General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI am amazed at the vehemence of some against greater health insurance coverage
It is really stunning. Single-payer would of course be better. But, we aren't there. There is plenty of blame to go around for that reality, including in, and perhaps because of, the White House. But, we aren't there. Re-fighting that fight at this point is not productive. If the ACA had been struck down, you are dreaming if you think a viable push for single payer would have followed.
The ACA, with its flaws is still better than the status quo 3 years ago. More people will have health insurance. I won't try to dissuade the notion that health insurance companies are, by and large, evil and part of the enemy. But, try having a medical emergency or a labor and delivery or hell routine medical care without coverage. And, I know when I or friends and family have considered jobs and benefits in the past, good health insurance was high on the list of perks.
This is a step. America is a fucked up place with big business deeply entrenched. It will talk years and many steps to loosen those chains. But, goddamn, more people being covered is a good thing, I don't care how you slice it.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Firebrand Gary
(5,044 posts)Its pretty disappointing to see so many on DU react in the way that they have today. If anyone really believes that a public option, single payer or Medicare for all would have survived the Robert's court, they need to have their head examined. The crazy thing, is that anyone who is a regular on DU knows that...
Celebrate, people. This is a MASSIVE win for the Democratic party that we can build upon for years to come.
If that does not make you happy, think of this.
Many, many people's lives, their families lives will be spared because of the ACA. For many people, this is change that they can believe in.
msongs
(67,443 posts)your opinion only, not based on evidence. supposition. not fact:
"If anyone really believes that a public option, single payer or Medicare for all would have survived the Robert's court, they need to have their head examined."
why be so pessimistic, that holds us back. instead of aiming for nothing and settling for even less, why not aim higher?
Firebrand Gary
(5,044 posts)Immigration, education and hopefully the greening of country. In regard to healthcare, yes that is my opinion. I stand by it as I am highly confident the Robert's court will apply law that is in the best interest of corporations. My hope, is that as the court hopefully drifts back towards the center upon the confirmation of new Justices, we can go back at that time and get the healthcare bill that many of us really wanted.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The best or nothing is not helpful.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)It's actually one of the few problems we have in common with libertarians; the notion that if something isn't100% perfect in every way, shape and form then it should be thrown away and never considered anything other than a complete failure.
girl gone mad
(20,634 posts)which is pretty far away from 100% perfect.
TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)granting a clean bill of health to the large group market and essentially benchmarking from that perspective.
We need structural reform, not a new too big to fail operating in the same overwhelmed state regulators and crazy pool fragmentation. We need a national exchange if we are betting our asses on market forces to correct market created systemic flaws and we certainly need to all have access to the market so that some actual pressure can be brought and it isn't a common sense ramping process and I'm just being impatient the intent is to limit access to the exchanges as much as possible and for most people to one way or another be in a large group plan (which also often stink if you actually need it beyond basic stuff).
No doubt the law isn't perfect, I didn't expect perfect. I'm not even sure what that even is because "perfect" isn't just what is best for me or what I want but what serves our nation not just today but down the line generations and I suspect that is some form of a NHS backstopped by heavy investment in research at the university level to offset the loss of the motivation for profit to push new medications, techniques, and technology but I'm not sure.
If that is my "perfect" then we didn't hit acceptable. Very, very light on systemic reform with far too much effort taken to maintain the existing structure. That isn't going to fix the real problem which is money and quality of care for the wealth challenged (which on the whole is being pressured to decrease over time as cost containment).
LiberalFighter
(51,095 posts)But there is the option of states to form regional exchanges. There are many states that don't even have regulations that control premiums for health insurance. Now there is a national requirement.
If states refuse to implement the program the federal govt can take it over.
There are tools in the program that can be used and it will require some baby steps. Either lots of baby steps fast or bigger than baby steps. What will help is for states to implement some of the programs that are optional and the stats show the need for other states to follow suit.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Lobby your state to put one in your exchanges.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)We're attacking one provision of the ACA, not the whole ACA.
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)Of course, they were hoping so for pragmatic, short-term political reasons, which might actually be dumber than hoping for it to be struck down because they didn't like some of the provisions, but still.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)It would be crazy to want to bring the WHOLE ACA DOWN when all that is needed is to exorcise that individual mandate demon from its otherwise pristine soul.
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)
muriel_volestrangler
(101,367 posts)
obamanut2012
(26,142 posts)Most people who aren't satisfied with ACA, myself included, wanted a public option. The same with any other issue -- reasonable compromises are usually expected and usually understood.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)I'm not stomping around demanding that the whole ACA be scrapped because I didn't get what I wanted, however, while many others around here are very plainly doing just that.
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)
Skittles
(153,193 posts)as opposed to healthcare coverage
StarryNight
(71 posts)Lionessa
(3,894 posts)mentioning that for many this is not good news. That it doesn't fix the healthcare problems and seems as though it will be a boon for insurance companies. See how calmly that's said. Now what has been happening that causes the vehemence is that along will come someone to tell me I'm a Republican or hateful or a troll. Not just me, pretty much every one that dares to remind anyone of the negatives of the bill and the decision. Just saying, most I've seen started out pretty calm, but got bullied into heightened responses.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)And when this shit blows up in everyone's faces, the "I told you so" brigade will march.
Summer Hathaway
(2,770 posts)the I told you so brigade will do what it usually does - disappear when their predictions fail, and move on to the next shiny object to be outraged about.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Summer Hathaway
(2,770 posts)the I told you so brigade?
I do. They look so cute in their uniforms. One just like another. Marching towards the same shiny object, in lockstep.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Accountants can EASILY find their way around the 80-20 rule. Which is why so many companies jacked up their premiums so high in the last 2 years.
The Supreme Court ruled, in this decision, that states can't be penalized for not participating in the Medicaid expansion. People in those states will get stung.
The 80-20 rule itself is subject to future changes via acts of Congress. You can guess how that'll turn out, and it won't be in OUR favor.
That's just for starters. This is going to bite us all on the ass.
Summer Hathaway
(2,770 posts)I look forward to your I told you so OPs on the topic. No doubt they will be forthcoming - unless the next shiny object distracts you. Which it inevitably will.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)
treestar
(82,383 posts)We can get future Democratic Congresses. We can have future Democratic President. In 2016 we could still have a Democratic President.
The I-told-you-so brigade should hope they are very wrong.
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)Republican governors and legislatures are now put into a very small box.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Just keeps on with the one line declarations with great eagerness and zeal.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)The Heritage Foundation absolutely loves you for taking up for their causes.
http://healthcarereform.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004182
In 2008, then presidential candidate Barack Obama was opposed to the individual mandate. He stated the following in a Feb. 28, 2008 interview on the Ellen DeGeneres show about his divergent views with Hillary Clinton:
"Both of us want to provide health care to all Americans. There’s a slight difference, and her plan is a good one. But, she mandates that everybody buy health care. She’d have the government force every individual to buy insurance and I don’t have such a mandate because I don’t think the problem is that people don’t want health insurance, it’s that they can’t afford it. So, I focus more on lowering costs. This is a modest difference. But, it’s one that she’s tried to elevate, arguing that because I don’t force people to buy health care that I’m not insuring everybody. Well, if things were that easy, I could mandate everybody to buy a house, and that would solve the problem of homelessness. It doesn’t."
nobodyspecial
(2,286 posts)The smug righteousness and superiority of the purists.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)The blissful denials from the head in the sand crowd.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)on a day when so many are celebrating.
Sid
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)It was promoted by conservative policy experts at places like the Heritage Foundation more than 20 years ago. In the 1990s, the concept was championed by Republicans on Capitol Hill.
And it was ultimately implemented by Romney in Massachusetts; in 2006 he became the first elected official from either party to sign a mandate into law.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)And I can back up my assertion, too.
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/may/28/nation/la-na-gop-insurance-mandate-20110529
Your turn. Let's see your cite that shows I'm wrong.
You can't. So... have a nice day! 
treestar
(82,383 posts)As if right wingers wouldn't treat them worse.
Lionessa
(3,894 posts)but more power to you. I will continue to piss in what, by all my senses, is a toilet bowl.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)I won't call you a republican or a troll. I think those comments are out of line and add to the problem. I guess it's one of those cycles of disrespect.
treestar
(82,383 posts)to pay for medical expenses without insurance?
"Many" seem to just want everything to be bad news. If Single payer itself had passed, "many" would be saying the particular plan that passed wasn't good enough and finding flaws in it.
Lionessa
(3,894 posts)Medicaid aspect of the ruling.
There will likely be NO increase in the people who are allowed on Medicaid in Red states. So unless you're disabled, or pregnant, you will not get Medicaid. Children will get SCHIP, elderly will have Medicare, as has been the case, but adults 18-55 who are poor or working poor will still have no healthcare in most of the states since most are red, and most intend on opting out of the Medicaid increase.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Leaves Medicaid as it was before.
If there is no expansion, that's bad, but it can't be bad news for people not on it to begin with.
Lionessa
(3,894 posts)because those, and the many that will follow if the economy doesn't get more robust, are still not going to have healthcare. That's either okay with you, or you don't realize that Roberts gutting the expansion of Medicaid aspect. It's now entirely optional for the states, so the Red states won't be utilizing it or offering Medicaid to an expanded population.
If you still don't understand, then go ask someone else.
treestar
(82,383 posts)One, these people are in red states, some of them don't believe in government programs like Medicaid. Probably a majority.
But an expansion that never took place means no one lost anything. And they'd fall into the group eligible for subsidies. It doesn't make sense that these red state people won't have health care because of the ACA not being able to expand Medicaid.
Lionessa
(3,894 posts)Geez, that's a real shitty position.
Secondly, I never said they lost, I said they're still out in the cold. It's not good news, it's not okay.
Sorry you think it is.
KharmaTrain
(31,706 posts)If you are in need of medical care or have a pre-existing condition, today was a virtual life saver. If you are younger and feel you won't have any need for the system and see paying in...be it to the government or an insurance company...then it's an expense. As one over 50, I know many people who have and will benefit from more affordable health care...and more imporant, the peace of mind that they won't be turned away because they've run out of coverage or forced into bankruptcy due to illness.
This bill isn't perfect...it was the best that could be passed...and as with such a large and high profile program, it is sure to be reviewed and modified as years go by. This is a start...not an end...and for millions they can sleep a little easier knowing that if they have a health problem they have somewhere to go.
eridani
(51,907 posts)The deductibles and copays will then bankrurpt you or kill you anyway.
KharmaTrain
(31,706 posts)...and I'm not going to claim to be anywhere near an expert on what is a very complicated bill. From what I have read is that a hospital can't turn you away if in need. So it shouldn't matter what type of coverage you need. Also there is bankruptcy protection that will prevent an insurance company from going after your home and other valuable assets...but there are going to be cracks in the system. I'm with those who would prefer a single payer system and I hope that down the road such a system is now feasable...but I do know several friends who will definitely benefit from the bill immediately and will help to prolong their lives. Our job is to keep an eye on this system...and if there are inequalities...work to fix them.
eridani
(51,907 posts)50% of bankruptcies are STILL medical bankruptcies, and public hospitals have been massively defunded. The ray of light is that Sanders and McDermott are offering bills that will allow states to proceed from ACA to single payer.
Lionessa
(3,894 posts)then Roberts effectively killed our Medicaid, because in those states only disabled get Medicaid, not indigent or low wage earners.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Pregnant women, children, parents and the elderly can get Medicaid.
Childless non-elderly people are currently not covered except if disabled.
Lionessa
(3,894 posts)Parents get nothing unless pregnant. Sorry but you're wrong about that as well as the above. You're right about pregnant.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Elderly get Medicare, which covers 80% of costs. Poor elderly get both Medicare and Medicaid. Medicaid covers that remaining 20%.
SCHIP covers pregnant women and children who are not poor enough for Medicaid. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Children's_Health_Insurance_Program
Lionessa
(3,894 posts)I never said it was all states, I said many states. The gist is that those from 18 to 55 that are poor or working poor are likely going to be left out in the cold in Red states.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)They can differ some on the definition of "poor", but they can not fundamentally change the program and still receive federal funds.
Only if they don't have children at home. Which is admittedly a gap that should be closed. But most of the poor from 18 to 55 have children at home.
Then link their eligibility requirements that shows only disabled people are covered.
Sirveri
(4,517 posts)Just because it was from Obama. Walker is already refusing to set up exchanges. He refused federal money for a rail program. Plenty of cases where the red states refuse money from the federal government, because they don't want to actually give people jobs or improve medicaid or anything else.
Lionessa
(3,894 posts)Fed monies for Medicaid is not an all inclusive type thing, it's piecemeal. States can somewhat choose what obligations it wants for its citizens and not what it doesn't.
Short of going state by state to link, providing your request would be difficult. Did you know that even regarding FoodStamps, each state has their own rules? It appears that the amount to a single, unemployed woman is essentially the same, but what can and cannot be purchased changes from state to state. I think you believe that state run federally subsidized programs are all clones of each other, that's just not true.
Finally, I'll re-phrase once again, in most red states, if a poor or working poor person is not eligible for Medicaid today, they won't be tomorrow, or next year, since most are claiming they will opt out of that part. So Roberts has gutted bill more than most here seem to think.
KharmaTrain
(31,706 posts)I don't mean you personally...and I do sympathize if the state your in will be so shortsighted to opt out of medicaid. Maybe that will wake up some folks to finally realize how the rushpublicans are working against not just their economic best interests but their overall health.
Lionessa
(3,894 posts)That said, there are still more Red states than blue, so tons of folks may have just been crapped on big time.
I see you're of the mind that you got yours, so to hell with the rest of us.
KharmaTrain
(31,706 posts)Yes...many of us have been crapped on by a medical system that put profit ahead of medicine...where preventive care all but vanished over the past 30 years and the "boomers" are now starting to show the wear and tear of years without adequate healthcare. It's not a red or blue thing...it's all of us and I will hope that red states don't play politics with the health of their citizens. They're the ones crapping on you...and there are millions of us who stand with you to help fight the stupidity and ignorance that makes people vote against their own interests.
BTW...teabaggers need healthcare, too. We see many of them complain about "big gubbermint" on one hand and gladly take welfare or other government benefits with the other. You may be surprised how many red states quietly accept the program to tap into the large pool us blue states will help build.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,367 posts)to get Medicaid implemented better. But bear in mind that those who have said on DU they'd want the whole of ACA struck down are wishing for the whole country to be in that situation (plus nothing about children being on parents' policies up to 26, exchanges, pre-existing conditions, and so on). There's a hell of a difference between someone saying "it's not all good news - states are allowed to reject the new Medicaid implementation" and "it's all bad news - I don't care that this gives us a better system than present, because it's not single payer".
morningfog
(18,115 posts)they will be turning down significant federal funds for the citizens of their states.
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)outside of what most of those states have there will be nothing new. I do medicaid apps everyday, I know more about this than most people on DU, as well as SNAP.
treestar
(82,383 posts)campaign to make it better and get people in red states to be more open to it and quit electing Rs and Blue Dogs to put up the filibusters that stop progress.
KharmaTrain
(31,706 posts)They'll have to. This is especially the case when more and more provisions of the AHCA are operational and more people are in the system and dependent on it. I've read that if states want to bypass the system or not pick up the Medicaid benefits there will be a separate state pool set up by the federal government to cover it. So some of the fears of our red state friends should be addressed. The bottom line is it's political suicide for anyone to advocate cutting services that are already being provided. I know that the Ryan scam will do just that, but we'll see how "popular" it is in November. Here's hoping Congressional races tie votes for Ryan's "budget" to every rushpublican out there...let's see how happy seniors will be to lose their medicare or freepers losing their <s>Cheetohs</s> food stamps and welfare checks.
Cheers...
treestar
(82,383 posts)30 years from now town halls will have seniors demanding the government get its hands of their Obamacare.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)But then, I've been watching this play out in the Democratic Party since Nixon.
Some of it is a "Let it all burn to wake up America" attitude but a LOT of it is they know what's right and they don't suffer fools lightly and are impatient. They don't understand why the right thing to do can't just be done.
Washington is like a toaster compared to a microwave.
When was the last time you stood before a toaster and said to yourself, "Damn,....this is taking forever!!!! All I want is toast!!!!"?
Yooperman
(592 posts)So much hate and vileness over this ruling... I learned to not post controversial material on my page...but that doesn't stop me from trying to stand up for my views when one of my "friends" posts inaccurate and misleading statements or information. It was obvious to me that many listen to "The Great Bloviater" himself with what they were saying. I listen to 1240 am radio late nights and sometimes during the day I get in my truck and of course one of the right wing hate radio personalities are on that station during the day. I forced myself to listen today to the Bloviator...and low and behold my cousin in response to my posting some of the good benefits of the ACA, starts in with almost word for word of the Bloviator. There were people comparing it to living in Nazi Germany as a she did as a little girl... I mean ... people's heads were about to explode.
Basically I just mention that this was essentially Romneycare... and it was it really a surprise that a Bush appointed court upheld a basically Republican idea. That it was a Bush appointed Judge that was the swing vote. That if this would have been Bush proposing this legislation, would all this mud slinging be taking place. But since it was a Democrat that proposed it... using Republican ideas.... even the Republican that implemented it won't agree with it.
Our healthcare system is broken... we needed to do something and this is what you get when you have to compromise with the Republicans.
My Sister said she is thinking about moving to another country... 
I said ... well Canada has a great system.... so does England... France... Germany and even Cuba... well to tell you the truth all industrialized nations have universal care for their citizens ... all except us.
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,438 posts)Great post!
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)eridani
(51,907 posts)On what planet? After all, Medicare for All is a larger change than ACA, right?
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)resisting the ACA. It would also be the reason for resisting Medicare for All, aka Single Payer (which I support and prefer).
spanone
(135,880 posts)Proud Liberal Dem
(24,438 posts)The "mandate" or "tax" or whatever seems to be what people are most upset about even thought most people already have health insurance through their jobs so they are already covered and a lot of people are going to be eligible for subsidies or other health insurance coverage (i.e. Medicaid) and the wealthy are already taken care of, so, as near as I can figure, we'll probably only be looking at a pretty narrow amount of people whom might struggle a little bit with the mandate to purchase health insurance coverage. I've said it before and I'll say it again: If people want a public option, if we want Medicare/Medicaid expansion, if we want Single Payer, we need to work our butts off to elect a much more progressive Congress and keep a sympathetic President in office in order to get there. Sitting around 2 years later (and counting) and still complaining about what we didn't get in the first round or not being 100% satisfied with the outcome thereof is totally unproductive. Social Security (as it currently exists) wasn't built up in a day, week, or month. It took years to get it to where it is now and so too will the battle to achieve truly universal health coverage in this country. The good news is that the battle began 2 years ago and yesterday SCOTUS ensured that it can continue.
Warpy
(111,352 posts)and everything to do with a political party that has long since devolved into a combination cult and racketeering organization. Its main purpose is to beat Democrats at everything even if it destroys lives, livelihoods and the country as a whole in the process. They are ruthless and this is what we need to recognize: they stopped playing by the rules of law and common decency back in the 1970s. The amazing thing to me is that they've managed to infect so many people with overwhelming hatred to the point that such people have lost the ability to fight for their own self interest.
I'm sure this is how many Germans felt in the 1930s.
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)of a free society. Nor do they want WOMEN to have the benefits. Their contempt for the poor is immeasurable.
They fit the definition of satanists by their selfcenteredness and lack of empathy for others. Sick, twisted, hateful, sociopathic........you name it.
maryellen99
(3,789 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)There is no poison more toxic than that made by the dogmatic... on the other hand, they're usually easy money in chess and poker games. 
aint_no_life_nowhere
(21,925 posts)The attorney general of the State of Texas was just interviewed on MSNBC. He still vows to fight against this healthcare law and says there are still cases in the pipeline to come to challenge it. He was asked what would happen if it was struck down, as Texas has the highest rate of uninsured in the country at 25%. His answer was to improve the economy and have people get better jobs so they could afford insurance under the old system (or non-system, if you will). And the way to improve the economy and develop better jobs is to lower taxes and regulations, the standard, tired old right wing trickle down argument. This is all the right wingers have got in the way of an argument and it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. The Texas attorney general looked like a fool at the end of the interview.
StarryNight
(71 posts)single payer, or any such thing; it is a further entrenchment of insurance crooks into control over our health and lives (and government.)
morningfog
(18,115 posts)the next push would have been for single-payer? The ACA is a much larger step towards universal health care than the alternative, which would have had the repugs empowered to launch an assault on Medicare, Medicaid and SS. That would have been the consequence of this law being struck down. The consequence of it being upheld? Millions of Americans who did not have access to healthcare before will now.
riverbendviewgal
(4,254 posts)Most of us look over the fence and shake our heads..
We feel free, we feel happy...Imagine how happy we are that we don't have to worry about doctor or hospital bills. It is incredibly uplifting. I pay about 25 percent in income taxes, federal and provincial combined. I have no complaints.
My medical costs are paid through my provincial taxes. Private health insurances still exist for hearing aid, dental, eye, prescription, physiotherapy and semi private rooms.... When I am 65 my prescriptions are all covered. 100 percent after $100 annual costs.
America is so much richer than Canada and the rest of the world. As I said we all shake our heads up here. I watch the American politics as if they are soaps... pretty mind blowing plots.
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)is completely impossible now and forever. Because, you know, Congress is legally barred from changing any laws.
Teh stoopit. Arrrggghhhh.
eridani
(51,907 posts)I mean the value system that says people with money are Real People, and those without are disposable human garbage. The value system that divides us into Platinum, Gold, Silver and Bronze people, and a not specified Lead or Dirt category for people over 50 who will have to pay three times as much for underinsurance. The value system that says if you are 25 and your parents have insurance that you deserve insurance too, but if your parents don't (or can't afford to add you) then you don't.
Granted, we are dealing with a substantial opposition consisting of people who are basically sociopathic thugs, and thugs get to vote too. Maybe given that fact ACA is the best that we can do at the moment. Sure, let's acknowledge a tactical victory, but why implicity endorse their thuggish values?
