So does this mean that liberals should have insisted on single-payer or nothing? No. Single-payer wasn’t going to happen — partly because of the insurance lobby’s power, partly because voters wouldn’t have gone for a system that took away their existing coverage and replaced it with the unknown. Yes, Obamacare is a somewhat awkward kludge, but if that’s what it took to cover the uninsured, so be it.

to create the impression that the site's glitches are a problem with the law.

It's crazy, but so are all their other talking points.

Supreme Court would not have crossed over to vote for it.

Yet when those same points are made on DU they are labeled as defeatist, conservative or 'third-way'.

Republican lies, conflate the two.

...they’re revealing the price we pay for insisting on keeping insurance companies in the mix, when they serve little useful purpose.

The insurance-based disease management system is going to give way to a national health care system at some point. The fight will then shift to an eternal right-vs-left struggle to define what "basic health care" means and should involve.

Hell, we can't stop the damn knuckle-dragging cretins from trying to teach children the world is only 6,000 years old (making the pyramids REALLY impressive since they are older than the universe!!!), how the hell are we EVER going to convince them that vaccinations, doctor-recommended exercise programs or physician-recommended dietary choices are essential???

The problem is plain and simple - CAPITALISM.

Big medicine.
Big insurance.
Big food.
Big oil.
Big banking.
Big military.

In every single case, they rape the populace and/or the environment, establish harmful practices as a means to their Holy Grail of profits and then instead of fighting to make their profits less invasive or less harmful, they spend those profits to make it harder for people to stop them from doing things that harm them.

We can't get health care in America because we live in a terminally ill paradigm that traps the population, enriches the very few and must be toppled if we are ever to live in a more just and equitable society. And for the "well, that's just SOCIALISM!!!" crowd, yes, it IS....but we either develop a better system for all or we kill everyone in the end.

medicare is a known. i rate medicare better than any for profit insurance i have had. i have not been refused any medical procedure this year. so far the cost this year of medical procedures is closing in on half a million with two more out patient procedures by the end of the year. if i had been smart i would have taken out a sup plan too. that would mean almost 100% paid for around 240 a month.

my doctors do not have to call to see if the insurance company will pay or how much they will pay. the hospitals know they will not have to fight with the insurance companies for their money. i have dealt with both these issues with my doctors and hospital with my blue cross plan that refused to pay both .one was a procedure and the other was delayed billing.

we have single payer and it works. we just don't have the will to expand it to everyone.

In Australia, for instance, everyone qualifies for Medicare by default. If you want to purchase health insurance, go ahead, you can buy whatever coverage you please. If not you will still be able to obtain treatment via Medicare.

There are many health systems that preserve the role of individual Insurers (the Swiss and Israeli health care systems, for example), that manage not to be an awkward kludge.