"If you would like to see this class-based system of healthcare made more populist and queues (Death Panels????) managed more democratically, government-run heath insurance is needed. Obamacare with a Public Option was a great stride in that direction. Obamacare WITHOUT a Public Option is a step in the opposite direction. "

...nonsense, especially when prefaced with this disclaimer: "with the exception of Medicaid expansion"

What's bizarre is the continued attempts by some to denigrate and distort Obamacare.

crossing fingers but not holding breath - if effective, that loophole will be closed - unless met with a public demanding single-payer.

It's not a "loophole" it's a feature of the law.

The sooner people come to grips with that, the better.

"Instead of griping about ACA, get active in your state. "
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024747402

a state-led battle possible, maybe.

BTW: That implies that the current state of Obama Care is unacceptable WITHOUT a, well let's call it a State-Optional Option.

"BTW: That implies that the current state of Obama Care is unacceptable WITHOUT a, well let's call it a State-Optional Option."

You were just ""crossing fingers" and declaring that the "loophole will be closed" if effective.

I want a Public Option. If you can get one through the "back door", more power to ya.

I don't think we'll get one unless we march arm-in-arm through the front door.

She was met with "But I like my doctor" ads.

The Public Option was, and could be, a vote-with-your-dollars-and-your-health referendum. IIRC that was the idea.

this?

Stayed up all night reading Cruz FB page

40k plus posts on Cruz FB page. He asks folks if they're better off now with Obamacare. Thousands of amazing responses telling how ACA has saved their lives, their kids, friends and neighbors. Overwhelmingly positive feedback from real people who now have access to affordable care. Saved 1249 responses in a WORD file before I stopped for the night. Trying to save everything before they take this page down. Encourage all to read the replies from so many folks who have been helped. Will try to link to the DU page.. Peace, Hannah
http://www.facebook.com/SenatorTedCruz/posts/517779935000978
Here is link to page

http://www.democraticunderground.com/110222976

I'm off.

Nice chatting.

Clueless opposition to the most significant reform in our lifetimes, benefiting millions, saving lives.

With what I save per month as an individual I could have bought two Mercedes Benz vehicles.

This OP is a load of crap.

governors and legislature while watching the states around them provide Medicare to people just like them while they get shafted.
Look at Tennessee. Hospitals are closing (especially the ones like Erlanger that treat the poor and uninsured).
If we can't get people to get behind the ACA then the hopes for Single Payer are worse than dim.
You act as though people will suddenly realize they are voting against their own best interest and follow you down the road of Socialism. It's a nice dream but not in this decade or maybe even the next.
If we can't make this work we will be dooming Single Payer for generations.

which Vermont is taking advantage of.

with non-profit coops.

Should Obamacare be repealed because it's a step in the wrong direction?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024753672

Just an off day or what?

Well?

Yes or No?

Answer the question.

It's rhetorical, and not a real accusation, but draws attention to the essential fallacy implied in the first case ...

You anti-dissenters need to get a grip ... we aren't going away ...

We ARE DU ....

The accusation is disgusting and immature and beneath this message board. If you feel the need to defend that behavior then you need to get a grip.

As if all of your gustations are sacred philosophies ...

You are as intellectual as the least here, so don't think you have claimed the intellectual high ground, not when you cannot even recognize a classic fallacy when it is presented ...

Even the OP couldn't answer a simple yes or no question or give a way to move forward. No ideas, no solutions, no answers, just deflection.

Yeah, it's a giant sop to the private insurance industry, but it's also an enormous help to tens of millions of families.

The law is thousands of pages long. It's not just one thing.

Oh you are? Well we will just quit positing then.

What do you propose be done? I propose working for better congresspeople to vote on a public option. Not letting zealous Tea Partiers in to block every progress.

Doesn't that mean the ACA made things worse?

If so, should we repeal it and start over?

Or should we build on it ... adding POs to the state exchanges?

Well?

Why not answer this simple question about your criticism of the ACA and what you think we should do next?

On Sun Mar 30, 2014, 09:07 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Have you stopped beating your wife?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4753054

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

OTT and downright disgusting question. There are other means to make a point. We don't need domestic violence accusations on DU, not even if they are made in snark.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Mar 30, 2014, 09:17 AM, and the Jury voted 1-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: FFS this is a common saying. Lighten up. Quit alerting on stuff you just dislike.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Poster is merely pointing out that the post s/he is replying to has posed a logical fallacy in the form of a "loaded question": "Should we repeal it, yes or no?". "Have you stopped beating your wife" is the classic, often used example of this type of logical fallacy. ~ Zorra
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: This is an inappropriate escalation, IMHO. Time to hide.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This is not an accusation, it's a question with no good answer. This goes back a long way. I think it was a stupid response and as unhelpful as the OP but isn't hide worthy. I'll leave it for all to see the logical fallacy.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

If one's ignorance is so deep as to not understand common American idiom, one should not alert.

It was attempt to reframe a rhetorical device as an accusation. Glad they didn't get away with it, thanks jury.

Does it include the ACA?

These aren't difficult questions. Yet no one seems to be willing to answer them.

The Affordable Care Act holds health insurance companies accountable to consumers and ensures that American families receive value for their premium dollars. Because of health care reform, insurance companies now must disclose how much they spend on health care and how much they spend on administrative costs, such as salaries and marketing.

If an insurance company spends less than 80% (85% in the large group market) of premium on medical care and efforts to improve the quality of care, they must rebate the portion of premium that exceeded this limit. This rule is commonly known as the 80/20 rule or the Medical Loss Ratio (MLR) rule. Consumers benefit from the 80/20 rule in two ways.

First, they benefit upfront because insurance companies now keep premiums lower and operate more efficiently in order to meet the 80/20 rule. And

second, if an insurance company doesn’t meet the 80/20 rule, then the consumer benefits by receiving a rebate for the amount that exceeds this threshold. In 2012, the 77.8 million consumers in the three markets covered by this 80/20 rule saved $3.4 billion upfront on their premiums because of the 80/20 rule and other Affordable Care Act programs. Additionally, consumers will save $500 million in rebates, with 8.5 million enrollees due to receive an average rebate of approximately $100 per family. Insurance companies must pay the rebates by August 1, 2013. Rebates can be paid in four ways. You may receive a rebate check in the mail, a reimbursement to the account you used to buy your insurance, a reduction in next year’s premium, or, if you bought your insurance through your employer, your employer must use the rebate for your benefit.

The less they keep.

What keeps that from happening?

And not just price setting but policies as well, like the ridiculous overdraft fees charged by almost every bank.

Customers they get, because of competition.

Coventry sells insurance policies to fewer than half the state's counties. Competition, you say?

Obamacare Exchanges Down To Two Insurance Providers

Coventry to charge lower premiums for exchange plans than Blue Cross

For North Carolinians, health insurance through exchange to cost more

Hallelujah

Just because there wasn't the votes from either party to pass a public option, even though he's expanded single payer. Tear it all down. Nihilism. Progressives objecting to progress.

Tells you pretty much everything you need to know.

asked the OP a loaded question and they responded in kind.

There is no way to answer your question, because it isn't a yes or no answer.

In the same fashion, there is no way you can answer the question posed to you, as either a yes or no response implies that you have been "beating your wife." It isn't a yes or no answer.

An understanding of logical fallacies is often helpful.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/loadques.html

Watch.

Yes. We should repeal it and start over. The ACA prevents us from moving forward in any meaningful way.

No. We should work to expand the ACA adding PO options to the state exchanges, and then to the federal exchanges.

See ... No logical fallacy. I would like to know the OP author's plan for how we move forward and whether that plan includes the continuation of the ACA.

Pretty simple really.

didn't bother to respond to you.

You don't even recognize the fallacy inherent in your assertion that your question was not a logical fallacy.

Have a good day now.

I just want to know what the OP's personal plans are and whether he thinks the millions who didn't have coverage before this could afford to keep waiting for single payer to come down the Yellow Brick Road.

what the subsidies are doing... putting the burden on the higher income groups

I guess it is higher than the medium income but that is just because overall incomes for the 99% are so low

the money should of come from the 1% , instead we have the working poor attacking the barely surviving working class

because my out of pocket for my employer plan went up by $1200 in 2014 PLUS they are now charging "lifestyle fees" should you fail biometric screenings.

Many will be helped by ACA, but there are multitudes more who have been left completely out.

And covering my kid until 26 isn't a benefit, it is an admission of defeat that our economy is so bad that kids can't make it on their own.

This is the third way, the rich Democrats and rich Republicans sucking the life out of whatever is left of the middle class so the rich don't have to left a finger except to write the campaign checks.

Our priorities are so screwed up, from education to sending jobs to Asia, trade agreements, all attacking middle class. And, of course, when it comes to fighting the war, the rich don't feel a thing.

All those who are able to take advantage of ACA need to remember that many will receive no relief from rising costs and ACA doesn't really introduce necessary reforms for efficiency/costs. It is, in fact, the employer based plans that will subsidize any shortfall from these programs.

For my peers and colleagues who continue to lose jobs to India, I guess ACA will help them once COBRA is exhausted. But this is really not the strategy that is sustainable for the Democratic Party.

The rich need to start paying for the resources they consume.

PLUS they are now charging "lifestyle fees" should you fail biometric screenings.

because the implication is they are caused by your unhealthy habits. If you don't want to pay the lifestyle fee, you have to agree to "training" with a personal coach who is supposed to check your lifestyle on regular basis to see if you are doing the things they want you to do. I don't know what happens if no improvement is made or numbers get worse.

Also, to avoid the fee you have to agree to regular exercise and bunch of other conditions whether you are healthy or not. As you can imagine there is a lot of lying about this.

It is the worst form of micromanagement.

In addition you will find companies working to have employees wear pedometers and logging their steps taken every day. They are experimenting with using this to avoid higher fees as well.

Typically they call it a "lifestyle discount" but the truth is they raise the rate by over $1000 a year and then might discount a few hundred if you agree to all their conditions.

I will tell you that some of the unhealthiest people have qualified and some of the fittest have not. I opted out, I'm not going to lie and I resent that the information is tracked as part of "third party" - another problem. Your biometric data is now free to be exchanged with "partners". The level of privacy and conditions of using your data was so complicated, it made me sick. Basically you have to assume your data is now available for present and future employers and anyone with even a remote interest in assessing your financial, physical and mental health.

People are nothing more than commodities being traded on Wall Street. Like cattle.

While a public option or Medicare for all would have been preferable, Obamacare still is a step forward for millions of people on expanded Medicaid, millions of people who will benefit from income-based subsidies on the exchanges, millions of young adults on their parents' policies, millions who will no longer be barred from insurance because of preexisting conditions -- and everyone else with insurance, since no one will have to worry about annual or lifetime limits or being dropped when they develop expensive illnesses.

All this is progress in the right direction, even though we have further to go.

Isn't it obvious that the ACA is better than the status quo? I'm amazed that DUers are even arguing about this.

if for public option... (thanks only to the SC and Republican Governors for limiting Medicaid expansion)...

No one thinks the ACA is perfect (especially me but I will defend it with all I have)...

the 80/20 rule,
pre-existing conditions rule,
Medicaid Expansion,
the ease of the Exchange (yes, it is getting easier to use),
subsidies, preventative (wellness) coverage,
expanded mental health coverage,
ER visits not requiring pre-authorization,
additional dental and vision care for kids (granted that should be extended to everyone),
additional home health and hospice care, etc...

...and many other new rules governing insurance companies make the ACA a good thing...

...throwing the baby out with the bathwater?????

we are trapped in a capitalistic society and until the masses wake up, the ACA is a GOOD thing.

Tell that to the millions of people who are getting care now who wouldn't have before.

Yes, it would have been nice to have the single payer option, but healthcare has been introduced for 100 years before ACA was passed. With ACA becoming more popular and in fact I think there would be some uprising if it was repealed and not replaced with say a single payer system. Right now, we do not need to bite the hand which feeds us. The ceiling on healthcare has been broken, we need to elect members of the DNC to draft a bill towards single payer and keep a majority so there can be more issues important to Democrats.

agreed we need universal healthcare. not just for cost reasons, but because it's simply immoral for anyone to profit from someone's health needs (or education or living, etc.).

but that aside, methinks your assessment is not fully informed.

here in MA, which is the model for ACA, though premiums did not go down, their rate of increase decelerated significantly. that's saying a lot for the state with likely the highest medical costs in the country (price we pay for all the cutting edge medical centers).

we do have something like a public option here, which is not converting to the exchange.

however, there have been numbers of interesting articles over the past five years or so, mostly in money and business mags, stating the sense in the health ins. industry that everyone knows the party's over, they're not long for this world, and that the universal healthcare future is inevitable, it's only a matter of time. the writing's on the wall.

they're of course milking the transition for all it's worth, but then, so are all the oil companies. this is the nature of blinkered, myopic greed.

obama knew there would have to be a transition from an insurance-dominated system. he wanted, insisted that SOMETHING/ANYTHING get passed and signed into law. there has to be a first step. given the lobbies and resistance, it's a miracle it went through at all, even as it did.

the predictions that once it's in operation, everyone will love it and want more, will give us forceful leverage to move to the next, inevitable phases, hopefully full blown medicare for all or even better, very soon.

i'm predicting within five years. but, it will take a highly motivated populace, and that means not just on this issue but all of them, and not just every four years but every election, and that means local, not just national!

VOTE!! RUN!!

-Laelth

"Obamacare WITHOUT a Public Option is a step in the opposite direction."

...that implies that Obamacare lessened the chances of getting to a public option or a "government-run" program, which means doing nothing was better. At least doing nothing wasn't a "step" in any direction.

Please respond to this poll.

Should Obamacare be repealed because it's a step in the wrong direction?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024753672

This OP is proof that the down rec option should be brought back!!!

Corporate Healthcare Insurance.

Healthcare != Healthcare Insurance.

They have to cover people with pre-existing conditions, they can't suddenly drop people for using their insurance too much, and there's no lifetime maximums.

That means their only option is to draw more blood from the stone and they'll probably continue to do that for a while. But remember, the government now subsidizes health coverage for millions of people and so much of that blood is coming from the public coffers.

When we get to the point where it's simply unaffordable for the government to continue subsidizing coverage, the congress can do two things. They can end the subsidies, causing a huge backlash from millions of voters who won't be able to afford their health care coverage anymore. OR they can create a public option. If I were a congresscritter who wanted to stay in office, I'd do the latter.

list the names of the current Democratic Party leaders/representatives who publicly assert this statement and who are currently active building support for a single payer/public option within the Democratic Party and within the circle of campaign contributors.

Unless you can show a Democratic leadership movement with unified party support to improve health care access and reduced cost for ALL Americans, then ACA is the end-game and leading people on with false hope for improvement is a coldblooded political lie.

But on the other hand, if this is just a stepping stone, it should be clear from Democratic party leadership talking points and there will be ample evidence from recent activities, meetings, campaigns, etc to show that the Democratic Party is full steam ahead with the reform of the well documented corruption and dysfunction within our health care industry.

"if ACA is just an incremental step to public option/single payer... please do this

list the names of the current Democratic Party leaders/representatives who publicly assert this statement and who are currently active building support for a single payer/public option within the Democratic Party and within the circle of campaign contributors. "

...you go:

Isn't the Vermont story worth having on the front page? Why not post it there?

My understanding is that the Federal Government still has to approve the plan since Vermont's plan is not the same thing as "free market" exchanges. Has the Government expressed any intention to disrupt Vermont's plan?

Does the DNC have anyone from the progressive caucus on it's board or leadership team?

Went to the OFA site and saw nothing on continuing to fight for health care reform.

Went to third way site, nothing on health care reform.

Republicans seem organized to send ACA backwards, yet Democratic Committee Leadership has no organized plan to move reform forward to single payer/public option.

Why is that?

Your questions have nothing to do with the content of the law or Congressional proposals, such as the Progressive Caucus' plan, to improve it.

I'd say work in those states and make sure it works well. That'd be doing something.

-Laelth

health care reform and cost control through an efficient single payer system.

1. Bernie Sanders.
2. ...?

If this is just the beginning, who is continuing to fight for reform? Where are they meeting, where are the talking points and bumper stickers for single payer? Where is the Democratic Party web site collecting money and volunteers for the continuing fight for single payer?

Clearly, the republican party is not giving up on their disinformation campaign, and it is easy to find a unified message of continuing destruction.

But the only thing that comes out of Democratic Leadership is "sorry, yea it sort of sucks but it's the best we could do. Get over it and let's get moving on some free trade agreements that will send more jobs to Asia."

Who's making sure it isn't the be-all, end-all?

in order to convince enough voters. Cutting it down ourselves leads away from single payer, as the mass of voters thinking it doesn't work and government staying out of it is the answer.

it needs to continue to organize and continue to publish data supporting reform and win grass roots support for reform.

I am happy that many have been helped by ACA, but the fact is, more of us have not been helped - those with larger employer plans will continue see costs rise unchecked and nearly every year I have to change providers as plan dictates who I can see and where I can fill prescriptions, what drugs I can take, from year to year.

I have indicated recently just how much my plan rose this year, but people didn't believe it. Also discussed new "lifestyle" rules that allow insurance companies to charge higher fees by using biometric screening. It seems to be an inconvenient truth and many are in denial.

Nor do they believe that many employers switch plans every two years in effort to get lowest costs, incredibly disruptive to families.

So, if the end-game is public option/single payer I still have not seen any evidence from core of Democratic Party leadership.

I see plenty of evidence and rhetoric that this is the best that we can do because none are brave enough to engage popular support to challenge insurance company and health industry resistance and threats.

A public option has nothing to do with employer-based health coverage.

and cost controls and ultimately give those who are tethered to corporations more choices, many are simply hanging on because even as health care costs continue to erode earnings and wages, they cannot afford to pay $16K ACA F4 plan because they are just outside earning limits which would be like 15% pay cut on top of existing wage erosion year over year.

It's 10s of millions of people.

reply says two things about you:

1. You are afraid.

2. You know I am correct.

Sid

insurance industry. Unfortunately they spend millions buying congressman, presidents, and justices and in return get to rip off working people for hundreds of millions

there is apparently no documented effort by any Democratic leader to keep fighting for reform.

So, next time anyone says "it is incremental reform" all they need to do is give the name of any Democratic party leader who is actively building support for further reform.

But there isn't any. And there will never be any as long as Democratic leadership keeps selling out to investment bankers. Both political parties are chasing the same pile of money, running over 300,000,000 people in the process.

When I asked for a Democratic leader who was hard at work on the next incremental steps - they proudly gave up "Bernie Sanders", without realizing he is not a Democrat - lol

Too bad, Sanders is exactly the kind of representation we need everywhere, Vermont is lucky to have him.

They can't deny people coverage due to pre-existing conditions now. That is far less of the market than being able to cherry pick customers. They are going to make less money and will have to adjust to that.

for your opinions.

Meanwhile those of us dealing with reality are mostly grateful for Obamacare.
It's better than what I've heard about the British and Canadian system, so far
I've had excellent care for very little money on ACA.

and that is a damn shame....

They have no mechanism to find out how their colleagues would vote. The only way they can find out is to formally insert it into a bill.

It is a matter of public record where advocates are allowed to participate. It's the part of the discussion where even the losing parties also speak on behalf of their position. That did NOT happen:

Losing that badly sets us back WAY more than not talking about it. It flags the issue as toxic, and it would be much harder to build support.

Single payer loses badly in the country overall, due to demonizing of the term. Especially calling it "government healthcare".

We need to undo that before we can win nationally. The way we do that is to exploit the ACA. Fight for single payer or public options in blue states, where we will have a much easier time. Those states will give us examples to explode the RW bullshit when we return to the national battle.

-Laelth

wrote it, that's unsurprising.

Can all those millions of folks who had no coverage for years afford to do whatever-the-hell it is that you are doing? Just curious. And, most importantly, can they afford to keep waiting for single-payer to come along that primrose path?

I highly recommend going to Ted Cruz's FB page and reading the nearly 50,000 replies to his question about whether people feel better off with ACA or hate it. Hint: the vast majority of replies are well- informed and full of gratitude for Obamacare, and many are willing to set the naysayers straight. Probably not what Cruz was expecting at all.

us in the ass with a rusty wire brush and we're supposed to like it.

It's 2009. You need Lieberman's vote to pass a bill. How do you get his vote?

-He knows he can not win re-election. Get MA voters as upset as you'd like, he doesn't care.
-He mainly lives for getting on TV. You yank his committee assignments, and he gets a lot more TV time. And still votes no.
-He is known as "the Senator from Aetna".
-You do not have 51 votes to get rid of the filibuster. In fact, you don't have 40 votes to do so.
-He killed the 50+ Medicare buy-in public option....that he proposed to try and derail the ACA.

So how do you get him to vote for a public option?