If ACA is struck down, are you really so naive as to think single-payer will come to the rescue?

[backscatter712]

It won't. The Republicans are perfectly fine with letting hundreds of thousands, maybe millions die for lack of health care. That's how psychopaths roll. They have no conscience or guilt about this.

Remember the GOP debates? The audience cheered at the idea of allowing a cancer patient to die because he can't afford to pay his bills or afford insurance. That's how fucked up and twisted they are.

They want our country to be transformed into their pet banana republic. They want us all poor and desperate. And if we all have relatives or friends suffering and dying, so much the better for them. Keeps us all scared shitless and coming to those $.50/hr jobs and keeping our heads down rather than daring to challenge the oligarchs.

The only people in the new order who would have good health care are the politicians, the 1% rich elites, and the super-militarized police they're paying to keep the rest of us from getting uppity.

If ACA is struck down, we'll lose health care for decades, and it may take a revolution to change things.

[still_one]

1. You are absolutely right, and it will most likely give repukes control to limit heath care for even

more who need it

[kenny blankenship]

2. Will you commit to demonstrating for Single Payer/ Medicare 4all???

[still_one]

5. Sure, but it won't matter, the "new" repugs will run the show if ACA goes down, and they won't care

what the people think or want, assuming there are enough intellitent people in this country to realize that everyone needs healthcare


http://www.latimes.com/health/la-na-healthcare-plaintiff-20120309,0,6657163.story

[daleanime]

40. There are.....

poll after poll show 60-70% want it(depending on what label you use for it.)


For some reason the desires of the American people no longer register with their government....I wonder why?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[bornskeptic]

89. I've never seen any of those polls. How about a link?

I don't mean a PNHP focus group, which is about as credible as an NRA focus group on gun control.

[daleanime]

95. Google "Medicare for all Poll"....

and take your pick. The numbers have been pretty consistent from poll to poll over the years.

[backscatter712]

8. Sure, but there will be enough Sarah Palins howling about death panels...

That meaningful reform won't happen for another 50 years.

[kenny blankenship]

10. Well you just let Sarah Palin decide what you're going to do, then

The system is in collapse. This whole fight is about WHO it collapses on and who gets protected. The natural evolution of health care, or any market for any commodity that has become so costly as to start shedding "customers", customers who used to be able to afford it, is to cut out useless middlemen. In this case, the skim of the Insurance Mafia middleman is huge and drives the cost spiral almost by itself. Nothing in the Act including the so-called medical loss ratio will abate this. Their contribution to the health and well being of Americans is LESS THAN nil, since their profits are predicated on denying health care delivery. At the very least they should be pushed the margins as happens in other countries. (There is private insurance in Canada, for example, it just isn't allowed to occupy a dominant position at the center of the basic health care market) Instead, this piece of shit reform chisels their role as the central and official institution for health care delivery into granite and protects them from the fallout of their past greed, much as the bank bailouts with no strings attached were used to protect their cousins in the real estate and finance sectors from the fallout of their predations. When the collapse came, the perpetrators were taken under the Federal wing and shielded from harm and blame.

Knowing the crunch was coming, and following the example set by their banking and bond insurance brethren, the useless middlemen of health insurance BOUGHT your party and wrote THEIR protection into law, too. Their version of reform is to make the government and the taxpayers liable for guaranteeing their profitability as an industry in perpetuity. A more thorough perversion of the concept of reform is hard to imagine. If it stands, the health insurance mafia will be Too Big To Fail for the foreseeable future, since the govt will have announced that they are OFFICIALLY "our health care system". The burden and agony for propping up their dead weight will then fall on all of us, for as long as we tolerate Kleptocracy.

[tcaudilllg]

77. It's just not that way.

Co-ops are also possible. The co-ops will kill the insurance firms over the long term.

[joshcryer]

24. What are you talking about, Sarah Palins? I've seen people on the LEFT do it.

Right here on DU.

[TheWraith]

16. Single payer is not going to pass Congress.

It's really that simple. Congress is not going to pass single payer now, or probably for years at least, until and unless a few states create their own systems for it and show off the benefits.

[pnwmom]

88. That will be so helpful, since the media are so great at covering progressive demonstrations. nt

[freshwest]

3. +1,000. Sorry to say that I agree. If ACA stays, I predict it will become Medicare4All.

And I made up that term Medicare4All, so it's no use googling for it...

[spanone]

4. i expect if it's shot down, universal healthcare will be toxic for years...never happen

[still_one]

6. I am sorry to say I agree with you /nt

[BlueDemKev]

25. Years? Try DECADES!!

[CTyankee]

30. A prof. from MIT said on Tweety just now that it would be 17 years before it would be addressed

again, based on past experience.

I think there is a possibility that it could be much sooner, depending on how much traction OWS gets in the general public.

We shall see...

[CAPHAVOC]

31. I listened to the audio

I would say it is unclear what they will do.

[Major Hogwash]

63. The name of the professor from MIT was Professor Gruber.

Really smart guy.

Although I have to admit, I haven't heard of anyone named Gruber since I watched "McHale's Navy" reruns many decades ago.

[CBHagman]

64. If anything changes, it'll be down to demographics and obesity rates.

I think there are going to be more chronic health problems with younger and younger people, sad to say, given the rates of obesity in the country.

Another factor is, of course, general demographics, both different expectations on the part of younger workers who focus on quality of life and longevity rates among people who are inching towards retirement age (whatever that's going to turn out to be!).

[tcaudilllg]

69. No way. Radical solution is only forseeable way.

American democracy never really has worked perfect. SS was accepted as constitutional after FDR proposed reforms to the court (reforms that would have put it on the road to irrelevance). Health care can be justified on the same grounds... and if it goes they could be next.

Our entire future SHOULD NOT rest in the hands on one man, as it does now. This just should not be happening.

[FSogol]

35. +1. Spot on. n/t

[abelenkpe]

7. If the mandate is a no go

but the rest of reform survives the insurance companies will go bankrupt.

[Taverner]

9. Exactly

I don't like the mandate either, but that doesn't matter.

If HRC is killed, things stay as shitty as they are indefinitely

Chances are a Democrat won't touch this with a 10 foot pole ever again

[girl gone mad]

11. Maybe this is something "Centrist" Dems should have thought about..

before dumping the public option. There were many people on the left pointing out the questionable legal status of the mandate.

[xchrom]

14. +1

[vi5]

15. +1,000,000,000

We all predicted this was going to happen. We all knew how this was going to play out, and plenty of people said it.

So not only did they ignore the warnings, even with more than enough time to prepare and to find someone who was a competent enough jurist to be able to fight for this in court they appoint and send in a stammering, bumbling solicitor general who can't even answer the basic questions we all knew that the conservative wing would ask.

I wanted to give this guy the benefit of the doubt, prior to having heard the audio. But after hearing it......oof.

Way to go, Admin. Another stellar move.

[ProSense]

19. Why would

"Maybe this is something "Centrist" Dems should have thought about.. before dumping the public option. There were many people on the left pointing out the questionable legal status of the mandate. "

...they since they agreed with Republicans and voted against the health care bill?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002408633

[regnaD kciN]

20. Except that "centrist" Democrats were beholden to the health-care industry...

They didn't give a damn whether there was universal health care or not. If the choice had been between a public option and nothing, the key "centrist" bloc (Nelson, Landrieux, Lincoln, the two Nelsons, and Holy Joe) would have voted to give us nothing.

[joshcryer]

23. Wow, so, you actually agree with the OP?

Do you then agree that it is imperative that we maintain HCR?

[BlueDemKev]

26. Agreed, the problem was....

...there was NOT enough votes in the Senate to pass a public option. Harry Reid did his best to include it in the Senate version, but he couldn't convince all 60 Democrats to support it. It was either this or nothing at all.

[eomer]

32. It did not require 60 votes.

It could have been done with just 50 votes by including it in the reconciliation bill that enacted the final changes.

There may or may not have been enough (50) votes; we'll never know since Democratic leadership wouldn't let it come to a vote.

[rudycantfail]

36. Amazing that

this fundamental part of the story has to be explained so often here. I heard Ed Shultz repeat the 60 vote meme today - sad.

[a2liberal]

50. +1 (n/t)

[joshcryer]

45. Yes it did. Ezra Klein covered it extensively.

Everyone was fantasizing about ignoring Senate Rules of Procedure in a true act of cronyism like the Bush years.

[eomer]

53. Maybe you'll believe Ezra Klein, then, when he says it didn't?

Excerpt from an Ezra Klein blog entry:

Sen. Michael Bennet's effort to revive the public option in the reconciliation process is gaining steam, with almost 20 senators signing on to the idea. Among them are Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer, who are not, shall we say, possessed of a whimsical or quixotic temperament.

Of course, you don't need almost 20 senators. You need 51, or more. And complicating that project is that the question here is not simply "public option: yes or no?" It's whether you want to jam a public option into a bill that Senate Democrats already passed without a public option. Not only are you throwing out any hope of appearing even slightly bipartisan, but you're also increasing internal dissension and adding unpredictability into a process that's collapsed into chaos already.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/02/is_the_public_option_making_a.html

Klein is still off by 1 - you don't need 51 but rather 50 because the Vice President can cast the 51st vote. But he's got the general idea. A reconciliation process bill cannot be filibustered so it takes only 50 votes.

If you're still doubtful, here is an excerpt from the Wikipedia article for the final reconciliation bill, showing that it did not need 60 votes (it passed by a vote of 56-43 in the Senate):

In the Senate, the bill faced numerous amendments made by the Republicans, all of which failed. However, the Republicans had two provisions dealing with Pell Grants stricken from the bill due to violations of budget reconciliation rules, forcing the bill to return to the House.[12] The two provisions were: The fourth paragraph of Sec. 2101(a)(2)(C) and Sec. 2101(a)(2)(D).[13][14] On March 25, the bill passed the Senate by a 56–43 vote, with all Republicans and 3 Democrats voting against it.[15] The only Democratic Senators to vote against were: Lincoln (D-AR), Nelson (D-NE) & Pryor (D-AR). Later in the same day the House passed the modified bill by a 220–207 vote, sending it to President Obama for a signature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Care_and_Education_Reconciliation_Act_of_2010

And here is an article by The Hill, stating that reconciliation could be used to pass healthcare reform and that it therefore does not take 60 votes:

The Senate could still use budget rules to pass healthcare without 60 votes, the White House indicated Monday.

President Barack Obama is hopeful that the Senate will pass a healthcare bill with 60 votes, but White House press secretary Robert Gibbs held out the possibility that budget reconciliation rules could still be used.

He said Senate leaders and the White House would turn to those rules, which would prevent the Senate from needing to secure 60 votes for procedural steps, only if they are not making progress.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/67011-white-house-wont-rule-out-reconciliation-rules-on-healthcare

[joshcryer]

55. Don't move the goalposts. PPACA passed 60-39. HCERA was only possible with PPACA.

PPACA passed the Senate on December 24, 2009, by a vote of 60–39 with all Democrats and two Independents voting for, and all Republicans voting against. It passed the House of Representatives on March 21, 2010, by a vote of 219–212, with 34 Democrats and all 178 Republicans voting against the bill.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act

Show me how PPACA could've passed with less than 60 votes without a concurrent resolution to invoke reconciliation.

[eomer]

56. As I said in the first place:

First sentence from my first post above:

It could have been done with just 50 votes by including it in the reconciliation bill that enacted the final changes.

As I said, it could have been done in that final bill that was a reconciliation bill and therefore could not be filibustered.

[joshcryer]

57. Ahh, yes, OK, I see what you're saying. I don't think they could have.

A public option (or single payer) would've been non-budgetary amendments at their core and would've instantly fallen out of reconciliation, imo. If you look at the reconciliation language it is all purely budgetary.

[eomer]

59. They could easily have gotten a ruling from the parliamentarian; they chose not to try.

There have been many things similar to the public option that have been passed by the Senate through reconciliation bills. It seems unlikely to me that the parliamentarian would have ruled against it. But like the question of whether there were 50 votes, we don't know for certain whether it would have been ruled acceptable by the parliamentarian because they never asked.

By the way, Senate Majority Leader Reid disagreed with you and thought it could be done in reconciliation and he said he supported doing it through reconciliation:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/19/reid-will-push-for-public_n_469483.html

But someone convinced him to back off and not pursue it and so the question was never posed to the parliamentarian and a vote was never taken.

[joshcryer]

62. If so then that's another case of them not having a spine.

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

83. How did Bush get his evil agenda passed with only 51 votes? n/t

[jmowreader]

96. Because the 60-vote rule is recent

IIRC on the first day of the Senate that opened in 2007 (which featured a Democratic majority for the first time in several years), the Republicans created a rule that the margin of victory for any bill in the Senate was 60 votes. It hasn't been fixed. The purpose, of course, was to let the GOP turn Congress into a do-nothing body so they could campaign against it.

[kudzu22]

99. Sorry, that's not right

The 60-vote cloture rule has been around since the mid 1970s. And both sides have used it extensively to block anything they don't like.

[Doctor_J]

85. Also, the president failed to get behind it

If he'd made that a fight, 90 million people would have been in the streets fighting for him/it. He back pedaled immediately, convincing some Kool-Aid drinkers that this was "the best we could do", and that it "will turn into MFA".

[CTyankee]

49. questioning? we were screaming! we knew what would happen.

people would go nuts!

I love the idea. It's wonderful and nice.

But people get really nasty when it is time to pay up. They LOVE to vote against ANY kind of tax increase. And this is a tax increase to them.

So let's be clear...

[awoke_in_2003]

52. Thank you very much...

you don't begin negotions with what you hope as the outcome (single payer was never an option in this country). If I will settle on selling something for $100, I ask for $150 and go from there. Our politicians are just as much in the back pocket of insurance company lobbyists as the others.

[Bluenorthwest]

12. I so naive as to agree with the candidate who said of mandates

"If things were that easy, I could mandate everybody to buy a house and that would solve the problem of homelessness."
That's how he got my support in spite of his less than stellar words and actions toward my community.

[Yo_Mama]

13. We'll get it if we want it, but most people don't want it.

That's sad but true. There are a lot of winners in the US system, and they don't want to pay more in taxes to fund a universal/close to universal system.

Anyway, I just read today's transcript, and it looks like ACA IS going down.

[MannyGoldstein]

44. Polls Find That Two-thirds of Americans Want Single Payer

a.k.a., Medicare for all: Incredible: Single Payer way more popular than ObamaRomneyCare.

Unless we really fuck it up, Medicare for All should drop the cost of health care by at least 30%.

[Yo_Mama]

58. Yes, but they don't want to pay for it

Americans are pretty ignorant about the amount of taxes that universal health care systems require, and Americans seem to believe that most people actually get free health care, or very low cost health care. They don't.

On the other hand, our current system is wasteful, confusing and inefficient, so you won't get any argument from me that we wouldn't save money by going to a universal health care system. It would require higher-income individuals to pay substantially more, however. That's what Congress was trying to avoid with ACA.

[truedelphi]

93. No Americans really and truly are NOT ignorant of how much it costs to have

Decent Health Care.
Many of us know for instance, that the per capita cost of HC in France is far less than what we pay here.
But not only do Americans pay more, we get crap care in return! Take a moment and google to find and read any of many indexed groupings of how much people are paying here and then compared our status with that of the other nations of the world. We pay more than anyone else anywhere - and we rank 37th, 38th or even lower than other nations do in terms of health.

[Yo_Mama]

94. I figured that out on DU

People were describing how much they thought they ought to pay for health insurance, and a lot of working people didn't even know how much the company paid for theirs.

Everyone isn't sheltered from the costs, but a lot of people are.

Most Americans don't even know what Medicare costs per beneficiary.

[truedelphi]

97. You and others are making the point that

No one wants to pay what it would cost, or even knows what it would cost.

What you and others are saying is very true. I have often thought it would be helpful if every employer posted every fiscal quarter a small index print out of how much the company is paying for the health care of employees.

I had one friend who approached his boss shortly after his fortieth birthday. his birthday each year also coincided with the day he first tarted working for the company.

"So, Boss, how come I don't see my yearly raise on my paycheck this year? You guys gave me a good review for my work, but there's no raise."

"Well, P, you just turned 40 - and all of your raise plus about another 20% now gopes to the additional costs of you health care."

P was astounded. And if he hadn't brought up the subject, he'd never would have known about this aspect of his true costs to his employer.

[SidDithers]

17. Nailed it...nt

Sid

[robinlynne]

18. the republicans aren't the only ones. Remember the Democrats kept single payer

proponents out of the room completely as helath cre was discussed. OUT OF THE ROOM. not allowed in.

[tcaudilllg]

70. I look at it this way

Anyone can create a health coop if they get enough people together. Choosing who you want to work with = best feature of capitalism.

[truedelphi]

91. Yep, that was it exactly. And don't forget - the room itself was down

The street from the WH, so the public would not have the privilege of knowing who visited Rahm when, and what the Insurance Big Shots said, and how it was all constructed to give the Big Insurers almost everything they wanted.

In offering up this Big Win for the Big Insurers, it is once again a case of our government letting us know that we are continuing to have our rights to sue or demand value from the Big Businesses negated. Even though someone somewhere should care about Big Businesses offering us value rather than merely demanding profits.

AND with the government forces us to buy insurance from private insurance companies -- where does that leave most of the american citizenry except as indentured servants to those companies? Our wages going to them for little or even no health care.

[Common Sense Party]

21. I thought ACA was supposed to be the "stepping stone" to single-payer.

Employers would start dropping their coverage and more and more people would get in an exchange plan.

[stevenleser]

28. Exactly. That is why if it is killed, it kills single-payer by proxy. nt

[CTyankee]

48. I think you are correct. This is why it is such high stakes. If everybody thinks they can just go

back asleep, they are mistaken.

UNLESS, there is a HUGE OWS uprising...what are the chances of that right now?

[joshcryer]

22. Yep, said this in another thread. Totally asinine.

It will be a catastrophe. Single payer will come along but it will be after hundreds of thousands of people suffer or die miserably and unnecessarily.

[Cleita]

27. Don't underestimate the power of the people today.

I do believe that the occupy movements are making them a tad uncomfortable. If we really make them listen to us in the future, the outcome may be different this time around.

[tcaudilllg]

76. If Anthony Kennedy plays the idiot, we should rachet up the OWS "volume".

Forget civil disobedience... just create a new system to fester on the other as parasite to host until it's dead.

[quaker bill]

29. You are correct

I have a feeling that it will be upheld, but if it goes down, that is it, at least for my lifetime.

[Demeter]

33. Actually, Yes, I do Expect Single Payer to be the End Result

once this abortion of an insurance company subsidy program is shot down.

I don't know when that single payer will come, but it will. OWS has given me the courage to know I'm not the only one facing Reality without a crutch. We are 99% of the problem or 99% of the solution. Take your pick.

We can have a healthy people and a healthy economy, or we can have bloated and subsidized corporations. We can't have both.

[lefthandedlefty]

34. That is also why they are against birth control

The more people you have competing for work the cheaper they will work and the more grateful they will be for what ever they can get.

[nobodyspecial]

66. Not really

It's more about stemming the changing demographics. Pretty soon, whites will be the minority. That is about more white babies being born.

[budkin]

37. No way in hell.

Insurance will just get more expensive and less people will have it.

[SolutionisSolidarity]

38. It'll take a revolution to change a light bulb, the way things are going.

This country can not reform itself, except to become more insular and unconcerned with the welfare of its citizens. Try to change the politicians, and their owners will spend limitless amounts of money to bury you with deception. Try to change the political process to limit the influence of plutocrats, and the supreme court will declare it unconstitutional. And if you do get someone in whose willing to make some mild reforms, the supreme court will declare those unconstitutional as well. There doesn't seem to be a point to voting; the government is just going to do what the power elite dictate anyway.

[librechik]

39. yep--and every time we've tried (avg 17 years) the mix is more & more conservative

That's the trend as discussed by an expert on MSNBC earlier today.

[daleanime]

41. Need a revolution already....

what's one more reason?

[Spike89]

42. Nope, we won't see federal single-payer if this falls

This half-step did not ensconce the insurance industry in the driver's seat forever. Rather, it set in a framework for easily transitioning to a public option which is a step toward full single payer. I was very much hoping that we could at least take a full step in the start and have at least some type of public option, but the political will simply wasn't (and IMO still isn't) there.
If this law is overturned, it will be harder, not easier to take that first full step, much less the two steps required to reach a civilized national health system. The states will be left with the impossible task of implementing their own systems. The problem of course with that approach is that if a state implements single payer it becomes a magnet for the sick and the costs potentially rise so fast that your tax rate pushes away business/jobs and the spiral pulls down the whole thing.
You almost must have regional multi-state plans. Still, you are likely to end up with the same situation we have currently with blue states subsidizing the red ones. The red states will crow about their "freedom from socialized medicine" and low taxes for the rich while the mouth-breathing tea-party idjits that live there will think nothing of crossing the border into the nearest blue area for some cheap/free medical care.
I really don't see anything good possibly arising from the courts killing this bill.

[bluestate10]

65. I favor a regional plan.

I too don't see Single Payer as being realistic. If Obama fails and potentially pays a political price, what other President would attempt any action at all? A regional system between blue states would work if those states bar everyone but their citizens that have lived in the state for x years. Children of citizens that live in the states would be covered. Red state citizens that travel to regional systems would get turned away and referred to health care sources in their states, regardless of how ill they are. Heartless? Not as heartless as the red staters that form the attack groups against bringing affordable, quality health care to all americans.

[Spike89]

73. Constitutionally "iffy" because of the commerce clause for one thing

I do agree that it may be the only short term (within decades) solution, but it would be very difficult/impossible to keep people from moving into the blue regions. For one thing, setting up regional government entities is a murky situation both politically and constitutionally. Worse, it would have the potential of further dividing the nation.
I think it will end up being done on a state by state basis in a "semi-regional" manner, i.e., most/all of the NE states or Pacific coast states enacting similar programs. Hopefully that would be enough to insulate the programs a bit and allow the benefits to be made clear.
I'm totally convinced that if we had anything close to single payer for any time at all, it would quickly become so popular that all the republicans could do would be to attack on the fringes. I'm equally convinced that they know this to be true and will do everything they can to never let the US public see the benefits of a socialized and sane health care system.

[tcaudilllg]

75. That won't work either.

You'll end up with increasingly darker red states until the reds outnumbers the blues. Then the radical right takeover will be complete.

There is a pathos running through this entire situation: law over justice. Remember: people blame Hitler for all that he orchestrated, but everything he did was legal in the context of German law. Blind obedience to the law is another road to hell... all the revolutions of the past ignored the law and stood for justice.

[Jack Rabbit]

43. No, I'm not that naive

Why should any one who isn't a racketeer in the private health insurance industry or one of the industry's bought and paid for congresscritters hope ACA goes down?

My disappointment in ACA is that is insufficient reform, not bad reform as far as it goes. After its passage, I didn't moan "this is terrible," I moaned "we'll have to revisit this sooner rather than later." A robust public option is needed at a minimum. We can't vote out the racketeers who run the health insurance companies. We can vote out politicians who make health insurance reform weak.

[mistertrickster]

46. Yes. I am that naive.

Maybe Obama won't FUCK IT UP this next time around . . .

[Raine]

54. Agree me too and I hope if/when it's rejected

it will be done right this time.

[golfguru]

47. Gov Howard Dean on mandates:

Howard Dean: Individual Mandate Will Be Declared "Unconstitutional"

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/03/26/howard_dean_individual_mandate_will_be_declared_unconstitutional.html

[Poll_Blind]

51. Hell yeah. I was also told I was naive to vote for an inexperienced black senator from Illinois.nt

PB

[bluestate10]

60. Many are. Despite centuries where health care wnet unreformed.

Most of the people claiming the if health care reform goes down, Single Payer will arise are some of the very people that launch into a rage when one points out the Nader cost Gore Floride in 2000 and hence screwed the nation.

[kenny blankenship]

61. You must believe the healthcare problem would go away by itself

It won't. ACA was an attempt to hold the system as it was together by legally fixing it in place. And King Canute forbade the sea to rise. It wouldn't fix the problems of spiraling costs and shitty care, but it could get in the way of a non-phony reform for 15 years or so.

The problems of US health care system if left alone aren't going to go away by themselves any more than the insurance mafia would voluntarily go out of business.

The symptoms will get worse and the impetus to fix the actual underlying cause of the illness, which is excessive profit and rent collection by power brokers within the system, will only become more urgent with time.

[Pachamama]

67. I predict if ACA is struck down that it will outrage people so much that in November elections, the

House will turn back to the Dems and Progressives who will work their asses off to bring medicare for all.....

Just like the assault on women has backfired on the GOP and is going to cost them the Presidency, I predict the ACA being declared by the SCOTUS as unconstitutional will lead to the Dems winning back Congress and people waking up that who sits on the Supreme Court and in White House DOES matter and to make sure we get more seats in Senate to stop this bullshit blocking by Republicans.

And if this doesnt happen, we are all f*cked and I think we need a revolution in this country and a constitutional change where we move to a parliamentary system where there is no longer a set-up for a two-party system and instead real representation of the citizens and there are coalitions that WORK TOGETHER. That and campaign finance reform and making Citizens United and PACs illegal.

[tcaudilllg]

71. The only way is to force the system to justify itself.

We do that by harnessing that anger and suspicious towards alternatives to the existing establishment. Not quite Libya... we have more unity than that, but....

We must apply capitalistic principles directly to the state. Not inside the state, but to create alternative STATES.

[Pachamama]

72. Im a stay at home mom in an upper class area....I am far from "Radical" and I can see that this may

....be ultimately what happens to this country if things dont change.....

I have a very different perspective because I grew up in Europe....but what I see happening here in the US, i not only feel sad, I am concerned for the future of this country.

There is no perfect fix or system...but when I compare the European parliamentary system, Canada's parliamentary system etc and when I visit those countries having conversations with people and real discussions (not the Team 1 vs. Team 2 battle we have here in the US) i start to believe that may be ultimately the only way to fix things.....

[Doctor_J]

82. Way too much Kool-Aid being served at your place

If I had a buck for every time a Dem said, "The right has overplayed their hand" over the last 20 years, I'd be out of this 3rd-world shit hole tomorrow.

[treestar]

84. Polls don't indicate that

Polls show the support for the ACA being kind of weak.

[tcaudilllg]

86. Right: ACA has two opponents.

The Right and the ultra-left.

End result: the socialist vs capitalist crusade keeps people from getting care.

[joshcryer]

92. Exactly how they want it, too.

And it's not the "ultra-left" it's the authoritarian left. The ultra left actually cares about people.

[tcaudilllg]

68. I agree.

A constitutional convention should be considered. That would, obviously, throw the laws into question, for many, and set the gears in motion for a revolt (which would be brief, no doubt reflecting the contempt of the center for radical right selfishness, not to mention that we would all be better off with universal care!)

In the meantime, other options should be explored to crush the existing system and replace it with a suitable alternative. After all, we're in a state of upheaval, right?
- local pacts should be made to ignore the rulings of the supreme court. Alternative courts should be set up. Enlistment of police officers would of course be preferred.
- politicians should be brought into line via politics of personal destruction. Mobilize factions and discredit outcomes that don't favor us. Opponent media figures should be strongly demonized.
- the insurance industry should be wiped out. Mass dis-enrollment drives should occur. County to county, local to local. People should stop paying their medical bills. Credit unions should be enlisted in a drive to ignore the presence of unpaid medical bills when calculating credit scores (this should happen anyway). Absolute disengagement from the radical right is required. Stop buying Dominoes, Hanes, Intel... the works.
- You're with us or against us: people who criticize our methods should be treated as apart from the movement and targeted for character assassination.

Radical answers from the highest branches of government require radical solutions.

[FreeJoe]

74. Are you so naive...

Are you so naive that you think that the ACA isn't a stop-gap measure to cut the demand for single payer? They are trying to use it to defuse the pressure building to overthrow the current system.

[KG]

78. it won't 'come to the rescue', it will need to be worked for and demanded.

but as I read on DU, it could never possibly happen, so why try?

[tcaudilllg]

79. There are two prongs to the GOP pie

1) they are indeed selfish assholes
2) they sincerely believe that a poor and desperate world is easier driven to Christianity, so that gives them "moral" cover. Forget justice... they are all about the morality, particularly because that morality gives them the cover they need to satisfy their self-interests.

[Loge23]

80. Return of the Dark Ages

It's not just health care, the basic, must-have, necessity of human life; it's also the return of the dark ages in the former U.S.A.
The idiots have won, however foolish the watered-down ACA was.
The ignorants will rule again in 2012. This will devastate Obama's campaign.
This country is toast.

[Doctor_J]

81. Yes, this 9-D chess argument is getting wearisome

But it goes on and on, and the cons count on us never fighting back. How many teabaggers do you think will be weeping if these criminals overturn ACA? That's how many real Americans should be celebrating. We are our own worst enemy a lot of the time. this is a perfect example.

[tcaudilllg]

87. We'd better make this a summer to remember.

[MNBrewer]

90. Of course single-payer will be enacted!

Don't be ridiculous.

[tralala]

98. rec'd for most condescending thread title on the front page