Skip to main content

U.S. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) (L) looks on as House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) speaks to the media on the
Repeal by any other name....
The Republican House is gearing up for their latest version of Obamacare repeal, allowing people to keep their crappy health insurance that doesn't provide actual health coverage. That will be the culmination of some five hearings they're planning for the week, none of which will include discussion of an alternative health care plan that would solve the problems of million of uninsured and of rising costs in the health care system. Because this Republican Congress isn't interested in fixing things.

That's going to be a problem for them, and soon. Because while the sign up process for health insurance under the law has been a big problem, people are still signing up and many more will before the end of the year. They're already very much enjoying the benefits that kicked in already—no more preexisting conditions for children, young adult children being able to stay on their parents' plans, no additional costs for a whole raft of preventive services. And for millions more beginning in January, basic fairness. The vote House Republicans will be taking this week won't be characterized as a repeal vote, but that's what it is: an an effort to start unraveling the law. Brian Beutler:

Like many other Republican attacks on Obamacare, this one is subterfuge — a proposal that sounds great but in reality would plant the seeds of the law’s destruction. The real goal is to deny Obamacare marketplaces across the country the critical mass and demographic balance they’ll need to function properly. But it’s dressed up in focus-grouped legislation called the Keep Your Health Plan Act. [...]

Republicans are selling it as a fix that will allow people whose insurance policies have been canceled to keep their old plans. In reality it would allow carriers to rescind cancellation notices and honor existing policies outside of the exchanges for another year. That’s easier said than done. It would be a huge logistical challenge. But to the extent that it’s possible, it would create an incentive for insurers to extend only plans for low risk beneficiaries who might be disinclined to enter the new system.

That undercuts the very basis of the law, that insurers have to take all comers. And you know what undercutting the basis of the law would do—the same as repeal. Which would mean taking away the health insurance of the hundreds of thousands already signed up for the Medicaid expansion under the law, and the tens of thousands who've already purchased plans on the exchanges. It would also take away all the benefits that have already kicked in for millions, from reduced drug prices for seniors to extremely ill children.

Republicans do want all of that to go away. They want the status quo health system which in which millions are losers in the health care game because of pure chance to persist. They want to pit the relative handful of people who are pissed off because they have to change plans against the millions who haven't been able to get health insurance at all. Because if Obamacare works, and millions of people sign up for affordable, quality insurance in the next several months, the GOP's political goose is cooked. Those four dozen repeal votes and this last ditch effort are going to be even more damaging to Republicans than they already have been.

Originally posted to Joan McCarter on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 08:45 AM PST.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
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

  •  Tip Jar (27+ / 0-)

    "The NSA’s capability at any time could be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything. [...] There would be no place to hide."--Frank Church

    by Joan McCarter on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 08:45:23 AM PST

  •  President Obama Ought To Come Right Out And (17+ / 0-)

    say he will veto any thing that changes ACA.

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

    by rssrai on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 08:51:27 AM PST

    •  agreed. Time to go on offense Mr. President!!! (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MartyM, Aunt Pat, Dodgerdog1

      Tell them to put up or shut up!!!

    •  OMG (0+ / 0-)

      So what happens to all those folks who are being helped? Will they just be kicked to the curb?
       I am so disgusted with repubs.  They need to be voted out.  None of them get it and it shows.  No wonder the whole world is laughing at us.

    •  except he said he would propose changes (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      hmi, coffeetalk

      himself including softening the sticker shock some people are experiencing

      •  Just charge everyone 50% off like employees get (0+ / 0-)

        To solve the problem of figuring a zillion different subsidies, that seems to be slowing signups, simply offer everyone half off for the first year. Just get everyone in. Deal with the website solution not under the gun like this. Ensure everyone who wants exchange policies can get them by Jan 1.

    •  Guess what? (0+ / 0-)

      PBO already said he would veto any changes.

    •  Isn't it time to admit that ObamaCare (3+ / 0-)

      was a fool's errand from the start?

      Why work so hard on a federal system where the government ensures 20% profit to Big Insurance when everyone could be covered by Medicare for a 4-6% overhead.

      Big Insurance provides exactly zero added benefit to the system. People hate this profiteering.

      Why the desperate attempt to keep the moneychangers in the Temple of Health?

      Let's just admit ObamaCare is a disaster and get moving towards the logical solution that will eventually solve this problem, single payer.

      Time to kick insurance out of the sector, entirely.

      "Work for something because it is good, not just because it stands a chance to succeed." -- Vaclav Havel

      by greendem on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 10:17:10 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I agree with everything you've said, (5+ / 0-)

        Except for the "it's time" part.  Folks need time to acclimate to and become used to the idea that your government will subsidize your healthcare.  And they need time to discover the expensive drawbacks to the system.  Once you've got a large majority who see that we're wasting taxpayer money on insurance company profits, AND you've got a large majority who have become used to the idea that healthcare is a right, then we will have reached the tipping point where progress to a single payer system is possible.  It's going to take awhile, years probably, but the insurance companies have planted the seeds of their own demise, in part by being such dicks.

      •  When i look at google finance (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        hmi, coffeetalk

        Most major insurers have 5-6% net income/sales.   That is, there is a .05-.06 added on to every insurance bill for their profit.  

        Insurance companies do not do anyone any favors, but I essentially view them as a pass-through mechanism.   It is simply a .05-.06 mark-up.   As to whether we get a combination of "efficient" and "fair" rationing of care for this .06 on the dollar is unknown.   My guess is not.

        I have had some rational experiences and irrational ones too with insurance (when seeking fertility treatment they made me go first, not my wife, this ended saving a ton of money, when seeking noninvasive treatment for fibroids, they wouldn't pay, we did and no hospital stay).

        The problem here is that almost 20% of GDP is health-care and Medicare has grown 6-7% a year in costs just like the rest of the health care system.   I think the problem is a lot harder to solve than just the big bad insurance companies.  

        •  Ever hear of the Franken Amendment? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          greendem, sotiredofusernames

          The Franken Amendment requires insurance companies to rebate excess profits back to policyholders every year -- meaning the insurance companies have to spend 80% of premiums on direct health care benefits each year.  The first year, they rebated about $115 per policy-holder.  Last year, it was around $85 per policy-holder.  That ain't five to six percent mark-up.  That means they exceeded Twenty percent profit in each of the last two years since PPACA was passed and found Constitutional.  

          •  You forgot some things... (0+ / 0-)

            The companies spend 10-15% on building networks, software, advertising, salaries, taxes, etc.   They have to do a lot more than just set prices like Medicare and that is why they have 10-15% costs instead of 4%.  Of course, simply read an income statement of say, Cigna, on google finance.   There is a line that says SG&A that amounts to 10-15% of premium.  Taxes account for the rest.  

            Just read the income statements.  You can learn a ton about our health care system.

            By the way, 80% Medical Loss ratios are not generally binding at the current time.  Most loss ratios are slightly higher.  The Franken law is not currently binding.  Companies earn a 5-6% net profit margin with 80-85% medical loss ratios.   Oh, they would love to be at 80!

            But it is the height of folly to think that insurance companies simply keep the difference between 100 and the Medical Loss Ratio.   Not even non-profits.  There are some costs involved.

          •  and how is $85 and $115 per policy holder .. (0+ / 0-)

            mean anything when you don't know the the face value of the policy.   Mark-ups involve division.  You need a denominator.  

            If the average policy was $12,000 a year, the these rebates would be less than 1%.  

            Again, math is fuzzy.

      •  One problem... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Mr MadAsHell

        Without Obamacare today, there won't be a Single Payer plan tomorrow.

        We are currently fighting just to take that single step forward towards an eventual Single Payer system. The Republicans want us to give up and go back to the way it was.. chaos. That won't bring us closer to Single Payer. It will extend the old damaging system of health insurance.

        But once Obamacare becomes accepted as the norm then the next logical step to improve it will be to go into a Singel Payer system I believe. We almost had it as a done deal but they balked out of fear and political posturing. Once they see that Obamacare is an improvement they will accept that the Single Payer system might be the best way to further improve our system.

        "I think it's the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately." -- George Carlin, Satirical Comic,(1937-2008)

        by Wynter on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 11:20:50 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  If the GOP put in 1/40th that effort on JOBS (13+ / 0-)

    we might actually HAVE some growth in that area...

    Instead, We The People are being bled for the salaries of petulant assholes who got elected strictly to pursue an ideological vendetta AGAINST policies that make rational sense, and could have helped the country to rebuild the economy that was devastated by the policies of Bush 43 & Co. during their eight-year "reign" of warmongering and fiscal insanity.

    Sheesh...

    America's LAST HOPE: vote the GOP OUT in 2014 elections. MAKE them LOSE the House Majority and reduce their numbers in the Senate. Democrats move America forward - Republicans take us backward and are KILLING OUR NATION!

    by dagnome on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 08:59:36 AM PST

  •  "In disguise"? Aren't they a little late (7+ / 0-)

    for Halloween?

  •  This law is effed up beyond (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    curtkitt, Dump Terry McAuliffe, hmi

    belief.  Just a pratfall.  Rs are disgusting bottom dwellers but this law has been awful.

    From Neocon to sane- thanks to Obama- and Kos.

    by satrap on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 09:19:32 AM PST

    •  And who did it? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dodgerdog1, geez53

      REPUBS   But, folks in states that set up exchanges are getting health insurance by the thousands.  Why not all the states?  Red states on purpose did not want the ACA to work and did nothing to help their citizens.

      Who effed it up?

  •  And bill Clinton sticks a shiv in the back... (9+ / 0-)

    ...as always...

    http://thehill.com/...

    GODSPEED TO THE WISCONSIN FOURTEEN!

    by LordMike on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 09:19:38 AM PST

  •  or they want Ryans voucher care plan: (3+ / 0-)

    NOT ACCEPTABLE. Medicare for all YES!!!!!!

  •  I still don't get (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cocinero, Mr MadAsHell

    why so many people are in love with their shitty health insurance plans.

    This would be like if they passed a law that required all cars to come equipped with seat belts and Republicans tried to repeal that part of the law because of the dumbasses whose cars don't have seat belts and they don't want to put in seat belts because they don't think they need them.

    29, white male, TX-07 (current), TN-09 (born), TN-08 (where parents live now)

    by TDDVandy on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 09:42:13 AM PST

    •  Not really the same (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      satrap

      I'm a 48 year old, divorced man.

      Under the ACA, any plan I enroll in must cover pregnancy.....

      Did, I mention I'm a 48 year old man?

      Do you see why the seat belt analogy doesn't really work?

      •  That's a right wing talking point. (6+ / 0-)

        Under the ACA, any plan that a 48-year-old woman enrolls in must cover exams and tests for prostate problems, and your state and local taxes probably pay for public schools for kids you don't have.

      •  Yeah, and I'm sure that adds SO VERY MUCH (4+ / 0-)

        to your bill.

        More to the point: yes, some people do worse under the ACA. Stipulated.

        And many times that number do better. For some, it saves their lives.

        It would be nice if there were no losers. Unfortunately, that didn't happen. It's still a net win.

        I'm on a mission! http://www.dailykos.com/comments/1233352/51142428#c520 Testing the new site rules.

        by blue aardvark on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 10:04:22 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  There are far fewer losers (4+ / 0-)

          than there were under the old system, that's for sure.

          29, white male, TX-07 (current), TN-09 (born), TN-08 (where parents live now)

          by TDDVandy on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 10:05:20 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Remind me, did Democrats tell Americans there (0+ / 0-)

          would be losers?  Or is that just as big a surprise as their cancelled policies?  People may well be willing to pay more to help someone else out but they don't like being tricked.  

          •  If they had done so (0+ / 0-)

            would anyone have noticed in the storm of Republican lies?

            When supposedly responsible people are using phrases like "government takeover of health care" and "death panels", the Democrats had no responsibility or obligation whatsoever to give them any ammunition. You can't have an honest debate with pathological liars.

            I'm on a mission! http://www.dailykos.com/comments/1233352/51142428#c520 Testing the new site rules.

            by blue aardvark on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 11:40:57 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  If the policy you like gets cancelled (0+ / 0-)

              and you are forced into one that costs more that's exactly what people think of when someone says "government takeover of health care".

              One problem the Republicans have is that they are such compulsive liars they don't recognize how well they might do with the truth.

              •  That is not a government takeover of health care (0+ / 0-)

                in any sense of the phrase.

                Your health care is still through a private company, and those private companies have always cancelled policies for various reasons.

                If you wish to take known Republican lies, spin them around, and apply the phrase to something else - you're just acting like them. Keep calling everything "government takeover of healthcare", maybe it'll stick.

                I'm on a mission! http://www.dailykos.com/comments/1233352/51142428#c520 Testing the new site rules.

                by blue aardvark on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 12:34:11 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

      •  You are sad (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        blue aardvark, Mr MadAsHell

        So Mr. 48 it's all about you?  I can't have children, should I get a discount too?   Why do I have to pay for big boner drugs that I don't use?  

        •  Yes, it is all about me (0+ / 0-)

          If we're talking about taxes then "no" it isn't all about me.  I expect a portion of my taxes to be spent on programs that don't benefit me one bit.

          However, if we're talking about insurance policies and something I purchase for my personal use then I expect to only pay for those services which I can theoretically use.

          Most year's I won't have cancer, and the excess premiums I pay are fine -- since I'm paying for those services to be available when I need them.

          But, I'm never ever, ever going to need pregnancy related services so by forcing me to purchase them the government has imposed a hidden tax.  Requiring  me to pay for something I can never use -- to cut the bill of someone else.

          If my tax dollars are used this way okay; but the Administration specifically said when they were pushing for the law's enactment that this was not a tax.  They flipped this position when arguing before the Supremes; and the "tax" power was the basis for Justice Roberts decision to uphold ACA.

          My problem isn't with sharing risks; my problem is the deception associated with ACA and the games associated with the program.

      •  You're not paying more for the coverage: (3+ / 0-)

        Neither is the sixty five year old woman, or the baby.

        To be competitive...remember, conservatives, the market?...the policies have to be low in price, which means no adding costs for coverage YOU WON'T USE.

        "One faction of one party in one House of Congress in one branch of government doesn't get to shut down the entire government just to refight the results of an election."

        by Inland on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 10:15:11 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Looks like some folks (0+ / 0-)

        need a primer on what insurance is, and how it works.

        Insurance 101.  You cannot understand ACA without it.

        The most violent element in society is ignorance.

        by Mr MadAsHell on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 11:34:17 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  For the same reason they don't want to pay taxes.. (4+ / 0-)

      They don't feel they should have to pay for something they don't use. They are probably healthy and would rather keep the extra $4000 that having a shitty plan/no plan gave them. Of course, these are the same people that go bankrupt instantly and pass along their costs to ME the moment they get sick and have to pay out of pocket.

      We've got a ton of situational libertarians in this country who think they have a right to be short-sighted and irresponsible, then immediately request a bailout once their plan blows up. It always does.

      But I get the push back. Its perfectly rational and very consistent with the red state paradox of being the most independent minded while simultaneously the most dependent. Its okay when THEY need something because THEY had a bit of bad luck....but not for THOSE people because THOSE people are lazy slobs.  

      •  "They are probably healthy" as far as they know (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Moravan, Dillonfence

        and would rather wait until they get sick or injured and then stick someone else with the medical bill.

        This was the PROBLEM of free riders that the ACA fixes.

        "One faction of one party in one House of Congress in one branch of government doesn't get to shut down the entire government just to refight the results of an election."

        by Inland on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 10:16:43 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  You know that really happened , right ? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Inland, Mr MadAsHell

      I've heard people make arguments against seat belts .

      "please love deeply...openly and genuinely." A. M. H.

      by indycam on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 10:07:50 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Of course: they add to the cost of the car and (0+ / 0-)

        I know that I'll never need them, so why should I buy them?

        "One faction of one party in one House of Congress in one branch of government doesn't get to shut down the entire government just to refight the results of an election."

        by Inland on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 10:19:49 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  "My friend got thrown out of the car (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sweatyb

          and that saved his life . If he didn't get thrown out he would be dead ."  
          "If you drive the car as intended , follow the rules , you will never crash , seatbelts are for people who do things wrong ."

          "please love deeply...openly and genuinely." A. M. H.

          by indycam on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 10:32:12 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  because they haven't needed it and bumped (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Inland, geez53, Mr MadAsHell

      up against the reality of it not offering anything, now they're being told the cold hard truth and they're in denial

      no reason why this difficult transition shouldn't be smoothed out

      •  Exactly..... It should be emphasized that these (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Heavy Mettle, Mr MadAsHell

        policies are little more than shiny cars with sawdust in their transmissions. "Tricks and Traps" rip-offs like pay day lenders, auto credit schemes and rent-to-own scams.

        21st Century America: The distracted, superficial perception of a virtual reality. Gettov Milawn

        by geez53 on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 10:27:53 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Like all insurance markets.. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sweatyb, greenbell

      People self select based on risk.   Would a bad driver put a Progressive monitor in his/her car?   No, only a good risk will put up with this hassle.  As it is. bad drivers are un-insurable and are put in a state/driver supported bad risk pool.

      Don't blame people for shopping for plans that fit their health.   The reason for "all in" in Obamacare is that they recognize that people will self select for risk and instead of having a bad risk pool, Obamacare  has determined that good risks directly participate in the plan.  While good risks that are wealthy might object since their own efficient choice is gone, this is the price of getting rid of the information problems in the insurance market.   A Nobel was given to George Akerlof, a University of California Nobel winner and his work looms large in this legislation.    

      By the way, single payer does not get rid of this risk sharing.   It will subsidize poor risks over good, the patient over the impatient, and the poor over the wealthy.  

      I have no issues with all this, just as long as we are clear what is going on.

      •  But single payer would do it through taxation (0+ / 0-)

        not shifting the cost of private insurance more heavily onto the middle class.  It's a great deal for the rich because the increase in premium is negligible to them.  They're not being taxed so we can provide better insurance for those who are poor or high risk.   Only the bottom of the middle class gets any subsidy at all so the people just at middle or above are the ones being hit.  Typical neo-liberalism.

        •  I think the rich would hate single payer. (0+ / 0-)

          Their are no premiums in single payer-premiums take the guise of taxes.

          The rich tax bill will go up as 1/2 of us pay no Federal Income Tax.   The math would indicate that they and/or the upper middle class would have to pay more taxes and or pay greater interest on the debt we would take on.  

          The rich would also have to wait for care since single payer systems typically ration care on a combination of utilization, costs, and medical need.   Most likely, they would lose access to many highly paid specialists.  No, these skilled people would be shared.   And because of utilization problems, most national health care systems limit extra private insurance.

          The well off would simply hate single payer.  

  •  I think Reid stops this (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite, satrap, cocinero, Mr MadAsHell

    in the Senate, but I worry that the GOP could actually spin this in a positive way for them. They are recovering from the shutdown and, combined with the ACA rollout fiasco, this could significantly hurt Dem. chances in '14. The policy is terrible, but I worry that it could be easily sold--especially given the corporate media.

    "I was not born for myself alone, but for my neighbor as well as myself."--Richard Overton, leader of the Levellers, a17th C. movement for democracy and equality during the English Civil War. http://www.kynect.ky.gov/ for healthcare coverage in Kentucky

    by SouthernLeveller on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 09:45:07 AM PST

  •  The trouble is people with cherrypicked insurance (4+ / 0-)

    A lot of people are seeing huge premium jumps because they had junk non-surance and now have to buy real insurance.

    But also, a lot of people are seeing huge premium jumps because they were healthy and could get good, cheap insurance. It's not easy to know what to do about these people. They're mad. Something good they had is being taken away from them.

    We can't just say: If you had ACA-compliant insurance, the insurer can't cancel your plan. We can't have healthy people getting cheap rates, and sicker people getting moderate rates. That doesn't work. If sicker people get moderate rates, then healthy people also have to pay those moderate rates to subsidize the sick people.

    But if you could get cheaper good insurance, and now you're told you have to pay a lot more to subsidize sick people, you're not going to like it. Maybe there's nothing we can do. But the people seeing these rate shocks are going to squawk, and who can blame them?  Cuz being told, "You personally have to pay $5000 a year to subsidize sick people" is not a happy thing to hear.

    •  That's because the ACA is a neo-lib law (0+ / 0-)

      Neo-libs just love to help the poor and the sick as long as they are taking the money from the middle class and not from their rich selves.  Had this been funded with adequate taxation you could be getting money from the truly wealthy so the middle wouldn't be so screwed.  

      You can't blame the middle class people who see their premiums increasing from being angry at the AFFORDABLE Care Act.  They figure they've been played.  

      This may all work out in the end but those who deny the obvious aren't going to get voters to overlook the obvious when they vote.  There are winners and losers in this and folks are going to figure the reason no Democrat ever explained the law was that they didn't want to tell them about the losers.

    •  The "I Got Mine" problem (0+ / 0-)

      I remember when the law was being debate having a conversation with a neighbor where she brought up her concerns about "rationing" of health care.

      I responded that we obviously already had rationing of health care along rich/poor lines.

      This is the same thing. If you're comfortable, even if you acknowledge that there's a problem with the system overall, if the only way to fix it is to inconvenience the lucky few who are still OK, then it's unforgivable.

      We are not a nation of altruists. If we ever were, 30 years of Reagan-inspired individualism have turned us into a nation of self-obsessed pricks.

      •  Not arguing that we are altruists. (0+ / 0-)

        But I have traveled a lot.  I would make an argument that we are the most generous people in the world, which may not be saying much.  My Norwegian friends, who enjoy an income per capita 2x the US, lament the lack of private giving in Norway.  

        I would be willing to bet that we are by far the largest giver to the Typhoon disaster.

        Being an American still means something in the world.

        •  it's a weird contradiction (0+ / 0-)

          We are generous in the face of disaster but we are downright miserly when it comes to looking after the public good.

          We wont support a 1% property tax hike to help educate our kids, but throwing money down a hole to "help" people in some faraway country or to "fight" breast cancer? Let me get my checkbook!

          •  the health insurance debate in a nutshell (0+ / 0-)

            Spending a little each day to ensure our everyday health so that we can live longer, healthier and more productive lives? Don't you oppress my freedoms!

            Spending lavishly on end-of-life procedures to extend our final hours by a handful of minutes? Of course! No expense is too great!

            •  But the contradiction can be explained. (0+ / 0-)

              Americans don't want to be forced to do something through government-look at our founding fathers, the Turner hypothesis, etc.   Raw individualism still is here.

              We have a tradition of voluntary giving that is greater than others-mandated giving, well if we are not in WWII situation, not so much.

  •  Some legal remedy could work to ACA's benefit (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Heavy Mettle

    A big problem is that grandfathered plans are being cancelled even if sold before 2010.  Extending grandfathering for plans sold up to 2013, if designed correctly could solve public relations problem, if not all cancellation problems.  

    Here you would have Republicans voting to fix Obamacare.   Senate could amend bill to make it better.  Currently grandfathered plans still have to meet some ACA requirements: no lifetime limits, including 26 year olds and younger in plans, no rescissions, 80/20 rule.  

    It could pass both House and Senate.  Obama would sign, "promise kept."  Many insurance would still be cancelled because of profit motive, Obama would not be blamed (or blamed less as Republicans voted for it).

    If Obama would propose a legislative fix, Republicans would say no way.   If Republicans do it first, it may work out.  

    11th dimensional chess anyone?

    •  Math is shaky here (0+ / 0-)

      The insurance companies set their premiums assuming that people who had good cheap insurance would have to change to good more expensive insurance.

      We can't say that healthy people who had good cheap insurance (because they were lucky enough to be healthy) can keep their cheap rates, and people who couldn't get insurance because they had pre-existing conditions can now buy moderately priced insurance. Moderately priced insurance won't cover the costs of the expensive sick people unless healthy people buy it too.

      Saying that Ms. Triathlon-at-Fifty-Five can keep her inexpensive insurance, and Mr. Heart-Attack-at-Fifty-Two can now get insurance, doesn't work. It's unicorns and ponies. Ms. Triathlon has to subsidize Mr. Heart-Attack. And that means Ms. Triathlon has to pay more.

      •  But no one told Ms. Triathlon that she was going (0+ / 0-)

        to be the one subsidizing Mr. Heart-Attack.  She probably assumed the government was going to fund the increased cost for him not that the cost was going to be directly shifted to her in the form of higher premiums.

  •  Something to remember (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    geez53

    I've always hoped the ACA was a first step toward a better system, but I must remember that the Republicans will never stop trying to erode it.

    We established regulations of slaughter houses under Teddy Roosevelt and they are still trying to weaken those.

    They. will. never. stop.

    I'm on a mission! http://www.dailykos.com/comments/1233352/51142428#c520 Testing the new site rules.

    by blue aardvark on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 10:00:33 AM PST

    •  Yep (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blue aardvark

      Repubs started to destroy Social Security since the 1930s and they are still trying to do it.  The same with Medicare. Repubs have been trying to destroy it since the 1960s.  

      They will never stop.  All those fools who vote repub thinking they will never destroy Social Security and Medicare are just ignorant.

  •  It's the Keep Junk Insurance Act n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Heavy Mettle
  •  Medicare for all (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    greenbell

    would not have had these problems.

    Unfortunately, the Democrats were more interested in protecting insurance company profits than they were in improving people's health care. And so we will have to deal with bullshit like this for a long time to come.

  •  Let people keep their crappy insurance, let (0+ / 0-)

    them find out how little it covers, how stupid they are for keeping it, then give them the alternative.

  •  Under the guise of Obama keeping his promise... (0+ / 0-)

    they are trying to gut Obamacare by allowing people with "crappy" policies-those people who view themselves as low risk in the first place-to bow out of the risk pool.  So, yes, this is their intention.   Nasty.   But they do what they do.  The key is to execute on what you can do and that means running the damn thing well.

    The glitches in the website may do what the Republicans want-keep low risks out of the pool.  If signing up is a hassle and you are a low risk young person signing up just because you intend to follow the law, eventually you will just pay the fine.  Only the sick and poor are really motivated to put up with what is an enormous hassle.  

    Some are reporting only 40,00-50,000 have signed up, far short of the 800,000 goal.  

    I have often read that all this doesn't matter and this is simply a stop to single payer.  I disagree.  Mid-term elections will be very poor if this thing is a fiasco.   All programs that worked, social security, medicare, all had modest starts.  This is not going down that road.

  •  Not Trolling, but hard questions need to be asked (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Kickemout

    Here is an except from the last paragraph of this article:

     Because if Obamacare works, and millions of people sign up for affordable, quality insurance in the next several months, the GOP's political goose is cooked. Those four dozen repeal votes and this last ditch effort are going to be even more damaging to Republicans than they already have been.

    But, what if the problems don't get better? Or, more intractable problems start to turn up?

    This morning, I hit Yahoo and a few other sites to catch up on the news.   I found no less than five articles each detailing pending problems that are likely to hurt ACA:

    1.  The number of people enrolling is vastly lower than expected -- even taking into consideration the problems with the website the numbers are a fifth of what was expected.

    2.  Convicted criminal prima donna James O'Keefe has posted more video of navigators telling enrollees to lie about their income.  Congrats, you've earned another 15 minutes of fame.  But, it looks really bad.

    3.  So far 4.2 million policies have been cancelled, a number expected to rise to 7-12 million by year end.  And, as policies typically run by quarter the cancellations should continue into next year.  If the replacement policies cost more and some people choose to skip insurance, is it possible -- given the anemic enrollment figures -- that ACA actually drives more people off of policies than gain insurance?

    4.  Next year, the employer mandate kicks in. At that point, Companies can opt to throw their employees off of employer plans and simply pay the federal penalty - which at $2000/employee is often cheaper than paying for employee insurance.  

    Since, most people (80%) receive insurance through their employer, it seems that if only 10% of employers opt out meaning 8% of employees are impacted - haven't you created a much, much larger problem than we're hearing about right now when only 5% of the market is affected?

    It just seems to me that to ignore these issues is like putting your head in the sand.  

    And, since single payer is DOA in Congress and let's face it -- if ACA fails -- selling an even larger program would seem to be impossible.

    So, if even only a fraction of these problems come to fruition what can be done?

    •  (.......) (0+ / 0-)
      But, what if the problems don't get better? Or, more intractable problems start to turn up?
      I'm sure it'll never be too late to go back to the system we had before.  All you'll have to do is tell the few hundred thousand people who are getting decent insurance for the first time that they are out of luck, and voila, return to the status quo ante.

      "One faction of one party in one House of Congress in one branch of government doesn't get to shut down the entire government just to refight the results of an election."

      by Inland on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 10:18:42 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Vote (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sotiredofusernames

      Vote in Dems and we can fix the problems. Repubs are there to obstruct and destroy.

    •  wait the employer mandate will make employers (0+ / 0-)

      drop coverage? Are you sure you're not trolling.

      Employers can drop coverage right now. No penalty. Turns out, that's exactly what they've been doing for the last decade as insurance premiums have gone up at multiples of inflation.

      After the employer mandate, they will pay a small fine. Fortunately, their employees will be able to purchase insurance on the individual market.

      What you're talking about isn't a failure of the ACA. It's a failure of the private insurance market. If all you say comes to pass, then obviously our system of private insurance is not working and cannot be made to work.

      Thus: Single. Payer. Health. Care.

      •  But here is the problem with your comment (0+ / 0-)

        Okay - I understand the exchanges were set up to facilitate people picking up health insurance outside of their employers.  

        Great idea.

        But, the premise of my question was right now things seem to be going very badly for ACA, and there seem to be  additional landmines out there.  

        I had always heard that to be successful ACA needed to attract 7 million non-medicaid enrollees.  Fail to get close to that number and a "death spiral" (Not my quote) would ensue as costs would exceed new revenue resulting in ever increasing premiums and as a result fewer people enrolling.

        In 1994, the public went overwhelmingly GOP just for a failed attempt to enact healthcare changes.  Today, if you're dealing with actual failure (again, not hoping for it to happen just thinking about "what if") and a failure where millions of people have seen their personal insurance policies impacted - I just don't see any possibility of single payer being politically feasible.  Because if they couldn't enact single payer when the Dems had a supermajority - how do you enact it next year, especially if the GOP picks up seats because ACA is viewed negatively by the public?

        •  the success of failure of the ACA is irrelevant (0+ / 0-)

          If in 2014 the Democrats reprise 2010, with weak candidates refusing to defend their priorities and failing to present a coherent vision to the voters, then it wont matter if Obamacare is a complete success or an utter failure (or, more likely, merely working).

          Democrats aren't going to win based on accomplishments, they will win based on vision.

          Sure, a failed ACA would give Republicans a bludgeon to beat Democrats with, but Republican attacks are a given. If there isn't a real scandal, they'll make up a scandal. If the ACA fails, the party that has the best alternative is going to be at an advantage. What is the Republican alternative?

          The Republicans can run on a platform of closing your eyes and wishing it was 1955 again, but that's not going to win elections.

          •  The problem is.... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            greenbell
            Democrats aren't going to win based on accomplishments, they will win based on vision.
            The problem is, when it comes to health care, the Democrats' "vision" is to enrich the for-profit insurance companies as much as possible at the expense of people's health care. Which is why they passed the ACA instead of Medicare for all.

            And that's not a very compelling vision as far as the public is concerned.

    •  I can't agree more. (0+ / 0-)

      Hilary blew the mid-term elections for Bill in 1993  by simply putting out a 2000 page draft of her health care plan.   Can you imagine what happens if ACA turns out to be a mess?  The House will be very Republican.

      Look, we can spy on the German Prime Minister.  Fix this mess!

  •  Even my GOP parents say it's too late to do that (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cardinal Fang

    Even my parents, who are both strong republicans and very anti-Obamacare, say that it's too late for the GOP plan to let people keep old insurance plans.

    The reason being, most people have already switched to the new plans for 2013, or signed up for health insurance in 2013. The place we work at already switched last month.

    Even for workplaces that switch insurances in December it's too late, you've got to get everyone in the company enrolled into the new year's healthcare plan with time to spare before the end of the month so that the insurance company can process the paperwork in time.

    Plus, as news articles point out, it's also too late from the insurance company end. They already set the rates for the new year assuming the law as it's written goes into effect then. Delaying anything, or changing the rules now will screw over the insurance companies.

  •  Insurance companies are canceling the policies (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cardinal Fang

    The insurance companies are canceling those policies because they wont work unless insurance companies can refuse to cover people with pre-existing conditions.

    These are policies for healthy people only. In the post-ACA world, those plans are not viable.

  •  This what they stand for; deregulations (0+ / 0-)

    The solution of the republicans  to most everything is:  deregulate.  Of course, this is their answer to this monumental quest to cover most of the United States population with a health insurance system that actually delivers what you pay for.

    Without the ACA standards those who are fighting to keep their lousy plans could still find themselves in medical financial hell if they are unlucky and find themselves venerable.

    It takes just one horrific accident, one devastating diagnosis for themselves,or their families, if they have a family plan, and they actually could lose their house or go into bankruptcy.  The very poor, those who qualify for Medicaid, would be spared.  However, we are talking about our diminishing middle class policyholders, those who think they are doing okay.  They are putting themselves at risk.

    If any tampering with the standards is done, it will water down, delay, and might even destroy the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act - ACA - Obamacare, even before it is actually in place.  This doesn't go into effect until 2014.  Give this a chance to work.

    If any ironing out is to be done, republican lawmakers, roll up your sleeves and start working to fix it, not destroy it.

    Oh, sorry, that would mean you'd have to work more than your 113 days scheduled for next year, with your continuing salary of $174,000.  I might be expecting too much.

  •  You can legislate the end to stupidity (0+ / 0-)

    If people want to continue paying health insurance companies for nothing, who are we to tell them they're stupid?

    The ACA was a poorly crafted and lousy law to begin with. It did nothing to address the real problems with the US health care system.

    It still keeps health insurance companies in control of our health care, instead of where it belongs, and that is in the hands of doctors and patients.

    It still puts profits of the health insurance companies and health care providers ahead of patient needs.

    I don't have a problem with fixing the bad parts of the law, and nobody else should either

    The future is just a concept we use to avoid living today

    by MetalMD on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 11:01:44 AM PST

  •  Carney agrees (0+ / 0-)

    "When dealing with terrorism, civil and human rights are not applicable." Egyptian military spokesman.

    by Paleo on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 11:01:58 AM PST

  •  Add an Amendment to it. (0+ / 0-)

    Now add in an Amendment to it...

    "Scrap the crap amendment" -
    That would only allow those existing plans that meet the basic requirements for health coverage as dictated by the ACA. Any plan not meeting those requirements would have to be upgraded to meet those requirements before the January deadline (or whatever date it is now) for Obamacare implementation.

    That will in essence negate the entire reason for the bill. If someone overpaying for health insurance and still getting the new requirements can keep their high priced insurance.  But no more scamming the poor and weak with your non-existent health insurance plans.

    "I think it's the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately." -- George Carlin, Satirical Comic,(1937-2008)

    by Wynter on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 11:15:52 AM PST

  •  Can the democrats add a "poison pill" to this? (0+ / 0-)

    This is my first post on this website. Long time lurker though... I was thinking the democrats should offer an amendment that would replace the mandate for employers to offer health insurance for their workers if they have more than 50 full time employees, to the "employee hours" equivalent of 50 x 40 = 2000 hours. It's not really a poison pill, but that should put the republicans in a "put up or shut up" mode. One can even be "flexible" with this: 2500 instead of 2000, starting in 2015 etc, blah blah blah. Let the republicans vote against it. If the democrats allow a "you can keep your junk insurance" for now, but as soon as you make a change you need to buy an ACA compliant one, so eventually everybody moves to the new system, I'm willing to take the bite, if my "poison pill" goes in too. Fair deal in my opinion. What do you guys think?

    BTW, I would have liked a "buy into medicare" public option, but I guess I can give the the current ACA a chance.

    •  Possibly a good idea, but in general it seems to (0+ / 0-)

      just play into intransigent GOP hands: Democrats continue to "offer" while GOP continues to monkeywrench.

      At some point that game has to get old, or???

      BTW: thanks for coming out of lurkiness...

      Welcome from the DK Partners & Mentors Team. If you have any questions about how to participate here, you can learn more at the Knowledge Base or from the New Diarists Resources Diaries. Diaries labeled "Open Thread" are also great places to ask. We look forward to your contributions.

      Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

      by a gilas girl on Wed Nov 13, 2013 at 06:52:06 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Why people like their health insurance (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a gilas girl

    Three main reasons:
    1. It's a system they understand. If they get sick, they have an idea of how things will work. It brings an element of certainty to an uncertain time. If your insurance company folds (i.e. Celtic) or changes your policy (i.e. Blue Cross), that adds insecurity to something that was supposed to provide security. If you want to win elections, you start sympathizing and hand-holding rather than scolding.

    2. Many of the policies issued post-ACA passage are actually not crappy: no lifetime or annual limits; free wellness; diagnostic, hospital and drugs discounted at 50-60% before you ever reach your deductible; a stop-loss on catastrophic health costs; premiums that didn't break the bank. These were things Obama actually touted. Now we should dump them?

    3. New plans aren't just more expensive, they have more restrictive networks. Compare United Health or Blue Cross' current nationwide PPO networks to the smaller HMO networks for 2014. Less choices, smaller geographic reach, referrals for additional treatment AND I have to pay more? Oh gee, how quickly can I sign up???

    And before you judge, I'm a twice Obama voter who supports much of the ACA but objects to this current phase because it's horribly inefficient and really does force a lot of people into some miserable choices.

    •  I agree that a large part of not wanting to (0+ / 0-)

      give up insurance you already have is the sheer hassle of it.
      But not everyone who has insurance has good insurance.

      That's been the case for a long time.  Old plans were expensive with small networks.

      In other words, the conditions you are describing that pertain to the New Plans, also pertained to the Old.

      And it is a scary thing to feel like you are losing a form of security, no matter how many holes that security may have had.  Good point!

      Welcome from the DK Partners & Mentors Team. If you have any questions about how to participate here, you can learn more at the Knowledge Base or from the New Diarists Resources Diaries. Diaries labeled "Open Thread" are also great places to ask. We look forward to your contributions.

      Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

      by a gilas girl on Wed Nov 13, 2013 at 06:58:17 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site