2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumCarville: If we lose in the court, "then the Republican Party will own the healthcare system."
If the Supreme Court rules against the Health Care Law, "the Democrats are going to say, and it is completely justified, 'We tried, we did something, go see a 5-4 Supreme Court majority'."
Health care costs will only increase in the future, in which case Republicans will be to blame for leading the drive to expel a federal program designed to help Americans cover those costs.
"Then the Republican Party will own the healthcare system for the foreseeable future. And I really believe that. That is not spin," Carville said.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/27/carville-a-supreme-court-loss-will-help-democrats/
lukkadairish
(122 posts)Single Payer For All
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)single payer.
Cosmocat
(14,563 posts)would have prevented this trainwreck ...
They don't own that, they just won an election over DEFEATING president clinton on it.
They drove the deregulation that blew up the economy ...
They scream enough that people half believe that president obama "owns it."
They NEVER own their disasters, they only use shite for short term political gain.
And, you are absolutely right.
It took 14 years from them taking down the Clinton's efforts for HCR, and the version BO got passed was THE REPUBLICAN version of that battle.
It will be a DARN long time until the Ds have the presidency and the numbers in the house and senate to do anything with HCR again. And, as noted, it is only going, for some mind numbing reason, to get further away from the common sense answer - single payer.
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)They want everything privatized for profit.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)I mean the delivery side of the system. Behind the scenes, at least in the lab, where I am at is on the brink of total train wreck.
The rising costs may be squeezing the hell out of the patients, but the decreasing income to the delivery side is squeezing the hell out of the bottom level delivery people.
In order to save money, the lab where I work appears to be following a strategy of running on a skeleton full time crew with part-timers and per diems to fill in the holes. No raises for 4 or 5 years now, and the owner of the nonprofit chain has driven entry level salaries down to where I would have been better off dropping out of school midway and keeping my shitty call center job (which had 40% turnover rate is was so bad) than finishing school and doing this shit.
The core full-timers rule the roost. 3 are total bitches, and 2 are working the system. None except one night person works nearly as hard as the rest. Everybody else is on the brink of leaving if they haven't already. Morale could not get any lower. They lost 2 of 3 night employees in very short order, another long term employee is fed up and will be leaving as soon as this summer, another long termer told me she's sticking it out for 1 more year and then retiring. I started this expecting to work at it part time at least until 66 if not 70. Now I'm looking at getting out asap, hanging onto something until I'm 62 and somehow retiring then.
We are grossly undertrained and forced into evening and night shifts (i.e. without supervision), in one case a person put onto nights after only 3 months in the lab straight out of school (half the usual minimum training time, per the program director who used to be a state inspector)! And grossly underpaid for the level of training these jobs require both to be certified and to perform them. Grossly underpaid. As I wrote above, the crappy call center job was a far better deal all around.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Does it happen in 2012, 2020, 2050?
And what do we do until then?
The ACA made progress in the right direction. If it gets overturned, we go back to the same exact system we had before and we lose those benefits that were gained.
So again ... when is this collapse going to happen ... and, how can you possibly predict what happens after it occurs?
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)Can I put a date on it? Of course not. I just expect it to continue to get worse until it becomes totally untenable, because everything I see in delivery in my little neck of the woods says it will continue in this direction until either major changes are made or all the tests are turned into waived, "point of care" so they don't need any trained people, or disaster happens. I don't know what the exact tripping point will be, any more than 30 years ago client scientists could have foreseen the Siberian methane fields, not to mention the undersea methane fountains.
"how can you possibly predict what happens after it occurs?"
I don't recall having made any predictions about what happens after the "explosion" and have no idea exactly how it will play out. I only know from my direct experience that it is really, really bad and getting worse.
I know it costs roughly twice as much to get the training as it did 10 years ago, but the pay scale is declining and the work load is increasing and the work environment is incredibly toxic. It is well past the point where it makes more financial sense and is less stressful to take a $15/hour call center job with paid training to spend your time being screamed at by a wealthy person about their 401Ks and taxes they didn't pay. The schools can only sucker so many students into the program -- and have only so many of the older, retraining people lose their homes and retirement savings as a result of the lack of decent paying jobs --before word gets around that there is very little work out there and it doesn't pay the bills.
I trained my replacements at the call center job -- which included newly laid off nurses from the nearby hospital that was on the brink of bankruptcy due to State nonpayment of about $3M in Medicare bills. The state is also a couple years and millions in arrears to the hospital where I work. I expect the same is true around the state. So how do the hospitals keep running? They squeeze more out of the bottom layer.
I just finished school and started this job. Already, I am planning to leave the field. Thank freakin' gawd for the income based repayment program for student loans or I would have already defaulted because I simply can't pay the loans on the actual pay, which is 25% less than I was quoted by hospital HR 3 years ago. Had I known about the program 2 years ago I would have dropped out of the program and continued at the call center, based on what I suspected both from school experience and from the nurses I was training in the financial call center.
I hated the school and considered moving to another state. Between when I first started researching that move and when I actually started applying to schools where I could get the most credits transferred, easily half if not more of the schools offering the program had *closed.* They already were seeing a huge decline in student; what remained were consolidated in State universities.
As long as the delivery people at the bottom are treated like disposable gauze, to be ripped off by the schools and soaked by the employers, there will be a chronic and increasing shortage.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Do you think we
1) Were better off before ACA passed
2) ACA was a bridge forward
3) The ACA made things worse
4) We are better off if ACA is repealed
5) Other (if so, please explain)
I do know this, the ACA would help lots of people. My 16 year old niece of one of them. She was diagnosed with cancer at 2, and the insurance companies tried to deny her treatment. She survived the cancer, and the insurers efforts to block her care. After that, no insurer would touch her for more than basic colds and flus, and sports injuries. She, at 2, had a pre-existing condition.
She's fully covered now. Unless they overturn the ACA. Then, at 15, she is again uninsurable.
A relapse, any organ damage from the chemo, too bad ... not covered.
But sure, let's wait for the some complete collapse.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)It doesn't matter what we do to health INSURANCE, if the health CARE system is falling apart, it is falling apart.
Maybe if your daughter has a relapse she will fall through the increasing cracks in the health CARE system. Maybe she will not.
If we continue on the path that I see as a delivery person in Health CARE, if your daughter has a relapse there may well be inadequate staff to care for her, mistakes made by undertrained, overworked newbies, etc.
I think the ACA addressed the wrong problem, and the changes will best case made no difference to the delivery of health CARE and worse case with suck more money out of health CARE.
Do you understand the difference between INSURANCE and CARE?
One has a 3rd party decide whether or not or how much to pay for CARE.
The other actually provides the CARE and either gets paid enough to cover expenses or does not, and goes bankrupt.
Ilsa
(61,694 posts)Last edited Wed Mar 28, 2012, 09:59 PM - Edit history (1)
my son will probably lose his health insurance due to a pre-existing condition.
Well more accurately I won't be able to get insurance since the pre-exisiting condition has led to those insurers turning me down again and again.
So if he's right but they take too long to fix things I am looking at a disaster both health-wise and financial down the road.
Owlet
(1,248 posts)The Insurance Industry owns the healthcare system AND the Republican Party AND the Democratic Party, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.
FailureToCommunicate
(14,012 posts)Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)lobbyists, donors = health insurance companies.
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)You cannot have it both ways.
Champion Jack
(5,378 posts)blah blah blah
Hubert Flottz
(37,726 posts)NOW, the Republican party is owned by the healthcare system/racket.
barbtries
(28,787 posts)thousands, millions, will die prematurely, because they're not rich enough to afford that commodity.
bread_and_roses
(6,335 posts)- and will own even more under the ACA.
The spectacle of "our side" out in front of the Supreme Court demonstrating for the "right" to fork over large sums to the vampire insurance companies is one of the most ludicrous I've ever seen.
"What do we want?
Health .... "
Insurance?
What a waste of good energy and activism.
TheMastersNemesis
(10,602 posts)How will returning to denial for pre existing conditions fit with the 130,000,000 Americans who have pre existing conditions and all the rest who will have a pre existing condition by the time they are 40+? And how many Americans will be added to the 50,000,000 who have no health insurance now?
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)And so the GOP will get to "fix it". That's his point. The dems try and get shot down, so the GOP will get to try next. You may not like their "repair" but they're the ones that passed Part D.
auburngrad82
(5,029 posts)So those 130,000 people, once they realize they no longer have healthcare are going to be pissed at someone. And that someone should be the GOP.
If it gets overturned, and the GOP can piss enough people off in the process, then we can hopefully take the House and hold the Senate. Maybe then we can get better legislation that the GOP can't fuck with.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)The mandate was unpopular. The popular aspects will get "repassed" as the "republican proposal". That puts Obama in a position to have to be the opposition. He's also left with "your solution didn't work". And his solution contained a very unpopular feature. So the GOP will "own" the right to fix it and Obama will be stuck being the obstruction. All in all, there will be alot of pissed off people, and I'd rather be in the GOP's position, than Obama's.
Yavin4
(35,437 posts)Otherwise, people will just wait until they get a life threatening diagnosis and then buy health insurance.
Sort of like buying hurricane insurance once the radar shows the storm on the horizon.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)You can "get around it" and insurance already does in some cases. "Group" policies to which I have been a member often had "waiting periods" where you couldn't get coverage for illnesses or conditions for some predetermined period of time. Pregnancy was a huge one. There were 6 and 12 month periods where if you delivered a baby, it wasn't going to be covered. Instead of a mandate, they could have allowed insurance companies to have higher deductibles for some period of time, or increased premiums for some portion of the policy. Medicare already has some of these features where if you don't sign up by a certain age, there are "penalties" for waiting.
The reality is that a tremendous number of people will ultimately sign up for insurance for various reasons, and once they have it they will keep it. Even with the mandate, there will always be customers that wait, and just pay the tax and then buy the insurance when they perceive they need it. The insurance companies under the current system don't get the penalty/tax. If the problem was a fiscal one for the insurance companies, the penalty would go to them, not the government. The mandate was a way of increasing revenue to the government to make the accounting look good. They didn't need it otherwise.
auburngrad82
(5,029 posts)So if that's their plan it's going to fail miserably this election cycle.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)If the law gets overturned, the first way in which voters will feel it is the donut hole. One can imagine the GOP House will want to clear that up quickly. You might also hear a hue and cry from the parents of 26 year olds. So the House will be under some pressure to get something passed. So will the Senate. The President will probably also be feeling some heat. There will be a big hurry to pass the popular features that have already taken effect. Of course, that will leave all the other things out in the cold.
auburngrad82
(5,029 posts)If that happens there's not enough time to do anything and the Dems will stall until after the election. I know I would, as I could use it as ammunition against the GOP.
fasttense
(17,301 posts)If they strike down the mandate, it does NOT mean the entire healthcare bill is gone. It just means the government can't make you buy crappy insurance from crappy healthcare corporation.
But of course, Obama can choose to not implement the remainder of the law, like he chose to not enforce anti-trust laws, buy American laws, torture laws etc.... He can use the Dancing Supreme's decision as an excuse to not enforce/implement the law, just like the RepubliCONS want.
Don't you just love how an unelected group of old men and women have become the ultimate legislators of our country.
nxylas
(6,440 posts)Didn't Republicans oppose that at one time?
marshall gaines
(347 posts)for the last four years it has been the obstructionists that have decided or not decided major helpful legislation in this country. I truly believe this legislation would go a long toward lowering overall health care cost for lower and middle income people. But of course they are the blame because they are not working three jobs to cover their medical care. And don't forget the blue dog dems, they have just as much invested in making Obama look bad as the obstructionist repugs do. Wake up. The high court? We as progressives are screwed for the next hundred years.
regnaD kciN
(26,044 posts)...and, if you give Big Insurance the right to terminate anyone's coverage if they get sick, the rest of the ACA isn't worth the paper it's printed on.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)If there's no mandate, health insurance will completely collapse. There's no reason to buy insurance until you're actually ill. Which means there's no cost-sharing. Which means no healthcare because nobody can afford it.
But you'd sure stick it to those evil insurance companies!
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)He made some really good points, I know you completely disagree with that man, but he did appear sincere.
You should have voted for him, he had a name not shared by many but I can't quite remember what it was.
Bar... something. Does anyone recall the name?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)He came out against the mandate, but didn't ever get around to explaining how his plan would work without it or single-payer.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)strongly in favor of a mandate to buy insurance that may or may not deny treatment, a product known to cause medical bankruptcy.
You should have supported Dole over Bill Clinton, and Hillary Clinton over Obama as they are/were also in favor of mandated insurance reform rather than actual health care reform.
You don't have to agree with me, but be honest about who the champions of the mandate have been on it's journey into current law.
He came out against the mandate, if he were a bit more courageous he would continue to do so I am sure. Who knows what he was threatened with.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Go back and read my post again. Perhaps you'll develop a clue.
Let me give you a hint: It's the last two words.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)I personally do not think he ever was against a windfall for the insurance companies and was in fact blowing sunshine up my ass when he opposed the GOP created "mandate".
I was merely toying with you to see how you explain his 180 pre election verses post election on this issue.
I am an honest puck so will admit my toying deserves being hidden, it is just being a puck I couldn't resist toying with people that do a 180 because of the cult of personality, I apologize for my puckish jest.
marshall gaines
(347 posts)repugs care nothing about common folk who are not deceived by their lies and obfuscation.
Thegonagle
(806 posts)ProfessionalLeftist
(4,982 posts)Except for the very rich.
rgbecker
(4,826 posts)Picture this senario:
Scotus rejects mandate but leaves law on the books. Feds can't enforce the mandate with the penalty. Insurance companies are locked into law...still have to provide for pre-existing conditions etc. They scream bloody mary, raise their rates. Public goes bizzirk. Public quits the insurance companies and goes with nothing. Doctors and Hospitals plead for payment from the states. The entire health care system as we know it grinds to a halt. Only remedy is Medicare for all. GOP can't figure out how to revive the private insurers...concede.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,306 posts)and you're calling it a 'rose colored' scenario?
regnaD kciN
(26,044 posts)Both sides have agreed that the pre-existing conditions ban is tied to the mandate; if the latter goes, the former must be invalidated, too.
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)to the industry, or some other such nonsense. Fox pundits will handle the mecahincs of turning reality upside down as usual.
aint_no_life_nowhere
(21,925 posts)That's of immediate concern to me, whether or not politicians can eventually score points. We really need universal coverage and as soon as we get it, the people will never want to go back.
Kablooie
(18,625 posts)That's more important according to SCOTUS discussions.
Yavin4
(35,437 posts)The Republicans and the Health Insurance industry will contrive some form of bullshit health insurance that you can buy across state lines. The policy will be written in the most de-regulated insurance friendly state.
The policies will be somewhat cheap, but they won't cover a damn thing. In essence, the majority of Americans will be grossly underinsured or not insured at all.
This will put a huge strain on our health care providers, and eventually there will be a major collapse. However, that collapse may not happen for decades.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)It will be a post partisan victory for the Heritage Foundation.