life.
This is NOT a step toward Single Payer.
This is a huge step toward the complete Privatization and Codification of our For Profit Health Care delivery system.
This will have to be undone before we can take a step forward.

So I won't be marching in the parade rejoicing over the implementation of policy that I oppose, and will be voicing my criticism of this policy based on Traditional Democratic values of FDR and LBJ.

In the 2nd Bill of Rights (1944), FDR specified that access to quality Health care is a fundamental Human Right,
and NOT a Commodity to be SOLD to Americans by For Profit Corporations.
I'll continue to stand with FDR,
and will continue to try to explain the difference.

DURec for the OP.



[font color=firebrick size=3][center]"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."
--- Paul Wellstone[/font][/center]
[center][/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font]

[AgingAmerican]

59. It's a perfect example of the GOP moving further right

then the Democrats shifting right to claim the previous GOP position. Personally I feel it just institutionalizes the problem which is for profit insurance.

[polichick]

64. What's important is to realize that many "Dems" are no longer Dems...

Until we get that - and what it means - nothing will change.

[mercymechap]

77. But, but, but,

if we hadn't passed Obamacare as it finally turned out.....we would still have the same crap we had before, with no hope of it getting better since Republicans seem to think it was great.

Most Libs didn't like it.....but we saw the opportunity to get something passed that can later be changed and that's better than having nothing with the hope of getting nothing more.

[pampango]

83. Obamacare is based on the Massachusetts health care law that the Democratic legislature amended so

much that Romney vetoed the bill that passed. Romney originally proposed the Heritage Foundation version, but the Democrats in Massachusetts (not surprisingly) made so many liberal changes in it that Romney vetoed it. The legislature then passed it over his veto.

I wish we had a National Health Service like the UK and other countries have, but I don't oppose Obamacare because of its distant link to a republican organization any more than I reject the EPA because it was originally Nixon's idea.

[edhopper]

84. It will be interesting to compare

Mass. with Vermont as we go forward.