When Obamacare takes effect, it will be irreversible. That's what is driving the Republicans nuts.

[Nye Bevan]

"Medical underwriting" (when an insurance company asks you a long list of questions about your medical history so they can limit or deny coverage, or charge an exorbitant premium) will cease to exist on December 31 of this year. Because under Obamacare it will be prohibited. The insurance companys' medical underwriting technology, the software, the algorithms and the rules will become as obsolete as Visicalc. Every insurance company will have to sell any policy they offer to anyone who wants one, at the same price, regardless of their medical history.

And the thing is, once medical underwriting is gone, there is no way it is ever coming back. How could any politician of either party take the position that he or she wants insurance companies to be able to go back to scrutinizing the medical history of applicants so they can deny or limit coverage? The 20-second soundbite in opposition to this toxic position practically writes itself, and would probably decide the election.

It's like Social Security. Many Republican politicians dislike Social Security immensely. But they know better than to mess with it, and it is here to stay.

The other features of Obamacare are equally irreversible. Taking away premium subsidies for those on low incomes? Unthinkable. Throwing young people off their parents' policies before they turn 26? Also unthinkable. Allowing insurance companies to go back to imposing lifetime maximums on health insurance policies? Nuts. Abolishing zero-deductible zero-copay preventive care visits? Won't happen.

And the Republicans see all this. Their only hope was to stop Obamacare before it took effect. But despite 40 petulant votes in the House, that is not happening. They understand that once Obamacare takes effect, and people see what it does, like Social Security it is never going away.

[Dawson Leery]

1. k/r

[msongs]

2. what makes you you so sure the sellout of social security is not imminent? nt

[Pretzel_Warrior]

3. Because it is political suicide

[Nye Bevan]

4. George W Bush tried to tweak (not abolish, but tweak) Social Security

at the height of his powers. He got precisely nowhere. Social Security is known as the "third rail" of politics for a reason.

[leftstreet]

19. He couldn't push mandated private insurance either

It takes Democrats to do things like that

[JoePhilly]

5. its been imminent for over 4 years now hasnt it?

[mick063]

8. Your man put Social Security on the negotiating table.

Intent without success is still intent.

I don't give a shit if he was "successful" or not. He still tried to do it. The fact that Social Security cuts have not happened rings hollow.

A shallow answer considering the President's intent.

A sad day when we are forced to thank the obstructionists for not allowing it to happen.

[gopiscrap]

6. Alright

[Kennah]

7. Spot on! The GOOP is desperate on this one.

They've seen it play out all over the world. A country gets universal healthcare, and it does not go away.

[kestrel91316]

9. It's driving a certain frothing-at-the-pottymouth DUer nuts, too.

I won't name the name, but many of you probably know this one for her habit of deleting all her posts when she has shitstirred and flamebaited and screeched herself into jury problems.

[Nye Bevan]

11. I found that thread to be very ironic,

because the poster unwittingly made a strong case for Obamacare. Being charitable, losing one's health insurance and being refused a new policy for health reasons is indeed stressful and could explain her abrasiveness. But this is exactly what the ACA will prevent.

[kestrel91316]

21. I just find it bizarre that she blames ACA for her problem, when it's clearly

the CURRENT laws and her insurance company that are to blame.

And I just can't stomach the tantrum over 4 months without insurance when I've gone over 6 years without it and millions have gone decades.

[Half-Century Man]

10. It is not just the ACA itself

A lot of them rightly fear that the medical insurance money train is getting derailed. I think they fear and most of us hope, that the ACA is just a step on the path to universal health care.

[Nye Bevan]

12. It's the logical next step.

When insurance companies are not doing medical underwriting and are providing standardized policies at regulated rates, it becomes obvious to all that they are simply an extra level of bureaucracy which adds no value. As Paul Krugman has pointed out, the ACA is essentially an imperfect, jury-rigged approximation of a true single-payer system, and once it is in effect the pressure to make it even better by moving to the real thing will be considerable.

[Half-Century Man]

14. fecal absence

I always thought one of the stupidest arguments of the anti-ACA crowd was the one about not wanting health care managed by government bureaucrats. As though the expensive corporate bureaucrats were better than fixed income governmental bureaucrats?

[Nye Bevan]

16. What the Republicans really should have done is to declare victory.

It's a MARKET! It has PRIVATE COMPANIES! It's an EXCHANGE! Nothing like those nasty socialist systems in Canada and the UK! It's that genius Mitt Romney's Massachusetts system, on steroids!

[airplaneman]

13. I can only hope so. n/t.

[snot]

15. Maybe that's part of the problem re- the Dems' spinelessness on everything else –

they're getting mega-pressure over this, but are determined to resist it; but standing up to massive assaults ain't easy.

I don't normally have much sympathy for spinelessness, but I gotta say, the magnitude of Repub balls/cluelessness/suspected turpitude has been amazing even to me. Maybe they've only got the energy to stand up against the dark side on so many issues.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

17. Furthermore, they will look like Chicken Littles AGAIN when the sky doesn't fall.

[a2liberal]

18. Ok, I'll admit that this is news to me

I knew that they couldn't deny anyone insurance, but I didn't realize that they couldn't vary rates by health condition. I feel like this needs to be touted much more. Whenever I've ranted against ACA based on my apparently incorrect understanding, nobody has corrected me even here on DU.

I think I am much less anti-ACA now than I was before I read your post and researched this further, so thanks.

Edit: a question for you: Is there also something in the law that prevents insurers from just not offering coverage for the expensive diseases/treatments anymore? Because I'd be afraid that what would happen is you would basically end up with insurers selling different policies (or different insurers doing it if necessary by law), some that don't cover say cancer treatment or an expensive MS drug, and are thus cheaper and the majority of people flock to, leaving only those who need those treatments on the plan that covers them and thus is "community rated" to be very expensive because the cost is only spread among those who need it. Is there something that prevents that?

[Nye Bevan]

20. All policies are required to cover "essential health benefits".

The Affordable Care Act ensures health plans offered in the individual and small group markets, both inside and outside of the Health Insurance Marketplace, offer a comprehensive package of items and services, known as essential health benefits. Essential health benefits must include items and services within at least the following 10 categories: ambulatory patient services; emergency services; hospitalization; maternity and newborn care; mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment; prescription drugs; rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices; laboratory services; preventive and wellness services and chronic disease management; and pediatric services, including oral and vision care.

https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/essential-health-benefits/

So the answer to your question is "yes". All policies must cover cancer, MS, heart disease and so on, as well as maternity care and prescription drugs, and mental illness must be covered the same as physical illnesses. The gist of it is that everyone is required to have insurance, but the insurance must cover everything.

[Cha]

22. It's coming...

From the explicit mention in the Democratic platform of the Affordable Care Act to the embrace of the term “Obamacare,” Democrats started off their 2012 Convention by praising health reform not burying it. In contrast to the Republicans, who mentioned it only in terms of opposition to the President, Democrats proudly and loudly touted the benefits of Obamacare in the first night of their convention.

If there was any doubt about whether or not Democrats would embrace the signature achievement of Obama’s first term, that doubt was laid to rest in a series of strong speeches of support. A fiery Nancy Keenan of NARAL described the threats to women’s health from a Romney Administration. Stacey Lihn, a woman whose baby daughter had been born with a severe heart defect, brought the Convention to tears with her story of how her baby’s surgeries had exhausted half of her lifetime benefit in her first year of life, but thanks to Obamacare, and the ban on lifetime limits, they could now afford the third surgery the baby needs to survive. Hard to make up stories like that.

More..
h/t sheshe http://www.democraticunderground.com/110215544#post6

Thanks for the post, Nye~

[Warren DeMontague]

23. Yes, the inability of companies to deny coverage based on preexisting conditions is HUGE.

It's a great improvement and about time.

[Scurrilous]

24. K & R