Health Insurance Companies Set to Hike Obamacare Premiums

[FreakinDJ]

Expect insurers to seek significant premium increases under President Barack Obama's health care law, in a wave of state-level requests rippling across the country ahead of the political conventions this summer.

Insurers say the law's coverage has been a financial drain for many of them, and they're setting the stage for 2017 hikes that in some cases could reach well into the double digits.

For example in Virginia, a state that reports early, nine insurers returning to the HealthCare.gov marketplace are seeking average premium increases that range from 9.4 percent to 37.1 percent. Those initial estimates filed with the state may change.


http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/obamacare-deadline/health-insurance-companies-set-hike-obamacare-premiums-n564226

Add into that the amount Vulture Capitalist / Hedge Fund Managers will jack up the price of medicines

I don't see how anyone can say this entire program doesn't need a "Do-over"

[Jackie Wilson Said]

1. demand single payer

[gopiscrap]

2. Absolutely!!!!

[Baobab]

23. The Constitution says that they have to make a profit. And GATS locks us into the insurance system

To escape this mess we would have to leave the WTO, which Bill Clinton helped create.

[Jack Rabbit]

31. Medicare for all. . .

or bust.

[yourpaljoey]

3. Don't worry, it will get worse

Hill has us in her sights

[Baobab]

24. Only insurance companies can set rates. their rates have to be profitable

Sick people arent profitable. To be profitable they want more healthy people and fewer sick people.

If they want rates to increase slower, they have to go.

Just wait until its globalized. WTO will probably axe community rating when they get jurisdiction.

[Baobab]

42. WTO will "roll back" all changes after 1998 (authoritative proof) Insurance is a financial service

https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/54-ufins_e.htm


A. Standstill

Any conditions, limitations and qualifications to the commitments noted below shall be limited to existing non-conforming measures.

B. Market Access

Monopoly Rights

1. In addition to Article VIII of the Agreement, the following shall apply:

Each Member shall list in its schedule pertaining to financial services existing monopoly rights and shall endeavour to eliminate them or reduce their scope. Notwithstanding subparagraph 1(b) of the Annex on Financial Services, this paragraph applies to the activities referred to in subparagraph 1(b)(iii) of the Annex.

[Hoyt]

4. Actually, I believe Clinton will straighten it out with a Public Option and increasrd

coverage and funding.

[FreakinDJ]

5. Can you please share what you been smoking

in times like these we could all use some

[Skwmom]

8. That will NOT fix this mess. Increased funding? How much national debt do you think this country

can run up? Well, that is one way to bust the safety net.

What is so disgusting is we continue to pay HUGE sums of money and yet there are millions without healthcare.

The U.S. of the 1%. National Motto: In Greed we Trust.

[msongs]

14. your buddy bernie jacks up the debt with his endless military spending but that's ok nt

[cherokeeprogressive]

25. How does a Senator jack up the debt? Do tell; how much has he jacked it up?

[Major Nikon]

36. You funny

[center][font color="black" size=7 face="face"]Bernie Sanders versus the Pentagon[/font][/center]
The Vermont senator's past support for drastic military cuts may help in the primary but hurt in the general election.

By Michael Crowley

02/18/16 05:24 AM EST

In 1995, he introduced a bill to terminate America’s nuclear weapons program. As late as 2002, he supported a 50 percent cut for the Pentagon. And he says corrupt defense contractors are to blame for “massive fraud” and a “bloated military budget.”

Since he arrived in Congress, Bernie Sanders has been a fierce crusader against Pentagon spending, calling for defense cuts that few Democrats have been willing to support. Should he defeat Hillary Clinton, analysts say, he will likely be the biggest critic of the Pentagon to win a major party nomination since World War II.

“He fits in that category of very liberal members of the U.S. Senate that have consistently attacked the Pentagon time and time again because they want the money to go to the entitlement side, even at a time when the world is more unstable and more dangerous,” said Arnold Punaro, a retired Marine Corps major general who served as Democratic staff director on the Senate Armed Services Committee in the 1980s.

That position might benefit Sanders with liberal primary voters. But Democrats focused on national security fear it could be a liability in a general election among moderate voters more worried about terrorism and growing aggression from Russia and China. Some suggested that, if nominated, Sanders would struggle to win support and endorsements from Democratic-leaning retired military officials.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/bernie-sanders-defense-budget-pentagon-219386

[Hoyt]

15. Increased funding to reduce copays and deductibles.

[Skwmom]

18. This approach is not fiscally sustainable. Plus, there are A LOT of Americans who struggle to pay

their premiums, co-pays, and deductibles.

[Baobab]

38. An essential piece of the system, let their suffering serve as horrible examples.

Last edited Sat Apr 30, 2016, 10:23 PM - Edit history (1)

Like the gibbet in days of yore.

A gibbet /ˈdʒɪbɪt/ is any instrument of public execution (including guillotine, executioner's block, impalement stake, hanging gallows, or related scaffold), but gibbeting refers to the use of a gallows-type structure from which the dead or dying bodies of executed criminals were hanged on public display to deter other existing or potential criminals. In earlier times up to the late 17th century, live gibbeting also took place in which the condemned was placed alive in a metal cage and left to die of thirst. The term gibbet may also be used to refer to the practice of placing a criminal on display within a gibbet.[1] This practice is also called "hanging in chains".[2]

You cannot have a system like insurance without punishment for everyone who cannot afford to buy the most expensive care - which in many other countries is the modern level of care afforded everyone

[Baobab]

43. Single payer costs a lot less We're alreay paying 2/3 of every health care dollar

maybe we should ask what all you other folks are smoking, single payer costs much less, thats why they hate it.


http://www.cfhi-fcass.ca/PublicationsAndResources/Mythbusters/ArticleView/2012/11/12/10a65103-8c66-4269-9ec1-e2cd2b126363.aspx

http://www.cfhi-fcass.ca/PublicationsAndResources/Mythbusters.aspx

[rpannier]

34. To use the refrain the Clinton supporters use with Sanders

Not if there aren't 60 Democratic senators (which won't happen in 2016) because the Republicans won't support it
So, pray tell, how will she get a public option through?

[Baobab]

39. Public option was a scam, made up by insurance cos, this is why, read and learn something important

Not just because of adverse selection - because of this crazy policy-

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22neither%20on%20a%20commercial%20basis,%20nor%20in%20competition%20with%20one%20or%20more%20service%20suppliers%22

[Baobab]

40. They keep trying the same few things over and over again

pretend its going to work when they know it can't

again and again

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.405.5725

[Hoyt]

44. You really need to come back to earth on this GATS junk. It does not preclude a Public Option.

[Baobab]

45. Yes it does, and so does TiSA and TPP.

which both frame services in the same broken way.

You're misinformed.

http://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/National_Office_Pubs/putting_health_first.pdf

https://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/National%20Office/2016/02/Major_Complications.pdf

http://www.iatp.org/files/GATS_and_Public_Service_Systems.htm

[Hoyt]

47. So when will it shut Medicare and Medicaid down? Seriously, get real.

[Baobab]

49. Medicaid was only expanded to 40% of the states and 40% of the people while at the same time they

cut other benefits - or decalared their intention to, so a very good argument can be made that it was liberalisation because it was a cut- Other benefits that had higher actuarial value were cut, so Obamacare was a cut-

and Medicare has an exemption because it preexisted GATS. In other words, it can stay unlesss they privatize part of it. Then eventually it will be chopped apart. Same thing with education, as long as schools are entirely free its okay, its only when you introduce commercial vendors of the service that the rules kick in that eventually privatize it.


------ this is a chunk of the best discussion I know of on the issue, from the canadian government


--------------------------

Summary

The General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) contains an exclusion that, at first, appears to broadly protect public service systems and the authority of member governments to regulate such systems. However, this exclusion for "services provided in the exercise of governmental authority" is defined very narrowly. As a result, the GATS appears to bring many public service systems -- and their regulation -- within the sphere of WTO authority.

The scope of the GATS is very broad. Under the agreement, most government measures "affecting" services with an international component are subject to the GATS rules, in certain instances, even if such measures are non-discriminatory and have little or no impact on international trade. As a result of the agreement's broad coverage and narrow exclusion, GATS obligations that apply 'across-the-board' (including most favoured nation treatment and transparency) already apply to most public services and their regulation. More restrictive GATS obligations (e.g. national treatment, market access) also apply to many public services and to government regulatory measures in sectors where member governments have made specific commitments.

In Europe, a "similar" exclusion in the EC Treaty has failed to protect the services in dispute every time it has been tested.

A close examination of statements made by WTO officials and bodies tends to confirm and reinforce concerns that GATS obligations already apply to many public service systems.

In Canada, as in most other WTO countries, "public services" are rarely delivered exclusively by government. Instead, vital public services are delivered to the population through a mixed system that is funded and regulated by governments at the federal, provincial and local levels. Health, education, and other social service systems, for example, consist of a complex, continually shifting mix of governmental and private funding and governmental, private not-for-profit and private for-profit delivery. An effective exclusion for "public services" must therefore be broad enough to protect governments' ability to deliver services through the mix that they deem appropriate and to preserve their regulatory authority over all aspects of these mixed systems.

There has been very little public discourse on the narrowness of the governmental authority exclusion, and a detailed analysis of its significance on governments' regulatory authority is warranted. In light of the negotiations now underway in Geneva to broaden and deepen the GATS, some governments may consider such an assessment to be an urgent priority.

The governmental authority exclusion appears likely to become a priority issue during GATS re-negotiations where governments will seek to ensure that the exclusion is strengthened and that its protection of public service systems is rendered both fully effective and permanent.



1. Background

GATS coverage is very broad
The scope of the GATS is very broad. In principle, it covers any measure, taken by any government, at any level, which affects the supply of a service.1

The GATS contains no broad exclusion for public services, for public service systems or their regulation, or for non-profit service providers or delivery
Except for Article I:3, the agreement contains no exclusion for public services, for public service delivery, or to protect governmental regulatory authority associated with public service systems.2 It also treats public and private service providers and delivery as "like".3 Similarly, the GATS treats private non-profit and private for-profit service providers and delivery identically.4

The GATS preamble provides little substantive protection
The preamble provides little substantial protection for governments' regulatory authority. In the preamble, Members have noted their recognition of "the right of Members to regulate, and to introduce new regulations, on the supply of services within their territories in order to meet national policy objectives..." However, this general, preambular language is non-binding and subordinate to the more specific, binding obligations that are contained in the text of the agreement itself.

GATS general exclusions are few and, except in one instance, limited
There are few general exceptions or exclusions to the agreement's broad coverage.

Among these are:

an exemption to protect "essential security interests" (Article XIVbis), which, uniquely, is self-defining and very broad,
other exceptions, each of which are subject to strict limitations. These include, for example, exemptions to "maintain public order" and to "protect human, animal or plant life or health" (Article XIV),
an exclusion for services that are supplied "in the exercise of governmental authority" (Article I:3).

The last of these -- the critical "governmental authority" exclusion -- is the subject of this paper.



2. The GATS "governmental authority" exclusion

Article I:3 of the agreement states:

"For the purposes of this Agreement…

(b) 'services' includes any service in any sector except services supplied in the exercise of governmental authority;

(c) 'a service supplied in the exercise of governmental authority' means any service which is supplied neither on a commercial basis, nor in competition with one or more service suppliers." (emphases added)

The "governmental authority" exclusion is very narrow
This exclusion is far narrower than it may at first appear.

Firstly, in order for a service to be excluded, both criteria must apply. That is, in order for the exclusion to apply, a service must be supplied on a non-commercial basis and its delivery must not be in competition with another service supplier. Thus, the exclusion does not apply to services that are supplied on a non-commercial basis but which are supplied in competition with another service provider. Similarly, the exclusion does not apply to services that are supplied on a commercial basis even where these services are supplied in the absence of competition with any other service supplier. Hence, only a small sub-set of services -- those that are provided by completely non-commercial, absolute monopolies -- appear to be protected by this exclusion.

Secondly, the exclusion is narrow by virtue of the ordinary definition of its terms. The agreement does not define the phrases "on a commercial basis" and "in competition with one or more service suppliers". However, the ordinary definitions of these terms are broad, making the set of services that they describe very large, and the set of services that falls outside them -- and hence outside the scope of the agreement -- quite small.

"Commercial" is defined variously as: "Engaged in commerce; trading"5; "Of or pertaining to commerce or trade"6; "Of, engaged in, or concerned with, commerce"7; or "concerned with commerce"8 (emphases added).

The definition of "commerce" includes: "financial transactions, esp. the buying and selling of merchandise, on a large scale"9, "the exchange of goods"10 or "buying and selling together; trading; exchange of merchandise"11.

The definition of "trade" includes: "the business of distribution, selling and exchange"12, "buying and selling … buying and selling conducted between nations etc.; the exchange of goods between peoples"13 and "the buying and selling or exchange of commodities for profit; commerce, traffic, trading"14.

"Competition" is defined as: "Rivalry in the market, striving for custom between those who have the same commodities to dispose of"15; "the act or an instance of competing or contending with others (for supremacy, a position, a prize, etc.)."16

"Compete" is defined as: "to try to get what others also seek and which all cannot have, to compete for export markets".17

Most so-called public services -- which are normally supplied through a complex mixture of public and private suppliers, or which frequently include certain commercial aspects -- appear to fall, at least in part, under these broad definitions. They would thus fall outside the protective exclusion.18

Thirdly, wherever there are uncertainties about its scope, the exclusion will almost certainly be interpreted narrowly.19 Moreover, in the absence of a clear definition within the agreement itself, the scope of the exclusion in any particular case will be determined not by member governments,20 but by dispute panels that operate according to international law 21 in processes that are closed to public scrutiny and debate. These panels can be expected to define these phrases so that the resulting "governmental authority" exclusion has a very narrow practical application.22

Important GATS obligations now apply to services that fall outside the narrow "governmental authority" exclusion
The GATS obligations of general application apparently already apply to most public service systems and to the government regulations pertaining to these systems. These obligations include the most-favoured-nation treatment obligation (Article II),23 obligations concerning transparency (Article III),24 and certain domestic regulation provisions (Article VI).25 In addition, in sectors where members have made specific commitments, more restrictive GATS obligations, including national treatment (Article XVII)26 and market access (Article XVI),27 also apply to services and to government regulatory measures within members' public service systems. Negotiations that are now underway to expand the agreement are likely to subject public service systems and government regulations to even greater GATS exposure.



3. A similar exclusion in the European Communities treaty has been interpreted very narrowly

Since no WTO panel has yet ruled on the "governmental authority" exclusion, it cannot be predicted with certainty what the outcome of such a ruling would be. However, there have been cases involving a similar provision -- the so-called "official authority" exclusion -- that is contained in the EC Treaty. Judging from statements made in WTO meetings, it seems that EC representatives believe that the interpretation of the WTO exclusion may not differ markedly from that of its European counterpart. In this context, it is significant to note that the original Uruguay Round proposal for the governmental authority exclusion reportedly came from the EU.28 The European exclusion -- upon which the GATS exclusion appears to be based -- has, without exception, been interpreted narrowly.

The EC "official authority" exclusion

Article 55 of the EC treaty states that:

"the provisions [of the chapter on right of establishment] shall not apply, so far as any given Member State is concerned, to activities which in that State are connected, even occasionally, with the exercise of official authority." (emphasis added)

At the WTO, the European Communities have formally indicated that they view this exclusion as "similar" to the GATS "governmental authority" exclusion:

These provisions [Article 55 of the EC treaty] are similar with those of Article 1.3.(b) of GATS which excludes from its scope services "supplied in the exercise of governmental authority."29

The European Communities point out that the European Court of Justice "has taken a restrictive interpretation of the scope of Article 55."30 The Court of Justice has ruled that "the derogation provided for in Article 55 must be restricted to activities which in themselves are directly and specifically connected with the exercise of official authority" (emphasis in original)31 In fact, "[t]here are no examples in the European Court of Justice jurisprudence where the Court found that an activity would fall under the scope of Article 55" (emphasis added).32 The Court has, however, found that the following activities are not covered by the "official authority" exclusion:

activity as an intermediary between supply and demand in employment relationship in Italy…
the concession for the computerisation system for the Italian lottery…
the activities of traffic accident experts in Greece…
the activities concerning the design, programming and operation of data-processing systems for the public authorities in Italy…33

These interpretations of the European "official authority" exclusion have been universally restrictive. They provide supplementary evidence that the prospects for a broad interpretation of the GATS' "governmental authority" exclusion are remote. Indeed, the European experience strongly suggests that the GATS exclusion is also likely to be given a very restrictive interpretation.



4. WTO explanations and statements about the governmental authority exclusion reinforce concerns that GATS coverage is broader than commonly understood

There are relatively few instances where the meaning of the GATS governmental authority exclusion has been described or explained. Where the WTO Secretariat, WTO officials or WTO committees have considered the issue, their elaborations generally confirm and reinforce concerns about lack of clarity or narrowness of scope.34 It is useful to examine some of these references in detail.

Some WTO explanations merely reiterate the original text
Some statements made by WTO officials that appear to provide a strong reassurance about the exclusion simply repeat the agreement's text. For example, in response to questions posed to him about the coverage of public services, the Director of the WTO Trade in Services Division stated in a letter that was circulated publicly in June, 2000 35 that:

"Article I of the GATS makes it clear that there is a complete exemption from the GATS for all services supplied 'in the exercise of governmental authority', which means any service which is supplied neither on a commercial basis nor in competition with one or more service suppliers. Such services are not subject to any GATS disciplines -- they are simply outside its scope."

A pamphlet published by the WTO in mid-March 2001 36 uses similar language:

"The first Article of the Agreement excludes from its coverage all services provided in the exercise of governmental authority, which are defined as those supplied neither on a commercial basis nor in competition with other suppliers. These services are not subject to any GATS disciplines, they are not covered by the negotiations and commitments on market access and national treatment do not apply to them."

In effect, these statements merely reiterate the text without either elucidating the scope of the exclusion or substantively addressing concerns about potential GATS impacts on public service systems.

Some WTO explanations employ a very narrow definition of "public services"
The WTO Services Division was asked on another occasion about the ability of governments to protect public services. In reply, the director of that division defines "public services" very narrowly -- as being identical in scope to the GATS "governmental authority" exclusion:

Question: "What protection is there for a government which allows both a private services provision and a public provision but wants to ring-fence the public component?"

Answer: "f the public component, as you put it, consists of services supplied in the exercise of governmental authority, it is outside the scope of the GATS, by virtue of Article I."37

Similarly, in response to a question about the application of national treatment to the supply of subsidies, the WTO director of services states: "In answering this question I have again taken your 'public provision of a service' as meaning governmental services as defined in Article I."38

In both of these instances, the answers supplied by the WTO Services Division do not employ the ordinary meaning of the term "public services" used in the questions but instead refer to a far more restricted meaning. In the Division's usage, "public services" are, by definition, excluded from the agreement. The Division's responses thus avoid the substance of the original questions and leave those important concerns about "public services" -- defined in the ordinary sense -- un-addressed.39

Some WTO explanations provide examples that suggest the exclusions are quite limited
The illustrative examples of excluded services provided by the WTO 40 in its GATS Training Package are quite limited. The package states that "services supplied in the exercise of governmental authority" include

"the activities of central banks and other monetary authorities, statutory social security and public retirement plans, and public entities using government financial resources. (emphasis added)"41

While even these examples are of doubtful relevance,42 the list is noteworthy for its limited scope.43 It does not include health care and education, for example, and many other key services that are of primary interest to the public and which many citizens, organizations and governments apparently now believe to be excluded from the agreement.

A number of WTO references explicitly acknowledge the narrowness of the exclusion and/or its lack of clarity

WTO Director General asserts GATS excludes "services supplied by governments"

In a recent article, WTO Director General Michael Moore states that "GATS explicitly excludes services supplied by governments."44 It seems reasonable to assume that Mr. Moore is referring here to the governmental authority exclusion. However, the basis for this broad statement remains unclear, and the statement itself may raise new questions. For example, the text of the agreement indicates that only a subset of those "services supplied by governments" may safely be considered excluded from the agreement, and that subset would be restricted to those services supplied "neither on a commercial basis, nor in competition with one or more service suppliers." (Article I:3(c)

Concerns about the exclusion's lack of clarity have been raised at the WTO on numerous occasions

In late 1998, the European Community raised the question "of whether the GATS definition [of 'services supplied in the exercise of governmental authority'] … was sufficiently clear in relation to government procurement of services."45 A subsequent note from the same GATS working group indicates that "the Chairman wondered whether it was necessary to further specify services not falling under the GATS, i.e. 'services supplied in the exercise of governmental authority' as stated in Article I:3."46

For its part, the WTO Secretariat has pointed to a number of specific ways in which the scope of the "governmental authority" exclusion is unclear or where it intersects with other GATS provisions or other WTO agreements.

As noted above, the term "commercial basis" -- one of the two determining features of the "governmental authority" exclusion -- is not defined in the agreement. The WTO Secretariat frankly acknowledges that the meaning of "commercial basis" is not clear and that it could capture certain public service functions provided by publicly owned service providers. In its background note on Environmental Services 47 the WTO Secretariat discusses limitations on sectoral coverage under the existing agreement, noting that "several Members have specified that their commitments do not include public service functions whether owned and operated or contracted out by the local, regional or central government." In such cases, the Secretariat asserts,

"the question does arise of when public service functions fall within the scope of GATS disciplines and when they do not.

A key issue is whether sales are made on a commercial basis. To begin with, it is not completely clear what the term 'commercial basis' means" (emphasis added).48

The Secretariat paper continues with the observation that, whatever the definition, determining a service to be commercial would result in both private and public service entities being subject to GATS provisions:

"Nevertheless, if services were deemed to be supplied on a commercial basis, then, regardless of whether ownership was in public or private hands, the sector would be subject to the main GATS disciplines and to the negotiation of commitments under Articles XVI and XVII."

The Secretariat also indicates that it may not be clear what environmental services fall within the "governmental authority" exclusion. Indeed, the Secretariat lists this issue as one of a series of questions warranting further consideration:

"Would it be useful to clarify when an environmental service is to be considered as being supplied in the exercise of governmental authority?"49

Similarly, the Secretariat acknowledges that it is not clear where "governmental authority" ends and "procurement" begins when it asks:

"Is there need to clarify the scope of government procurement (as referred to in GATS Article XIII) in relation to services supplied in the exercise of governmental authority (covered by GATS Article I:3)?"50

The Secretariat also notes the lack of clarity with respect to core environmental services, the "governmental authority" exclusion and government procurement:

"[W]ith regard to the core environmental services, sewage and refuse disposal, it does not seem to be completely clear how much falls within the scope of Article I:3 (services supplied in the exercise of governmental authority) and Article XIII (government procurement), and how much is subject to the main GATS disciplines."51

The Secretariat raises still other questions about the intersection of the "governmental authority" exclusion with the GATS government procurement provisions. According to the Secretariat, such an intersection arises where governments have "privatized certain services as local monopolies and the private firms receive payment from the government rather than from individual users." And in these cases, the border is far from clear. As the Secretariat puts it52:

"One view could be that these are still services supplied in the exercise of government authority, as defined by GATS Article I:3 – since they are not supplied on a commercial basis to individual users and they continue to be (local) monopolies – and, therefore, do not fall within the scope of GATS disciplines. Another view could be that these services are being procured by the government and, therefore, the manner of purchase per se would fall within the scope of GATS Article XIII and any future disciplines on procurement."

It is disconcerting that, when considering specific and fairly straightforward examples of core governmental services, the WTO Secretariat acknowledges that such a fundamental aspect of the existing agreement remains unclear. That the matter remains unresolved in the face of ongoing negotiations to expand the agreement is of grave concern.

The Council for Trade in Services indicates the "need" for the exclusion to be interpreted narrowly

The record of discussions in the WTO Council for Trade in Services supports the view that a narrow interpretation is almost certain. When the council considered the exclusion in the context of sensitive health and social services sectors, negotiators asserted that even here the exclusion "needed to be interpreted narrowly":

"Members drew attention to the variety of policy objectives governing the provision of health and social services, including basic welfare and equity considerations. Such considerations had led to a very substantial degree of government involvement, both as a direct provider of such services and as a regulator. However, this did not mean that the whole sector was outside the remit of the GATS; the exceptions provided in Article I:3 of the Agreement needed to be interpreted narrowly" (emphasis added).53

[Hoyt]

50. Sorry man, that is not what all that says. If it's being ignored, it's because it is not a threat as

you believe.

[Skwmom]

6. When you pass a law requiring people to pay for health insurance rather than health care (single

payer) what did you think would happen?

We are in such a mess because we do not have the best people working in our government, just the greediest. A lot of smart people do not have the greed gene so unfortunately they are never invited in to help solve our problems.

These problems are not unsolvable, they just are in the current environment.

[FreakinDJ]

7. Welcome to the party of "No We Can't"

Hate to say it - but it ain't going to get any better any time soon

[Skwmom]

9. One of the biggest benefits of a Sanders Presidency would be the smart people that

could be brought on board to solve our problems.

[FreakinDJ]

10. Smart and not "Bought and Paid For" political cronies

It doesn't take a whole lot to figure out what the problems are

[Baobab]

46. single payer actually has to be free.. because otherwise what do you to to people who cannot pay?

See the problem.

Single payer detaches health care from money. It has to otherwise it has to be privatized. The two cannot exist side by side.

Look at whats being done to the NHS in the UK-

Contrast it to Canada that has largely survived up until now. because no money, also because grandfathered in.

[tularetom]

11. It should be called "Obamasurance"

Because the emphasis is on getting people in hock to the insurers, not on securing care for everyone.

Between the CF that the ACA is becoming, the TPP and TTIP, and Obama's lame ass defense of his disloyal Secretary of State, he's rapidly trashing what little remains of his "legacy".

[pnwmom]

12. Before the ACA increases in the double digits were routine even though many people were barred

because of pre-existing conditions.

And none of these increases have been approved yet. That will be up to the states.

[airplaneman]

26. I remember this very well.

In one year we had two 25% increases. Things got a lot better after the ACA but the trend still is to spend more and more.
-Airplane

[pnwmom]

29. Yes. That is one of the problems we have to work on. And the same thing would be occurring

if we had single payer -- the constantly rising costs of the provided care. Drugs costs are a huge part in this.

[Skink]

32. So far some increases but better coverage

In the ACA for me and I live in Texas. I believe what Dean said,
the fly by night companies go under. The best coverage I have gotten from ACA. 2016.

[pnwmom]

35. I'm glad for you. My son also has excellent coverage at a reasonable price. n/t

[Skink]

37. Sums it up.

It works. Sure single care good but the provision no preexisring conditions hurt some powerful lobby's bad.

[Skittles]

13. well of course!

now they have tax-payer funding to pull their scams!

[thereismore]

16. It seems ACA did not effectively control the premiums. No wonder. It was a republican idea to start

with.

[LyndaG]

17. I'd rather not start over

It was tough enough to get this. Even fellow Democrats like Senator Lieberman refused to back the Public Option. Hoping for improvements, because I don't want to risk losing everything.

[mike_c]

19. :...fellow Democrats like Senator Lieberman...."

Your humor is subtle, but exquisite.

[Trajan]

27. Haha ...

Joe Lieberman ...

If that asshole could sneak out the door with your kid's lunch, he would. ..

Joe Lieberman ...

Haha ...

[Kittycat]

30. Lieberman. The hell you say.

[rpannier]

33. Who is thie Lieberman of which you speak

Because the Lieberman in the senate at that time was a member of the Lieberman Party, not the Democratic Party
And he was the one who killed it

[Baobab]

51. can you see this, LyndaG?

can you read my post above on "services supplied as an exercise of governmental authority" ?

[LyndaG]

52. Thank you

[Baobab]

54. its easy to find out a lot more if you Google the text of those two lines- Article I:3 (b) and (c)

That will bring up a lot of stuff. That definition is extremely controversial elsewhere in the world, BUT here in the US its just BLANKED OUT of the news.

There was never any discussion in 1995 and there is none now, and there should be. You wouldnt know anything about that, likely,

Do you?

[TheProgressive]

20. That's why Clinton wants to 'improve' ACA...

Because it all revolves around extracting billion$ from Americans and line the pockets of the rich...while screwing Americans...

That's one more reason the establishment wants to get rid of Sanders.

So, Clinton supporters - how does that make you feel?...that your candidate only wants to insure (pun) the rich get richer thru ACA.

[FreakinDJ]

22. Big Pharma's big donations to Hillary - Why am I NOT Shocked

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/11/health/big-pharma-presidential-politics/

[Skittles]

53. nice how Obama gets off the hook

he was in the pocket of Big Pharma too

[Xyzse]

56. He shouldn't.

I was upset with him for taking Universal Health Care off the table at the beginning of negotiations.

[Carolina]

21. Exactly

It was an insurance company bonanza from the get-go, a product of the Heritage Foundation

[SammyWinstonJack]

28. Thanks Obama.

[JEB]

48. It is way past time that we stopped using leeches. nt

[Egnever]

55. If true it will be because costs rose

They are forced by the ACA to spend 80% of the premium on actual health care any surplus must be refunded to the customers.

[Lint Head]

57. The Doctors country club fees have increased. How do you

expect drug companies to survive just by profiting a few billion. It's hard out there for the rich.