If you want to screw the ACA, do you want the disabled to be charged more for insurance than others?

[CreekDog]

do you want women to be charged more for insurance than men?

do you want people to have insurance that excludes preexisting conditions?

do you want the expansion of Medicaid reversed and people thrown off it?

you say you want single payer? so do I. would you like people helped by ACA in the interim or do you want to get rid of it until single payer happens?

and let us know if you have any health coverage now if you say yes.

[Spazito]

1. Good questions, I look forward to the responses from those who...

have supported the "screw ACA" perspective.

[Autumn]

2. I'm good with the ACA, but do people really need to tell the

ones who can't afford it "Screw you" ? Do they really need to be attacked and belittled because they tell their story and their problems with the ACA? Supporters of the ACA need to step back and understand that not everyone can afford to buy health insurance from the insurance companies.

I have Humana.

[VanillaRhapsody]

3. Yeah well I HAVE used it when I was on Unemployment.....I would rather have it...

$61 a month i paid for Silver plan....than NOT and be unemployed. Screw those that LIE about the ACA!

If you live in a state that didn't expand Medicail....then that is not the fault of the ACA....that is the fault of your Governor and your neighbors who voted for that person....put the blame where is belongs.

[Autumn]

6. So what, and who is telling lies about the ACA and how do you know

they are lies? You are telling a lie about your insurance plan through the ACA.

See how that works? People can call you a liar too even though you may be telling the truth.

[VanillaRhapsody]

12. You seriously believe no one has been on DU with an anti ACA agenda and lied about it?

seriously you think that?

[Autumn]

20. Lies about the ACA is an issue you have brought up. I responded to an OP on the ACA,

Seriously? How do we know you are telling the truth? Not all of us have your psychic abilities to determine who is posting lies and who isn't. We don't know the qualification you have that enables you to sniff out what posters you say are telling lies. Post your credentials or STFU and let DUers have a decent exchange without your baseless and screeching attacks .

[VanillaRhapsody]

23. One just happened on this very thread....

that the problem of people falling through the cracks in states without ACA is the fault of the ACA...

That is a LIE....it works quite well and is favored by 70% in those states that HAVE implemented it...

The problem is with THEIR state...

But if you call telling the truth screeching...so be it.

[Autumn]

10. I'm blaming no one. But it does seem that is a problem that could have been taken care of

in the structuring of the ACA. Some one should have known that the puke governors would have done that very thing that they did. Someone should have been a step ahead on that little problem.

[VanillaRhapsody]

13. How would they freaking know that....do they have crystal balls?

and even if they continue this path...they will fall in line one by one....because HOSPITALS will demand it...BECAUSE the govt is NOT going to fund their indigent care at their emergency rooms. States will HAVE to make up that shortfall. Its just a matter of time...

and THAT is what's built into it...

[Autumn]

24. Any politician, especially Democrats who are supposedly smarter should have known that the

pukes would do just that. Your comment cystal balls aside, they would do better to have them than what they have.

[VanillaRhapsody]

30. ah....but some "puke" governors DIDN'T do that....

some have accepted it.....and it is the Governors decision....unless you believe in reading minds...

Like I said...it is built in....their hospitals will no longer get Fed funding for indigent care.....its just a matter of time.

so NO that is not the fault of the ACA...that is a lie.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

144. No, the states don't have to make up the shortfall

The hospitals will have to eat the costs, or pass them on to others.

[Shemp Howard]

129. You're right, Autumn.

There is a loophole in the ACA that allows Republican governors to sabotage the program. That is a flaw in the ACA, no way around it.

As an analogy, if there is a unlockable side door in a movie theater that allows people to get in for free, that situation is the fault of the management. Certainly, people who use that door should be criticized for their unethical behavior. But the problem was caused by the people who ordered that door in the first place.

Having said all that, I wonder if this ACA flaw was a necessary inclusion, needed to get the whole thing passed.

[Autumn]

130. It was what 3 republicans and 3 Democrats who wrote it?

One thing I'm sure of is that the republicans do nothing in good faith.

[Lars39]

14. All most of us ask is to show some empathy for those of us in red state hell.

Dismissal of legitimate gripes and concerns does come off as "screw you,I got mine."

[VanillaRhapsody]

16. No but your hospitals are going to demand it for you.....

get involved...get active about that. Complaints that the ACA sucks...are not going to get you the expanded Medicaid now is it?

There HAVE been folks that have outright lied about their experience with ACA on DU. Attack them instead of complaining about the program itself...which by the way has a 70% approval rating among those that DO have it.

[Lars39]

18. You have to recognize problems before you can solve them.

Shouting down those that have legitimate problems with ACA will not solve those problems.

[VanillaRhapsody]

19. that is NOT a problem with the ACA...as I already stated.....

that is one of the lies I am talking about....

[Lars39]

22. What is the lie you are talking about?

I gave no example.

[VanillaRhapsody]

25. that it is a problem of the ACA that some states didn't implement it....thats a lie

that is NOT the ACA ....that is the state.

[Lars39]

33. There are people with legitimate complaints in the states thar did expand.

Being dismissive of those legitimate complaints and of the misery that is happening in those states that did not expand will not solve the problems.
All the invalidation does is alienate people.

[VanillaRhapsody]

35. and that is ANOTHER Lie.....it is favored by 70% of those who have used it...

[Lars39]

38. That doesn't mean there aren't problems and concerns that need to be fixed.

[VanillaRhapsody]

39. No one said it cannot be improved just like every other Fed. program has....

but States not expanding Medicaid is not the fault of the ACA....the fix for that is built in. The hospital systems will no longer be funded by Federal Dollars for indigent care...the STATES will have to take care of that themselves....THAT will eventually overwhelm their budgets and they WILL expand it.....its built in.

[Lars39]

47. Can't be improved if the problems are ignored.

And yes, the mechanism will hopefully trip and it will all happen more or less as planned. But in the meantime some empathy and sympathy for those less fortunate than you is in order.
It is basic good manners to not make those in less fortunate circumstances feel even worse about those bad circumstances.

[VanillaRhapsody]

50. It is Not ignored...as I already told you....

its built in....its a matter of time....get active.

ALL states WILL eventually get it.....when their budgets are overwhelmed by indigent care....that is built in...just like the fact that ANY state can create their own Single Payer system at will....

[Lars39]

51. Why assume people aren't? And why haven't blue staters rolled up their sleeves to help also?

If it's important to red staters it is important to blue staters, too.

[VanillaRhapsody]

78. What else do you want Blue Staters to do? Go to war with Red Staters and force it on them?

this is a Democracy and they voted AGAINST the ACA....

[Lars39]

93. That's all you can suggest?

[VanillaRhapsody]

97. what else do you want?

Not sure what kind of miracles you are expecting....Republicans happen!

[Lars39]

102. The usual is always welcome and helpful...warm bodies and money to help organize.

[Mr.Bill]

101. In worry that instead, they will

let hospitals go out of business and blame it on Obamacare. Already happening in Georgia. Don't underestimate the evil in these Republican assholes.

[Autumn]

34. Honey try reading instead of screeching for a minute. I said that was the fault of the politicians

who wrote it. The ACA is a piece of legislation. Politicians are the one who wrote it and didn't address that little issue.

[VanillaRhapsody]

36. I am NOT your Honey....thats sexist...

And I don't screech...I tell the truth.

this "little issue" is not the fault of the ACA....but of Red States themselves. By the way....those same Red States have been getting more FROM the Federal Govt than they have paid in taxes for YEARS...Blue states keep those state afloat...

And this is why it is written into the ACA that ANY state can form its own Single Payer System....the ACA is going to use the ENVY of Red States to get them on board at some point...its all a matter of time.

[Autumn]

42. For the last time, the ACA did not fucking write itself. Red state governors did not write it.

Politicians wrote it and any Democrats worth their salt had to have known the red state governors would do just what they did. And it should have been addressed beforehand.

[VanillaRhapsody]

46. for Everytime...I will NOT stand by and allow lies to be told about the ACA....PERIOD!

Its built IN! They will eventually roll over....they have no choice. Their hospitals WILL demand payment and states CANNOT cover that cost.....it HAS been addressed.

GET active....

[Autumn]

53. OMFG

[VanillaRhapsody]

54. thats all you got?

figures...

[Autumn]

55. That's all I need

I would offer you some coffe but man

[VanillaRhapsody]

57. Oh you need something alright.....

a dose of the truth....it shall set you free...

[Nuclear Unicorn]

88. "I will NOT stand by and allow lies to be told about the ACA....PERIOD!"

Careful. I think she's going to get you out by the monkey bars at recess.

[Autumn]

96. I told Vanilla the other day that I didn't know

if I should be flattered or terrified that lately she has gone after me in every thread I dare to post in.

[pnwmom]

81. No, they didn't "have" to know that. Rethugs have a long history of demanding

local control and states' rights. The Dems could not know that in this one case the Rethugs would decide to cede their power over to the Federal government, despite the dangling of funds that would pay for doing it themselves.

Also, the Dems did not know that there would subsequently be a lawsuit about this language or that SCOTUS would rule against it. The ruling went against precedent -- Justice Scalia's own precedent.

[VanillaRhapsody]

87. twice in one thread...thanks again....

Its as if they think Republicans do not exist...

[Autumn]

94. I'm just going to say that this was talked about on DU when the ACA was being written

Most of us here knew the pukes would do whatever they could do to sabotage it and there were many posts about how the red state governors could and would reject ANYTHING Obama offered them simply because they hate him. I am of the opinion that the Democrats we voted for were smart enough to have known that. And I am also of the opinion that most Democrats would have also have been able to suspect that a supreme court with a fucking RW asshole like scalia in charge would do just that. I will never buy that the Dems did not know that a court challenge was a very real possibility. Now that is my opinion.

I support the ACA very much I am thankful for it but it does have problems. Those problems will be fixed.

[pnwmom]

113. I never saw any posts saying that the Rethugs would reject state control. But let's pretend

that people here were that brilliant. How would they have rewritten the 900 page ACA to make sure that SCOTUS wouldn't twist it and produce the outcome the Rethugs wanted? Could such a perfect bill have ever been written? In the real world by actual human beings without the gift of 20/20 hindsight?

[Autumn]

117. You know I'm not going to argue with you. So you go on and have a nice day.

[JDPriestly]

126. Actually, it was the Republicans who did not want one national system but rather

state-by-state implementation. In fact, the Republican "alternative" if it can be called that, to the ACA was to allow insurance companies to offer their shabby plans across state lines. The ACA is not perfect, but it is such a great improvement to the disarray and insurance companies taking advantage, dropping insureds when health costs rose, a chronic condition became evident, refusing necessary care and just using their health care plans to enrich themselves especially their CEOs that was the health care industry prior to the ACA.

When an ACA critic starts complaining about the ACA, a danger signal goes off in my: insurance industry shill, propagandists, maybe paid, maybe just a fool.

Suggesting concrete measures that could improve the ACA like requiring that the entire nation get on board with the Medicaid expansion would be great. It was John Roberts' Supreme Court that required the state-by-state choice regarding the adoption of the expansion of Medicaid.

That is not the way the ACA was passed by the legislature.

http://prospect.org/article/no-really-blame-john-roberts-medicaid

[joeglow3]

69. Did the ACA gives states the option to opt out?

[VanillaRhapsody]

72. It gives them the option to Opt into a Single Payer System if they want...

You seem to think that there were no Republicans in the way of the ACA....

[joeglow3]

77. No. I am just saying there were flaws with the ACA

Your argument sounds like one the NRA would use - there is nothing wrong with the gun. It is the shooter's fault.

Sorry, buy allowing states to opt out and then say "there is nothing wrong. How did they know someone would opt out" looks like shit.

[VanillaRhapsody]

79. No it sounds like the truth....the truth is some states didn't expand Medicaid.....they are governed

by Republicans. Their citizens voted FOR Republicans ON the issue of ACA.....they didn't want it...

What do you want the govt to do...send troops?

[joeglow3]

80. draft a bill that didn't allow the states to avoid expansion?

[VanillaRhapsody]

84. and you think that will pass?

uh noo...

[joeglow3]

91. All the Republicans already opposed it. What more could they have done? Super opposed it?

[VanillaRhapsody]

100. what more do you think could have happened....Republicans are dragging their feet on this

but their hospitals are no longer getting funding for their indigent care....the states have to pay it themselves....they are denying free money instead.....at some point their own electorate is going to hear how good the ACA is in states that DID implement it.....and the will....will flow in the opposite direction.

What can this President or the Democrats do about that but wait until that fever runs its due course?

[joeglow3]

104. Which is fine. But people can still point out how it sucks that they didn't just require it

[VanillaRhapsody]

107. but they can't blame it on the ACA...what sucks is Republicans...

this has been another message from your friends at "Don't let the good be the enemy of the Perfect" dot com.

[joeglow3]

115. I am not hammering the bill, as a whole

Your quote sums up my views.

But, as our president and vice-president have said when discussing the economy - it doesn't matter how good the metrics are, the economy still sucks for the person looking for a job.

It is a good bill, except to the person left out in the cold. And it is bullshit for someone to say "don't let the good be the enemy of the perfect" when dismissing the experiences of an individual. As I said below, the faced the same federal/state split when it came to the ability set the drinking age and they managed to get it at 21. If our representatives studied the history of their own body, they would know this and could have created a better bill that did not leave so many high and dry.

[VanillaRhapsody]

116. but instead of asking for help they say...."Screw the ACA"

happens here several times a week....

and they come loaded with misinformation and refuse to hear anything else...

[pnwmom]

95. They thought they had. But it was a 900 page bill and a SCOTUS that acts politically

managed to find a way to twist a couple sentences. Do you honestly think a bill could have been written so perfectly that this very partisan SCOTUS wouldn't have found a way to defeat it?

[ieoeja]

105. They did! The Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional.

There was no "opt-out" of medicaid expansion written into the law. ACA unequivocally required that states expand medicaid. The US Supreme Court decided otherwise.

It was sort of a big deal at the time of the Court's ruling. Given enough time I guess anything can fall down the rabbit hole.

[joeglow3]

108. And yet, the drinking age is 21 in every state

Your post shows how ignorant our representatives really are. They should have known they couldn't require every state to accept it. Instead, they could have dropped a big enough carrot in front of them (i.e. if you don't expand, you get zero medicaid funds, period). EXACT same thing was done to get a national drinking age of 21. If only our representatives studied the history of their own body.

[VanillaRhapsody]

111. And yet people voted for the drinking age.....

the Supreme Court gutted the part of the ACA that required expansion of the ACA....it was not the fault of the ACA itself.

[VanillaRhapsody]

114. and Yeah....Republicans would vote to allow THAT to happen....(O medicaid funds)

I am sorry but Republicans happen.....

[joeglow3]

121. At which point, you could say you did everything you could

As it is, you canNOT say that.

[ieoeja]

128. Legislature had nothing to do with that.

Congress just allocated highway funds. Outside of earmarks, it was up to Reagan where and how to spend those funds. And it was Reagan who decided to force states to raise their drinking age.

Your idea has several major flaws:

1. Nobody dreamt the Supreme Court would make Medicaid optional.

2. Why do you think it should be optional? And if you don't, then why would you explicitly write a law that does make it optional such as you just suggested?

3. No matter how much Conservatives complain about Washington spending, they had never refused the money when offered. The modern Republican Party did something that has simply never, ever been done before.

4. In similar fashion, nobody thought Republican's would opt to use the Federal exchange instead of building their own. The "states rights" party wants to put it under Federal control while the "big government" party wanted to put it under state control? How did that even make any sense? That was just one of the many issues where Republicans threw their ideology out the window the second that Obama agreed with them.

5. Why have Conservatives always preferred state control so much anyway? First, it puts states in competition against each other rather like "free trade" agreements. So businesses get to escape regulations. Second, this would have created an entirely new beaucracy at the State level which the Republicans could have stacked with their cronies. They opted not to do so. Something else Republicans had never done before.

6. Given all of the above, do you honestly believe your correct would have worked? Do you seriously believe that Republicans would have expanded Medicaid to save Medicaid? Or you you believe they would have happily done away with Medicaid altogether? I am going for the latter one. All your proposal does is make matters worse. And just as the people in those states blame the ACA for their state not raising Medicaid, they would have blamed the ACA for their states getting rid of Medicaid. Your carrot would have given them perfect cover to fuck over their own people. And a fucking they would've gone.

[pnwmom]

82. No, it doesn't -- unless they go even further and choose single payer.

But the ACA didn't allow states to opt out of the ACA. If they don't set up a state exchange, then the Federal exchange will apply. With or without a state exchange, the states' insurers are all still bound by it.

[VanillaRhapsody]

86. thank you.....much more eloquent than I...

[JDPriestly]

127. The Supreme Court gave them the right to opt out.

http://prospect.org/article/no-really-blame-john-roberts-medicaid

[joeglow3]

137. No, they always had that right. The SC just affirmed it

Again, same reason why states were given the choice to raise the drinking age to 21.

[staggerleem]

135. Exactly the point I was going to make ...

... about how the legislators should have "crafted" it better.

At some point, they just say "Let's pass the damned thing, and see what happens. Instead of trying to predict the problems that might happen, we can fix whatever problems develop up the road, when they DO happen."

[Autumn]

26. I'll tell you what sucks and it sure isn't complaints about the ACA.

[VanillaRhapsody]

27. And I will continue to tell the truth about the ACA with first hand knowledge.....

you do what the hell you want....spread the lies!

[Autumn]

29. Tell me what I lied about if you would please.

[VanillaRhapsody]

32. that the problem that SOME states didn't accept the ACA was with the ACA....not that states Governor

that is a damn lie...and I have said so over and over...

OH and I am someone who HAS experienced ACA while unemployed.....first hand.

[Autumn]

37. Maybe you are telling a lie about experiencing ACA while unemployed.....first hand.

Who knows. see how that works? I also said that fault lies with the politicians who wrote the ACA, it would be so silly to think that little overlook is the fault of the ACA, the ACA just laid there. Do try reading.

[VanillaRhapsody]

44. But I am not....do try to keep up yourself.

I was on unemployment making just over $300 a week. I got on ACA got a Silver plan for $61 a month with $10 co-pays....and a very low out of pocket maximum. I also was unemployed recently without it.....I can tell you this...Unemployment is much less stressful when you don't have to worry about getting ill.

[Autumn]

52. Prove to me you are not telling lies. if you were to read what I said

you would see it's the truth. The fault in the ACA is the fault of those who wrote it. In no way is it possible for the ACA itself to be responsible, but those who wrote it should have known what the red state governors would do.

That was what I said and you seem to be incapable of understanding that.

[VanillaRhapsody]

56. It is NOT the fault of the ACA that YOUR state didn't accept it. Apparently your neighbors

didn't want it yet....they voted for your Gov.

[Autumn]

61. Well your crystal balls failed you. My state did accept it.

I don't have a fucking problem with the ACA, I fucking support the ACA 100 fucking % . I like the ACA, I do not like rude posters who trash DUers who were not fortunate enough to get any help from the ACA and are frustrated for that reason or for the fucking reason that they can't fucking afford to buy fucking insurance.

[VanillaRhapsody]

66. then WTF is YOUR problem...

they are frustrated but it is NOT the fault of the ACA....that is the fucking point....it works VERY well in places that DID accept it.

and for some reason....you seem to think I meant specifically YOU....guilty conscience?

[Autumn]

70. My problem is that I posted a reply to a very good OP and you come in not

reading and do your usual attacks to derail the conversation . Poster's spend more time fending off your attacks, which usually have NOTHING to do with what they have posted than they do reading the discussion. here enjoy this.

[VanillaRhapsody]

74. No I am attacking your ridiculousness blaming ACA for Red states not adopting in.....

should we hold them all at gunpoint and force it on them?

[Lars39]

71. You assume that anyone who speaks about a problem with it is lying.

There are people who are misinformed that need to be and can be educated. They need help not derision and invalidation.

[VanillaRhapsody]

76. Yeah they are also some that are willfully misinformed too...

the help is for them to demand the ACA....we cannot force it on them....

[CreekDog]

139. i agree with you, my complaint is with those that would have it repealed knowing nothing replaces it

Obviously it's a flawed program, basically Romneycare, which the Supreme Court blew a hole through with their ruling on the Medicaid expansion.

Except for trolls, which there are here, I think many of the complaints about insurance, plans and options are true, though getting rid of Obamacare wouldn't make things better, they'd make them worse.

[Autumn]

64. You know what, it is a "screw you,I got mine." mentality.

And that's very sad because they refuse to allow any discussion of this issue.

[VanillaRhapsody]

67. No its not....its a your neighbors voted Red....and apparently do not want the ACA....

you need to convince them not us....so stop lying about the supporters of the ACA....the supporters WANT all states to have the ACA. But those that voted for R's resist....if not for R's we would probably have Single Payer right now....but you don't hear Blue States blaming Red staters for THAT now do you?

[Autumn]

73. OMG are you capable of reading this earlier response to YOU?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5829599

[VanillaRhapsody]

75. your pablum?

[JDPriestly]

119. The gripe and concern should be about your Republican politicians.

They insisted that ACA be set up state by state rather than nationally. They refuse the federal Medicaid money. If you are in a red state and unhappy about the ACA, you need to point your fingers at your red state Republican politicians, not at the ACA.

ACA works well in states in which it is being fully adopted.

Here in California we have a problem in controlling prices due to Republican campaigning against a proposition that would have permitted full implementation of it. But I feel sure that will be taken care of soon enough when voters have more information.

[Bluenorthwest]

15. No State expanded Medicare. Medicaid was expanded. Not the same thing.

Medicare costs more than you pay for your Silver Plan. Medicaid is free. Big difference.

[VanillaRhapsody]

17. its was a typo...

I fixed it...thanks...

[jwirr]

21. Same with all those people who hate Obama and refused to give up their old plan that did not fit the

guidelines of ACA and are now finding out that they got themselves screwed. Fortunately for them it is time for open enrollment and the are going to get a second chance.

[Rstrstx]

83. One thing that frustrates me about the law..

..is that it lets legal aliens who make less than 100% of the FPL (Federal Poverty Line) use the Exchange as if they made 100% of the FPL but if you're a U.S. citizen who makes one penny less than the FPL you're screwed if don't live in a state that expanded Medicaid. I can see the reasoning, I'm assuming resident aliens may not have qualified for Medicaid, but still it grates me.

[VanillaRhapsody]

89. Oh you are going to need to shop proof of that.....

[Rstrstx]

92. Don't follow

Can you rephrase?

[VanillaRhapsody]

110. source please....

a link showing that to be the case...

[Rstrstx]

118. PPACA 1401 Sec 36b (c)

DEFINITION AND RULES RELATING TO APPLICABLE TAXPAYERS, COVERAGE MONTHS, AND QUALIFIED HEALTH PLAN.—For purposes of this section—
‘‘(1) APPLICABLE TAXPAYER.—
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘applicable taxpayer’ means, with respect to any taxable year, a taxpayer whose household income for the taxable year exceeds 100 percent but does not exceed 400 percent of an amount equal to the poverty line for a family of the size involved.
‘‘(B) SPECIAL RULE FOR CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS LAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES.—If—
‘‘(i) a taxpayer has a household income which is not greater than 100 percent of an amount equal to the poverty line for a family of the size involved, and
‘‘(ii) the taxpayer is an alien lawfully present in the United States, but is not eligible for the medicaid program under title XIX of the Social Security Act by reason of such alien status, the taxpayer shall, for purposes of the credit under this section, be treated as an applicable taxpayer with a household income which is equal to 100 percent of the poverty line for a family of the size involved.

[ieoeja]

112. You need to provide the other poster some proof that your claim, which sounds like complete nonsense

... really is part of the ACA and not the insane, xenophobic bullshit it sounds like.

The other poster is kind of bad about things like that. I, for one, am ready, able and willing to believe the most ridiculous statements no matter how outlandish and smelling of racism. The other poster thinks I'm naive. I prefer to think that I am just friendlier.

[Rstrstx]

120. I think you missed the point

I was trying to show how someone who's not a U.S. citizen can get a tax credit on the Exchange if they make less than 100% of the FPL but you're SOL if you're a citizen living in a non-Medicaid state.

I'm not saying I don't think legal U.S. residents should be able to get credits - they should - but since the Medicaid part of the ACA was struck down that creates a big doughnut hole for citizens in states that didn't implement the Medicaid expansion. I would have liked to have seen them offered the same opportunity as well on the Exchange.

See my response above for the section of the ACA that prescribes this.

[VanillaRhapsody]

123. I just don't suffer fools lightly....thank you very much...

didn't ask for your "analysis"...

[belzabubba333]

4. insurance companies charge young people more for their car insurance

so some of that IS going on

[True Blue Door]

5. Some folks have a kind of psychological autoimmune disorder about ACA.

It's not single-payer, so it must somehow be an obstacle to single-payer!

Are your legs not cooperating with your desire to run a marathon? Cut them off and that'll get things going right quick!

Of course, there's also just legions and legions of trolls polluting this place trying to spread FUD on the subject.

[moriah]

8. +1

[jwirr]

28. For those who feel that way it is time they go look at Social Security and Medicaid and Medicare.

All of those plans were changed to correct for problems. ACA can lead to single-payer if we manage to get control of the government away from the Rs and teapartiers.

[Hoyt]

41. Exactly. Heck, Medicare didn't cover prescription drugs until 2005.

The elderly were going without or cutting pills into thirds to get by.

The ACA is a big step that needs improvement.

[YarnAddict]

106. Except--

We did have total control of the government--Presidency, Senate, and House--when the ACA was passed, without a single R vote. So, why didn't we get single-payer then??

[jwirr]

125. Very good question. At least we should have gotten to take it to the floor.

[Hoyt]

132. There were Dems that had to be "bribed" to vote for ACA, they would not have gone for single payer.

And, a whole lot of people -- including some Democrats -- would have raised holy hell like we have never seen if single payer was enacted.

It may be what we need, but folks weren't ready for it. Nor, would they have accepted the premiums or taxes necessary to fund it.

It is sad, but a fact. The bright side is that at some point folks are going to realize that we tried with minimal changes to our traditional approach to healthcare and it didn't work. I can see, even the Republicans, at some point accepting a public option like Medicare or Medicaid. That point will probably be when they can't bash Obama anymore and want to put their name on a health care bill.

When the ACA was passed, we were very close to getting nothing like Hillarycare in the early 1990s. It was almost 20 years before anyone would touch that again.

[YarnAddict]

134. How soon do you think it will happen? n/t

[Hoyt]

136. That's tough, but I bet public option will be a big part of the 2016 Prez debate.

I think a few states within the next year will expand Medicaid, too much federal money to let go.

But, who knows with this Congress.

[Art_from_Ark]

138. Single-payer advocates were forcibly removed from ACA hearings

courtesy of Max Baucus and others

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/5/13/baucus_raucus_caucus_doctors_nurses_and

[moriah]

7. Thank you. I have health coverage thanks to the ACA.

I don't want us to give up on it as a lost cause, or to let the drive for single payer dismantle the ACA before its time has passed.

There is a time and a place for everything, and a time at which it must give way for further progress. DADT was the correct bill for the 90's, without it we would never have achieved open service. I'm glad it got repealed when it did, but for the 90s, just making sure that people wouldn't be discharged simply for being gay and stopping the witchhunts was *needed*.

Just as the ACA is needed now.

[UglyGreed]

9. It is a stepping stone

but we should strive for universal health care for all. Don't be satisfied with insurance companies controlling our health care needs.

[UglyGreed]

11. People are still

falling through the cracks.

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/disturbed-man-beheaded-mom-2-days-meeting-psychiatrist-article-1.1993915


EXCLUSIVE: Pat Ward, 66, had arranged an appointment on Friday with a psychiatrist to get medications for her 35-year-old son, Derek. ‘He killed my sister because we couldn’t get the prescriptions he needed. For four days, he didn’t have his meds,’ the Rev. Robert Lubrano told the Daily News. Derek Ward had become increasingly unstable in the days before the attack, Lubrano said.

{snip}



Derek Ward was too old to be covered by his mother's insurance, and they struggled to find a doctor who would accept Medicaid.

[moriah]

31. Every state has Community Mental Health Center block grants.

Believe me, I know, because I was having to get my treatment through the recipient of those Block Grants after I was discharged from the hospital in late 2013. They all accept Medicaid -- it was only when my disability was approved and I went off of ACA-established Medicaid that their costs became prohibitive -- the therapist I was seeing wasn't licensed so Blue Cross wouldn't cover it, and therapy was required to receive medication. I found another psychiatrist and therapist that did accept Blue Cross, and have been receiving my medication and therapy through there. That was actually more challenging than getting accepted into the clinic that received the CMHC block grant for my county.

I know it's difficult to navigate the system, but the help is there.

(Edit: I'm not blaming the woman, or her son, but this is my advice to any psych patient who runs out of meds and can't get to their doctor -- immediately go to the nearest ER and check yourself in.)

[UglyGreed]

58. I sure there other examples

out there other than the one I posted. I avoid the doctor because money is tight and I have insurance. People are struggling and health costs are a big part of the problem IMO.

[Doctor_J]

60. the whole point of capitalism is to make sure some do without

That way whatever commodity is being sold becomes worth more. Even capitalist countries (with one notable exception) realize that healthcare should not be such a commodity.

[UglyGreed]

62. +1000 N/T

[Doctor_J]

40. No. do you think we should be giving insurance companies half trillion dollars in profit every year

to provide us with the worst healthcare in the world? Let's turn it around for the ACA Fan Club/Tiger Beat/BOG

As for your OP, the answer is no (duh), and in the "logical fallacy" thread these are known as "false choice" or "appeal to emotion". You post is "flame bait" or "call-out". Medicare for all would address our healthcare problem and all of your ridiculous straw men

[CreekDog]

43. ACA increased the number of people with single payer healthcare in the USA.

[TBF]

45. People want single payer -

they want Medicare to remove the age restriction. I can't imagine people want ACA removed in the meantime, but ultimately getting rid of insurance companies is the goal. Insurance companies know this and that is why they fund lobbyists who are buying off our politicians.



(yes, I have healthcare insurance - we pay over $2K per month for our coverage)

[VanillaRhapsody]

49. well then people have to vote for that....this last election...they sure didn't.

[CreekDog]

65. I do too, and ACA expanded single payer

did you notice that part?

[GusBob]

48. You cannot please all the people all the time

there is always someone left out of the equation. In my case, Mrs GusBob has a preexisting condition. Our medical bills have required me to work 3 jobs during the holiday season in the past. I don't mind she is worth it and I am lucky to be able to work. So I don't complain.

But this year for the first time in many years I get to spend more time with our family over the holidays.

If they dump the ACA and preexisting condition coverage, we are screwed

[woo me with science]

59. Stale, offensive Third Way talking points. Moving on to another thread now.

Shun Third Way Spin and Talking Points
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5767160

It is the Third Way here that repeatedly attacks *anyone* who posts with complaints about the ACA. Newsflash: We *need* complaints about the ACA, or we will never get anything but corporate exploitation.

We are treated like blithering idiots by the Third Way propaganda.

The mandate was the salivated-after goal of the corporate profiteers, and it's sucking bilions from the pockets of Americans into the pockets of CEO's and shareholders exactly as planned.

"Why Health Insurance Shareholders Are Loving Obamacare"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025517310

Aetna Health Insurance will double Revenues to $100 billion by 2020 thanks to Obamacare
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014670789

ObamaCare Enriches The Health Insurance Giants and Their Shareholders
http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertlenzner/2013/10/01/obamacare-enriches-only-the-health-insurance-giants-and-their-shareholders/

So far in 2013 the value of the S& P health insurance index has gained 43%. Thats more than double the gains made in the broad stock market index, the S & P 500. The shares of CIGNA are up 63%, Wellpoint 47% and United Healthcare 28%.

"But, oh! It's just a first step!!!!!1!!" promise the Third Way vipers. Well, we were told SIX years ago that this was a "first step" toward something better, but true to Third Way form, the only actual "adjustments" we have seen have been to carve out more exploitation for the insurance companies.

All this Third Way PR theater gets so old, the projecting of virtuous motives onto corporate Democrats that they have shown no sign of wanting to embrace. There is NO sign...I mean zero, zip, nada...that making the ACA a step to something better is on the Third Way's or the administration's agenda at all. THIS is what they wanted, and they are *already* busy adjusting it so as to reduce the benefits to human beings that they had to include in order to sell the mandate. Oh, there have been some changes, but consistently on behalf of the corporations and at the expense of the people:

The employer mandate was delayed...the mandate for Americans? Not so much:

White House delays employer mandate requirement until 2015
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/07/02/white-house-delays-employer-mandate-requirement-until-2015/

Out of pocket caps on costs for patients....also delayed...again targeting the *people,* not the insurance corporations.

Limit on Consumer Costs Is Delayed in Health Care Law
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/13/us/a-limit-on-consumer-costs-is-delayed-in-health-care-law.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

And then this brazen assault:

Obama administration quietly approves new Obamacare loophole benefiting insurance companies.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024970298

The bipartisan (despite all theater to the contrary) corporate ACA is already skyrocketing insurance company profits beyond the wildest dreams of its architects. The insurance companies wrote the thing, and it was *designed* to entrench an exploitative, profit-sucking system of middlemen that keeps costs spiraling at the expense of human beings who need care. Look instead for more "loopholes" like the one the Obama administration *already* carved out in order to help the companies shift even more costs to patients.

If most people understood how it is rigged, and how much is being stolen, they would be outraged. The mandate was a corporate wet dream - it ensures that obscene levels of money that should be going to health care instead are given as a cut to these thieving health insurance middlemen. It ensures continued spiraling costs. And it ensures a continued motive to deny care for profit.

Healthcare as commodity. Obscenely overpriced "insurance" that people cannot afford to use. Profits mandated...instead of care. And a system in which "consumers" must desperately "shop" for a new (lower-benefit, higher deductible, lower-tier) plan every year as premiums skyrocket and they are mercilessly priced out of the old ones. And the lipstick on the pig, the subsidies, go directly to the profiteers. The pockets of Americans are looted, while the oligarchs have their obscene profits codified and protected in the law itself.

Of course some *individuals* are helped! But they are helped by other Americans who pay for the subsidies. NOT by making the bloodsucking corporations pay; no, their profits are codified into the law. And why wouldn't the corporate vipers structure it this way? How else could PR for this massive takeover by corporations, this perversion and exploitation of the basic human need for healthcare into a nationwide, mandated profit opportunity for bloodsucking middlemen, *ever* have been pulled off as it was?


Third Way Democrats and corporate Republicans bank on gullibility and lack of awareness of what their policies actually accomplish for the wealthy. Most especially, they bank on the hope that they can propagandize each issue separately -- the turning of every single human need (for education, for health care, for energy) into a profit stream for oligarchs-- so that people won't see the overarching, always present agenda:

[font size3]

the constant siphoning of wealth upward....the looting of this country for the already obscenely wealthy corporate elite.

[/font size]

[pnwmom]

85. Stale, offensive name-calling.

The OP had nothing to do with "third way" which is just a short-hand for anything you happen to disagree with.

[RadiationTherapy]

122. This is an excellent post. Thank you for your effort here. And "third way" is a fine nickname for

the gray, mostly valueless, milk-soaked-toast of a party the "democrats" stake claim to.

[B Calm]

63. The opposed prefer paying for endless WAR!

[Sunlei]

68. I want our Gov. to give all the funds to another country Canada/UK and let that country

manage Americans health care costs.

Or give ALL the funds to medicare/Medicaid and let ALL Americans sign-on and pay premiums on a bell curve to a not for profit health care system.

We need to get rid of the middlemen profiteers.

[CANDO]

90. My answers...

No
No
No
Yes, but the ACA ensures we will never get to single payer.
I do have employer sponsored health insurance and I am scared to death of actually getting sick and needing to see a Dr. because of costs involved. Getting health care should never, repeat NEVER, be avoided due to the cost. The ACA doesn't solve that critical issue, and it never will. I am on a plan in which I pay a higher premium for lower deductibles and I still ration my health care decisions due to costs. I don't see how people in much worse financial shape are able to afford premiums and then overcome much higher deductibles than I have. They are being forced to buy insurance which they then cannot even begin to afford to actually use. An all encompassing national health program administered under Medicare where the entire population is in the same risk pool should pretty much solve that problem. And we pay for it by using the same revenue streams which are now being funneled through the profit driven insurance industry. Cut out the middle man. He exists to make profits.

[McCamy Taylor]

98. Real issue is privates want all sick people on Medicare and Medicaid.

Then, they will only write policies for healthy people. Just watch. We will see a "popular movement" to get sick folks care via the federal government (i.e. our tax coffers) while all the healthy people will be forced to buy policies with private companies---which will dump them onto the taxpayer rolls when they become sick.

[Prophet 451]

99. Keep ACA as a stopgap

I want you to have a similar kind of single-payer to the NHS I enjoy here (I'm British). Until then, the ACA will do (albeit, it could use a little tinkering in the fine details).

And obviously, I'm covered by the NHS which covers two doctor visits, a shrink visit and a small mountain of drugs each month.

[JDPriestly]

103. I have Medicare, and I want to see the ACA strengthened and improved.

ACA is a great start toward a really workable health care system.

We should strive to establish a system like that in France. Doctors should not need to hire their own accountants or accounting services. Your family doctor should just care about his/her patients and not have to run a business and worry about making a profit or at least not going bankrupt.

[Mass]

109. I do not think anybody here disagrees (or may be I missed something).

Actually, this was the only argument I could find to support the law in the first place even if it is a terrible law: it is better than no law at all.

The real problem is that NOBODY is fighting for single payer anymore. We should be trying to improve it, and not only at the margins, and frankly, nearly everybody is too busy defending a law that is poorly written and stupid people like Gruber.

So, when can we go back trying to improve the law and call for single payer.

[Man from Pickens]

124. ACA isn't interim single-payer

It's actually the opposite - it's a permanent forced market from which nobody can opt out.

None of the present system is sustainable as long as there is no effective oversight on the cost end. Prices for medical services and equipment are too high and too arbitrary and that problem cannot be solved from the insurance end of the equation.

All the time I hear of drugs that used to cost 50 cents a pill that for no good reason now cost $300. The FDA, wholly captured by corporations, signs off on this stuff with regularity.

[Ed Suspicious]

131. I want the concept of insurance to be irrelevant in discussions of necessary, urgent, and chronic

care. If one wants supplemental insurance to cover cosmetic surgery, fine, but if a person has a heart attack or a stroke, or has to get diabetic care, I want there to be no consideration of insurance whatsoever. I want a paradigm shift in the way we administer health care.

[Hoyt]

133. Would be nice, but it's a long time coming. Providers, suppliers and even consumers are going to

have to change what they demand out of the system for that to happen. But, I agree with your goal.

[Pastiche423]

140. "The disabled" are on Medicare

And for once I am glad I am disabled.

[CreekDog]

141. No, only some of the disabled are on Medicare

how can you get such a thing wrong?

[Pastiche423]

142. The disabled on SSDI get Medicare

The disabled on SSI get Medicaid.

I was not wrong.

http://www.disabilitysecrets.com/will-i-get-medicare-medicaid-with-disability.html

[CreekDog]

143. YES you are wrong, because not all the disabled are on SSI

now you're qualifying your statement and claiming that your previous unqualified statement is right.

wrong.

and if you can't conceive that there are disabled people in the USA that aren't on SSI and don't have Medicare, then you don't know what you're talking about.

BUT you started out lecturing me, and you're wrong. So confident, so wrong. Why always the combination?

[Pastiche423]

146. Once again you ARE WRONG!

Read the link I supplied.

[CreekDog]

147. Read your own link, it proves you wrong

You said the disabled get SSI and Medicare.

Not ALL the disabled.

ONLY:

"The 1967 amendments specified that workers shall be determined to be under a disability only if the physical or mental impairment or impairments are of such severity that the individual is not only unable to do his previous work but cannot, considering his age, education, and work experience, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supplemental_Security_Income#Aged.2C_disabled.2C_or_blind

[Pastiche423]

149. " You said the disabled get SSI and Medicare. "

Show me where I said that.

[dflprincess]

148. With a few exceptions, there is a two year waiting period

from the time the claim was approved before someone on SSDI can get Medicare.

[CreekDog]

151. and there's plenty of disabled people who don't qualify for either

thanks for your point btw.

the reason the point matters is because many of the disabled do depend on private insurance for their health care and there are provisions in ACA that protect them.

[CreekDog]

150. you said the disabled are on Medicare

Pastiche423 (14,595 posts)
140. "The disabled" are on Medicare

And for once I am glad I am disabled.

but we can resolve this easily.

are you saying that all the disabled are on Medicare or not?

yes or no?

[Pastiche423]

152. Read your DU mail

The disabled that are on SSDI get Medicare.

The disabled that are on SSI get Medicaid.

I can't make any clearer.

[CreekDog]

153. the one where you asked if i was not able to read due to a disability?

that one?

[Pastiche423]

154. No

[CreekDog]

155. let's just agree on this, okay: Some of the disabled have private health insurance

okay?

and i'll accept post #140 as not disagreeing with that.

fair?

(on edit, sometime later: and crickets, this is where they stopped answering...how ridiculous).

[Cha]

145. Senator Bernie Sanders thinks ACA/Obamacare is Actually Helping People..

"Republicans Are Getting Very Nervous About Obamacare’s Success"

Sen. Bernie Sanders explained on MSNBC that Republicans are very nervous about the success of Obamacare, because the ACA proves their ideology that the government can’t help people wrong.

MOre
http://www.politicususa.com/2014/11/17/bernie-sanders-republicans-nervous-obamacare.html

Senator Sanders believes Obamacare/ACA is actually helping people.. oooops.

Mahalo for your thread, CreekDog..

[still_one]

156. I suspect the answer they will give is they want a public option or medicare for all. However, one

needs to deal with what they have now. If it can be improved and evolve into socialized medicine, that would be the goal, but in this environment that isn't going to happen soon

[merrily]

157. Agree, but I'm wondering what prompted the OP.

Sounds like a response to something in particular? Have DUers been siding with Republicans on repeal?

When I see an OP like this, I often feel as though I walked into the theater in the middle of a film.

[CreekDog]

158. there was an OP that said "screw the ACA"

Not sure if they're truly gunning for repeal, but that is the takehome message of statements like that.

While the ACA has problems and limitations, getting rid of it would really harm many millions of people, a good deal of them poor, working poor, working class, women, disabled, those with preexisting conditions or chronic illnesses, etc.

[merrily]

159. Thanks for the info about "the beginning of the film." Absolutely agree with you.