This is the last weekend to sign-up for insurance to have it kick in on January 1 (although most insurers have agreed to retro cover anyone for the first week of the new year if they sign up before the end of 2013). If Nov had the surge and Dec up to now the deluge, then this weekend is, well, something big!

We're starting with a good base of private signups nearing 1 million and Medicaid expansion nearing 2 million -



state-by-state details here -

http://acasignups.net/

and the guy running this is predicting the private insurance enrolled will reach 1.3-1.5 million by the 12/23 'deadline' -

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/1...of-21K-per-day

Pretty friggin awesome!

Let's just hope this is also the weekend when the toads and toadies score there first win of helping someone, anyone, get health coverage. Because this is the weekend when their number one fan, me, will finally throw in the towel on them and name them accordingly (hint: it begins with a big "L" on their foreheads).

Originally Posted by Deb C

A serious situation is about to become even more serious.

Consider this:

Proposed GME funding cuts taking shape $11 billion. That’s the portion of federal GME funding that President Obama’s administration proposes cutting over the next decade in its fiscal 2014 budget. Broken down on a yearly basis, these cuts represent approximately 10 percent of Medicare’s contribution to GME. Draconian cuts like these could result in serious access issues for patients in need of care—especially with 30 million Americans requesting more health care services in 2014 as a result of the Affordable Care Act. Other proposals to slash GME funding continue to swirl about the halls of Congress as well and, if acted upon, could seriously threaten the future of medicine in America.

http://savegme.org/gme-funding-remai...cal-condition/


It will make our doctor shortage even worse.

Here's why:

It’s a fearful time for medical students


Imagine you, like most traditional medical students, went to college for four years to earn an undergraduate degree. Like many, you might also have obtained a graduate degree or worked for a period of time. You then spend time and money fulfilling extracurricular activities, taking the Medical College Admission Test (MCAT), applying to schools and traveling for interviews. If you are part of the lucky minority — roughly 40 percent — you will gain entrance to a medical school to spend four more years and tens of thousands of dollars to graduate as a physician.


Imagine you do all this, only to find you have no job.


Jobless doctors? At one point, that would have been preposterous, but just last year more than 500 MD graduates in the United States did not obtain residency positions. This total does not include the thousands of osteopathy students and international medical students who were not matched. According to the National Resident Matching Program, the organization that matches allopathic medical students with their graduate medical training sites, more than 13,000 applicants were unmatched in the initial process and participated in a supplemental program instead. In all, 34,355 U.S. and international medical students were competing for 26,392 positions.


This seems like an interesting predicament for a country that fears an imminent physician shortage. By some estimates, the United States will be short more than 60,000 physicians in the next two years. This is also devastating to students. Without a residency position, you cannot practice medicine and therefore cannot earn a living. That is scary news to the average medical student who graduates with more than $160,000 in debt.


At this point you might be wondering what the problem is. Where is the hang up in the system we trust to train an adequate physician workforce? There are actually several problems, all of which come down to the funding of graduate medical education, or GME. GME funding is directly tied to Medicare and indirectly tied to Medicaid. Anything that affects Medicare and Medicaid will invariably affect residency training positions.


The most prominent example is the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. In essence, this bill mandated that reimbursements to hospitals for training doctors would be frozen at 1996 levels. An increase in the number of doctors a hospital trained would bring in no extra government reimbursements. Basically, we can’t train any more doctors than we did in 1996 — even with an aging population and looming shortage.


Unfortunately — or fortunately, depending on how you see the picture — medical schools have increased class sizes and the number of graduating doctors in an effort to stall and/or prevent a national shortage. By 2017, 30 percent more students will be enrolled in medical school than in 2002. As you can probably see, this creates a bottleneck, one that became evident this year. It will only get worse as students who did not match this year apply again next year only to find themselves competing with an increasing number of graduating applicants.


If things continue, further cuts in residency positions will occur. The 2014 fiscal budget proposes $11 billion in Medicare cuts over the next 10 years. This equates to a decrease in GME funding from Medicare by roughly 10 percent a year. We cannot afford to lose 10 percent of our residency positions.


Residency positions are important to the health of our nation and the health care system. They represent a large portion of care for the elderly, disabled and indigent. Residents also reflect the future of medicine. As our nation ages and faces a dramatic increase in the insured population, we cannot afford to face a shortage. As a student of public health, I fear the repercussions for the U.S. health care system. As a medical student, I fear the repercussions for myself. I want to treat patients. I want to work in a community. I want to provide charity care.

Lately, though, I just want a job.

http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2013/12/...-students.html

Good to see you catching on to a REAL issue.

Just be careful not to conflate it with the typical silliness of anti-ACA horseshit, otherwise you will slip easily into the "let them get sick and die" wing of nut cases.

Wow, with this weekend surge, looks like we're going over 2 million for private coverage and 4 million for Medicaid.!
GOPhers worst nightmare, and its gonna get worse for them.

Originally Posted by The Rani

From a healthcare organization that is financially motivated to keep patients healthy rather than sick:

Nutritional Update for Physicians: Plant-Based Diets

A physician recently told me that, I think it was Denmark, stopped subsidizing meat. It made a huge difference in the health of the country. He didn't mention if they had a problem with GMO's like we do in this country.

A genetically modified vegetable or fruit is actually far different from the organic stuff we see in our gardens. GMO vegetables are actually plants that were genetically-altered, as scientists have changed their gene structure, to either make the vegetable resistant to drought or excess water, as well as to make the vegetables pest-resistant. However, critics of GMO technology argue that GMO crops and food items pose a number of potential health and environmental hazards, which genetic engineering companies have failed to inform the public. Here are a number of reasons why you shouldn’t buy GMO vegetables, grains, and fruits.

http://geneticallyengineeredfoodnews.com/gmo-vegetables

Originally Posted by The Rani

This is why I see the current debate as being irrelevant. Public health is a much larger issue than medical insurance.

From what I've read, some European countries have banned them altogether.
There's not a lot of hard research out there that shows if/why GMOs are dangerous, but I have no doubt that Big Ag would have squash that data if it did exist just like the tobacco companies did decades ago.

Sure seemed to be relevant to you all a couple months ago with all the sky is falling hysteria. Human nature I guess. Too funny.

As a retired old fart … 38 years as a medical laboratorian who both performed blood tests, urine tests and other unmentionable tasks, and then retired into the EMT profession, I’ve had a chance to observe and develop some intuitive perspectives on health, healthful living, what makes a difference, and what doesn’t make a difference.

I have no links to authoritative references of famous medical scientists’ conclusions. Especially during the last 6+ years of running 911 calls with the ambulance, some observations about our patients:

1. Smoking is, without any doubt in my mind, the single most destructive thing that a person can do to themselves. I may be wrong, but I can’t remember a single heart attack that we’ve transported who was NOT a current or recent smoker. And that says nothing about the increased cancer risks from almost all cancers.

2. Diabetes. Diabetes is a terrible, terrible disease. So many of the general public think that it only means a high blood sugar, but it is so much more and so much more pernicious and deadly. And its effects are so uncomfortable and detract so much from quality of life. And so many with diabetes ignore its seriousness and seem to think that they can mess with it and win.

3. Morbid obesity is clearly a bad, bad thing. Young people seem to get away with it for quite a while, but once folks get into their 50’s and 60’s, it can get very bad. Most get diabetes Type II early on, and then … Katy bar the door.

4. Diet. There seems to be all kinds of fanatics on all sides when it comes to diet.

a. Clearly, simply limiting cholesterol in the diet will not control total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol or HDL cholesterol. It will help some people a little, some people a fair amount and some people not at all.

b. Eating no meat, but getting most of one’s calories from carbohydrates doesn’t work for a lot of people.

c. Limiting calories, eating lots of veggies, some fruits, and meat and eggs in moderation seems to be a good way for most people to design a healthful diet.

d. Eliminating eggs makes no sense at all, as long as they are consumed in moderation.

e. Eating prepared foods from a box obtained from the grocery store is akin to poisoning oneself.

f. Sugar, white flour, white rice and potatoes are right up there with rat poison.

g. Despite many attempts to get a case against coffee, it doesn’t seem to cause any harm at all.

5. On the positive side – EXERCISE!! Exercise is wonderful, it is splendid, it is life-saving, it improves both the quality and the quantity of life!! Even being a bit fat doesn’t seem to matter much, if only one is fit and fat.

6. Finally, many of these issues are under our own control. Many others, of course, are not. Our society has built a multitude of processes, cultural customs, perspectives, attitudes that work against us, but ultimately, we citizens have more than 50% of the control over the physical quality of our lives.

Street drugs and reckless sex are even more dangerous than smoking -- but otherwise I concur.

Potatoes themselves aren't that bad; it's what people put on them that makes them horrible. I can make a fast-food meal out of a salad and a baked potato, which is better than just about anything else.

... If anything I would change the items on the list of food-stamp eligibility so that 'prepared foods from a box', sugar, high-fructose corn syrup and its derivatives (I came close to putting a vile word for part of 'fructose'), white rice, and colas would be off the list. Let people make their own lasagna -- it will do them good -- unless they have a bona fide handicap that prevents them from cooking from scratch. Whole wheat is bad for gout.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Street drugs and reckless sex are even more dangerous than smoking -- but otherwise I concur.

I taught cessation classes for the American Lung Association for a few years. The best kept secret of the tobacco companies is that cigarettes are a very addictive and dangerous drug. This is one reason they try to hook people at a very young age. They know that if they can seduce teenagers to start smoking, they will have a consumer of their product for a very long time.

One of the reasons that cigarettes, and other tobacco products, are the most addictive drugs out there, is because they are a multipurpose drug. It's a downer when one is anxious or upset, and it's an upper when your tired and want a lift.

There are numerous toxins in cigarettes that make them extremely dangerous to the consumer of tobacco products and others who are subjected to second and third hand smoke.

What's in a Cigarette?

There are approximately 600 ingredients in cigarettes. When burned, they create more than 4,000 chemicals. At least 50 of these chemicals are known to cause cancer, and many are poisonous.
Many of these chemicals are also found in consumer products, but these products have warning labels. While the public is warned about the danger of the poisons in these products, there is no such warning for the toxins in tobacco smoke.


Here are a few of the chemicals in tobacco smoke, and other places they are found:

• Acetone – found in nail polish remover
• Acetic Acid – an ingredient in hair dye
• Ammonia – a common household cleaner
• Arsenic – used in rat poison
• Benzene – found in rubber cement
• Butane – used in lighter fluid
• Cadmium – active component in battery acid
• Carbon Monoxide – released in car exhaust fumes
• Formaldehyde – embalming fluid
• Hexamine – found in barbecue lighter fluid
• Lead – used in batteries
• Naphthalene – an ingredient in moth balls
• Methanol – a main component in rocket fuel
• Nicotine – used as insecticide
• Tar – material for paving roads
• Toluene - used to manufacture paint

http://www.lung.org/stop-smoking/abo...cigarette.html

Originally Posted by TnT

6. Finally, many of these issues are under our own control. Many others, of course, are not. Our society has built a multitude of processes, cultural customs, perspectives, attitudes that work against us, but ultimately, we citizens have more than 50% of the control over the physical quality of our lives.

It is very true that some of the issues you mentioned are very much under our control. Yet, it appears to me, that there is a growing lack of control with the many toxins, like pesticides and other air pollutants that we breath on a daily basis. Many autoimmune illnesses are found to be caused by many of the toxins that are in our everyday living.

Originally Posted by The Rani

LOL ... good one!
Like all women, I am quite hysterical most of the time.

Sorry, but no, you don't own it. But maybe you and your sister in arms are more familiar with it since you are now trying to change the subject while your male counterparts are, well, you know, off pouting and trying the silent treatment.
]

Originally Posted by Deb C

I taught cessation classes for the American Lung Association for a few years. The best kept secret of the tobacco companies is that cigarettes are a very addictive and dangerous drug. This is one reason they try to hook people at a very young age. They know that if they can seduce teenagers to start smoking, they will have a consumer of their product for a very long time.

One of the reasons that cigarettes, and other tobacco products, are the most addictive drugs out there, is because they are a multipurpose drug. It's a downer when one is anxious or upset, and it's an upper when your tired and want a lift.

There are numerous toxins in cigarettes that make them extremely dangerous to the consumer of tobacco products and others who are subjected to second and third hand smoke.

Arsenic, cadmium, and lead? I'm surprised that mercury isn't part of the package. That said, smoke is one of the strongest and swiftest means of putting toxic substances into the body, which explains the strength of crack cocaine as an addictive substance. The most likely cause of death from a fire is smoke inhalation. Lit cigarettes are basically small fires creating some exotic and dangerous chemistry.

http://www.lung.org/stop-smoking/abo...cigarette.html

The best reason to never start.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Yeah, my bad.
"It's time for national healthcare" is obviously about the best way to get people more medical insurance, not the best way improve public health.
Thanks for the correction ... hooray for playdude!

Wow, you passed all the other expected croakings, like "well, they haven't actually paid for their new insurance" or "well, it's just social welfare income distribution." No, you jumped right to the end-of-the-train with "well, it's not actually health care, it's just insurance!"

Rani is such a special toadie. There she is fully covered with all the health insurance anyone could possible hope for telling other people without any insurance that it's just no big deal because its not really health care.

Who could possible lay out a sanctimonious hypocritical toad turd bigger than that???

Originally Posted by The Rani

I am surely The Queen of All Turds, as I have a million-dollar medical insurance policy with no deductible. My neurosurgeon boyfriend pays for the whole thing.
Plus, I drink tons of soda and smoke like a chimney so I can get the most out of that policy. Let other for folks pay for my lifestyle. Screw that personal responsibility stuff; I only pretend to be a nihilist.
You got me pegged ... hypocritical toadie all the way ... I am outed!

Good, self-recognition is a big step in the right direction in cleaning up one's act.

I rooting for ya!

One less toadie in the world is almost as good as millions getting health coverage for the first time!

Originally Posted by The Rani

Is "cleaning up my act" dropping my health insurance and bad habits, or making no personal changes but rooting for Democrats?
I need some guidance so I can be a non-hypocritical non-toadie like you.

I would suggest not taking for granted, let alone denigrating, a benefit (insurance) that you have that millions (the uninsured) could until recently only hope for.

Originally Posted by The Rani

You got it.
Tonight I'll eat a 20 oz. steak and wash it down with 5 shots of Jack Daniels. Then perhaps an after-dinner cigar.
Tomorrow I'll join the Democratic Party. Obamacare will surely save me. From myself.
Hooray for playdude!

So you want to keep flailing around, hey? Okay.

Your meatless organic magic nachos aren't going to do a thing to help a parent whose 9 year old got hit by a car, a spouse whose husband has just been diagnose with a brain tumor, or a dad who can no longer work because of a herniated disk, all of whom never smoked, drank excessively or voted for Obama. And that is true even if your magic meatless organic nachos were created by some shaman under a pyramid of crystals at a vortex in Sedona.

Health insurance will.

For me to have to tell you that just shows the lengths you'll go to not owning up to saying something really really stupid.

Originally Posted by playwrite

[IMG]

Your meatless organic magic nachos aren't going to do a thing to help a parent whose 9 year old got hit by a car, a spouse whose husband has just been diagnose with a brain tumor, or a dad who can no longer work because of a herniated disk, all of whom never smoked, drank excessively or voted for Obama. And that is true even if your magic meatless organic nachos were created by some shaman under a pyramid of crystals at a vortex in Sedona.

Health insurance will.

For me to have to tell you that just shows the lengths you'll go to not owning up to saying something really really stupid.

Bingo.

We have the worst medical-payments system in the world (if one is not in the military system, Medicare, or Medicaid, all of which is single-payer), one predicated on the assumption that so long as one gives the Right People whatever they want without accountability that they will get good results.

Nobody with a choice does things that way. First it is inordinately expensive. Second, it doesn't even work well. The working poor have been getting the shaft, but if they can be put on Medicaid... well, that is single-payer, isn't it? Maybe we would be better off if people got solid pay for their work -- but that is arguably too much to ask for when we have such grubby plutocrats and executives.

Sure, it's welfare. But it at least keeps working-poor people from having to decide between medical insurance and such luxuries as food, fuel, air conditioning (if you live in the South or the Midsection), commuter costs, and clothes that don't call attention to one's unworthiness in a society that worships indulgence and treats poverty as the worst of human sins if one is poor.

I won't feel guilty about going on the Medicaid expansion. By getting one of the few jobs that I can get at my age due to pervasive age discrimination that doesn't make me contemplate slashing my wrists, but one that does real good for humanity I am getting a fair deal. Sure it's welfare -- but so are underpriced water to giant landowners, tax abatements to businesses that threaten to move, and military expenditures to protect "American interests abroad" a/k/a corporate investments that rely upon sweetheart deals with corrupt governments that enable American corporations to have no fear of an end to a gravy train that depends upon people getting starvation pay.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Bingo.

We have the worst medical-payments system in the world (if one is not in the military system, Medicare, or Medicaid, all of which is single-payer), one predicated on the assumption that so long as one gives the Right People whatever they want without accountability that they will get good results.

Nobody with a choice does things that way. First it is inordinately expensive. Second, it doesn't even work well. The working poor have been getting the shaft, but if they can be put on Medicaid... well, that is single-payer, isn't it? Maybe we would be better off if people got solid pay for their work -- but that is arguably too much to ask for when we have such grubby plutocrats and executives.

Sure, it's welfare. But it at least keeps working-poor people from having to decide between medical insurance and such luxuries as food, fuel, air conditioning (if you live in the South or the Midsection), commuter costs, and clothes that don't call attention to one's unworthiness in a society that worships indulgence and treats poverty as the worst of human sins if one is poor.

I won't feel guilty about going on the Medicaid expansion. By getting one of the few jobs that I can get at my age due to pervasive age discrimination that doesn't make me contemplate slashing my wrists, but one that does real good for humanity I am getting a fair deal. Sure it's welfare -- but so are underpriced water to giant landowners, tax abatements to businesses that threaten to move, and military expenditures to protect "American interests abroad" a/k/a corporate investments that rely upon sweetheart deals with corrupt governments that enable American corporations to have no fear of an end to a gravy train that depends upon people getting starvation pay.

I agree with everything here particularly the Medicaid aspects.

As I've pointed out ad naseum, I'm for single payer. I don't see it as a panacea for all the ills of our health care system, but a necessary step. I also see we are not ready to take that step. It's going to have to evolve and Obamacare has us further down the road in doing that than anything since Medicare in the 1960s.

It's not the time to denigrate it; it's time to set its foundation (e.g. Medicaid Expansion in every state) and think through and support the next step (e.g., single payer in one of the state exchanges preferable California's).

Also, the employer mandate could get very interesting next year from the viewpoint that single payer will NEVER happen as long as employer-based insurance not only exists but is heavily subsidized by the govt. Most people who support single payer have never considered the near political impossibility of that; too busy denigrating the one thing that has come along and thrown the dice again.

Awesome -



and reality starts to set in -

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...-here-to-stay/

Wonkbook: This quote shows why Obamacare is here to stay

Sen. Ron Johnson, a tea party Republican from Wisconsin, knows that the politics of Obamacare are changing.

“It’s no longer just a piece of paper that you can repeal and it goes away,” he told the New York Times. “There’s something there. We have to recognize that reality. We have to deal with the people that are currently covered under Obamacare.”

Jan. 1 isn't likely to be a glitch-free day for Obamacare. There will be people who try to use their insurance and find they can't, or it's not the plan they meant to buy, or it's not a plan that covers their doctor. But those problems will, eventually, be solved. And their wake will be a game-changing reality: At least 2 million people will have health insurance through Obamacare's exchanges, and more than 4 million people will have health insurance through the law's Medicaid expansion.

The GOP's campaign against Obamacare has been most effective when Republicans could claim, reasonably or not, that the law was taking something away from people: Canceling their plans, or penalizing them for going without insurance, or changing their doctor. But by the end of March, it's likely that at least 8 million to 10 million people will be getting insurance through Obamacare.

At that point, the politics of loss aversion shift. Obamacare's major changes to existing insurance plans will be finished. It will be the GOP's promises of repeal that threaten what people already have. As Johnson says, "We have to recognize that reality. We have to deal with the people that are currently covered under Obamacare.”

That realization is how repeal-and-replace becomes criticize-and-reform. Johnson suggests ending the individual mandate and letting people buy less comprehensive plans. Sen. Kelly Ayotte wants to do more to promote health savings accounts. Almost all Republicans want to repeal the medical-device tax, and they may ultimately decide they want to repeal the excise tax, too. Medical malpractice reform remains an option, as does changing the way the law limits discrimination against older applicants.

Republicans who want to reform Obamacare remain the (growing) minority. But in another sign that Republicans see the politics of Obamacare changing, there's more talk of producing an actual Republican alternative before the 2014 elections. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), for instance, plans to unveil the successor to his Patients' Choice Act act early next year. That, too, is an admission that something like the Affordable Care Act is here to stay, and Republicans need to begin proposing policy for a post-health reform world rather than fantasizing about a return to a pre-health reform world.

I guess GOP is learning that some cats not only swim pretty well but can bite you -

Originally Posted by The Rani

No, I am AGREEING with you.
Medical insurance cures brain cancer and keeps kids from getting run over by cars. Not sure if it lets people with herniated disks get back to work; that might be disability insurance you're thinking of.
But, that was only a slight error in an otherwise brilliant post ... hooray for playdude!

ETA:
What I'd really like to do with my Obamacare coverage is get me some free fake knee surgery:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/26/health...surgery-study/

No, health insurance pays the bills, making the trauma of those situations a tad bit more bearable.

But you knew that.

I think the time has come to let this go.

I've noticed in a few posts references-in effect-to practical politics. At this point, in terms of practical politics, what is possible?

Originally Posted by TimWalker

I've noticed in a few posts references-in effect-to practical politics. At this point, in terms of practical politics, what is possible?

State level is where there's the greatest potential. I see single payer in the future of a couple of state exchanges - if one of them is Calif, it's all over for the private primary (that's a Rani clarification) insurers.

National level depends on the 2014 elections but even with a GOP gain of the Senate and keeping the House, not much significance - if GOP gains both Houses lots of huffing and puffing but no there there; if Dems keep the Senate and pick up some seats in the House maybe a few minor fixes to the ACA with the Dems giving on some of the tax provisions in return for some sweetening the Medicaid Expansion pie for the recalcitrant states to accept and claim some sort of victory for holding out on giving the most needy in their state health coverage - that's the world we live in. Obama could fart magic ponies and it won't change a thing on this issue.

This is getting a lot of attention over on Kos (approaching 500 comments). I offer it without comment (well, I did bold/underline some aspects) to see what others think -

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/1...r-is-dangerous

Opting out of ACA because it’s not single payer is dangerous

Lawrence O’Donnell had a guest on his Thursday "The Last Word" show that illustrates a problem with the left. It also illustrates a problem with the very young. To be sure, this problem was created by the baby boomers. The youth, specifically on the left, tend to believe, many times correctly, that their interests are left out of policy. That is what Carl Gibson believes. He believes this specifically as it applies to the Affordable Care Act. For that reason, he has opted to not sign up for the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) and instead he will pay the penalty.

Carl Gibson is a well-known young and influential activist. He is the co-founder of US Uncut. He is also a prolific blogger at Huffington Post. He reports for Occupy.com. Carl Gibson has a platform. I interviewed him on my Move to Amend Reports radio show a few months ago. I found him to be very engaging, knowledgeable, and convincing. It is for this reason that the article he wrote for ReaderSupportedNews.org (rsn) was so disconcerting.

Carl Gibson laid out his mental path, the argument he made to himself for not signing up for the Affordable Care Act. His argument makes sense only if he is trying to convince himself not to do something he intrinsically knows he should do.

Gibson’s analysis is basically this. He exercises. He eats well. He does not take the flu shot. He meditates. So far in his 26 years of life he has only had the sniffles. His biggest healthcare cost was $6,000 for a surgery in 2011 when he broke his elbow. Even without insurance he was at near break–even as his premiums and deductibles would be close to that. Based on his current earnings, his out of pocket healthcare cost would be 15 percent of his income. In 2013 he was run off the road. A closer clinic refused to see him because he was uninsured. The hospital he drove to for an X-ray, bandage, and sling cost $2,500. He figures he would still be ahead in 2013 opting to be uninsured.

Carl Gibson misses several things. First, he has a propensity for accidents. In my 52 years I have had no accidents requiring hospitalization even as a cyclist for over 12 years. Second, the prices he was quoted as an uninsured person were likely subsidized by all those paying insurance as well as taxes. Third, not taking the flu shot is not a responsible thing to do, especially if one is uninsured. The swine flu is the prevailing strain this year and there have been several flu deaths in the Houston area already and likely throughout the country.

After Carl Gibson laid out the reasons he chose to opt out of Obamacare, he went into the issues Obamacare failed to address. Gibson is absolutely correct that a single payer system would have been the preferred option. It removes profits, executive salaries, and unnecessary overhead simply to pay a bill. He is correct that health insurance companies are nothing but entities created to profit off of the sick. He is correct that political bribery is responsible for a much less than optimal Affordable Care Act.

Lawrence O’Donnell attempted to convince Carl Gibson of his folly by bringing Gov. Howard Dean and Ezra Klein to his show for a pleasant debate. Dean agreed with much of what Gibson said but in effect said this was all that was unattainable at this time. He advised Gibson that he still needed to opt in to Obamacare to ensure he is protected from possible future catastrophe. Ezra Klein was a bit blunt. He said one could do the jerk-ish thing and be a free rider. Ezra however gave Gibson a civics lesson we have failed to teach many of our young. He said:

It is a mistake to think about yourself of having a singular relationship with the healthcare system. To say I am young and that’s my relationship to healthcare is wrong. One day you are going to be old. You sound healthy but one day you are going to be sick. And if every young person, every healthy person starts to game the system, then when they are old, when they are sick, there will be no system there that is affordable to take care of them.

It is really that simple. Ezra Klein called this one right. Klein also made an important point that generally goes unnoticed. In a single payer system, premiums are not age-based and as such the young likely subsidized the old much more than under Obamacare. Under Obamacare premiums for the old can be up to 300 percent of those of the young.

Carl Gibson is a leader. There are many other young leaders that follow him throughout social media. As a leader and an activist it is his responsibility to be fully informed on critical issues that can have material long lasting health and financial effects on those who follow him, those who listen to him, and those who look up to him.

Carl Gibson and other young activists and leaders must stay in the healthcare debate. Obamacare is not the end of making the US healthcare system better for all. It is just the beginning. This country needs Gibson and all the young activists to be a part of demanding policy changes. They must be there continuously at every election if they want to be heard.

The Affordable Care Act and many other policies that affect the poor, the middle class, and specifically the youth would be much better if politicians knew these groups would remain engaged. The plutocracy depends on actions like Gibson’s and others to snuff incremental change because they are confident that absent an outright revolution, they will always get the outcomes they want.

Carl Gibson’s choice of opting out of the Affordable Care Act should be reconsidered for his own good and as an example to others. Moreover, he should be at the forefront to ensure not only that young people sign up, but that they stay engaged and make the Affordable Care Act and other policies more fair for us all going forward.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Sure, and thanks for the enlightenment!

...and by "enlightenment", you mean: "read a bunch of blogs"?!!


Prince

PS:

Originally Posted by Rani

I'm off to grab my steak dinner ...

Such 'risque'-behavior, M' Lady.

Originally Posted by playwrite

I think the time has come to let this go.

LOL!

Ah, "The Vain Imagination of a Fly"!
Would that I actually were a frog!


Prince

PS: "Largo al factotum"! x9!

Just because you can say that you now have insurance, doesn't mean that you can afford health care.

""Increasingly, experts in health insurance are becoming concerned that many of these first-time buyers will be in for a shock when they get medical care next year and discover they're on the hook for most of the initial cost."

'Sticker shock' over Obamacare bolsters single-payer argument

New reporting by AP underscores systemic problems with healthcare system based on for-profit insurance model

In addition, because the state-level exchanges from which participants in Obamacare must purchase their plans are so complicated, many consumers—especially those with little experience navigating the private insurance marketplace—won't possess the technical or financial savvy to calculate the best plan for themselves or their family.

As the political uproar surrounding the Affordable Care Act has played out over recent months, one single fact remains: the private insurance model—on which the law widely known as Obamacare is based—is more complicated, more expensive, and provides less coverage than a simple, "everybody in/nobody out," single-payer model that almost every other advanced country in the world enjoys.

And even within the debate about whether or not Obamacare is a "step forward" or a "step back" for healthcare delivery in the U.S., what's become increasingly clear—as was predicted by progressive critics of the Obamacare model—is that though portions of the law undoubtedly improve the kinds of coverage that some people receive, others are still excluded from the system entirely and among those who are now purchasing insurance for the first time in their lives many will face "sticker shock" at the high premiums or out-sized deductibles.
As new reporting by The Associated Press highlights:

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2013/decemb...payer-argument