I remember that many here were angry that to get conservative congressional Democrats' and some Republicans' votes Obama compromised on health insurance reform by taking a more conservative route (with a program developed by Republicans and enacted by Romney) and did not fight for the progressive single payer system. I recall it being said bere that rather than trying to find some middleground, it would have been better for Obama to fight, and possibly lose, for some for something akin to a European universal healthcare system.
Now, it seems possible that the Supreme Court could invalidate ObamaCare, putting us back to the starting point. Assuming the SCOTUS rules against Obama, I wonder how long it will take us to catch up with most other developed nations.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/28/2012 08:01PM by Curt Anderson.
It will be quicker, albeit more painful imho. Let's face it - the industry (like Big Oil) knows they are on borrowed time. So they will gouge us as much as possible in the meantime if the Clowns kill it.
Interesting politics: It could hurt Obama, as the GOP says, "SEE? We TOLD you he violated the Constitution!"
But it could also help Obama, as healthcare will still be a most pressing issue, and the GOP has no plan at all.
It's going to be delicious if all the false caterwauling about a 'government takeover of healthcare' actually leads to a real government takeover of healthcare.
I remember that many here were angry that get conservative congressional Democrats' and some Republicans' votes Obama compromised on health insurance reform by taking a more conservative route (with a program developed by Republicans and enacted by Romney) and did not fight for the progressive single payer system. - Curt
Mulva Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I remember that many here were angry that TO get
> conservative congressional Democrats' and some
> Republicans' votes Obama compromised on health
> insurance reform by taking a more conservative
> route (with a program developed by Republicans and
> enacted by Romney) and did not fight for the
> progressive single payer system. - Curt
>
> Are there some words missing from that sentence?
The only way we were ever going get the insurance corporations to cover people with pre-existing conditions was to force everyone to buy health care insurance. If the forced buy-in is struck down by the supremes, the only way we're going to be able to cover people with pre-existing conditions is if we go to some kind of public system like Medicare, perhaps even expanding Medicare as many including myself have been suggesting for years.
The for-profit insurance industry shouldn't be allowed anywhere near health care. They're unnecessary. They place themselves between patient and provider and take their cut, in many cases even denying certain coverage to those who have already paid in. That's all they do. They provide nothing beneficial and actually make things worse.
If the ACA is killed, I think we're going to see many states form their own health care systems.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/28/2012 08:36PM by Mulva.
That's probaby correct, Mulva. Our governor, Dr. John Kitzahaber, who was also our governor from 1995 to 2003, has since his days in the state senate, been working toward a universal health care system. As Oregon Senate President, he was the chief author of our government-funded health care plan, the Oregon Health Plan. He was an emergency room doctor so health care has been his cause. I can envision blue states having variations of universal health care and the red states taking the Ayn Rand approach.
The problem still exists - that's the main issue here. It would have existed WITH Obamacare - it's much worse without it. I love the way the GOP pretends everything was peachy-keen before they tried to reform healthcare - kudos to them for their enthusiasm - but the truth is the system was headed towards meltdown. That's where we'll be if it's struck down - back on course for total collapse.
By Ditching the Public Option, Obama Gave His Enemies a Path to the Supreme Court [www.commondreams.org]
The sad thing about the rightwing Supreme Court challenge to President Obama’s health care policy is that it was totally avoidable. It would have been impossible if Obama had offered a robust public option, like “Medicare for All Who Want It.”
Rather than forcing people to buy private insurance largely from the companies who’ve been ripping us off every step of the way, Obama could have and should have given people a choice...
Unfortunately, Obama failed to present the option of Medicare for All Who Want It.
Instead, he bought in—and told everyone else under 65 who is not disabled to buy in—to the private insurance model.
And that’s the core of his problem today at the Supreme Court.
Mulva Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> By Ditching the Public Option, Obama Gave His
> Enemies a Path to the Supreme Court
> [www.commondreams.org]
>
>
The "dreams" part of their name is to distinguish themselves from reality-based liberals. Obamacare barely passed through the Senate and House with razor thin margins. Obama wouldn't have gotten more votes with a more liberal option--as much as I would have liked to see it. The complaint was that it was too liberal, not too conservative. And the bluedogs that Obama did win over were punished next election.
Mulva Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> By Ditching the Public Option, Obama Gave His
> Enemies a Path to the Supreme Court
> [www.commondreams.org]
>
>
The "dreams" part of their name is to distinguish themselves from reality-based liberals. Obamacare barely passed through the Senate and House with razor thin margins. Obama wouldn't have gotten more votes with a more liberal option--as much as I would have liked to see it. The complaint was that it was too liberal, not too conservative. And the bluedogs that Obama did win over were punished next election.
The "dreams" part of their name is to distinguish themselves from reality-based liberals. - Curt
LOL. You're just sore that an article they published wasn't kind to your hero.
Btw, the article was originally published by The Progressive [www.progressive.org] In fact its author, Matthew Rothschild, is the editor of The Progressive.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/29/2012 09:14AM by Mulva.
Curt Anderson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I remember that many here were angry that to get
> conservative congressional Democrats' and some
> Republicans' votes Obama compromised on health
> insurance reform by taking a more conservative
> route (with a program developed by Republicans and
> enacted by Romney) and did not fight for the
> progressive single payer system. I recall it
> being said bere that rather than trying to find
> some middleground, it would have been better for
> Obama to fight, and possibly lose, for some for
> something akin to a European universal healthcare
> system.
>
> Now, it seems possible that the Supreme Court
> could invalidate ObamaCare, putting us back to the
> starting point. Assuming the SCOTUS rules
> against Obama, I wonder how long it will take us
> to catch up with most other developed nations.
How is that SCOTUS's fault? They didn't write this damn un-Constitional thing. The poor council from the White House is getting BLASTED and it's not his fault for trying to pass this turd off as Constitutional when anyone (with an education) can clearly see it is not. It's also NOT SCOTUS's job to re-write it so that it is. I cannot understand how these enclaves of liberal thought cannot read or even understand Constitutional law. Liberals are smarter..really? I think after this that whole made up boast on "intelligencia" needs to be re-visited. There is liberal fairy tale land..then there is actual Constitutional law.
"Unfortunately, the Cult of Warm doesn’t accept that there is a debate. As far as they are concerned, the debate never happened because it never needed to happen because they were always right. They can’t intelligently address dissent, because their science is not based on discovering the evidence needed to lead to a consensus, but on insisting that there is a consensus and that accordingly there is no need to debate the evidence."
Great quote and spot on correct.
The ACA is a turkey and personally, I hope the Supreme Court strikes it down. We can do better. It may take a little time, but instead of handing the insurance industry an outright gift - millions of new policy-holders forced by the government to buy their crappy products - with a new Democratic Congress being elected this Fall, we can finally get what we should have had in the first place - i.e., a universal single-payer health care plan along the lines of Medicare except one where everyone - repeat, EVERYONE, irrespective of age or economic status is covered from the day he/she is born.
You get sick - you see a medical professional and it costs you nothing. Whether you get sick or not, you or your employer don't go broke trying to pay insurance premiums. Your kid catches some kind of a bug, you can get treatment for her and you won't have to take out a loan to pay for it.
I've talked to more than one Canadian who has told me that their national health plan is the best thing that has ever happened to their country.
"Socialized Medicine?" So what!
Now all we have to do is make sure we elect nothing but Democrats in this coming election.
Well it's a long shot, Mulva. But it's happened before. And don't forget - there's always the Reconciliation Process which requires only a simple majority.
I think a 'buy in' is the first step, considering Medicare is funded by workers under 65... But as Jazz has stated... "You get sick - you see a medical professional and it costs you nothing..." isn't Medicare. You would pay a $140.00 deductible and then 20% co-insurance...
I haven't checked the new figures, but expect around $600.00 premium per month if you include A and B and D (Rx) as a buy-in...
Where did you get your $140 deductible figure? For what procedure? If I'm on Medicare and I see a doc for the flu, I pay a $140 deductible for that? That can't be right.
Which always includes Blue Dogs, That's why I specified progressive Dems - because that's what we'd need - 60 progressive Dems. If you remember, they had a hard time getting the Blue Dogs to support the ACA.
Where did you get your $140 deductible figure? For what procedure? If I'm on Medicare and I see a doc for the flu, I pay a $140 deductible for that? That can't be right.
For all part B services there is an annual deductible. Medicare has always had cost-sharing and this is the reason why Medicare Advantage and Medicare supplement plans exist...
I thought that basic Medicare was free.
Nothing is free. If you are over 65 and have worked for 10 years, part A is a zero premium... Part B premium ranges from 96.40 and up...
Of course that $600.00 figure would be adjusted considering you would add healthly younger people into Medicare but we do have to be fair here... The people who have been paying Medicare taxes all their lives will receive the same benefits a newborn receives?
The first step is getting everyone on Medicare (or universal). The second step is wiping out all the A, B and D stuff which is just another way for Big Insura to stick their hands in our wallets. True - nothing is free. But they way it should be done is you pay according to your ability. It's part of your income tax every year and the cost - ALL OF IT - is spread across the entire population. As long as there are levels, or co-pays, or "added insurance" or anything else - the system will be rigged. The cost has to be spread across the board - to everyone equally - in order to get the best dollar value.
There will always be cost-sharing to combat abuse... It just makes financial sense... If you want a plan that covers everybody for everything then it would be highly regulated... e.g. a limit of 2 routine office visits per year...
Anyway, you will never get the hospitals and doctors to agree to a fixed universal reimbursement... Medicare supplement plans cover part B excess because many doctors charge a % above Medicare reimbursement...
Mulva,
You probably shouldn't go to the doctor if you have the flu. Here is the what Britain's National Health Service recommends:
If you have flu, the chances are that you'll be able to get well by looking after yourself at home.
In which case you should:
•rest
•keep warm
•drink plenty of water to avoid dehydration
•try to take paracetamol or anti-inflammatory medicines such as ibuprofen to lower a high temperature and relieve aches
If you are in a 'high-risk' group (see box) and are more likely to suffer complications from flu, your doctor may prescribe antiviral medication.
Antibiotics are not prescribed for flu as they have no effect on viruses. However, occasionally it may be necessary to treat complications of flu, especially serious chest infections or pneumonia, with a course of antibiotics.
[www.nhs.uk]
You're looking at a much smaller picture - merely adjusting what we already have. Under a universal system, doctors would not be reimbursed the amount they are now and there would be nothing to compare it to (since everyone would have the same plan). IOW - you can't charge a "% of above Medicare" if medicare is the ONLY payment plan. I would imagine the reimbursement would be MORE than they're getting now - but LESS than what they are charging back on insurance and people who are covered in other ways ($20 aspirins, etc...) Again - THAT is the problem - there IS no set price for any service, so the price is based on how you're covered. That's why insurance is thru the roof - because those of us with insurance are also paying for the young kid with no insurance who gets hit by a car while skateboarding. The first step is to level the field so everyone is involved - the kid is generally healthy, but he's also taking more risks - some actuarial accountant somewhere figures out what his cost (according to the entire age group) is to the system and either he - or his parents - will be required to kick in that amount. It's basically insurance on a national level - with the profit and leveling effect removed. THAT'S where the money is saved and healthcare value reinstated.
Now - would there be some limits? I would imagine so - but we have limits now as well. The difference would be the people would control the limits - not the insurance companies looking at their bottom line.
BTW, another way to fund the system would be thru tourists. Since they would be able to walk into any clinic to get treatment, it would be only fair to also put a small surcharge on every plane ticket into the United States. The state of Florida puts a small tax on every hotel bed (and other items) to pay for things like new football stadiums.
~ Sardonic Adonis ~ 
