about? Prior to the ACA if you couldn't get health insurance because of a pre-existing condition, or you didn't qualify under Medicaid, but qualify under the Expanded Medicaid, etc. you have an opportunity not to end up bankrupt or dead because you don't have Medical Insurance.

Does that mean it is ideal? Of course not, and there are holes that need to be filled, but the 10 million uninsured now that the writer speaks of is NOT an insignificant amount. With all the anti ACA press 24/7 constantly polluting the airwaves, and misinformation from the media and the republicans, 10 million is a remarkable feet. I do know that a lot of people were left out because their asshole state governments would expand the Medicaid program in their states, and I have no doubt that figure would be much lower if those state did so.

It is so easy for intellecual writers to sit on their self-annointed throne, and complain, " they are expecting only 2 million people during this open-enrollment period through HealthCare.gov". Guess what, that doesn't include those states that setup there own exchanges.

Just like Medicare it is just getting started, and there was the same old nay sayers when Medicare came on the scene.

You can't. I think it has to do with our "exceptionalism."

--imm

The US 'healthcare system' before Obamacare. It was far worse. Going to "nakedcapitalism" to find anti-Obamacare articles says it all, imo.

About what?

--imm

All you need do to falsify my assertion is identify a worse healthcare system. Simple.

I'll even stipulate that we have the best hospitals and doctors. So why don't we have the best outcomes? Why does it cost Americans more, for inferior results? (Hint: It's because of our corrupt system. See? )

--imm

A sure sign that the message in the article is important.

Healthcare as commodity. Obscenely overpriced "insurance" that people cannot afford to use, mandated...profits mandated...instead of care. And a system in which "consumers" must desperately "shop" for a new (lower-benefit, higher deductible, lower-tier) plan every year as premiums skyrocket and they are mercilessly priced out of the old one. And the lipstick on the pig, the subsidies, go directly to the profiteers. The pockets of Americans are looted, while the oligarchs have their obscene profits codified and protected in the law itself.

The bipartisan (despite all theater to the contrary) corporate ACA is already skyrocketing insurance company profits beyond the wildest dreams of its architects. The insurance companies wrote the thing, and it was *designed* to entrench an exploitative, profit-sucking system of middlemen that keeps costs spiraling at the expense of human beings who need care. Look instead for more "loopholes" like the one the Obama administration *already* carved out in order to help the companies shift even more costs to patients.

If most people understood how it is rigged, and how much is being stolen, they would be outraged. The mandate was a corporate wet dream - it ensures that obscene levels of money that should be going to health care instead are given as a cut to these thieving health insurance middlemen. It ensures continued spiraling costs. And it ensures a continued motive to deny care for profit.

Gettin' all factsie and stuff.

I'm guessing you've made the "doubleplusungood" list again.

I got told to shove something up my nether regions this morning, a response I actually appreciated because it exposes the level of "argument" we are actually dealing with here from the Third Way:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5822618

... doncha know?

This is exactly why we needed the ACA. It was never expected to fix all the problems in the less than 8 months since enrollment ended, but it has made a good start.

I believe there is something in the ACA that dictates no more than twenty percent of Profits can go to anything other than actual Health Care. Not to Administration or "overhead" but actually spent on Health care. Otherwise the money has to be returned.

Not a big fan of Obamacare because it does not let people buy into Medicare instead of feeding for profit insurance.... not to mention I'd much rather single payer universal medical care.

However, rec'd because I'm hearing a lot of this crap come from the right lately and this post pretty much details it all in one post.

I qualify for a substantial subsidy. I am grateful.

But I still think our health care system ought to be nationalized.

What are the numbers of people signing up for it who don't receive subsidies? They're the ones who aren't costing anyone or anything other than themselves. That would be a start of getting the numbers necessary to see if this thing could ever become self-sustaining. Without that, then eventually the chipping away of services offered will begin in earnest, which I suspect will happen.