our moral superiority if nothing else. They call themselves pro-life while supporting the death penalty, beating the war drums, cutting food-aid to families, cutting elderly incomes, cutting unemployment for those struggling while itching to dismantle SS & medicaid/medicare. WE'RE the ones who are pro-life, they seem more pro-death.

You accuse "some here seem they would rather have nothing than something already helping millions of citizens" when in fact what most Americans want is single payer/universal health care for all.

You sound like a front group that falsely states entire premises then argues a false point.

can't create enough of a ruckus to get legislation passed. What did you do today to forward single-payer legislation??

It's a failed solution that exchanges one handful of problems for another equal handful of problems. Overturning it at-least presents another turn at the drawing board. It's not like Congress is going to be able to put it on the shelf for another 20 years.

I don't care if it stays or goes because it's a value-neutral shitstorm. We're no better off with it than without it.

Congress will put it on the shelf for another 20 years. And until you've had a precious loved one declared "uninsurable" then you really don't understand what this bill was all about.

It's become too big of a crisis. We're really good at dealing with crises in the last minute. We suck at not kicking cans down the road when we can.

If this gets shot down, the next Congress is going to have to put forth legislation. (No, there is really going to be no choice to shelf it. It has not been a crisis the previous times it was shelved for most Americans which is why it was able to be shelved.)

First off, I generally respect any opinion that you have. I've read enough to know how smart you are, and I hope that you're right.

But this isn't a crisis yet to most people. No, strike through "people" in the last sentence and replace with "voters".

50% of the country doesn't vote, and as far as Congress is concerned, they don't exist. Most of the uninsured probably fit into this category.

Most middle-class voters still have health insurance. And in the cases where the insurance is deficient, most of them don't realize it because they haven't got sick yet.

The pre-ACA status quo was what is technically called a death spiral. As insurance became more unaffordable, more and more healthy people opted out, leaving a risk pool that was significantly sicker, causing yet another increase in premiums, causing more healthy people to drop, etc. etc.

That death spiral will resume if the ACA is overturned. In fact, it hasn't really abated to begin with. Not enough went into place to stop it. But it will take a period of many, many years for it to get to the point where most middle-class voters can't get insured. And even then, it will somehow be blamed on liberals.

Who knows, Republicans may even get to use the resultant crisis to "reform" Medicare! They could blame rising premiums on the cost-shift effect of inadequate Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements.

No. We'll not get anything good out of this. We're not smart enough to do so. Not as a country, and certainly not as a political party.

If what you say takes place:

"insurance became more unaffordable, more and more healthy people opted out, leaving a risk pool that was significantly sicker, causing yet another increase in premiums, causing more healthy people to drop"

There will be a single-payer revolution. People WILL demand it.

The thing is, is that the GOP is no way no how going to draft a healthcare bill that won't comprise of only one thing: Buying insurance across state lines. That's it. That is as far as they are willing to go. They don't care about who lives or dies, they care about corporate profits.

The ONLY WAY to single-payer is through the voting booth & grass-roots efforts to get Libs/Progressives elected to congress & senate. THAT is where the revolution will take place.

then again, we might not. In the meantime, the suffering that would result from a death spiral like I describe would be horrendous.

and would personally cost me tens of thousands I can't afford

the subsidies solve a lot and this was an opening to single payer

'Cause a lot of people are gonna die waiting for your revolution.

How 'bout this plan instead:
1. Create Single payer or public options in blue states via the state exchanges created by the ACA.
2. Point out to people in purple states that the people covered by single payer or public options aren't dead, are receiving good health care, and are paying less.
3. Pass single payer or public options in purple states.
4. Point out to people in red states that everyone else is paying less and getting more. It helps to point and laugh here.
5. Single payer or public options begin passing in red states due to cost savings and the collapse of private insurance companies.
6. De-facto single payer in most states makes it easy to create real, national single-payer.

Throwing away the ACA destroys the framework through which we can get single payer, in the hopes that either Tea Party Republicans will vote for single payer or Alabama is going to elect liberals.

Alabama, South Carolina, Kentucky and other extremely red states.

Oh wait, that won't be happening for decades, at best. But I'm sure universal health care will happen right after!

Libs/Progressives. Just enough to pass legislation. A good idea is a good idea, I don't care where you're from. They will join the Libs.

The fundamental problem is it will take quite a while to get a liberal majority elected. It took the conservatives about 50 years to take over.

That's a lot of dead people for ideological purity. While organizing is easier with the Internet, the conservatives did not face the opposition liberals will.

How 'bout we get the job done "through the back door" by exploiting the state exchanges in blue states to bring about single payer?

Same end state, but much faster.

under the ACA, states that were about to adopt single payer (such as Vermont) have had to shelve those plans for at least seven years, as opting out of ACA isnt legal until then.

I remember Kucinich raging against that aspect of the bill, although he and John Conyers were the only ones who did so. Obama really screwed the pooch on that one.

I agree with Kucinich that the best chance of getting single payer is through a Saskatchewan strategy the same as Tommy Douglas did in Canada. A liberal state adopts single payer, other states realise it isnt a Communist conspiracy and they follow suit.

Unfortunately, ACA is a massive step backwards in that regard.

It seems to me that the people who really likes this already have insurance. The people who don't seem to be crazy about it fall into the category of having insurance and not being able to afford the co pays and deductibles, or ones who are stretched to the bones financially and can't afford to buy insurance.

The pre existing clause is wonderful, but it does seem that the insurance companies can jack up the rates on that. That more working poor MAY qualify for Medicaid is great also.

The tiered plans it seems to me will just maintain the status quo. There is a lot of time between now and 2014 and I think that gives lobbyists plenty of time to get politicians to change things in their favor and I don't trust any of these politicians to side with the people over corporations.

Then they did.

Just like they weren't going to shelve during the LBJ administration

Then they did.

Just like they weren't going to shelve it in the Truman administration

Then they did.

Just like they weren't going to shelve it in the FDR administration

Then they did.

Just like they weren't going to shelve it in the TR administration

Then they did.

With more than 100 years of shelving it, and a Tea Party controlled Republican party, it is insane to think it will not be shelved again.

If the next congress does something with health care reform - it's going to have look a lot like the ACA. Especially if the GOP gets a majority.

They'll pull further away from single payer. They're trying to pull us away from Medicare.

There is no way the system and its costs can sustain on anything like present trajectory.

The twenty years cry is pure fear mongering, there is no credible theory on how such a thing is possible. The fear is being pushed into substantive systemic overhaul rather than smoke and mirrors games leaving all existing structures completely in place.
Twenty years is more the minimum timeline on playing through this farce before we can actually undertake reform and only after emptying the treasury and every possible dime from every American.

Features do not make a system. The system is the problem and the problem remains papered over by hype, pay to play features, and a shit load of money.

You know, 20 years ago when they last tried health care reform? When that failed it took 20 years to try again.

There is absolutely no reason to believe that history will not repeat itself if the ACA is struck down.

As time goes forward in actual reality, the costs become more and more unmanageable.

Are you arguing the scope of the problem is the same as it was twenty years ago?

Are you arguing that current growth rates can be sustain indefinitely?

Are you arguing that no matter what costs are that individuals and governments will be able to keep up?

THE MATH DOESN'T WORK. Congress can pass a new law each day to outlaw gravity but all our feet will remain firmly on the ground. Actual reality trumps political reality every single time. The rationale for the effort was clear, the government's long term debt is primarily driven by health care, a little less advertised is a bit of reality for the cartel which is the boomers are migrating to Medicare and a comparably poor working class that cannot keep up with present pricing and certainly not many years of growth, at least not without substantial support.

When this started we were already at 16% of GDP and growing at over 10% a year, this has increased since then.
Plug those numbers in and you tell me how long it will work, especially with anemic overall growth at a lesser rate for as far as the eye can see. Obviously, the timeline isn't anything like infinite, you hit 100% of GDP in maybe 50 years. I don't think anyone is going to try to even argue it will even have to approach 100% of GDP to collapse the entire economy. Do you think the captains of all the other industries are going to just allow Congress to do nothing as one sector devours the economy?
Are you seriously trying to contend that in the face of mounting costs that people won't self select out even if they desire coverage? Hell, many are already on the way out by migrating to high deductible, junk plans they are already just hanging on. Younger people and those without acute needs will drop first, those who need regular treatment will hold on the longest out of desperation but that only will increase costs to those remaining in the pool.

Everything has a breaking point, we are undoubtedly closer to ours than we were twenty years ago. The proof is in the paychecks which are smaller and those premiums are higher for a lower level of coverage.
The longer the fire burns the hotter it gets and the more fuel it consumes.

There are a significant percentage within the cartel that want the major pieces-the individual mandate and government subsidies. They see the boomers leaving their market, just the drop in numbers is a problem. Many of them understand that without government intervention that the customers available won't be profitable, they may have objections to the plan as is but even many in the cartel understand the need for some kind of reform to sustain them if they intend a long game.

We've been working on universal health care for 100 years.

TR couldn't get it. It was shelved for decades.
FDR couldn't get it. It was shelved for a decade.
Truman couldn't get it. It was shelved for a decade.
LBJ couldn't get it. It was shelved for decades.
Clinton couldn't get it. It was shelved for decades.

Now, up until LBJ Medicare did not exist. So Grandma was dying because she couldn't afford a doctor. That's quite an incentive, and yet neither FDR nor Truman got universal health care passed. And LBJ had to compromise and make it for 65+.

Hospitals are run by big corporations now. They are eating a lot of cost now as is state govts. It is unsustainable. Businesses are dropping health care for employees. It is hitting a crisis and it will have to be dealt with. Can't kick the can down the road anymore.

My twin baby boys are definitely better off with the coverage it guarantees.

You're just not getting what you want.
It comes down to selfishness in the end.

just about everybody! We'll lose that if we have to start over. We'll lose it all most likely. There's no rainbow of single payer or Medicare anytime soon. We're screwed essentially, unless you'd rather pay $400++ huge deductivle a month vs. $90.00 after subsidy which many I know have as a possible choice.

To begin with, a person who qualifies has to come up with the premium money up front - they don't get their subsidy until they file their income taxes. Secondly, the subsidy drops off pretty sharply as income increases and, like all government programs, the income limits for subsidies bear no relation to reality. You get the same one whether you live in New York City or Sioux City. And, odds are, even with a subsidy all you're going to get is high out of pocket "coverage" that will leave you still unable to afford care.

This whole thing was just a scam to transer billions of private and publc dollars into the pockets of the crooks who caused this mess to begin with.

Personally, I don't care what the court does with the mandate - with it or without it we're still screwed.

I learned something from a post yesterday about PR and corporate hacks: there are a lot more of them than I realized.

I agree with your post 100%, the whole thing is a scam to transfer billions into the pockets of crooks.

laughable.

So now I know I will be back to paying for a crappy bronze plan with high deductibles, that once again I won't be able to afford to use to get treatment unless it's life threatening .

If the ACA falls through, chances are good the next generation will see health care access get much worse before it gets better.

And a huge number of Americans have been so misinformed about universal health care (despite what they know about Medicare) that they will not support it.

I'm not sure where you got the stats that backs up "most Americans want single payer/universal health care for all." I'd be interested, because I have not seen that poll.

nt

isn't that what we call out the teabaggers for? Non willingness to compromise? We get to where we are going one step at a time, its the way it had been done in the past.

90% of it is good, why get rid of that? Fix the 10%.

We blast the teabaggers for doing this crap.

Sid

Last edited Mon Jun 25, 2012, 06:19 PM - Edit history (1)

We don't have Medicare for all.

The insurance company profit mandate. The rest needs to be strengthened, but I'll dance on the grave of the mandate if the SCOTUS undermines it. Fuck the insurance companies and their obscene profits. I want to strangle them, bleed them dry, and I don't care one whit whether they ever make a dime again.

aren't they making obscene profits without the ACA?

...but I actually meant obscene in the sense of profiting from misery, sickness, and injury rather than obscenely huge profits. But yep, that too!

by requiring a certain percentage of premiums to be devoted to medical costs.

If that outweighs the provisions on preexisting conditions and coverage for adult children, well...it is a perverse opinion.

that the public loves the liberal/progressive aspects of the bill and loathes the neoliberal corporatist mandate nightmare.

You should be glad that they hate the mandate enough to want to start over and get real reform, because it would only be a matter of time before the ACA fails and Democrats would be saddled with that failure for decades.

Now we know that pursuing a progressive plan would have been both more popular and more practical than the Third Way sell-out option that Democrats ultimately chose.

Lessons learned, I hope.

I don't believe the mandate outweighs the numerous goods this bill accomplishes. Even if a single human life is saved it is a success, yet in reality millions may be saved. If people want to judge it in the future as a fiscal failure than so be it, but those people judging it as such will probably the pseudo-prolife crowd just espousing their hypocrisy. I believe history will judge this bill as a moral success. An attempt by a President to finally do SOMETHING for the betterment of our citizens and our society.

"In reality", people die everyday due to lack of, or inadequate, for-profit insurance and will continue to with the mandate. If you're going to care about people dying then try to include all people in your view otherwise you're completely ignoring reality.

The people want economic stimulus. Have they gotten it?
The people want higher taxes on the wealthy. Have they gotten it?
The people want the war in Afghanistan to be over. Have they gotten it?
The people want the government out of women's bodies. Have they gotten it?
The people want the bankers thrown in jail. Have they gotten it?
The people want Citizens United overturned. Have they gotten it?

If the ACA is struck down, Democrats will flee from reform for another 20 years. Just like last time they failed.

subsidies and tax law?
I don't want to see it struck down, but discrimination is part and parcel of this law. It amazes me that so few on this site give a shit about equity as long as they get their own.
ACA and the tax code discriminate and mistreat all non hetro conforming households. So don't expect to hear cheering for the hateful aspects of this law, ok?

Or they wouldn't be doing it to the rest of us.

Don

And even if I'm cleared to use Medicaid clinics under the act, the clinics around here have long waiting lists. Really long, as in, kiss your @ss goodbye if you really need anything. The last lady I talked to told me to call her back in six months.

I will give her a call tomorrow after they have opened and see if things have improved.

Don

And you know, she was nice to me. She wasn't trying to scare me away or be mean or anything, just telling me the truth.

As far as I can tell, this is the health department's new website:

http://www.sccgov.org/sites/sccphd/en-us/Pages/default.aspx

I don't find anything that I can access. They have links for kids, for addicts, for mental health, for seniors. Nothing that I qualify for.

Can't afford to use? That means your medical bills aren't that high. If they are high enough for the insurance to cover it, you couldn't afford it. Insurance does not cost as much as the potential bills.

I've spent money on premiums and medical bills. I haven't been able to "use" the insurance, thank the FSM, but if I had to, it would pay bills far in excess of what I paid in premiums. That's the whole point.

This one is just so darn silly I have to congratulate the right wingers for confusing us on it. They have their insurance and they certainly don't complain they can't "use" it.

in order for the insurance industry to be profitable, more people have to be net losers than winners. Meaning most people pay in far more than they will ever receive in care. Insurance does cost more than the actual bills in many cases. Here's one example:

The law caps medical profit ratio at 20%. Still a lot, but better than no law.

The law forces insurers to take you, even if you have a preexisting condition. Better than no law.

The law provides for a competitive exchange in which you can compare apples to apples, by price. Better than no law.

The law makes age the only determinant of premium prices. Better than no law, especially for women.

If you get sick without insurance, you can buy in. Today you'll simply lose your house.

Of course we'd all rather have single payer and/or public option. We'll get those things sooner because we have this law than if we were starting from scratch.

But most will not, we will be buying from the company store with only what choices our employers select for us.

The law is designed root, trunk, and branch to prop up the insurance cartel and prevent systemic reform, not usher it in.

That sounds like a crazy situation that could be the subject of a lawsuit.

They don't have to have net losers to be profitable, because they invest the money they have and even re-insure. They don't have to make sure they get more in premiums than they pay out in costs just on premiums alone, they invest the premiums and make money on them while they have it.

In fact it would be fairer to say that of single payer, in that the government would have to collect enough in taxes to cover all medical bills. Unless the government was allowed to invest money collected somewhere to make money on the funds while they hold it. In which case, it would be an awful lot like an insurance company.

is coverage that more often then not denies access.

The addition of ~16 million more people to Medicaid will hardly increase access, but claiming that those people are covered is a darn swell talking point on the campaign trail.

Otherwise, I'll call it what it is: a massive gift to the insurance industry.

It roots out the worst of the fraud, but with virtually no price controls, it hasn't helped me any. We have no income-- zip, zero, nada. Hubby passed his 99 weeks of unemployment last month. Since we're both on the shady side of middle age, we have a few pre-existing conditions that make us uninsurable, except under the State high-risk pool. For that, we pay $1500/month, and it covered nothing until we hit the $2200 apiece deductible. Now, it's paying a percentage-- our meds still cost us about $100/month apiece, and a mere doctor's visit can cost up to $400.

It's a coin toss whether our savings will hold out until the remaining provisions of the ACA kick in, or we age into Medicare-- unless the Republicans get rid of that, too.

I still have the same shitty insurance post-ACA. But my son who is 24 is still covered by my shitty insurance, so that's different.

Bake

here, for the past five years. Plus, I have lost a filling in a molar (getting sensitive there) and sheared off half of a bicuspid.

I cannot afford to pay the 'mandatory' premium for the 'insurance' created by this piece-o-crap legislation. Instead, I have opted to go Vegan to mitigate the likelihood of hypertension, congestive heart failure, stroke, diabetes and/or obesity.

I try to look at this as a new adventure. As Maslow so sagely noted, we MUST have food, water, shelter and our creativity to thrive. Right now, I must depend on a childhood friend for shelter and water. I am using food stamps for the first time in my life. I refuse to give up my art.

I am 56 years old, and no one will interview me, much less hire me...

than not have a 100% purely liberal policy.

It's sad, really.

This is NOT how policy works.

Kick and recommended!!

It's not about "liberal policy" at all, it's about people having health care. What's really sad is people who don't get that.

otherwise, your accusation isn't necessary to make your point.

insults.

Like those liberals who say that it would be a good thing if the ACA was struck down in its totality that somehow that would pave the way for single payer to replace it.

Sure. You keep believing that. I'm sure Congress will get right to work on doing that.

the utter idiocy is breathtaking.

nt

blue dogs were ready to fillibuster a public option...

You should have seen them squeal while the legislation was being made. I had to look twice to be sure I wasn't at FreeRepublic. I was never really sure if they were just FreeRepublic/Repugs trolling and stirring shit or if they were some kind of liberal that was all fucked up.

because any progressive who has ideological disagreements with you must be a kind of liberal that is "all fucked up".

You are so correct. The ACA is a great piece of legislation. The RW Media has even convinced some Democrats it is a terrible bill. I am amazed at the Progressives and Democrats who fall in line with Republican rhetoric.

Since the ACA was passed I have asked many Republicans and Democrats why they don't like the bill. No one, not one person has given me a specific. Republicans will say they hate Government and Democrats will say it did not go far enough. Both answers are ridiculous. It is not Government run and we have more protections now. I sometimes wonder if I am in a sane society. It appears to me some want to go back to only the strong will survive society.

Please vote in my poll.....

http://usworldpolitics.com/#vote

It does nothing for the over 50 million people who are without health care. Its does nothing to the over 60 thousand people who die each year from lack of affordable health care.
If ACA is struck down then it will be up to the States to pass single payer health care like VT just did. The federal progressives are too weak to pass anything worth putting on paper.
If you live in one of the greedy conservative run states then your best overthrow the government or move to a progressive state if you want affordable health care.

If people had the money to all move to California, they would not NEED help.

has some good stuff in it. Of course it would have been simpler to just not put all the shit in it that everyone hates, but where's the fun in that?

Edited to add: Though I do find it hilarious that people are whining about how the left is just like Freepers because they won't support right wing legislation. Doesn't matter if it's bad for people or good for people, if it helps Him you're supposed to support it.

Just wait until they find out that another-let's-send-more-jobs-to-foreign-countries "free-trade" agreement is pending.

it, nor do agree that anyone should be forced a fucking insurance company whatever they want to charge or pay a fine. Thursday can't come soon enough.

Many progressives oppose the Health Insurance Company Enrichment Act, and for good reasons. The mandate was a bad, Republican idea in the 1990s, when it was first proposed, and it is a bad, Republican idea today.

-Laelth

Single payer is real reform, a solution to the health care crisis in America. I reject the ACA for many of the following reasons stated in this article by Chris Hedges.
snip;

The debate surrounding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act illustrates the impoverishment of our political life. Here is a law that had its origin in the right-wing Heritage Foundation, was first put into practice in 2006 in Massachusetts by then-Gov. Mitt Romney and was solidified into federal law after corporate lobbyists wrote legislation with more than 2,000 pages. It is a law that forces American citizens to buy a deeply defective product from private insurance companies. It is a law that is the equivalent of the bank bailout bill—some $447 billion in subsidies for insurance interests alone—for the pharmaceutical and insurance industries. It is a law that is unconstitutional. And it is a law by which President Barack Obama, and his corporate backers, extinguished the possibilities of both the public option and Medicare for all Americans

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_real_health_care_debate_20120409/

If it's upheld, it eventually will be modified greatly because of its exorbitant costs, and you can be sure it won't be to include a public option, but to take out the some of the parts that benefit people.

Public option is unsustainable. Single payer is unsustainable. All are third-party-payment systems which do nothing to control healthcare costs. If it is immoral for insurance companies to profit from sickness, why is it any less immoral for healthcare providers to profit?

Single provider is the only viable course. NATIONALIZE HEALTHCARE NOW!

Starting from scratch most likely means nothing will happen and we go back to the crappy old system we had before. Nobody should want that.

just like they were going to do with NAFTA and No Child Left Behind.

It would be nice if they'd pass something that actually guaranteed access to care rather than mandating we continue to buy the same crap "coverage" from the crooks who broke the system to begin with.

Let's all remember, Obama is the one who said we needed a public option to keep the insurance companies honest (pretty much admitting he knows they're crooked) but, in the end, he rolled over and sold us out to them with out any kind of a fight.

"Oh yeah, they'll fix it 'later'"

...far more realistic than: Kill the bill and they'll pass a new and better bill later.

Thats for certain.

I'd say the odds are about even.

Meanwhile, the insurance companies will rake in billions more in private and public dollars.

That's not that unusual. Getting public option without having House majority and 60 firm votes in the Senate is impossible.

And Medicare/Medicaid.

NCLB is not even that old.

They aren't doing their fucking job: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002190502

But the Democrats, typically, get fucking blamed...

As it stands now our only hope for reform is to get back the House and get at least two more Senators in the Senate (Senate not necessary if we have the courage to change the Senate Rules, but I don't see that happening).

dont eat rat poison seeing as its 90% food and 10% poison. Now can someone please explain to me why a bill crafted by democrats and voted exclusively by democrats contains any poison at all?

Trash it and try again. This time focus of healthcare/reducing cost and not insurance coverage/subsidizing premiums.

Btw, No one said the 10% was poison.

But just the precedent that would be set by the bill will be used to destroy whats left of the middle class the next time a republicans gains control of congress. I like to think of it as a professional team purposely losing in order to get a higher pick in the next draft. We have to lose this fight in order to get the opportunity for a UHC system.

Scrap ACA

It's been 20 years since Democrats last got enough spine to try and reform the system.

If the ACA is struck down, it will be 20 years before they try again.

Thank you.

What broad brush?

FAR LEFTIST, or PROGRESSIVE, that will be rather angry if the SCOTUS does strike the mandate down.

Some of them, actually more than a few, even post here.

And just like the Constitution this bill can be improved upon.

we WILL get fucked in due course

but a start needed to be made instead of business-as-unusual

That's what we really need

at a "hearing" either

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20090513_baucus_raucous_caucus/



"...Single-payer advocates have been protesting in Senate Finance Committee hearings, chaired by Democratic Montana Sen. Max Baucus. Last week, at a committee hearing with 15 industry speakers, not one represented the single-payer perspective. A group of single-payer advocates, including doctors and lawyers, filled the hearing room and, one by one, interrupted the proceedings.

Protester Adam Schneider yelled: “We need to have single-payer at the table. I have friends who have died, who don’t have health care, whose health care did not withstand their personal health emergencies. ... Single-payer now!”

Baucus gaveled for order, guffawing, “We need more police.” The single-payer movement has taken his words as a rallying cry. At a hearing Tuesday, five more were arrested. They call themselves the “Baucus 13.”
***

If Republicans had single payer advocates arrested at a hearing would there have been any protests?

Understandably this is "forgotten" because it was shameful and a disgrace.

If they really wanted to help the most people they would have done Medicare for all, or at least a public option

There is so much complexity in this law, you know it was not written for the people

If you have a pre-existing condition you have to wait 6 months without insurance before you can be covered, and there are no specifics exactly what those costs are

Romney's view is worse because he believes the only way you should be covered for a pre-existing conditions if you already have insurance

The reason the aca wants you to wait 6 months is because if you have something series you won't make

It is an immoral and outrageous stipulations

Keep in mind the aca is simply a republican plan with a new name