But IMHO the fight should still be for single payer and for affordable, high quality healthcare for all.

that will lead to one giant step.

If insurance companies were distorting healthcare services than mandating subservience to insurance companies mandates we become locked in to the very thing that is the problem isn't the solution. People should run from dangers, not towards them.

They HAD to be at the table to write this bill, that mandated private insurance was the only way to PREVENT single-payer.

and the healthcare industry have spent millions on a misinformation campaign to destroy Obama care.

Why? Because those corporate whores understand that Obamacare is one step closer to single payer.

I said it last week, there was no way it was going to be struck down. I just couldn't predict how they would manage it, while holding on to their base for the election. One of the five had to cross over to save the Mandate for the Insurance Corps. I knew it would be Alito, Scalia or Thomas, I was betting on Kennedy since he's not as prominent as the others.

The only surprise to me is that they chose Roberts.

Why then did the insurance industry spend hundreds of millions fighting ACA?

No one can give me an answer on that.

Probably the last thing they expected while they were writing this bill was that the Wingers would be the ones to object to the Mandate since that was always a Right Wing dream. You know, 'make the lazy, good-for-nothing poor pay so the rest of us are not paying for their worthless lives'. Guess they can't predict everything, logically this bill should have been supported by Republicans since as Obama himself said, 'I included 200 of their ideas and still they would not support it'. That didn't make me feel great, and it should have taught Democrats that you cannot appease lunatics, even if you give them everything they want.

Once the bill was challenged, all that money poured into getting it passed in the first place, would have been wasted. How much did they spend to get this passed? When did the Insurance Industry fight this bill?

They're good at this game. They have now managed to turn Democrats into supporters of a Republican idea, Romney is claiming to oppose his own ideas, and Republicans are claiming it's socialism, what they used to support.

None of that matters, what matters is they get the Mandate, one way or the other.

On the one hand, many of the provisions in the bill that we like are saved. But on the other hand, I think this gives the GOP an election year talking point that will energize their base. We are going to be hearing a lot about repeal and replace for the next few months.

that was never constitutional in the first place.

in a single payer system. So can any other state.

This will be the first large step toward instituting single-payer state by state.

I assume folks here took up the single payer FAIL with Nancy Pelosi-- she took it "off the table", remember?

the ACA opens up single payer at the state level. Vermont in fact is moving forward with this and I'm betting
will get it done. once it is demonstrated you can save 1/3 or more of costs to stone-broke states like IL and CA,
safe bet they will adopt single payer also.

this is how it all started in Canada-- one province, Saskatchewan, led the way. the other provinces followed.

Many want single payer. Hell, I want single payer, but it seems some people don't see this as a step towards that and would rather we start from scratch. I guess I'm from the pragmatic generation (I'm old), so I don't see it that way. Sometimes you have to take small steps to get where you want to go.

now. Reality can be a basis of arguments for making it real.

People can see it working in action with their own eyes. Huge!

and right wingers to see their tears and how we are headed directly for commie universal health care.

than the current corrupt healthcare finance system. Single payer leaves the current corrupt healthcare delivery system in place. Single provider is the only viable option. The federal government provides all healthcare and levies taxes to pay for it.

Less than one page, double spaced.

You have to determine how you set up, buy or appropriate the facilities and the contracts of the workers. You can't move about 10% or more of the country's economy from private to public ownership in one page.

happen to be into the fire rather than away from danger.

We are further from systemic reform than we were when Bush was in office. We have fallen for an old scam and have propped up the vampire cartel and enshrined them as too big to fail and now in 20 or 30 years when we try to do something sensible the people will be busted and our government drowned and today's cheerleaders will be responsible for the misery of many millions for generations.

in fact it`s a HUGE step towards universal health coverage in america. it will give all the american people a chance to buy into medicare .

holding a state's medicaid funding if that state doesn't go along and increase medicaid coverage. So, I don't see how we can count on medicaid being expanded.

I'm glad Obama got the win. I just don't think it's a win for people who want health care.

I asked this in another thread. I think a lot of people, including myself, are unsure of the exat implications of this.

Is Obamacare going to be like a national healthcare type of thing? Or is it going to hurt people without much money?

I am unemployed and don't have any extra money to purchase my own healthcare, does that mean that I am going to be fined? In the end, will I get free healthcare?

I am completely ignorant to all of this right now.

Scotus struck down the Medicaid clause, which said that states had to insure more really poor people. Some states (like Oregon) are already trying to do this and plan on continuing as if it had been upheld.

you will not be mandated to buy. there is a huge difference.

when you were working you and your employer were forced/mandated to pay a social security and medicare tax. the key to this whole mess is getting rid of those who want to take this country into a depression so we can go back to work!

i`m on social security and medicare. medicare is the best heathcare policy i`ve ever had.

Thanks for being honest with him.

Holy shit when are people going to stop that shit

I admit that I am ignorant to this whole thing, so please explain it to me instead of just swearing at me and complaining.

And unlike some, I do not see Obamacare as a pejorative, I see it as a positive declaration that Obama cares! He put his whole presidency on the line for this.

And to others here, yes, I'd love to see us work toward Medicare for all, single payer, universal, no one left out. Yes, I do. And I know insurance companies will make more on this, but aren't they also held to rebating any excess of premiums taken in to 85%?

Electro, I can't answer your question, I think others here are more qualified to do so. But I didn't want you to feel unwelcomed because you asked a question.

(and swearing, which was rude), and do your own research. That's what I'll be doing over the weekend, when I have time to read in-depth. And when I say read, it will be .gov sites, excerpts from the ruling itself, and journalists and economists who I tend to "trust." Hell, I'll even tune into the Wills and Krauthammers, just for perspective.

There's A LOT of (mis)information flying about; beware of those with an agenda.

President Obama: Call It Obamacare

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/president-obama-call-obamacare-14309723

rightward direction of the country under a German-style corporate welfare state, where
private citizens are required to do business with a list of approved vendors or pay a fine. :-|

That seems to be the new Democratic zeitgeist and he will probably build a long-term
Democratic majority around it. It won't be a liberal coalition, but it will be the new normal

You already have a whole generation of people who grew up being taught that nonconformity
is detrimental to the economic health of the community.

(that is, if you live in a state that accepts the Medicaid expansion).

if you don't have insurance.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2012/03/what-is-the-individual-mandate-and-what-if-its-declared-unconstitutional.html

If your income is under 133% of the Federal Poverty Level, and your state chooses not to implement Medicaid for that class (the bit of the act that the SC decided today that the states could opt out of), then you can purchase insurance in a Health Insurance Exchange for 2% of your income.

http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/housesenatebill_final.pdf

By 2016, the tax (if you're above the tax filing threshold, but under 133% of FPL) will be 2% anyway, so you may as well purchase the insurance with that 2%.

What kind of coverage, and what kind of deductible will the insurance it provides have?

Is Obamacare a national healthcare system. No. The states will remain the regulators and the exchanges (for those who are granted access) are also state pools.

It leaves the existing structure in place almost completely, down to the insurance cartel maintaining their anti-trust exemption.

Will it hurt those without much money? Probably, you'll be expected to pay your tithes to the cartel to the tune of about 10% of income just for premiums for essentially what we used to call junk coverage with a high deductible.
If not you can pay something like the greater of $750 or 2.5% of income (gross) for jack apple shit.

No, you will not get free health care unless you are at or below 120% of the Federal poverty line (think a single person making minimum wage at almost full time but not quite) at which point you might get medicaid IF your state takes on the obligation.

Not every goal can be achieved with the straight line/ all or nothing approach.

What exactly is single payer? Thanks.

I kind of wondered if we wouldn't make a lot more hay with a negative ruling and another opinion making clear how partisan and messed up this Court is.

But with all the people retaining coverage as a result of this and with the absence of disaster for pre-existing conditions attached to this outcome, I can't be unhappy with the ruling.

So that's where I'm at.

care of us!

That will force the for-profits to lower their premiums as well.

But, health care is never going to be as cheap as most people want unless there are fundamental changes in the expectations of health care providers/suppliers, insurance companies, employers and even us as patients.

The notion of me being able to choose a product at a store, depends on me not being compelled to purchase it from any supplier.

When you go house - hunting (I assume most of the people cheering for this law are affluent, since they keep using "they" to refer to the uninsured) do you tell the seller that you have to purchase a house immediately or you'll lose your other place? When you sell a car, do you inform the buyer that you must sell it by a certain date (unless you are so screwed that you are telling them to name a price)

This is a product of authoritarian regulations that Americans have come to embrace with driving restrictions, same as "progressives" will eventually embrace photo ID for voting and everyone else because "anyone who drives already has 'em".

removal of pre-existing condition exclusions, etc., are well worth it. You can go find a not-for-profit insurance plan, or you can just say screw it, I'll pay the tax. Me, as long as I can, I'm going to participate in things good for society and hope it progresses to something even better over time just like Medicare did.

And not pay the tax, if it is immoral bullying. I wonder which side the anti-war Mennonites will come down on...

This is a new law basically removing the idea of a right to health care and replacing it with the idea of a new
requirement of citizenship, to purchase health care from a private provider (assuming one is not eligible for
Medicaid, which is going to be devastated by this -- it's already under assault from insurance requirements).

And they all engage in the same crooked business practices and executive looting schemes.

You need to do your research here. "Not for profit" does not mean wholesome and good.

It is much better than what we had. And it can easily be changed. All it takes now is one short amendment that adds Medicare to the list.

I know that "not-for-profit" doesn't mean wholesome and good. The NRA is a good example. Neither are some government agencies or health care institutions. Ever seen how Medicaid patients are treated even in big clinics.

But fortunately, the Obama team added a provision for those who will never be happy -- don't take any health insurance.

Don't take advantage of any subsidies if you can't afford premiums. Don't watch what the Exchanges force insurers to do. Don't watch integrated health delivery system grow with federal subsidies. Don't smile when someone who would be happy to have some care without having to beg for it, gets it under this legislation.

The fact is, some people are going to gripe no matter what. If we had a National Health Service like Britain, people would gripe about an occasional wait for non-urgent testing. They'd gripe about waiting for a doctor.

"Don't like huckster corporate criminals? Pay your tax, eat shit, and die prole!"

Stay classy, shills.

If we went straight to Medicare for all tomorrow, you'd still have to pay your tax to cover premiums, pay your coinsurance, etc., and like most of us -- die poor.

Not a chance. Except for republican obstructionism, this is policy for 20 years.

the next term.

It's impossible to say what kind of environment Obama will find himself in next year.

Although not perfect, I think ACA recognizes that this country needs health insurance and health care reform, and I hope this is the first step in achieving that goal.

This is better than nothing.

Every tiny victory is huge long term.

I'm glad it was upheld and I still hope someday we will see real socialized medicine and education.

Would I have preferred single payer or a robust public option? Most definitely. The ACA is not perfect by a long shot. But it does do some really things that make it better than what we've had to date. I'll take that. For now at least.

time for more incremental. How bout you?

I sure do.

Don

Back when it was a staple of Republican ideologues?

Or were they simply not informed of it enough to know that?

And every one of them currently has health insurance already and doesn't have the foresight to realize that could end at any time.

Want to know something else? I dislike those people worse than Republicans.

Don

They are unemployed or underemployed and will be screwed by the requirements imposed by this bill. The ones who have high paying jobs, many of them are active in Democratic politics and they are all for this bill. They love to talk about free riders being responsible for driving up health care costs (never mind the Insurance industry or for-profit hospital practices...)

People who can afford it and people who can't.

"Subsidies" or not.

This fight was bullshit from the beginning. It was a show, the PTB got what they wanted, unrest and division among the population and plenty of campaign money from insurance companies. It was a win win for everyone but the people.

Self-employed people and unemployed and the working poor.

Fuck the enemies of the 99% -- whoever thinks that way.

But what we got is the opposite of those things they are protesting.

in many communities in the US they have universal yard work. Don't keep up your lawn? Expect to pay a fine. It's a conservative doctrine.

to show their true colors here.

The doctrine that won the Cold War (and defeated the proponents of the Vietnam War) was
one of opposition to overweening government and corporate control.

The government of the New Deal and Thomas Jefferson was supposed to be a tool by and of the people for
preventing injustice, not for forcing people to conform to your economic expectations (purchasing substandard
products they can't afford that will "benefit society" by reducing premiums for the affluent who are already-insured.)

Too bad that the new generation running our country today rejects the classic liberal ideology.

The new dogma is "the nail that sticks up will get hammered down" and is personified by the
attitude of people on social networking sites that deride anyone who thinks differently from them.

How can it be a "tax" if you pay it to a private corporation?

Suppose this was SS and the "tax" went to JP Morgan or some other financial company who handled our retirement accounts, instead of the SS Administration?

It is a tax if you choose to no buy an insurance and that tax money goes to the government.

Insurance companies will charge and arm and a leg for shitty insurance and you will have to buy it. It will suck. It does nothing to stop the collapse of the health care system or to decrease costs.

So, to reiterate, pay out the ass for shitty coverage or pay a tax (that is likely less than the shitty insurance). Furthermore, ALL of our premiums will continue to go up through the stratosphere because this does not regulate the insurance companies in any meaningful way. I think in a few years we will be even worse off than we are now.

After all, the ACA started out as a Republican policy(that should be a big, red flag right there). It forces every single American to purchase a product from a for profit corporation. And with weak price controls, that means that premiums are going to go up, up, up, with no relief in sight, draining the middle and working classes of their money, transferring even more wealth to the one percent.

Sure, it's a political victory, big whoop. It's a huge loss for the American people.

wake me when your outrage has subsided

Expected, but not strange. I could have written a list of DUers who would be against this decision, and it would have been very accurate. Some of them have already replied to your thread.

i'm happy.

also.....

end of the fucking world..

it didn't end, and helped millions of people. Still does and I am one of em..

In contrast, private health insurance in the US is a crazy patchwork of coverage schemes run by for-profit corporations that are answerable, first and foremost, to their shareholders.

That is a huge difference.

But like the financial regulation bill, it is a huge complex law that provides a framework within which various regulations and institutions must be developed.

This is likely to lead to extensive unintended consequences.

This bill was discussed for a full year and it has been 2 years since it was passed. And yet hordes of people here haven't got the first freaking clue about how it works. They repeat right-wing memes against the mandate; spout misinformation about the penalty; willfully ignore the massive subsidies; and even claim this was a victory for the far right (!).

It saddens me to think that there is such a low level of information here. It's really not that complicated; and there are hundreds of websites that explain the bill. People will persist in believing what they want to believe, however. So I'm pretty much giving up on trying to disabuse them of their misconceptions.

This looks like anything but a liberal, Democratic board today. It might as well be a Tea Party convention.

since the beginning because we knew what was wrong with it and we knew what the intent was.

The intent of the bill according to its original architects was to save the private health insurance
industry from financial collapse by injecting money into the system in the form of a captive pool
of "low-risk" customers, and prevent a move to single payer.

All the other reforms the Insurance industry would not consider except as horse trading in
return for what they originally came asking for, which was the mandate -- making it a
requirement of citizenship to do business with them, elevating them from the status of
a business to an effective arm of the state -- a mercantile corporation. The only other
businesses I can think of like that are utilities, and they are heavily regulated separate
from other types of businesses.

Everyone else seems to have forgotten what the original intent of health care "reform" was and
what the original thing you were insisting on getting out of it was. We have not.

to be transformed into a bunch of social workers by this decision.

It's not going to happen, folks. This is the same industry that has been killing people with impunity for decades.

We're talking about the same government enforcers who just allowed Wall Street banks to commit massive amounts of fraud in clear violation of the law, with virtually no consequences. The same government that can't even uphold basic human rights and refuses to prosecute most white collar crime is suddenly going to get religion and hold insurers accountable when they continue ripping people off? Ha! This industry will be more powerful than they've ever been at any time in history, and just like the banks, they're about to pillage like crazy then use their power and influence to settle for a slap on the wrist and a giant bailout.

I'm tired of people fucking conflating the pro-ACA peoples' positions here.

If it got shut down there would've been no new health care legislation for decades.

It is fucking disgusting how defeatist some here are.

I appreciate them.

This is the most twisted logic I have seen.

That can be squeezed for money to pay for better insurance policies for the ailing. It's the ultimate free lunch.

Meanwhile anyone in 133% poverty will have free health care form the Medicare expansion by 2014. Or about 50 million people. 15% of the population not on Medicare before will be on Medicare. This is huge.

Will take over all of the clientele from the insurance companies.

Which will be the end of the health insurance industry. In 50 years; young people will look back in horror when they learn that huge private insurance companies were hiring doctors and lawyers to keep them from having to pay for medical expenses to people who had been paying premiums.

Just as we watch 'The Grapes of Wrath' with horror, or read about people dying of hunger waiting and hoping to get a job building the Hoover Dam. A more civilized nation will look back at 'Sicko' and ask; was it really like that?

This is a historic turning point. I'm looking forward to the next step. If we want things to be better we have to keep pushing.

Handing conservatives a victory right when they are going after Medicare would have been a huge mistake IMO.

The authoritarian leftists tend to despise practical progress.

Yeah, that must be it

It's the same subgroup.

A huge chunk of that subgroup has been PPR'd.

Most of the people today bitching would rally around one poster who used to make the same talking points on a regular basis.

But the anti-authoritarian left doesn't tend to throw people under the bus for the social safety nets the moderate or progressive left has set up.

The authoritarian left tends to make justifications for people like Assad, Gaddafi, etc, while totally dissing the progressive left for getting little bits done at a time.

In the end the authoritarian left wants the world to burn.

with the passion of a thousand burning moons... well, maybe I would, I just don't see them that often.



If they're out there (college students and what not) it could help explain the lack of cohesion of the left
since authoritarian leftism by definition resists allowing a movement to take its own form. But most of
the leftists I've met (at occupie, etc) are not authoritarian leftists... You got people who are radical populists

In any event, little bits that go against traditional liberal / progressive ideals are not little bits.

As for Gaddafi, we had him whacked so we could get his oil, JMHO, which is why we didn't intervene
in, say, the Congo instead because that's France's turf. But I'm not going to pretend he was a great guy.

.. and they want it now. Nevermind what's the best path from here.

Impatient they are.

where's mine?!

They were all here when the law was being built, non-stop. I have no need to engage them.