67%

[MadHound]

That's the percentage of people who want either the individual mandate part of the Affordable Care Act struck down by the Supreme Court or the entire law itself struck down(the split is 25% want to ditch the individual mandate, 42% want the entire law tossed). Only 26% want the law upheld in its entirety.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/03/as-health-care-laws-trial-approaches-two-thirds-say-ditch-individual-mandate/

This is obviously not a split along partisan lines. If two thirds of the population are conservatives, then Dems shouldn't even bother running for office.

Rather, this overwhelming sentiment against the ACA is a bipartisan movement, with people of all political stripes coming out against either the individual mandate or the entire law itself. There are various reasons for this, but the simple fact is that the vast majority of Americans feel that this is a bad law.

Whether or not this law is struck down, either in part or in whole, by the Supreme Court it is obvious that much more needs to be done in terms of healthcare reform. Rather than passing another private sector reform measure, like the ACA, we have absolutely got to push through universal, single payer healthcare. Leaving this country dependent upon a corporate driven system of health care, reformed or otherwise, is simply going to continue to allow prices to be driven up and people continue to die due to lack of care.

Single payer, it is the only way to go.

[ProSense]

1. So

That's the percentage of people who want either the individual mandate part of the Affordable Care Act struck down by the Supreme Court or the entire law itself struck down(the split is 25% want to ditch the individual mandate, 42% want the entire law tossed). Only 26% want the law upheld in its entirety.

...you're adding the overwhelmingly Republican number, 42 percent, to the 26 percent, which includes some Democrats, to hype 67 percent?

Most Americans do not want the"entire law itself struck down"

[MadHound]

4. Wow, selective quoting, again. No surprise from you.

The fact of the matter is that approximately two thirds of the people in this country want either the individual mandate struck down, or the entire law itself struck down by the Supreme Court. Two thirds. That's a bipartisan swath of the population.

Furthermore, if, as you are claiming, that the forty two percent who want the law in its entirety struck down are all 'Pugs, then the Dems are in a world of hurt, because that essentially means that forty two percent of the population is Republican.

Oh, but wait that's not true, only roughly eighteen percent of the population are 'Pugs.

So again, we are left with the conclusion that it is a bipartisan group of people who want this law struck down, either in part or in its entirety.

[ProSense]

9. Nice

"Wow, selective quoting, again. No surprise from you."

..."OMG" like red herring.

I could add those who want to throw out the mandate to those who want to keep the bill and the number would be 51 percent keep it/throw out mandate vs. 42 percent throw out entire law. From the poll:

While 67 percent of Americans favor throwing out either the whole law or at least the mandate, the data also can be construed to show that 51 percent favor either keeping the whole law or the law minus the mandate (26 and 25 percent, respectively). Keeping the law without the mandate, though, is a difficult task, since insurers say it’s needed to restrain coverage costs.

[MadHound]

10. And again, you would should that those people are a bipartisan group

Also, the fact of the matter is that the ACA hinges on the individual mandate. If that is struck down, the entire law collapses.

[ProSense]

13. What?

"And again, you would should that those people are a bipartisan group

Also, the fact of the matter is that the ACA hinges on the individual mandate. If that is struck down, the entire law collapses."

...sounds like wishful thinking. What does that have to do with spinning the poll numbers?

The spin by ABC appears to play into the insurance companies' talking points.

The fact is that lumping those who want to see the mandate eliminated with those who want to see the entire bill struck down is ridiculous. The Kaiser poll is more detailed and shows that the majority of Americans want to keep or expand the bill.

[MadHound]

14. Speaking of spin

You're doing it.

[ProSense]

19. You should

know that the Republicans have already bolstered the administration's argument:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101481320

[Motown_Johnny]

27. ProSense has it right

The law is not dependent on the mandate, only the insurance company profits are.

Striking down the mandate will not change the other provisions in the law. All it will do is create a possible path for a public option which might eventually evolve to a (major medical) single payer system.

If you really want to see some change toward a single payer system then you should also support the striking down of the individual mandate as a stand alone clause.

[MadHound]

30. I do support striking down the individual mandate,

But I don't see the ACA as anything more than a diversion from single payer. Weak price controls, and an insurance system still based in the corporate health model is not going to get us to single payer. Rather, it is meant to provide cosmetic changes to a deeply flawed system that allows are so called leaders to claim that they are doing something, anything.

[Motown_Johnny]

38. Please respond to my post #33

doing this through 2 sub threads isn't helping either of us

[progressoid]

53. Interestingly

the slide #10 that you posted shows that only 33% view the individual mandate favorably. Lessee...100 minus 33 equals...ummm...67.

Huh, go figure.

[gateley]

2. Single payer IS the only way to go, only we're not going there yet.

It'll take a while -- the Insurance Industry is HUGE and like it or not, right or wrong, we have to gnaw away at the status quo. No way could anybody implement single payer with the stroke of a pen.

[Swede]

3. Canada's healthcare system took decades to implement.

Today,the conservatives still try to break it,so everyone has to be ever vigilante.

[gateley]

6. I know. I don't think I'll be alive to see it, but I fervently hope that some day in

the not TOO far distant future we do this. Even after it's implements, I'm sure it will take a while to work out the kinks

[MadHound]

7. The thing is, people don't have that kind of time

It took forty years for the Affordable Care Act to go from its origins with Nixon to becoming law. How many more decades are we supposed to wait and watch people die, left to the tender mercies of corporate run healthcare?

[gateley]

17. I think even Hoover and the Roosevelts were trying to get some real health care implemented --

so it's been longer than since Nixon's attempt.

I know it's not right, there is nothing about the current system that's fair, but I fear the reality is that it's going to be a long haul until we get there. I don't anticipate being alive (especially since I'm one of the uninsured and have medical issues) but I'm hopeful that in the future, we will take care of our people.

[treestar]

18. And if 67% don't like the ACA then 67% certainly would not want single payer

[MadHound]

20. You think so?

You are jumping to conclusions that simply aren't there. Have you ever thought that many liberals don't like the ACA because it is still a corporate driven program?

[treestar]

34. But according to the article with the alleged poll

They are talking about centrists.

[gateley]

22. It's the same old story - they just don't get it. The Right's voice ($$$) is louder than ours, and

people don't have or take the time to listen beyond the sound bites. Plus, their messages are fueled by fear and hate, always a big seller.

[treestar]

35. Yes, the right wing media just goes on and on about how much it will supposedly cost

Not a popular subject nowadays - incurring a new expense. And most people are quite complacent about their jobs and attached health insurance, in spite of high unemployment rate, it seems. One would think that would be a primary fear (job loss) and that the desire to separate health coverage from jobs would be there. Anyone who left a job and had to "take advantage" of COBRA learns quickly how expensive that is.

It would be easier if people had to buy their own health insurance rather than viewing it as a "gift" from the employer! They'd "get" the cost then.

[gateley]

39. "One would think..." -- but they don't treestar. They just don't think. nt

[Zorra]

40. True about RW media, but...complacent? Um,

some of us are extremely unhappy with the current state of affairs. And many people are way far from having the available cash to pay the skyrocketing costs of health insurance.

In the past year, the organization that I work with had to completely eliminate our dental and vision plans due to an increase in the cost of insurance. Staff also had to start paying part of insurance costs.

And the insurance company has again just jacked their rates out of sight, forcing the organization to seek a different insurance provider. We don't know what we're going to do.

A major flaw in the ACA is the failure of the the ACA to incorporate premium price controls until the exchange portion of the ACA takes effect in 2014. Insurance companies are jacking their rates so high, (gouging us so hard it should be a criminal offense), many small companies are being forced to either stop providing healthcare coverage or cut benefits/take a serious financial hit/require employees to pay part of the premiums.

Insurance companies are ripping everyone off to the max degree while they still can and laughing all the way to the bank. And their profits are already immorally high. You cannot trust an unregulated market. Insurance companies have proven that profit is everything and it doesn't matter to them how many people suffer or die in order for them to consistently make obscene profits.

So, while there have been some benefits for all and more for some from the ACA so far, some of us have gone down the donut hole that will be closed in 2014. And not everyone understands the potential future benefit of the exchange program. They just know that insurance companies are holding them hostage and robbing them blind in the real time of the here and now, and there is no recourse.

I think Doc Dean got it right (as usual) in the passage below, but again, a lot of people, including myself, are justifiably not happy with this donut hole that has given insurance providers a free for all license to rob us at will.

Dean Urges Small Businesses to Drop Healthcare Coverage

Remember the concerns during the healthcare debate that firms might choose to pay a $2,000 per worker fine to dump employees into health insurance exchanges if it’s cheaper than offering coverage? Well, former Democratic Party boss Howard Dean is cheering them on. He reasons that coverage won’t change much and that this will free cash for businesses to be more competitive. “What I believe will happen, although it was not intended, and I think it’s going to be a good thing, although it’s going to create a large dislocation, is that the small business community will abandon the healthcare market and put all their employees into the exchanges,” Dean says. He calls the linkage between employment and health benefits a major disadvantage for American firms competing with foreign companies that don’t have to supply health insurance.

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/01/19/dean-urges-small-businesses-to-drop-healthcare-coverage

This donut hole gives the RW media a huge issue to propagandize on. 2014 is long ways away for many struggling Americans that work for many small businesses/organizations.

(I'm not by any means an expert on this stuff, so my information may not be totally accurate regarding the ACA, but this is how looks from my position, and I believe that I am generally more politically informed than most Americans. So if I'm looking at it this way, think about what the people who can be influenced by RW media are absorbing and believing.)

IMO, single payer, publicly funded, universal health care is the only system that really makes any reasonable ethical and moral sense. I sincerely hope that the ACA eventually leads to such a system.

[treestar]

47. Right. Just pay the amount as salary and then the employee sees how much it costs

It's hidden. Like those "tax refunds" people think they are getting something when they are really paying for it/earned it.

If employers would drop health coverage, that would really be a good thing. People would think they were getting a "raise."

[FarLeftFist]

5. It's simply a messaging issue. The more people find out about it the more they like it.

[MadHound]

8. If that were the case, then these numbers wouldn't be trending upwards

It has been two years since the law was passed, and it has become more unpopular as time has rolled along.

[FarLeftFist]

11. Because of constant bashing from the RW media. Unfortunately people are no more informed than 2 yrs

ago. I would bet that 98% of the people polled have no idea what the bill is even about. They will probably tell you "it's a Govt takeover of healthcare", meanwhile it's private insurance.

[MadHound]

12. Except that is belied by the numbers in this poll

A number as large as sixty seven percent means that it is compromised of people from both sides of the political spectrum.

[FarLeftFist]

32. What, only RWers can be misinformed? Also, some wanted it to go further.

[BootinUp]

15. 67% probably also want a tax break while at the same time a shiny new pony.

[Johonny]

28. +1

[SomethingFishy]

46. 67% also think the "pony" smear has gotten a little old

But hey it's snarky, insulting, rude and wrong. You just found the penultimate Republican response. Congratulations.

[BootinUp]

48. Oh nonsense

it describes a well known tendency and its used by plenty of non-Republicans. I think your response is a cute way of accusing me of being a Repuke. I won't bother alerting on it though.

[SomethingFishy]

55. Nah.. it was a "cute" way of telling you that your

situation is not everyone elses situation and that just because you don't have a problem affording insurance doesn't make it a pony for everyone else.

Basically what you are saying is "I got mine, fuck everyone else" and you managed to do it in a way that shows how little empathy you have.

Nice work.

[BootinUp]

58. Incorrect Mr. Mindreader

Your latest response is full of more bullshit than a constipated bull.

The ACA mandate should it ever come to pass will no doubt be based on ones ability to pay it as intended. I am not in favor of non-progressive solutions when it comes to taxes, or other government mandated costs, never have been. You don't know my situation and I don't know yours. For all anyone knows you're a whiny lieing crybaby rich fuck that has yours and doesn't favor a law that everyone who honestly evaluates it will tell you will greatly reduces the number of uninsured.

[Orangepeel]

16. Medicare for all is the way to go

One of the left wing's biggest problems is that we're generally terrible at the ability to frame an issue. One has to explain what "single payer" is, what it means, how it works...by that time the right has screamed "death panel!" and "socialism!" so often and so loudly the discussion is lost.

Anyway, expanding Medicare for all is the way to go. But it isn't just going to happen because it is what makes the most sense. One can damn politics for being what it is, but that doesn't get one very far. The question has always been "is what we can get passed better than what we have now?" I think yes, so I support the affordable care act. Others think no, so they don't (although it doesn't make sense to lump the "no" opinions together because the reasons may be very different). 67% is not the percentage of people who want single payer Medicare for all. It is the percentage of people who want Medicare for all, plus the percentage of people who don't think that Medicare is a government program, plus the percentage of people that want to live in Somalia, plus the percentage of people who would be for it if the President was against it.

And, to go back to lousy framing, "the individual mandidate" is lousy framing. It was an effort to avoid the word "tax" that backfired. It's a tax that people who don't meet a certain income level and/or have health insurance are exempt from.

[lunatica]

21. This Socialist agrees with you

I hope to live long enough to see it happen. Universal health care. It works.

[geek tragedy]

23. Most people don't understand that no mandate=exclusions for pre-existing conditions.

If you gave people the choice of those two as a package or neither, the results would be dramatically different.

[MadHound]

26. How so?

The repeal of such exclusions is already in effect, while the individual mandate doesn't come into effect for two years.

[Motown_Johnny]

24. I want the mandate struck down as a stand alone clause

and I think any progressive who understands the issue wants the same thing.

The mandate is a conservative idea to help protect insurance company profits. I think that if we have it struck as a stand alone clause it is going to force the insurance companies (and their lapdogs in Congress) to support a public option for those who choose to not purchase insurance from a private entity.



It is misleading to add that 42% who want the entire law tossed to the 25% who understand that repealing the mandate, and only the mandate, is an improvement on the law.

Your headline should be something along the lines of "58% of Americans want the Affordable Care act to remain as it is or be strengthened".

[MadHound]

25. The connection is this,

If the individual mandate is struck down then the entire law collapses. The individual mandate is the flawed, but fundamental linchpin that holds the entire ACA together.

[Motown_Johnny]

29. Why do you think the law will collapse?

This makes no sense at all.

All the regulations on the insurance industry will still be in place.


You need to support that statement because IMO it is horribly horribly wrong.

[MadHound]

31. Look at the economics of the ACA

It all hinges on every single person getting insurance. If substantial numbers of people don't buy into the ACA, then it will collapse due to lack of money flow.
Perhaps this will explain it to you better than I can
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/what-happens-if-the-individual-mandate-falls-in-one-chart/2012/03/23/gIQAX5fFWS_blog.html?wprss=rss_policy

[Motown_Johnny]

33. Only the corporate profits depend on that

from your link:


For health insurers, the worst-case scenario is one where the court overturns the mandate but still leaves standing the requirement that health plans accept all applicants. As less healthy Americans enrolled, premiums would most likely spike. America’s Health Insurance Plans rounds up the research that health-care economists have done, so far, estimating what striking the mandate would mean for health-care coverage and cost:



If the mandate is struck down then this is what happens. The insurance companies profits take a huge hit. They then decide it is better to have their (R) minions in Congress allow a public option to cover those who don't have insurance instead of taking that hit.

The law itself is not affected by this. Insurance companies will still need to allow children up to age 26 on their parent's policies. The "doughnut hole" in prescription drug coverage will not be reopened. The list goes on and on. Insurance company profits don't directly affect the vast majority of the law. Maybe you should visit this site and explore just exactly what is in the law: http://www.healthcare.gov/law/timeline/

Then you can read an article that isn't so horribly slanted to defend the insurance companies, try this one: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/02/gruber_mandate.html


You are simply wrong on this issue. Overturning the mandate is a good thing. We should be so lucky. Odds are the entire law will be upheld as written (damn it).

[MadHound]

41. No, what happens if the mandate is struck down

Is that premiums will rise, coverage will shrink, and we will all pay.

You are simply, baselessly speculating upon what will happen, while facts and basic economics belie you.

Oh, and one other thing, please refrain from PMing me missives urging me to self delete this post. If you can't stand the discussion, ignore this thread. But whatever you do, have the guts to do so in the open rather than PMing snide remarks.

[Motown_Johnny]

42. your own horribly slanted link says that

the impact on rates could be as small as 2.4%. The average of those estimates is about 12.5% (if you exclude the low and high and average the other 3).

The ACA forces insurance companies to pay out at least 80% of premiums collected to care. Your link makes no mention of this affect on costs.

My claims are not baseless. If you can remember all the way back to 2008 you will recall that (then) Sen. Obama ran on health care reform without a mandate. Sen. Clinton disagreed and felt that a mandate was necessary. Your baseless assumption that a mandate is required is the problem.

The ACA allows for states to opt out if they can prove they have a better way to provide coverage. Vermont is already working on a single payer system. If the mandate is repealed this helps to provide economic incentive for a single payer system.

We can't move toward a single payer system by doing nothing.

The worst thing about this is that the odds of the mandate being stuck down are extremely low. This is all a hypothetical based on a long shot.

I sent you that PM after waiting for a response that seemed to not be forthcoming. It should be obvious to you by now that you have no evidence to support your views. I was trying to save you some from the embarrassment that this thread represents.

The vast majority of the ACA has nothing to do with the mandate. Most of it won't be affected by it at all. If the mandate is stuck down (and that is a long shot) then there will need to be some adjustments made but not much.

If you had bothered to read the article I linked to you would see that a "soft mandate" would increase participation and therefore lower the economic impact of the individual mandate being repealed.

The simple fact is that repealing the mandate is not the disaster you claim it is, what you speculate might happen simply can't happen. It is not necessary for the law to exist and if it were then the Supreme Court would not be able to strike it as a stand alone clause. Your argument is self defeating. You just don't make any sense at all and you still have not presented any evidence that isn't defending corporate profits.

[MadHound]

45. You keep claiming, in both this thread and your PM, that I'm defending corporate profits

How do you come to that conclusion? I've stated that I'm against the individual mandate, which indeed would increase corporate profits(since it is essentially giving the insurance industry a mandated monopoly).

In fact my larger take on this is that we need to scrap the the ACA altogether and push through a single payer program.

But somehow, in your eyes, I'm defending corporate profits.

Do you recognize how foolish that sounds?

As far as your "waiting for a response that seemed to not be forthcoming", what, do you think that I'm at your beck and call. Sorry, but I have a real life, things to do. It is spring now, trees to prune, grass to cut, etc. This is a discussion board, a hobby, not a priority, at least not in my life. If I want to talk with you, I will get back to you in the thread. But I'm not going to hang around for your every post with bated breath, I have much better things to do. For you to send me an insulting PM because in your opinion I didn't respond to you as fast as you wanted, well frankly, that is rude as all hell. Get over yourself and your own self importance.

As far as the rest of your post, it simply goes on to show how goddamn out of touch you are. An average increase of 12.5%? How many people do you think can really afford that? Furthermore, you don't address the rest of what I linked to, namely the reduction of benefits.

So I will let you mull that over for awhile. Meanwhile, my lunch is done and I'm going back out to work. I won't be getting back to any reply you make for awhile, if at all. Deal with it like a mature human being, and don't fire off any more insulting PM's. You aren't that special.

[Motown_Johnny]

49. There is no political will for a single payer system

you can push all you want but the ~25% of us who want single payer are not enough to get it passed.

Your original premise was "without the mandate everything falls apart" and that simply isn't true. The mandate does nothing but protect corporate profits, that is why I think you are doing nothing but defending them.

Even the 67% title of this thread is misleading. You can only get there if you add the 42% who want less or no reform to the 25% who want more.

Oh, and that 12.5% increase ....






...not a good thing but trying to paint it as the sky falling is simply wrong. That would be a one time jump, not an annual increase. Besides it is still possible to use automatic enrollment to help reduce the number not participating so that 12.5% is way over the top as far as an estimate goes.


The simple fact is that HCR is not dependent on the mandate. If it is then the Supreme Court can't possibly strike it down as a stand alone clause. This fact makes this entire thread a ridiculous practice in a hypothetical that can't ever happen. If HCR is dependent on the mandate then either the entire law will be upheld or it will all be overturned.

[MadHound]

50. Umm, stop reading polls from 1979

Or Rasmussen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-payer_health_care#Public_opinion_in_the_United_States

As far as the individual mandate goes, you are trying to put me into a position that I oppose. As I've said many times on this thread, I want to see the individual mandate struck down. Therefore, if I want it struck down, how am I defending corporate profits?

What I am saying is that without the individual mandate, the ACA is dead. This is true on two counts. First, most laws have a severability clause, a clause that declares that if one portion of the law is struck down, then the rest of the law is still in effect. The ACA doesn't have such a clause, therefore if the mandate is struck down, the SC could declare the whole law null and void due to the lack of a severability clause.

Even if that isn't the case, if the individual mandate is struck down and the rest of the law remains, it will be fatally flawed due to a severe lack of funding. No money, no way the law can work. It is that simple, and even the President has admitted this.

I suggest that you educate yourself a bit more on this issue, for it is apparent that you don't know what is going on with it.

[Motown_Johnny]

52. Name 60 Senators who will vote for single payer

Last edited Sun Mar 25, 2012, 11:56 AM - Edit history (1)

How about 50? 40?

Then there is The House.. no way to get anywhere near a majority for single payer there either. There is no political will for single payer and quoting a wiki post that sites a poll from 1987 doesn't change that. I don't believe Rasmussen either but if you can't back up your claim with some actual evidence you might not want to make that claim.

The problem here is that you think the mandate is more important than it is. Yes, if it is struck down then changes will need to be made but not to the entire law.

I think your focus is to narrow. There is a lot more to ACA than forcing people to buy insurance.

Small business tax credits which are then increased in 2014
Increased Federal funds to states for Medicare
"doughnut hole" closed
Anti-fraud measures
Expanded coverage for early retirees
Healthcare.gov site to help compare insurance options and choices
Children able to stay on parent's plan until age 26
Requiring plans to cover preventive care
Prohibiting Insurance Companies from Rescinding Coverage
People can now appeal insurance company coverage determinations
Lifetime limits on coverage are gone
Annual limits are regulated until 2014, then eliminated
Rate hikes need to be justified
Funding for scholarships and loan repayments for primary care doctors and nurses
Establishing Consumer Assistance Programs in the States
A new $15 billion Prevention and Public Health Fund
Funding for community health centers
Increased payments to rural health care providers
Prescription drug discounts
Free preventive care for Seniors
At least 85% of premiums spent on health care services (some exceptions)
Reforming the Medicare Advantage program
A new Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation that will begin testing new ways of delivering care to patients
Improved care for seniors after they leave the hospital
The Independent Payment Advisory Board
Increased access to at home services
Incentives for integrated health systems
Fighting racial and ethnic health disparities
Reduced paperwork and administrative costs
Payments linked to quality outcomes
Improved Preventive Health Coverage
Increased Medicaid Payments for Primary Care Doctors
A national pilot program to encourage hospitals, doctors, and other providers to work together to improve the coordination and quality of patient care
More funding for CHIP
Establishing Affordable Insurance Exchanges
Increased Access to Medicaid
Tax credits to help the middle class
Insurers will be prohibited from dropping or limiting coverage because an individual chooses to participate in a clinical trial
Paying Physicians Based on Value Not Volume


Basically there are 3 or 4 clauses that the mandate directly effects. The vast majority of the law does not depend on it.

[joshcryer]

57. Fascinating link. I am utterly shocked Rand, of all of them, think no mandates = not so bad.

Fucking priceless.

[Poll_Blind]

36. IMO, The People want the public option but neither the Dems nor the Repukes will give it to them. nt

PB

[rudycantfail]

44. I think that is absolutely true.

[WillyT]

37. K & R !!!

[lonestarnot]

43. Well I don't suppose it will hurt any of us to hope that universal single payer will be the outcome,

but Richie Rich just ain't into it.

[KG]

51. I am the 67%

[joshcryer]

54. You posting a poll from the right wing Langer Research Associates?

Are you kidding me?

[ProSense]

56. Here's

some good info: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002465815

[chnoutte]

59. IMHO With Price Controls and Negotiated Drug Prices

Americans would accept the mandate; it is in my unofficial survey over the years the reason why so many hate the mandate.

It would also help if our party 'leader' was actually interested in single payer or price control, he is not and there is ample proof he isn't.

Until the party leadership is actually interested in change, we will be stuck with being forced to buy an expensive private product with little to no price controls.

Electing politicians who are committed to single payer is the only way we will get change.