Skip to main content

That's three minutes from a new documentary by filmmakers Jeff Reichert and Farihah Zaman, to be released in early 2013, that examines the health care crisis in America through the lens of a Remote Area Medical clinic that took place this past April in the NASCAR speedway in Bristol, Tennessee. That's the status quo that Mitt Romney, Republicans in Congress, and possibly the Supreme Court want to preserve by not only completely repealing the Affordable Care Act, but not replacing it.

The Supreme Court is almost certainly going to strike down at least a part of the law, the mandate that requires those who are uninsured to buy insurance. That's easily the most controversial, and least explained and defended, part of the law, because with it came subsidies and Medicaid expansion to make the mandate affordable. But additionally, with the mandate comes the critical reforms for insurance companies: guaranteed issue and community rating. And if the mandates falls, so do these reforms.

Let's briefly revisit what these reforms are. Guaranteed issue means simply that health insurance companies can't turn you down because of pre-existing health conditions, or because of your age or gender or any other circumstance. Community rating requires that insurers can't gouge certain segments of the population, usually women and seniors, in premiums. They wouldn't, for example, be allowed to charge a woman many times more for the same basic coverage that a man of the same age and in the same location would be charged.

The law immediately put guaranteed issue in place for children, and would bring for the rest of the population in 2014. If the law falls, so possibly does that coverage for minors. As of now, the major health insurers in the country are saying that they will continue to honor at least some of the law's provisions, although possibly not this one.

In its statement, United stopped short of saying it would continue to follow that provision for kids who are ill. While it "recognizes the value of coverage for children," United said, "one company acting alone cannot take that step," adding that it is "committed to working with all other participants in the health care system to sustain that coverage."
That statement alone proves the problem with relying on the insurance companies to keep these reforms alive. One of them can't and won't do it unilaterally. So how long their commitment to these reforms will last is anybody's guess. See, the mandate was a critical factor in the health insurance companies' support for the law: if they had to take on all comers, including the sickest, and were prevented from charging them outrageous premiums, the pool of patients had to be broadened to the whole population to bring in the cheap, healthy people.

The big question, and the question that dominated the oral arguments when the Court heard the case, is whether these reforms—including an expansion of Medicaid—are "severable" from the mandate, whether they can stand if the mandate is struck down. The administration argued that they could not, that trying to maintain them without the mandate would drive up costs and reduce coverage as insurers have to try to provide coverage to all sick comers without having a healthy population to spread out costs to. That would be the opposite of what Congress and the administration were trying to achieve with the law.

So we're left with the likelihood that the woman in the short film, the one who'd never had a chest x-ray and just discovered she has spots on her lung, will never be able to be insured. We're back to the status quo presented in the film. (Note that the Affordable Care Act doesn't address other problems highlighted by the film—dental and vision care— problems that have to be tackled as well. But if the ACA goes down, we're starting at ground zero again with basic medical care being out of reach for tens of millions of Americans.) That's looking ahead at what could be lost, but what about the immediate losses?

Let's explore, over the fold.

Well, in large part, it'd once again be up to big insurance. Right now they say they'll continue to provide coverage for young people up to age 26 on their parents' plans. That's excellent news for Susan Gardner and her daughter and the millions of other young adults who weren't dumped into the world of the uninsured. But it leaves them at the whim of their insurance companies, who would be able to abandon this provision at will. At the very best, they'll be left with tremendous uncertainty. Again.

Here's what we know will be lost, the hundreds of millions of dollars saved by seniors, just in a year, on prescription drug costs with the closing of the "donut hole," the coverage gap in which many seniors pay for their drugs out of pocket. Republicans have specifically said they don't intend to close that gap if the Supreme Court opens it up again. More money out of seniors pockets. Again.

More than 54 million Americans have received some kind expanded health care services because of the ACA, including "services such as colonoscopy screening for colon cancer, Pap smears and mammograms for women, well-child visits, flu shots for all children and adults, and many more." That's good, old-fashioned preventative care that millions of people received without having to make a co-pay, helping them stay healthy or catch potentially life-threatening diseases while they're still treatable. Maybe the insurance companies will keep this provision alive, maybe they won't. And maybe they'll use these tests to deny coverage to patients in the future, if the ACA falls. That'll be up to the insurance companies to decide. Again.

What else will be lost is not entirely quantifiable, but the recent testing-ground Oregon has provided gives some hints. The state's experiment in holding a sort of lottery for expanded Medicaid coverage among the working uninsured. What difference does health insurance and access to medical care make for the working poor?

The newly insured were more likely to describe their health as good, and to say that their health was getting better, according to self-reported data that researchers are now combining with objective measurements for a deeper follow-up study. The uninsured reported being in worse physical and mental shape and were less likely to describe themselves as happy.

Getting insurance also had powerful financial effects, the study showed. The insured were 25 percent less likely to have an unpaid medical bill sent to a collection agency and 40 percent less likely to borrow money or skip paying other bills in order to cover their medical costs. [...]

The uninsured described borrowing medication from family members and friends, taking it every other day, and asking doctors to diagnose multiple conditions and write multiple prescriptions on a single visit. The insured said they had largely abandoned such strategies.

Nearly all of the uninsured also described how avoiding doctors to save money resulted in trips to the emergency room. (Unnecessary or preventable emergency room use costs some $38 billion a year, researchers estimate.) [...]

Not having insurance “affects your whole life,” said Christine Toman, 61, who has a chronic pulmonary condition and hepatitis C and did not win coverage. “I went to work. I paid my bills. And now I feel like a hopeless, hopeless old woman that’s in the way, and it’s sad to feel like that. I’d like to die with some pride.”

Ms. Toman, in a husky voice and a soft wheeze as she labored to breathe, said that she occasionally goes to the emergency room when her conditions became acute. But she generally just forgoes care.

Even with the Affordable Care Act, the nation's health care system needs improvement. Without it, we'll have lost tremendous ground. The ongoing recession has created even more uninsured, and the ongoing housing and student loan crises will make health care even more financially out of reach for millions. More than that, there won't be the political will of our leaders to tackle this problem one more time. That's if the Supreme Court ruling doesn't preclude the federal government from trying to change the system at all.
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I don't see how the mandate is unconstitutional (11+ / 0-)

    It's not even a close case.  Libertarians who want a huge health system to be built and available for them when they're in an accident, but object to having to pay for it in advance?  That's what the objection comes down to.  Sure it's private insurance, but extensive regulation was imposed on the companies also.

    You have exactly 10 seconds to change that look of disgusting pity into one of enormous respect!

    by Cartoon Peril on Sun Jun 24, 2012 at 10:10:33 AM PDT

    •  It's unconstitutional because Republicans say (14+ / 0-)

      it is. That is, five Republican jurists there for life.

      "extreme concentration of income is incompatible with real democracy.... the truth is that the whole nature of our society is at stake." Paul Krugman

      by Gorette on Sun Jun 24, 2012 at 10:29:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Guess what (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sunny skies, NonnyO

      Everyone must buy a GM car. It's Mandated. No money? Too bad, we'll just let you pay a small no-car tax.

      If you start allowing the gov't to mandate buying private products, there's no way to know where it will end.

      (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
      Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

      by Sparhawk on Sun Jun 24, 2012 at 10:50:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  not the same by a long shot. (7+ / 0-)

        You have exactly 10 seconds to change that look of disgusting pity into one of enormous respect!

        by Cartoon Peril on Sun Jun 24, 2012 at 10:58:24 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Nonsense (15+ / 0-)

        People can, and do, live without having a car.  Health care?  Not so much.

        Very few of us are born at home, without so much as a prenatal medical visit.  Very few indeed go through life without any injuries or illnesses.  Diagnostic screening is, generally, a good idea.  As are vaccinations.  You can get by paying out of pocket for a few of these.

        And if you do have a car, you are mandated by law to buy insurance for it.  (Unless you never take it on public roads.)

        Grab all the joy you can. (exmearden 8/10/09)

        by Land of Enchantment on Sun Jun 24, 2012 at 11:06:07 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Americans care more about cars (9+ / 0-)

          than people.

          My husband doesn't drive.  Gets around just fine without a car.  Now the GOP wants his bike registered and him pay taxes on it.  He already pays taxes with the house...  he doesn't tear up the roads like an SUV but the very people who scream about healthcare are the same jerks who scream that my bike riding husband doesn't pay his share of the road repairs.

          Wilfully ignorant is what they are.

          Cars and Healthcare not comparable but they keep bringing up that very comparison.  

          "When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace." ~Jimi Hendrix

          by Damnit Janet on Sun Jun 24, 2012 at 11:54:31 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  It is a lateral move from here to mandatory (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          wsexson, Creosote

          401(k)s replacing Social Security.

          I do not know if it is UnConstitutional.  I do know that it is wrong, and that is based on white collar workers fucking  poor and working people again.

          There's a reason that people with degrees support the mandate at twice the rate the rest of us do - and it's not the reason they like to tell themselves.

          It's because they cannot  fathom having insurance and still being unable to afford to see a doctor.  It's because the vast majority of them really can afford to throw 8% of their income out the window.  

          It's because very few of them will ever get stuck buying the mandated minimum junk insurance with a 60% actuarial value anyway.

          Thinking the "food stamp challenge" teaches you about being poor is like thinking a camping trip will give you insight into being homeless.

          by JesseCW on Sun Jun 24, 2012 at 03:47:02 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I think the difference is that (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            there isn't currently a 401K fund that is required to give people free retirement funds if they don't have it, the way emergency rooms are required to treat people even if they are uninsured.  If people want to opt out of the mandate by signing a document saying that hospitals are not obligated to treat them if they need it, then I think that's reasonable.  

        •  Right (0+ / 0-)

          my health does affect other people.

        •  People live without health care ins. all the time. (0+ / 0-)

          Yes, you can survive without it, just as you can live life without owning a vehicle.

          Children have imaginary friends, adults have god.

          by soros on Sun Jun 24, 2012 at 05:29:00 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You are so full of shit. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            Not everyone can live without it. How old are you? If you have been able to live without it all your life, congratulations.

            That's the fucking problem with people like you. Your attitude is that if you or anyone else hasn't needed it, then no one else needs it.

            There are people out there who have to choose between paying their medical bills and losing their home. People who do not have insurance. A local attorney wrote about such a person a few years ago in a column he writes in our local paper. This lady was his client who had $10,000 in medical bills and was facing that very choice. And he is a die-hard Republican and he supported "Obamacare" even though it was not perfect.

            So enjoy your health-issue-free life, my friend, and please keep ignoring reality.

            •  When did I say everyone can live without it? (0+ / 0-)

              I didn't, but there are a lot of people in this country that have no intention of buying health insurance and don't need it. Yes, people can and do survive without health insurance.

              It's their choice not to participate and its insulting that you would force them to buy a product that they don't want or need.

              Children have imaginary friends, adults have god.

              by soros on Sun Jun 24, 2012 at 07:00:20 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Don't need? (0+ / 0-)

                If your crystal ball is cloudy one day and you don't anticipate the SUV that runs you over on the sidewalk, then we - as a society - should let you die on the street because you didn't see it coming?  No ambulance, no emergency room.... nothing?  You only get what you directly pay for?

                We can survive without health insurance.  We generally CANNOT survive without health care.  Big difference.  To say that someone should just die if they can't pay up front is evil.... didn't we just see that in the GOP debates?

                (aka NobleExperiments). ‎"Those who make a peaceful revolution imposible make a violent revolution inevitable" ~ John F. Kennedy

                by smrichmond on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 01:03:19 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Not what I said, of course (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            What I said is that people who go through their whole lives without using any health care services are rare.  Exceedingly rare.

            People always say how they can't turn you away from the emergency room, whether or not you can pay.  Whether or not you have insurance.  In some cases, the service is provided and the population at large pays for the service, like when you have a heart attack.  But that doesn't apply to everything.  They might deliver a baby, but you can't get prenatal care.  If one becomes afflicted with Alzheimer's or diabetes or cancer or arthritis, they don't do ongoing treatment, or fixes like joint replacements.  And forget about PAP smears & other screenings.

            Grab all the joy you can. (exmearden 8/10/09)

            by Land of Enchantment on Sun Jun 24, 2012 at 07:18:17 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  A charmed life (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Land of Enchantment, zane

              One would have to lead a charmed life to never need a visit to the doctor, dentist or hospital.

              And I've never met anyone who's that charmed.

              If someone tells me they've never been to a doctor or a hospital, I ask them where were they born.

            •  Unfortunately... (0+ / 0-)

              Yes, you can be turned away from an ER.

              A few years ago a friend's wife went to the ER with excruciating pain in her abdomen. They told her it was constipation and sent her home. Three hours later the pain was worse, and she went back to the same ER. They refused to see her again, telling her it had been less than 24 hours since she had last been there. So she went across town to another hospital, they ran some tests, and found an intestinal blockage from a hernia and had to do emergency surgery.

      •  Single-payer, then (5+ / 0-)

        I do agree that the ACA is in many ways a big wet kiss to private insurance companies - I don't like to having to purchase a product from a for-profit company.  I'm not saying we shouldn't have insurance or care, just that the for-profit motive makes it unworkable.  Therefore I support single-payer - take out the profit motive entirely.

        (aka NobleExperiments). ‎"Those who make a peaceful revolution imposible make a violent revolution inevitable" ~ John F. Kennedy

        by smrichmond on Sun Jun 24, 2012 at 11:37:07 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Nonsense (7+ / 0-)

        There is a built-in limitation that makes it appropriate grounds for commerce care is not something for which a functional free market has ever existed or even can) exist.  That is, of course, not true for cars. Or broccoli.  There is your difference.  And it's an important difference that acts as a strong limitation.....there are very few products for which markets CAN'T work without strong government intervention.  Health care in general - and health insurance specifically - is one.

        And we "start[ed] allowing the gov't to mandate buying private products" when George Washington signed the Militia Act of 1792 into law mandating purchase of rifles and ammo.  That horse has been out of the barn so long it died of old age...

        •  A law which was never tested in court, and (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          splintersawry, wsexson

          a law which contained absolutely no enforcement mechanism.

          That's a very poor excuse for precedent.

          Thinking the "food stamp challenge" teaches you about being poor is like thinking a camping trip will give you insight into being homeless.

          by JesseCW on Sun Jun 24, 2012 at 03:49:36 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  No laws get tested in court (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            unless they are challenged.  Therin lies the point, inagine a country where every freakin law is challenged.

            •  And they don't usually get challenged when (0+ / 0-)

              no one is ever punished for violating them.

              See Also: Militia Act of 1792.

              Precedent is created by rulings, not by the fact that a law was never enforced and so never challenged.

              Thinking the "food stamp challenge" teaches you about being poor is like thinking a camping trip will give you insight into being homeless.

              by JesseCW on Sun Jun 24, 2012 at 05:04:17 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  Beautiful diary, Joan (27+ / 0-)

    God bless Remote Area medical and my dear friends and healthcare heroes at the National Association of Free Health Clinics.

    Shame, shame, shame on this country for allowing this barbaric and deplorable situation to go on for so long.

  •  I'm praying our (14+ / 0-)

    Aspie son can stay on our health insurance although he's only got just over a year before his 26th birthday. I don't know what we'll do then.

    "The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"

    by Lily O Lady on Sun Jun 24, 2012 at 10:14:43 AM PDT

  •  Unisured (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cartoon Peril, Wolf10, Gorette

    doesn't really bother me any more.
    I'm 57 .8 ! I've lived my usefullness in life.
    I don't really have a very good job.
    I get by month to month.
    I know I'll have to work till I die so BFD !

  •  John Roberts' eventual fate... (16+ / 0-)

    ...will be to sit the Judicial Miscreants circle of Hell next to Roger B. Taney (of Dred Scott fame), listening, for all etermity, to the oral arguments of the cases that they were presented with in life.

    "The best lack all conviction, while the worst
    Are full of passionate intensity." --W. B. Yeats

    by Pragmatus on Sun Jun 24, 2012 at 10:18:07 AM PDT

    •  Obama follow in the footsteps of Lincoln (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      NM Ray, VTCC73

      Roberts is his Taney.

      I've felt for some time that this political moment falls along same fault lines as those that exploded during the Civil War and have been present in US history since the American Revolution and the compromises contained in the Constitution.

      Skepticism of all the elite institutions, not trust, is what required for successful leadership in this era. Digby

      by coral on Sun Jun 24, 2012 at 10:30:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Heh!! I LOVE that! Thanks for a good visual. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Over and over and over and over and over again.

      And maybe they'll also have to look at a picture of President Obama while so doing! Yes, I think God would appreciate that.

      "extreme concentration of income is incompatible with real democracy.... the truth is that the whole nature of our society is at stake." Paul Krugman

      by Gorette on Sun Jun 24, 2012 at 10:32:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  If it were only "let them die" (23+ / 0-)

    it might not be so bad ... speaking as someone who has been near death a couple of times.  It is the suffering and the pain and the worry and the humiliation for the patient and the family and even for some health care workers that is so much worse and the knowing that none of this is necessary if only some, even minimal, care were available.

    They care NOTHING about human life but only about control and money.

    "Life without liberty is like a body without spirit. Liberty without thought is like a disturbed spirit." Kahlil Gibran, 'The Vision'

    by CorinaR on Sun Jun 24, 2012 at 10:18:32 AM PDT

    •  They seem to revel in the suffering (12+ / 0-)

      of others. There is a very angry, punitive undercurrent in the modern political Right.

      Skepticism of all the elite institutions, not trust, is what required for successful leadership in this era. Digby

      by coral on Sun Jun 24, 2012 at 10:32:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Best COMMENT OF THE DAY!! (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      714day, foresterbob

      You said it so well, Corina.

      Heartbreaking. And enraging.

      "extreme concentration of income is incompatible with real democracy.... the truth is that the whole nature of our society is at stake." Paul Krugman

      by Gorette on Sun Jun 24, 2012 at 10:33:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  YES! (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      HCKAD, WheninRome, conniptionfit

      This is why we need a not-for-profit, government-run, single-payer system that works for people of ALL ages, not just Medicare which currently works for disabled people and senior citizens (in case no one's aware, seniors and disabled people who receive Social Security and receive Medicare also pay into Medicare, not just those in the working world; Medicare premiums are deducted before the balance of one's Social Security is deposited in one's checking account)..., except Medicare needs to cover ALL costs, in full, not have private medical corporations (clinics and hospitals and pharmaceutical corporations) hike their costs artificially so they can make record-setting profits, or gouge people for "extra" insurance that Medicare does not cover (like AARP insurance has turned out to be).

      Not-for-profit, government-run, single-payer systems are what civilized countries already have.  No one is turned away for lack of insurance or lack of ability to pay.  Everyone pays into the medical system.  No one has to go bankrupt or sell their house because of the costs of medical care are above and beyond what insurance or Medicare pays.

      No one is forced to pay money to private corporations that enable them to make record-setting profits.

      HOW to achieve this in America...?

      Kick ALL corporations out of government functions!  Period!

      Medicare is in place and running efficiently (surprise!), so the infrastructure is there, minus the profit motive, which means there's no overhead and the overall costs would be less expensive than paying private for-profit corporate insurance.  All that would be required to extend Medicare to everyone in the nation is add employees to handle the increased paperwork (Medicare employees who live right here in this country - think of the money they'd spend that would go back into our economic system!).

      I want to see $COTU$ declare that profitable corporate mess Congre$$ passed declared unconstitutional - the forcing us to buy expensive health care plans put in place by insurance corporations part.  I fear that's the only part they'll find constitutional, just as they found Citizen$ United "constitutional" which enables corporate lobbyists to exercise their corporations' Free $peech "rights" to buy off our Congre$$ional member$.  Finest government "employees" ever "elected" to office for corporate purposes..., but they never act in our best interests!

      These are the same congre$$ional members who categorically and unconditionally REFUSED to mention, let alone debate or discuss, a single-payer not-for-profit health care system that could have put us in the ranks of a civilized nation....

      Thanks to insurance, medical, and pharmaceutical corporations who wrote the legislation our Congre$$ passed, we're among the third-world nations because profiteers regard health care a privilege, not a human right.  Heck, we're below third-world countries who at least have health care for everyone!

      Tell me again how great America is....?

      I'm sick of attempts to steer this nation from principles evolved in The Age of Reason to hallucinations derived from illiterate herdsmen. ~ Crashing Vor

      by NonnyO on Sun Jun 24, 2012 at 01:26:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I just want to cry. (10+ / 0-)

    Watching that film, knowing what little we had will probably be lost, and lost for decades.... well....  crying seems inadequate, but it's all I've got for now.

    Was a cold and dark December when the banks became cathedrals...

    by althea in il on Sun Jun 24, 2012 at 10:22:37 AM PDT

  •  The other things that will be lost (20+ / 0-)

    will be horrendous.  Not only will we once again have to pay for preventative care (co-pays, deductables, etc), but the caps will once again be returned to our insurance plans (mine was a paltry $250,000 lifetime maximum).  Once you go a dollar higher in your lifetime than your lifetime max, you get dropped like a rotten potato.  

    Denying coverage will become the norm, dropping people who get sick will become standard operating procedure, and anyone with any pre-existing condition won't ever be able to get coverage of any kind.

    And those $1.1 billion in rebates that are supposed to be coming from insurers who haven't spent 80% on actual health care - well, we can just kiss those goodbye.

    I wasn't a fan of the ACA although it was an improvement on the monstrous system we had, but the benefits are vital in a system rigged for the 1%.   The only upside I see regarding its overturn would be to re-energize the debate on single payer.

    There already is class warfare in America. Unfortunately, the rich are winning.

    by Puddytat on Sun Jun 24, 2012 at 10:23:14 AM PDT

  •  Without guaranteed issue, I could lose my kidney. (17+ / 0-)

    In early 2014, I will have had a successful kidney transplant for three years, I hope. At that time, because I will be 54, I'll be removed from Medicare, which I have due to Medicare's End Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) provisions. CMS considers a transplant a "cure"; it is not, it's a treatment modality like dialysis. At any rate, if I am taken off Medicare, I will once again be subject to the tender mercies of the health insurance companies.

    Right now I have no problem getting the prescriptions that keep my transplant functioning, getting the frequent lab tests I need to let the transplant team determine how well my precious kidney is working, or going to see the physicians I need to see. But ESRD is far from the only medical condition I deal with daily, and given that ESRD untreated is definitely fatal, the only thing that can force an insurance company to take me on after Medicare drops me is the guaranteed issue provision of the ACA. The only thing stopping an insurance company from putting a dollar limit on my lifespan is the ACA.

    I need this legislation and all its reforms to stay alive and keep the transplant that I received from a deceased donor going and healthy. I am crossing my fingers that the SCOTUS doesn't shorten my life, but I'm not all that hopeful.

    Organ donors save lives! A donor's kidney gave me my life back on 02/18/11; he lives on in me. Please talk with your family about your wish to donate.

    Why are war casualty counts "American troops" and "others" but never "human beings"?

    by Kitsap River on Sun Jun 24, 2012 at 10:23:22 AM PDT

  •  Pro-life (14+ / 0-)

    until they're born.

    The British sent their criminals to Australia and their religious nuts to America. The Australians got the better of that deal.

    by EWembley on Sun Jun 24, 2012 at 10:23:38 AM PDT

  •  Amazing, isn't it-- (14+ / 0-)

    How Americans really truly really wanted the health care system addressed -- until the GOP persuaded them that poor health and a disastrous health care system=freedom.

    And for all those who said Obama should have focused on "the economy" first-- this IS an economic issue, when most personal bankruptcies in the US are due to catastrophic health care needs. Another messaging opportunity lost.


  •  The left needs to learn to scream in (6+ / 0-)

    the streets the way that Axelrod and I did on Wall Street about Vietnam.

    If the left doesn't find its screaming voice again, the mild form of Fascism that we currently see in the US will predominate.

    And, there will be no America I know anymore.

    •  Occupy isn't dead, it's still smoldering. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bgold, Amber6541, foresterbob

      Say what you will about it, they drew hundreds of thousands into the streets and changed the national discourse. It ain't over.
      Remember that it took years of marching in the streets to get us out of Vietnam. Social change doesn't happen overnight, it takes persistence and determination.

      •  It was extremely slow (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        foresterbob, 714day

        I was there.

        I am now 58.

        At the current rate of protest, well, I hope my children can prosper from its fruits.

        I will be dead.

        •  I will be content if my children prosper (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          from change that is now in seminal stages. I know I can't click my heels 3 times to get to Kansas. I don't expect the French Revolution or immediate enlightenment of the powers that be.
          The first anti-war protest I marched in was in 1966 or 1967. The last was in 1973.

      •  Occupy's Problem (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        The average person has no idea what Occupy is about. The think it is a bunch of dead enders and hippies out to have a good time, smoke pot and tear shit up.

        You sure as hell don't get a different picture if you watch Occupy's television coverage.

        •  Occupy has to move out of the parks.... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          ....and into the coffee shops, bars, and church vestibules.

          Instead of putting up a tent city, this social struggle will be fought in a million conversations with friends, co-workers, neighbors, and even strangers who have a vague sense of being screwed, but either don't know who is doing it, or get yammered at by Rushbots and Beckerwoods saying "It's Obama's fault, derp derp derp!"

          9-11 changed everything? Well, Katrina changed it back.

          by varro on Sun Jun 24, 2012 at 11:56:24 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Every day, everywhere I am confronted with (4+ / 0-)

    The horrors visited on this country by Republicans.  Striking down the ACA will be another nail in what should be their coffins.  But like zombies, they keep taking control and destroying this country.  It's shocking.  It's unconscionable.  It's despicable.  It/they must be blamed for their wrongdoing and be punished accordingly.

    We must win in November or I shudder to imagine this country come 2013.  Rmoney will make Shrub look like child's play in comparison.  Say goodbye to minimum wage, goodbye to birth control, goodbye to workplace safety, goodbye to food stamps, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security and any social services any area of the country can't afford for themselves.  Wealthy enclaves, gated and protected by private security forces.  Like Pakistan or Indonesia.  Third World America, folks.  Ugly.

    Best. President. Ever.

    by Little Lulu on Sun Jun 24, 2012 at 10:32:28 AM PDT

  •  Media laughs at Americans (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rhauenstein, foresterbob, ozsea1

    During the healthcare debate the media at large amped up sentiment against reform by breathless covering every protest no matter how ludicrous while at the same time failing to report the many benefits to ordinary Americans. Now that healthcare reform is likely to be struck downthe same media offers non-stop coverage on all the horrible possibilities to befall ordinary Americans.

    There is a very real sense of glee on their part as that now feel free to point out all of the benefits the bill offers on the eve of its likely fall. One an easily imagine them patting themselves on their back over their ability to get the masses to fight against changes that literally could save their lives.

  •  So What if the Supremes Kill the Mandate (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    That does not mean necessarily that the community rating, guaranteed issue etc. portions of the bill will be killed as well. With Scalia's  "recent" change of heart on the commerce clause I am much less positive the mandate will survive.
    As long as that is all the SC finds unconstitutional there are a number of ways to get around that.  Medicare for all would of course be my choice. Since that has little chance of happening maybe we could bring back the 'public option' option. Some mechanism could be setup that would penalize people who refuse to buy insurance and who find themselves in need of care. Those are just 2 of the possibilities in case the mandate is found unconstitutional.

    •  If the mandate goes (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      james321, Superpole

      community rating and guaranteed issue will go, too. Insurers will demand that, if the court does not, and the Congress will comply. Plus, it is actually what the Obama Administration said they wanted at oral argument.

      And we won't get an improved version of ACA enacted as a result, not anytime soon. That's doable only in an alternate reality where you don't have the House full of tea party obstructionists, not to mention the Republicans and half-a-Democrats in the Senate.

      •  If thge Repubs Can Keep Congress - Yes (0+ / 0-)

        Otherwise if the Dems can take it back, I wouldn't be so sure the the insurance companies will be able to get their way so easily and if they are able to it will be at a stiff price I'm sure.

      •  Not necessarily... (0+ / 0-)

        You're right that insurers will want community rating and guaranteed issue to go if the mandate is struck down.

        Just because they want it, doesn't mean they should get it easy.  Because this would be one of the few instances where gridlock would actually be the benefit of progressive policy -- because the lack of legislative action would maintain a status quo that is more palatable to progressives than to conservative business interests.  And voting to repeal guaranteed issue, in particular, is going to be something that won't go over well with the constituents back home -- even many conservatives like the idea that insurance companies aren't able to deny coverage to those with preexisting conditions.

        That means leverage that can be used to extract something positive in return for modifying the community rating and guaranteed issue portions of the ACA, such as an expanded Medicare buy-in.

        Political Compass: -6.75, -3.08

        by TexasTom on Sun Jun 24, 2012 at 03:17:21 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I wish I could be optimistic about this. (0+ / 0-)

          And maybe I will be wrong about it. But I just don't think there is the political will to do the right thing. Remember, 100% of the Republicans in both houses of Congress voted against PPACA. Not a single one was willing to vote for the bill we have. That does not bode well for coming out of this with a more progressive alternative. And the President is not on record pushing for that. His Attorney General just said the Court should strike out the related provisions if they strike out the mandate. OTOH I did read the Kaiser Foundation paper on the mandate and they seem to think the act could be made workable without that provision, although with higher insurance costs as a result. Still I think a workable solution would probably require positive legislative action.

      •  I am continually staggered by how small a role (0+ / 0-)

        the Medicaid expansion plays in discussions here.  It's as if it were a footnote rather than the most important part of the bill.

        Guaranteed issue is one of the smallest issues in terms of expanding coverage.

        15-17 million get coverage through the Medicaid expansion.  As many as 6 million through pressuring employers to pay the added premiums so that the fortunate can keep their adult children on their plans.  As many as a million could eventually be covered through high-risk pools.

        2/3rds + of the additional coverage could very well still be there, even if guaranteed issue goes along with the mandate.

        Thinking the "food stamp challenge" teaches you about being poor is like thinking a camping trip will give you insight into being homeless.

        by JesseCW on Sun Jun 24, 2012 at 03:58:30 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  AdamB wrote a clear concise diary about all of (0+ / 0-)

      the possibilities and ramifications this morning:

      Mother Teresa: "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other."

      by Amber6541 on Sun Jun 24, 2012 at 11:05:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The crux of the issue is this (10+ / 0-)
    "one company acting alone cannot take that step,"
    Why do the free market worshippers refuse to accept or even acknowledge this? The free market cannot, will not, ever, be able to provide access to health care in a rational and universal manner. We are burdened by a system that was created under very special circumstances (wage freezes) and has long outlived its viability.

    It's time for publicly funded universal health care.

  •  I used to live near (8+ / 0-)

    Bristol TN. These people want health care, but ask them who they voted for, what news channel they watch. The vast majority of these people vote republican and watch FOX. Everyone deserves adequate healthcare , but its hard to care about these people when they shoot themselves and the whole country in the foot everytime they vote.

    Citizenship is a contact sport!

    by horowitz on Sun Jun 24, 2012 at 10:40:47 AM PDT

    •  Exactly! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      That's how it is in the area that I live.

      24, male, OK-02 (current), TX-04 (born)

      by chancew on Sun Jun 24, 2012 at 10:45:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I would debate (0+ / 0-)

        politcs with people in the area and they would agree that everyone deserves healthcare, the war in Iraq was a bad idea, torture is wrong, but they would get sucked into all the BS FOX serves up and just vote completely agaisnt their own self interests, tax cuts for millionares, hating gays, slashing regulations on banks and clean water, it is like they are unable to think.

        Citizenship is a contact sport!

        by horowitz on Sun Jun 24, 2012 at 10:56:51 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I will say this (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ozsea1, bgold

      history never passes without payback.  But if the SCOTUS takes down a lawfully passed, lawfully signed piece of legislation, they have decapitated the Legislative.  In a sense they will have shown the world who the real power is here, and the consequences of telling the world, every law, every movement must be approved, could be catastrophic.  If this precedent is set, they will sue to stop SS, Medicare, and form of welfare you name it.  They will just go this court to get rid of anything they want.  

    •  not completely their fault (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      indie17, gorgonza, rimstalker
      Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights.

      - some know-nothing dude by the name of Albert Einstein, May 1949

    •  I watched the video (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      horowitz, bwintx

      and couldn't let go of the thought, "those people who hate me and mine for being liberals".

      Unless I went there offering freebies, I doubt I'd be safe from the majority there who kept voting their basic needs away.  

      "When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace." ~Jimi Hendrix

      by Damnit Janet on Sun Jun 24, 2012 at 11:11:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Imagine not having to worry about health insurance (12+ / 0-)

    I live in Canada and am covered by our provincial health insurance. There was a time 30 years ago or so when we had to pay a monthly premium but that was eliminated a long time ago.

    Up here, if anyone becomes sick, they can go to a doctor or clinic or emergency room and get free care at any time.

    If your problem isn't urgent, you might have to wait a while to be seen or to have a surgery or to see a specialist but if it is urgent, you get seen right away.

    I'm self-employed so I had to deal with insurance companies to get disability insurance. I have pre-existing conditions from childhood that have not troubled me in many years but are still riders on my disability insurance. I imagine that I would find it very difficult to get health insurance in the US because of these conditions.

    Bottom line is it doesn't even enter my consciousness to worry about health insurance or about getting care if I'm sick. As someone who works in healthcare, neither I nor anyone I know is concerned about whether a person has health insurance.

    When I read about the problems you guys are having in the States over affordable care, it is like we are living in parallel realities. I just can't imagine not getting whatever healthcare I needed whenever I needed it.

    I really hope you get to the point that you no longer have to worry about it either.

  •  That pre-existing condition pool (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ozsea1, fearisthemindkiller

    I suppose that'll go, too.  At least they won't be taking back Hobbs' hip replacements.  Unlike some people's problems, that one had a finite fix.  It's done now.  For anything else, it's either out of pocket, or hold out for Medicare, hoping there's enough left to be helpful when that time comes.

    Grab all the joy you can. (exmearden 8/10/09)

    by Land of Enchantment on Sun Jun 24, 2012 at 10:46:33 AM PDT

    •  Unclear but unlikely- (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      the pools were created and administered by the states under directive by HHS and backed by federal money. Even if the court throws out the whole law, every word, its unlikely that these pools with disappear immediately.   The money has already been awarded and the pools already created

      The ruling won't be that these pools are unconstitutional, but that that law the directed the states to do this was, giving the states that want out the freedom to get out.  However, the states wish can still elect to continue them.

      While I am no expert, my guess would be that the red states look for the fasted way out of these pools while the blue states continue them through January 1st, 2014.   I wouldn't be surprised to see some states create legislation to continue them after that.  In NY Gov.  Cuomo as already used his authority to demand the creation of exchanges in 2014 regardless of the ruling.

      Nothing that will come out of SCOTUS this week will stop states from addressing health care with their own legislation and I would bet if the law is throw out that federal top-down reform is dead for good and this becomes a state by state battle.

      What senses do we lack that we cannot see another world all around us?

      by fearisthemindkiller on Sun Jun 24, 2012 at 01:16:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  PNHP Research (Single Payer) (4+ / 0-)

    Physicians for a National Health Program  have a concise list of the basic facts.
    Please print it out, bookmark it and use to spread the word.  We won't be fooled again!

  •  Films like that one (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    maryabein, Damnit Janet

    used to be made in Asia or Africa, with a celebrity narrator pleading that we donate to the cause, in order to save lives and help the suffering people.

    Now they don't have to travel as far.  They can make the films right here in the United States.  Yay, one thing that doesn't have to be outsourced!

    •  I thought the same thing (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      foresterbob, mcmom, varro

      looks third world to me.

      The only difference between our poor and other nation's poor is that our poor have toys and cars.   Our poor are overweight from all the slave-chain food.

      My other thought was:  How many in that video even bother to vote or vote Republican.  

      I would not feel safe or welcome in that area of the country because I try to live in a compassionate manner and I am a bleeding heart liberal.  

      Unless I was there handing them out freebies, they'd probably holler names at me or worse...  

      My country is fucked up that it even has to have that video...

      "When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace." ~Jimi Hendrix

      by Damnit Janet on Sun Jun 24, 2012 at 11:08:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm in Georgia... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Damnit Janet

        and people like that are all around.  And yes, the vast majority of them vote Republican.  The right-wingers control the echo chambers, they control the money, and they control the Supreme Court.  Meanwhile, the schools crank out low-information voters.  Republican Nirvana.

        If I had an answer for it, I'd be famous.  All I can do is to educate the people around me, a bit at a time.  But Fox viewers and evangelical churchgoers have also been trained to stick their fingers in their ears whenever they hear opinions different from their own.  Usually I speak a progressive sentence or two, and then go on about my business.

      •  And even in the deep blue heart... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Damnit Janet

        ....of Oregon, Portland, Sam Adams decided to give city money to developers for boondoggles like the Streetcar and the Sustainability Center instead of for health clinics - of course, people East of 82nd would use them instead of the Pearl District constituency.

        9-11 changed everything? Well, Katrina changed it back.

        by varro on Sun Jun 24, 2012 at 02:28:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  If this fails; I will blame... (0+ / 0-)

    ...this adminstration for not properly vetting the bill.

    The good news is that the bill will be held constitutional. But if not, I know where my blame will be paced at.

    •  Blame won't help (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      at that point, we will need an emergency expansion of Medicaid.  But I propose this is possible, as the right would want to quell rebellion, and there is no political place for them to hide if the President wants to expand a lawful program.  Especially if we can make it a hybrid buy in type of deal, sliding scale perhaps.

    •  That's not fair.... (0+ / 0-)

      ...because, so far as I can tell, the mandate really wasn't considered constitutionally questionable by much of anyone until it was embraced by the Obama administration and passed into law.

      Remember, most of the same people who are now screaming loudly about the mandate's constitutionality are the very same people who advocated insurance reform that included such a mandate for 15 years prior to Obama passing it into law.

      Or, to put it another way, if the version of the mandate espoused by Republicans in the mid-nineties as the alternative to "Hillary care" had been passed into law, does anyone doubt that it would have withstood any legal challenges?

      Political Compass: -6.75, -3.08

      by TexasTom on Sun Jun 24, 2012 at 03:21:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I get the guranteed issue, but community rating? (0+ / 0-)


    Why does that require an individual mandate, especially when you consider that Seniors, the folks most likely to have expensive health issues, are already covered by Medicare?

    That part of the argument is just noise from people who want to fatten insurance company coffers.

    LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

    by dinotrac on Sun Jun 24, 2012 at 11:04:47 AM PDT

  •  When (not if) the SCOTUS strikes down the ACA (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    or at least large portions of it, there will be literally millions of right-wingers cheering their horrible little hearts out. Keep in mind that they will be cheering despite the fact that they themselves, or their 23 year old children, or their own mothers will be directly and significantly harmed by this perverted ruling from our corrupt Supreme Court.

    These are people who are so ideologically brainwashed, so deluded and, frankly, insane that they would rather have their own children be turned out of insurance coverage, or their elderly father not be able to afford life-saving drugs than accept what was initially a conservative reform program.

    I've posted this question in a diary before, but I will ask it again: in light of the preceding, CONVINCE me that right-wingers - everyday, working right-wingers - are not evil. These people are the root and cause of ~99% of our nation's problems, period. The current iteration of the Supreme Court is 100% the fault of these "normal" right-wingers, and any suffering or deaths that result from the Supreme Court's decision may be laid DIRECTLY at the feet of workaday right-wingers. Period.

  •  Having nearly died of a misdiagnosed genetic (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mcmom, foresterbob, WheninRome

    heart condition in 2010, my insurance remains in place because of the ACA.  If I end up losing that insurance, I will be unable to afford medications and follow up care.  I will die-how soon we don't know as I do have defibrulator, but die I will

    The thing about democracy, beloveds, is that it is not neat, orderly, or quiet. It requires a certain relish for confusion. Molly Ivins

    by MufsMom on Sun Jun 24, 2012 at 11:10:44 AM PDT

  •  Sadly these southern areas.. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Damnit Janet, foresterbob

    are ripe with voters who go GOP. The deep south where the need is so great, just keeps putting in these nuts who couldn't care less if they die.

    When are normal Americans going to wake up?

  •  Wait a minute... (0+ / 0-)
    The Supreme Court is almost certainly going to strike down at least a part of the law, the mandate that requires those who are uninsured to buy insurance.
    Do you know something I don't know? Almost certainly? Where's that coming from?
  •  that video needs a trigger warning - can't stop (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:


  •  The Only Way A Real Universal Helathcare (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shaharazade, bwintx, HCKAD, WheninRome

    plan will happen is if the whole private healthcare system crashes.  If ACA goes or any part of it, I am betting that in 5 to 10 years the biggest healthcare catastrophe the US has ever seen will happen.  

    "Don't Let Them Catch You With Your Eyes Closed"

    by rssrai on Sun Jun 24, 2012 at 11:36:10 AM PDT

  •  I have volunteered with mobile health clinics (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gorgonza, mcmom, HCKAD, foresterbob, WheninRome

    like this one, but unlike in this video, these were in the liberal Seattle area (and a friend has volunteered with one in San Diego).  We're kidding ourselves if we watch these people and think that all their problems are because they're (probably) low-information Faux watchers.

    In our clinics, we had thousands of people wait for hours to be seen, and their problems were the same ones as the people in this video.  I will say that - generally - our people were in slightly less dire circumstances, and a large majority are homeless, but those differences don't negate the challenges of living without security, whether in housing, employment, or health care.

    Being a citizen of a country is a happy accident of birth, and it is our duty to provide for ALL our citizens, not just those who were lucky enough to have been born to rich parents.  I'm sick of living in a country that takes "We the People..... promote the general welfare" and turn that into "you're only a citizen if you can pay for it".

    The "let 'em die!" crowd thinks they're somehow immune from the frailties of life, and that they'll always have enough money to care for their problems, and that they'll never suffer the indignities that are visited upon others.  They're wrong.

    (aka NobleExperiments). ‎"Those who make a peaceful revolution imposible make a violent revolution inevitable" ~ John F. Kennedy

    by smrichmond on Sun Jun 24, 2012 at 11:59:58 AM PDT

  •  Watching the clip... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I bet everyone receiving the medical care are voting Republican.

  •  “This isn’t like putting out forest (0+ / 0-)

    fires with Smoky the Bear".

    “This isn’t like putting out forest fires with Smokey the Bear,” he says. “I find it hard to imagine creating a campaign that would get people to buy insurance just by sending the right message. There’s also got to be some penalty.”
    Beengo!! correct; money is what gets people's attention.

    "A civilization which does not provide young people with a way to earn a living is pretty poor". Eleanor Roosevelt

    by Superpole on Sun Jun 24, 2012 at 12:11:43 PM PDT

  •  Been posting it a while, but... (0+ / 0-)

    ...I do wonder how many folks are going to end up in my boat - leave for Canada (or Europe, or another Western country with universal health care) or let their chronic conditions kill them.  The Medicaid expansion has to be one of the single most important parts of that law, and if it goes, so will a hell of a lot of people's ability to get care for their chronic conditions.

    The "illegal immgration" movement will be all going north this time around.

    •  The Medicaid expansion was a magic wand (0+ / 0-)

      act.  Physicians everywhere are already no longer accepting new Medicaid patients.  Expanding it on paper does not mean you increased access.  What we need is to get rid of fee for service and pay doctors a decent salary, instead of nickel and diming them with obscenely low Medicaid fee for service reimbursements.

      Physician incomes are less than 8% of total health care and Medicare costs.  Pay the doctors well on salary and let physicians figure out ways to provide care cheaply.

      •  You're mostly right there. (0+ / 0-)

        I actually work at UM Medical Center, though, and (through personal experience) I know they DO accept Medicaid patients.  In MI, at least, getting on Medicaid is the tricky wicket, not finding care once you get it.

        It doesn't stop a whole lot of poor minorities from Detroit and Ypsilanti, however, from going to UMMC anyway.  I've been told the vast majority of folks the Primary Care people there see have no insurance.  It's nice to work in a hospital that actually cares about its mission.

  •  Maybe this could happen (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gorgonza, WheninRome, VirginiaBlue

    ACA gets struck down. Obama then says "OK. I tried doing it the 'centrist' way but that didn't work. So now I propose Medicare for all. It will be paid for with the money coming in after the Bush tax cuts expire in 2013. He & the Democrats then RUN on this (Lieberman is out & so are Ben Nelson & Blanche Lincoln so we'll have less DINO's to worry about in the Senate). Let Rmoney, Ryan, etc. run AGAINST Medicare, a popular program, even in the Red States.

    I read a profile of Justice Kennedy in Time. People suspect he might vote against ACA. However, in the profile he said (paraphrasing) that raising a tax to pay for health care is TOTALLY legal & constitutional.

    A village can not reorganize village life to suit the village idiot.

    by METAL TREK on Sun Jun 24, 2012 at 12:26:41 PM PDT

  •  The Conservative Case for Single Payer (0+ / 0-)
  •  we can always start back at step one (0+ / 0-)

    single payer ..

    Peace and low stress ..

    by mdmc on Sun Jun 24, 2012 at 02:24:33 PM PDT

  •  The mandate is far from affordable for (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    millions of Americans.

    Saying again and again that it is affordable, the way the Clinton campaign did, does not change that reality.

    Poor people cannot afford to spend 8% of their income on junk insurance.  It is wrong and selfish to demand that we do so, just so that relatively wealthy people can reap benefits they've been lead to believe they could not otherwise get.

    It's extremely dishonest to seek to take 8% of the income of a single person making, let's say 20K who has student loans, child support, and no home ownership deduction, then saddle them with a 1,000 dollar deductible and no co-pays.

    That person is still going to put off the chest x-ray because they still won't have the money to pay for it.  It's arguable that they'll be even less able to pay for it thanks to what you've got them donating to Humana's shareholders.

    If the goal was to help people who genuinely cannot afford insurance, we could have created an SCHIP type program for  low income adults - that was not the goal.

    The objective was to buy off the middle class (which can afford to make political donations) with extended coverage for the extended childhoods they afford their offspring, so that they would agree to the mass transfer of hundreds of billions a year to insurance companies.

    It was bad policy when Obama campaigned against it, and it remains bad policy.


    See, the mandate was a critical factor in the health insurance companies' support for the law:
    You write, again and again, as if we cannot even consider passing any regulations that are not supported by the very industry we seek to regulate.

    Thinking the "food stamp challenge" teaches you about being poor is like thinking a camping trip will give you insight into being homeless.

    by JesseCW on Sun Jun 24, 2012 at 03:42:21 PM PDT

    •  The person you speak (0+ / 0-)

      of has a subsidy.

      •  You sound like a Clinton campaign volunteer (0+ / 0-)

        4 years ago.

        The fact that some subsidy exists does not mean that the end result is affordable.

        Repeating "But, there's a subsidy!" just shows you haven't looked that deeply at the issue.

        When I talk about 8% of gross income in premiums, I'm talking post subsidy.  Uncle Sam is picking up the difference and paying thousands more.

        Thinking the "food stamp challenge" teaches you about being poor is like thinking a camping trip will give you insight into being homeless.

        by JesseCW on Sun Jun 24, 2012 at 04:22:50 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The plan was not perfect (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          but the subsidy covers all for low income.  And I supported Obama, but all in is the only way it can work.

          •  Waving your hands about "perfection" doesn't (0+ / 0-)

            somehow make it ok to fuck poor and working people over.

            How many single people making 25k do you know you can afford to pony up 1,700 dollars?

            Why do you believe it's just and right to force them to do so for junk insurance with a 60% actuarial value?  Insurance that, overall, will still leave them paying 40 cents on the dollar out of pocket for their healthcare?

            I supported the majority of the policies that Obama ran on - not Obama.  I still support the majority of the policies he ran on.

            Thinking the "food stamp challenge" teaches you about being poor is like thinking a camping trip will give you insight into being homeless.

            by JesseCW on Sun Jun 24, 2012 at 04:29:53 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site