maintains the grip of big pharma over medicine, and doesn't really reform medicine at all.

It's a big sop to the medical industry that gets rich off people getting sick in this country.

All we can do is see this as a first step towards a better system and work for better changes.

For a very low yearly cost in most cases - free or nearly free to low income

People on Medicare pay more in many cases to have similar coverage.

There are many factors and the article let's us know it's more about trashing Obama than facts.

Well played.

Part of Lindorff's article:

the Devil! The real test of whether he is real or not would come with a 2nd term. While I cannot imagine it happening, if we were to get the House and keep the Senate, and if Harry Reed gets rid of the filibuster rule as he promised, after the idiot refused to do it the last time they had a chance b/c the Repugs promised they would behave (yeah right)!

I'm not holding my breath, though.

I'm currently reading "Predator Nation: Corporate Criminals, Political Corruption, and the Hijacking of America" by Charles Ferguson, who won an Academy Award for his film, "Inside Job".

Most everyone here applauded that pick, so Mr. Ferguson has some bona fides, in that respect.

On pages 300-308 in a section titled, "Mr. Obama's Wall Street Government", Freguson lists, by name and history one after another of Pres. Obama's appointments, virtually all of them with ties to the financial sector and/or Wall Street. Ferguson says:

or an infection simple penicillin may clear up.

While I agree with the point that much of modern medicine is such that the "cure" may do as much harm as the health problem, there are many conditions that ages ago were fatal or did permanent damage can be fixed easily.

For instance conjunctivitis is fixed with a 'script for some drops, left unchecked will lead to blindness. It's very common, highly infectious and the chances of a child picking it up at school are enormous.

Your notion throws the baby out with the bath water.

Julie

Of course some medicine works. Heroic medicine does wonders. The point is this privatized version of universal health care is a for-profit driven enterprise that will carry the risk of killing an extra 30,000 people a year from drugs that are not safe, are mostly for made up diseases like "urinating too often" or "oppositional defiance disorder" or some other ridiculous "disease". The point is to hook everyone into the medical system and get them dependent on big Pharma drugs.

Because out sound am awful lot like unsubstantiated hyperbole.

My point was valid and you conceded it.

As to the stuff that is un-necessary, hell that's been going on for ages! You know how certain kinds of patients get "flagged" as just looking for pain meds? I think there should be a similar system for hypochondriacs. I believe they feed the gaping maw of for-profit-healthcare than any other species, even lobbyists.

*gasp* Oops! Did I just place some blame on little people?? OMG I did!!

Julie

You have some power. Use it to do good.

Would not call drugs to help with "too much urinating" bullcrap. Look it up if you think that condition needs no treatment.

Even a UTI can make a individuals life a misery.

ACA is a GOP plan. It is essentially the "Obamney" plan modeled closely after what Romney signed. A Democratic plan would have been single payer or this plan with a public option. It would not have been this plan.

And the GOP does not like this plan either. It is too communistic they way they are playing it. They have gone berserk all over the place. They won't accept the Court's decision now. They are in a state of shock. They thought they had this case won hands down.

The GOP plan is individual insurance plans with low subsidies. If you are poor the churches will serve you in their clinics. If you look deeply into their idea of health care you can call it "faith based". Pray if you get sick or go to your church if you have no health care.
Otherwise you will shop in the national market by state for high co pay plans and will get a tax break on your "health savings" account. Their plan includes ending employer based insurance and replacing it with "individual ownership" plans. The devil is in the details.

Republicans are pissed that their idea which the democrats rejected is now being proposed and passed by an exclusive democrat congress and are scoring a political points with it. If democrats loved it so much why didn't they support it under a republican administration?

I am sorry but I also will be butt hurt if my opponent did that to me and this is not just with individual mandate, democrats have done it with the debt celing, patriot act, guantanamo bay, increase in defense spending etc etc

It used to be that they would at least try to come up with a counter to the Dems. Bush and his pals never tried to get health care passed. Shows that they have sunk to mere obstruction, never wanted to govern, only want to rule.

A dictator would be ok as long as it's me!

it is a GOP plan and Candidate Obama was against it, that is why I voted for him over Hillary, until he was elected and he made the backroom deals to take single payer off the table with the help of his Blue Dog pals.

In fact, that's the best thing I see coming out of the SCOTUS ruling. As I have said elsewhere, the health insurance industry will not be able to survive if only the sick get insurance while the healthy opt to pay the tax.

-Laelth

I heard (anyone know for sure?) that the tax's purpose is to compensate the system for insurance for emergency care. We are all covered for emergency room visits in that if you go there they have to treat you; insurance pays for emergency services for those who have it, and someone else -- government? the hospital? -- has to pick up the tab for those who don't. Isn't the tax, then, similar to the public option, where you choose to pay the government and not a company, and the government insures you? The big difference, of course, is that the tax covers *only* emergency room and leaves you without insurance for anything else.

As much as we complain (rightly, in my opinion) that the mandate is unfair because it requires you to buy insurance from a private company, the result if you refuse the mandate -- paying money to the government for at least *some* coverage -- looks similar in principle to the public option. It is a step down, because those who needed it used to have this coverage without paying a special tax for it. But I wonder if it has the potential to expand into a complete public option.

Now that the SC has said the ACA will go forward, I'm trying to see the bright side, trying to find a way to turn it into something better.

-Laelth

The trolls are coming out of the woodwork with this.

Not calling anyone a troll,,, just saying.

on edit:
But saying the ruling sucks because of situations that existed long before the health insurance bill was even conceived is in my tiny little mind nonsense. Is that fair? It was a pre-existing condition. Trying to link the two is lame.

Shysterism and fraud have been part of science for a long a time. That's why it's important to know something about science. So you can make informed decisions.

on edit 2:
Many will pay the tax. I'll take the health care. We'll all be happy.

I served on a jury where the person all but said so, I voted to hide but other didn't see any problem.

Thank you. Come again.

Bwahahahahaha

See, I have a hard time believing that anyone will be worse off than before.
Especially not when it comes from someone who just joined DU to complain about obamacare.

...will never understand increments and its little brother calculus. The ACA will evolve over time and become embedded as a safety net just like Social Security.

That's a fundamental difference from the ACA, so saying that Social Security was just like the ACA is repeating talking points without thinking.

Social Security-- not-for-profit system administered by the government

ACA-- relies heavily on for-profit corporations that offer a wide range of insurance, from "not so crappy" to "practically worthless" and that are under constant pressure from shareholders/Wall Street to constantly increase their profits

Employers, insurers, hospitals, drug makers and others are angling for an advantage as the government writes the regulations and sets the policies that will bring the law to life.

Now that the overhaul law has cleared the Supreme Court, health companies, employers and even some Democrats are turning their attention to reshaping the law at the margins. Louise Radnofsky has details on The News Hub. Photo: AP.

Hospital owners want the government to reduce the $155 billion in health-care payment cuts they agreed to during negotiations over the law. Makers of medical devices hope to roll back a 2.3% tax on their sales contained in the measure. Insurance companies want more leeway to charge older people higher rates than younger ones. Drug makers are aiming at a provision that could squeeze how much Medicare pays for medicine.

"Let's face it, this law is going to be amended and adjusted for years and years to come," said Rick Pollack, executive vice president of the American Hospital Association, a lobbying group.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304830704577497024284229362.html

nt

. . .but it's another step closer to it.

Changes happen incrementally, not overnight - and there will be bitter fights every step of the way.

Pace yourself - we will eventually have single-payer (expansion of Medicare - no need to re-invent the wheel here)

It's amazing when folks think that we were going to go from a privately ran health system to "single payer" overnight. Guess they have issues understanding "changes happen INCREMENTALLY". Just saying....

thinks he'll never need medical help.

I was the same til I found myself in the hospital with my wife about to deliver a premature son. $15,000 in 1982. And I was told I was lucky.

could end up with a broken arm or leg, possibly that needs surgery to set the bone properly.

asshole.

who is furious that the ACA specifically allows the insurance companies to charge older enrollees up to three times the amount paid by younger people. We're already the most difficult age group to insure.

goverment saying you have to purchase insurance and the insurance companies will keep raising premiums and deductible and the hospitals will keep over charging, its either socialized medicine or free market healthcare with not goverment intervention because what we had or what we have now will not work. The fine is also allot less than health insurance would cost but some sites report there is no penalty for paying the fine and others report the IRS will go after you if you don't and there will be 40,000 or so new IRS agent jobs.

us who can't afford insurance any more, $ 450 a month, $ 5000 deductible. 20/80,

By the time I get the premiums down to the point that they fit into my budget, the deductibles and co-pays would keep me from seeking treatment for anything less than serious illness or accident.

under Phil "Nation of Whiners" Gramm, the IRS responded by laying off the most expensive employees they had. Namely, the most highly paid ones they had, who specialized in high income tax audits. The result was as you would expect, the wealthy not only get a free ride on their tax RATES, but if they don't even bother to pay them AT ALL, nobody ever notices.

I read an article a couple of years ago in the NYT, I think, claiming that we were losing $300 billion in UNCOLLECTED high end taxes. $300 billion that the wealthy owe in taxes but don't bother to pay, and Uncle Sam doesn't bother to COLLECT because they might send out their phalanx of lawyers to protect their stash. May as well just go after the single mom, minimum wage waitress for the $300 she owes, rather than the plutocrat who owes $300 000. Because the waitress will at least cough up the money without a fight. The plutocrat will keep you in court for two years, and at the end of it, after you've paid $500 000 in legal fees, you might NET $200.

in a debate such as this demonstrates to me that you've bought the teabagger nonsense hook line and sinker.

What's next, a reference to Obama as Hitler?

When we start seeing American citizens in chains, being whipped and branded and sold at auction for the benefit of insurers, then you can start talking about "enslavement."

Otherwise it's just more far right hyperbole.

"Enslavement"...what nuttery.

Until you need it. I agree that too many doctors ignore or are unaware of the importance of nutrition, correct breathing, the nature of our thoughts and prefer the simplicity of just prescribing a pill. We must be able to evaluate their advice and make well-informed decisions in our own best interest. If you disagree with their prescribed medication, refuse to take it. Seek a different doctor.

However, there are many times when the medical system plays a critical role in saving lives. Consider car accidents, occupational accidents, fires, disasters and the valiant, coordinated efforts to save the lives of those affected. Or broken arms, detached retinas. Instead of trashing our system let's see the merits first. Establishing a foothold for national healthcare coverage was the most difficult part. We can see this by the bitterness that it has engendered in the opposition -- in people who care more about money than about the well-being of others. As we improve as a society the healthcare law will improve. Right now it is insurance-based. It will evolve as we evolve. Think back on the vitriol, the fear-mongering of the last few years and honestly ask if a better law could have gotten through Congress. We have the concept of universal healthcare coverage now established as law. It's up to us to improve it.

does not fly. If everyone is not in on the plan, it will have just sick people and can't work. Single payer would mandate everyone too. If there was a public option, there would have to be a mandate too. It is so unreasonable - like hating "insurance companies" so much that it's better for people to remain uncovered than to have any step in the progress that involves them. Rabid hatred of a business form is irrational.

He's just an asshole.

Did you drive or did you flew?

If you don't think the ACA is an improvement (small as it is), over the current system, I would suggest that you work on your comprehension skills.

Current system: Fee for service, the bias toward employer provided insurance, corrupt insurance cartel... etc. etc. etc.

Our current idiotic system results from decades of federal blundering, bribery, polital pandering and corporate welfare. What we have today is not health insurance. It's a third-party-payment system controlled by employers and sold by a corrupt insurance cartel. What ACA does is set in stone the worst elements of the current corrupt system under the guise of insurance reform.

Even single payer only addresses a fraction of the problem.

It eliminates the for-profit insurance component, but leaves the corrupt fee for service healthcare delivery system in place.

Single provider is the only logical path. Anyone that needs healthcare, gets healthcare. There are no incentives for unecessary procedures or diagnostics, because there's no profit in it. No one is left uninsured because there's no health insurance needed. Waste. fraud and abuse? You can't pad bills, because there aren't any bills. Procurement corruption is still a problem, but that exists in any system.

If it works for the VA it can work for all.

If your idea of doing what's possible means making a bad system worse, it's not my comprehension that's at issue.

Comprende?

Owch!

no need to read anymore

Now let's elect some representatives with the spine to change and tweak the rules, fixing it for the better. You have to take the first step...it's been taken. Now, vote out obstructionist Reublicans and Blue Dog capitulating Dino's, and let's continue on this journey. It will evolve into something better, just as SS and Medicare did (which the GOP is trying to kill as we speak.)

Medicare *replaced* private insurance.

Analogy FAIL.

SS started. That is all I said. You have to START before you can worry about fixing and changing. If we elect a few bold leaders, there should be no reason we can't make the program better.

...when Clinton raised taxes. We were 'informed' with intense regularity how he had destroyed America.

How'd that end up; oh yeah we were a pretty fiscally responsible nation until Bush/Cheney and the 'deficits don't matter; Reagan taught us that' philosophy ran up record deficits.

This whining, pissing and bellyaching is reminiscent of those wonderful times. They were wrong then; and they are wrong now.

Sure, if we turn the government over to Romney; he'll fuck it up. However, if we stay the course; look out pharmaceutical companies. You're next.

Sid

that people disagree with you but don't have any facts to fight with.

I agree that ACA does virtually nothing to reduce health care costs. Instead, it simply uses taxpayer subsidies to cover the unsustainable costs that keep growing. Some other things in your post I take issue with.

All-in-all, I'm in favor of the ACA, but it ain't fantastic.

1. It provides for SCREENINGS to catch conditions that can be treated in the early stages with less expense.

2. The exchanges and plan evaluations that go with them force greater competition between HMOs, lowering costs.

3. And my personal favorite, it mandates that at least 80% of the money taken in as premiums must be spent on delivery of healthcare, as opposed to profits, executive salaries and lobbying Congress. (I don't know of any other law that mandates the size of a business' profit margin, but this one does. Some others might...maybe utilities, but I wouldn't know.) The 80% payout mandate is a bit of a cop out given that most of the HMOs already claim an overhead of about 19%, compared to 1.3% for Medicare, so it could have been a lot bigger. But at least it will stop additional future gouging.

The fear I have is that healthcare will become considered a resolved issue in the short term and things will continue as normal.
When now the drive for healthcare, actual physical healthcare for those suffering, should be an even higher necessity. We've managed to make it more painfully obvious that the only health that really matters in America is the health of dividends & mutual fund profits. Maybe we can use that momentum to appeal to people to care more about the suffering of Americans than the suffering of CEO's and shareholders or even better, refuse to partake with them in profits that are created by indifference to others terror & pain.

who is taking advantage of the discussion about the ACA to attack medicine. They'd do the same for a government run health service.

Check their earlier posts on DU: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002866731#post4

"Vaccines are a toxic sludge pushed by big pharma ... vaccines are maiming millions for diseases that can easily be prevented with good nutrition and sanitation. "

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002870754

Troll-dar fail.

some well-written post that aren't troll bait.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002877879

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002875547

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=878457

I mean Lindorff is a moron, always has been.

The ObamaCare Ruling Stinks."

The papers you cite prove something most people already know, that traditional western medicine is suboptimal, relies too much on drugs, and places too little emphasis on preventative medicine.

But I fail to see how giving sub-optimal medical treatment to 30 million people who previously didn't have access to ANY medical treatment AT ALL "stinks."

(And really? 'Murdered' by drugs? I think you might want to switch from the 50mg dose to the 30mg dose on your hyperbole.)

I fail to see how it's the ACA's or Obama's fault.

I know your DU screen name is serious. Look at the crap gotnoscript is peddling about vaccines.

I am so sick of people who argue that science based medicine not only kills people, but that it is somehow the fault of the ACA (or any other government programs).
I'm fairly sure that Mr. Lindorf can afford to go without insurance, but it borders on criminal to try to persuade others to follow his example.
Yup, all drugs have side effects, and some can even cause death. But most actually treat disease. So let's throw the baby out with the bathwater and blame it on the president.

eom

as follows, and I paraphrase.

It is not what I wanted when I first took office, but it was what we could get.

It is a good first step and changes need to be made.


It took LBJ 2 years to get his civil rights agenda passed, the last piece of which was the Voting Rights Act. I believe our President is not finished with health care yet.

It is critical that we do all we can to get more Dems (real ones) voted in in Nov.

prices for ACA medications, just the way the VA negotiates drug prices for vets.

The President, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid had to wheel and deal with tthousands of lobbyists for the vested healthcare interests to open the door to reform. As time goes by and voters get to experience some of the benefits of health insurance reform, Democrats gradually will become able to drive trucks through that door.