Well, once again, we the people have lost.

[MadHound]

Sure, the ruling by the Supreme Court was a political win, Obama's biggest legislative initiative is upheld, a solid victory for him and the Democrats.

But this is an even bigger win for the insurance industry. They have now been officially granted a mandated monopoly, one that forces people to buy a product that they may or may not need, from a for profit corporation. Worse, the price controls are weak, very weak.

So what we're going to see in the end result is the middle and working classes are going to get drained of money at an even faster rate. The poor are, thankfully, going to get a subsidy, but there is no such relief, nor cost control, to help and protect the middle and working class.

Worse yet, this is going to set back the true goal of single payer, non-profit universal health care back by a generation or more. The corporately controlled Democrats and Republicans aren't going to touch any sort of health care reform for decades, not after this battle.

Furthermore, the precedent that this sets is abominable. Today we are forced to buy insurance from a for profit corporation, what will be forced to buy next?

But hey, go ahead and celebrate. It is, after all a political victory for the Democrats. The Dems took a Republican policy, made it their own, and made it the law of the land.

But in a few years, as insurance premiums soar, perhaps you will come to realize this decision for what it truly is, a huge loss for the American people.

[Harmony Blue]

1. It is a tax now

that is a huge reversal of fortune. We are one stop closer to universal health care.

[MadHound]

16. HA! Then penalty is considered a tax.

And we are no closer to universal health care than we were in 2008. All that has been done is guarantee that the middle and working class will see more of their money transferred up the ladder to the one percent.

[Harmony Blue]

22. The tax goes to the government

that has nothing to do with the 1%. We the people are the government.

[Lionessa]

44. Either you or I have misunderstood the ruling. I think it's you.

I'm understanding that USSC determined that forced payment to insurers is LIKE a tax, I don't see anything that indicates it will go to the government.

Additionally, the "tax" that non-comformists will pay, doesn't provide insurance or health care, it's strictly a penalty.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

62. It's my understanding

You buy a policy from a private company but if you don't you pay a tax to the government.

[shanti]

66. and if you have no income

you pay no tax? just trying to understand this!

[cliffordu]

68. Yep - No income, no tax.

[bornskeptic]

112. Of course you don't. Those with income below 133% of the poverty level will be eligible for Medicaid

and are exempted from the mandate.

[Riftaxe]

212. Increasing the number of medicaid patients

means less then nothing when the number of physicians willing to accept medicaid patients is already rapidly decreasing.

To put it honestly, ERs just got busier, Insurance companies just got wealthier, and the poor once again got screwed.

[sabrina 1]

226. How does this work? It used to be that those who were indigent were covered directly by

the Government's Medicaid program, no middlemen. But now, as I understand it, the poor are directed to an Insurance Corp who have access to the Medicaid program and are obligated to cover the poor. But before the money is dispensed, the Ins. Corps take part of it for 'handling' the transaction, approx. 20%. When the Government handled it, the overhead was 3%. That is a lot less money going to actual HC.

If I'm wrong, someone correct me. I would like to think this is not the case, as getting their hands on public funds has long been the goal of the Heritage Foundation et al because they cannot bear to see money they cannot get their hands on.

[Ms. Toad]

163. I have not read that portion of the law -

but since it is not an income tax, you may still have to pay it -

BUT if you have no income, your insurance will be fully subsidized (or you will have access to Medicaid) - so why would you not take advantage of that?

[ieoeja]

249. Actually, it *is* an income tax. Specifically, it is 1% of your taxable income for a few years.

Then it raises to 2.65%.

I wonder ... if every company and every individual chose not to get insurance ... would the tax be enough to provide single payer?

[Ms. Toad]

259. Thanks. Now that you mention it -

I do vaguely recall it being linked to income. What I should have said is that I haven't read it since working on trying to get it passed, and trying to make sure crucial provisions were in it (like interim measures for patients with pre-existing conditions)

One problem with your "solution." if you opt to pay the penalty, you don't get access to health care. Personally, I'm not willing to take one for the team on this issue given the medical cost hit my wallet would take.

[Lionessa]

73. And that tax does NOT get you health care or health insurance, it's strictly a penalty.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

89. Pretty much. Especially if your state refuses to establish an exchange.

Supposedly, the tax will be used to subsidize state exchanges but now there is no enforcement provision to force states to establish one. When the USSC struck down the withholding of Medicaid funds as a penalty for not setting up an exchange they injected a poison pill.

[Lionessa]

165. Even if the tax assists the exchanges, it only means that after paying a tax, you still have to buy

insurance. The tax does not provide insurance or healthcare to the one paying the tax.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

54. So the money goes to the government and then what?

Part of today's ruling struck down the provision that would allow the feds to withhold Meidcaid funding if states fail to establish an exchange.

As the tax is currently less than the employer's contribution to an insurance policy you can expect to see people getting dumped while the employers realize a net savings. But if those dumped employees live in a state that refuses to establish an exchange they will have no alternative.

Even worse, as people get dumped the insurance companies will have to work with shrinking pools of revenues to pay doctors. The OP may be wrong that this is a bonanza for the Ins companies (confession: I initially thought so, too) they may actually go bankrupt costing everyone their insurance.

[freedom fighter jh]

197. If they do go bankrupt, then maybe Congress will have to give us single payer? nt

[Nuclear Unicorn]

211. Or maybe they'll be deemed too big to fail.

Perhaps past is prologue.

[HiPointDem]

219. in theory. not in practice.

[progressivebydesign]

67. Or.. you can realize that we're already paying a shitload of money to cover the uninsured already nt

[girl gone mad]

159. We really aren't.

Uncompensated care represents a small fraction of overall health care expenditures, much less than 5% last I looked and at least 1/3 of that care is given to people with insurance.

The uninsured are not the cause of high health care costs.

[HiPointDem]

222. +1.

[BOG PERSON]

263. d'oh!

[bahrbearian]

65. When did the Supreme Court allocate taxation?

[Lionessa]

85. I believe there's a misunderstanding because USSC compared mandatory ins to a tax, which

is how they are claiming it to be constitutional.

[bahrbearian]

158. I know , you know, but does the poster know.

[Ms. Toad]

168. Not exactly.

The tax is the penalty for failing to purchase insurance.The cost of purchasing insurance is not a tax. Justice Roberts' view is that people cannot be forced to purchase insurance. They can, however, be incentived to purchase it by imposing a tax (paid to the govt) for choosing not to.

[Harmony Blue]

192. That is correct

this is why for the ordinary person they will view it as a tax.

[Ms. Toad]

217. There are two options (not an "it")

The government cannot force you to purchase health insurance. The fee you pay to a private insurer for health insurance premiums is not a tax, it is a fee for the right to certain services health care services at a certain rate.

The government can impose a (separate) tax, if you choose not to purchase health insurance. This tax (in the language of the Roberts' court - and I tend to agree) gets you nothing and is paid to the government, not the insurance companies.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

293. Only the penalty is considered a tax, not the premiums

This doesn't take us any closer to single payer.

[ProSense]

2. Nope

It's a good day: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002869426

It's a damn fine day!

[southern_belle]

104. +1 n/t

[klook]

199. Hell yes

Thanks for posting that link here.

[calimary]

301. Agreed!

[sinkingfeeling]

326. Yes, it is.

[woo me with science]

3. Welcome to NeoAmerica. nt

[Puzzledtraveller]

84. Scary stuff indeed.

This message was brought to you by United Healthcare, Anthem, Pfizer........

[freshwest]

277. +1

[Swede]

4. Key Provisions That Take Effect Immediately

18.HOLDS INSURANCE COMPANIES ACCOUNTABLE FOR UNREASONABLE RATE HIKES—Creates a grant program to support States in requiring health insurance companies to submit justification for all requested premium increases, and insurance companies with excessive or unjustified premium exchanges may not be able to participate in the new Health Insurance Exchanges.

http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/keyprovisions.html

[MadHound]

20. And I guarantee you every single major insurance corporation

Has already figured out at least a dozen loopholes and ways around that.

[Swede]

40. And I guarantee that there are people working at blocking every one of those loopholes.

This is a work in progress.

[MadHound]

76. And who will win in that battle

Oh, yeah, big money wins every time. Who has the big money? Corporations of course.

Please, stop being so damned naive.

[girl gone mad]

160. Ha.

You're funny.

[Lionessa]

48. And let's not forget they had two years to hike them ridiculously in preparation.

Seems the outrageous rate hikes have peppered the news the last two years, am I wrong?

[eomer]

77. Yes, I believe you're wrong.

The ACA implemented limits on the rates insurers can charge. Starting in 2011 they are required to spend 80 to 85 percent of premiums on health care claims and programs for improving health. In other words, they can spend no more than 15 to 20 percent on administrative costs and profits. If they overcharge then they must pay rebates to their policyholders. The rebates will be paid beginning in a month or two from now.

So from 2011 forward, insurers cannot hike their rates to ridiculous levels, due to limits in the ACA (AKA Obamacare).

[Lionessa]

95. I gather you're not a bookkeeper or accountant or anything that would allow you to

understand the myriad of ways that is going to be gotten around.

Rename positions, rename accounts, redefine things using medical terms, yeah, I have no doubt that between the existing loopholes and the creative accounting akin to what we see in banks and hedgefunds will more than destroy that well intended 15-20%.

I find it quite naive on your part to not see that. Plus from 2009 - 2011 rates were hiked outrageously and they had time to "arrange" for a more profitable 20% than was intended.

[eomer]

121. I'm an actuary, have worked mostly on retirement plans but also on health insurance.

So you're completely off in your suppositions.

I am aware that, obviously, the insurance companies will try every angle they can to evade the controls. We will have to see whether and how well the Obama administration (hopefully through 2016) can hold them to the rules.

But, mainly, you do now have some additional facts to inform your analysis. You're welcome.

[Lionessa]

167. You gave me no additional facts. That bit of subterfuge has been known from the beginning,

I have just been around the block enough to know that it will not be honored by the insurance companies, every possible way to finagle around it will occur such that the top execs will still get their outlandish salaries, parachutes, et al, while ordinary citizens have procedures and medical needs revoked, policy rates increased, and affordable health care still entirely out of reach.

[eaglesfanintn]

200. Google it

There are tons of stories about rebates that are to be given out. Here's one: http://www.thelundreport.org/resource/oregonians_benefit_from_insurance_rebates_under_affordable_care_act
Maybe they'll start to come up with ways around it, but so far, they haven't.

[klook]

216. Cool - so based on this, we the people are winning with this legislation, not losing.

Thanks for posting.

U.S. health insurance companies are due to pay out $1.1 billion in rebates to employers and individuals this summer, under a new industry regulation imposed by President Barack Obama's health care law, the administration said on Thursday.

- source: MSNBC, 6/21/2012

[Lionessa]

218. I never said they wouldn't get rebates,

I said the insurance companies will finagle it to the point that they're profiting more than the law is supposed to allow.

[Hoyt]

122. I gather you've never been through a government audit looking for all those hidden/improper charges.

And, those companies that charge higher premiums are going to lose once the exchanges are up and running. Are you going to purchase Cigna Healthcare if Kaiser is 20% cheaper and you can move from plan to plan because pre-existing exclusions no longer limit you?

[Lionessa]

169. Yes, been audited (well the companies I worked for) for payroll, workmens' comp, and sales/use tax.

All were a complete joke. Now two of the three were on a state level audit, but still. They looked over the printouts I gave them from QBs and pretty much left, didn't ask for one piece of supporting documentation. I could have named an account anything I wanted in those reports, I didn't but I could have.

[Lionessa]

175. BTW, as a young accoutant I participated in auditing a very large TX company,

as a clerk at a CPA firm. That was an audit! Every 7th transaction was reviewed to the original documents, and more I'm sure, but that was my job. Gathering those docs from every 7th transaction.

I was stunned and fully dismayed (I think taxes should be paid, and cheaters should be caught) at the crap the gov't called an audit. I really asked over and over, "are you sure you don't need to see any docs?" But no they didn't want any, just the reports.

[Hoyt]

196. Some audits may be jokes. But, ask a hospital about Medicare/caid audits.

Plus, it's not that difficult to determine/track payments to providers which is what one would concentrate on if they were making sure payments are going for medical care. Then, the auditors can look at categories where there is some question whether the expenditure falls into medical care vs. admin/profits.

I suspect there will be heavy penalties for fraud too.

Add the additional level of competition among insurance companies through the Exchanges, and insurance companies will have to be careful fudging/cooking the books. If company A fudges and doesn't get caught by an audit, they still have to be competitive when their rates are posted on the Exchanges.

[Zalatix]

321. Yup, Paula Deen has nothing on an accountant when it comes to cooking.

Cooking the books, that is.

[HiPointDem]

223. i seem to recall reading that the 80-85% mandate was actually lower than current practice. if

i remembered the technical name for this ratio i could find the reference.

on edit: medical loss ratio. here's a reference:

Wendell Potter - The Medical Loss Ratio was 95% in early Clinton years ...

now it will be between 80-85% under the new HC law.

Not sure why we are applauding this profit as we're not even back to where we were 20 years ago, guess it is something. Maybe the trend has reversed a little, still the HC companies Now have customers who are Mandated to buy their product at a higher profit margin than they had less than 20 years ago.

If I were a business owner I would be very Happy!!!


http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07102009/transcript2....

WENDELL POTTER: Well, there's a measure of profitability that investors look to, and it's called a medical loss ratio. And it's unique to the health insurance industry. And by medical loss ratio, I mean that it's a measure that tells investors or anyone else how much of a premium dollar is used by the insurance company to actually pay medical claims. And that has been shrinking, over the years, since the industry's been dominated by, or become dominated by for-profit insurance companies. Back in the early '90s, or back during the time that the Clinton plan was being debated, 95 cents out of every dollar was sent, you know, on average was used by the insurance companies to pay claims. Last year, it was down to just slightly above 80 percent.

So, investors want that to keep shrinking. And if they see that an insurance company has not done what they think meets their expectations with the medical loss ratio, they'll punish them. Investors will start leaving in droves..."


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wendell-potter/the-insura...

"There was a time, in the early 1990s, when health insurance companies devoted more than 95 cents out of every premium dollar to paying doctors and hospitals for taking care of their members. No more. Since President Bill Clinton's health reform plan died 15 years ago, the health insurance industry has come to be dominated by a handful of insurance companies that answer to Wall Street investors, and they have changed that basic math. Today, insurers only pay about 81 cents of each premium dollar on actual medical care. The rest is consumed by rising profits, grotesque executive salaries, huge administrative expenses, the cost of weeding out people with pre-existing conditions and claims review designed to wear out patients with denials and disapprovals of the care they need the most.

This equation is known as the medical loss ratio (MLR), an aptly named figure that is widely seen by investors as the most important gauge of an insurance company's current and future profitability. In a private health insurance industry that collected $817 billion this year, a 14 percentage point difference in the MLR represents $112 billion a year! Over 10 years, that would be more than enough to pay for health reform..."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2419859


and this says by the insurance corps claims current MLR = 87%.

http://www.newamerica.net/blog/new-health-dialogue/2009/health-reform-medical-loss-ratio-or-just-medical-loss-15773

so what's the big win here? i'm not seeing it.

[mzmolly]

117. No they haven't.

[truedelphi]

235. The biggest savings to the Health Insurers is that there

Is no longer any real standard of care.

Here in California, nurses at major hospitals in the cities are usually per diem workers. So the first two days or so, they don't know where the medicine supply cabinet is. They don't know where all the major things they need are.

You are risking your life every time you are a patient in California. Ad tot hat how so many of the nursing aides are foreigners who don't speak any English (in clear violation of laws on the books stating that workers in hospitals who are serving the health needs of patients MUST speak English) and you can see that we Americans are paying exorbitant premiums to receive a product that is clearly quite inferior.

We pay more as a nation for health care than any other place on earth, yet still rank below 25 other nations in terms of how well our health services gives us our basic needs. If you consider that people's religious convictions now get in the way of providing health care, It really is amazing that any of us needing health care are left alive at the end of a year.

[DainBramaged]

126. Those with turnips for brains will fight this law just like the birthers and their insanity

[MadHound]

132. Who's got more turnips for brains, those who fight this law

Or those who backed this law, a law that originated with Nixon, supported by Bush I, Romney and Gingrich, and backed by the Heritage Foundation.

Supporting Republican policy, even though the Dems adapted it, doesn't seem very bright to me.

[DainBramaged]

145. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[MadHound]

148. So what other Republican policy will you sleepwalk your way into supporting? n/t

[DainBramaged]

176. Ya know I'm sorry this has made you so hateful

I reward your efforts to change the law (and berate me unsuccessfully) with a big red x forever.





Have a healthy life.

[Lionessa]

177. You're being hateful in calling people names, but accuse others of hatefulness. Classic you.

[DainBramaged]

180. Join them, goodbye

[freshwest]

188. LOL, loved the graphics.

[DainBramaged]

194. Thank you thank you for my next trick I'll make a Republican dissappear

[freshwest]

202. Oooh! That would be marvelous!

I think I just did, all I see is you are ignoring this person on some replies, LOL!

[DainBramaged]

243. It's amazing this stinker is still going.

Thank Dogs for the ignore feature.

[freshwest]

253. Indeed...

[MadHound]

195. Can't debate on the merits and facts,

Don't like when they're pointed out to you, so you choose to put me on ignore.

Stay classy there

[freshwest]

171. You have the right idea, what a waste of time this thread is.

[Aerows]

261. Indeed

I wonder how this poster lasted so long on DU when they have a clear anti-Obama agenda. It doesn't stop with ACA. It seems to be everything the man does.

Anyway, Fresh pleased we got a good ruling!

[freshwest]

266. Yes, it looks like Americans may yet unite in caring about each other.

Last edited Thu Jun 28, 2012, 05:23 PM - Edit history (1)

I read something heartening about the media manipulating and shredding the conscience of people. Despite its power to demagogue, and the violence and the virulence of those striving against the equality of the spirit, it is resisted.

MLK said America is not so much of a country of boundaries or laws, but a process of becoming as we strive toward an ideal.

As far as those still benighted by fear, they will come around later.

Take care, Aerows.

[Aerows]

270. I believe so too, My friend

We have just as much capacity to care for one another as we do to hate each other, and caring is ultimately the better route. We'll get there and drag those who doubt it the rest of the way

[freshwest]

283. Reminds me of this video:

It's all a plot to take away our Free-Dumbs!

[eridani]

322. Only increases greater than 10%

That means if you are paying $600/month now, 5 years of 9.99% increases will raise your premium to 965.87.

[TeamPooka]

5. I think this puts the Insurance companies on notice

They have rules to follow and if they don't the people will realize we can eliminate them and go single payer.

[WilliamPitt]

6. Maybe you should listen to the president speak.

He's on now, and your take doesn't jibe with what he's saying.

[Harmony Blue]

18. The President nailed it

he is on on the point and people will take notice.

[MadHound]

26. Well, duh,

Of course it doesn't. Do you think that the president is going to tell the truth about this POS? Let's hear what he has to say in five or ten years after the insurance industry has bled the middle class half dry, perhaps we might get an apology from him for pursuing this Republican plan. That would be nice.

[Huey P. Long]

35. You'll have to wrest him from Carlyle or similar I imagine. -eom

[progressivebydesign]

72. Oh brother... I am tired of paying for uninsured people thru my taxes now.

and through my insurance and health care costs. I don't mind having people pay for themselves for a while, AND having the insurance industry bear some of the costs. Do you know how much Americans spend on uninsured health care???

[MadHound]

80. Well then, I guess you would be against the only real solution then

Taxpayer funded UHC, like virtually every other developed country has.

[Autumn]

152. Oh brother... I am tired of hearing that bullshit. The government collects taxes from

everyone, EVERYONE. Those taxes pay for a lot more than "paying for uninsured people". They spend "your taxes" for tax breaks for the fucking wealthy, tax breaks for fucking corporations that have more rights than "we the people" do. A bloated military budget to pay for fucking wars based on fucking lies, so the military can buy more weapons when they have enough to destroy the world several times over. I could go on and on about how they waste "your taxes" that you so resent paying for a poor persons medical costs. It should be a governments job to take care of it's people.

" I am tired of paying for uninsured people thru my taxes now."


Fuck. that. shit.

[freshwest]

204. +1,000

[madrchsod]

264. +2000

[inna]

320. thank you. thank you. (took the words right out of my mouth - and then, some more! :)

[girl gone mad]

161. Ugh. What an ugly post.

It's sad to see the uninsured playing the role of Reagan's "welfare queens" in this debate. This narrative is so incredibly revolting in addition to being completely false. What a shame to see it parroted by people on a supposedly progressive forum.

[Autumn]

265. Sad to see "progressives" using sad

ass repuke talking points.

[Ms. Toad]

172. You are aware that you get a huge discount because you have insurance

and that the uninsured are actually subsidizing you, if they are paying their own bill, right?

We have been billed $23,500 for health care so far this year. The providers accepted $14,400 because we have insurance. If we did not have insurance, we would have been required to pay the entire amount. Labs are paid at 10% - 25% of what is billed, and physicians are paid at 40% - 80% of what is billed. the biggest write-down was 93% on a lab bill, the smallest was 5% on a vaccine.

Check out your own EOBs sometime. You may be surprised.

That $9100 the providers didn't receive for me doesn't just vanish. The actual cost for our care was somewhat higher than the $14,400 that was accepted, and the actual cost for the care of the similarly situated uninsured person was quite a bit lower than $23,500 billed.

[freshwest]

242. I thought that post was being sarcastic so I rec'd it. But thanks for the information. Very telling.

[Ms. Toad]

260. Prior to this year

The EOBs just came in, I verified that the amount I was supposed to pay was correct, and didn't pay any attention to the discount.

We have switched to a $6000 deductible/HRA plan - so I have pay the first $6000 out of pocket and request reimbursement for everything that is eligible for reimbursement under the HRA. That makes it easy to lose money if I don't pay really close attention - so I have been tracking very closely for the first time ever.

I knew insurance payments were discounted, but I found the lab discounts particularly shocking.

[HiPointDem]

234. less than 5% of total costs.

[joshcryer]

268. I have no problem paying for the uninsured poor. I do have a problem paying for the 38%...

...of uninsured people who make more than the median income. Young, healthy, white males, making lots of money, tearing their bodies up, and hitting the ER whenever they get hurt in an accident or get sick.

[xiamiam]

27. Will, we both know that what the president says does not necessarily translate to what gets done

I think the best hope for this is that it paves the way for something better ..which is the win..but as it is for the moment...its not a huge leap forward..especially since people who cant afford health care cannot afford the tax either..just keeping it real

[Lionessa]

55. Why? His speeches and his actions seem to rarely line up.

He's not going to go after mmj'ers, but then goes after their safe, state-regulated providers.

He says he's for marriage equality, but doesn't feel like doing anything about it.

He said he'd not go after DADT folks but did for years before DADT finally got dropped entirely.

He said he'd be a transparent President, but hasn't been.

the list goes on and on, so I ask once again,

why should I listen to a thing he says, he's just like every other politician,

[sharp_stick]

7. I'm having almost as much

fun reading posts like this here as listening to the wailing from the folks over on certain other sites.

Now go buy some broccoli dammit it's on the government list you'll receive by 14:00.

[SidDithers]

29. Me too...

can't help but thinking of Eric Cartman.

Oh, the tears of unfathomable sadness! My-yummy!

Sid

[MadHound]

33. Not surprising that you identify with Cartman,

Not surprising at all.

[SidDithers]

38. Your bitter tears, when so many are rightly celebrating, are nectar to my soul...nt

Sid

[white_wolf]

51. My thoughts exactly.

[SidDithers]

58. See #38...nt

Sid

[Tarheel_Dem]

99. It is remarkably like a GOP presser, ain't it? It's hilarious to hear their reactions on the radio.

[Autumn]

157. Broccoli ? I believe it said peas.

I must have gotten the wrong list.

[joshcryer]

269. Yeah, what strange bedfellows they keep.

I mean before the decision was handed down they were arguing anti-Federalist, pro-Confederacy points (literally quoting the anti-Federalist papers). Quoting right wing sites (some got PPR'd for that shit). Overall it was very hard to distinguish their arguments from the right wing, as a whole.

[still_one]

8. not to 40 million uninsured people it isn't, and those with pre-exisiting conditions, and those

whose kids can be insured under there plan up to 27 years old

It is a start, when there was nothing before

One thing would have been certain if it didn't pass, insurance premiums would soar. Now there is at least controls on that

[MadHound]

32. Key phrase, "least controls".

Those controls are quite weak, and easily gotten around.

Yes, forty million people will be forced to, in part or in whole, purchase insurance from a for profit corporation. More money to the one percent, oh boy.

And this isn't a start, this guarantees that single payer UHC won't be on the table for a generation or more.

[Harmony Blue]

129. They will not be forced to buy insurance

The tax "penalty" is far less than buying coverage. This is a way for government to collect revenue and increase the pool of people that have health care.

It is a win/win from my view.

[girl gone mad]

164. The government doesn't need to collect more revenue from the middle class..

That's actually the last thing they should be doing in the midst of a balance sheet recession.

It's a definite lose/lose for the broader economy. It's only a win for the FIRE sector.

[zipplewrath]

231. Pretty regressive

It collects taxes from those who couldn't afford the insurance premium, to subsidize the insurance of people who have even less money. And that's a "win win"?

[southern_belle]

110. +1 n/t

[maddezmom]

116. well said

[sadbear]

9. I'm not sold on the argument

that this is a product that everyone "may or may not need". I believe it's in the public interest that everyone have some sort of health insurance, whatever form it may take.

What we need now is some good ole trustbusting to infuse some more competition into the health insurance industry (including the public option.)

[MadHound]

37. What we need is single payer UHC,

But with the passage of this abomination, this Republican policy, we're not going to see that for decades, if ever.

[cynatnite]

10. No, I'm sorry, I don't agree...

Millions of people are already feeling the benefits. This is not a bad thing. It's not perfect, but it's a good start.

[MadHound]

39. And starting in 2014 millions more will be feeling the downside.

Get back to me when your premiums start to climb through the roof.

[cynatnite]

52. And you think that the provision prohibiting raising premiums without justification...

is a lie?

[MadHound]

63. No, I know that right now,

In every insurance industry headquarters, plans have already been drawn up and are being implemented in order to go over, around or through that provision. It is a weak provision as it is worded, and will be easily overcome.

[Fawke Em]

86. Actually, no their not.

My husband, the insurance salesman, says the insurance companies will opt to cut out brokers to save on costs since hiking them will get them penalized.

[MadHound]

93. Well, not to belittle you or what your husband does,

But insurance salesmen are pretty far from the center of power, and really don't know what is going on. I've a friend who is high up in management for a major insurance provider, and she is saying they've already got legislation laid out for the state and national level that would weaken and subvert the price controls, raise the tax penalties, and basically get around similar provisions in the ACA. It will probably take a few years, but it will be done.

[bananas]

147. Thanks for that insight. nt

[nolabels]

162. Really it shouldn't take much inside trading to see what some money grubbers have in mind

Like it's pretty much a waste of time to debate what government will do or not as long as it is up for sale to the highest bidder.

Thanks for concern and helping prove that point at any rate

[HiPointDem]

241. cut out the little guys; what's so surprising? they've been doing it for years -- there are fewer

local insurance brokers today than 10 years ago.

this gives them another excuse. they don't need local brokers anymore -- individuals can do it over the internet.

not saying that to be mean, i hate these trends and the growing concentration of wealth and power.

[leftyohiolib]

142. start to climb? you mean they havent been

[catbyte]

11. Go take a nap

I get so sick of all this bitching. All I know is now I won't have to divorce my beloved husband of 28 years because of catastrophic medical bills if ACA was overturned and I know that's the least of people's crises. I don't give a rat's ass WHO I pay premiums to. Sure, Single Payer would have been much better, but this is a start.

Christ on a cracker, lighten up, Gloomy Gus. This is a good thing.



Diane
Anishinaabe in MI & mom to Taz, Nigel, and new baby brother Petey, members of Dogs Against Romney, Cat Division
"Dogs Aren’t Luggage--HISS!”

[elleng]

15. Thanks, cat.

[freshwest]

41. What you said X10 except no persons to mention...

Bernie Sanders is champions Medicare and Medicaid, which covers the people I know who desperately need health care, and that's good enough for me today.

Oh, and love the sig line!

[MadHound]

42. Ah, so because it benefits you immediately, it's all good.

Nice to think of yourself first. Nice to engage in short term thinking.

Get back to me in a few years as insurance premiums start to drain the middle class dry.

[Lionessa]

82. THere have been many such posts the past few weeks, "Obamacare helps ME, so..."

I wanted to enter each and point out how conservative, Republican that sounds, "I got mine, so it's all good. Oh, you're still out in the cold, well f' you, I got mine."

[treestar]

305. Who is out in the cold here?

Everyone is to be insured. It makes more sense when people point out that purists have health insurance and can afford to play games with the people who don't in the meantime before some Congress passes single payer.

[MadHound]

312. You assume much,

And assume wrongly. I don't have health insurance, hell I barely have a job. So that throws your whole smear/premise into a cocked hat now.

[treestar]

319. So now you do have health insurance

Or, the government will "force' you to have it. Are you sure you're not a right winger?

[freshwest]

94. Actually, ACA does NOT benefit ME at all now, and NEVER will. It ain't about me.

So I accept your apology for making a petty but incorrect personal shot, since I will never recieve a dime from it. TIA.

[MadHound]

97. Was I addressing my comment to you?

Umm, that would be no, so lighten up.

[freshwest]

101. I agreed with her, and now you are here. Answer me.

Since I will get nothing. Will you lighten up on the rest of us who support the ACA but won't benefit?

[MadHound]

108. Gee, demanding aren't you.

No, I'm not going to lighten up on this issue, because the simple fact of the matter is that in the long run, none of will benefit from this abomination. Rather, we will all suffer.

Don't you get it, we have handed a mandated monopoly over to the insurance industry. If a Republican had passed this, we would all, rightfully, be screaming to high heave about it. Instead, because the man who pushed it had a D behind his name, it is somehow a great victory? Yeah, I always find it a victory to enact legislation that was originally proposed by Nixon, supported by the likes of Bush I and Romney, and backed by the Heritage Foundation.

Geez, you don't get it, you've been had by the oldest game in the book, good cop, bad cop. And you fell for it.

[Ms. Toad]

233. Our family has already benefitted.

My daughter has a condition which prohibits her from working or attending school full time. Prior to passage of the ACA, she was struggling to maintain full time status (and failing miserably) because at 18+ she was not eligible for coverage on my policy unless she was in school full time. It will take her 6 years to finish college, but she now has a realistic chance of making it.

In 2014 she will be eligible to purchase coverage on her own, despite the fact that she has two pre-existing conditions which cost roughly $60,000 a year to treat. Prior to ACA, no one would offer her private coverage, except during the open enrollment period, at a cost of around $18,000 a year - and the likelihood that she will be able to sustain a job which pays basic living expenses with $18,000 to spare is slim to none (and she obviously will not have $60,000 to spare each and every year).

Under the ACA, her costs will likely be $0, because for the foreseeable future she will be unable to work full time. As she is able to work more, she will pick up more and more of the premium - but she will never be penalized her for her tremendously awful luck of the draw in the genetic pool.

Is ACA exactly what I want? Absolutely not. I want single payer. Is it health care reform? Again, absolutely not. But it does make insurance available at a non-discriminatory rate for those who - like my daughter - through no fault of their own are currently unable to obtain insurance on the open market at all (or, as in our state, during very limited periods at an exorbitant rate).

It is far from perfect, but it is the most significant progress toward increasing access to health care in my lifetime. Now if we can just co-opt the energy of those conservatives who are threatening to flee to a single payer country to work toward single payer here, we might really get somewhere.

[Dawgs]

120. BS. You have NO IDEA if you will benefit. n/t

[freshwest]

185. BS. You have NO IDEA if I will benefit, as it's impossible for you to know. What nonsense.

[Dawgs]

186. WRONG!! You are the one saying you will never benefit. I'm saying you have no idea.

Understand the difference? I doubt you will.

[freshwest]

189. More nonsensical insults. I understand that is all you have. EOM.

[Aerows]

244. You are fighting a losing battle

with a person that opposes anything President Obama and this administration does regardless of what it is. Sometimes our supposed "friends" are our worst enemies. They are in the same boat with Republicans that wouldn't be happy if President Obama cured cancer - they would be bitching and complaining that he took funds away from curing AIDS, and why wasn't that cured yet?

Not that I am against curing anything, but these people wouldn't be happy if he had the power to stop volcanoes, earthquakes and stop world hunger. They would have a reason to bitch about it.

[hfojvt]

137. start? They've already been doing it for over a decade

the stagnant wages that people talk about are only true if you look at wages alone.

Wages + insurance have gone up considerably. The inusrance that was about $400 a month when I started working in 2002, is now $600+ a month. Further, for some 16 years, when I was between the ages of 26 and 42, I had no health insurance, because I did not have a good job that provided it. I also had almost no medical bills. However, figure the mandatory insurance at $600 a month for 16 years and that is $115,200 in extra revenue for the insurance companies and almost no expense. Perhaps subsidized for me by other taxpayers, but only partially.

[AngryOldDem]

107. I think all of us know personally someone who has or will benefit from this.

In my case, it is someone who has an aneurysm on his aeortic root, as well as a host of other medical conditions. His biggest fear is being denied care because of a pre-existing condition. His second worry, like yours, is making the choice between bankruptcy and treatment. Now, at least he doesn't have those worries anymore.

Can someone tell me why the basic common sense and moral arguments for health care are so divisive and difficult for people to grasp??? Why are we even fighting about this? We ALL need health care. Maybe not right this minute, but at some point in our lives we WILL. We DESERVE health care.

This law isn't perfect, but show me one that is. But let's take this and build on it. It's a wonderful start!

[eridani]

323. He will still be choosing between bankruptcy and treatment

The shitty bronze insurance (likely all that he can afford), pays only 60%--AFTER the high deductible has been met.

[Hoyt]

127. I agree with you completely, but I might take a nap too.

[grahamhgreen]

12. K&R. They will take their mandated trillions and crush every reform in the bill

Its a no-brainier.

[Ikonoklast]

43. Really? They couldn't kill the ACA with torrents of cash previous to this.

They will have even less money available to do that now, as the law dictates how much they can spend on 'other than healthcare'.

The health insurance industry has just been turned into a regulated public utility whose profit percentage is now controlled by the Federal Government.

The Koch Brothers are vomiting all over their thousand-dollar hand-made Italian loafers because of the hundreds of millions of dollars THAT THEY PISSED AWAY.

[freshwest]

105. Got that right... Why else would they scream so much? The ACA has provisions to hire the people who

Do health insurance claims for the for protfits now... Does that look like they are intending to let the private sector keep gouging the public? And the stock market just has its say on the insurance companies versus the providers, which the ACA demands to get the same share as Medicare sends for direct care.

I'm not ranting at you, though, just leaving these points for the deniers who bought the media lines but never read the thing. Thanks for your comment which I enjoyed.

[girl gone mad]

166. Why would they kill it? They wrote it!

[Ikonoklast]

170. Those that assert, must first prove.

Show your work, opinions are irrelevant.



Soooo, they spent hundreds of millions fighting the very law they wrote?

Do you ralize just how insane that sounds?

[HiPointDem]

247. When the bill passed, Baucus said:

I wish to single out one person, and that one person is sitting next to me. Her name is Liz Fowler. Liz Fowler is my chief health counsel. Liz Fowler has put my health care team together. Liz Fowler worked for me many years ago, left for the private sector, and then came back when she realized she could be there at the creation of health care reform because she wanted that to be, in a certain sense, her profession lifetime goal.

She put together the White Paper last November–2008–the 87-page document which became the basis, the foundation, the blueprint from which almost all health care measures in all bills on both sides of the aisle came.

She is an amazing person. She is a lawyer; she is a Ph.D. She is just so decent. She is always smiling, she is always working, always available to help any Senator, any staff. I thank Liz from the bottom of my heart. In many ways, she typifies, she represents all of the people who have worked so hard to make this bill such a great accomplishment.


(She's a WellPoint VP).

[Ikonoklast]

272. Why did Wellpoint then spend millions fighting it???

In one of the worst examples of WellPoint’s deceptive agenda, the company has been working surreptitiously for years to interfere with the passage and implementation of Obamacare. In 2009, WellPoint secretly joined with other big insurers to funnel $86 million to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce through AHIP, the health insurance industry lobbying arm, to air ads against health care legislation while insurers publicly claimed to support health reform. The company has openly supported members of Congress who are hostile to workers and want to repeal Obamacare. The ALEC campaign that WellPoint supports specifically targets Obamacare’s requirement that insurance companies stop denying care due to pre-existing conditions. Undoing the health law would punish millions of middle-class and working families.

http://healthcareforamericanow.org/2012/05/14/health-plan-members-shareholders-tell-wellpoint-to-reveal-secret-spending-on-political-extremists/

Correlation is not causation.

[grahamhgreen]

198. Can you agree that they will lobby to increase that percentage?

[elleng]

13. Don't get it, eh?

Political system is essentially dysfunctional, but notwithstanding, there are huge current, and larger near future benefits coming due to this legislation.
NOTHING ELSE would happen without this effort, no single payer, no medicare for all. The powers that be, the insurance companies and their compatriots, are too powerful to enable anything better to be enacted.

[freshwest]

187. More like refuses to get it. I'm done arguing with the snarks and RW talking points.

[elleng]

224. Smart.

Hope I can resume some calm and stability, in the face of this victory. (How messed up is that???)

[freshwest]

239. Yes, it is strange. Any good news for any Democrat and it's a war zone here.

No celebration can be allowed. I'm used to being slammed for being a Democratic Party supporter on Democratic Underground. We'll make it.

[elleng]

245. Hope so, fresh.

Daughter's birthday was yesterday, couldn't see her cause she was busy working and partying, and today, same, busy working, HOPING for tomorrow, as flowers I picked for her are wilting!

[freshwest]

246. Hum, some aspirin and re-cutting the stems might help. Enjoy her birthday when she gets off!

[elleng]

255. Thanks. Will try.

[slackmaster]

14. I disagree with you, MadHound - The penalty, er, tax for not buying insurance is so low...

...that a lot of people are going to opt to pay that (is it something like $200?) rather than the cost of a private insurance policy, which is a couple thousand even for a young person in perfect health.

The private insurance companies are pissed because the tax is low. Government is now effectively in competition with them.

[MadHound]

50. And you don't think that will be changed?!

Geez, that's what gets me, far too many people thinking in the short term, that this is some sort of great short term political victory. Rah, rah, Obama won.

Well guess what, the 'Pugs, or even blue dogs, will do everything that they can to get those tax penalties raised. After all, it really isn't a penalty if it is lower than an insurance premium, d'uh.

[Lionessa]

184. You seem to think the tax get something akin to insurance or healthcare, it doesn't, so how does

help? Even if that young person chooses to pay that instead of insurance, if something happens they still have no healthcare past emergency room visits, and immediate required stuff. Followups, therapy, anything like that that might be needed to recover fully will still be out of reach.

[Ikonoklast]

17. You will be proven wrong over time.

You do not have you buy ANYTHING, period.

If you can afford to do so and do not, you will be penalized.

You still do not have to purchase health care from anyone.

Ignore the subsidies, the price controls, the rebates all you want. I am a middle class person, and I will qualify for a subsidy.

It must really bother you that this is a huge step in the right direction, and that the vast majority of citizens will benefit.

It ruins your narrative.

[treestar]

30. They keep talking about being forced to buy it

They are forced to pay premiums to cover what they would otherwise be forced to pay, which is HUGE medical bills!

Poor people FORCED to pay for medical treatment and care via a commie soshalust system that lets poor people into it while taxes pay for their care!!!!

They may as well come out and say doctors should not get paid. Hospitals should operate for free. Everyone who works in that industry should just volunteer!

[Ikonoklast]

57. Those are Right Wing Talking Points parroted here by...wait a minute.

Funny how thw two ends come into agreement over their ODS.

[MadHound]

61. Since when has adapting Republican policy ever been a step in the right direction?

And please, don't try to argue that this isn't a 'Pug policy. It was hatched under Nixon, with the help of the Heritage Foundation, supported by Bush I, Romney and a whole host of other 'Pugs.

Nice that you qualify for a subsidy, but outside your own little bubble, lots of people are going to be paying through the nose. But hey, you got yours.

It would be so fun, in a few years, when premiums go through the roof, to enjoy the schadenfreude of watching the Dems who supported this scream in pain as their wallet is drained by the insurance industry. The only problem with that is we'll all be screaming.

[Ikonoklast]

71. Premiums are now regulated by law.

The subsidies will kick in for a great many that qualify.

Your right-wing talking points mirror the Teabaggers, word for word, and are completely incorrect.

People will not "be paying through the nose".

Reality will prove you and the Teabaggers to be dead wrong.

Based on your income, you, too, will can qualify for a subsidy.

Have you even looked as to where you will fall under the provisions of the ACA?

Bet you haven't, based on all of the incorrect information posted here by you.

[MadHound]

87. You know what my income is?

If so, then you've taken DU stalking to a new level. Please, don't deign to know what my situation is or isn't.

As far as the rest of your post goes, if you don't think that those weak laws regulating premiums won't be overturned, quickly I might add, then you are horribly naive.

As far as my using RW talking points, better that than cheering on the victory of RW policy, which is exactly what the ACA is.

[Ikonoklast]

280. Wow. Make your stupid accusations elsewhere, I'm not buying.

I'll remain horribly naive, thank you.

Obama will sign legislation undermining his own law.

Riiiight.


You keep up the mission of tearing down every accomplishment made by Democrats.

[MadHound]

284. You were the one who implied you knew what my income was,

Sorry, but I would never make that presumption about you or anyone else, and the fact that you did so is either hubris, creepy, or a bit of both.

Didn't say that Obama would sign such legislation, but is Obama or a Dem always going to be in office?

Not tearing down every accomplishment made by Democrats, but yes, I will criticize Democrats who adapt Republican policies as their own.

Reminds me of the Clinton years, a lot of Democrats thought it was horrible for a liberal to criticize Clinton for welfare "reform", the '96 Telecom Act, getting rid of Glass Steagall and such, yet here we are, each of those actions has come back around and hurt the American people badly. Another ten or so years down the line, guess what, the ACA will be doing the same.

Then what tune will you be singing?

[phleshdef]

19. What a load of horse shit.

You are barely even worth responding to anymore.

You've been called out on the notion that you are forced to buy insurance and you've ignored the facts. You don't have to buy it. You can pay a tax to cover yourself as a liability on the system if you don't want to buy it.

You've been called out on the fact that single payer is a pipe dream in this political climate and you still ignore that fact.

I'm all for a public option. I ultimately want us to have a single payer system. But the ACA is a life saving bill. You can't dodge this fact, no matter how much I know that you will try to. And the fact that you wanted to see it shot down means that you are fine with the pain and suffering that such a thing would bring. You have no moral legs to stand on with such an argument. None.

[Aerows]

262. You and I don't agree often

But in this - 100%.

[dionysus]

278. for many here, if anything Obama promotes wins.. it's the end of life as we know it.

if he made an executive order saying that the sky is blue, people where would bitch about it nonstop for weeks.

"but what about the CLOUDS! it was a RW idea all along!!11!!"

[NNN0LHI]

21. Who is this "we", you are talking about?

[Logical]

23. Wow, tell that to the millions helped. Disgusting!

[treestar]

24. Who does NOT NEED health insurance?

Only the very rich who can pay cash for all medical procedures and hospitalizations.

[MadHound]

70. Most young people,

Hell, I didn't need health insurance for twenty years, until I turned forty.

[treestar]

78. Even if you are young, you could be struck with something

That's why the young have insurance. Accident or the occasional bad luck of having a bad illness. People do get cancer when young, you know. And if their parents, or they do not have insurance, then there will be a HUGE medical bill. Insurance is about spreading risk! It's ridiculous to say young people don't need it. Yeah I may be lucky, no major illnesses yet at 50, yet I've been paying insurance premiums for years. Because you don't know what COULD happen. Glad that some unlucky people who were seriously ill in their 30s or 40s got to have treatment.

[frazzled]

90. Tell that to my friends

Whose son, at age 24, was caught in a house fire and suffered severe brain damage from smoke inhalation. He was in ICU in a coma for three months, in a critical brain rehab for 9 months, and in a nursing home for more than a year now. He still can't talk and he can't walk and he will need care for the rest of his life.

That, as well as minor and major things, can happen to any twenty-something. That's why they call it INSURANCE: most of us will not be in an automobile accident or have a fire in our homes, but we carry insurance because in the event something like that should happen, it would devastate our lives. Health care is even more critical.

Don't even go there with "MOST young people." Russian roulette is not a game we should teach them to play.

And PS: if people don't get insurance until they're 40 when they "need" it, the costs for everyone will skyrocket. The system (whether private or public) depends on the well buying in to help offset the costs of their later needs and the very ill, like my friends' son.

These illiberal positions make me crazy.

[aquart]

208. +1

[Wait Wut]

236. Aren't you the lucky one!

Let's see...

I had a baby just after 18.
Cancer at 22.
A miscarriage at 27, another at 29.
A serious car accident that sent me to the hospital at 31.
A heartattack at 34.
A stroke at 45.
Extremely low blood pressure my entire life.

Young people need health insurance just as much as old people.

[Codeine]

298. I can't count the number of times I've heard a conservative make that argument.

First time I've ever seen a person who styles themselves a liberal make it, however.

[Arkana]

25. You sound like the Freepers.

The ACA isn't a perfect or a final solution--no one anywhere ever has argued that.

But the fact remains that it's added millions to the rolls of the "covered"--that is, people who have health insurance--and their emergency room visits aren't fucking the people who DO have health insurance. Children can stay on their parents' plan until age 26. You cannot be denied coverage because of a preexisting condition.

It's definitely a win for millions of Americans and I find it puzzling that you can't realize that because your principles feel offended.

[MadHound]

74. No, it is forcing millions to purchase a product that they may or may not need,

From a for profit corporation.

Big difference

Worse, with weak price controls the ACA is going to force people to pay ever increasing premiums until they're bled dry.

[Arkana]

113. Don't feed me that crap about "may or may not need".

The vast majority of Americans will make at least one emergency room visit in their lives and if they don't have insurance it forces those who do to foot the bill. Should we fuck the 98% for the sake of the 2%?

[Puzzledtraveller]

115. One of the things that does'nt get mentioned

much either is not only the insurance industry but actual providers, institutions, they seem to get pass. We just saw how at the announcement stock in healthcare providers rose. Why would this be? I believe it's because the price controls arent really there, they were more on the insurance side as I understand it and how Sebeliuis's office put it about a cap. The money will just move to the hospitals, where much of it is. So the $20 tylenol will be $40 by the time this gets under way.

[DiverDave]

28. So did you say the same when we HAD to pay for auto

insurance?
I thought there was a no gouging rule in this?
And, yes it is a big step to single payer/medicare for all.

[Zalatix]

34. If you don't drive, you don't have to pay for auto insurance.

[jsmirman]

47. Unlike breathing, which is not optional

isn't that the logical follow-through on your analogy?

Not taking either side here (I want single payer in the worst way and don't love certain aspects of the ACA, but taken all in all, have to rest on the side of "good" for today's result), but I'm just asking.

[Zalatix]

79. Pretty much.

The worst part of this is that the Government can say that you must purchase (from a private corporation) anything it says you should purchase. Just for breathing.

Today it's insurance. I guarantee you that in some point in the future it will expand to other, less desirable mandatory purchases.

Like, oh, say, firearms.

[DiverDave]

56. True, but lots

used to drive without because they didnt need it (or so they thought).
I remember people screaming about it then.
The insurance company's saw a BIG bump in policy sales after that.

[Yavin4]

31. Two Sitting Dem Senators Won't Even Attend The National Convention This Year

In that kind of senate, how can you get a cloture vote on single payer???

[soccer1]

36. Insurance premiums...

will most likely go down as more people pay for insurance.The insurance companies will be competing against each other and will also be able to offer less expensive coverage for young, healthy people.

[EFerrari]

49. Insurance premiums in MA are among the highest in the nation. n/t

[soccer1]

88. Does Mass have a mandate to buy insurance....

and, do the citizens have an insurance exchange offered to them? Also, how would the provisions of the ACA , if fully implemented in
Mass, bring down insurance premiums? I don't know.....but this is a step in the right direction, definitely, IMO.

From this site:
http://www.healthcare.gov/law/timeline/

"Starting in 2014 if your employer doesn’t offer insurance, you will be able to buy it directly in an Affordable Insurance Exchange. An Exchange is a new transparent and competitive insurance marketplace where individuals and small businesses can buy affordable and qualified health benefit plans. Exchanges will offer you a choice of health plans that meet certain benefits and cost standards. Starting in 2014, Members of Congress will be getting their health care insurance through Exchanges, and you will be able buy your insurance through Exchanges too."

[Dragonfli]

225. Um.. Yes they have "Romneycare" the pilot program for ACA /nt

[Jankyn]

45. Wake up.

There was no way to cut the mega-business that is health care insurance out of it.

Like most progressive Democrats, I'd have preferred a universal single-payer system. But with the insurance companies so entrenched, and with generations of Americans used to the idea of "health insurance," there was no way for that to happen this time.

Now, we continue to work toward a "public option." And eventually, we'll get to universal single-payer.

Yeah, it's incrementalism. The alternative is revolution, and I'm not ready to go to war against my fellow citizens.

[soccer1]

53. Well said...

I agree with you....incrementalism is the only path that makes sense, for this nation.

[MadHound]

102. So we should just feed the beast instead?

Because that is what the ACA is doing, feeding the beast. And if you think that we're going to get the public option, or UHC in the next generation, well, I have some fine swamp,err, beachfront property in Florida to sell you.

Yeah, incrementalism, it means we will be drained of money drop by drop.

[BBGC]

46. I was not happy that health insurance companies had anything to do with it

That said, this is a million times better than the status quo. FYI - the legislation was written to minimize corporate profits.

[jillan]

59. I'm really sorry you feel that way. I feel that this was a first step.

Now that this is in place, we can more forward but you can't get to the finish line without taking that first step.

[ecstatic]

60. The mandate doesn't really have teeth, from my understanding

Which means the insurance companies will be worse off, not better off. Just my opinion, of course. That aside, your first concern should be for PEOPLE, not bitterness about corporations.

[randome]

83. You got that right.

[soccer1]

91. I'm not sure....

People are required to pay their taxes.....or they face penalties. So, I think the mandate does have "teeth".

[ecstatic]

111. Look at this:

From http://www.howardforums.com/showthread.php/1768213-Healthcare-Individual-Mandate-not-Enforceable:

Whatever the Supreme Court decides today, the health care bill itself concludes that the mandate really isn't a mandate at all. There are no consequences for not getting health insurance. From the bill itself:

"Section G 2 (A) WAIVER OF CRIMINAL PENALTIES.—In the case of
any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed
by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any
criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure.

‘‘(B) LIMITATIONS ON LIENS AND LEVIES.—The Secretary
shall not—
‘‘(i) file notice of lien with respect to any property
of a taxpayer by reason of any failure to pay the
penalty imposed by this section, or

‘‘(ii) levy on any such property with respect to
such failure.’’

[soccer1]

123. I believe the SC addressed this tax issue....

But, I have to read more before I comment any further.....

[soccer1]

133. Garnishing of wages....

plus adding penalties that will increase what you owe.....

[HiPointDem]

251. how will they be worse off? they don't have to pay for the care of anyone who doesn't buy their

insurance. the scofflaws will get (already underfunded) medicaid, if anything.

[ecstatic]

254. Because people like me, with tons of "pre-existing conditions"

have to be covered, but they won't necessarily receive an increase in customers if most people just opt for the tax.

[HiPointDem]

256. i imagine that a lot of the scofflaws will be on the lower end of the income spectrum & thus more

likely to be high-cost patients.

i think losers will be small insurance cos & small practitioners.

[progressivebydesign]

64. As a taxpayer and health care consumer, it's a victory for me.

We're paying billions and billions for the uninsured. We end up paying 300k for a hospital procedure for an uninsured person now, that could have been avoided with a basic physical, but they had to wait until they were sick enough to get admitted in ER.

This is a victory for taxpayers and the rest of us who pay higher rates for everything to cover the people that don't buy insurance. Giveaway??? Hardly. The system of no insurance available, so using the ER for primary care, is a giveaway of taxpayer and the insured's money.

The provisions of this program is going to create affordable options for people so that we don't have this ridiculous system of the ER as primary care, and the rest of us paying for them.

Here, I'll make it easy for all of you hand-wringers: http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/insurance/2009-05-28-hiddentax_N.htm

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-05-09-uninsured-unpaid-hospital-bills_n.htm

[MrSlayer]

69. It does NOT force anyone to buy anything.

Why the fuck doesn't anyone seem to know what is in the law?

There is no enforceable penalty for not buying insurance. None.

[Nye Bevan]

75. Where to begin? For one thing, it's not a "mandated monopoly" unless there is only one

insurance company. And if this is such good news for the insurance companies, why have the share prices of companies like United Healthcare and Wellpoint plummeted in the wake of the decision?

[AtomicKitten]

81. +1

[BlueCaliDem]

96. +2

[Harmony Blue]

135. Most arguments are based on emotion

when cooler heads emerge people will start to come back to reality. Nye Bevan it will take time for people to see the truth! Just have to be patient.

[treestar]

306. +3

and why have insurance companies spent so much fighting the ACA? or any health reform?

[Odin2005]

92. You sound like a Teabagger.

Nobody is forcing you to buy anything. The tax/penalty/whatever is small compared to any insurance premium.

This is the first step in creating a system like in Switzerland, where health insurance companies are highly-regulated utilities.

[BlueCaliDem]

103. Some people want everything or nothing. Period.

If it ain't perfect now, it should wait (decades more) until it's perfect before being presented. Yeah, we've seen how well that worked, but that's how some people think. Of course, had those same people lived during the Medicare creation debate, they'd be against that, too, and many on both sides of the political spectrum were - although they like it now. The fringe on both sides were against Medicare as they are against ObamaCares. Same difference different century.

[MadHound]

119. Gee, I thought you were classier than that

But I guess not. So now everyone who disagrees with you "sounds like a Teabagger".

Sad, truly sad.

Worse yet, here you are cheering on a piece of legislation that originated with a Nixon proposal, supported by the likes of Bush I, Romney, and backed by the Heritage Foundation, yet have the gall to say I sound like a teabagger.

Hey, I'm not the one cheering on the victory of Republican legislation. Perhaps you should look in the mirror.

[Odin2005]

150. The Heritage foundation version did not include regulation and price controls.

I was listening to the BBC World Service as I was going to bed last night and the idiot from the AIE they had on said exactly that, it came originally from their side but they oppose it because Obama's version has regulation and price controls.

[Harmony Blue]

155. +1 Most people don't listen or view

media outside the U.S. They simply don't know any better when they are bombarded by misinformation.

[MadHound]

220. No, but it did have the individual mandate

As did Romney's version. Was what the the 'Pugs came up with exactly word for word like the ACA, no. But it is obvious to anybody with half a brain where the genesis of the ACA came from, namely the RW side of the coin. That is fact, that is reality, deal with it.

Psst, those price controls are weak, weak, and the insurance industry is already hard at work to find ways over, under, around and through them.

[mzmolly]

125. Not to mention, if you don't pay the small penalty, you can't

serve jail time for it. It's a toothless mandate.

But, let's not stop the naysayers from crying in their tea cups. I'm enjoying their pity party.

[MadHound]

134. And just how long do you think that will last?

Insurance corporations will be overturning that soon enough.

[mzmolly]

138. Madhound, insurance companies can't

overturn anything.

[MadHound]

140. Yeah, just like the Kock brothers can't overturn anything

Please, please tell me you aren't that politically naive.

[Harmony Blue]

146. Supreme Court decisions

that overturned are highly unlikely.

That is why the rightwingers are so angry.

[mzmolly]

154. I don't like the Koch brothers, but they

can't "overturn" the SCOTUS. R's can try to "repeal" the law, but it will stand, for all practical purposes.

[Harmony Blue]

141. Supreme Court made it clear today

embrace this truth.

[cottonseed]

149. Now you're just making stuff up.

[Odin2005]

151. We control the White House and the Senate.

And hopefully in January we will control the House again.

[AngryOldDem]

98. What law was ever perfect straight out of the gate?

With all its perceived imperfections, I would rather have this than have it striken down entirely.

This law has already helped millions. Let's build on that.

[spin]

100. We currently have the most expensive but far from the best healthcare program in the world ...

It remains to be seen how "Obama care" will play out and how much it will cost but currently I feel that the system might well prove far more expensive than what we have today and it might actually provide less care.

It does appear that the insurance industry will benefit and will make even more profit off the illness of our citizens.

I hope that I am wrong but it does appear to me that today that the insurance companies won.

[girl gone mad]

174. I think so, too.

The insurance companies and the hospitals are going to be raking in a lot more money, eating up an ever greater portion of our declining wealth. It's very unlikely that this will amount to any improvement in our quality of life or longevity. In fact, greater access to healthcare is often associated with worse outcomes.

Unfortunately, the ACA did not address any of the things which really needed to be addressed in our system. Instead of working toward reducing costs and improving quality of care, it ensures middle man profits in return for limited benefits. The two popular provisions could have easily been implemented on their own. It remains to be seen what will happen as the plan is implemented, but my sense is that this is going to do some real economic damage.

[DCBob]

106. That same thread title can be seen over at the conservative blog sites.

Wrong in both cases.

[TroglodyteScholar]

109. I stopped reading at the second sentence...

When you demonstrated that you don't know the definition of the word "monopoly."

[mzmolly]

114. .

[earthside]

118. Now that we have fused insurance corporations with government ...

... what will happen when these private health insurance corporations don't make enough to cover their 20 percent administrative and profit allocation?

What happens if a "too big to fail" health insurance corporation is about to go under?

BAILOUT --- by you and me and all the other poor and working taxpayers in this country.

Look the health insurance corporations win almost anyway you look at it: if the Repuglicans win everything in November they can repeal this law and go back to a 'wild west' unregulated market; if the Repuglicans don't win everything, but keep it close, the insurance corporations go into full lobbying mode to create loopholes to drain every cent they can from us and the government.

Sure, this is a political win for Pres. Obama, but in the long run it is a huge economic triumph for the health insurance industry.

[KurtNYC]

131. or we nationalize them and then....

single payer.

[DainBramaged]

124. I disagree, my beautiful daughter disagrees, my beloved ex disagrees, all of us positively affected

by his decision.



You can continue to claim we have lost, but it's time to move forward and WORK TOWARDS single payer instead of trying to divide us once again.

[mzmolly]

128. Some here appear to be as uneducated

as the teabaggers on this issue. Neither, has taken an honest look at the legislation.

[DainBramaged]

144. Shoot from the mouth.....

yep.

[MadHound]

136. Nice that you got yours,

Sadly, in the long run, we'll all lose ours.

[mzmolly]

139. That's absurd.

eom

[DainBramaged]

143. Whatever

more people have been posiively affected than you think.


have a nice day.

[Harmony Blue]

156. It is a joyous moment for those that benefit from the ACA

[liberal N proud]

130. These people would disagree with you...

About 3.1 million young adults gained health insurance through a provision that allows them to stay on their parents' policies until age 26. In addition, nearly 62,000 Americans with pre-existing health conditions, who would otherwise be uninsurable, gained coverage through the government's Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plans (PCIPs). Those enrolled will be able to stay in the program until it expires in 2014. At that time, they'll be eligible to buy health insurance through state-based insurance marketplaces scheduled to be up and running by fall 2013.

[girl gone mad]

178. Such a tiny victory.

Why do progressives always aim so low?

It costs the insurers nothing to keep kids on plans until they turn 26 since this is the time in life when most people are healthy and use the least care. This could have easily been accomplished independently of the grotesque mandate.

[Art_from_Ark]

297. When I was in the 18-26 age group, I went to the doctor 3 times

for very minor conditions. Two times I was covered by my university's insurance, the third time I was on a company plan but the cost of the visit was less than the deductible (I didn't even realize I had a deductible until I went to pay the bill, and the only reason I went to the doctor was because I thought I might as well take advantage of the insurance)

[blue neen]

153. "We?"

Is there a frog in your pocket?

[Son of Gob]

173. You don't even know what a monopoly is.

[gateley]

179. The Health Insurance Industry wins big either way. At least with this ruling more people will have

access to health care. Nothing is either/or. At least at this point.

[Baitball Blogger]

181. I know where you're headed Madhound.

In the early nineties the doctors were so stressed out by the limitations the HMO put on them that they started taking it out on the patients.

I just hope the insurance companies can be sued this time around.

[DevonRex]

182. Join the Republicans, Libertarians, Teabaggers &

folks who call for completely overthrowing the government in hopes of creating a different system.

They all agree with you, along with a very few misguided people who think somehow we'd magically get single payer if only ACA had been struck down and don't seem to care if thousands and thousands of people would die on the meantime.

[MineralMan]

183. Thanks for your OP. The thread is very informative.

Yes, indeed, it is.

Transparency is a wonderful thing.

[DevonRex]

190. Quite. Nt

[spanone]

191. ...

[IMG][/IMG]

[MadHound]

205. That's classy,

What, can't argue the facts. Facts like this the ACA is Republican policy? Facts like the price controls are weak?

That's OK, I understand.

[kentuck]

193. No matter how much they raise the prices, they only get to keep 20%...

So, if they double their prices, they can double their profits, and still only get 20%. Brilliant thinking by the person who thought up that idea.

[MadHound]

201. For now,

I'm sure that provision will be attacked in due course.

[kentuck]

207. What I mean is that if the 20% doubles with higher prices, their profits double...

and the 20% threshold only gives them the incentive to raise the prices even more than normally. It's pretty simple arithmetic.

[ProSense]

203. How does it

Worse yet, this is going to set back the true goal of single payer, non-profit universal health care back by a generation or more. The corporately controlled Democrats and Republicans aren't going to touch any sort of health care reform for decades, not after this battle.

...feel to spin?

Kucinich: Supreme Court Upholds (ACA), A Key Step in the Long Fight for Medicare For All
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002871293

[Aerows]

250. You and I agree on few things

But on this? We are rock solid. This was a victory, and can only help the future of health care in our nation. That's what most of care about - things improving - and we just keep moving forward.

This was a step forward, and it's obvious that it was since Republicans moaned and groaned about it like it would be the end of the universe. Anything that helps our nation forward and stay in the mainstream is vociferously opposed by the dark ages party.

It's also a President Obama victory, which makes them even madder, even though he is right.

[Ian David]

206. Thanks...

[MadHound]

209. Another classy one

Who can't argue the merits of our adapting Republican policy and yet claiming a victory for Democrats and the American people.

Stay classy.

[ProSense]

214. Actually,

"Who can't argue the merits of our adapting Republican policy and yet claiming a victory for Democrats and the American people. "

...I'm trying to avoid the people who are trying to frame this as a loss for the people because they believe it will be seen as a win for Obama. You know the ones, they were hoping the SCOTUS would strike down the law, returning to the status quo (no expansion of Medicaid, no ban on dropping people with a pre-existing condition, no free preventive care for seniors, no improved MLR, etc.). Yeah, that would have been a win for the people, right?

"Stay classy," (and depressed) my friend.



I'm happy for the millions who will live!

[TomClash]

210. I like single payer much more but . . .

. . . here are some benefits from the law:

1. About 1 million more young people have coverage now.

2. Tax credits for small businesses to encourage them to cover people.

3. A decrease in health care fraud.

4. People with pre-existing conditions no longer will be turned away after 2014.

5. Tax credits to help individuals afford coverage.

6. Seniors pay lower real premiums

We didn't have the votes for Medicare-for-all or single payer. These improvements would not have been made if this didn't pass.

[Aerows]

248. Those that are complaining

Can ONLY be employed by profit driven health insurance companies. Everyone else is breathing a sigh of relief, because at least those with pre-existing conditions and children can get coverage.

It's blatantly about profits when you see someone complaining about it. I wish it covered more people, but one thing at a time. This is a victory.

[Aerows]

213. It's a win for anyone 26 and younger

A win for the multitudes that have pre-existing conditions, and a win for everyone that isn't convinced that health care in the United States will get better, immediately, pronto, and without a few struggles.

The rest that aren't happy about it? Fuck 'em. They need something to grouse about, and this isn't one of those things.

[MadHound]

215. Ah, is that what you're going to say to the middle class starting in 2014

When they pay an ever increasing share of their income to the insurance corporations? Is that what you're going to say, fuck 'em?

[Aerows]

221. I won't have to do so

Because there are caps built in to how much insurance companies can take out of premiums vs. what they pay out.

If I worked for an insurance company, I'd be pissed as hell about this ruling, particularly if I was in the upper echelons.

If not? Most of us say "fuck 'em" to insurance companies and can't wait for the day that they burn to the ground in chapter 11, jail and so forth.

[MadHound]

228. For now,

And right now, actually I'm ever since ACA was signed, the insurance industry has been hard at work to lift those caps, weaken the price controls even further, and other such chicanery.

Nor do I think they're pissed, they were handed the middle class' head on silver platter today, now they've just got to figure out how to slice it up and eat it.

[Aerows]

237. Well then I guess it's a sad day for you

It's not a sad day for everyone that has been helped by the ACA, and it's a shitty day for the future of health insurance company profits.

[fishwax]

227. what's past is prologue; what to come in yours and my discharge

I think there are many battles yet to fight before we can determine this to be the defeat you claim it to be for "we, the people." On the other hand, these battles can also improve and extend the law, getting us ever closer to a fair and effective health care system. Today is not a defeat but an opportunity, and there remains much work to be done.

[Dragonfli]

229. I agree on all counts, but pointing out the right wing victory here is frowned upon /nt

[patrice]

230. Ego-inflated theatrics, it appears that the DU possibly is not healthy for some people.Ask yourself,

honestly and answer honestly: Do you get a buzz off of this?

[MadHound]

232. Another who can't argue on the facts and merits,

So resorts to insult instead.

Tell me, why do you think that a policy started under Nixon, supported by Bush I, Romney and other conservatives, backed by the Heritage Foundation is a good thing?

[patrice]

287. No, just tired of wasting my time with close-minded demigogs. I have never seen

some people ever honestly and respectfully entertain ANY perspective but their own.

Clue: If the shoe doesn't fit, I recommend that you do not try it on. IOW, I could be wrong (something that I am willing to admit and to my knowledge you are incapable of admitting) and if I am wrong, protesting too much and making a target out of someone, appears kind of defensive, don't you think.

Speaking as someone who lives by a dialectic of critical self-awareness, I'd like to know: Do you ever wonder if your ego might be just a tad inflated by this board?

[patrice]

290. In short, who died and made you god? The inability to admit you're only talking about PROBABILITIY

looks and awful lot like fascism.

[MadHound]

303. Well, you answered that question,

No, you can't argue an issue based on the facts and merits of said issue, and instead must resort to insults and personal attacks.

Fascism Keep it up, this is truly getting amusing. Especially ironic when you keep going on about ego.

[FarLeftFist]

238. You have no authority to speak for the people, only yourself. And YOU are wrong.

[RBInMaine]

240. Oh enough already. We don't need the left's version of the Tea Party around here.

[Capt. Obvious]

252. I for one look forward to the day we are forced to eat broccoli

I love broccoli and so should you

[AtomicKitten]

257. woo woo

you're lining up with teabaggers and showing your ass

[DainBramaged]

258. Single payer will follow, baby steps, unless that certain someone is on the payroll

The few the proud the stupid

[joshcryer]

267. All you need to do is get a public option passed.

If you don't think the federal government can do it petition your state to do it. Simple.

[Summer Hathaway]

271. Would it be possible for you to post

the alternate OP you prepared in the event the SCOTUS decided the other way?

You know, the one where it would have been a great tragedy for everyone if ACA got shut down, and how it would be all Obama's fault that it wasn't upheld?

TIA

[EFerrari]

274. Would it be possible for you to show why you think

MadHound hasn't been consistent in his position? Thanks in advance.

[Summer Hathaway]

285. On the contrary

I think MadHound has always been consistent in his position. His position is that anything Obama says, does, proposes, or supports is inherently wrong, and that everything bad for the nation emanates from Obama and his administration.

In keeping with that position, had ACA been struck down today, I believe MadHound would have posted another pouty OP about how the SCOTUS decision spells doom for any chance at single-payer, and it would be - drum roll here - ALL OBAMA'S FAULT for having initiated ACA in the first place!

Some folks will take any position they hope will turn each and every Obama victory into something negative, disastrous, and fodder for their incessant whining. What I find amusing is that they don't seem to recognize just how transparent they are.

[EFerrari]

289. So the answer is no, you can't. Thank you. n/t

[Summer Hathaway]

294. No, my answer was as stated

MadHound's anti-Obama position has been entirely consistent. I would not argue that for a second - the evidence being overwhelming.

[EFerrari]

295. Your answer was an attack on MadHound and did not speak to the question.

So reading it as a "no" is actually pretty charitable to you.

[Summer Hathaway]

296. I responded very directly to the question.

You asked where MadHound has been inconsistent in his position. I replied that his anti-Obama position has been incredibly consistent.

I'm not sure what part of that response you don't understand.

[EFerrari]

307. MadHound is discussing the health insurance industry bail out.

You rewrote my question into a purity test on supporting Obama. And, you didn't do it very well, either.

This tactic was old three years ago.

[Summer Hathaway]

316. Bwahahaha!

I rewrote nothing. You just don't have a viable response, and can't admit it.

And BTW, the 'purity test' is a we're the true progressives, so don't dare disagree with us meme, that was Antiques Roadshow material before the 2008 primaries were over.

[MadHound]

309. Gee, you seem to know a lot about me for somebody who's only been around since Dec.

How's that? Keeping some records, doing some searches? I didn't know you cared that much. The fact is, if you would bother to truly search, is that I give Obama credit when credit is due. Sadly, he hasn't had that much credit due to him during his tenure in the White House. But he has had his moments, and he is indeed better than the alternative, though that really isn't saying that much.

[Summer Hathaway]

314. When someone goes to the default position of

"you've only been here since such-and-such", it's as good as saying "I've got nothing else".

You are aware that DU has always been accessible to people who aren't registered members?

You are aware that thousands of internet users (well, used to be thousands) have been reading DU since its inception, but have never registered, nor posted here?

You are aware that not everyone agrees with your assessment that &quot Obama) hasn't had that much credit due to him during his tenure in the White House"?

You are aware that stating: (Obama) is indeed better than the alternative, though that really isn't saying that much" is just enough of a CYA statement to keep you off the MIRT radar?

Transparency is a wonderful thing - and I thank you for being so transparent.

[joshcryer]

318. MadHound's position has been consistently wrong.

That much is damn sure.

[MadHound]

276. Let's see, the alternate version, OK

"Thank God the individual mandate got struck down. Now we aren't going to be giving the insurance industry a mandated monopoly, complete with weak price controls. Now we can start over and get real single payer UHC."

But I wasn't really working on that alternate post though. I thought, and posted, that the SC would be voting up the ACA. After all, what corporate friendly court is going to turn down the chance to give their corporate masters a mandated monopoly? It really wouldn't have surprised me if Scalia had been the one to turn, but in the end Roberts makes more sense.

What far too many people don't seem to realize is that our two party system, our government, is currently based off the notion good cop, bad cop. And while the bad cop(or Republicans) are all mean and scary, it is the good cops(Democrats) that actually achieve results. Yet they all work for the same employer, the corporate, rich and elite.

[Summer Hathaway]

286. Oh, the old 'both parties are the same' BS

Should have seen that coming - along with the "now we can start over and get real single payer UHC" meme.

If both parties are working for "the corporate, the rich and elite", exactly who was going to start over and get single-payer in place?

[MadHound]

299. Well, that would be we the people

And if you don't understand what is happening in this country, how both parties are indeed corporately corrupted, and have been for decades, then you need to either wake up or educate yourself. I suggest that you start with Open Secrets and look at who is financing our candidates. Hint, it ain't we the people.

Then perhaps you can answer your own question.

How else do you explain

[Summer Hathaway]

311. It was I who asked you to explain

who, if both parties are beholding to their corporate overlords, was going to get single-payer on the table.

So it's We The People. Would that include "we the people" who are happy with Obamacare, and see it as an incremental step in the right direction, a foundation now in place to be built upon? And would it include "we the people" who are opposed to any form of what is perceived to be 'socialized medicine'?

We the People is a very all-inclusive term - and includes people whose views you (and I) would strongly disagree with.

The idea that the SCOTUS striking down ACA would have inevitably led to single-payer healthcare is as naive as it is ridiculous - as ridiculous as your inference that anyone who disagrees with your views "doesn't understand what is happening in this country".

[JoePhilly]

273. My niece who had cancer at 2, would beg to differ.

[cbayer]

275. Yeah, that's why health insurance company stocks dropped today.

[MadHound]

281. Oh, I'm sure that insurance stocks will rebound nicely,

In about eighteen months from now, when everybody is forced to buy from the insurance industry. Nothing like a mandated monopoly to drive up profit and stock prices. In fact if I were one to invest in such companies, health insurance looks truly promising.

[PoliticAverse]

279. "from a for profit corporation."

There are many not-for-profit insurance companies and also mutual insurance companies (which are owned by
the policy holders).

[DonCoquixote]

282. I respectfully disagree

"Worse yet, this is going to set back the true goal of single payer, non-profit universal health care back by a generation or more. The corporately controlled Democrats and Republicans aren't going to touch any sort of health care reform for decades, not after this battle."

Actually, the very idea of healthcare as tax is what will keep single player alive, as the GOP will no longer be able to say Uncle same has no say in these matters. The court has said "yes they do", especially as it is a tax. As far as helath care reform, a loss today would have KILLED that, as the GOP would have considered the casket closed. Now we have momentum on our side, as the insurance companies know that they had better either offer services or yield to those that will.

[Summer Hathaway]

288. Well said!

[EFerrari]

292. No, after this decision, there will be little pressure on the insurance companies

except to milk this situation for all it's worth.

They're in. And the Democrats are in celebration mode.

The insurance companies aren't going to, all of a sudden, forget how to lobby for favorable legislation.

[RegieRocker]

302. And your point is?

Last edited Thu Jun 28, 2012, 09:14 PM - Edit history (1)

Wouldn't they be able to do that if a bill was introduced to eliminate them? If they are all powerful and everything.

[EFerrari]

304. My point is the insurance companies are not in a bind

as the poster suggested. They are in the cat bird's seat. And I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth.

[patrice]

291. "we"? Is that you and the horse you rode in on? Who gave you authority to define "we"? nt

[RegieRocker]

300. I disagree

We were already losing big time to the insurance companies. Now they lose. Sure they get some new insurers but what they lost is big. The important thing is the door to single payer has been opened and declared constitutional. So what, we didn't get the big enchilada. We got refried beans and maybe a taco. I'm fine with that. Why? Because before I was getting doritos at the big enchilada price. Sometimes nothing because an employer wouldn't hire me because of pre existing condition or I was unable to get health care for my child. I was going to lose my home because of medical costs because of inability to get coverage for myself or my family. Lose you say? You are really self focused.

[jenmito]

308. Then why did big insurance companies' stocks go down after the ruling in favor of mandate?

[MadHound]

310. Why did hospital stocks go up after the ruling?

Because this is a one day reaction bump and doesn't mean a damn thing in the long run, because the mandate doesn't go into effect for eighteen months. Let's check back on the stocks, and profits, of the insurance industry in, oh, say January 2015. Then we might get a real indication.

[jenmito]

313. You think they like this?:

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Thanks to a provision in the health care reform law, millions of consumers will be receiving rebates from their insurers this summer.

By Aug. 1, insurers that failed to meet one of the early guidelines of the Affordable Care Act are going to issue rebates averaging $127 to certain policyholders, according to estimates from the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Last year, the Affordable Care Act started requiring health insurers to spend a certain percentage of the premium payments they receive toward patient care, such as doctor's visits and hospital stays, and quality improvement activities, including discounted gym memberships or wellness brochures, instead of things like administrative and marketing costs.

Under the law, large employer-sponsored plans must spend 85% of a policyholders' premiums this way, while insurance companies that cover individuals and small businesses have to spend at least 80%. If an insurer fails to meet that threshold, they must issue a refund.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/04/26/pf/health-insurance-rebate/index.htm

[DCBob]

315. Im a people and I dont feel I lost anything...

in fact I feel I've gained alot.

[one_voice]

317. Oh yay another one...

I love hearing how much the president sucks especially on a democratic site. And today, it's even extra extra special with whipped cream sprinkles and a cherry cuz we got good news for a change, but you're still letting us know just how much our democratic president sucks. Thanks so very much.

[Kablooie]

324. A question: Should the whole thing be killed so we can start again?

As you well know that's the number one item on the GOP hit list and a real possibility if they get control.

Are they right this time?

[MadHound]

325. The individual mandate should certainly be killed,

However much of the rest of it is just fine and should be left. Sadly, the way the entire ACA is set up, if you remove the individual mandate, the rest of the law will fall.

So, given the balance between the harm the mandate can do, and the good of the rest of the law, I think that it would be in our best interest to ditch the mandate, start again and come up with something better.

[Kablooie]

329. The problem is..

that if it's killed it will probably be a decade or more before any politician will seriously consider pushing a new health plan considering how contentious this one was.

Another post surmised that many people will either not pay the mandate and risk the penalty, which is only the price of current health care insurance, or pay the penalty because it will be less than the insurance fee.

This will create just what the insurance companies don't want, a lot of sick people in their system and a lot of healthy people avoiding it. This could vaporize their profits. If they raise prices too much they will simply drive more healthy people out of the system.

The bill as it stands could be the death knell for the health insurance companies. It will take time for it all to shake out but that time period will probably be much less than what it would take to get a full single payer system approved and running if we started from scratch.

[MadHound]

330. If it's going to be such a death knell for the insurance industry,

Why were they, and the Chamber of Commerce, in favor of the mandate?
"Later in the program, Chavern stressed that while the organization is looking to lower the penalties on employers who don’t offer coverage, it supports the individual mandate, a position shared by the health insurance industry, which the Chamber represents."
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2011/01/11/171870/chamber-repeal/

I also disagree that if the ACA dies then it will be another decade or more. I think that if the ACA had gone down, that would have led to a major political win for the Dems in the fall, and a massive surge for true single payer.

As it stands, I think that the ACA is now going to be picked apart, and its already weak price controls will be further weakened, and single payer now stands at least a generation off. Meanwhile, we're going to be saddled with ever increasing insurance premiums with no relief in sight.

[Kablooie]

333. The only thing that I have faith in is ...

that we're both wrong.

The ACA is so tenuous and contentious right now and there are so many ways it could evolve in the future that I'll bet no one can truly predict where it will go and what it will do. I'm sure there will be more challenges to it's legality and lots of warring over how to modify it.

Heck, even if the Teaps get total control over the government next January ( Eeek ) and eradicate the whole thing the ghost of what it was to be will continue to haunt our politics for a long time to come.

[TZ]

327. Soooo chronically ill people are not "people"

Are we chopped liver? Jeezus, this is as bad as the RWingers who think we are all lazy and stupid sick people.

[MadHound]

328. And where did you get that from

Boy, talking about cherry picking and taking out of context

[TZ]

331. The fact that you said the "people lose"

Fuck that shit, if you don't understand how much people like me BENEFIT from this, than you really don't know ANYTHING.
Reality is LOTS OF PEOPLE win from this. But don't let facts stand in the way of your politically pure opinion

[MadHound]

332. So, in two, three years, when your insurance premiums are shooting through the roof

Will you consider it a win? Will you consider it a win when the health insurance industry drains the middle class dry?

There's a reason why the Chamber of Commerce and the health insurance industry supported the individual mandate. They can smell massive amounts of cash better than any hound dog born.

[Yavin4]

334. You're Operating from a False Premise

That false premise is that there was a choice between Single Payer and the ACA. That's just false. The actual choice is the ACA vs. status quo.

Many Liberals mistakenly believe that Single Payer legislation can actually get through this congress. It simply cannot. Not in my lifetime nor probably in your children's lifetime.