Every American citizen is now required to help make insurance corporations richer. Enjoy!

[Zalatix]

Last edited Mon Jul 2, 2012, 03:41 AM - Edit history (1)

Oh and that whole single payer system we wanted? You'll be moving to another country if you want to see that.

Edited to add: the ACA is not the problem. The individual mandate is the problem. Let's run the real world numbers. If you are earning $28,000 a year, this is how the Individual Mandate impacts your existing budget:

[IMG][/IMG]

Someone earning $28,000 a year (as is the case with some DUers) just took a $2,189 additional annual hit to their already overburdened budget.

$2,189 a year is a lot of food to buy.

[lonestarnot]

1. You will eat your words as we continue to improve healthcare to all.

[Zalatix]

3. I sure hope so. But I doubt it. I most certainly will die of old age before it happens.

[Schema Thing]

15. I hope not.

Single payer will be in Vermont soon, and elsewhere not long after. It's written into this bigfuckingdeal of a law.


I can already now purchase cost controlled health insurance, with my pre-existing conditions - in Texas, for no more than anyone else pays for their insurance (and less than what most people pay).


I hope you are healthy then and that you don't die as you choke on your cynical words.

[enlightenment]

326. Health insurance is not health care.

It's fine to believe that the ACA is a great thing for everyone, and I'm glad you are able to access insurance, but it is not helpful to confuse health insurance - which provides varying degrees of access to diagnosis and treatment (depending on what you can afford) - with health care.

Your last comment was hateful, by the way. Suggesting that someone should die because you dislike what they said (even in a backhanded "oh, that's not what I meant" kind of way) was unnecessarily nasty.

[1StrongBlackMan]

68. Not to be rude, but ...

many would be dead now (or soon) but for this ACA.

[Major Nikon]

275. Not only that, millions would be uninsured and health insurance would be more expensive

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/02/pdf/gruber_mandate.pdf

[pinboy3niner]

301. You would be perfectly justified if you actually were rude. nt

[The Wielding Truth]

138. This is better than not having it.You will not die with lack of coverage even if you have a preexist

ing condition. We got a good working program. Now we have to perfect it. We are looking forward it that.

[eridani]

223. Instead you will die because the crappy bronze coverage (all that you can afford)

--will not pay for expensive illnesses.

[nanabugg]

139. Actually, this is not necessarially true and I think you know it. nt

[Zalatix]

148. I would bet you money I'm right on this.

No single payer will ever happen in America in my lifetime.

[hue]

162. I completely agree with nana!!

This will NOT make the rich richer! This is progress for all US citizens!! The Healthcare system will always be big as almost everyone has to use it sometime for something. I think the essence of the Affordable Care Act is that it is a redistribution of some wealth to ensure that everyone is insured. About 32 million uninsured people will gain coverage under the law.
Believe me US hospitals are in a crises at this time! This is a huge win for 99% of the US!!

[chknltl]

208. Perhaps you will be able to die of old age....

...BECAUSE of Obama Care. Zaletex, I am not here to debate you but instead to thank you. Your concerns are not yours alone, they are shared by many across this country. We The People should be paying attention to and discussing this topic. IMO, attention to and discussion of social change brought to us by OUR government is crucial to a healthy democracy. As you are well aware, our society/democracy has been far from healthy for far too long. This discussion, going on in practically every nook and cranny across this nation RIGHT NOW, is a beautiful thing.
THANK YOU FOR THAT!

(btw: like many here and more importantly like Thom Hartman, I disagree with you.

[FarLeftFist]

219. Actually, this will eat into their profits.

[Harmony Blue]

8. Most Americans will see positive changes

and universal health care will swell with support.

[Leopolds Ghost]

17. You mean Romneycare. Bye DU n/t

[SidDithers]

31. Bye...nt

Sid

[Leopolds Ghost]

156. If I were to leave DU in the mood I am in right now

I would do so in a manner that would get me tombstoned.

I avoided DU for two YEARS because of Obama's reversal on ACA.

Because I had been telling people about this since 2007 or so and
nobody would listen. And it got to the point with people cheerleading
for a policy that people like Gingrich and Romney originally endorsed
(and now only oppose because they've moved even further to the right)
where there is no progressive movement left, just the "haves" talking
about the "have nots" like they aren't in the room.

[bighart]

191. The ACA WAS, IS and ALWAYS WILL BE a CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN IDEA

[Major Nikon]

276. Makes perfect sense. That's why all of them voted against it

http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/111/house/1/887
http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/111/senate/1/396

[bighart]

285. Well let's see.........

"The idea has been around for decades — it was originally a conservative Republican idea as an alternative to national health insurance"
NY Times April 2012

"The ringing irony about this week’s U.S. Supreme Court challenge to the Affordable Care Act is that the law’s core principles were all, originally, conservative."
Pennlive March 2012

"The members of the Republican Party did not just decide individually that the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act was unconstitutional. As many people have noted, the mandate was originally a Republican idea! Many Republicans once (and probably still do) thought it was a smart policy and one of the only ways to get freeloaders to contribute to a health care system"
Treehugger June 2012

"But President Barack Obama pointed out on “60 Minutes” Sunday night that the law is very similar to Republican Gov. Mitt Romney’s health reform law in Massachusetts. And it turns out the law reflects many other ideas that enjoyed Republican support in the past."
Center for American Progress Nov 2010

[Lydia Leftcoast]

288. If McCain had won and proposed *exactly the same bill*

the Republicans would have been proclaiming it "a triumph of private sector solutions to America's health crisis."

As a currently circulating cartoon states, the only things the Republicans don't like about "Obamacare" is the "Obama" part.

[Major Nikon]

309. That's a big "If"

What people who make the claim that ACA is a GOP plan convieniently forget is that Republicans never once so much as proposed anything, even when they were driving both the Executive and Legislative wagons.

Hell would sooner freeze solid before any Republican would so much as introduce a health care reform bill in committee.

[bighart]

322. So your response to the exerpts I posted above is that they thought of it

but never proposed it so it's not really their idea?
Maybe that's because they never in their wildest dreams thought the American people would stand for being required by government to purchase a for profit product from a for profit industry.

[NavyDavy]

327. u sound like a faux noose watcher!! thats a nice way of calling u an arse!

[Major Nikon]

328. If I were to return the favor

...and say what you sound like. I might say you sound like someone with nothing useful to offer who likes name calling and interjecting tripe.

Since we are offering unsolicited opinions on what each other sounds like, I thought I'd throw that out there.

[dionysus]

231. bye. don't write.

[Leopolds Ghost]

242. dionysus... SidDithers...

am I detecting a pattern here? Where's LoZoccolo to tell me to GTFO if I don't support Romney and his health insurance policies?

[zipplewrath]

117. No, most won't

It was the specific intent that MOST people wouldn't notice at all. And they succeeded. The single most common impact (which is still a minority) was that peoples rates went up. All the other benefits impacted a small minority of the population. Only around an additional 7-12% of the population will get health care that didn't have it before, some by mandate. Roughly 1% will cover their kids under their policy at 26 yrs old. I forget the number, but something like 20% saw certain diagnostic procedures covered at 100% (they already were for many people). Some 7%? will now be able to get insurance despite a pre-existing condition. Some additional percentage (single digits IIRC) had insurance but a pre-existing condition was exempt.

But all those folks (single digits again) that already had insurance but couldn't afford to use it, will still not be able to use it. The rate of inflation of health CARE is still estimated to rise at around 7% per year for EVERYONE.

We still haven't done anything about the cost of health CARE. And the 15% rule now incentivizes the insurance companies to allow rates to rise.

[Leopolds Ghost]

154. That was the intention of the bill, according to Washington Monthly in 06-07

[zipplewrath]

175. And the POTUS

Obama mentioned several times that if you liked your insurance, you'd get to keep it.

[Leopolds Ghost]

192. Remember when people here said they would not forget how our leaders folded on health care reform?

They're now trumpeting it as "Obamacare" and a great victory that will last 20 years or more.

20 years of Welfare Reform for Health Care. Welfare was reformed by requiring people to get off welfare, thereby decreasing the size of the rolls. Now nobody in the progressive coalition has a problem with that issue any more because it is considered a problem solved.

Compel everyone who is ineligible for Medicaid to purchase private insurance = universal health "care". Problem solved.

No need for a public option (which would have been a fig leaf since they wanted to pay for the public option out of fines on those ineligible to receive it -- not even joking.)

[zipplewrath]

194. Third way

you now understand the third way. Redefine your goals as your accomplishments and move on. They used to call it triangulation.

[girl gone mad]

210. Well we did shift the costs of care off of the government and high income earners..

and on to lower middle class workers and young people. That's a win, right?

[eridani]

224. Very true. The 85% of Americans who do not get expensivly sick will benefit

They will be able to afford to buy the delusion that they will get care if they do get sick. The 15% who account for 85% are fucked. The only coverage they can afford will bankrupt and/or kill them anyway. Most of the medically bankrupt are already insured now. Insuring more people will not change that.

[theaocp]

225. Exactly ... remember what they said in SiCKO:

It's not about the uninsured. It's about the insured who can't get care they need. Put a couple thoughts behind it.

[kenny blankenship]

315. Yes, 60% increase in premiums over 5 years

that is indeed a positive number.

[CleanLucre]

24. when?

[WinkyDink]

51. Not in this lifetime.

[pnwmom]

2. Obamacare can still serve as the foundation for that, although it will take

a Democratic Congress.

But if Obamacare had been struck down, we could have had to wait for decades to get anything, much less single payer.

[Drale]

5. It amazes me how people can jump to the worst possible conclusion

so quickly. It must suck being so negative all the time.

[pnwmom]

48. I understand why people are pessimistic, but the people who are more optimistic,

like Obama, tend to be more able to get things done.

[WinkyDink]

56. Especially when they are, like Obama, President of the United States?

[pnwmom]

63. He wouldn't be President if he weren't optimistic.

I think that, and some ego-strength, is pretty much mandatory for the job.

[girl gone mad]

211. An optimistic person would not be drumming up deficit hysteria..

and pushing for cuts to SS, etc.

[treestar]

78. Exactly

[WinkyDink]

53. No, it's called having been around the block more than a few decades.

[1StrongBlackMan]

81. It's the liberal way.

It seems conservatives are ruled by fear and Liberals are ruled by "But, if only."

I choose to be ruled by, "Okay, now I/we can ..."

I wish more would try it!

[Ikonoklast]

169. Whatever happened to the Liberals who rolled up their sleeves, and said, "OK, let's get to work now!"

I see a bunch of whiny hand-wringers blubbering because we didn't achieve Absolute Perfection from the very start, so the whole thing needs to be thrown under the bus instead of looking ahead to doing the hard work and build upon this law as a foundation for greater things.

These same posters would have been against Social Security as it was first passed, as it, too, was far from perfect.

I agree with you, let us now do whatever is necessary to move in the direction of Single Payer for those that want it.

Do Not Stop Agitating Your Congressperson For Single Payer.

EVER.

[bhikkhu]

95. Like the repugs - always "we can't possibly get this to work"

"it will be a massive disaster, we just don't know how to do it" "we can't compete", etc...in spite of all the other civilized countries on the planet who have managed to figure it out, and have kept well-managed healthcare systems running for decades now.

ed - sp.

[frylock]

188. how's that NAFTA renegotiation working out for you?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

206. x2

[Zalatix]

9. Until then, middle class workers with pre-existing conditions will pay thousands extra per month

for insurance that is LOADED with copays and deductibles so high that it'll be worthless.

This will all go right into the health insurance corporations' lobbying warchest. You can guess what this will mean when or if the Democrats push for a single payer system.

[progree]

30. Those with pre-existing conditions cannot be charged extra. Where do your information?

I read that in "Landmark, America's New Healthcare Law", and a number of news stories.

[eridani]

267. They get charged extra when the insurance companies jack the rates for everyone

80% MLR is absoFUCKINGlutely unacceptable as a cost control mechanism, given that average MLR was 95% in the 90s

[progree]

325. What is MLR and where do you get your figure that MLR was 95% in the 90s? and what is it now?

I assume MLR means Medical Loss Ratio -- the ratio of actual health care delivered to premium dollars or something like that (so at 80%, that means 20% goes to administration, marketing, overheads, and profits and 80% goes to actual health care)

I don't believe for one moment that it was 95% in the 90's. Maybe in some other country.

What makes you think they won't jack up their rates without ACA?

[Harmony Blue]

34. They are not being charged extra

and can't be denied coverage.

Huge victory for empathy and humanity for all.

[emulatorloo]

57. Don't confuse me with the facts

[Harmony Blue]

71. Sorry but

facts are like an elusive big foot on the internets.

[emulatorloo]

90. ...

[pnwmom]

55. Wrong. Premiums will only rise with age and income, not with preexisting conditions.

There is so much misinformation out there. I hope there will be more publicity about what it actually says now that it has passed.

[WinkyDink]

61. "Premiums will only rise with age"---and this is supposed to be good?

[Zalatix]

76. LOL, nailed it.

[pnwmom]

80. There are only a few broad age categories and the difference in cost

is not that great. (I don't remember the percent off the top of my head.)

But it makes sense because young people tend to spend very little in health costs compared to older people.

Also, the rise due to age will be a small fraction of what people with pre-existing conditions had to pay, if they were allowed to buy any insurance at all. And there will be a ceiling holding premiums to a certain percent of income -- I believe it was 8%, but that's just what I remember.

[Zalatix]

84. An extra 8% blow to a budget that's often 110% spoken for.

That can't possibly go wrong.

[pnwmom]

89. There will also be an expansion of Medicaid and substantial premium subsidies

for low income people.

[Zalatix]

104. How does that help middle class workers

especially those whose employers don't pay for medical insurance? (And that's a growing number of people, by the way)

[raouldukelives]

110. I've heard that health insurance can only be a certain % of income now.

But I am unsure if that is true. I hope it is. I think its huge step in the right direction if people earning under 100k can only be made to pay 6-8% of income on health insurance with the rest being covered by subsidies. Completely if they fall under poverty guidelines. I remain ever hopeful.

[Gormy Cuss]

181. The Medicaid expansion is now a state option.

That was a part of the law struck down by the SCOTUS.

Low income people in some states will benefit from an expansion but not in all states.

[treestar]

82. and income

[ChazII]

98. Agree 100%.

So, the more I make and the older I get mean I will pay more?

I need to read up and learn more about this topic.

[pnwmom]

216. It won't go up simply because of income, but people with lower incomes

will get subsidies and people with higher incomes won't.

[Leopolds Ghost]

150. "It only affects THOSE people who don't have insurance. It doesn't affect MOST of us"

Or so they think. Since ACA / HCR holds up the principle of Insurance as a commodity,
it remains fungible.

Any insurance you purchase from now on -- even USAA or Blue Cross -- will be under the same
principle as those car insurance ads pushing low-cost, ripoff car insurance specifically to pretend
cover people who can't afford real car insurance. And under the same market conditions, to wit,
you may be eligible for, say, USAA but if you can't afford it for some reason, the price curve will
be dictated by what your other options are, and you're not allowed to back out of the market
without paying a fine to the government for not purchasing a commodity in the MARKETPLACE.
Where Insurance shouldn't be in the first place.

Has anyone here ever run a business? Then you would know all about microeconomics,
and how the baseline price of "not doing anything" affects the price at which an item is sold.

Even though the objective is to avoid "not doing anything" the customer has to have the option
to do so - or he / she is at an inherent disadvantage in the "marketplace" for this commodified,
FORMER public good.

I'm not real big on corporate capitalism but this ain't it -- it's basic economics.

[girl gone mad]

212. I think most here do not understand microeconomics or macroeconomics.

They're just standing on the sidelines, cheering on their quarterback.

[Fawke Em]

116. And if you don't like the coverage, you opt out, pay your tax and you're covered

by the government.

[Harmony Blue]

123. More options for consumer = huge win

Once people see it in practice they will change their tune.

[Leopolds Ghost]

152. I assume you don't plan on trying that, because It's NOT how it works

The objective of the bill is to maximize the number of people in the private pool and minimize the increase in the public pool.

You do not pay a fine if you are covered by the government, that's silly. You pay a fine until you are approved for government coverage, and there will not be any increase in government coverage.

SCOTUS struck down that part of the bill requiring states to increase public coverage or lose existing funding.

[sabrina 1]

207. You just mentioned the loophole.

The only reason any reform of the HC system was allowed was because the Insurance Industry was losing money. The more people who lost their jobs, the less money they were making. So something had to be done and they did it. They funneled Public Funds, Medicaid, eg through the hands of the HC Corps and saved themselves from the extinction. Public funds for the poor, now passing through their hands, and the Mandate to force the just barely above the poverty line poor, to now have to pay THEM for premiums they may never be able to use because of the high co-pays.

But millions of those kinds of, now mandated, payments to the Ins Corps translate into huge profits for an industry that was running out of money.

Wendell Potter explained the reaction of the Ins Corps when they saw footage of poor Americans lining up for free clinics, the kind that usually operate in Third World Countries. Asked if it made them feel guilty, he said 'no, what they saw was a huge market'. But who would pay for those people's premiums? The Medicaid Fund and Mandated Insurance for the lower income working class. The trick was to get it into the hands of the Ins Corps so that on the way to the poor, they could take out 20% for profit.

I'm glad the bill was not overturned, but the jumping for joy that it is a win for the people, is a little hard to understand. It is first and foremost a win for the the Big Corps, with some crumbs for the little people.

[Leopolds Ghost]

248. I can tell you one thing... the jumping and cheering for "individual responsibility" for health care

on the left will be the death of the Occupy movement... what do people even have against rule by the 1% if they support this? Answer they don't... be prepared for 80 years of oligarchy, Mexico style.

[LiberalFighter]

88. Do you like making up your own facts?

If insurance will cost thousands more for those with pre-existing conditions they won't get insurance. They will just pay the tax.

And the insurance part requires that at least 80% of the premiums must be used for health care costs. Anything less requires a rebate to the insured.

[Zalatix]

107. You forgot to mention "they will just pay the EXTRA TAX" on top of what they pay now.

I'm sure that's going to help their already overburdened budgets make ends meet, yessiree.

[LiberalFighter]

142. They are not going to pay a tax if they have health insurance.

Those that pay the tax in lieu of not having health insurance is a choice they make. They are not forced to pay the tax. But it is either or.

There are exemptions for the tax when their income falls below the line. It is currently $9,500 for single, $19,000 married filing jointly. With all of the requirements and more people seeing the benefit of belonging to a bigger and bigger pool of insured the costs will go down vs a limited pool.

[Leopolds Ghost]

159. Its not a choice, its an immoral, mercantilist fine on the working poor which gov't is calling a tax

Even though they called it a fine when they passed the bill.

[LiberalFighter]

183. The very poor are exempt from the tax.

[Leopolds Ghost]

193. So what is the point of the tax / fine?

To my mind it is equivalent to taxing people for not owning a home in order to fund affordable rental housing,

then exempting those people who are eligible to receive vouchers for the resulting rental housing.

Would a law like that be constitutional under this precedent?

[CleanLucre]

28. questions

how long have we waited?
what were we promised?
how many times?
what have we gotten?
how many have suffered and died or lost everything in the meantime?

Too little too late and lesser of evils are not working anymore. Sorry.

[Major Nikon]

277. SS didn't even cover half the workers when it was first passed

Imagine if the 'all or nothing' crowd had been in the majority back then.

[chelsea0011]

4. I support the decision but I never understood why health

insurers were against this because it helps them rather than hurts them.

[slackmaster]

10. They opposed it because it effectively introduces the federal government as a competitor

A new kid on the block. The effective monopoly of the big insurers COULD be broken in the long run, as some people will make the choice to pay the pen..., oops, the TAX rather than buy private insurance.

[earthside]

13. It's a matter of perspective.

Sure, the health care industry corporations would prefer a 'wild west' unregulated system.

However, just watch what happens now that this law is 'good to go'.

The lobbyists from the health care corporations will go into operation to milk every single dollar they can out of us ordinary folks who are required to buy their product (or be penalized).

This will be spun as a political victory for Pres. Obama -- but in the long term and this is an even bigger triumph for the health care/insurance corporations.

[Occulus]

108. "However, just watch what happens now that this law is 'good to go'."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014154395

[Harmony Blue]

38. They have to accept those with pre-existing conditions

and they now have to compete in a transparent manner.

[LiberalFighter]

96. Maybe this part?

From healthcare.gov
Medical Loss Ratio: Getting Your Money's Worth on Health Insurance

Today, many insurance companies spend a substantial portion of consumers’ premium dollars on administrative costs and profits, including executive salaries, overhead, and marketing. Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, consumers will receive more value for their premium dollar because insurance companies will be required to spend 80 to 85 percent of premium dollars on medical care and health care quality improvement, rather than on administrative costs, starting in 2011. If they don’t, the insurance companies will be required to provide a rebate to their customers starting in 2012.

[1StrongBlackMan]

105. Actually, the ACA isn't the windfall ...

for insurance companies that many (here) wouold have us believe.

Yes, it increases revenues, as a couple million(?) previously uninsured will now be covered. But the little discussed medical-loss provisions, requires that 80+% of those revenues be dedicated to actually paying for medical procedures/medicine.

[phleshdef]

6. No they aren't. They can pay the tax (and yes I can now call it a tax), which doesn't go to...

...health insurance companies.

[JustAnotherGen]

12. And that's the key point

And those of us who 'get' that need to keep saying it over and over and over again.

[Harmony Blue]

16. Now that it is a tax

it is a huge victory for the government a.k.a we the people.

[Zalatix]

21. Horray, more money for drones.

[Harmony Blue]

43. Drones don't cost as much as an aircraft carrier

or a fighter jet.

The money can be focused on building America like bridges roads.

[JustAnotherGen]

49. Hmmm

I didn't want this law at all. I wanted one simple thing - well a couple!

One - Make it illegal for employers to offer health insurance.
Two - Those employers that DO offer it should have been given two years to convert that 'part of your compensation plan' back into a cash value. Yes - I would have paid taxes on it but . . .
Three - Let me buy Medicare. Stop the age discrimination and open it up to ALL Americans who want to purchase but keep everything as it is for our Senior Citizens.

I know -easier said than done. But I can't help thinking - could we just opt in to a 'tax' that allows us to just use Medicare? Is that how we get to single payer?

I'm a black American that descends from slaves. The road that slave in Alabama at the end of the Civil War and her husband who was a run away to the place their great great granddaughter sits today was a long hard row to hoe. It ain't easy - but it's a good start. It started with them buying a parcel of the land she had been a slave on. They grew it. As they grew it -America grew. And America changed.

I'm 39 - I want Medicare For All to be the Civil Right Movement of my generation. It's only Civil to make sure people don't go broke trying to stay healthy or get healthy. It's the civil and moral thing to do.

This is a good start. Just like we on the left caught 'stuck' with Bush's Tax Breaks for Millionaires - ie I think they are here to stay. The right just got stuck with a hell of a law. Me likey that.

[Leopolds Ghost]

189. "Now that it is a tax" -- nothing has changed, it is a penalty levied on the working poor

For not having insurance, and it is the government declaring that private insurance is a requirement of citizenship, since there is NO guarantee of public insurance, in fact you have to PROVE you are eligible for public insurance in order to avoid the fine, in the exact same manner as welfare, else it would NOT BE LEVIED IN THE FIRST PLACE.

[Leopolds Ghost]

22. WHAT IS THIS "THEY" PEOPLE ON DU KEEP SPEAKING OF

FUCK THE 1%ERS AND FUCK ANYONE WHO SIDES WITH THEM.

[MattBaggins]

58. FUCK ANYONE WHO WANTS TO DENY ME HEALTHCARE

As someone who lost his job after a heart attack I have a pony in this fight so FUCK ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SEE ME LOSE ANY CHANCE AT INSURANCE BECAUSE I HAVE A PRE EXISTING CONDITION.

[WinkyDink]

65. I'm very sorry. But your situation does not comprise the part I oppose.

[emulatorloo]

87. Scalia and Alito agree with you.

Wonder why they agree with you? Might be worth thinking through. Obamacare is a threat to their precious corporations.

[Leopolds Ghost]

141. No offense but that's appeal by association

Romneycare was written by the corporations, and when Clinton, Edwards, and Daschle sat down with senior Republicans, they were going on the basis that it was the sort of Insurance-industry wanted in the 90s. Gingrich was the first person to float the idea of compelling Americans to purchase private insurance, I believe. The way Washington Monthly described it (and this was years before the bill became a hot potato) the central aim was to increase the pool of insured paying into the for-profit system, eliminating "deadbeats" and to forestall any push for single payer, which the authors of the bill opposed. The idea of the public option was to provide a "safety valve" that was self-limited (i.e. insurance would not go for the deal if the public option was not funded by the fines themselves, in such a fashion that the fines drove most users to private insurance and the public option was limited to paying for those in a specific narrow eligibility gap where availability was driven by the people paying fines. Like using highway speeding tickets to pay for mass transit, in essence. That is how Washington Monthly's extensive coverage described it back when I learned about the bill in 2006 or so and that is when I came to loathe it. It is no better than one of the numerous private business carrot and stick policies that are used when they have a captive market, an unregulated utility.

Anyone who thinks this bill would have passed Congress or SCOTUS if Insuricare opposed it is being naive.

Insuricare and the Corporatocracy in the Republican Party (and a few conservative Dems) =/= Tea Party.

[treestar]

74. Amen.

[Harmony Blue]

91. MattBaggins this ruling must

be a huge relief for you personally. Hang in there because justice prevailed for millions of Americans.

[Leopolds Ghost]

125. ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SEE ME LOSE MY CHANCE AT INSURANCE as well

Because I will most certainly not be able to afford it under this new regime. Which means that I will soon enough be in the same boat as you. And you should blame the INSURANCE cos. for that because they are the ones who HORSE TRADED pre-existing conditions in return for their LONG STANDING GOAL of forcing every American to purchase their product at market rates, WITHOUT the regulation associated with a utility.

[girl gone mad]

235. Chances are, your health insurer wants to deny you health care.

Some of us fought to keep the insurers from becoming as powerful and enshrined as the banks. Now that we lost that fight and insurers join the banks in being too big to fail and likely too big to regulate, chances are that a lot of people are going to be denied health care. I will withhold total judgment, but my guess is that the people are about to witness another massive rape and pillage by these corporations.

[Zalatix]

252. Excuse me, but I'm going to make this PERFECTLY CLEAR to you.

99.99% of the Affordable Care Act rocks. I utterly despise the individual mandate on a CELLULAR level, moreso now than yesterday, and moreso tomorrow than today, but it's NOT worth throwing out the whole ACA for that one festering, cancerous boil of a provision.

[Leopolds Ghost]

262. I didn't mean to offend MattBaggins.

DainBramaged also has a pre-existing condition and potentially severe health problems and I consider him a DU friend. He also supports the bill.

But there is no chance, none, that the progressive provisions of the ACA would have been thrown out along with the individual mandate.

Well, the Medicaid provision DID get thrown out -- further harshening the impact of the individual mandate.

No Elephants has a great post about it on DU2 here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2485270

and here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2485279

Please check it out.

[Zalatix]

272. Ah, good reads, thanks for the information!

[emulatorloo]

77. YOU ARE SIDING WITH THE KOCH BROS, SCALIA AND ALITO, CORPORATE REPUBLICANs

AND THE INSURANCE COS THAT SPENT MILLIONS TRYING TO DESTROY OBAMACARE.

They did all that because they understand Obamacare is one step closer to single payer.

You can spin it all you would like, but the facts are that millions and millions of dollars were spent by insurance cos to destroy ACA.

[LiberalFighter]

106. Agreed

1 step closer. A major step. And there is a point in time where it will happen much faster than people believe possible. IMO we have hit that point and likely will happen in the next 20 years.

If ObamaCare had not passed in 2009 we would had been waiting another 10 to 30 years before another reasonable attempt for something that would not had been Single Payer. At least now we are past that point and closer to Single Payer.

[Harmony Blue]

113. The fight is not over!

This is just the start and it will be a long road ahead! There is no yellow brick road, but a broken down one with missiles coming at us from all sides. But we must press on because moving forward as a society is imperative long term.

[Leopolds Ghost]

126. They did all that because they are radical Ayn Rand corporate fascists, and HCR is mercantilist.

Mercantile State vs. Ayn Rand Libertarianism, pick your poison.

[phleshdef]

119. People that don't want to buy health insurance. Reading comprehension is your friend.

[Leopolds Ghost]

143. Reading comprehension is not your strong suit

When someone says "who is this THEY you keep talking about" they are referring to themselves.

And implying that the majority of the people on this blog regard the uninsured as deadbeats who
refuse to purchase a good that is either provided to the more affluent bloggers among us by your
employer or which said people can comfortably afford.

Same thing with Will Pitt joking about how anyone who doesn't like the idea of mandatory
insurance probably doesn't own a car.

Funny how I don't hear those kind of comments about Voter ID. Oh, no, wait. I did.
For years... on DU. Until the party came down against it under Eric Holder, albeit a
principled stand for partisan reasons.

Then the sniping about people too stupid to have a drivers license already on them, suddenly stopped.

Go ahead, call me a deadbeat who doesn't want to buy insurance.

[phleshdef]

147. "You are a deadbeat that doesn't want to buy insurance."

I don't really think that or know that of course, but you double dared me, so I had to do it.

Now that we have that cleared up...

You asked who "they" were, as if you didn't know. It was painfully obvious that I was referring to people who would rather pay the alternative tax or find that to be the more affordable option. Regardless, everyone who is uninsured, not poor enough for medicaid and not old enough for medicare is a potential liability on the system in terms of emergency room care. Because we require emergency rooms to treat people to a certain degree (as we SHOULD require), then there has to be some kind of accountability. I'm not saying its perfect and there should probably be some tweaking to the requirements for the tax and I imagine there will be many tweaks as this is implemented. Regardless, its a logical way to approach the situation. I don't believe uninsured people are deadbeats. But I believe that everyone who is able to contribute to the system, should contribute to the system. This is one mechanism that is aimed towards making that happen.

Having said that, of course I think there should be a public option added to the system. Even better, we should go full on single payer. But until the legislative and political climate is in place to allow for such things, I'll take this approach and all the other life saving measures that come with the whole of the ACA over what we've had any day.

[Leopolds Ghost]

151. People keep referring to this "they" as if to suggest they aren't here on DU, including me and Matt

I disagree with Matt on this issue, but I understand why people with preexisting conditions were desperate to see the ACA upheld.

BUT THERE IS NO WAY the preexisting conditions clause would have been declared unconstitutional.

However many people seem to think that because they stand to a better outcome under this bill, that it is morally right to compel others -- specifically targeting the working poor and the underemployed -- to suffer economic hardship.

[phleshdef]

170. I'm pretty sure the working poor, at least for the most part, qualify to be exempt from the mandate.

And lets face it, if a bunch of people are made to pay the tax when they really can't afford it, I think there will be plenty of movement in Congress to adjust who can be exempt and/or what the amount of the tax will be. People just need to give this thing a chance.

[Dragonfli]

179. you are not exempt if you make more than $9000 a year $19000 for a family (roughly)

If you make a little more you are fucked, the premiums will (even after any small subsidy) still be too much for people that are falling behind as it is, making less than what goes out without having to buy it at the moment.

As an added bonus, you will, in this low money state, never be able to use it because you just can't sell your car (if you are lucky to have one) to pay all the co-pays when your pockets are empty. With no co-pay money, they will not see you, did you know that? These people and I simply won't have it, so we won't get any health care, just an insurance premium bill we can't afford to add to already unrealistic budgets.

I get a kick out of middle class Reagan Democrats that have no clue whatsoever what the working poor have to face and how this will hurt them, I know because I am one of them again now that health limits my ability to work.

I was born poor.
I climbed out of poverty before welfare deform, only by working hard on skilled jobs that did not pay well because I had to bid low to get work. My younger peers no longer have a safety net to help them and one more road block to climbing out of desperation.

Thanks guys, Reagan would be proud of y'all.

[Leopolds Ghost]

243. Dragonfli, you are another person on DU at present who is currently uninsured

Are there any others? The most fervent HCR supporters are the folks who are older and have health problems that limit their ability to get insurance due to pre-existing conditions. But they never indicated they couldn't get it if it was offered to them at current market rates for individual insurance (I suspect most DUers have access to employer coverage and have never tried to get individual insurance, because it's considered STUPID and ILL ADVISED as an alternative to employer coverage). But the people I know that CAN'T AFFORD IT are just as upset at the mandate as we are. Except for folks who believe that this bill will result in a sudden expansion of Medicare in this economy.

[Dragonfli]

259. I can offer you the perspective of one surrounded by people that just can't afford it.

Everyone in my blue collar neighborhood (well, nowadays it has changed to a neighborhood of poor people that happen to work for a living) Are falling behind or are budget neutral, adding any expense would have to be put on a card, if they even have one. The subsidy would have to cover it in it's entirety or people would be going backwards into poverty and that is just for the premium.

They are all well aware of co-pays, many have had insurance for years and had to drop it, but due to stagnant wages they just break even now even without it, others just don't earn enough to even consider the possibility as anything more than a sick joke (pun intended). They know that if the co-pays are not reasonable, they just can't afford to see the doctor, reasonable to someone that has no extra money at all is a small sum.

This will hurt many people in a certain range outright, and rather badly, and on an even larger group, the co-pays will be a very serious hardship, for some details on how those co-pay scenarios can work out see my post below in and answer to another response to my post.

I think you understand this thing, but few others appear to, I wonder how much it has to do with class perspective and cash availability?

[Leopolds Ghost]

261. I am unemployed, but I am not as bad off

As my family is upper middle class and willing to help me go back and finish college, which we couldn't used to afford.

But I grew up in a neighborhood that used to be working class and educated civil servants, and is now heavily gentrified and full of New Democrats who are extensively involved in the party on social / pocketbook issues alone and are not active in their community.

They consistently talk about people who can't afford insurance in the third person, as if they don't know them.

That's why I'm disappointed to see it here.

[BuelahWitch]

318. Last time I was offered health insurance I couldn't afford it.

Right now I'm temping and have no health coverage, but a few years back I worked for a company that wanted me to pay $140 a month for health insurance (one of the main employers in town, but very cheap). That would have taken a big bite out of my paycheck so I turned it down. If the economy doesn't get better and stay that way, it's going to hurt lots of people who are already living paycheck to paycheck.
I'm sure that someone will scoff and say that I would pay a whole lot more than $140 a month if I had a serious illness. Thank heaven I don't, but when I get sick I don't go to the doctor, or the emergency room. I just take something over the counter and hope it goes away. Up to now that's pretty much worked.
I guess if they put me in prison for not being able to buy health care or pay the tax I'll get pretty good health care, won't I?

[Leopolds Ghost]

335. Hey, we jail homeless people in the winter for humanitarian reasons

On brutally cold nights.

[joshcryer]

249. I don't understand why it's only 15 million people because 133% poverty is closer to 50 million.

I'm not sure where the figures are coming from. Maybe it has to do with households vs individuals. If that's the case it may be an incentive for households to register themselves as individuals in order to fall in 133% poverty.

For what it's worth my mom got cataract surgery without a co-pay. The co-pay was maybe 10% of the surgery. She's paid a decent amount of it back but as it stands now there's a rather large bill still outstanding. Note: my mom is in the bottom 1%, without it she would've had to simply "deal with it."

If you wish to continue living without insurance, simply get an Health Savings Account or simply make sure your deductions / withholdings aren't covered by the IRS. They can't touch you otherwise and this is rather easy to do.

But an HSA is a truly diabolical approach to things, as it is a Bush inspired "health care" scheme that is regressive to the core.

[Dragonfli]

258. A Health savings account won't work as I have less coming in than going out

You can't save negative cash.

I know first hand another vantage point on this as well, and it is because of this vantage point I know how many problems and lack of care will result from the mandate.

I was working as a drafter/designer in a small mill shop in Orchard Park NY.
I was making $17.50/hr, my wife worked part time in her shop as an artist

With the truck payments and basic stuff we were budget neutral (this was in 2003)
Actually some months we fell behind and were able to make it up in some other months.

Even tho I knew that buying the H.I. plan at work would require that we would have to put $200-$300 a month on our credit to make budget, I bought into the plan. It was a very good one (relatively I suppose) at the time, better than what is being considered "bronze" these days. I had to do this because I was worried about my wife's health as she had a lump she didn't want to see a doctor about because of the expense, I joined the health plan against her will and made her get it checked out.

She was really pissed off at me and said things like "we can't live off credit cards", she always kept the balance down.
She had cancer actually and was now scared rather than angry.


The insurance company sucked us dry before killing her (in my opinion) as they delayed a surgery that she was off chemo in preparation for. The delayed it so long, and in such a way that the doctors kept thinking approval was immanent so she was NOT PUT BACK ON CHEMO as a result of this the tumor had not only doubled in size, but had metastasized and was no longer fully operable.

In other words, they got what they could and stapled her together, then two and a half years of chemo and radiation (they actually burned the shit out of her with that) and all that was left was palliative, she died in 2006

A tumor that was shrunk with chemo prior to surgery with several painful infusions, that was expected to be "successfully operable". A surgery that should have saved her life was fucked up by an insurance employee somewhere that felt an additional surgeon that her surgeon said was needed for the procedure (something about the possibility of needing a skin graft) was too costly so the started playing tag with the medical profession over what should be done for like FOUR FUCKING MONTHS.

It still cost us (and now me) everything, including everything that could be sold and my credit rating.
The sucked us dry in increments, using "Co-Pays" to try to wear us down.

Almost every month I had to borrow or sell something for co-pays, until there was nothing more, then I ruined my mom's credit before it was done.

The only reason I could afford the funeral was because she was very well liked by very many people that gave generously in cards at the wake. I had to drop my insurance even tho I was diagnosed because not enough money was left after garnishments for me to AFFORD it anymore.

But

Thank Gawd she was well insured eh?
And

Thank GAWWWWD it passed!! Now others can enjoy the INSURANCE that ya'll think is so lovely.
I call them murderers, you call them part of a great victory.

Enjoy the fruits of your efforts as my wife has
Watch SICKO sometime if you get the chance if you don't understand what we have "won" here.

(how many times must I tell this story?????? i rather dislike the memories of it all, they piss me off too much to post)

[sabrina 1]

278. Thank you, you have explained what many people don't seem to want to acknowledge.

I also have tried to explain, that it is the working poor who are just above the line, as you stated, who will be the most screwed. Right now, many of them choose between food for their families or HC and food is the obvious choice, with prayers that no one gets sick. They are 'too rich' for Medicaid, unless they get sick and make themselves indigent and too poor to buy coverage. These are the people who DIE each year because they cannot get health care.

Now, they will have an added cost for which they will get nothing in return. Either a tax/penalty which will take money from their food budget, or be forced to buy a shoddy product which will be the cheapest they can find, and which they will never use because of the huge co-pays. But the 'silver lining' is the Insurance Corps will benefit.

Iow, millions of poor working class people will now be making donations to the Insurance Corps. These were the 'commodity' the Ins. Corps had their eye on, as Wendell Potter told us several years ago. What a machiavellian plot it was. Because these people will pay but will cost the Ins Corps nothing.

There needs to be a movement starting NOW, to change this before it all just becomes acceptable, another burden on the working class while the rich get richer.

[Leopolds Ghost]

196. The tax/fine is an uneconomic incentive, though

Social Security does the exact opposite with the employer mandate.

We're basically saying there's no right to health care, there is an individual responsibility to the State to pay for health insurance, like Gingrich said in the 90s.

The government should tax insurance industry profits and use the revenue to subsidize DECENT coverage for people that want it.

Or replace it with a mandate to cover all Americans who have jobs a la social security, and then the insurance cos. can have their OWN little "exchange" to buy and sell those people's policies that they don't want to cover themselves.

[Myrina]

64. ... "won't go to insurance companies" ...

cough, cough, bailouts cough cough government contracts cough cough subsidies cough.

[phleshdef]

121. Cough has nothing to do with anything concerning the ACA cough cough

[jimlup]

7. This is my feeling too...

I'm concerned that single payer will now be many decades away if ever.

[Laelth]

11. Sigh. Another "victory" for the President.

And a "victory" for the health insurance companies.

As for the American people .... well, we'll see.

-Laelth

[emulatorloo]

52. Explain to me why Koch Bros spent MILLIONS to destroy Obamacare

Same with the insurance companies.

Why does every corporate Republican SCREAM about repealing it?

Why is Scalia so fucking mad?

These are the facts. Your perspective/theory does not account for those facts

[Laelth]

85. I suspect the Koch brothers don't give a rip about the ACA.

They get excellent medical care. They could care less about the ACA. What they want to destroy is not the ACA. They want to destroy Obama, and that explains everything they do. Same goes for the Republicans.

Scalia is a different story. He's opposed to the expansion of Federal power, and his argument has some merit, even if I usually disagree with him.

-Laelth

[emulatorloo]

120. So it is just a head fake?

[Laelth]

140. Anything to destroy Obama.

Anything, and they don't give a rip about public policy unless it affects their bottom line. Now, if they are big holders of health insurance company stock, then yes ... a head fake, with the bonus effect of hurting Obama, but, afaik, the Koch brothers are not into health care.

-Laelth

[Leopolds Ghost]

145. +1 n/t

[ProSense]

14. Actually,

"Every American citizen is now required to help make insurance corporations richer."

...every American who has health care through their employer is already making "insurance corporations richer."

And consider this:

What's at stake in today's Obamacare decision

<...>

• If you're employed, and insured, you'll probably lose the free preventative care services you've enjoyed since last year. Some 54 million people took advantage of the physical exams, cancer screenings, flu shots, child immunizations, etc. that the law provides for, with no co-pay.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/06/28/1103719/-What-s-at-stake-in-today-s-Obamacare-decision

These five people just saved millions of Americans
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002868210

Also, the 16 million added to Medicaid are not going to make the "insurance corporations richer."

[randome]

19. Isn't there a limit on profit percentages, too?

[CherokeeDem]

69. I believe you are right....

which on the surface appears to be a problem for the insurance companies, making this much less of a win as some people are saying. However, I haven't read the fine print so not certain of the entire effect.

[treestar]

72. +1 million

Why don't those with a frenzied hatred of a business form celebrate?

[bhikkhu]

86. Section 2718

with effects such as here: http://blogs.denverpost.com/health/2012/06/21/health-insurance-rebates-checks-121000-colorado-families/1098/

[emulatorloo]

101. Yes, 80 percent of what they take in has to be spent on healthcare

This is one of the reasons the corporate republicans, Koch brothers, insurance cos hate about it

[1StrongBlackMan]

124. It's better than that ...

It's 80% for smaller carriers; but for the big boys in the insurance industry, e.g., UnitedHealth, BC, Aenta, Wellpoint, Kaiser, etc., the number is 85%.

[emulatorloo]

127. So 85 percent for overhead. Excellent

Thanks for the correction.

[1StrongBlackMan]

174. Now for some real world application ...

From the land of the Crazies ... Arizona.

Under the new health care law, insurance companies must provide consumers greater value by spending generally at least 80 percent of premium dollars on health care and quality improvements instead of overhead, executive salaries or marketing. If they don’t, they must provide consumers a rebate or reduce premiums. This means that 413,912 Arizona residents with private insurance coverage will benefit from $27,868,667 in rebates from insurance companies this summer. These rebates will average $118 for the 235,000 families in Arizona covered by a policy.

While that's not much ... People must realize that these rebates were the result of only a cursory review of selected insurance industry expenditures. The rebate amounts are likely to rise when the review infrastructure is fully in place.

[Zalatix]

20. But if your employer doesn't insure you, you're royally jones'd.

This is going to burn the middle class for sure. Those with pre-existing conditions might as well declare bankruptcy now.

[earthside]

26. Health insurance corporation lobbyists ...

... will now go into high gear to milk every last dollar they can from ordinary Americans.

And they will have the ACA to act as a sledge hammer to get everything they want.

Just look in the not too distant future for loopholes constructed in the 80-20 percentage regulation that will let the corporations keep even more.

We have been duped once again into an "us versus them" battle where in the end working class Americans pay and pay and pay.

[Zalatix]

35. I wish I could bookmark your post.

When those loopholes destroy the piddling little imaginary benefits of this travesty of a law there should be a big giant cosmic "I fucking TOLD YOU SO" voice that shatters the windows of everyone who's cheering this.

[ProSense]

27. Nonsense. n/t

[earthside]

29. Naïve. n/t

[ProSense]

33. Spiteful! n/t

[1StrongBlackMan]

128. Notice ...

that every counter argument to the ACA is based, not in fact; but in unsupported supposition?

Save your breath.

[Leopolds Ghost]

190. There's no supposition about it

I take it you already have or can afford individual coverage health insurance.

[1StrongBlackMan]

197. Yes ...

I do; but that is besides any point that you have attempted to make.

My having insurance (through my employer) has nothing to do with your, "This bad thing has happened ... Oh, it hasn't? Well, it will ... You just wait!" posts.

[Leopolds Ghost]

200. There is a divide on this issue between those directly affected and those who will merely see their

premiums go up like in Massachusetts under Romney.

Most people simply aren't directly affected. It's like the old vagrancy laws in California that allowed them to arrest people who didn't have $5 in their pocket. It doesn't affect people who aren't vagrants, right?

[1StrongBlackMan]

209. There ALWAYS is, on Every issue ...

But is the solution to scrap something that does not help me, but does millions others?

I would suggest that your time would be better spent working with others to figure out how you can negotiate this result, rather than, cursing the result, with false claims.

[Leopolds Ghost]

217. You got it reverse, you're saying, if it hurts low income uninsured, but helps middle class

who already have health insurance, by somehow reducing their premiums (not gonna happen) then go for it.

The only consequence of this bill will be to make the working poor further into wage slaves.

This bill does not make it easier to get decent insurance if you cannot afford it or are a bad risk. It simply
requires them to offer you a plan of their choosing in return for requiring you to purchase it from one of them
(and their rates are all set looking over each others' shoulder.) But you seem to be assuming that the people
who will be hurt by this are not on DU, or that the people with pre-existing conditions will suddenly have
access to affordable health insurance because of this bill.

[Major Nikon]

279. Premiums in Mass went down at the same time every other state went up

http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2012/04/14/Mass-healthcare-premiums-down-5/UPI-83201334422081/

[Zalatix]

40. Wait until this mandatory provision kicks in. The (green) blood will flow.

Remember I told you it would happen.

[CleanLucre]

37. Actually

millions of Americans have lost their jobs and their health care coverage that they couldn't afford to use through private companies.

[PoliticAverse]

50. Note that today's decision allows states to opt out of the Medicaid expansion...

without losing their current Medicaid funds (7-2 vote).

[Egalitarian Thug]

164. Actually capping operating expenses and profits to 15% - 20% (excluding the hundreds of exemptions

already granted) of premiums collected is 500% - 2000% more than what is needed in a moderately efficient system, like Medicare. "Uniquely American" simply means paying much more money to achieve worse results.

Watch what happens to their stock prices over the next 5 - 10 years. This is a gift even if some don't see it yet.

[pampango]

18. Scalia, Alito and Thomas won Kennedy over to your side. They thought they had the mandate defeated,

but somehow let Roberts slip through their fingers.

[Leopolds Ghost]

23. Roberts was paid off by the Insurance Industry, he was always a Business Hack

The Insurance Industry WROTE THE GODDAMN BILL FIVE YEARS AGO, based on an original idea advanced by people like Gingrich et al. as anyone who was actually informed enough to read about the details of Health Care Reform proposal for years before Obama was elected... would know.

[emulatorloo]

41. Except insurance cos spent millions to defeat Obamacare

Koch Bros spent millions on a disinformation campaign

Corporate Scalia is spitting nails he is so pissed.


Corporate Republicans scream about repealing it.


Why? Because they recognize Obamacare is one step closer to single payer.

[treestar]

83. Do you have proof of any kind?

Or do you live with rabid speculation as fact?

[emulatorloo]

122. I am sure a link will show up from a wingnut conspiracy website

[Leopolds Ghost]

146. Washington Monthly

Do you read it?

[treestar]

149. Yep, with all the needed tenuous connections

From Roberts to his auto mechanic to a corporation auto mechanic pays for supplies to a company in which Roberts' wife has shares that she bought 2 months before the ACA was first proposed in Congress.

[cbdo2007]

25. Even "Single payer" would be run and managed by the insurance companies.....so I'm not sure I get

your point.

[madrchsod]

232. my medicare payments are processed by insurance companies.....

[cbdo2007]

250. I work for a health insurance company and a lot of our business is Medicare and Medicaid....

we just work as a contractor to the Federal Govt. They make the rules and laws we have to follow and we carry out all of the operations side of it. Hell, we don't even have to do any advertising and stuff for this business cause the govt does all of that, so we probably make more off of govt business than our commercial business.

[liberal N proud]

32. If not them, the health care providers (emergency room owners)

When people don't have health insurance they go to the emergency room, and we the tax payer usually get stuck with a much more costly bill than an insurance premium.

[Harmony Blue]

46. This will make the system more

reasonable and fairer for all, but some people will have to see in practice to jump onboard.

[Freddie Stubbs]

36. No one is required to give one cent to insurance companies

Everyone is required to pay a tax. If you choose to get health insurance, you don't have to pay the tax.

[CleanLucre]

39. oh

so it's another scam

[Myrina]

73. +100

n/t

[Freddie Stubbs]

338. Not a scam. Just the facts

[CleanLucre]

339. We'll see how it plays out.

[Romulox]

132. Just like nobody was stopped from voting. Just pay a tax! nt

[Leopolds Ghost]

153. If there were no constitutional provision against a poll tax we'd be having arguments about it on DU

If there's nothing wrong with a tax on persons not purchasing a private good, declaring something held in common to be a commodity to be sold on the private market regulated by the government and mandating that citizens participate in that market, then what is the argument against voter ID (after all, everyone who drives already has to carry ID AND insurance)? What is the argument against a poll tax (after all, surely if it is bad to force people to pay to vote, it is bad to fine them for breathing without paying a protection racket for a fake insurance policy because they can't afford decent coverage). And Hillary Clinton and other mainstream "former" liberals talking about how going around without insurance hurts everyone else, just like not painting your house the correct color hurts the property values of the other houses in your homeowners association... it's a Homeowners Association view of the world.

[Zalatix]

229. Yup, this law is going to bite a lot of Americans on the ass.

Then it's going to mutate and bite a lot MORE Americans on the ass.

[deutsey]

42. Can't say I'm dancing for joy for that reason

but I am glad to watch all those rightwankers' heads exploding, nonetheless...

[RBInMaine]

44. Please, you sound like the left's version of the Tea Party.

[Zalatix]

54. Yes, because I oppose RomneyCare on Steroids, I'm a Tea Partier. Gotcha.

Which party is Mitt Romney a part of, by the way?

[treestar]

70. The LEFT'S version is what the poster said

Emotions outrunning reason produces unnecessary stress.

[Zalatix]

75. "The left's version of the tea party" = ridiculous contradiction in terms.

Now who would cosign on such an irrational and oxymoronic statement as "the left's version of the tea party"?

[emulatorloo]

103. It is a perfectly sensible analogy.

[Zalatix]

111. Yes, it's sensible if you're living in a universe where 1+1=3

[treestar]

161. It's more like this

1 + 1 = 2 to normal people. It equals 3 to TPers. It equals -3 to the extremists of the left.

[Zalatix]

165. Sorry, but Leftists aren't extremists... unless you define accepting reality as extreme.

[Leopolds Ghost]

168. When did it become Leftist, much less Right wing, to oppose Stamp-Act style mercantilism

I mean, that shit is old-school. As SCOTUS said this is fairly unprecedented.

Even with Kelo there was precedent in so far as the US already had a
long history of fucked up application of eminent domain to benefit corporations.

It is immoral to compel people to participate in a rigged market system
for the benefit of another private party. You can't say that we have to do
it to cover pre-existing conditions. That's a false equivalency created by
the Ins. companies themselves. THEY are the ones who insisted on the
mandate and wanted to do away with the other provisions.

[Zalatix]

180. STAMP ACT!!! Damn, I totally forgot about that. Thank you, +1000!

[treestar]

178. Left and right are relative terms

Everyone believe their opinion is correct and represents "reality."

[Zalatix]

182. "Left and right are relative terms", but one is based on reality and one is not.

If you feel that the right wing reality is just as legitimate as left-wing reality, then would you count yourself as an independent?

I don't accept that the Right wing is just "the other side of the coin". They are genuinely evil creatures.

[treestar]

184. They vote

Or do you propose they be stopped from doing so, or otherwise removed from society?

They think they are right, so do centrists, so do leftists.

[treestar]

163. Sensible

We don't need to be sensible! Our hair is on fire!

[treestar]

160. The poster meant, clearly, the extreme

The tea party is extremely to the right. The left has a group extremely to the left. People so far on the extremes that what they want is really out of reach.

[Major Nikon]

280. Romney had very little to do with "Romneycare"

The legislation was demanded by the public, which is overwhelmingly Democrat. It was authored and passed by both houses of the Mass legislature, which were and still are overwhelmingly Democrat. Romney vetoed no less than 8 provisions of the law, 6 of which were overturned.

[TBF]

186. Don't you dare blame the left -

we want universal health care and most of us support ACA in the meantime.

I don't know what Zalatix is selling, but in another thread he talks about mandating the purchase of guns ... and tells us we won't like the government mandating purchases of other things. That is not a communist/socialist point of view but I do know many that think that way in other quarters ...

[Zalatix]

283. I'm not selling the abolishment of the whole ACA. Just the individual mandate.

And I am not sure I know of any communist or socialist society that mandates that you purchase a private company's health insurance... much less purchase any other private company's product... just for being alive.

[TBF]

286. None of us like privatization -

except maybe the DLCers - but that doesn't mean we don't take this bill. Getting rid of the pre-existing conditions nonsense is a huge win.

And we do not need to attack Obama on this - unless we want to end up with Romney in the White House. We accept that we got some good things and keep working.

And further re this attack on ACA (which is also a big attack on Obama) - I can't let someone who will push women's rights back 100 years into the white house without trying to defeat him. I will not do that to my daughter and nieces. I guess that's where we part ways. I will support his president, despite the flaws, because otherwise the alternative happens.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

289. Is that the new talking point out of Democratic Party headquarters?

[JoePhilly]

45. My 16 year old Niece, cancer surviver, no longer has a "pre-existing condition" keeping her

from getting care.

[Harmony Blue]

144. Millions of people are in this position

their life has improved dramatically because of this.

[JoePhilly]

199. I know her life will be dramatically better ...

She had what is usually a fatal cancer when she was 2. She survived it, but she has lots of medical issues as a result ... like Kidney stones.

When she got sick originally, the insurance tried to deny her coverage, specifically because the survival rate for this cancer was less than 10%. My sister had to beg hospitals to treat her AND, she had to fight the insurance company. In the end, my sister, about to go bankrupt, got the insurance company to settle for less than they should have paid ... she had to take it, she was about to lose her home.

Since them, my Niece could normally only get coverage for basic illness (colds flu) and sports injuries (which she does get). But the insurance companies never wanted to cover anything else ... they'd blame the cancer from when she was 2.

Now they can't do that anymore. And she won't ever have a CAP.

Today is a good day for my sister and her family.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

290. This could have been done while putting the insurance companies on a much tighter leash

as they are in Germany, Switzerland, and other countries that use private insurance.

[JoePhilly]

297. Was never going to happen with the

5-7 blue dogs and lieberman, there is a reason it took 50 years to get this far. And I'm not a fan of all or nothing

[Lydia Leftcoast]

299. Obama was able to take the Progressives to the woodshed to get them to support the bill

and there are more of them than there are Blue Dogs. Why couldn't he take the Blue Dogs to the woodshed to get them to support restrictions on the insurance companies? Why couldn't the whole party gang up on them?

Why is it always the Progressives who have to give in, who aren't considered "realistic"?

Of course Obama is not a dictator, but he's not helpless. He only thinks he is (or pretends to be so as not to anger the wealthy contributors).

Follow the money, as a famous line in a 1970s movie says.

[Puzzledtraveller]

300. Thank you! What we needed was restrictions

Also opening the health insurance market up for competition, the public would have been along with us the whole way, instead we have given them a blank check, and who or what is going to stop them now? I feel like we have been sold out on this one, they got to him, and Roberts too, this has been their plan all along.

[JoePhilly]

324. I'll spot you all of the blue dogs, all you as President have to do is flip Lieberman.

Can you do it?

You need 60 votes. You have 59. All YOU as President have to do is flip Lieberman.

Please explain, in detail, how you "take him to the woodshed". When you respond, please address 3 points.

1) Lieberman campaigned against you in the 2008 election.
2) Lieberman is not running again.
3) Lieberman is nicknamed the "Senator from Aetna".

Ready GO!!

I look forward to your explanation of how you get this one vote.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

329. The 60 vote rule is artificial and unnecessary, and you know it

Ever since it was somehow decided that the mere threat of a filibuster was to enough to derail a bill. It needs to be changed so that it doesn't count as a filibuster unless someone actually gets up and talks for hours. Very few will be willing to do that.

The House has no requirement for a super majority.

[JoePhilly]

340. Non-responsive reply.

The REALITY is that the Senate DOES have a filibuster, and you need 60 votes to bring anything to the Senate floor.

But you did help make my point.

You wanted Obama to force the blue dogs to vote yes ... but you can't explain how to flip Lieberman.

Don't feel bad, no one else can either, I've asked this question many times.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

341. If the Dems take the Senate, they should get rid of the fake filibuster

It's a procedural rule, not the Constitution.

If they can't even do that, what's the point of having a separate party?

[unblock]

47. you can avoid making insurance corporations richer by simply paying your taxes.

the "penalty" has been deemed a tax, as i've been saying all along, and it goes to the treasury, courtesy of the irs, not insurance companies.

[Myrina]

59. Exactly! And I can't believe people don't SEE it!!!

There goes my dream of opening my own nonprofit ... if I'm forced now to buy insurance coverage for myself and any eventual employees, there's no way it's going to survive.

[Drunken Irishman]

92. I know, right?!? How dare you be forced to insure your employees!

[LiberalFighter]

114. Who says you have to provide health care?

You need to do better research and it isn't that difficult.

[Son of Gob]

238. More RW Talking Points!! YAYY!!!

[Ikonoklast]

254. This post shows that you do not know what provisions for small employers are in the ACA.

These are carbon-copy Teabagger talking points, and completely and totally WRONG.

[geek tragedy]

271. Rightwing NFIB lies and propaganda.

That requirement doesn't cover teeny tiny businesses, let alone non-profits.

[JNelson6563]

287. lolz Hop aboard Bunky!

[uponit7771]

60. ***** OR PAY A 100usd "FINE"? I'LL PAY THE FINE******

[progree]

330. In 2016 and thereafter the penalty is $695 or 2.5% of income, WHICHEVER IS GREATER, nt

[DCBob]

62. Actually, millions of American citizens will now live due to having healthcare.

Yes, thats something be joyful about!

[Robb]

66. Your concern on this matter is noted.

Unsurprising, but still. Have a great day.

[mac56]

97. +1

"Punchbowl. Must pee in it..."

[MichaelMcGuire]

292. Ha ha

"Punchbowl. Must pee in it..."

I'm more used to the phrase "the glass is half empty"

"Punchbowl. Must pee in it..." is a new one on me.

[Bettie]

67. I see it as a first step

The ACA isn't perfect....it isn't even great, but it makes steps in the right direction.

Even one step is better than none or moving backward.

I believe that we'll keep moving in the right direction, toward single payer health care for all.

Maybe I'm excessively optimistic, but once hope is gone, well, what else is there?

[Windy]

79. I have already benefitted from the ACA... no co-pay on GYN tests that found a condition

requiring a surgical procedure that saved my life!

My son, a 25 year old first year medical student can also remain on my health insurance!

Its a start! With the state of politics at the moment, we are lucky to have anything at all, must less this act which has already saved many lives!

[mac56]

93. Someone's always compelled to pee in the punchbowl.

Lighten up, Francis.

[NNN0LHI]

94. Do you currently have health insurance coverage?

I noticed you didn't mention that in your OP.

Don

[Zalatix]

135. I pay for my own, being self-employed. I pay for my workers' insurance, too.

I'm more worried about the middle class workers whose employers don't pay for their insurance.

I'm not sure how this is going to help them make ends meet now that they have either a new health insurance bill to pay, or extra taxes to pay. Worse so as they get older.

[Capt. Obvious]

99. Not for long though

soon we'll all be replaced by robots so don't worry.

[woo me with science]

100. Welcome to NeoAmerica!

If the fact that ROBERTS voted for this does not get some heads out of some asses to see what is actually going on here, there is no hope for this country.

[emulatorloo]

112. The fact that Scalia is having a meltdown and that insurance cos spent MILLIONS

To destroy Obamacare, and that every corporate Republican is SCREAMING to repeal it, and Rove Co and Koch Bros are spending additional millions to trash it tells me a lot.

They hate it because it is one step closer to single payer.

What surprises me is that so many loud DU'ers ignore the fact that tons of right wing money has been spent to kill this law.

If a DU'er ignores this fact, that is a big problem.

[still_one]

102. 40 million uninsured people, will be covered. Those with pre-existing conditions will be covered

[HockeyMom]

109. Public School District's Self-Insured was far, far

worse than any insurance corporations I ever had. When they self-insure, they can do whatever they want. Would a corporation drop you when we become eligble for Medicare? They did with their own health plan.

[HockeyMom]

155. "Unless you sign up for COBRA, your Pre-Existing

Conditions will not be covered by your new employer". I kept getting these letters from the PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT with their self-insurance. Can you say they were trying to SCARE me into giving THEM money? This is Florida's Space Alien's "hometown" and very red Repukes. This place, and the school district, is just as corrupt as he is.

Pre-existing conditions? ROFL Not only don't have any, but does not apply now. Read between the lines. They ASSUMED the ACA would be struck down.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

115. I hear you.

Most here will not, but I do.

[BOG PERSON]

118. F.T.W.

Fuck The World

[CreekDog]

129. and those companies are regulated like a utility, limited rate of profit and new regulated business

charging all within three age brackets the same rates.

the idea that this is like Wal Mart forcing you to buy widgets is ludicrous.

[Romulox]

130. If we're FORCED to buy, they should be NOT-FOR-PROFIT. Capitalism is based on consumer choice. nt

[CreekDog]

133. I agree, but that's not a reason to throw Obamacare out

sorry.

i want to be able to buy insurance if there is no other system to provide me coverage and at least Obamacare means that i buy it at group rates and that it must cover my health care.

[Romulox]

136. It's the Heritage Foundation's healthcare plan. It shouldn't have been passed

in the first place.

[CreekDog]

173. do you want Obamacare gone or not? do you have health insurance now?

if needed, i would like to be able to purchase health insurance at group rates and which covers preexisting conditions, in lieu of single payer, which doesn't exist yet.

do you not want me to have that in the interim or not?

sounds like NOT.

[joshcryer]

214. Then push your state to implement non-profit insurance?

At least until we can get a federal public option.

[Romulox]

131. Citizen's United means corps. can spend UNLIMITED money to get politicians to make us by things.

It's a brave new world!

[Swede Atlanta]

134. Look, I would have preferred a single-payer system because

"profit" has no place in helping individuals remain healthy and treating them when they become sick.

I am not opposed to hospitals, doctors, pharmaceutical companies, etc. competing as for-profit companies. That fosters competition that SHOULD place downward pressure on cost (but rarely does) but does promote innovation and service differentiation.

But why should we have insurance companies in the middle? At least with ACA they must provide a certain minimum percentage of their revenues toward providing health care.

The ACA is the first significant advancement we have had for the general population's health care in my lifetime. Medicare, including the Rx program benefit our senior population. But this gives some hope for the rest of us.

I would still prefer to see us move toward a single-payer system that does not include broad public ownership of hospitals, clinics, etc. I don't want my doctor to have to be a public employee. But I do want single-payer.

[HockeyMom]

157. So would I

Our Snowbird neighbors are Brits and they LOVE their's. That put my Republican husband in shock when they said that.

[laundry_queen]

239. Have him email me

your husband that is. I'll tell him how much I love my Canadian health care system and why.

[emulatorloo]

137. Romney just announced he will repeal Obamacare.

[KurtNYC]

171. and replace it with Romneycare

[leftstreet]

185. What was the difference?

I can't remember

[Logical]

158. I miss the unrec so much

[Leopolds Ghost]

166. Looks like the vast majority of people still on DU support mandatory private health care

They assume it doesn't affect them.

This figures since the majority of Americans:

1. Have employer health insurance, or;

2. Could afford insurance were it not for a pre-existing condition, and;

3. Accept the logic of senior Democratic elected officials that pre-existing conditions
cannot be insured by private companies (who else?) unless we FORCE "young and healthy deadbeats"
i.e. the working poor into the pool. (anyone who thinks the uninsured are well-to-do is either naive
or doesn't understand the point of getting the working poor into the pool, which is to cover baby
boomers -- not just pre-existing conditions but to avoid a Europe-style aging collapse).

Forcing people into private health care pools, of course, has nothing to do with "reforming"
health care and only has to do with "reforming" the Insurance industry to the extent that the
Insurance industry agreed to accept limited reforms in return for what they really want which
is mandatory coverage of every man, woman and child by insurance on the MARKETPLACE.

You have nothing to fear.

[xiamiam]

177. they consider it a win for the D's even though it was hatched by the R's ..a political compromise

according to some but to be sure the insurance companies will benefit
thanks for the clarity of your post

[Leopolds Ghost]

198. I don't know what I'll do any more

I am on a dozen phone spam mailing lists because when I tried to purchase individual health coverage, the insurance brokers sold my (and my family's) health information to insurance-spam marketers.

Then they repeatedly told me that if I wanted a policy with them I had better be willing to pay for it under the current rates because under the new health care law I "will have to get insurance from SOMEBODY", that I could not simply decline to purchase, and no one else I talk to will offer me a better deal since I am essentially a captive market.

I hear the exact same rhetoric when I go to buy appliances or home improvement materials because of the lack of competition and buyers being forced to purchase on a fixed time frame.

You know that tone of voice retailers get when they tell you "I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR, THIS IS WHAT WE SELL AND NOBODY ELSE YOU GO TO SELLS ANYTHING DIFFERENT. YOU CAN TRY STORE B, THEY'RE THE ONLY OTHER STORE IN TOWN, WE DON'T CARE IF YOU BUY IT HERE OR THERE, now please leave." Because there are only two or three major competitors and they fix the market and determine what products go on the shelves. For some goods and services, its no different than the situation they had in Eastern Europe. You have one major store and if you can't get it there, they tell you to get it used or "nobody buys that product any more so we discontinued it. And we're the only store, so you won't find it anywhere else."

In the city I work, you're required to purchase private trash service too. But they're a regulated utility so it's treated like a cost of owning a home (in the sense that you're not allowed to live in your home without paying for private trash service, since there is no public trash service.) I live in a town that has public trash service (and the taxes have skyrocketed exponentially to keep out the riff-raff -- it's a "liberal" town in the quote-unquote sense).

When you get rid of a regulated monopoly (single payer, trash service) and replace it with a marketplace for services while continuing to require the consumer to purchase the product, you're inherently jacking up the rates. That's the only thing they're competing for at that point, to see who can capture more of a captive market for a commodified (price set by the market, with inflexible demand) public good. It's not like we're allowing communities to start up insurance co-ops or something to cover people who would be otherwise hit with fines. That would defeat the purpose of levying the fines (er, tax) which is to raise money to cover the cost of the bill.

[HughBeaumont]

167. I'm positive I'll have to move to another country either way if I want Single Payer.

I just don't see this country getting it now or in my lifetime. The insurance lobby is a monster; a hydra leeching in the heads of most congresspeople and Senaturds of both parties. As it's been proven, more than a few congress critters have jobs waiting for them in the HCI once their terms are up, provided they're good corporate enablers.

There just isn't any will of the people regarding this matter . . . nobody protests for it en masse and even if they did, it wouldn't matter. The RepubliFascists and RepubliDems are pretty much going to do what their handlers tell them to do.

Corporations yack so loudly about health care costs being high, but they would never push for Single Payer. That "Big Club" Carlin talked about is far reaching; first rule of gargantuan wealth is that you don't step on your fellow wealthmonger's toes in ANY way.

It's as sure as Cleveland remaining championship-less in all three sports for six MORE decades.

[TBF]

172. No, you are wrong again

what "we" wanted is universal health care - everyone is covered from birth and employers have nothing to do with it.

Universal. Nationalized.

This ruling is a good start, at least folks are starting to think about these things. But I will not rest until everyone is covered, and income/job is not a factor.

[R. P. McMurphy]

176. I miss unrec {sigh}. n/t

[Tommykun]

187. This does worry me...

I'm unemployed currently, making maybe 10k a year off of odd jobs. There's no way I can afford health insurance for myself and my wife, even if the price dropped to $50 a month for my wife and I. My son is covered by Medicaid so I'm not concerned about that.

Yes, I understand that if you make less than $19k filing jointly that you don't have to pay the tax. However, if I have a a few pretty decent months, I could easily make that $19k but still wouldn't be able to afford health insurance (I have more important concerns such as getting my vehicle fixed, home repairs, and paying up old debts).

How is this fair to the working poor and lower-middle class? It's simply not. Many working poor and lower-middle class depend on tax refunds to pay past-due bills and simply get by for a few weeks. For those that can't afford the monthly expense of health insurance and then are hit with the tax, it will be debilitating if not absolutely destructive to them.

The other provisions in the bill such as requiring 80% of all funds to be used for health care, the pre-existing condition law, and the insurance for children up to 26 years old are all wonderful and I'm glad that stuck. However that mandate and tax just doesn't seem right.

[Broderick]

195. Could prove to be a pyrrhic victory

Gonna hope for the best, but the bell tolls as this becomes campaign issue numero uno.

Some are claiming that it hands the WH to Romney. We shall see. I hope the media helps to tout the benefits of getting health care available to each and every person in America. If Romney wins, he is vowing to toss it.

[Bolo Boffin]

201. You are wrong. Profits are limited under the ACA. n/t

[seabeyond]

202. that makes sense to me, but, stock went down on insurance. insurance fought it.

and people who so do not have a problem going after obama has said this is a people win. and that insurance does not like it.

i would agree with you.

but, everything points in a different direction

[spanone]

203. this is the very beginning of universal healthcare. it will change and go through many phases.

nothing starts out ideal. it's got to start somewhere.

i'm old enough to be rather fucking happy to see this beginning. i NEVER thought i'd see this in my lifetime.

beat it up all you want. i'm happy.

[Scootaloo]

204. As opposed to the prior system, where...?

Fill in the blank.

No, seriously, is this a worse idea than what we had before, where you either paid for insurance - and the insurance company didn't have to keep your rates stable, could cut you from your plan, wouldn't cover your kids or spouse, and frankly was under no obligation at all to cover when you needed it - or you simply went without medical care?

I'd rather not have the mandate. I'd love single-payer. I'm disappointed by that, but I can at least admit that this is a net improvement.

[Leopolds Ghost]

220. Private insurance will continue to do what insuricare does best.

In the meantime, the "good" news is that the mandate will be toothless when people realize it entails the sort of clusterbuck we had in place with Enron in the late 90s in terms of insurance suddenly being a for-profit utility that everyone is required to purchase. You can't get blood out of a turnip. The bad news is that the poor will suffer and pay the fine. I am reminded of Ursula K. LeGuin, The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas.

[rhett o rick]

205. If you want to be intellectually honest, make your argument with figures and data.

How many Americans will this ruling affect. And what would the penalty be for those that dont comply. You make it sound like this will affect all Americans, it wont.

[joshcryer]

213. You can thank Bush for the regressive Health Savings Account and don't have to pay a dime.

How about them apples?

[Leopolds Ghost]

218. It's a possibility

Since insurance rates for individuals will go up under this as we are now a captive market except those of us smart enough to not cooperate with an immoral system. There are many legal ways to not cooperate with a requirement to buy a mandated product from insuricare (note that the mandate only applies to individuals, employers will continue to receive the same competitive rates they always have, although decent health coverage will not result under our broken system of for-profit payouts.)

[joshcryer]

222. No liberals should support putting their money in an HSA.

But that's what a lot of healthy young people are going to do. And they can cash out at any time. Thanks to Bush.

Liberals should be outraged we don't have a public option.

It is truly breathtaking that Bush's BS HSA's (which won't cover you for shit) are actually viewed as a viable option.

I myself will just pay the fine and be done with it.

[Leopolds Ghost]

245. I intend to exercise

at least one refusenik provision in the law.

I have always, always, refused on principle to participate in carrot and stick scheme offered on behalf of marketing a private commodity, it is immoral and unethical and demeaning, it is always targeted at consumers that they believe to have no choice, e.g. the uninsured; be it a phone plan that charges you extra for your existing service and drops calls to get you to switch to the next service, in which case I'll change providers, but more and more the attitude amongst large corporations that adopt "carrot and stick" strategies is that changing providers is no threat because there's no real competition amongst the one, two or three providers and they can afford to lose the few people that are not willing to be mistreated because so few people are unwilling to be mistreated by corporations; it's an oligopoly. Just look at how people yawned at the collusion between most of the major telecoms in violation of their service agreements in the wiretapping scandal.

Why just today I found out that our local government passed a law that further restricts the livelihood of a place I work at, the purpose of the law was to protect the profit margins of wealthy business interests.

Why do people expect this groundswell of support for public health plans of any stripe when we are living in a society where the phone company is no longer required to pay a toll free operator to run a toll-free directory for 800 numbers, and the park services are not expected to maintain water fountains, much less other public amenities? Because everyone's required to have their own everything: bottled water, health insurance, etc. on an individual consumer basis. It's a Ron Paul wet dream, the only reason they don't like it is that the government is actually mandating this privatized fantasy land.

[joshcryer]

246. Oh, Ron Paul et al would effectively mandate this crap.

Otherwise indentured servitude, etc. (It wouldn't be a legal mandate, it'd be a "if you don't get it you're a fucking slave" mandate.)

Generally I have supported the mandate from the get-go, because young, healthy, white males like myself need to pay into the fucking system. We need to do it. We're a scourge on society. We take and take and we get so many kickbacks for being privileged (that we don't even recognize) it's a fucking joke. It took me a long time to realize how privileged I am, but I am, it's just a fact.

I even laugh about the current "mandate" because the $300 I have to pay as a fine per year (and since I don't have and withholdings I can, literally, ignore the fine, but I promise I won't) is pennies compared to the $600-800 per month I'd be paying per month under a single payer system (my employer is too small to qualify for one of the larger employer plans as far as I understand, and I'm just below the median income, and I'm a single white male, so I have no recourse for that).

Otherwise I could put $150 per month ($1800 / year) into an interest bearing tax free Health Savings Account that Bush set up and not have to worry about shit, and can withdraw that money at any time.

As soon as a public option is passed I'll "go legit." I'm extremely healthy, my family has an average 90 age limit, I'm only 36 (in August). I have a long time to worry about needing insurance or anything like that. But in the end we cannot deny how lopsided the system is, how the privileged get away with a lot and how it's sucking the system dry. It's just undeniable.

And I admit I'm a part of the problem. But I have my own selfish priorities to consider and until the government mandates single payer (ie, if you don't pay your taxes you get criminal charges), I'm not going to change, just as most everyone else won't.

And that's why between the public option and mandates I support mandates. Mandates are hard to get in, the public option is easy after that fact. If you had a public option and no mandates, the public option would be soured and unsustainable. You need the mandates. It sucks, but that's civic responsibility.

[Zalatix]

281. Now that is what I call telling the truth.

"Because everyone's required to have their own everything: bottled water, health insurance, etc. on an individual consumer basis."

We're taking incremental steps into a world of pure, unrestricted Government-enforced greed.

[mythology]

215. Single payer wasn't going to be enacted if the ACA was ruled unconstitutional

As such, your basic premise is flawed.

[salin]

221. It took nearly 15 years to get another stab at health care reform

from the time that it was debated (and defeated) in the early-mid 90s. Especially given how this issue fueled the advent of the teaparty and their initial electoral gains in 2010 - it would be at least another 15 years before there would be the political will to take this issue on. Single payer was (and is) decades away. Wish it was otherwise.

I remember when many more jobs provided insurance than do today. In the late 90s had to self-insure - and the cost for a healthy single person escalated from 400 a month to 600+ a month within a couple of year span. The system was already moving away from employer insurance to self-insurance - with few regulations upon the insurance industry per costs, per rejecting coverage, etc.

There are far better systems out there in the world. However, after 3 years of villification in the public discourse - no alternative will be offered nor will be supported by politicians. No program will not lead to a better program in the short term. It will lead to more denial of insurance for self-insurers, fewer employers continuing to pay health insurance benefits, and more and more people who are denied coverage outright due to pre-existing conditions (which today have been defined in the most absurd terms.)

[liberal N proud]

226. And now I don't have to pay for some visiting the ER for a runny nose.

That could curb health care cost and make it a wash.

[EmeraldCityGrl]

227. Sucks to be you. I'm celebrating the benefits

that have already positively impacted my family and no longer
fear losing them. I celebrate for all the families that will benefit from
this first victory.

Those that thought Obama was going to hand them Single Payer
on a silver platter without a bloody, brutal fight from the right
are fools. Hell not even the right, his own party has worked to
defeat and distance themselves.

[Robb]

228. This one's a little better.

Shorter, too.

[Downtown Hound]

230. Yeah, yeah, blah, blah, blah.

Now go away.

[Zalatix]

236. And if I don't?

[Downtown Hound]

237. Leprechauns will come into your bed and take you away. n/t

[Zalatix]

241. Yeah, I thought so.

[Downtown Hound]

255. LOL. Good for you.

And you and your incessant whining are still boring. Have a nice day.

[Zalatix]

257. You define disagreeing with you as whining? Really?

Your pathetic attempts at bullying are duly noted. And laughed at, too.

[Downtown Hound]

294. LOL. Bullying? Now that's funny.

And no, do you realize that there are millions of people who are going to be able to get health insurance because of this law and that tens of thousands of lives are going to be saved?

Do you think it's maybe too much to ask that all you crybabies whining incessantly could actually maybe spare a moment to be happy for them? I realize that the law isn't perfect and its not everything I wanted either. But I'm really sick of you pathetic drama queens NEVER BEING HAPPY with anything, not even the possibility of thousands of lives being saved or the Republicans taking one on the chin.

[Zalatix]

295. Bullying? No. Attempting to bully in a laughably pathetic way? Yup.

Perhaps your problem is that you imagined that, somewhere, I said that I oppose the ACA. I never said any such thing, ever.

My beef is with but 0.01% of the ACA, which is the individual mandate. I'm glad 99.99% of the ACA passed the Supreme Court.

Before you start hurling names like 'drama queen' or 'crybaby', first you need to master BASIC READING SKILLS. Clearly, you have not mastered that.

[Downtown Hound]

296. Really? Because your OP is just that:

A bitch fest. Just a whiny little rant abut insurance companies and about how I'll have to move to another country if I want Universal Health care. Hold on, let me look at it again. Yep, that what it is. Don't see anything in there about being grateful for the tens of thousands of lives about to be saved.

So, I'd say my basic reading skills are just fine. How about yours?

[Zalatix]

298. Yup, your post shows a major reading problem. And ignorant rage, too.

All my criticism is about the individual mandate. And no, we won't get Medicare for All or a Public Option.

Feel free to come back at me when either of those things ever happen.

Until then, ignorance, rage and reading comprehension problems are just three personal issues that you need to fix.

Have a nice day!

[madrchsod]

233. gee...i`m so glad i`m on medicare...

to bad the debbie downers can`t see the big picture

[Leopolds Ghost]

247. Splitter...

Join a side, why don't you!



PS-- There is no big picture, this is it... this is the end of the line health care wise. Anyone who says otherwise is smoking something. They went off the rails when they adopted the mandate as a method of paying for universal coverage. Poisoned the well for any future attempts at doing, well, the exact opposite now that liberals have been persuaded that the individual responsibility approach to entitlement coverage (the Gingrich solution) is the liberal solution.

[Hippo_Tron]

234. The vast majority of people did that anyway

And the vast majority of those who did not, only didn't because they simply couldn't afford to and many will now be able to under the ACA.

Of the millions of uninsured Americans, very few are uninsured because they like sticking it to big insurance companies.

[glowing]

240. Actually, you are wrong... VT has already passed a single-payer health care initiative.

And in 2014, they will implement a plan that is similar to Canada's health care or Medicare... Essentially, a medicaid for all in that state. As different states implement the ACA, they will go towards "cheaper" models to close their budget short falls. Health care is a big ticket item for states.

[loyalsister]

244. Insurance corporations will also want states to opt in

covering medicaid services- so they don't have to.

[meaculpa2011]

251. And for good measure...

the regulatory authority of the Congress under the commerce clause has be eviscerated.

The mandate "tax" is unpopular and unenforceable.

The medical cost ratio provision has so many holes in it the insurance cartel is drooling.

When should we start the celebration?

[Southerner]

253. Possible upcoming scenario:

Congress passes a law that all U.S. citizens, when buying stocks or mutual funds, MUST invest in businesses owned and operated by Tea Party members. If they don't, they must pay a penalty/tax (administered and enforced by the IRS). It will be OK with the majority of the Supreme Court as long as it is a tax.

[Leopolds Ghost]

264. They already want to do this, it's called Social Security privatization

Another Gingrich idea that a few Dems are sadly playing footsie with.

[Dragonfli]

265. They have plans for cuts as well, this straight from the third way site:

our nation’s most important social insurance program—is a false one.

This idea brief summarizes the trouble with Social Security, and proposes a “Savings-Led” Social Security reform plan that actually increases the program’s progressivity. Our plan makes roughly two dollars in benefit reductions for every one dollar in revenue increases, and achieves solvency while enhancing economic growth.

They used to call this a Republican stance.
So what do we call these "Democrats"?

[rudycantfail]

269. The Democratic Party leadership. n/t

[Puzzledtraveller]

302. I work in medicaid, there is talks in my state to hand some

of the managing over to private companies, as well as food stamps, I am a case worker for both. Presently they are looking at a private call center to manage peoples SNAP cases and recently all our states medicaid was given over to managed care, operated by a private entity.

[lunasun]

311. and private,most likely, means for profit with different priorities

I worked on some out of state papers today that included New Mexico medicaid info and I see it is United Health Care now
It truly is a fire sale for so many things that used to be run by the governments of the peoples all over the world to be bought out for private now so none surprised

Occasionally we see a country swing to hyper nationalization but now just a return to balancing power with private business would be better for all citizens of the state IMO.


Can it be done? Iceland on finacial sector is holding strong but USA is such a cash cow in so many facets

[Leopolds Ghost]

336. +1

Too bad not enough people will see this post

[Leopolds Ghost]

263. You mean... the OP, or the Insurance industry briarpatching the American public?

[Leopolds Ghost]

333. So you're calling out a DUer as a malicious intruder, for opposing Romneycare?

[Zalatix]

282. It's 100% true. So it's working out fine.

You can feel free to bonk me on the head if we ever get Medicare for All in America.

In all likelihood I will have died of old age by then so you might need a shovel to reach me.

[muriel_volestrangler]

284. No, it's exaggeration, not "100% true"

It doesn't apply to people on Medicare, Medicaid, those who pay no tax, or those for whom the premiums would work out as more than 8% of their income (and a few other categories too). It won't solve the problems of those who decide not to pay more than 8%, of course, but they won't be paying anything to insurance companies.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

260. Why is everyone on DU so freaking buggy extreme?

Seriously. This is but a first step.

[alarimer]

266. Yes there is no stopping them from raising premiums as high as they want, which is the fatal flaw.

Everyone will see their premiums continue to skyrocket since there is no regulation costs, just that they have to cover everyone. So they will raise premiums and copays, etc., to compensate. Without a lower cost competitor in the form of a public option of some sort, nothing much will change. Plenty of people will still be uninsured, mandate or no mandate.

[geek tragedy]

270. Go cry in your beer with Nino Scalia and Thomas. Those of us

who care about human lives more than purity are glad the forces of evil lost that decision.

[Zalatix]

274. Excuse me, but I never said I oppose ALL OF THE ACA, so please re-read what I said.

I said the individual mandate is a giant corporate welfare giveaway.

The rest of the ACA law is great. One provision, however, needs to be struck down.

[TBF]

308. It would have been better had you made that clearer

in the OP.

There are provisions of ACA that suck - that is one of them. Also that it may open the door down the road for cutting Medicaid and SS. It's not great overall. But there are provisions that are important to people right now (those of us with chronic diseases especially).

So, we keep working - we know we ultimately need universal health care.

[Zalatix]

312. Perhaps.

Though experience has suggested to me that one can't account for all the potential misinterpretations of something one says. When you try, I find that someone always comes up with one you didn't account for. If Jesus was hung on words taken out of context, I've got less than zero chance.

And I've misinterpreted people before, too...

[Douglas Carpenter]

273. Fuck single payer - I support a full British/Scandanavian style National Health Service socialized

healthcare system. Single payer with its fee-for-service approach will never be able to control cost and truly put healthcare under the control of the people.

But the problem with that like the problem with single-payer is that there is not a snowballs chance in hell of it passing. Even LBJ at the heighth of the Great Society and during the era of "big government" with overwhelming Democratic majorities and 40% of the GOP supporting liberal programs - even then single-payer could not be passed.

Sometimes we have to simply deal with the political realities as they are and do the best we can.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

291. It would have to be stealth

The provision for community health centers that Bernie Sanders put into the ACA could be gradually expanded, perhaps offering free medical school tuition for doctors who serve in the community health centers for ten years after qualifying in family practice or their specialty (and having to pay back in full with high interest if they don't do this).

[TBF]

323. We may be pleasantly surprised however -

if we can get this president re-elected and folks start to see on a day-to-day basis how the new rules help them personally it may not matter what FAUX news spouts off about. After all, everyone is not racist, and there are a lot of moderates out there who never get involved in politics but they are going to pay attention when all of a sudden their claims are paid instead of rejected.

Granted the teabaggerati will resist, but even the older members who hate "the Kenyan" have got to notice if they are receiving better healthcare. I'm cautiously optimistic.

[tjwash]

293. I actually like the capping executive salaries that is written in to it

Whether it loopholes in stock options or bonuses is to be seen. That most likely means we will see a mass exodus of VP and CEO types in the near future. They all need to spend more than 80 percent on actual healthcare costs now instead of skimming half off the top for private jets and lobbying junkets.

[lunasun]

310. A mass exit off of this gravy train??? not likely even with provisions in bill

[Zalatix]

321. I like that part, too. Let those greedy CEOs leave if they want to.

[PoliticAverse]

303. "is now required to help make insurance corporations richer."

There are co-op, non-profit and mutual (policy holder owned) insurance organizations.

For example: : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Care_Service_Corporation

And if you are looking to move to another country for single payer, note that only a few countries
have true single-payer: Canada, Australia, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom.

[elleng]

304. And help other Americans obtain healthcare.

Unfortunately our system is a mess, but just proves human nature doesn't change. Founders surely understood this; they did the best that they could.

[bluestateguy]

305. I

Oh, never mind.

[cali]

306. No, I'll be staying in Vermont where single payer will be enacted.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

307. As someone who was not born in this country...

I am amazed that this country finally has in place something that that brings us one step closer to a single-payer system. There was NO POSSIBLE WAY for this country to get a single-payer system in place right now, and we are all aware of that, given the intense right wing domination we've had over the past few decades. I'm AMAZED OUT OF MY MIND that we have gotten this health care system. I swear I thought this country would be stuck with the same health-for-the-rich-only system we've had for so long.

It's been a long road, and we still have a long road until we have single-payer, but we are getting closer. CLOSER. Not there yet, but we are closer.

Meanwhile, we have to work on ridding ourselves of the right wing scourge that has done so much damage to our country. Until we do that, until the intense right wing propaganda is history, we will not be able to continue making progress, because they'll stop us every step of the way.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. There are some in here who, like babies, whine and want someone else (surely not them - they just want to whine) to wave a magic wand to get us a proper country despite the right wing tentacles that have choked us for so long. However, those same whiners will not work for the single most important thing we have to accomplish to free us from those right wing tentacles: election reform.

Until I see the whiners working for election reform, I do NOT want to hear whining about how this health bill is not perfect. I don't want to hear one negative word about it. NOT EVEN ONE.

[EC]

313. How?

80% of all premiums have to go to care. That doesn't leave them very much for administrative costs + bonus' + shareholders profits...I'm guessing they'll pocket that 20% in salaries and bonus' and to hell with the investors.

[Zalatix]

314. No, when they resume hiking rates by the max of what, 10% every year? This'll be what they do

They will get their accountants to cook the books so well you'll see their shit sandwich of a budget report and think it's French cuisine.

Then the Republicans will fuck with Congress and hold our Federal budget hostage until the cap is raised to 30%... then 40%... then 90%.

The GOP will brutally abuse America through that individual mandate and they won't even give us candy afterwards.

[EC]

316. We'll just have to keep the Senate

and hopefully get the house. They can't raise their rates without convincing Kathleen Sibelius first...she's been pretty strict so far.

[Zalatix]

319. I hear that.

[lunasun]

317. I also heard you can not exempt for religious reasons if over 10K

or get tax credit(against fine) for using a naturopath or TCM Doctor

does anyone know if these things are true ??

just wondering
no particular point being made
just questions .........

Isn't there some religions here that avoid Western Medicine?

[Leopolds Ghost]

334. I can't imagine thats true

Under 10K is exempt for poverty reasons (wealthy Republicans and conservadems think you're not poor unless you make under 10K and you're still middle class if you make over 200K, and everyone in between is ??? a deadbeat, I guess) so if there is a religious exemption, it would only apply over 10K but with the New Math, who knows?

[lunasun]

337. Heard this weekend there will be a religious exemption if you are in the " taxable "bracket 4 a fine

Still never verified either statement I heard (will be / will not be exemption) so I do not know for sure either ....

[NashvilleLefty]

320. WRONG! They are required to send out rebates if the Medical Loss Ratio

is less than 80%. So both profits AND administrative costs are capped at 20%. The only way they can increase their profits is to cut their administrative costs.

[AJTheMan]

331. Single Payer System would have been preferable. nt

[Zalatix]

332. Bump, to add real world calculations.

[wisdomm11]

342. Help!

Tell me what I am-I want lower taxes, smaller government, I do want to open my own buisness one day And make as much money as I want, I want marijuana legalized, I want women to have the right to an abortion, I want gay marriage passed. I dont want amnesty for illegals. I'm a healthcare worker who lived most of his life in Canada so,I know there system of healthcare is not very good. So I do want to reform healthcare but not Obama care. So please tell me where do I fall in the realm of politics?