Work with the Senate you have.....not enough votes......first step towards universal coverage.....blah blah blah.

First step in healthcare reform should have been to open up a voluntary option for anyone to buy into Medicare on an-income based cost. Focus on that and sell the hell out of it.

Oh well.

It is very obvious the reason this was not the direction we went. It's not a money maker. So laughable that so many believe the ACA was a great thing, even remotely. The idea that is a step towards single payer is denial. I am a medicaid caseworker and everyone I work with knows this.

I know nothing is straightforward in healthcare. It's the nature of the best. (as you obviously know all too well.)

But in comparative terms, giving people a voluntary "out" from the employer and private insurance quagmire shouold have been a popular step towards needed reforms. And most likely more popular than this convoluted beast.

Simplistically, I also think it could have help medicare financially, if young healthy people started paying into the system without having to use a lot of services.

while having Rahm tell progressives to STFU.

It is with Republicans and other men who want their women WEAK, WILLING AND WET.

The ACA was working beautifully until the sexist Catholics on the Supreme Court interpreted it against women.

Sorry if my post offends people.

But I owe my life to birth control, and I am very deeply offended at the thought that these five Catholic men (Thomas was raised a Catholic although he has since converted to a Fundamentalist religion if I am correct) want to impose their Catholic morals on free, American women.

And while my words may offend some, they are the truth. All Republicans want from women is that they be WEAK, WILLING AND WET.

the insurance industry. And that's why Obama was having secret meetings with them. Had it actually broken away from the insurance model we would have had health care rather than health insurance. And the fact that Obama didn't want anyone to know about these meetings and would not even allow single-payer a seat at the table speaks volumes.

I like the idea that we should pass a law requiring employers to pay at least one year of maternity leave -- at full pay for every pregnant woman or mother with an infant. We need that. And don't allow discrimination against women on any basis in hiring or employment.

These rich guys make a lot of money on hiring young women to work for them. It's harder for women over 50 to get good jobs. Young women of childbearing age have strong bodies and beautiful faces.

Employers who do not approve of birth control should help bear some of the burden that the woman who has an infant child faces.

Day care -- decent day care is extremely expensive. Mothers need the option to stay home with their newborn for at least a year with full pay or to have their employer pay for decent day care for the baby, day care in which the child in that crucial period gets to hear language and is mentally, physically and emotionally stimulated and rewarded as a child needs. To do less, to require less harms our country.

The nurture of our infant children is a national defense issue. Neglecting a child in infancy negatively affects the child's development in every area.

EVERY CHILD A WANTED CHILD!

irrespective of the ACA, if the interest was really to provide healthcare. Every state already has the apparatus in which to provide Medicaid to a greater number of it's people. Single payer will not come via the ACA, it will require completely separate legislation and programs, the ACA, and I do it everyday for a living is more complex than most people know. It cannot just be made to be single payer.

Why not an option to buy into medicaid?

Obviously the single payer law like HR676 will be a separate law from the PPACA. My point was that successful implementation of the PPACA, which covers much more treatments and many more people than before, builds a constituency who will provide political support for a major "government takeover of our healthcare" that would be Medicare for all, the biggest universal mandate ever.

GOP is using the weaknesses in the ACA (which they refuse to amend) to turn support away from further reforms in the future. They are also using the problems in the VA system for the same reason.

I do Medicare/Medicaid and disability and other public health programs every day for a living. GOP fights against every single treatment, every claim, every budget, every amendment, every leadership appointment, every infrastructure upgrade, etc. always. Its an enormous uphill battle to help poor Americans get health care in our tax funded single payer systems that we already have. There's a lot the public isn't aware of. This political fight would get even worse if it covered everyone. Its a shitty time to be in public service.

because it was tied to the ACA we got the SCOTUS decision that allowed states to opt out.

Since it's so simple you should be able to get it done this afternoon. I support you!

If only we could snap our fingers and have what we wanted regardless of political opposition.

Wouldn't it be lovely.

Just a different way of going abo0ut things, without trying to placate vested interests and the GOP who would oppose anything.

Offer the public a positive benefit that people could either take or leave. People who want private insurance can keep it. Those who want basic public coverage at a price guaranteed to be affordable for their income can use that -- and not be subject to denial or cancellation.

Sure the Big Corporate Insurers and the GOP would object.

But if that had been sold as that from the beginning, it would have been much harder or them to drum up opposition.

The people pushing it knew this, they had us right where they wanted us and were waiting just for the right to time to reel us in. Being that I work within the system I can say the crap hasn't hit the fan yet.

the ACA was a progressive achievement and it does matter.

to pay for the new public program?

Who would run it?

Such a proposal would be opposed by 70% of the population within a week of debate.

You add younger healthier people paying into the system (it's not free care) while using less services, it could actually increase Medicare money in the same way that insurance companies try to get young healthy people.

government plan would face a whole host of challenges:

would it charge low income people less than higher income people? if it did, the private insurance companies could simply pick off all the higher income people by offering benefit coverages (and access to certain providers) that the government couldn't offer, because the government could only pay out what it took in from premiums paid.


who would be in charge of the government plan? virtually all of the expertise on processing health care claims and payments is in the private sector--because that's where the action has been for the past 70 years. Medicare relies on private insurance companies to handle its processing. The federal government couldn't even get a single website working before turning to the private sector to bail it out with their technical expertise.

there's actually very little dissent here at DU that single payer makes a lot more sense, and absent that a public option would be the next best thing. but, conceiving and implementing are two vastly different enterprises

Perhsps down the line, but first my own position is to give people the option to buy into Medicare as an alternative to private insurance.

Time would tell if it catches on.

And why are mandated payments to for-profit corporations better than mandated payments to a non-profit (like Medicare)? Why are you convinced that paying middlemen billions per year is the right solution? And don't say "because I trust Obama".

Every other civilized country has something like Medicare for all. In England it went from idea to full implementation in 3 years.. Is America so stupid that we can't do it?

The ones in power have the greed, and then convince the stupid that liberals will kidnap them and force them into abortions, or castrate their guns, or something.

During the president's term, even Dems have begun spewing the "government can't do anything" bullshit. Just really, really soul-sucking.

Not having to run things past Blanche Lincoln and Max Baucus....members of our own party who should not be considered "opposition".

If you think more couldn't have been done to get them in line with the bill without having to let them practically craft the thing and have what for all intents and purposes was a veto over the final bill, then we can agree to disagree.

Ironically, Lieberman was the one to propose it.

The ACA lets us move the battle to the states. VT's going single-payer. Time to get other "blue" states on board. Their successes will destroy the FUD about single-payer, allowing it to spread until it can go national.

theory of politics worked.

with insurance companies? Did they use their "magic wand" to make Rahm tell progressives to STFU? Did they use their "magic wand" to make Obama ignore single-payer completely and not give them a seat at the table? Did they use their "magic wand" to make Obama not even really try to get a public option, let alone single-payer? Did they use their "magic wand" to make Obama come to the table with more of what they wanted than what we wanted?

That's a lame excuse when we all know there was never a fight for what was good for the people. Never. Max Baucus was put in charge and he wrote a terrible bill. The GOP didn't do that. That's on Obama.

You're supposed to go into negotiations asking for more than what you expect to get and come out with at least some of what you wanted. Obama goes into "negotiations" with the GOP by conceding things from the very beginning. We needed a fighter on this and we did not have one. But I'm not convinced he didn't end up getting exactly what he was going for. He did have those secret back room meetings with the insurance companies that he denied having until he just couldn't deny it any more. When Cheney had secret meetings about energy everyone here had a problem with it.

Lincoln?, Nelson(FL)? and most of the other blue dogs.

The republicans were not going to vote for it, so could they get enough Democrats to vote for it.

The specific Democrats I named above absolutely said they would not vote for Medicare for all or single payer. I know most of the blue dogs also felt the same way.

So the argument comes, they didn't even try to single payer, and there is some validity in that argument. However, there were talks going on within the Senate and they had a pretty good idea that they did not have enough votes for single payer.

So we have what we have.

If Obama would have fought for single payer or nothing, 40 million uninsured people would still not be insured. Children would not be insured. Those with pre-existing conditions could not get insurance.

The OP says that HL shows that the ACA is a failure, and I say just the opposite. First of all the administration already made an accommodation for those groups on religious grounds, but the most important point was that the GOVERNMENT will cover the cost of those contraceptions that those places won't, and guess what? That is the beginning of socialized medicine

(which in a GOP Paradise is the only way), this decision moves us closer to Single Payer.

A healthy population is simply a sensible goal. In the same way that having a Fire Department is. The country is a better place to live because of things like this.

Perhaps some of the people affected by this decision will choose to vote in their self interest instead of against it.

Why do we have to go through all this agony? What is the benefit of all this suffering?

question well worth having, IMO.

There is nothing wrong with asking that question and hoping that we could really listen to each other.

I would offer the analogy of a man opening the cocoon to try and help a butterfly emerge. The butterfly emerged deformed because the struggle to get out of the cocoon actually helps develop strength.

Our struggles individually and socially help us grow.

Just as the ACA in no way moves us "toward SP", today's decision doesn't either.

Yes, it is very flawed, and has nothing to do with providing healthcare.

I remember a number of years ago I found that the job I had (and it was a two-bit one, believe me) paid so little that I qualified for free services from ... Planned Parenthood.

I'd recommend them to anyone needing such services! If I remember right, the requirements for their services was not huge. I used them on/off for several years as birth control that you received from them (an exams as well) cost me nothing being my income was so low.

since my stupid state of Texas has recently passed trap laws that have basically closed down many of them.

globalization posed a huge threat to big insurance. people were able to fly overseas for medical work at a fraction of the price, as well as order drugs online.

those "delays" we have heard about.

children of boomers will have shittier jobs with minimal insurance affordable/offered.. as Boomers retired into Medicare,. insurers lost their golden goose..

THEY were the ones who were on the verge of losing their "base"..and yet we let them end up winners...

which would cover everything required by the PPACA, including birth control. You don't have to take employer coverage.

Whining about the law won't bring you single payer. Building up a constituency who will support bigger reforms will.

Think about how this sounds as a PR soundbite:
"Democrats failed so bad last time at health reform so trust us to bring you an even bigger reform! We'll totes get it right next time, we promise!"

vs.

"More Americans have insurance coverage for more treatments than at any time in US history thanks to the PPACA. There are no more lifetime caps or pre-existing conditions or copays for preventive screenings. But we can do more to cover the remainder and lower costs by moving forward to universal Medicare for all Americans".

Which sounds better to your average Amerian voter?

I strongly believe supporting and promoting the positive aspects of the PPACA will move us forward towards single payer. Attacking the weaknesses in the reforms will weaken popular support for big government reforms. GOP is on it like white on rice obviously.

What would have sounded even better is something like:

"We're offering you an opportunity to buy public insurance through Medicare at an income-based price that is affordable for everyone. And you wont be denied for health reasons. If you prefer to stay with the private insurance you have, you are free to do so. But we're giving you new choice."

Draw up a bill and send it to congress, whip the votes, and off to the president to sign that into law. I support you, all the way!

But if I had that kind of power as an individual citizen, I can think of a lot of other bills I'd send their way.

(there's nothing wrong with discussing alternative ideas on a discussion board, ya know.)

Said president then signed a bill that will keep the country from having SP or a PO for at least a generation. This is why many people don't vote.

Why will the enactment of the ACA prevent them for that long?

they are reaping a half-trillion dollar windfall every year (just profits), and will use some of that to bribe congress and the president to make sure they don't lose it. Before the ACA, the for-profit health insurance racket was just an annoyance that those of us with jobs had to put up with. It is now part of the government and will take some earth-shattering occurence to get rid of.

and take medicaid. It's single payer. And you certainly have that option. Or move 2 states over to Minnesota which does have a public option you can buy into. And then move to Vermont in a year.

I've moved around to many states and even lived in other countries, and not always by choice.

Don't forget that about half of all Americans are on some sort of government health care, which includes government employees and military. Try one of those jobs if you're up for it. Giving your money to for-profit insurance is YOUR choice. Choose the government or nonprofit options available to you, or go without and pay the penalty. If you want to end the insurance profits bad enough, then start with Doctor_J. Be the change you wish to see.

I think you made a wrong turn on the internet.

cancel your insurance.

... fire

Hobby Lobby's employees are poorly paid. However, they are not eligible for subsidies. Their employer offers a qualifying health plan.

Hate won't get you single payer. Votes will. Whip the votes together for HR 676 and send it to the president to sign.

Good luck!

It is part of your pay and, as such, the company you work for should have no say in what gets covered or what doesn't.

or for any other benefits like retirement plans or employee discounts!

Health insurance is part of your compensation if it is provided through the workplace. Why should an employer be allowed to dictate what you do with your own body simply because your health insurance is part of your compensation? Should they be able to tell you not to buy liquor? Which holidays you can celebrate?

Geez. I know DU is not progressive, but wow, I didn't think anyone on here would defend this sort of control over a woman's body.

That's a false solution that does nothing to address whether or not something should be allowed or not.

I could stay in my house all day ever day in order to not get run over by a car but that's just silly. Just as your saying people can get another job if they don't want Hobby Lobby to dictate whether or not they are allowed to have birth control covered.

The fact is that is discrimination against women and worse than that it is based on the religious feelings of a corporation. So not only is it discriminating against women it is forcing one's religious beliefs on another. That's not at all what this country is supposed to be about.

I cannot believe you are actually okay with that and that your answer is get another job or pay for another plan. First of all, why should anyone have to do that? As I've already mentioned it's just wrong to have a corporation force their religious beliefs on their employees like this. Secondly, you seem to think it's really easy for most people to be able to afford to pay for their own health insurance or to just go and get another job. We are still in a recession. Even before the recession, or ACA for that matter, one was often tied to their job because of the very fact that it provided them with health insurance. Surely you've heard of people taking that into consideration when apply for/accepting a job?

As to blocking coverage... what do you think insurance companies do? They try to avoid paying out for medical procedures all the time. It's not the GOP sitting there deciding what will be paid for or not, it's the insurance companies. Sounds like you are not only fine with the Hobby Lobby decision but you also prefer insurance companies over medicare.

My approach will get us much closer to single-payer than yours will. I can guarantee you that when you sit back quietly and accept things as they are you certainly aren't going to change anything. When you criticize something and speak out, well that's when things start moving. Dismiss it all you like, but that is the most ridiculous talking point on DU, that criticizing policy is a waste of time. Seriously, how do you really expect anything to change without it?

Good luck with that!

Focusing too much on the employer part ignores the fact that mandated minimum coverage is the issue. Can you imagine having this fight over every single treatment covered under the single payer system because some republican taxpayer is offended by it?

Those of us who work in the Medicare/Disability/Public health system don't have to imagine it because is an every day policy problem. Conservative congresspeople don't want to provide funding for many HIV treatments simply to spite the gays, for one big example. There are cases where after much fighting they will provide funding for screenings for some cancers, but not treatment. Its an uphill battle with these assholes who control the funding.

They fight everything, everytime, just for spite. Americans are not as benevolent as other countries who have universal health care. For the closest single payer example, check out Alberta. Conservative governments have royally dicked over the medicare system in that conservative province for no apparent reason. They have plenty of money from the oil, they just don't want it going towards health care.

Pre-ACA was a full blown nightmare. It was a move that will decrease the number of people without health insurance.

The ultimate problem with the ACA is that a lot of people will continued to get squeezed by the cost of insurance.

It may be slightly better than the prevous system. But it also is a step backward by forcing people to buy private insurance.

It especially hits the large number of people who make slightly too much to qualify for Medicaid or other public coverage but don't make enough to be able to afford private insurance (even with the ACA subsidies).

I actually moderate my thoughts when posting here with respect to the ACA. I now stick with the one positive(not all that positive in my mind, seems to be a huge positive to posters here) thought I have about it. More people have an insurance card.

I cannot afford to use my own insurance. The most maddening part of all this by the crowd that heralds the success of the ACA is that insurance=healthcare, heck, the affordable in ACA is not even affordable. WHat most champion is the increases number of people covered under Medicaid expansion, which should have never been tied to the ACA as it is what allowed the SCOTUS decision for states to opt out.

Simply keep lowering the age of eligibility for Medicare until it reaches 0.

the Supreme Court.

I posted it before and will post it again.

What Republicans want from women: WEAK, WILLING AND WET.

If that offends you, you should be far more offended by the attitudes of the Republican Catholic Five on the Supreme Court.

This decision is bigoted and sets women back a century. It's horrible. These men should be ashamed.

Sorry, Armstead. You have it backwards.

ACA insures freedom of conscience for all with regard to birth control and family planning. It's the Catholic Five on the Supreme Court that reached very far to find a way to impose Catholic Sharia law on American women.

The Catholic Five have just given us our rallying issue for 2016. We will win the women of the South on this one. The Republican Party is in its final days.

WEAK, WILLING AND WET. That's what Republicans want from women. Enough. We have had enough of male chauvinism.

And I am not a radical feminist. I've been married 51 years to the same man. And I love him more every day. But I would not be alive to tell about it if it weren't for birth control. Thank God for birth control.

over your life. But I think the president knew that when he decided on for-profit mandates. He's very corporate-friendly.

and then there's the half trillion dollars per year you're paying for health care that aren't going to health care.

it is flawed, but so is every single other imaginable effort at reform

I guess this is where people say that if we just clicked our heels together three times, Single Payer would have been enacted, because surely THAT wouldn't have been demagogued to death.

Go ahead and run a candidate on taking away everyone's employer-provided health insurance and replacing it with a 100% government-run program that has yet to be defined, let alone created. Heck, maybe the team behind healthcare.gov 1.0 can set it up.

it's called Medicare. All americans over 65, and every citizen in every industrialized country except this one already has it. Your swooning over the president, and the resulting ravings, have deluded you about what comprises healthcare.

Hell, most movement may well be the result of austerity dragging others down more than actual improvement on our end.

What we did is maintain our existing clusterfuck, sanded down a few of the rougher edges, and mandated participation.

The effort could actually be improved even as a market based system, I think some like to pretend we have maxed out what can be done without going single payer or NHS but that is also far from the case.

Perfect? What is that? Good? By what standard? Marginal improvements to what we have? Bingo! Overlay the existing order with a few pay to play add ons in exchange for forced participation.

We'll fix it later? How? What do you think we have to bargain with? The cartel has of less power and influence and probably more, they have been elevated to too big to fail status like the fucking banks.

Even incremental, milquetoast reform like the ACA was considered too disruptive and radical by a whole lot of people.

Insurance companies aren't like the banks, now they're like the utility companies.

Like it or not, that's where the entire human and technological and institutional architecture is for processing payments and claims. One transitions from that kind of set-up, not replacing it whole-sale.

The ACA could of course been made a whole lot better with some simple fixes. But that's legislation for you--crooked timber and everything.

Also keep in mind that Social Security was greatly improved after its launch.

Arm - stead...

The ACA is what we have, and it's still better than what we had before.

-Laelth

That's the fatal flaw in the anti-ACA position.

and employers claiming religious convictions wouldn't be able to keep their employees from getting birth control.

Why do the Heritage Care fans believe that it was our only option? And did you like it when Gingrinch tried to pass it?

Just how sure are you that Obama and the Dems traded away single-payer, universal coverage when it was achievable? And don't tell me; tell the people who would have lost their lives if you are wrong. Tell the parents who have one more kid now than they would have had.

I remember health care being completely dead. Obama pulled it out of the fire by knocking the Republicans' blocks off at their retreat. Even with that, it took a truly heroic effort by Nancy Pelosi (who sacrificed her Speakership) and the Blue Dogs (many of whom lost their seats) to get the ACA we have now.

But your bet and the OP's—with the stakes being someones' kids lives—is that somehow "Medicare for All" could have been achieved. And if you think that would have been a good bet, I think you shouldn't be in the gambling advice business.

Because an argument appeals to the emotions doesn't mean that argument is a fallacious appeal to the emotions at all. If that were true, people could only be convinced by boring arguments.

I think a fallacious appeal to latin-named fallacies is probably itself a latin-named fallacy. I'm not looking it up though.

My argument rests on the experience of people who have benefited from Obamacare. That's all. They know from personal experience what it has done for them. And I'm asking that you come up with some argument for your position that you think would convince that audience. I don't think your and the OP's position should convince any audience. The reason I'm picking the people who were saved by Obamacare is just to make that point clearer.

Where did you get the half trillion in profits from?

Who profits from medicaid?

And who profits from nonprofit insurance?

Who profits from the tax penalty?

And is there some reason you always ignore the heavy regulations placed upon the insurance industry? Why does GOP fight it relentlessly and claim that its some socialist takeover of America forcing mandates down upon freedom loving individuals and "job creators"? Why did they shut down the government to stop it? Why fight every provision in the courts? Is GOP against profit? Those SOCIALISTS!!!

Will you ever notice that your entire argument is based solely on your jealousy of someone else getting something?

Last edited Tue Jul 1, 2014, 06:18 AM - Edit history (1)

badly. Especially Obama.

I am more pissed about the millions who still go without, and the billions of dollars being wasted on profits, CEO bonuses (awarded to those who best figure out how to NOT pay members for healthcare) and clerks whose job it is to write refusals. It's too bad for the 40 million who still don't have healthcare (and anyone who has to submit a mountain of paperwork to get their for-profit to pay) that the Fan Club doesn't give a damn about them.

This line is just bizarre

And I'm sure we are all frustrated that people are going without. We all want people to have health care. You are pissed mainly that insurance companies are making profit. You say that in every post. Life isn't fair buddy. What are you going to do about it?

Where did you get 40 million from? You know millions are getting badly needed life saving treatments when they didn't before, because they have a payment system that covers it.

Why beat the dead horse from 5 years ago? Are you going to punish the Dems forever? How progressive of you. Many Dems across America lost their election and gave up their political careers to get you health reform. The Repub takeover of the house has truly screwed up our economic recovery and many other important issues like infrastructure funding and blocked important legislation like immigration reform and jobs bills, and any amendments to improve the PPACA. And you want to punish dems even more? Most of the red state moderates you don't like are gone and replaced by tea party.

You're not going to punish anyone into giving you single payer. Bitterness is not going to help anything. If running and you keep looking backwards you will trip and fall on your face. FORWARD!

See if you can follow

1. You accuse me of being "jealous" that 9 million people are getting heathcare without paying
2. I explain that my preferred solution would provide care for those 9 million, plus the 40 million who are still without, and not pay billions to middlemen whose job it is to withhold care from as many as possible

How is this "not answering what I asked you"?

Looking forward for those us who believe healthcare is a right doesn't do any good if the republicans and the president and fan club and the rest of the DINOs keep cheering for corporate solutions to every problem

You're just simply full of shit.

You don't have any ideas on how to make anything better. All you do is tell people to stop complaining and to just deal with it.

Your answer to the Hobby Lobby decision is for people to just get another job or pay for their own health insurance.

You use the terms "kvetch", "bitterness" and "whining" as if critical thinking and discussing policy is silly. You should try it sometime. And you should tell all the activists who have accomplished such great things that they just wasted their time.

Go ahead and punish people into giving you single payer. Let me know how it works out for you.

and their own bodies.

If you are referring to the gamble involved....Well, the ACA was also a gamble

That is what we have here in Korea and I am very thankful for I am covered by it. I want the same type of coverage for everyone back home that I have here. I'll keep fighting for it until the day I die.

We did the best we could with the Senate and House we had. The ACA barely got through as it is.

And you can't tell the millions who are now on Medicaid for the first time, or going back to a doctor for the first time in years -- all thanks to the ACA -- that they aren't better off now.

The opening to insert their fuckedupedness in this

ACA is a way station on the road to single payer.

A couple of states (Vermont can start) need to do a "demonstration project" to show it can be done.

Then we'll get there.

It is a process. You can't just take a shitload of insurance companies and drive them into the sea, even if you'd like to do that.

But, if you're Max Baucus (D-Insurance) you can have single payer advocates arrested at a hearing and the majority of Democrats will forget it.

Report: Senator Max Baucus Received More Campaign Money from Health and Insurance Industry Interests than Any Other Member of Congress.

Montana Senator Max Baucus, the chair of the Senate Finance Committee, is the Senate’s point man on healthcare reform. A new article in the Montana Standard finds that Senator Baucus has received more campaign money from health and insurance industry interests than any other member of Congress. The article says, "In the past six years, nearly one-fourth of every dime raised by Baucus and his political-action committee has come from groups and individuals associated with drug companies, insurers, hospitals, medical-supply firms, health-service companies and other health professionals." [includes rush transcript]
Transcript

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form...
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/6/16/report_senator_max_baucus_received_more

Doing nothing would have been better?

Just so discouraging that DINOs have now convinced themselves that we can't have healthcare without billion-dollar middlmen. I expect such twisted thinking from republicans. Now that the DC Dems have convinced Dem voters of this "truth", we'll never get out of it.

He WILL die. We all will, but he most certainly will, no matter how cozy he is with insurance companies.

Vermont will move forward with single payer, like MA did with ACA, and "demonstrate" that it can work. Then another state will take it up and give it a go, and it will work there, too. Then another, then another...and then, if we're lucky, we'll see a national movement to transition to that methodology.

As we transition, those insurance companies will, too. They'll have to start playing the game a little differently. They'll have to make their money on the margins, on "value added" crap, and they'll have to be more efficient.

People think that because of the NHS, people in UK don't have private heath insurance--it's not true. Lots of people do, they just don't "have" to have it in order to get access to health care. They have "national" health insurance. There's a minimum standard. It doesn't answer every need, but it does answer most.

The ACA DOES take away employer's ability to hold your healthcare plan over your head as a bargaining tool. THIS IS all the fault of the SCOTUS and their 5 male Roman Catholic votes.

prophet Jesus that they purport to follow. That fellow was all about helping people, not screwing them over.

Jesus wept.

I really wish a few of them would retire to prove other opportunities!

Jesus is probably still bawling his eyes out!!!

Be it Hillary or whoever. It would be some awesome shit if they retired with both houses under our control and the WH. Time is not on their side and is on ours imo.

BINGO!!

"Two Words explain why the ACA is fatally flawed." Supreme Court

The ACA is perfect and neither was Social Security when it was first passed. Be thankful we have something because without it I wouldn't have health insurance. Work on improving it and pushing it in the direction of single payer. Stop blaming ACA for the actions of stupid people.

Hobby Lobby didn't make the decision, the SCOTUS did! Thank you for pointing that out!

religious grounds. Guess what? The government will cover the costs of those contraceptions. What is that? The start of socialized medicine.

The ACA is serving it purpose. 35 million plus uninsured are now insured. Children are insured. Those with pre-existing conditions are insured.

Most of the blue dog democrats, along with lieberman, lincoln, both nelsons, bayh, and others said in no uncertain terms they would not vote for a universal or public option. Could they have been pressured to do so? How? No way were the blue dogs going to be pressured.

That's the problem i have with it.

By enshrining mandatory private insurance purchases and employer based insurance, it's going to lead to all kinds of mischief ike the Hobby Lobby case. And it also doesnlt address the CIST of insurance. Many people are going to fall through the cracks of not qualifying for public insurance or not being able to afford private insurance.

And among the Democratic obstructions you mentioned, who was there a little while later? None of 'em. They're politically gone. Perhaps a bit of foresight could have been applied and waited until those buttheads were gone.

like HL if more companies continue to object to things in the ACA the government will eventually transition to cover it all

We have an uphill battle when it comes to healthcare. Even amongst those on our side.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025179619#post141

Those are two very different things

believes ahead of what is best for the country. The ACA has nothing to do with it.

A public plan (especially an optional one) would not have that.

True, religious buttinskies would have otehr grounds to sue i they are determined. But just as war is not banned because some people have religious objections, and Medicare has survived, it would be less likely for them tp prevail.

That way the employer has no say in your coverage. I was all for (and am still for) a public option.

You now need three approvals to get medical care. Your doctor, your insurance CEO, and your employer.