I hope the Supreme Court kills the Affordable Health Care Act. ALL of it.

[stevedeshazer]

A good chunk of voters will be really pissed. The Republicans have NO alternative.

Denial of benefits due to pre-existing conditions. Kids 26 and under kicked off their parents' health care insurance. Small businesses don't get their tax credits for insuring their employees.

Single payer is back on the table, folks. Democrats, IF they seize on this, can make some serious political hay out of this.

Am I wrong? Aren't we better off in the long run here? We might just get single payer out of this?!

[annabanana]

1. There's a lot of death and pain to be had between

one and the other.

I cannot wish for that.

[hlthe2b]

3. Exactly.... Many will die if this happens.

[stevedeshazer]

14. Many more will die if we DON'T. n/t

[Posteritatis]

44. You do know "thrown out by SCOTUS" usually means "doesn't get touched for decades," right?

If the whole thing's ruled unconstitutional two things will happen:

* The health system will immediately go back to the original status quo, and
* It will stay there for most of a generation (again), because it will take a new court in addition to a whole new set of legislation to even attempt again.

[woo me with science]

53. Exactly. nt

[freshwest]

61. No, the billions health insurance are mandated to refund was the poison pill for private insurance.

There is a thread here on when the checks are ordered to be sent, even though it said that some of the insurers were holding back notifying people. They were still required to pay it.

The ACA says that not only did they have to stop denying coverage - now, not in the future - but they owe all they charged above what differed from administrative cost that Medicare gets as opposed to direct patient care. They got smacked down about trying to put the cost of advertising in the direct care portion and squealed.

The for-profit insurance industry is and will be losing profit from the ACA. They have tried to change the law but Obama has refused.

I follow closely because of the people I know covered with pre-existing and the extensions on who gets covered. The videos and text I saw and read, said the bill would starve the insurance industry. Some were complaining and shaking off coverage for that reason, saying they wanted their clients to be covered by the government.

There are even provisions in the ACA for the expected and intended jobs lost in the private insurance industry spelled out clearly because it will eventually drive everyone into single payer, like Medicare for all. If patients want to negotiate more coverage with private insurers, they can do as they now do with supplementary insurance.

The for-profit insurers did not oppose this bill because they were going to make a killing off of it, but because it was going to reduce their profits, strangling them. IMO, the ACA is designed to become single payer due to investors refusing to support the lower profits of the private companies.

[Hoyt]

77. Great Analysis.

[Pab Sungenis]

52. Many are already going to die

for a program that doesn't kick in for most people until 2014.

Not that I want to see the thing thrown out, but if it is we have a chance to pass single payer in 2013. Especially if real health reform and the Supreme Court become election issues.

[stevedeshazer]

62. Exactly.

Thanks, Pab. This point of view is bound to be unpopular, but I'm hoping for something greater.

Peace, out.

[dionysus]

71. please explain how the SC throwing this out will make the repukes vote for single payer.

i'm all ears Pab.

[Whisp]

108. I want to hear too.

because something makes no sense at all.

what, the GOP is going to suddenly play nice with SP?

geeeeze!!!!

[kenny blankenship]

79. And quite a few already have

and more would go on dying, because the Obamacare is an INSURANCE "reform" not a healthcare reform. Having insurance doesn't mean you get healthcare. Having a "subsidy" for your premiums doesn't mean you could afford to use your insurance. Millions have been bankrupted from illnesses who had insurance, and that would not change one bit under Obamacare. We would still be the asshole of the developed world in that regard. People would still die in the USA because insurance goons refuse to authorize diagnostic tests on a timely basis, allowing their diseases to progress incorrectly diagnosed. People with preexisting conditions would still be unable to afford their coverage. There were no cost controls - the so-called Medical Loss Ratio is an incentive to collude with providers to drive prices up relentlessly, and didn't shave the insurers' profit margins even back to what they were in the Clinton era. The whole thing was a sham to cement a dysfunctional, extortionate "system" into place in perpetuity and to PREVENT modernization and reform from occurring.

People should take their anger and demand something that would actually work.

[taught_me_patience]

2. I think you're wrong

If the entire act is thrown out... congress will not touch health care for another 20 years.

[stevedeshazer]

7. Thanks, that's what I'm asking.

Yeah, some will suffer and some will die. But if we do NOTHING, the suffering will become even worse. And no, it can't go another 20 years. The system is broken. Something has to happen.

[taught_me_patience]

13. I think you underestimate how cruel republicans are

Many are almost gleeful at the prospect of the mandate being struck down and those with preexisting conditions being denied insurance.

[mazzarro]

8. And present day Democrats are unrealiably too neo-liberal

IOW too centrist to want to put up the fight necessary to push an alternative that rank-and-file Democrats especially liberals will like.

[Sherman A1]

105. Agreed

I don't see this coming up again for a very long time if ever. Half a loaf might be better than none at this point.

[sadbear]

4. I'm not sure if I agree

To go from nothing to single-payer is a BIG leap, but to go from Obamacare to single-payer will probably be easier to digest. But that's just my take on contemporary American politics.

[leftstreet]

23. We went from nothing to Medicare. What's the difference?

Went from nothing to Social Security...

[sadbear]

24. About 50 years.

A lot has happened since then.

[nobodyspecial]

38. Starting something new

is actually easier than trying to overhaul an entrenched system. Think of all of the steps that need to be taken to make the transition a smooth one and guarantee continuity of care. And, even if they did pass single payer, it would be phased in. Adding millions to the system overnight would overwhelm it.

[demtenjeep]

5. so you are saying I should die?

really?

thanks

[stevedeshazer]

9. Of course not. n/t

[JoePhilly]

6. When my Niece is dying of her pre-existing condition, I'm sure she will

take comfort in your argument.

[stevedeshazer]

12. I want a health care system that covers your niece and everyone else regardless of pre-ex conditions

That is the goal. How dare you accuse me of wishing death on your niece. Give me a freaking break.

[JoePhilly]

18. She may not live long enough for your solution.

She is 16, had a very severe cancer at 2. For the last 14 years, her only coverage has been for routine illness, or sports injury.

Everything else was blocked by "pre-existing condition" ... she has regular kidney stones ... has to go to teh hospital regularly. Its rather expensive.

After the ACA passed, she was covered for such things ... if its over turned, she's screwed, again.

So as you wish for the ACA to be struck down, know that a 16 year old girl will absolutely suffer as a result. Whether that is you intent or not.

[stevedeshazer]

22. I'm really sorry to learn that.

Of course it is not my intent.

Yes, I'm aware that some will suffer short-term. I lost my brother to brain cancer four months ago. Our health care system could not save his life, regardless of the state of our rotten-to-the-core health care system.

Best wishes to your niece.

[JoePhilly]

117. My Neice's cancer is was a cancer of the neurons.

I can't recall the name of it ... but its normally a brain cancer.

In her case, it was located not in the brain, but in neurons near her pancreas.

Apparently, that was a very lucky break, because its location caused her to have symptoms which helped them find it quickly. From what I understand, this cancer is usually fast moving, and if it starts in the brain, there are very few symptoms ... so when they find it, its already too late.

She survived a long series of Chemo treatments. But now at 16, she has many side effects to deal with ... headaches, kidney stones, and she may not be able to have children.

For the last 10 years or so, she could only get coverage for basic kid illnesses (cold, flu) and for sports injuries. The insurer does not want to pay for treatment and meds for the kidney stones ... but now they have to.

She's going to need lots of medical treatment going forward, and she no longer has to worry that if the cancer returns, she'll have no coverage.

Thank you very much for your wishes for her. My sister is ecstatic, she's spent years terrified that my niece's cancer would return, and that she'd get no coverage.

[DevonRex]

19. And what will you say when she dies

in the time between the two? Oops?

Understanding, of course, that neither is actually in your control. In times like these it's perhaps better to keep your own counsel, though.

[dionysus]

70. the people who make these arguments most likely never stand to suffer the consequences of such bold

proclamations.

[DevonRex]

73. Exactly. Nor do they have family members

who will suffer the consequences apparently. Or perhaps they're willing to sacrifice them for the greater good. Mustve been reading The Lottery recently or something and got the point all screwy.

[Posteritatis]

45. Funny thing about calling for something to happen; you get to accept the consequences of it. (nt)

[gateley]

21. Wow. You know that wasn't the intent. Can't you just express

your disagreement in a more civil manner? We're the good guys, remember?

[JoePhilly]

25. If it is struck down, my neice will lose her insurance.

She had cancer at 2. The death rate for that cancer is 90%.

She survived it.

But no insurance company would cover her until the ACA.

She has many health issues related to that cancer ... kidney stones, headaches, she may never be able to have children.

When she has had a kidney stone, its not covered by insurance. Well, before the ACA passes, since then, those are covered. The meds she needs are covered.

If the ACA goes away, she is screwed, again.

We are talking about real people. And given the fact that my niece's life is in the balance, I think I was quite civil.

[DevonRex]

26. You were extremely civil.

[gateley]

116. I understand, but it could have been presented in a more civil tone.

"give some thought to those who will be affected if it is struck down...", that's all.

Wow, I'm really sorry about your niece. Illness in loved ones is always painful, but when it affects helpless little kids it just tears your heart out.

[MineralMan]

37. He was far more civil than I would have been.

What the OP is proposing will mean a complete end to health care for all those for whom ACA has made health care possible

Throwing the baby out with the bathwater is a solution for nothing.

[stevedeshazer]

40. BS. Think bigger.

You think small.

[upaloopa]

10. Single payer will not be on the table. I don't know what your smoking.

Unless we have over 60 votes in the Senate and a huge majority in the House and Obama is willing to sign it into law it will never happen.

What you are saying is that you want to start hitting yourself over the head because it feels good when you stop!

[kestrel91316]

56. I am sick to death of you Debbie Downers proclaiming that Single Payer

will NEVER happen. When less than 50% of Americans have any medical insurance whatsoever that day will come. We will steamroll all over you people.

And if ACA is overturned, that day isn't far away.

[stevedeshazer]

60. Thank you.

This type of negative thinking just gets in the way.

You're right.

[AndyTiedye]

85. People Do Have Insurance, But w/o ACA, the Insurance Doesn't Pay for "Preexisting Conditions"

When less than 50% of Americans have any medical insurance whatsoever that day will come.

We're still talking about decades of misery and death here.

[chowder66]

11. Where do the votes for single payer come from??

[stevedeshazer]

41. You.

Look in the mirror.

[chowder66]

42. Believe me..it has my vote

and I live in California. So are you talking about a state by state solution only... because I was asking about votes on the hill.

[AndyTiedye]

82. I Am Not in Congress. Neither Are You

[kestrel91316]

57. From very frightened Congresscritters once less than half the populace has any medical insurance

whatsoever.

[One of the 99]

15. Yes you are wrong

If the Supreme Court kills the Act, it will be the end of Healthcare Reform in our lifetime. No elected official will go anywhere near Healthcare for 50 or 60 years.

[Control-Z]

31. +1

Welcome to DU, One of the 99.

[bornskeptic]

50. Maybe not 50 or 60 years. It's been happening about every 20 years.

Truman, Nixon, Clinton, Obama. Of course, if it comes up again in 20 years, it will probably go down again. I was here for the first four tries, but I don't think I'll make it to the fifth one if the court strikes it down this time.

[One of the 99]

109. But the ones in the past were political defeats

A supreme court decision would be a game changer and no president would dare try again in our lifetimes.

[kestrel91316]

59. Another Debbie Downer here to piss in our Wheaties and proclaim

healthcare reform and Single Payer dead.

This gig must pay pretty well - there are lots of you out in force today.

[Wait Wut]

106. So, attacking the "Debbie Downers"...

...with an accusation of paid shill? Guess what, if I got paid for being realistic, I wouldn't need to worry about keeping the ACA because I'd be able to get insurance. I've been around long enough to know that things are done in steps. Your blind faith in getting enough votes in the House and Senate to provide single payer is cute as hell. Literally. I fought this fight over decades until I realized that I really don't think like the majority of this country. I sure as hell don't think like the majority of politicians. Being a Progressive is fine and dandy, but thinking you can change the way things have been done for decades overnite is delusional. I learned the hard way. Now, I fight for taking those small steps because I know that's how things really get done. You can call me a Debbie Downer all you want. Childish names won't change logic and reality.

You and the others can go ahead and hope it gets struck down. I'm hoping I can go to a doctor before I have another stroke, the cancer comes back, before I go completely blind, before I'm 50.

[One of the 99]

112. Never said Healthcare reform is dead

So please don't put words in my mouth. I hope that the court upholds most or all of the law. But if it is struck down now, that is not the road to single payer. That's just unrealistic.

[TheKentuckian]

75. Health care costs would be at or near 100% of GDP and/or only a small minority

would have absurdly expensive coverage.

Your assertion is pretty close to impossible. To last 60 years without captured customers that are subsidized by the government would require the cartel would have to overhaul its self far, far beyond anything the Wealthcare and Profit Protection Act ever dreamed of in its most bright-eyed and earliest stages.

[One of the 99]

111. The assertion that the supreme court declaring healthcare reform

unconstitutional would somehow lead to single payer IS impossible.

[DCBob]

16. That will "kill" alot of innocent individuals in the process.

What is wrong with you??

[MrSlayer]

17. We could have had, SHOULD have had single payer this time.

A public option at the very least. If they knock this down you can forget anything being done for health care for another twenty years, if ever.

How naive it is to think that any of those bought off whores in Congress want single payer. They don't and they won't, ever. Because their owners say no. They'll never give up the cash cow.

Want you are wishing is that millions of people get hurt. There will be no do overs on this issue.

[unblock]

20. the CASE for single payer becomes stronger, but the current lineup in congress makes it impossible

if aca is completely struck down, the reality is that insurers will keep a few of the popular features, like keeping kids on until age 26, and quietly drop others, like lifetime maximums.

there will be no fix to the law until democrats get solid control of both houses and the white house, which is to say, not any time soon.

politically, i'm definitely in the half-a-loaf is better than none camp.
constitutionally, i think it's a no-brainer perfectly fine constitutionally. bad law, perhaps, but perfectly constitutional.

[Nye Bevan]

27. When Hillary's plan went down in 1993 it only took 17 years for another try.

So the sick can take comfort that they should only gave to wait until
2029.

[matmar]

28. I believe the Dems will put up single payer.....

...when hell freezes over.

There isn't anyone who holds any real power that will make single payer a frontburner issue.

They don't have the balls. Especially in the Citizens United Era.

[ellie]

29. I don't.

My sister had cancer and a brain tumor and lost her health insurance because of her pre-existing conditions. If it is overturned, there is no guarantee that her insurance company would still cover her. So your hopes and wishes may very well be a death sentence for her.

[Control-Z]

30. I think you're wrong.

On what planet would the republican tea baggers allow that?

[spanone]

32. republicans have the alternative they have now. ignore their constituents

and work for the corporatists. they will never introduce any form of healthcare.

[Bolo Boffin]

33. I understand where you are coming from

But the chaos this will throw an already nutty market into? I just don't want to see that happen. We can get to single payer with the ACA in place.

[Puzzledtraveller]

34. Those things you mentioned will stay in place regardless

they will just raise everyones premiums, again, to pay for it. However, since this legislation was just a big fat gift to the insurance industry they get their payday anyway.

[riderinthestorm]

35. I believe the fastest way to single payer will be for employers to stop offering health insurance

as an employment benefit.

That will happen if the mandate is upheld in my opinion. Why? Because employers won't have any incentive to keep employees covered - it will be mandated by law that insurance companies provide coverage to everyone so the employer will simply get out of the game.

The penalty is FAR smaller than paying for an employee's health insurance plan. Besides, the employer doesn't have to hire an administrator(s?), doesn't have to hassle with employee programs (locating them, shopping, pricing etc.) Small business credits aren't high enough to incentivize them to provide it (besides those with less than 50 employees won't be required to provide it at all).

A person's health care should never have been tied to employment in the first place. The individual mandate will usher many, many people off their employer plans as they fold them up.

The demand for single payer will explode imho. But for that to happen, the mandate must be upheld.

[Motown_Johnny]

36. Republicans won't ever allow single payer. They do have an alternative

and they will filibuster any attempt at a single payer system while screaming "SOCIALISM!"



I would like to see the mandate go so we have a shot at a public option but we need the majority of the law to stand.

[GarroHorus]

39. Yeah, thousands, tens of thousands, potentially hundreds of thousands and possibly millions...

of deaths is all worth it in the end.

[NNN0LHI]

43. Do you currently have health insurance coverage?

[stevedeshazer]

64. Yes.

At least for now.

[NNN0LHI]

99. I admire your honesty

Though I also do think it would have been appropriate to mention this in your OP as it was pertinent to the position you are taking.



Don

[salin]

46. Yea another 20 years of escalating costs and decreasing services (except for the wealthy)

who can buy concierge plans from their doctors.

The propaganda machine has become so strong and so effective that the emotional responses regarding health care are muddled and confused - regardless of personal circumstances. Add the propaganda effect now fully endorsed by the Supremes per unlimited donations per Citizens United - and I can't imagine there will be any political will to address the ills of our health system for the next two decades.

[NYC Liberal]

47. You are overestimating the average voter.

How many times has it been said "The Republicans will be FORCED to do x"? People said if Bush's crimes were exposed then the Republicans would be forced to go along with impeachment. People said the Republican party was dead after 2006 and 2008. Yet lots of people keep voting for them.

Republicans will fight and block single payer tooth and nail, you can bank on that.

I don't support using people's lives to make a political point, whether it be the draft or health care.

[Chorophyll]

48. Back to nothing at all while we hash out getting it "perfect?"

No thank you. There are real people's lives to be considered right now.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

49. You're entitled to your opinion but for the record I hope you're wrong

It would be huge disaster for a lot of people. While I'm sure that you're not heartless (unlike the Republican sociopaths we all know and dislike) about people losing the benefits that they have already gained, surely you realize that there's going to be a lot hurt to go around while we try to round up enough progressive votes in Congress to get to Single Payer? There's no doubt that a strike-down of PPACA is going to be a losing proposition for the Republicans but it's going to immediately negatively effect a lot of people in the meantime, particularly since we have nothing resembling the kind of Congress that would ever seriously contemplate Single Payer right now, almost certainly won't have one after the November elections for at least the next two years, and the Republicans really don't care about helping people and have done jack squat for the American people for the past 3-4 years, so what makes you think that they're going to start caring if PPACA is completely thrown out? It would be MUCH better IMHO to fight to preserve what we have and get more progressives in Congress to make the changes we want to make (i.e. public option) in the law + a President willing to sign them into law.

[stevedeshazer]

65. Of course it would be a huge disaster. It's not like I'm rooting for sick people to die.

Eventually, we have to get to single payer. That's the bottom line.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

68. I agree

but it won't happen anytime soon and completely scrapping PPACA won't help things, particularly in the short term. Keeping it and building on it (and getting it set up at the state level under waivers) is the best, sanest strategy to get to SP nationwide IMHO. I know that you're not rooting for people to die.

[liberal N proud]

51. Too many will have to suffer

That's not how you win elections.

[immoderate]

54. You make a good point...

This scheme is right out of the Heritage Foundation. It's a Republican plan offerred by Democrats and it sucks.

Health care, education, elections have been taken over by the right wing. And the Democrats are the other right wing.


--imm

[kestrel91316]

55. I fervently wish for Single Payer some day, and I agree that overturning ACA

will give the push for it a whole lot of extra momentum. But I would prefer that it played out another way, with less death and misery, because that is what will ensue in the interim.

[MOMFUDSKI]

58. Well . . .

. . . if the court says the gov can't mandate paying for healthcare then they could take it to the next level which is the gov can't mandate paying for MEDICARE! How d'ya like them apples?

[liberalmuse]

63. You have to break some eggs to make a cake, right?

No. That's what I hear conservatives say all the time, because they like the idea of bombing the shit out of something so they can build what "they" want out of scratch - who cares if innocents are killed in the process? The end justifies the means with their ilk. That doesn't work for liberals, because we actually care about human beings. This will set us back when we can't afford to be set back. People will suffer and die needlessly. Our kids who are struggling to be self-sufficient in the shitty economy we boomers dumped on them due to incessant greed, willful ignorance and short-sightedness (yes - most of my generation are incredible, apathetic assholes) will be dropped from their parents health insurance, my daughter included. The thought that the Republicans and their USSC minions are willing to sacrifice human beings to line their pockets makes me unbelievably angry.

[TheKentuckian]

95. "willing to sacrifice human beings to line their pockets" is exactly what this scam is set up to do.

They "expand" coverage and shrink care.

The death will come from self death panels of a person or a family and from pushing already struggling people to the extreme.

You will have set a precedent that the government may dictate our after tax money as they see fit and can even have you buy at the whim and selection of your employer and broadly compel commerce.

You will diminish the quality care of all but the wealthy and most fortunate while us in steerage are stuck paying our tithe to the church of Mammon for some bullshit coverage that we can no way afford to use and worse by the year with the absurd tax on benefits in a vice with the upward pressure of medical inflation. Over time we all get junk and shit care.

You create a too big to fail out of a criminal cartel and set them loose on a treasury with ever shrinking revenue, that will have adverse effects too.

A few pay to play features to be the sugar to make way more than a spoonful of bad law go down that is damn likely to make bad worse overall even accounting for "curbing the worst excesses" of the wicked cartel.

We are about chest deep in the Medicare part D effect here and I totally understand but it does no good to forget the entropy being taken on. People get a feature (one they pay for) and the outcome justifies all the comes with it.

Maybe sometimes it even is worth it at any price but the privileged frame of reference driven sanctimony about saving lives from some pitching fire and brimstone is hollow because folks pretend they don't cause any deaths and/or spread pain if their agenda is fulfilled.

[aquart]

66. No. Stop being so willing to let Americans die.

[stevedeshazer]

67. Really?

That's what you think I think?

Hell, no.

[Trajan]

84. In all fairness - He is hoping for quick passage of Single Payer ....

perhaps unrealistic, but his heart is DEFINITELY in the right place .... This is NOT a demand that people die ...

One might rightly argue that single payer would save MORE lives ..... So your response, while realistic, is also quite cynical ..... Perhaps rightly cynical, but cynical nevertheless ....

[TreasonousBastard]

92. Of course he's not demanding people die, but...

that's what will happen out in the real world.

(The road to hell...)

[woo me with science]

88. Oh, stop it.

That's a cheap, short-sightedly emotional talking point.

Many, many more people will die from rolling over and allowing the corporate bloodsucking middlemen, who operate and make life and death decisions on profit alone, to be permanently entrenched into the core of our health care system.

[TreasonousBastard]

93. And that's not emotional?

[woo me with science]

94. It's fact. nt

[dionysus]

69. supreme court killing it will not make the craven repukes vote for single payer. ever.

they'll cry victory and there will be no single payer for decades. be careful what you wish for.

[Chan790]

72. There's the golden bag of shit, isn't it.

We will never get to single-payer unless this bill is struck...but if the bill is struck, people are going to suffer.

Political change is born of misery. Always has and will be.

[stevedeshazer]

87. You get it.

People are going to suffer either way. Let's get this thing done.

[AndyTiedye]

90. If It Gets Struck Down by the Supremes, It Isn't Going to GET Done for Decades

Decades of misery.

A Congress that would pass single-payer is almost mathematically impossible until at least 2017. It is likely to take far, far longer than that.

[flamingdem]

74. If it's killed it's a HUGE republican win, don't kid yourself

Plus people who are underemployed and paying individual would have gotten very large subsidies with this, better than with Medicare

[bluestateguy]

76. And the Nader voters in 2000 wanted Bush to win

because it would surely lay the groundwork for a great progressive revolution.

Please.

[Trajan]

78. Yeah ... Democrats will seize on it alright ....

Like a bone dry engine running hard through the hot desert .....

The only thing Democrats have seized lately is a tail between their legs ....

Color me skeptical ....

BTW: Steven ? .... I haven't seen you since Produce Row .... Remember when PDX DUers used to meet up ? .... Whatever happened to us ?

[WilliamPitt]

80. Ugh.

My wife with MS says "Go fuck yourself."

No, really. I read your post to her. That was her reply.

[stevedeshazer]

89. I obviously wish no ill upon your wife.

I want her to live a long and productive life under a single payer system. One way or another, we are going to get it. Please tell her that.

I'm a pessimist. I think the Supremes are gonna knock this Obamacare thing down. The next step is single payer. Economics are going to force it sooner or later.

Peace, out.

Later.

[Enrique]

81. except Democrats wouldnt seize hold of it

we dont have single payer because the Democratic Party does not stand for single payer, our partys lead Senator had single payer advocates removed forcibly from the room.

In order to get single payer, we need to change the Democratic Party so that it stands for it, so that someone like Baucus would be unacceptable to hold a leadership position. And then a presidential candidate who is committed to it, not just lip service but who holds single payer as a cause in their life.

[rufus dog]

83. upheld 6-3 NT

[Mz Pip]

86. What makes you think

that tossing all of ACA will force anyone of either party to do anything? THe GOP will gloat and it will be business as usual and the Dems will be so demoralized that they won't propose anything new for generations. The Democrats won't do squat if ACA is killed.

Oh sure you'll get a few voices in the wilderness proposwing single payer and Medicare for all. But they will be few and far between because most of the Democrats won't havwe the balls to run on health care reform ever again.

I've always thought of ACA as a beginning not a finished product. It's a start; a slow start but a start non the less.

[Puregonzo1188]

91. I was against the ACA and dislike the individual mandate, but seriously I don't want them to strike

down the whole bill.


A lot of people will suffer because of that.

[marlakay]

96. Sounds good in theory but I heard no politician from either side

will touch health care for many many many years….decades. Very sad. Both sides are afraid.

[Rowdyboy]

97. We might get single payer in 20 years. Or not. Probably not. It would be a disaster IMHO....n/t

[Douglas Carpenter]

98. even LBJ with overwhelming majorities and a public that still believed in "big government"- Even

he couldn't do it. Even in an era when it was completely part of normal mainstream political culture - it couldn't be done. Even in an era where money certainly talked -but nowhere near as loud and controlling as it does today - it couldn't be done.

The moneyed interests that control both political parties simply are not going to allow it. To advance a major social democratic type reform as that - would practically require a social revolution. The vast majority of politicians from both parties are simply not going to defy their paymasters. What are the chances of the mainstream establishment Democratic Party seizing on something so insubordinate to these powerful interest? 0% That’s right; 0% It’s not going to happen.

[RBInMaine]

100. Please tell me on which planet we will find Republicans willing to support single payer. (?????????)

Keep pipe dreaming if it makes you feel better. Ain't gonna pass. Wish it could, but it can't. Please find reality.

[Blue_Tires]

101. I hope we KEEP the act, and STILL eventually morph it into single-payer

[sinkingfeeling]

102. I truly doubt after the fiasco of the 1990s that single-payer will ever

be implemented in the USA.

[kdmorris]

103. I really won't care about getting single payer if my 24 year old daughter

gets kicked of my health insurance and has a heart attack because she can't afford medical care. Between overturning it all and "getting single payer"...there could be a LOT of pain and death for a lot of people (not just me). I won't hope for that, ever.

So, sorry... I can't go there with you.

[RKP5637]

104. "Democrats, IF they seize on this, can make some serious political hay out of this." Given the

track record of the type of democrats we have today, I wouldn't count on this at all. The democrats royally fucked it all up when they had all of the majorities and here we are with this mess today.

[Hubert Flottz]

107. Single Payer was the best thing about the entire idea.

Without single payer, the "Affordable Health Care Act" is best thing that ever happened for the insurance companies and their shareholders.

The "plan" was so watered down by the time it was signed, it did more harm than good to Joe Sixpack.

[Romulox]

110. Goodbye, mandate... nt

[WI_DEM]

113. yeah, you're wrong.

[SidDithers]

114. Kick...nt

Sid

[bluestateguy]

115. Oops! Well that didn't happen.

[Nye Bevan]

118. You, Scalia, and Clarence Thomas lose.

People with pre-existing health conditions win.

Today was a good day.