Rightwingers hate this and they win,Dems love it and they lose. WTF are you smoking?

Much skulduggery ahead based on the rationale and precedent written out by Roberts as the reasons for upholding this. A fierce victory for oligarchic corporatism will be the bitter fruit that emanates out of this.

Batting a thousand.

After that glaringly incorrect statement you made, all else is FAIL.

Another person that never read the ACA, but parrots the right-wing Teabagging Talking Points.

The insurance companies provide NOTHING to us, except a barrier of middlemen between us and our doctors that we must PAY to cross.

This is mandated theft by corporate bloodsuckers who have no motive other than profit.

It is obscene, as befits its origin in the Heritage Foundation and the halls of corporate America.

It was a fucking scam, and it is now law.

Yes, we are mandated to purchase exactly NOTHING.

in the meantime, can't you at least be happy that people with pre-existing conditions can get insurance?

Sorry, but I am very cynical about the US and its broken beyond belief health care system. Buried deep within so many of the laws are escape hatches for the oligarchs, as they help to craft the legislation themselves. All one needs to do to see this is to look at how ineffectual the new laws are at stemming systemic fraud in the banking industry. Even when the laws have some teeth, the plutocrats litigate them to death.

Single payer with massive scale-of-economy cost-capping schema that remove the profit motive from the systemic corporate matrix is the only way to sustain this vital part of the social compact.

The costs are already exploding under the current system, and this law will, at the end of the day, further drive the rate of increase up. The country is aging quickly, and the younger generations are already incredibly unhealthy and overweight. By 2020 over 50% of the US will be diabetic, or in the end-stages of pre-diabetes. That is trillions in additional cost sitting out in the near to mid-term future like land mine in any number of American empiric war theatres.

The current law is not nearly enough long term, since it only has private insurance in the mandate. But some will have a sigh of relief for now.

but their claims can still be denied and they can still be kicked off of their plans fairly easily. This is likely a pyrrhic victory.

How do you, personally, receive health care, if I may ask?

now been written into law.

A bill you could not afford at all if you hadn't bought insurance!

I've paid about 1500 in premiums this year. I did not get nothing in return. If I am so unfortunate as to need surgery, that right there would cost far, far, far more. And I've paid for medical tests in addition - they aren't cheap. So I can only imagine how much it would be for a real illness.

Many, many more lives will be lost as a result of abdicating our health care system to middlemen who contribute nothing and who stand between us and our doctors making decisions FOR PROFIT.

You expect me to believe that?

Wow.

I suppose you buy groceries but aren't allowed to eat them?

not to understand the concept of a for-profit middleman. Americans will continue to suffer and go bankrupt, and many more will be feeling the real effects of this decision soon enough.

You grocer doesn't need to make a profit on the food you buy?

All retailers should sell at cost?



Yes, many Americans will soon feel the effects of the ACA, all to their great benefit.

The health insurers have been turned into a regulated public utility, and you can't stand that this is a great move forward for citizens.

Your Great Revolution is forestalled.

That was quite a stunning answer. You seem quite a fan of the private insurance cartels and their siphoning off of massive profits from taxpayer money meant to pay for medical care. You know, I have seen a lot of arguments here as to why we can't have a public option *yet,* but yours is among only a very few I have seen that attempt to portray the cost-escalating corporate middleman layer of our system as something we should actually be happy with.

There's actually a whole thread going on right now that is turning into a discussion of what appears to be the argument you are trying to make here. The OP is also trying desperately to argue that it makes no difference if coverage is provided by the government versus profit-sucking middlemen. I have no interest in that thread or this particular argument, as I consider the argument *in favor* of profit-motivated middlemen to be so self-evidently ridiculous that it's not worth having. But perhaps you'd like to try and help him out, because he's having a little trouble here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002880186#post1

Republicans lost. Democrats won. In politics, appearance is everything. Losers are worse than winners.

Because they hate anything that comes from "the other side", even if it something that their side was all for before the other side adopted it. Don't think for a second that Romney and the corporate world actually hate "Obamacare". There are competing interests here for Republicans. The short term political horserace (which is the only thing the base understands) and the long term love for corporations getting rich at the trough of tax dollars. This is a short term loss and a long term gain for the people in charge.

This is a ginormous political victory for Obama and the Dems.

Had the SCOTUS struck down this law, healthcare reform would have been off the table for at least 15 years. THAT'S what the Rs were banking on.

The fact that the ACA has been upheld means that we are CLOSER to single payer than ever, because the ACA was breakthrough legislation that broke the stranglehold that the do nothings had over healthcare forever.

Who says?

New York Times: New Poll: The Supreme Court and the Health Care Law (68% oppose all or some of it)

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/07/new-poll-the-supreme-court-and-the-health-care-law/

More than two-thirds of Americans hope the Supreme Court will overturn some or all of the 2010 health care law, according to a new poll conducted by The New York Times and CBS News. Just 24 percent said they hoped the court “would keep the entire health care law in place.” The Supreme Court is expected to decide a challenge to the law by the end of this month.

Forty-one percent of those surveyed said the court should strike down the entire law, and another 27 percent said the justices should overturn only the individual mandate, which requires most Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty.



These numbers have not changed much in recent months and appeared to be largely unaffected by the more than six hours of arguments in the Supreme Court in March.

snip

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Health Care Law Has Already Lost in Court of Public Opinion

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/june_2012/health_care_law_has_already_lost_in_court_of_public_opinion

Thursday, June 28, 2012

A week after President Obama’s health care law was passed, 54% of voters nationwide wanted to see the law repealed. Now, as the Supreme Court is set to issue a ruling on the law’s constitutionality, the numbers are unchanged: 54% want to see the law repealed.

In polls conducted weekly or biweekly for over two years since the law's passage in March 2010, the numbers have barely moved. In fact, for more than a year before the law was passed, a similar majority opposed its passage.

The dynamics have remained the same throughout as well. Most Democrats oppose repeal, while most Republicans and unaffiliated voters support it. Older voters, those who use the health care system more than anyone else, favor repeal more than younger voters. The number who Strongly Favor repeal has remained over 40%, while the number Strongly Opposing has remained in the 20-something percent range.

Most voters have consistently expressed the view that the law will hurt the quality of care, drive up costs and increase the federal deficit. They also don’t like the government ordering people to buy health insurance and don’t think the Constitution permits that anyway. This strong and consistent opposition led Scott Rasmussen to conclude in a recent syndicated newspaper column that the “health care law is doomed regardless of what the court decides.”


snip

--------------------------------------------------

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html

"some links (NYT, CBS, Rasmussen, etc)"

...you're relying on Rasmussen and the MSM spin

Despite the spin on the CBS/NYT poll (yesterday, reports grouped killing the law with those opposed to just the mandate), the numbers also show 51 percent wanting to keep the law, including the 27 percent who opposed the mandate.



http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57449249-503544/poll-most-think-politics-will-influence-supreme-court-health-care-decision/





http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/8315.cfm

It's a sad day for the "kill the billers."

What next, conspiracies?

They would be happy to sit around and wait for Single Payer while thousands get no care and die early for the lack of it.

...but thanks for pissing in the cheerios...

This information is freely available.
VOTERS REVOLT AGAINST MANDATES WITHOUT PUBLIC OPTION

Get yourself a bratwurst and beer and call it a day.

Democrats declare VICTORY.

This is a victory for Americans. period.

You WILL still be paying,
but in addition to the uninsured "Free Loaders" you are crying about,
you will NOW also be paying for the Yachts, New Summer Homes, Private jets,
and other toys of the 1% as they NOW rake off Mandated Profits
straight from the top.

The much vaunted "subsidies for the poor" are, in reality, $BILLIONS$ in welfare for the For Profit Health Insurance Corporations,
who manufacture NOTHING,
Produce NO Wealth (Value Added),
or provide ANY useful service.
Billions every year....for NOTHING.

"Medical Bankruptcy" a term unknown in civilized countries,
will STILL be BIG BUSINESS in the good ole USA,
probably even BIGGER as already struggling Working Class Americans
attempt to convert their mandated "Bronze" (3rd Class) Insurance
into actual Health Care.

FDR & LBJ would NOT have supported the ACA.

Spot on, as usual

"billions in uninsured medical costs next year". And the year after. And the one after that.

Sid

Now tell me again, WHO is being harmed by this? I may be a liberal, but I'm also a taxpayer and health insurance purchaser. I see nothing wrong with requiring others to have health insurance (as it will be more available because of the new law.)

I cannot really fathom how any rational person would think that it's better to have millions of uninsured people out there, and billions and billions each year in costs that are passed on to the rest of us through taxes, higher insurance rates, and higher health care costs.

I would think that people would be happy that there will finally be systems in place to help those people that are too monied for medicaid and too poor for regular health insurance (or cannot get covered because of pre-existing conditions.) Hey, I cut back on everything so that I could pay for individual health insurance... because I don't want to be like millions of others that don't pay each month, then wait to get so sick that they have to go to ER (because they won't get turned away,) then never pay the bill.

Obamacare is a huge step in stopping this from happening.

Prudent people are already paying for themselves, for those that cannot afford to do so, and also, for those THAT CAN AFFORD TO BUT STIFF THE REST OF US.

Last edited Thu Jun 28, 2012, 03:42 PM - Edit history (1)

....but NOW, in addition to the actual medical costs,
you will also be paying for the
Private jets, Yachts, New Summer Homes in Aspen, and all the other toys enjoyed by the execs of For Profit Health Insurance Cartels (Anti-Trust EXEMPT).
Who do you think PAYS for all those toys?

The much ballyhooed TaxPayer "subsidies for the poor" don't really go to The Poor.
They go directly into the pockets of the Insurance Industry,
Welfare for very RICH For Profit Corporations who:
*Manufacture NOTHING
*Produce NO Wealth (Value Added)
*Provide NO Useful Service,
BILLIONS, every year, ....for NOTHING.


It wouldn't be so bad if the Health Insurance Industry did something useful for Americans,
but they don't.
The ACA, Mandated Health Insurance, and mandated PROFITS
is a GIFT to a completely parasitic entity.

Enjoy.

No, we will be paying for medical costs for people who could not afford insurance before and were not poor enough for medicaid.

If you resent doctors having yachts, that's another story. I don't care if they do have yachts - they are at least being paid for their services to people who couldn't have paid them before.

under the current system, which is what "progressivebydesign" is whining about.

The ACA shifts some of those costs onto young working people and the lower middle class who were previously forgoing insurance.

Uncompensated care amounts to about $50 billion per year in government spending. Of that, 1/3 is given to insured patients, so the uninsured account for some $33 billion in government expenses. To solve this horrifying problem, the ACA requires all 50 million uninsured people to purchase insurance or pay a fine. The insurance companies will rake in billions in profits. The productive, non-FIRE segment of the private sector will lose tens of billions due to increased expenditures. The FIRE sector will grow to be an even bigger burden on the real economy. A troubling "solution" to put it mildly.

Imagine that. The government pays? How?

The hospitals and insureds pay, via price increases, due to people getting free ER care, if that's what you are talking about. In fact the person is still billed for it, merely judgment proof. People declare bankruptcy and no one pays, except for the doctors and other hospital workers and the people who pay higher prices to keep the medical facilities in business when they do this.

You stated:

Insurance company executives? They should have fewer, because they now have to cover people they didn't want to cover before, and there are limits on their profits.

Twisting and Distortion - takes one to know one, I guess.

You said:

Anyone can see that.

Where is this coming from? This sounds like Reagan's Welfare Queens in Cadillacs

Subsidized programs have been relentlessly gutted for decades. Most states are broke. Low income people are NOT getting free healthcare funded by the tax dollars of the poor, oppressed Reagan Democrats. They're going without.

not just care provided to the uninsured. At least 33% of uncompensated care is given to people who have insurance, a fact which doesn't exactly fit the ugly anti-99% narrative you're pimping.

So if Roberts was that diabolical, he overlooked that fact. The reason the right hates the law so much are the popular provisions and not the mandate. People like Paul Ryan want the mandate for their scheme of privating Medicare.

It is also huge giveaway to the private insurance companies. The erosion of the Commerce Clause is an added stab in the back of those who hold out some faint hope that the corporate oligarchs can be reigned in. Congressional power took a beating today.

A Democrat could use it to make the law more progressive. Your commerce clause point is fair, though. Had to be some right wing annoyance even in upholding.

It is a political issue, not a constitutional issue. This ruling does not validate single payer as being constitutional. That has already been ruled on.

I'm saying a tax is part of single payer.

2 party system in the US produces is simply trotting (Democrat) or sprinting (Republican) corporate oligarchy. Either way you are not going to get back what the current system takes from you. A new normal has settled in, whereby people are either tolerant or, in all too many cases, cheerleaders for legislation that is fundamentally designed to strip away your social compact. Many, if not most, times this is hailed by either side as a 'victory' over the opposing team, no matter what the ultimate outcome and impact of that so-called victory is.

A perfect example is the utter death of the anti-war movement once Obama was elected. It's called left cover, and the US sure as hell is not scaling back the wars, nor the police state.

If you go back and look with a calm, measured perusal of what this health care legislation actually does (it was dissected by so many for its negative impacts either side of its introduction/passing) you will see exactly why it will never have the positive effect on the majority of the issues that it was cast towards 'fixing'.

The difference between America just 15 years ago and now is staggering. I lived in NYC, and travelled from coast to coast, so I do not come to this conclusion from a lack of knowledge of what life for many is there.

Bottom line, you have a truly cancerous party (the Republicans) who have pushed the playing field so far to the right that simply being a 'mainstream' Democrat plays right into the systemic controller's agenda of social piracy. Neo-liberalism is not my friend, and I hope not yours either.

Sometimes the 'art of the possible' produces a real shit sandwich (to steal a line), and shit tastes like shit no matter if the bun is Red or Blue.

Thanks for confirming.

Here's what Bernie Sanders has to say.

behind a person name doesnt not make them automatically worthy of a lockstep unity of support, especially on vital issues. If you or anyone else wants to play 'MY party, right or wrong', well knock yourself out. You will reap some mighty bitter fruit if you fail to engage in serious pushback.

I hope Sanders is right about this being a step towards single payer, but my fear is that Obamacare will do 3 things:

1. It will, as it should be, seen as a major change in the US health care system, thus negating a sense of urgency to do any further large changes for some time. Single payer is not just a large change, it is a HUGE change.

2. Any flaws that come out in the wash with Obamacare will be used to bash progressives (and Dems of all stripes) over the head with, even if the flaws have nothing to do with what a progressive (and supporter of single-payer) would have proposed. Any attempt to push for single payer will be seen as a doubling-down by what will be once again framed as the 'radical, socialist left', especially if Obamacare turns out to be unpopular when it goes completely into effect.

3. It gives the corporate oligarchs thousands of pages of regulations to incrementaly manipulate in their favour, and for their profit. Just like the so-called banking reforms that are mostly pure sham at the end of the day.

By that you mean use RW sources to bash Obama.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002734451

Point number 2 on your list is quite funny considering all YOU do is find things to bash progressives (and Dems of all stripes) over the head with.

"No hatred at all, I think that Democrats like Bernie Sanders are wonderful..."

...you like Bernie Sanders?

(It's) "A Good Day"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002869426

I was just looking for your post lol

Pro did again.

A never ending supply of anti-Obama drivel, and many all too willing to lap it up.



Sid

You better believe it!

Sid

they're tough... as nails....

I asked this question several days ago, and I got one snark reply and one non-answer.

So, I'll ask again. Are there any cost controls on the premiums for someone who has a pre-existing condition?

For example...it's one thing to say people can't be denied insurance if they have a pre-existing condition, it's another to have the premiums be $5000. a month. In the latter case, you are effectively shut out of the system.

Just a simple answer would suffice from someone.

Why the mandate? I know the scripted answer to that but think about it. Why would we need to be compelled to purchase health insurance in the first place, if the aim of ACA is to make it more affordable and to improve coverage and access.

People with pre-existing conditions will pay the exact same premium as someone with the same income and in the same age category.

We pay the premiums. The company covers the costs. You act like we just pay and get nothing in return.

People said about Medicare and Social Security. Do no think we forget how many hated FDR and LBJ because they did not conjure stuff from the air like stage magicians. People are alive today that would not be thanks to FDR and LBJ, and the same will be said for Barack Obama.

Though not what I said:

"this is the same thing they said about social security" meaning that people felt it did not go far enough at the time and wanted an alternative plan.

from http://www.socialsecurity.gov/history/briefhistory3.html

(warning: big long quote)

"The Townsend Movement:

Francis E. Townsend was a lean, bespectacled doctor from Long Beach, California. In 1933 he found himself unemployed at age 66 with no savings and no prospects. This experience galvanized him to become the self-proclaimed champion of the cause of the elderly. He devised a plan known as the Townsend Old Age Revolving Pension Plan, or Townsend Plan for short.

The basic idea of the Townsend Plan was that the government would provide a pension of $200 per month to every citizen age 60 and older. The pensions would be funded by a 2% national sales tax. There were three eligibility requirements:

•the person had to be retired;
•"their past life is free from habitual criminality;"
•the money had to be spent within the U.S. by the pensioner within 30 days of receipt.

Dr. Townsend published his plan in a local Long Beach newspaper in early 1933 and within about two years there were 7,000 Townsend Clubs around the country with more than 2.2 million members actively working to make the Townsend Plan the nation's old-age pension system.
Following the passage of the Social Security Act in 1935, most of these alternative pension schemes disappeared as quickly as they had arisen. The Townsend Plan, however, hung around at least until the passage of the 1950 Amendments to the Social Security program, which made benefits much more generous and finally took the last of the steam out of the Townsend movement. But as late as November 1949, in the House of Representatives 179 members signed a discharge petition to force a floor vote on the Townsend Plan--barely 39 members short of the number needed to force the House to consider the final version of the Townsend Plan as a replacement for the Social Security system. "

In short, the Townsend plan was very much what many wanted INSTEAD of Social Security, and the "Townsend Clubs" very much like single payer. Of course, in 1950, when the program evolved i.e. "benefits much more generous ", The Townsend clubs faded, because Social Security was matured, much as ACA will likely mature. Now as great as the Townsend folks were, if America waited out for the Townsend plan, we might never have gotten Social security in the first place, and it would not have matured.

I can respect passion, but history does offer a clear precedent for how ACA can be made to become what we want, as the history on the site quoted (hardly a right wing site) illustrates. Granted, I do think single payer pressure needs to be applied, just as the Townsend folks did not let up until Social security matured.

The ACA will have to be undone before we can take a step forward.

Establishing and legitimizing the For Profit health Insurance Industry as the only gateway to Health Care for America only cements them in that position,
and funnels $BILLIONS$ every year to this industry.
It has made them STRONGER, Richer, and MORE Powerful.

Social Security and Medicare provided a FOUNDATION that could be built upon.
The ACA provides no such foundation.

Which is fine, but you asked me to document why I had my opinion. I do think that, just as Social Security grew to give people what they wanted in the Townsend act, the ACA will become what we want. I could be wrong, but all I have to go upon is what worked before, the precedent has been set. People are angry at Obama, just like Huey Long (also talked about in the article I quoted) was angry at FDR, and very well could have gotten elected if he did not die so young. On the other hand, we do value that FDR was very careful, steady, building stuff that would last, history vindicated FDR, and if Obama uses this chance to lean left, it can vindicate him.

1st article is very shallow, the author seems to know Roberts is a right-winger and not much more than that.

The 2nd article is more worrying, but I wish he would have included examples of regulations which are at risk due to the gutting of the Commerce Clause.

I don't matter. Just a short step from there to "let them die". You just insulted every chronically ill person who benefits greatly here. GOOD JOB.