Originally Posted by Odin

Lots of unemployed young men = a very high risk of revolt.

Raging testosterone IS a plus sometimes.

Unfortunately, fascism is also a potential expression of male frustration. It is much more male than revolutionary socialism. Civic youth and adults played significant roles in the destruction of the Weimar Republic, too.

Originally Posted by Earl and Mooch

Thomas is 63 (four and a half months older than my father) and if his health holds up, he could stay on the Court for a couple more decades.

I actually miss William Rehnquist. He was as conservative as anyone on the Court now, but once in a while he could be pragmatic.

Don't remind me. I remember thinking back in 1991 that the odds were about 50-50 that he'd still be there when I died myself. However, comparing the state of our bodies, I think the odds have shifted in my favor a bit since then.

Here is an article that gives a bit of history about the Affordable Care Act. This is important information to understand given that sometimes we support issues that may not actually be in our best interest.

Unfortunately, I need to post the entire article because it was sent to me by a friend. But I will ask for the link if someone wants it.

************************************************** *******************
I was standing outside the U.S. Supreme Court holding a sign that said “Single Payer Now, Strike Down the Obama Mandate.” It was the second day of argument on the Affordable Care Act. As I watched the crowds it was evident this was an organized partisan event.

As the Washington Post reports, the mandate was a Republican idea that originated with conservatives: “The tale begins in the late 1980s, when conservative economists such as Mark Pauly, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of business, were searching for ways to counter liberal calls for government-sponsored universal health coverage. Pauly then proposed a mandate requiring everyone to obtain this minimum coverage, thus guarding against free-riders...Health policy analysts at the conservative Heritage Foundation, led by Stuart Butler, picked up the idea and began developing it for lawmakers in Congress. The Heritage Foundation worked with then-Gov. Mitt Romney (R) to pass Massachusetts’ 2006 health reform law, which required all Bay State citizens to purchase coverage.”

Someone from the Heritage Foundation came up to us, wanting to take a photo of our sign. I asked him – does the Heritage Foundation oppose the mandate? He said “yes.” I told him that the idea came out of the Heritage Foundation. He looked confused, mumbled an unclear answer “not since 2006” and walked away.

Of course, Democrats opposed this Republican idea. They saw it for what it is: a massive giveaway to the insurance industry that will lead to their entrenchment and continued domination of heath care. The idea was used by Republicans to oppose the Clinton health plan. Of course, the Clinton’s opposed it. But, by the 2008 presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton supported the mandate (by then the insurance industry was a big financial backer of hers), but candidate Barack Obama opposed it. One of his campaign advertisements said: “What’s she not telling you about her health-care plan? It forces everyone to buy insurance, even if you can’t afford it, and you pay a penalty if you don’t.”

So, while I was out there watching groups like the National Organization for Women, who supports single payer favoring this pro-insurance law, as part of a coalition of Democratic Party aligned groups, I thought, what if President McCain had passed this law. My conclusion, we’d have the same people out here protesting, they’d just reverse sides. This was really not about healthcare, it was about Obama vs. the Republicans in this 2012 election year.

The people protesting followed their leader’s orders, said the chants they were told to say, and held the signs they were given to hold, but they were confused. When we talked to people on both sides the partisan confusion was evident.
My colleague, Margaret Flowers, asked two women carrying an Americans for Prosperity sign (a group opposed to Obama’s law) whether they were on Medicare. They said “yes.” “Do you like it?” Again, “yes.” “Do you know Medicare is a government program?” A confused look. “Do you know the Republicans want to end Medicare, make it into private insurance?” “You don’t know what you’re talking about. You probably support Obama” and they started to walk away. “No, we oppose ObamaCare,” the women stopped and listened again, “we think everyone should have Medicare. Don’t you think it would be a good idea if every American could have the Medicare you have and like?” “Hmm, yes” then, more confusion in their faces.

Then, talking to the Democrats showed equal partisan confusion. I explained: “We oppose the Obama mandate because we want to end insurance control of health care. We support single payer, Medicare for all?” Response: “So do I.” I asked: “Single payer ends insurance, and Obama’s law entrenches insurance more deeply in control of health care, aren’t those opposites?” Response, obviously not understanding what ‘opposite’ means: “It’s a step in the right direction.” I ask: “How can it be a step in the right direction when it is going in the opposite direction?” No longer able to say it is the right direction, spouts another talking point: “This is the best we can get, we can build on this.” Me, trying to figure out the Democrat thinks there is to build on, asks: “But, if we want to end insurance domination, how do we build on a law that is based on insurance?” Unable to explain it, the Democrat answers: “We can’t get what we want.” I say: “Of course, not, if people like you and organizations like yours who support single payer, spend their time advocating for the insurance industry, we can’t get what we want. But, if people who support single payer work for it we could.” Answer “But, we have to re-elect President Obama.”Partisan confusion reigned.


And, sadly partisan confusion dominates our airwaves as well. Of course, the right wing radio continues to attack Obama and confusingly calls a market-based, insurance-dominated health law socialism. But, sadly the “liberal” media sends out equal partisan confusion. We were able to go into Radio Row, where all the liberal radio outlets were interviewing “experts” on health care. The talking points, like in the conversation, were repeated and repeated. When one radio host wanted to interview me, really debate me since he was a Democratic apologist, I sat down. An organizer in the room asked the host to speak with her. She came back and told me I had to leave. This was private property and only people allowed to be here were allowed to be here. I explained I was invited by a station to be interviewed. She explained – “I tell them who to interview. The stations have slots and we fill them.” I asked – “do you mean only people who support Obama can be interviewed.” She explained “The Republicans do it to.”

So, partisan confusion reigns and it permeates the airwaves leaving many people confused. We need to clear the FOG (Forces Of Greed) and get the truth on the air.

Despite all this supermajorities of Americans have consistently supported single payer, whether inaccurately called socialism or correctly described as “Medicare for all” 60% or more support it. Why? For the same reason that the great salesman President Obama and his superb marketing team have been unable to sell forced purchase of health insurance: Every family, business whether large or small; and every doctor or other health care provider have suffered insurance abuse. Two thirds of those who go bankrupt from a health problem have health insurance. The American experience is that health insurance is expensive, provides inadequate coverage and tries to avoid paying for health care. We all know this. So, no matter what the politicians say – Americans do not trust the health insurance industry. But, one thing the two parties in Washington agree on – they will protect health insurance at all costs. After-all, they are a great source of campaign contributions – as the two politicians responsible for forcing Americans to buy insurance, President Obama and Mitt Romney, well know.

Kevin Zeese is co-director of Its Our Economy and is an organizer with the National Occupation of Washington, DC which begins on March 30.

Originally Posted by Deb C

Here is an article that gives a bit of history about the Affordable Care Act. This is important information to understand given that sometimes we support issues that may not actually be in our best interest.

Unfortunately, I need to post the entire article because it was sent to me by a friend. But I will ask for the link if someone wants it.

************************************************** *******************
I was standing outside the U.S. Supreme Court holding a sign that said “Single Payer Now, Strike Down the Obama Mandate.” It was the second day of argument on the Affordable Care Act. As I watched the crowds it was evident this was an organized partisan event.

As the Washington Post reports, the mandate was a Republican idea that originated with conservatives: “The tale begins in the late 1980s, when conservative economists such as Mark Pauly, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of business, were searching for ways to counter liberal calls for government-sponsored universal health coverage. Pauly then proposed a mandate requiring everyone to obtain this minimum coverage, thus guarding against free-riders...Health policy analysts at the conservative Heritage Foundation, led by Stuart Butler, picked up the idea and began developing it for lawmakers in Congress. The Heritage Foundation worked with then-Gov. Mitt Romney (R) to pass Massachusetts’ 2006 health reform law, which required all Bay State citizens to purchase coverage.”

Someone from the Heritage Foundation came up to us, wanting to take a photo of our sign. I asked him – does the Heritage Foundation oppose the mandate? He said “yes.” I told him that the idea came out of the Heritage Foundation. He looked confused, mumbled an unclear answer “not since 2006” and walked away.

Of course, Democrats opposed this Republican idea. They saw it for what it is: a massive giveaway to the insurance industry that will lead to their entrenchment and continued domination of heath care. The idea was used by Republicans to oppose the Clinton health plan. Of course, the Clinton’s opposed it. But, by the 2008 presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton supported the mandate (by then the insurance industry was a big financial backer of hers), but candidate Barack Obama opposed it. One of his campaign advertisements said: “What’s she not telling you about her health-care plan? It forces everyone to buy insurance, even if you can’t afford it, and you pay a penalty if you don’t.”

So, while I was out there watching groups like the National Organization for Women, who supports single payer favoring this pro-insurance law, as part of a coalition of Democratic Party aligned groups, I thought, what if President McCain had passed this law. My conclusion, we’d have the same people out here protesting, they’d just reverse sides. This was really not about healthcare, it was about Obama vs. the Republicans in this 2012 election year.

The people protesting followed their leader’s orders, said the chants they were told to say, and held the signs they were given to hold, but they were confused. When we talked to people on both sides the partisan confusion was evident.
My colleague, Margaret Flowers, asked two women carrying an Americans for Prosperity sign (a group opposed to Obama’s law) whether they were on Medicare. They said “yes.” “Do you like it?” Again, “yes.” “Do you know Medicare is a government program?” A confused look. “Do you know the Republicans want to end Medicare, make it into private insurance?” “You don’t know what you’re talking about. You probably support Obama” and they started to walk away. “No, we oppose ObamaCare,” the women stopped and listened again, “we think everyone should have Medicare. Don’t you think it would be a good idea if every American could have the Medicare you have and like?” “Hmm, yes” then, more confusion in their faces.

Then, talking to the Democrats showed equal partisan confusion. I explained: “We oppose the Obama mandate because we want to end insurance control of health care. We support single payer, Medicare for all?” Response: “So do I.” I asked: “Single payer ends insurance, and Obama’s law entrenches insurance more deeply in control of health care, aren’t those opposites?” Response, obviously not understanding what ‘opposite’ means: “It’s a step in the right direction.” I ask: “How can it be a step in the right direction when it is going in the opposite direction?” No longer able to say it is the right direction, spouts another talking point: “This is the best we can get, we can build on this.” Me, trying to figure out the Democrat thinks there is to build on, asks: “But, if we want to end insurance domination, how do we build on a law that is based on insurance?” Unable to explain it, the Democrat answers: “We can’t get what we want.” I say: “Of course, not, if people like you and organizations like yours who support single payer, spend their time advocating for the insurance industry, we can’t get what we want. But, if people who support single payer work for it we could.” Answer “But, we have to re-elect President Obama.”Partisan confusion reigned.


And, sadly partisan confusion dominates our airwaves as well. Of course, the right wing radio continues to attack Obama and confusingly calls a market-based, insurance-dominated health law socialism. But, sadly the “liberal” media sends out equal partisan confusion. We were able to go into Radio Row, where all the liberal radio outlets were interviewing “experts” on health care. The talking points, like in the conversation, were repeated and repeated. When one radio host wanted to interview me, really debate me since he was a Democratic apologist, I sat down. An organizer in the room asked the host to speak with her. She came back and told me I had to leave. This was private property and only people allowed to be here were allowed to be here. I explained I was invited by a station to be interviewed. She explained – “I tell them who to interview. The stations have slots and we fill them.” I asked – “do you mean only people who support Obama can be interviewed.” She explained “The Republicans do it to.”

So, partisan confusion reigns and it permeates the airwaves leaving many people confused. We need to clear the FOG (Forces Of Greed) and get the truth on the air.

Despite all this supermajorities of Americans have consistently supported single payer, whether inaccurately called socialism or correctly described as “Medicare for all” 60% or more support it. Why? For the same reason that the great salesman President Obama and his superb marketing team have been unable to sell forced purchase of health insurance: Every family, business whether large or small; and every doctor or other health care provider have suffered insurance abuse. Two thirds of those who go bankrupt from a health problem have health insurance. The American experience is that health insurance is expensive, provides inadequate coverage and tries to avoid paying for health care. We all know this. So, no matter what the politicians say – Americans do not trust the health insurance industry. But, one thing the two parties in Washington agree on – they will protect health insurance at all costs. After-all, they are a great source of campaign contributions – as the two politicians responsible for forcing Americans to buy insurance, President Obama and Mitt Romney, well know.

Kevin Zeese is co-director of Its Our Economy and is an organizer with the National Occupation of Washington, DC which begins on March 30.

It is clear that the USA needs to reform the health care system, including health care insurance, but I don't like the idea of single providers for anything unless absolutely necessary, such as for our national defense.

It seems to me that we could go to managed competition, similar to the Federal workers health care program, with all US citizens in a single insurance pool. Many of these providers are employee organizations and not corporations.


In my opinion, this approach could provide a path to solve many of the problems and also provide the basis for the dialogue needed to reach a national consensus. We need a solution that does not require a ruling by the Supreme Court.

Originally Posted by radind

It is clear that the USA needs to reform the health care system, including health care insurance, but I don't like the idea of single providers for anything unless absolutely necessary, such as for our national defense.

It seems to me that we could go to managed competition, similar to the Federal workers health care program, with all US citizens in a single insurance pool. Many of these providers are employee organizations and not corporations.


In my opinion, this approach could provide a path to solve many of the problems and also provide the basis for the dialogue needed to reach a national consensus. We need a solution that does not require a ruling by the Supreme Court.

My concern is that as long as there is an industry's *profit and shareholders* involved, citizens will still be considered consumers that can be abused by that system.

Originally Posted by Deb C

My concern is that as long as there is an industry's *profit and shareholders* involved, citizens will still be considered consumers that can be abused by that system.

But the other groups of insurance providers(worker organizations, Unions, etc. ) would provide alternatives to the corporations. If the corporations do not attract buyers for their products, then they would be out of the business and the non-profits would have it all.

Originally Posted by radind

It is clear that the USA needs to reform the health care system, including health care insurance, but I don't like the idea of single providers for anything unless absolutely necessary, such as for our national defense.

It seems to me that we could go to managed competition, similar to the Federal workers health care program, with all US citizens in a single insurance pool. Many of these providers are employee organizations and not corporations.


In my opinion, this approach could provide a path to solve many of the problems and also provide the basis for the dialogue needed to reach a national consensus. We need a solution that does not require a ruling by the Supreme Court.

Who would pay the premiums, particularly for low-income individuals who don't have employee-provided insurance? Would people who are uninsured through their employer still be required to purchase? I see many of the same issues with your approach as with the ACA.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I am very uncertain about how this will go. It's true that the Republican five have shown a truly remarkable willingness to overturn precedent, e.g. in Heller (throwing out centuries of individual gun control) and Citizens United (throwing out a century of campaign finance regulation.) But are they really willing to wipe out such a key piece of legislation and set a precedent that could undo so much of the last 80 years? I have to wonder whether all the tough questioning was a way to position themselves with their actual constituency--and whether it will wind up a 6-3 vote with Roberts and Kennedy voting to uphold after all. There's no way to know.

During the Clarence Thomas hearings I told everyone who would listen that I didn't think Anita Hill's testimony, which I believed, was enough to keep him off the court, and that's what I still think. But I also said I was violently opposed to his confirmation because of the terrible opinions he would hand down--and boy, was I right.

From what I heard; Justices from both side of the fence tried to entice the answer's from their prospectives sides. With this said; never seen a willingness from the other 4 to change sides; only 2 conservatives have.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Who would pay the premiums, particularly for low-income individuals who don't have employee-provided insurance? Would people who are uninsured through their employer still be required to purchase? I see many of the same issues with your approach as with the ACA.

you are correct that this does not affect the funding. I just think that we already spend enough in total to fund a decent health care 'system', but we do not have a real , effective system in place. If we could agree as a nation on a reasonable system, then we could discuss the funding as a separate & vital issue. What we have now is so fragmented that it should not be called a system. I think that having our health care insurance dependent on the employers is a flaw in the current approach. We fund most things through the federal tax system or make special rules for Social Security & Medicare. The approach I favor would not be dependent on the employer choices or the corporate insurance companies( although they would have right to compete) , nor would it be dependent on a single source( ie, the federal government) for all decisions. We should avoid the ACA 'mandates' that are part of the current Supreme Court review.

anyone talking about single payer, universal care, doing away with insurers, etc., etc. doesn't have a clue.

Once ACA goes down, no one is going to touch health care politics in any meaningful way again for a couple decades.

At best, the GOP will now own whatever misery comes from our current system - starting with the bumping of about 7 million kids between 21-26 off of their parents' insurance.

What we will get is "the ability to buy insurance across state lines" bullshrt (along with limiting the peasants' ability to sue anyone for malpractice). Like with the credit card companies and Delaware, the insurers will all gravitate to that state that offers the least amount of cost and regulation to them.

Think about it. 10-year treasuries are under 2.5% and often these days under 2%; when was the last time you saw a credit card interest rate in the single digits. Why do you think health insurers are going to be any different than the banks and not screw everyone of us to the wall? Under what election result can you imagine where a Congress is going to lift a finger to prevent that?

For nearly everyone on the forum, this was a once in a lifetime shot. It's gone.

Buck up. Move along. And try to stay healthy - you literally can't afford not to.

Originally Posted by playwrite

anyone talking about single payer, universal care, doing away with insurers, etc., etc. doesn't have a clue.

Once ACA goes down, no one is going to touch health care politics in any meaningful way again for a couple decades.

At best, the GOP will now own whatever misery comes from our current system - starting with the bumping of about 7 million kids between 21-26 off of their parents' insurance.

What we will get is "the ability to buy insurance across state lines" bullshrt (along with limiting the peasants' ability to sue anyone for malpractice). Like with the credit card companies and Delaware, the insurers will all gravitate to that state that offers the least amount of cost and regulation to them.

Think about it. 10-year treasuries are under 2.5% and often these days under 2%; when was the last time you saw a credit card interest rate in the single digits. Why do you think health insurers are going to be any different than the banks and not screw everyone of us to the wall? Under what election result can you imagine where a Congress is going to lift a finger to prevent that?

For nearly everyone on the forum, this was a once in a lifetime shot. It's gone.

Buck up. Move along. And try to stay healthy - you literally can't afford not to.

I guess I don't have a clue because a vision of what will assist the common good is on my heart. If we lose what is possible then we have given up on a better future.

Signed,
Clueless

Originally Posted by Deb C

I guess I don't have a clue because a vision of what will assist the common good is on my heart. If we lose what is possible then we have given up on a better future.

Signed,
Clueless

I thought that the ACA was a kluge to replace a kluge.
What a mess.

Health Case Ripples Outward to Insurers, Election - WSJ.com
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000....html?mod=e2tw


..."Planning for the main pieces of the law that are set to begin in 2014—including new marketplaces where consumers can shop for policies and subsidies designed to expand coverage to millions of lower earners—would halt. Experts said it could be years before the U.S. again tackled the issue of covering the tens of millions of Americans who lack insurance.
If only the mandate falls, insurers have scratched out backup plans that could potentially be done with support from state officials. These include offering narrow annual windows in which people could buy policies, or allowing plans with narrower benefits and lower premiums, which might entice younger and healthier people to sign up. They plan to press Congress to get rid of the requirements most closely linked to the mandate, should the court not strike those down, too. But with little political will among Republicans to fix a law they dislike, there is little chance a federal replacement to the mandate could get passed."...

Originally Posted by Deb C

I guess I don't have a clue because a vision of what will assist the common good is on my heart. If we lose what is possible then we have given up on a better future.

Signed,
Clueless

The 2020s will come sooner than the end of your lifetime. Take heart, Deb and playright.

Originally Posted by playwrite

anyone talking about single payer, universal care, doing away with insurers, etc., etc. doesn't have a clue.

Once ACA goes down, no one is going to touch health care politics in any meaningful way again for a couple decades.

At best, the GOP will now own whatever misery comes from our current system - starting with the bumping of about 7 million kids between 21-26 off of their parents' insurance.

What we will get is "the ability to buy insurance across state lines" bullshrt (along with limiting the peasants' ability to sue anyone for malpractice). Like with the credit card companies and Delaware, the insurers will all gravitate to that state that offers the least amount of cost and regulation to them.

Think about it. 10-year treasuries are under 2.5% and often these days under 2%; when was the last time you saw a credit card interest rate in the single digits. Why do you think health insurers are going to be any different than the banks and not screw everyone of us to the wall? Under what election result can you imagine where a Congress is going to lift a finger to prevent that?

For nearly everyone on the forum, this was a once in a lifetime shot. It's gone.

Buck up. Move along. And try to stay healthy - you literally can't afford not to.

I can't disagreee. 'Nothing' may be the end result if the ACA goes down, but it's a risk not a certainty. Everything eventually arrives at end-game. This may get us there.

Originally Posted by playwrite

anyone talking about single payer, universal care, doing away with insurers, etc., etc. doesn't have a clue.

Once ACA goes down, no one is going to touch health care politics in any meaningful way again for a couple decades.

At best, the GOP will now own whatever misery comes from our current system - starting with the bumping of about 7 million kids between 21-26 off of their parents' insurance.

What we will get is "the ability to buy insurance across state lines" bullshrt (along with limiting the peasants' ability to sue anyone for malpractice). Like with the credit card companies and Delaware, the insurers will all gravitate to that state that offers the least amount of cost and regulation to them.

Think about it. 10-year treasuries are under 2.5% and often these days under 2%; when was the last time you saw a credit card interest rate in the single digits. Why do you think health insurers are going to be any different than the banks and not screw everyone of us to the wall? Under what election result can you imagine where a Congress is going to lift a finger to prevent that?

For nearly everyone on the forum, this was a once in a lifetime shot. It's gone.

Buck up. Move along. And try to stay healthy - you literally can't afford not to.

To quote Alan Grayson, the Right's health plan is "DIE QUICKLY".

It's a Fourth Turning. Throw conventional wisdom out the window, or at least write a footnote to it that all bets are off.

It's only a matter of time till the majority of us are considered to have a pre-existing condition. Guess whose in charge of deciding if you get health care.

The Savage Arithmetic of the Pre-Existing Condition

She is not alone. I went to the doctor last month, and found out that I have pretty damned high blood pressure. The doctor had me come back four weeks later to do another check, and, yup, really really high blood pressure. I am now on two different drugs to bring it down to a manageable level, drugs that I am going to be on until they wind me in my shroud. I am on my wife's insurance, so again, the cost of those drugs is manageable, but mine is now a house filled with pre-existing conditions.

http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/82...ting-condition

Originally Posted by Deb C

It's only a matter of time till the majority of us are considered to have a pre-existing condition. Guess whose in charge of deciding if you get health care.

The Savage Arithmetic of the Pre-Existing Condition



http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/82...ting-condition

We do need a system with all in same pool-no exclusions. I am weary of the professional politicians whose primary concern is just to be reelected.

Originally Posted by radind

you are correct that this does not affect the funding. I just think that we already spend enough in total to fund a decent health care 'system', but we do not have a real , effective system in place. If we could agree as a nation on a reasonable system, then we could discuss the funding as a separate & vital issue. What we have now is so fragmented that it should not be called a system. I think that having our health care insurance dependent on the employers is a flaw in the current approach. We fund most things through the federal tax system or make special rules for Social Security & Medicare. The approach I favor would not be dependent on the employer choices or the corporate insurance companies( although they would have right to compete) , nor would it be dependent on a single source( ie, the federal government) for all decisions. We should avoid the ACA 'mandates' that are part of the current Supreme Court review.

That was a very interesting post that goes to the heart of my recent thoughts on these issues. And broader issues! Radind is appealing to the Enlightenment tradition: the idea that our rational faculties should be able to design a system to promote the common good. That's what I was brought up on. The trouble is that that approach has been under attack from both the right and the left--especially the academic left--ever since the 1960s. The right opposes the idea of the common good and favors social Darwinism. The left believes justice is a function of race, gender, and (much less often) class. So ideas like this one, above, are being driven out of our public life.

Originally Posted by playwrite

anyone talking about single payer, universal care, doing away with insurers, etc., etc. doesn't have a clue.

Once ACA goes down, no one is going to touch health care politics in any meaningful way again for a couple decades.

At best, the GOP will now own whatever misery comes from our current system - starting with the bumping of about 7 million kids between 21-26 off of their parents' insurance.

What we will get is "the ability to buy insurance across state lines" bullshrt (along with limiting the peasants' ability to sue anyone for malpractice). Like with the credit card companies and Delaware, the insurers will all gravitate to that state that offers the least amount of cost and regulation to them.

Think about it. 10-year treasuries are under 2.5% and often these days under 2%; when was the last time you saw a credit card interest rate in the single digits. Why do you think health insurers are going to be any different than the banks and not screw everyone of us to the wall? Under what election result can you imagine where a Congress is going to lift a finger to prevent that?

For nearly everyone on the forum, this was a once in a lifetime shot. It's gone.

Buck up. Move along. And try to stay healthy - you literally can't afford not to.

This is, as I have noted, the historical record--we had health care debates under Truman, JFK-LBJ, Carter, Clinton, and Obama. But on the other hand, some action will be seen as necessary if the ACA goes down. But you're right--it's more likely to make things worse than better.

Originally Posted by radind

you are correct that this does not affect the funding. I just think that we already spend enough in total to fund a decent health care 'system', but we do not have a real , effective system in place. If we could agree as a nation on a reasonable system, then we could discuss the funding as a separate & vital issue. What we have now is so fragmented that it should not be called a system. I think that having our health care insurance dependent on the employers is a flaw in the current approach. We fund most things through the federal tax system or make special rules for Social Security & Medicare. The approach I favor would not be dependent on the employer choices or the corporate insurance companies( although they would have right to compete) , nor would it be dependent on a single source( ie, the federal government) for all decisions. We should avoid the ACA 'mandates' that are part of the current Supreme Court review.

This is an interesting thought. I wonder would happen if health insurance stopped being a normal employee benefit. Employers don't provide auto or home insurance. Although some employers do offer life insurance, I don't think most people depend on their employers for that. Who thinks, "Wow, I want to work for that company. They have great life insurance benefits!" Without companies and corporations being the middle man, would that force insurance companies to become more competitive? Right now health insurance negotiate with companies on prices who are able to bear the higher prices because they are splitting it with their employees. What if health insurance companies had to do this with the average person? Keep in mind when you call your insurance company to discuss a claim issue, you are not their customer. Your employer is. They have no real incentive to provide good customer service to you.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

That was a very interesting post that goes to the heart of my recent thoughts on these issues. And broader issues! Radind is appealing to the Enlightenment tradition: the idea that our rational faculties should be able to design a system to promote the common good. That's what I was brought up on. The trouble is that that approach has been under attack from both the right and the left--especially the academic left--ever since the 1960s. The right opposes the idea of the common good and favors social Darwinism. The left believes justice is a function of race, gender, and (much less often) class. So ideas like this one, above, are being driven out of our public life.



This is, as I have noted, the historical record--we had health care debates under Truman, JFK-LBJ, Carter, Clinton, and Obama. But on the other hand, some action will be seen as necessary if the ACA goes down. But you're right--it's more likely to make things worse than better.

Thanks. You have eloquently described the essence of the health care debate. I am fed up with both parties and don’t see much improvement in sight. This is one reason that I remain an independent. On some days, I think that a random selection of citizens could do better than our current representatives.

Originally Posted by radind

Thanks. You have eloquently described the essence of the health care debate. I am fed up with both parties and don’t see much improvement in sight. This is one reason that I remain an independent. On some days, I think that a random selection of citizens could do better than our current representatives.

I still like the plan Justin put forward a while back. Make it like jury duty. Random citizens get called up to perform "congress duty". It may be not perfect, but it just might work better than what we have now. I'd also suggest that like with jury duty and how they are sequestered at times and not allowed to speak to the press, the person with "congress duty" is sequestered from lobbyist.

Originally Posted by ASB65

I still like the plan Justin put forward a while back. Make it like jury duty. Random citizens get called up to perform "congress duty". It may be not perfect, but it just might work better than what we have now. I'd also suggest that like with jury duty and how they are sequestered at times and not allowed to speak to the press, the person with "congress duty" is sequestered from lobbyist.

I missed that post , but I like the idea.

Originally Posted by ASB65

This is an interesting thought. I wonder would happen if health insurance stopped being a normal employee benefit. Employers don't provide auto or home insurance. Although some employers do offer life insurance, I don't think most people depend on their employers for that. Who thinks, "Wow, I want to work for that company. They have great life insurance benefits!" Without companies and corporations being the middle man, would that force insurance companies to become more competitive? Right now health insurance negotiate with companies on prices who are able to bear the higher prices because they are splitting it with their employees. What if health insurance companies had to do this with the average person? Keep in mind when you call your insurance company to discuss a claim issue, you are not their customer. Your employer is. They have no real incentive to provide good customer service to you.

If the employer was out of the picture, the insurance industry might just have even more power over who gets treated and who doesn't. As it stands now, if an employer has 500 or more employees, insurance is much cheaper for the employee and *everyone* is covered. I shudder to think how many people with pre-existing conditions would simply be without insurance if they and their families were't able to get it through their employer.

Even as it stands today, most employees pay half of their insurance premium, and the employer, the other half. It amazes me just how much it costs most people to be covered by health insurance through an employment situation. If life and car insurance cost as much as health insurance, we would all be in a world of hurt.

Greed reigns supreme when it comes to profits over people. As I mentioned in another post about a time that people had to buy fire insurance and their homes burnt down if they couldn't afford the cost of buying that insurance. I'm afraid the same thing is happening today in regards to health insurance. It would be much worse if we didn't have places of employment providing at least half of our premiums. Everyone purchasing their own insurance would make it even more of a class system, where only some could afford to be covered. This is why we need a health care system like most other industrialized nations; one that is fair and compassionate and includes everyone, including people who already have an illness.