Wed Jun 27, 2012, 07:22 PM
stevedeshazer (21,653 posts)
I hope the Supreme Court kills the Affordable Health Care Act. ALL of it.
A good chunk of voters will be really pissed. The Republicans have NO alternative.
Denial of benefits due to pre-existing conditions. Kids 26 and under kicked off their parents' health care insurance. Small businesses don't get their tax credits for insuring their employees. Single payer is back on the table, folks. Democrats, IF they seize on this, can make some serious political hay out of this. Am I wrong? Aren't we better off in the long run here? We might just get single payer out of this?!
|
118 replies, 7888 views
| Author | Time | Post | |
| stevedeshazer | Jun 2012 | OP | |
| annabanana | Jun 2012 | #1 | |
| hlthe2b | Jun 2012 | #3 | |
| stevedeshazer | Jun 2012 | #14 | |
| Posteritatis | Jun 2012 | #44 | |
| woo me with science | Jun 2012 | #53 | |
| freshwest | Jun 2012 | #61 | |
| Hoyt | Jun 2012 | #77 | |
| Pab Sungenis | Jun 2012 | #52 | |
| stevedeshazer | Jun 2012 | #62 | |
| dionysus | Jun 2012 | #71 | |
| Whisp | Jun 2012 | #108 | |
| kenny blankenship | Jun 2012 | #79 | |
| taught_me_patience | Jun 2012 | #2 | |
| stevedeshazer | Jun 2012 | #7 | |
| taught_me_patience | Jun 2012 | #13 | |
| mazzarro | Jun 2012 | #8 | |
| Sherman A1 | Jun 2012 | #105 | |
| sadbear | Jun 2012 | #4 | |
| leftstreet | Jun 2012 | #23 | |
| sadbear | Jun 2012 | #24 | |
| nobodyspecial | Jun 2012 | #38 | |
| demtenjeep | Jun 2012 | #5 | |
| stevedeshazer | Jun 2012 | #9 | |
| JoePhilly | Jun 2012 | #6 | |
| stevedeshazer | Jun 2012 | #12 | |
| JoePhilly | Jun 2012 | #18 | |
| stevedeshazer | Jun 2012 | #22 | |
| JoePhilly | Jun 2012 | #117 | |
| DevonRex | Jun 2012 | #19 | |
| dionysus | Jun 2012 | #70 | |
| DevonRex | Jun 2012 | #73 | |
| Posteritatis | Jun 2012 | #45 | |
| gateley | Jun 2012 | #21 | |
| JoePhilly | Jun 2012 | #25 | |
| DevonRex | Jun 2012 | #26 | |
| gateley | Jun 2012 | #116 | |
| MineralMan | Jun 2012 | #37 | |
| stevedeshazer | Jun 2012 | #40 | |
| upaloopa | Jun 2012 | #10 | |
| kestrel91316 | Jun 2012 | #56 | |
| stevedeshazer | Jun 2012 | #60 | |
| AndyTiedye | Jun 2012 | #85 | |
| chowder66 | Jun 2012 | #11 | |
| stevedeshazer | Jun 2012 | #41 | |
| chowder66 | Jun 2012 | #42 | |
| AndyTiedye | Jun 2012 | #82 | |
| kestrel91316 | Jun 2012 | #57 | |
| One of the 99 | Jun 2012 | #15 | |
| Control-Z | Jun 2012 | #31 | |
| bornskeptic | Jun 2012 | #50 | |
| One of the 99 | Jun 2012 | #109 | |
| kestrel91316 | Jun 2012 | #59 | |
| Wait Wut | Jun 2012 | #106 | |
| One of the 99 | Jun 2012 | #112 | |
| TheKentuckian | Jun 2012 | #75 | |
| One of the 99 | Jun 2012 | #111 | |
| DCBob | Jun 2012 | #16 | |
| MrSlayer | Jun 2012 | #17 | |
| unblock | Jun 2012 | #20 | |
| Nye Bevan | Jun 2012 | #27 | |
| matmar | Jun 2012 | #28 | |
| ellie | Jun 2012 | #29 | |
| Control-Z | Jun 2012 | #30 | |
| spanone | Jun 2012 | #32 | |
| Bolo Boffin | Jun 2012 | #33 | |
| Puzzledtraveller | Jun 2012 | #34 | |
| riderinthestorm | Jun 2012 | #35 | |
| Motown_Johnny | Jun 2012 | #36 | |
| GarroHorus | Jun 2012 | #39 | |
| NNN0LHI | Jun 2012 | #43 | |
| stevedeshazer | Jun 2012 | #64 | |
| NNN0LHI | Jun 2012 | #99 | |
| salin | Jun 2012 | #46 | |
| NYC Liberal | Jun 2012 | #47 | |
| Chorophyll | Jun 2012 | #48 | |
| Proud Liberal Dem | Jun 2012 | #49 | |
| stevedeshazer | Jun 2012 | #65 | |
| Proud Liberal Dem | Jun 2012 | #68 | |
| liberal N proud | Jun 2012 | #51 | |
| immoderate | Jun 2012 | #54 | |
| kestrel91316 | Jun 2012 | #55 | |
| MOMFUDSKI | Jun 2012 | #58 | |
| liberalmuse | Jun 2012 | #63 | |
| TheKentuckian | Jun 2012 | #95 | |
| aquart | Jun 2012 | #66 | |
| stevedeshazer | Jun 2012 | #67 | |
| Trajan | Jun 2012 | #84 | |
| TreasonousBastard | Jun 2012 | #92 | |
| woo me with science | Jun 2012 | #88 | |
| TreasonousBastard | Jun 2012 | #93 | |
| woo me with science | Jun 2012 | #94 | |
| dionysus | Jun 2012 | #69 | |
| Chan790 | Jun 2012 | #72 | |
| stevedeshazer | Jun 2012 | #87 | |
| AndyTiedye | Jun 2012 | #90 | |
| flamingdem | Jun 2012 | #74 | |
| bluestateguy | Jun 2012 | #76 | |
| Trajan | Jun 2012 | #78 | |
| WilliamPitt | Jun 2012 | #80 | |
| stevedeshazer | Jun 2012 | #89 | |
| Enrique | Jun 2012 | #81 | |
| rufus dog | Jun 2012 | #83 | |
| Mz Pip | Jun 2012 | #86 | |
| Puregonzo1188 | Jun 2012 | #91 | |
| marlakay | Jun 2012 | #96 | |
| Rowdyboy | Jun 2012 | #97 | |
| Douglas Carpenter | Jun 2012 | #98 | |
| RBInMaine | Jun 2012 | #100 | |
| Blue_Tires | Jun 2012 | #101 | |
| sinkingfeeling | Jun 2012 | #102 | |
| kdmorris | Jun 2012 | #103 | |
| RKP5637 | Jun 2012 | #104 | |
| Hubert Flottz | Jun 2012 | #107 | |
| Romulox | Jun 2012 | #110 | |
| WI_DEM | Jun 2012 | #113 | |
| SidDithers | Jun 2012 | #114 | |
| bluestateguy | Jun 2012 | #115 | |
| Nye Bevan | Jun 2012 | #118 |
Response to stevedeshazer (Original post)
Wed Jun 27, 2012, 07:23 PM
annabanana (45,537 posts)
1. There's a lot of death and pain to be had between
|
one and the other.
I cannot wish for that. |
Response to annabanana (Reply #1)
Wed Jun 27, 2012, 07:24 PM
hlthe2b (47,248 posts)
3. Exactly.... Many will die if this happens.
Response to hlthe2b (Reply #3)
Wed Jun 27, 2012, 07:34 PM
stevedeshazer (21,653 posts)
14. Many more will die if we DON'T. n/t
Response to stevedeshazer (Reply #14)
Wed Jun 27, 2012, 09:51 PM
Posteritatis (17,252 posts)
44. You do know "thrown out by SCOTUS" usually means "doesn't get touched for decades," right?
|
If the whole thing's ruled unconstitutional two things will happen:
* The health system will immediately go back to the original status quo, and * It will stay there for most of a generation (again), because it will take a new court in addition to a whole new set of legislation to even attempt again. |
Response to stevedeshazer (Reply #14)
Wed Jun 27, 2012, 10:22 PM
woo me with science (19,548 posts)
53. Exactly. nt
Response to stevedeshazer (Reply #14)
Wed Jun 27, 2012, 10:41 PM
freshwest (31,276 posts)
61. No, the billions health insurance are mandated to refund was the poison pill for private insurance.
|
There is a thread here on when the checks are ordered to be sent, even though it said that some of the insurers were holding back notifying people. They were still required to pay it.
The ACA says that not only did they have to stop denying coverage - now, not in the future - but they owe all they charged above what differed from administrative cost that Medicare gets as opposed to direct patient care. They got smacked down about trying to put the cost of advertising in the direct care portion and squealed. The for-profit insurance industry is and will be losing profit from the ACA. They have tried to change the law but Obama has refused. I follow closely because of the people I know covered with pre-existing and the extensions on who gets covered. The videos and text I saw and read, said the bill would starve the insurance industry. Some were complaining and shaking off coverage for that reason, saying they wanted their clients to be covered by the government. There are even provisions in the ACA for the expected and intended jobs lost in the private insurance industry spelled out clearly because it will eventually drive everyone into single payer, like Medicare for all. If patients want to negotiate more coverage with private insurers, they can do as they now do with supplementary insurance. The for-profit insurers did not oppose this bill because they were going to make a killing off of it, but because it was going to reduce their profits, strangling them. IMO, the ACA is designed to become single payer due to investors refusing to support the lower profits of the private companies. |
Response to freshwest (Reply #61)
Wed Jun 27, 2012, 11:46 PM
Hoyt (12,089 posts)
77. Great Analysis.
Response to hlthe2b (Reply #3)
Wed Jun 27, 2012, 10:20 PM
Pab Sungenis (8,922 posts)
52. Many are already going to die
|
for a program that doesn't kick in for most people until 2014.
Not that I want to see the thing thrown out, but if it is we have a chance to pass single payer in 2013. Especially if real health reform and the Supreme Court become election issues. |
Response to Pab Sungenis (Reply #52)
Wed Jun 27, 2012, 10:44 PM
stevedeshazer (21,653 posts)
62. Exactly.
|
Thanks, Pab. This point of view is bound to be unpopular, but I'm hoping for something greater.
Peace, out. |
Response to Pab Sungenis (Reply #52)
Wed Jun 27, 2012, 11:12 PM
dionysus (22,257 posts)
71. please explain how the SC throwing this out will make the repukes vote for single payer.
|
i'm all ears Pab.
|
Response to dionysus (Reply #71)
Thu Jun 28, 2012, 09:36 AM
Whisp (17,157 posts)
108. I want to hear too.
|
because something makes no sense at all.
what, the GOP is going to suddenly play nice with SP? geeeeze!!!! |
Response to Pab Sungenis (Reply #52)
Wed Jun 27, 2012, 11:53 PM
kenny blankenship (15,078 posts)
79. And quite a few already have
|
and more would go on dying, because the Obamacare is an INSURANCE "reform" not a healthcare reform. Having insurance doesn't mean you get healthcare. Having a "subsidy" for your premiums doesn't mean you could afford to use your insurance. Millions have been bankrupted from illnesses who had insurance, and that would not change one bit under Obamacare. We would still be the asshole of the developed world in that regard. People would still die in the USA because insurance goons refuse to authorize diagnostic tests on a timely basis, allowing their diseases to progress incorrectly diagnosed. People with preexisting conditions would still be unable to afford their coverage. There were no cost controls - the so-called Medical Loss Ratio is an incentive to collude with providers to drive prices up relentlessly, and didn't shave the insurers' profit margins even back to what they were in the Clinton era. The whole thing was a sham to cement a dysfunctional, extortionate "system" into place in perpetuity and to PREVENT modernization and reform from occurring.
People should take their anger and demand something that would actually work. |
Response to stevedeshazer (Original post)
Wed Jun 27, 2012, 07:24 PM
taught_me_patience (3,857 posts)
2. I think you're wrong
|
If the entire act is thrown out... congress will not touch health care for another 20 years.
|
Response to taught_me_patience (Reply #2)
Wed Jun 27, 2012, 07:28 PM
stevedeshazer (21,653 posts)
7. Thanks, that's what I'm asking.
|
Yeah, some will suffer and some will die. But if we do NOTHING, the suffering will become even worse. And no, it can't go another 20 years. The system is broken. Something has to happen.
|
Response to stevedeshazer (Reply #7)
Wed Jun 27, 2012, 07:33 PM
taught_me_patience (3,857 posts)
13. I think you underestimate how cruel republicans are
|
Many are almost gleeful at the prospect of the mandate being struck down and those with preexisting conditions being denied insurance.
|
Response to taught_me_patience (Reply #2)
Wed Jun 27, 2012, 07:28 PM
mazzarro (2,791 posts)
8. And present day Democrats are unrealiably too neo-liberal
|
IOW too centrist to want to put up the fight necessary to push an alternative that rank-and-file Democrats especially liberals will like.
|
Response to taught_me_patience (Reply #2)
Thu Jun 28, 2012, 09:32 AM
Sherman A1 (11,530 posts)
105. Agreed
|
I don't see this coming up again for a very long time if ever. Half a loaf might be better than none at this point.
|
Response to stevedeshazer (Original post)
Wed Jun 27, 2012, 07:25 PM
sadbear (4,218 posts)
4. I'm not sure if I agree
|
To go from nothing to single-payer is a BIG leap, but to go from Obamacare to single-payer will probably be easier to digest. But that's just my take on contemporary American politics.
|
Response to sadbear (Reply #4)
Wed Jun 27, 2012, 07:43 PM
leftstreet (22,093 posts)
23. We went from nothing to Medicare. What's the difference?
|
Went from nothing to Social Security...
|
Response to leftstreet (Reply #23)
Wed Jun 27, 2012, 07:45 PM
sadbear (4,218 posts)
24. About 50 years.
|
A lot has happened since then.
|
Response to leftstreet (Reply #23)
Wed Jun 27, 2012, 08:26 PM
nobodyspecial (2,006 posts)
38. Starting something new
|
is actually easier than trying to overhaul an entrenched system. Think of all of the steps that need to be taken to make the transition a smooth one and guarantee continuity of care. And, even if they did pass single payer, it would be phased in. Adding millions to the system overnight would overwhelm it.
|
Response to stevedeshazer (Original post)
Wed Jun 27, 2012, 07:26 PM
demtenjeep (21,763 posts)
5. so you are saying I should die?
|
really?
thanks |
Response to demtenjeep (Reply #5)
Wed Jun 27, 2012, 07:28 PM
stevedeshazer (21,653 posts)
9. Of course not. n/t
Response to stevedeshazer (Original post)
Wed Jun 27, 2012, 07:27 PM
JoePhilly (15,969 posts)
6. When my Niece is dying of her pre-existing condition, I'm sure she will
|
take comfort in your argument.
|
Response to JoePhilly (Reply #6)
Wed Jun 27, 2012, 07:32 PM
stevedeshazer (21,653 posts)
12. I want a health care system that covers your niece and everyone else regardless of pre-ex conditions
|
That is the goal. How dare you accuse me of wishing death on your niece. Give me a freaking break.
|
Response to stevedeshazer (Reply #12)
Wed Jun 27, 2012, 07:36 PM
JoePhilly (15,969 posts)
18. She may not live long enough for your solution.
|
She is 16, had a very severe cancer at 2. For the last 14 years, her only coverage has been for routine illness, or sports injury.
Everything else was blocked by "pre-existing condition" ... she has regular kidney stones ... has to go to teh hospital regularly. Its rather expensive. After the ACA passed, she was covered for such things ... if its over turned, she's screwed, again. So as you wish for the ACA to be struck down, know that a 16 year old girl will absolutely suffer as a result. Whether that is you intent or not. |
Response to JoePhilly (Reply #18)
Wed Jun 27, 2012, 07:41 PM
stevedeshazer (21,653 posts)
22. I'm really sorry to learn that.
|
Of course it is not my intent.
Yes, I'm aware that some will suffer short-term. I lost my brother to brain cancer four months ago. Our health care system could not save his life, regardless of the state of our rotten-to-the-core health care system. Best wishes to your niece. |
Response to stevedeshazer (Reply #22)
Thu Jun 28, 2012, 05:00 PM
JoePhilly (15,969 posts)
117. My Neice's cancer is was a cancer of the neurons.
|
I can't recall the name of it ... but its normally a brain cancer.
In her case, it was located not in the brain, but in neurons near her pancreas. Apparently, that was a very lucky break, because its location caused her to have symptoms which helped them find it quickly. From what I understand, this cancer is usually fast moving, and if it starts in the brain, there are very few symptoms ... so when they find it, its already too late. She survived a long series of Chemo treatments. But now at 16, she has many side effects to deal with ... headaches, kidney stones, and she may not be able to have children. For the last 10 years or so, she could only get coverage for basic kid illnesses (cold, flu) and for sports injuries. The insurer does not want to pay for treatment and meds for the kidney stones ... but now they have to. She's going to need lots of medical treatment going forward, and she no longer has to worry that if the cancer returns, she'll have no coverage. Thank you very much for your wishes for her. My sister is ecstatic, she's spent years terrified that my niece's cancer would return, and that she'd get no coverage. |
Response to stevedeshazer (Reply #12)
Wed Jun 27, 2012, 07:37 PM
DevonRex (19,919 posts)
19. And what will you say when she dies
|
in the time between the two? Oops?
Understanding, of course, that neither is actually in your control. In times like these it's perhaps better to keep your own counsel, though. |
Response to DevonRex (Reply #19)
Wed Jun 27, 2012, 11:10 PM
dionysus (22,257 posts)
70. the people who make these arguments most likely never stand to suffer the consequences of such bold
|
proclamations.
|
Response to dionysus (Reply #70)
Wed Jun 27, 2012, 11:18 PM
DevonRex (19,919 posts)
73. Exactly. Nor do they have family members
|
who will suffer the consequences apparently. Or perhaps they're willing to sacrifice them for the greater good. Mustve been reading The Lottery recently or something and got the point all screwy.
|
Response to stevedeshazer (Reply #12)
Wed Jun 27, 2012, 09:52 PM
Posteritatis (17,252 posts)
45. Funny thing about calling for something to happen; you get to accept the consequences of it. (nt)
Response to JoePhilly (Reply #6)
Wed Jun 27, 2012, 07:41 PM
gateley (61,881 posts)
21. Wow. You know that wasn't the intent. Can't you just express
|
your disagreement in a more civil manner? We're the good guys, remember?
|
Response to gateley (Reply #21)
Wed Jun 27, 2012, 07:46 PM
JoePhilly (15,969 posts)
25. If it is struck down, my neice will lose her insurance.
|
She had cancer at 2. The death rate for that cancer is 90%.
She survived it. But no insurance company would cover her until the ACA. She has many health issues related to that cancer ... kidney stones, headaches, she may never be able to have children. When she has had a kidney stone, its not covered by insurance. Well, before the ACA passes, since then, those are covered. The meds she needs are covered. If the ACA goes away, she is screwed, again. We are talking about real people. And given the fact that my niece's life is in the balance, I think I was quite civil. |
Response to JoePhilly (Reply #25)
Wed Jun 27, 2012, 07:48 PM
DevonRex (19,919 posts)
26. You were extremely civil.
|
|
Response to JoePhilly (Reply #25)
Thu Jun 28, 2012, 12:55 PM
gateley (61,881 posts)
116. I understand, but it could have been presented in a more civil tone.
|
"give some thought to those who will be affected if it is struck down...", that's all.
Wow, I'm really sorry about your niece. Illness in loved ones is always painful, but when it affects helpless little kids it just tears your heart out. |
Response to gateley (Reply #21)
Wed Jun 27, 2012, 08:23 PM
MineralMan (53,791 posts)
37. He was far more civil than I would have been.
|
What the OP is proposing will mean a complete end to health care for all those for whom ACA has made health care possible
Throwing the baby out with the bathwater is a solution for nothing. |
Response to MineralMan (Reply #37)
Wed Jun 27, 2012, 09:34 PM
stevedeshazer (21,653 posts)
40. BS. Think bigger.
|
You think small.
|
Response to stevedeshazer (Original post)
Wed Jun 27, 2012, 07:30 PM
upaloopa (2,064 posts)
10. Single payer will not be on the table. I don't know what your smoking.
|
Unless we have over 60 votes in the Senate and a huge majority in the House and Obama is willing to sign it into law it will never happen.
What you are saying is that you want to start hitting yourself over the head because it feels good when you stop! |
Response to upaloopa (Reply #10)
Wed Jun 27, 2012, 10:32 PM
kestrel91316 (45,363 posts)
56. I am sick to death of you Debbie Downers proclaiming that Single Payer
|
will NEVER happen. When less than 50% of Americans have any medical insurance whatsoever that day will come. We will steamroll all over you people.
And if ACA is overturned, that day isn't far away. |
Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #56)
Wed Jun 27, 2012, 10:38 PM
stevedeshazer (21,653 posts)
60. Thank you.
|
This type of negative thinking just gets in the way.
You're right. |
Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #56)
Thu Jun 28, 2012, 12:05 AM
AndyTiedye (22,973 posts)
85. People Do Have Insurance, But w/o ACA, the Insurance Doesn't Pay for "Preexisting Conditions"
|
When less than 50% of Americans have any medical insurance whatsoever that day will come.
We're still talking about decades of misery and death here. |
Response to stevedeshazer (Original post)
Wed Jun 27, 2012, 07:31 PM
chowder66 (1,209 posts)
11. Where do the votes for single payer come from??
Response to chowder66 (Reply #11)
Wed Jun 27, 2012, 09:35 PM
stevedeshazer (21,653 posts)
41. You.
|
Look in the mirror.
|
Response to stevedeshazer (Reply #41)
Wed Jun 27, 2012, 09:45 PM
chowder66 (1,209 posts)
42. Believe me..it has my vote
|
Last edited Wed Jun 27, 2012, 09:47 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1) and I live in California. So are you talking about a state by state solution only... because I was asking about votes on the hill.
|
Response to stevedeshazer (Reply #41)
Wed Jun 27, 2012, 11:55 PM
AndyTiedye (22,973 posts)
82. I Am Not in Congress. Neither Are You
Response to chowder66 (Reply #11)
Wed Jun 27, 2012, 10:33 PM
kestrel91316 (45,363 posts)
57. From very frightened Congresscritters once less than half the populace has any medical insurance
|
whatsoever.
|
Response to stevedeshazer (Original post)
Wed Jun 27, 2012, 07:34 PM
One of the 99 (900 posts)
15. Yes you are wrong
|
If the Supreme Court kills the Act, it will be the end of Healthcare Reform in our lifetime. No elected official will go anywhere near Healthcare for 50 or 60 years.
|
Response to One of the 99 (Reply #15)
Wed Jun 27, 2012, 08:03 PM
Control-Z (8,255 posts)
31. +1
|
Welcome to DU, One of the 99.
|
Response to One of the 99 (Reply #15)
Wed Jun 27, 2012, 10:17 PM
bornskeptic (1,170 posts)
50. Maybe not 50 or 60 years. It's been happening about every 20 years.
|
Truman, Nixon, Clinton, Obama. Of course, if it comes up again in 20 years, it will probably go down again. I was here for the first four tries, but I don't think I'll make it to the fifth one if the court strikes it down this time.
|
Response to bornskeptic (Reply #50)
Thu Jun 28, 2012, 09:56 AM
One of the 99 (900 posts)
109. But the ones in the past were political defeats
|
A supreme court decision would be a game changer and no president would dare try again in our lifetimes.
|
Response to One of the 99 (Reply #15)
Wed Jun 27, 2012, 10:35 PM
kestrel91316 (45,363 posts)
59. Another Debbie Downer here to piss in our Wheaties and proclaim
|
Last edited Wed Jun 27, 2012, 10:35 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1) healthcare reform and Single Payer dead.
This gig must pay pretty well - there are lots of you out in force today. |
Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #59)
Thu Jun 28, 2012, 09:34 AM
Wait Wut (6,148 posts)
106. So, attacking the "Debbie Downers"...
|
...with an accusation of paid shill? Guess what, if I got paid for being realistic, I wouldn't need to worry about keeping the ACA because I'd be able to get insurance. I've been around long enough to know that things are done in steps. Your blind faith in getting enough votes in the House and Senate to provide single payer is cute as hell. Literally. I fought this fight over decades until I realized that I really don't think like the majority of this country. I sure as hell don't think like the majority of politicians. Being a Progressive is fine and dandy, but thinking you can change the way things have been done for decades overnite is delusional. I learned the hard way. Now, I fight for taking those small steps because I know that's how things really get done. You can call me a Debbie Downer all you want. Childish names won't change logic and reality.
You and the others can go ahead and hope it gets struck down. I'm hoping I can go to a doctor before I have another stroke, the cancer comes back, before I go completely blind, before I'm 50. |
Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #59)
Thu Jun 28, 2012, 10:00 AM
One of the 99 (900 posts)
112. Never said Healthcare reform is dead
|
So please don't put words in my mouth. I hope that the court upholds most or all of the law. But if it is struck down now, that is not the road to single payer. That's just unrealistic.
|
Response to One of the 99 (Reply #15)
Wed Jun 27, 2012, 11:36 PM
TheKentuckian (17,383 posts)
75. Health care costs would be at or near 100% of GDP and/or only a small minority
|
would have absurdly expensive coverage.
Your assertion is pretty close to impossible. To last 60 years without captured customers that are subsidized by the government would require the cartel would have to overhaul its self far, far beyond anything the Wealthcare and Profit Protection Act ever dreamed of in its most bright-eyed and earliest stages. |
Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #75)
Thu Jun 28, 2012, 09:59 AM
One of the 99 (900 posts)
111. The assertion that the supreme court declaring healthcare reform
|
unconstitutional would somehow lead to single payer IS impossible.
|
Response to stevedeshazer (Original post)
Wed Jun 27, 2012, 07:35 PM
DCBob (14,751 posts)
16. That will "kill" alot of innocent individuals in the process.
|
What is wrong with you??
|
Response to stevedeshazer (Original post)
Wed Jun 27, 2012, 07:36 PM
MrSlayer (21,312 posts)
17. We could have had, SHOULD have had single payer this time.
|
A public option at the very least. If they knock this down you can forget anything being done for health care for another twenty years, if ever.
How naive it is to think that any of those bought off whores in Congress want single payer. They don't and they won't, ever. Because their owners say no. They'll never give up the cash cow. Want you are wishing is that millions of people get hurt. There will be no do overs on this issue. |
Response to stevedeshazer (Original post)
Wed Jun 27, 2012, 07:37 PM
unblock (23,740 posts)
20. the CASE for single payer becomes stronger, but the current lineup in congress makes it impossible
|
if aca is completely struck down, the reality is that insurers will keep a few of the popular features, like keeping kids on until age 26, and quietly drop others, like lifetime maximums.
there will be no fix to the law until democrats get solid control of both houses and the white house, which is to say, not any time soon. politically, i'm definitely in the half-a-loaf is better than none camp. constitutionally, i think it's a no-brainer perfectly fine constitutionally. bad law, perhaps, but perfectly constitutional. |
Response to stevedeshazer (Original post)
Wed Jun 27, 2012, 07:55 PM
Nye Bevan (10,769 posts)
27. When Hillary's plan went down in 1993 it only took 17 years for another try.
|
So the sick can take comfort that they should only gave to wait until
2029. |
Response to stevedeshazer (Original post)
Wed Jun 27, 2012, 07:56 PM
matmar (593 posts)
28. I believe the Dems will put up single payer.....
|
...when hell freezes over.
There isn't anyone who holds any real power that will make single payer a frontburner issue. They don't have the balls. Especially in the Citizens United Era. |
Response to stevedeshazer (Original post)
Wed Jun 27, 2012, 08:00 PM
ellie (5,167 posts)
29. I don't.
|
My sister had cancer and a brain tumor and lost her health insurance because of her pre-existing conditions. If it is overturned, there is no guarantee that her insurance company would still cover her. So your hopes and wishes may very well be a death sentence for her.
|
Response to stevedeshazer (Original post)
Wed Jun 27, 2012, 08:01 PM
Control-Z (8,255 posts)
30. I think you're wrong.
|
On what planet would the republican tea baggers allow that?
|
Response to stevedeshazer (Original post)
Wed Jun 27, 2012, 08:05 PM
spanone (72,050 posts)
32. republicans have the alternative they have now. ignore their constituents
|
and work for the corporatists. they will never introduce any form of healthcare.
|
Response to stevedeshazer (Original post)
Wed Jun 27, 2012, 08:05 PM
Bolo Boffin (22,512 posts)
33. I understand where you are coming from
|
But the chaos this will throw an already nutty market into? I just don't want to see that happen. We can get to single payer with the ACA in place.
|
Response to stevedeshazer (Original post)
Wed Jun 27, 2012, 08:08 PM
Puzzledtraveller (1,814 posts)
34. Those things you mentioned will stay in place regardless
|
they will just raise everyones premiums, again, to pay for it. However, since this legislation was just a big fat gift to the insurance industry they get their payday anyway.
|
Response to stevedeshazer (Original post)
Wed Jun 27, 2012, 08:10 PM
riderinthestorm (13,153 posts)
35. I believe the fastest way to single payer will be for employers to stop offering health insurance
|
as an employment benefit.
That will happen if the mandate is upheld in my opinion. Why? Because employers won't have any incentive to keep employees covered - it will be mandated by law that insurance companies provide coverage to everyone so the employer will simply get out of the game. The penalty is FAR smaller than paying for an employee's health insurance plan. Besides, the employer doesn't have to hire an administrator(s?), doesn't have to hassle with employee programs (locating them, shopping, pricing etc.) Small business credits aren't high enough to incentivize them to provide it (besides those with less than 50 employees won't be required to provide it at all). A person's health care should never have been tied to employment in the first place. The individual mandate will usher many, many people off their employer plans as they fold them up. The demand for single payer will explode imho. But for that to happen, the mandate must be upheld. |
Response to stevedeshazer (Original post)
Wed Jun 27, 2012, 08:21 PM
Motown_Johnny (15,457 posts)
36. Republicans won't ever allow single payer. They do have an alternative
|
and they will filibuster any attempt at a single payer system while screaming "SOCIALISM!" I would like to see the mandate go so we have a shot at a public option but we need the majority of the law to stand. |
Response to stevedeshazer (Original post)
Wed Jun 27, 2012, 08:30 PM
GarroHorus (1,055 posts)
39. Yeah, thousands, tens of thousands, potentially hundreds of thousands and possibly millions...
|
of deaths is all worth it in the end.
|
Response to stevedeshazer (Original post)
Wed Jun 27, 2012, 09:47 PM
NNN0LHI (67,185 posts)
43. Do you currently have health insurance coverage?
Response to NNN0LHI (Reply #43)
Wed Jun 27, 2012, 10:47 PM
stevedeshazer (21,653 posts)
64. Yes.
|
At least for now.
|
Response to stevedeshazer (Reply #64)
Thu Jun 28, 2012, 09:06 AM
NNN0LHI (67,185 posts)
99. I admire your honesty
|
Though I also do think it would have been appropriate to mention this in your OP as it was pertinent to the position you are taking.
Don |
Response to stevedeshazer (Original post)
Wed Jun 27, 2012, 09:52 PM
salin (45,821 posts)
46. Yea another 20 years of escalating costs and decreasing services (except for the wealthy)
|
who can buy concierge plans from their doctors.
The propaganda machine has become so strong and so effective that the emotional responses regarding health care are muddled and confused - regardless of personal circumstances. Add the propaganda effect now fully endorsed by the Supremes per unlimited donations per Citizens United - and I can't imagine there will be any political will to address the ills of our health system for the next two decades. |
Response to stevedeshazer (Original post)
Wed Jun 27, 2012, 09:54 PM
NYC Liberal (15,599 posts)
47. You are overestimating the average voter.
|
How many times has it been said "The Republicans will be FORCED to do x"? People said if Bush's crimes were exposed then the Republicans would be forced to go along with impeachment. People said the Republican party was dead after 2006 and 2008. Yet lots of people keep voting for them.
Republicans will fight and block single payer tooth and nail, you can bank on that. I don't support using people's lives to make a political point, whether it be the draft or health care. |
Response to stevedeshazer (Original post)
Wed Jun 27, 2012, 09:57 PM
Chorophyll (5,042 posts)
48. Back to nothing at all while we hash out getting it "perfect?"
|
No thank you. There are real people's lives to be considered right now.
|
Response to stevedeshazer (Original post)
Wed Jun 27, 2012, 10:03 PM
Proud Liberal Dem (11,745 posts)
49. You're entitled to your opinion but for the record I hope you're wrong
|
It would be huge disaster for a lot of people. While I'm sure that you're not heartless (unlike the Republican sociopaths we all know and dislike) about people losing the benefits that they have already gained, surely you realize that there's going to be a lot hurt to go around while we try to round up enough progressive votes in Congress to get to Single Payer? There's no doubt that a strike-down of PPACA is going to be a losing proposition for the Republicans but it's going to immediately negatively effect a lot of people in the meantime, particularly since we have nothing resembling the kind of Congress that would ever seriously contemplate Single Payer right now, almost certainly won't have one after the November elections for at least the next two years, and the Republicans really don't care about helping people and have done jack squat for the American people for the past 3-4 years, so what makes you think that they're going to start caring if PPACA is completely thrown out? It would be MUCH better IMHO to fight to preserve what we have and get more progressives in Congress to make the changes we want to make (i.e. public option) in the law + a President willing to sign them into law.
|
Response to Proud Liberal Dem (Reply #49)
Wed Jun 27, 2012, 10:52 PM
stevedeshazer (21,653 posts)
65. Of course it would be a huge disaster. It's not like I'm rooting for sick people to die.
|
Eventually, we have to get to single payer. That's the bottom line.
|
Response to stevedeshazer (Reply #65)
Wed Jun 27, 2012, 11:05 PM
Proud Liberal Dem (11,745 posts)
68. I agree
|
but it won't happen anytime soon and completely scrapping PPACA won't help things, particularly in the short term. Keeping it and building on it (and getting it set up at the state level under waivers) is the best, sanest strategy to get to SP nationwide IMHO. I know that you're not rooting for people to die.
|
Response to stevedeshazer (Original post)
Wed Jun 27, 2012, 10:19 PM
liberal N proud (43,652 posts)
51. Too many will have to suffer
|
That's not how you win elections.
|
Response to stevedeshazer (Original post)
Wed Jun 27, 2012, 10:25 PM
immoderate (16,449 posts)
54. You make a good point...
|
This scheme is right out of the Heritage Foundation. It's a Republican plan offerred by Democrats and it sucks.
Health care, education, elections have been taken over by the right wing. And the Democrats are the other right wing. --imm |
Response to stevedeshazer (Original post)
Wed Jun 27, 2012, 10:27 PM
kestrel91316 (45,363 posts)
55. I fervently wish for Single Payer some day, and I agree that overturning ACA
|
will give the push for it a whole lot of extra momentum. But I would prefer that it played out another way, with less death and misery, because that is what will ensue in the interim.
|
Response to stevedeshazer (Original post)
Wed Jun 27, 2012, 10:34 PM
MOMFUDSKI (24 posts)
58. Well . . .
|
. . . if the court says the gov can't mandate paying for healthcare then they could take it to the next level which is the gov can't mandate paying for MEDICARE! How d'ya like them apples?
|
Response to stevedeshazer (Original post)
Wed Jun 27, 2012, 10:46 PM
liberalmuse (15,418 posts)
63. You have to break some eggs to make a cake, right?
|
No. That's what I hear conservatives say all the time, because they like the idea of bombing the shit out of something so they can build what "they" want out of scratch - who cares if innocents are killed in the process? The end justifies the means with their ilk. That doesn't work for liberals, because we actually care about human beings. This will set us back when we can't afford to be set back. People will suffer and die needlessly. Our kids who are struggling to be self-sufficient in the shitty economy we boomers dumped on them due to incessant greed, willful ignorance and short-sightedness (yes - most of my generation are incredible, apathetic assholes) will be dropped from their parents health insurance, my daughter included. The thought that the Republicans and their USSC minions are willing to sacrifice human beings to line their pockets makes me unbelievably angry.
|
Response to liberalmuse (Reply #63)
Thu Jun 28, 2012, 01:38 AM
TheKentuckian (17,383 posts)
95. "willing to sacrifice human beings to line their pockets" is exactly what this scam is set up to do.
|
They "expand" coverage and shrink care.
The death will come from self death panels of a person or a family and from pushing already struggling people to the extreme. You will have set a precedent that the government may dictate our after tax money as they see fit and can even have you buy at the whim and selection of your employer and broadly compel commerce. You will diminish the quality care of all but the wealthy and most fortunate while us in steerage are stuck paying our tithe to the church of Mammon for some bullshit coverage that we can no way afford to use and worse by the year with the absurd tax on benefits in a vice with the upward pressure of medical inflation. Over time we all get junk and shit care. You create a too big to fail out of a criminal cartel and set them loose on a treasury with ever shrinking revenue, that will have adverse effects too. A few pay to play features to be the sugar to make way more than a spoonful of bad law go down that is damn likely to make bad worse overall even accounting for "curbing the worst excesses" of the wicked cartel. We are about chest deep in the Medicare part D effect here and I totally understand but it does no good to forget the entropy being taken on. People get a feature (one they pay for) and the outcome justifies all the comes with it. Maybe sometimes it even is worth it at any price but the privileged frame of reference driven sanctimony about saving lives from some pitching fire and brimstone is hollow because folks pretend they don't cause any deaths and/or spread pain if their agenda is fulfilled. |
Response to stevedeshazer (Original post)
Wed Jun 27, 2012, 11:01 PM
aquart (67,508 posts)
66. No. Stop being so willing to let Americans die.
Response to aquart (Reply #66)
Wed Jun 27, 2012, 11:04 PM
stevedeshazer (21,653 posts)
67. Really?
|
That's what you think I think?
Hell, no. |
Response to aquart (Reply #66)
Wed Jun 27, 2012, 11:58 PM
Trajan (15,935 posts)
84. In all fairness - He is hoping for quick passage of Single Payer ....
|
perhaps unrealistic, but his heart is DEFINITELY in the right place .... This is NOT a demand that people die ...
One might rightly argue that single payer would save MORE lives ..... So your response, while realistic, is also quite cynical ..... Perhaps rightly cynical, but cynical nevertheless .... |
Response to Trajan (Reply #84)
Thu Jun 28, 2012, 01:21 AM
TreasonousBastard (20,882 posts)
92. Of course he's not demanding people die, but...
|
that's what will happen out in the real world.
(The road to hell...) |
Response to aquart (Reply #66)
Thu Jun 28, 2012, 12:17 AM
woo me with science (19,548 posts)
88. Oh, stop it.
|
Last edited Thu Jun 28, 2012, 12:19 AM USA/ET - Edit history (2) That's a cheap, short-sightedly emotional talking point.
Many, many more people will die from rolling over and allowing the corporate bloodsucking middlemen, who operate and make life and death decisions on profit alone, to be permanently entrenched into the core of our health care system. |
Response to woo me with science (Reply #88)
Thu Jun 28, 2012, 01:22 AM
TreasonousBastard (20,882 posts)
93. And that's not emotional?
Response to TreasonousBastard (Reply #93)
Thu Jun 28, 2012, 01:29 AM
woo me with science (19,548 posts)
94. It's fact. nt
Response to stevedeshazer (Original post)
Wed Jun 27, 2012, 11:09 PM
dionysus (22,257 posts)
69. supreme court killing it will not make the craven repukes vote for single payer. ever.
|
they'll cry victory and there will be no single payer for decades. be careful what you wish for.
|
Response to stevedeshazer (Original post)
Wed Jun 27, 2012, 11:14 PM
Chan790 (13,694 posts)
72. There's the golden bag of shit, isn't it.
|
We will never get to single-payer unless this bill is struck...but if the bill is struck, people are going to suffer.
Political change is born of misery. Always has and will be. |
Response to Chan790 (Reply #72)
Thu Jun 28, 2012, 12:13 AM
stevedeshazer (21,653 posts)
87. You get it.
|
People are going to suffer either way. Let's get this thing done.
|
Response to stevedeshazer (Reply #87)
Thu Jun 28, 2012, 12:25 AM
AndyTiedye (22,973 posts)
90. If It Gets Struck Down by the Supremes, It Isn't Going to GET Done for Decades
|
Last edited Thu Jun 28, 2012, 12:26 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1) Decades of misery.
A Congress that would pass single-payer is almost mathematically impossible until at least 2017. It is likely to take far, far longer than that. |
Response to stevedeshazer (Original post)
Wed Jun 27, 2012, 11:20 PM
flamingdem (22,657 posts)
74. If it's killed it's a HUGE republican win, don't kid yourself
|
Plus people who are underemployed and paying individual would have gotten very large subsidies with this, better than with Medicare
|
Response to stevedeshazer (Original post)
Wed Jun 27, 2012, 11:38 PM
bluestateguy (40,060 posts)
76. And the Nader voters in 2000 wanted Bush to win
|
because it would surely lay the groundwork for a great progressive revolution.
Please. |
Response to stevedeshazer (Original post)
Wed Jun 27, 2012, 11:53 PM
Trajan (15,935 posts)
78. Yeah ... Democrats will seize on it alright ....
|
Like a bone dry engine running hard through the hot desert .....
The only thing Democrats have seized lately is a tail between their legs .... Color me skeptical .... BTW: Steven ? .... I haven't seen you since Produce Row .... Remember when PDX DUers used to meet up ? .... Whatever happened to us ? |
Response to stevedeshazer (Original post)
Wed Jun 27, 2012, 11:54 PM
WilliamPitt (54,468 posts)
80. Ugh.
|
My wife with MS says "Go fuck yourself."
No, really. I read your post to her. That was her reply. |
Response to WilliamPitt (Reply #80)
Thu Jun 28, 2012, 12:23 AM
stevedeshazer (21,653 posts)
89. I obviously wish no ill upon your wife.
|
I want her to live a long and productive life under a single payer system. One way or another, we are going to get it. Please tell her that.
I'm a pessimist. I think the Supremes are gonna knock this Obamacare thing down. The next step is single payer. Economics are going to force it sooner or later. Peace, out. Later. |
Response to stevedeshazer (Original post)
Wed Jun 27, 2012, 11:55 PM
Enrique (22,594 posts)
81. except Democrats wouldnt seize hold of it
|
we dont have single payer because the Democratic Party does not stand for single payer, our partys lead Senator had single payer advocates removed forcibly from the room.
In order to get single payer, we need to change the Democratic Party so that it stands for it, so that someone like Baucus would be unacceptable to hold a leadership position. And then a presidential candidate who is committed to it, not just lip service but who holds single payer as a cause in their life. |
Response to stevedeshazer (Original post)
Wed Jun 27, 2012, 11:55 PM
rufus dog (4,942 posts)
83. upheld 6-3 NT
Response to stevedeshazer (Original post)
Thu Jun 28, 2012, 12:06 AM
Mz Pip (23,799 posts)
86. What makes you think
|
that tossing all of ACA will force anyone of either party to do anything? THe GOP will gloat and it will be business as usual and the Dems will be so demoralized that they won't propose anything new for generations. The Democrats won't do squat if ACA is killed.
Oh sure you'll get a few voices in the wilderness proposwing single payer and Medicare for all. But they will be few and far between because most of the Democrats won't havwe the balls to run on health care reform ever again. I've always thought of ACA as a beginning not a finished product. It's a start; a slow start but a start non the less. |
Response to stevedeshazer (Original post)
Thu Jun 28, 2012, 12:46 AM
Puregonzo1188 (1,948 posts)
91. I was against the ACA and dislike the individual mandate, but seriously I don't want them to strike
|
down the whole bill.
A lot of people will suffer because of that. |
Response to stevedeshazer (Original post)
Thu Jun 28, 2012, 01:42 AM
marlakay (4,211 posts)
96. Sounds good in theory but I heard no politician from either side
|
will touch health care for many many many years….decades. Very sad. Both sides are afraid.
|
Response to stevedeshazer (Original post)
Thu Jun 28, 2012, 02:26 AM
Rowdyboy (20,657 posts)
97. We might get single payer in 20 years. Or not. Probably not. It would be a disaster IMHO....n/t
Response to stevedeshazer (Original post)
Thu Jun 28, 2012, 07:42 AM
Douglas Carpenter (15,124 posts)
98. even LBJ with overwhelming majorities and a public that still believed in "big government"- Even
|
he couldn't do it. Even in an era when it was completely part of normal mainstream political culture - it couldn't be done. Even in an era where money certainly talked -but nowhere near as loud and controlling as it does today - it couldn't be done.
The moneyed interests that control both political parties simply are not going to allow it. To advance a major social democratic type reform as that - would practically require a social revolution. The vast majority of politicians from both parties are simply not going to defy their paymasters. What are the chances of the mainstream establishment Democratic Party seizing on something so insubordinate to these powerful interest? 0% That’s right; 0% It’s not going to happen. |
Response to stevedeshazer (Original post)
Thu Jun 28, 2012, 09:21 AM
RBInMaine (9,452 posts)
100. Please tell me on which planet we will find Republicans willing to support single payer. (?????????)
|
Keep pipe dreaming if it makes you feel better. Ain't gonna pass. Wish it could, but it can't. Please find reality.
|
Response to stevedeshazer (Original post)
Thu Jun 28, 2012, 09:24 AM
Blue_Tires (31,647 posts)
101. I hope we KEEP the act, and STILL eventually morph it into single-payer
Response to stevedeshazer (Original post)
Thu Jun 28, 2012, 09:24 AM
sinkingfeeling (27,783 posts)
102. I truly doubt after the fiasco of the 1990s that single-payer will ever
|
Last edited Thu Jun 28, 2012, 09:24 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1) be implemented in the USA.
|
Response to stevedeshazer (Original post)
Thu Jun 28, 2012, 09:24 AM
kdmorris (4,679 posts)
103. I really won't care about getting single payer if my 24 year old daughter
|
gets kicked of my health insurance and has a heart attack because she can't afford medical care. Between overturning it all and "getting single payer"...there could be a LOT of pain and death for a lot of people (not just me). I won't hope for that, ever.
So, sorry... I can't go there with you. |
Response to stevedeshazer (Original post)
Thu Jun 28, 2012, 09:26 AM
RKP5637 (25,585 posts)
104. "Democrats, IF they seize on this, can make some serious political hay out of this." Given the
|
track record of the type of democrats we have today, I wouldn't count on this at all. The democrats royally fucked it all up when they had all of the majorities and here we are with this mess today.
|
Response to stevedeshazer (Original post)
Thu Jun 28, 2012, 09:35 AM
Hubert Flottz (36,717 posts)
107. Single Payer was the best thing about the entire idea.
|
Without single payer, the "Affordable Health Care Act" is best thing that ever happened for the insurance companies and their shareholders.
The "plan" was so watered down by the time it was signed, it did more harm than good to Joe Sixpack. |
Response to stevedeshazer (Original post)
Thu Jun 28, 2012, 09:57 AM
Romulox (22,535 posts)
110. Goodbye, mandate... nt
Response to stevedeshazer (Original post)
Thu Jun 28, 2012, 10:02 AM
WI_DEM (32,522 posts)
113. yeah, you're wrong.
Response to stevedeshazer (Original post)
Thu Jun 28, 2012, 10:59 AM
SidDithers (26,981 posts)
114. Kick...nt
|
Sid
|
Response to stevedeshazer (Original post)
Thu Jun 28, 2012, 11:42 AM
bluestateguy (40,060 posts)
115. Oops! Well that didn't happen.
|
|
Response to stevedeshazer (Original post)
Thu Jun 28, 2012, 05:04 PM
Nye Bevan (10,769 posts)
118. You, Scalia, and Clarence Thomas lose.
|
People with pre-existing health conditions win.
Today was a good day. |

