My post was intended as parody. I should stop. (Writing more egregiously than that, I once got fan-mail and an invitation to speak on talk radio. :smack: )
John Roberts might make his decision; now let him enforce it!
But the same problem comes up: some future President that we don’t like might be encouraged to do something unilateral, something we don’t like as much.
Suppose a conservative Republican gets elected President in '16, and unilaterally defunds the ACA. Just cuts it dead. Or privatizes Social Security. Or invades Iran…
We really don’t want a “Unitary Executive.”
That’s a point I’ve been trying to make in regards to selective enforcement of laws. While a President can’t refuse to spend money, apparently he can simply choose not to enforce the law. Every employer and individual could be exempt from the mandate by simple executive decision.
Single payer is insurance. If you’re trying to draw a line between the ACA as insurance and a utopian ideal of single payer, know that ACA is a step towards that. Yes, most people do want single payer, but as far as options go, the ACA is better than what we have now and I believe most people want that.
I don’t want corporations to get bigger either, but as far as health insurance goes, the ACA is better for America and its simply a step that must be taken. Ask these same Americans if they want single payer, and they’ll say yes. The ACA is an intermediate step to that
Overall costs will go down, along with increases in people getting preventive care and a slower rise of our increasingly bloated spending on health care. That’s a good thing. Plus, it gets us closer to single payer, which would be a great thing
Some people pay a lot more than that, plus increases would help to subsidize high-risk people who may not be able to get insurance right now. I’d be happier and prouder to be in a country that’s willing to pay more to insure more people than having low cost health care that leaves tens of millions off the books until they need it. And again, higher costs won’t be for everyone, and it would benefit them too despite the higher cost because nothing is higher than having to pay for medical treatment out of pocket.
Its not good because its from Heritage, its good because its the nightmare socialist plan claimed by the extreme right wing. It is a palatable plan they can and have accepted, only now they’re all turning tail and running from it because Obama’s going to get the credit for it. It is good because it represents a next step in the evolution of our health care towards a single payer system, and it is good because it covers tens of millions of people that have otherwise been denied.
And please, “rammed” through Congress? The specific bill was debated for like 10 months, health care itself has been having reform attempts for 60 years. From the original bill, hundreds of amendments by the GOP were considered and put into the bill, single payer was removed, and we’ve had 3 years to get used to it and the main effects haven’t even been felt yet. It has gotten PLENTY of time to be debated, argued, amended, and read through cover to cover, backwards and forwards, inside and out. Don’t ever call it rammed through again. It was as comprehensively dissected as a bill could be by everyone. Everyone except those who continue to listen to or manufacture misinformation knows what it contains and what the implications will be. This is a good and decent bill that we all want, and that some of us have problems admitting we want it simply because it is backed by a black man with a “D” next to his political affiliation.
Hell, the guy who implemented the system in a state was actually nominated by the GOP! They nominated the GOP Health Care Guy! So they can shut their pieholes about this being an evil socialist plan. The ACA is basically the bipartisan plan that both the GOP and Dems agreed on. Only one side is pissing themselves that the other will get credit for it
The system is broken BECAUSE so many refuse to participate in it, driving up costs for everyone and pricing new users out of the pool of potential buyers. With low cost premiums and tens of millions of people on the system, that is the ONLY way it can be fixed. The influx of cash and patients into the system will make it better and it was only the federal government that had the power to force that. It was a great law and I’m proud that it’s happening in my lifetime
I don’t think that’s true. The people who don’t participate pay higher costs than those with insurance. If a cashpayer doesn’t negotiate, he pays up to 5 times more than a private insurance company pays for a procedure. If he does negotiate or the hospital is forced to settle becuase he can’t pay, they usually still get 2 to 3 times more. Cashpayers subsidize lower insurance and Medicare rates. With the elimination of cashpayers from the pool, doctors and hospitals will have to raise their rates for everyone else, or accept a large cut in income.
Because the freedom to be poor, sick and stupid is the fundamental right of every American and it must be protected at all costs. Amarite?
If you could just explain to this socialist, elitist, Obama desciple… what does “freedom loving american” actually mean in this day and age?
The law doesn’t stop us from being poor, sick, or stupid. In fact, it makes us poorer because now Americans are required to prioritize the purchase of insurance over rent, food, and getting to work.
I thought it meant “Any twit stupid and gullible enough to believe Fox News and the Republican party”.
How do you figure? Did they have no health care expenses before they had Obamacare? Seems like that saves money for many people, makes them healthier and more productive; fewer sick days means higher income for hourly workers.
There is no legal requirement to pay your rent or buy food. There is now a legal requirement to carry health insurance. A person without insurance can wait to pay medical bills until they can afford it. A person with insurance has to pay the premiums or lose their insurance, and then they get hit with a penalty to boot.
It’s like trying to solve homelessness by requiring people to have homes.
And then subsidizing their rent. You keep forgetting that part.
Except for the fact that, in CA at least, the basic insurance is yours for the asking. The subsidy covers 100% of the premiums.
Now, when the homeless show up at the ER, the hospital will get at least 60% of the bill, instead of 0%.
They can apply at any library, using free web access and actually receive mail, in case you wonder about cards. Many have enough income to keep their most prized possessions in storage and can get the office to accept mail. And there is still “General Delivery”. When I asked in San Francisco about getting General Delivery in that city, I was told that one office in downtown still handling mail addressed to:L
Recipient Name
General Delivery
San Francisco
CA
adaher: You keep forgetting many things. Try expanding your range of vision.
Not at all, I just don’t think it’s as relevant as you do. You are still telling the homeless guy that he has to pay his rent, even if he’d rather eat a little better instead. And vice versa, if the government required people to buy a certain amount of food, even if it paid for most of that food, it would still be telling people they had to prioritize food over everything else.
The right way to do this is simply to do what we already do with housing and food: offer aid if people want it, leave them alone if they don’t.
It seems like the ACA operates with the efficiency and “can do” spirit of a government bureaucracy, with all of the love and caring of a for-profit corporation. It’s the absolute worst of both worlds.
I understand the arguments for single-payer. I understand the arguments for market based general care with high deductible catastrophic coverage for the unexpected driven by market forces. Both sides have their good and bad points. But the U.S. has historically combined the worst features of each into our health coverage. The ACA continues this bastard hybridization by mandating, under penalty (er tax, Justice Roberts) of law, to keep up the insanity.
First, health care shouldn’t be tied to employment. It’s absurd. If I quit my job and work for the guy down the street, I don’t lose my house or my car insurance. I pay for that myself. There is no reason that health insurance shouldn’t be the same. The ACA mandates employers (large ones) to provide it and doesn’t allow me to participate in the exchanges if my employer offers it. It strengthens this ridiculous tie.
Just go to the doctor’s office to see the insanity. My neighbor who fakes his disability pays nothing. Zero. I work and pay a hell of a lot for my insurance and a copay. My elderly neighbor, who is richer than me, gets free government health insurance, and has a copay. The younger person, who is poorer than me, but not as poor as the first guy, pays out of pocket about 5 times what I pay because he didn’t buy health insurance (even though a routine doctor visit isn’t something that is unexpected and can be “insured” against).
People who are saying this is a “step” in the right direction are sorely mistaken, IMHO. It solidifies into law the worst aspects of our health care delivery methods. We will never get market-based health care because there will be an entrenched bureaucracy, and we won’t get single payer because of an entrenched (and more so by this law) insurance industry.
This law illustrates why compromise isn’t always the best thing. If the wife and I live in LA and I want to stay at home this weekend, but she wants to go to Vegas, a good compromise isn’t driving half way and staying in the desert all weekend.
Ok, the Cashpaying non-participants subsidize others. Do you have a cite for the amount of the subsidy? Any cite to support that assertion?
What about the non-participants who do not pay - what effect do they have on the rates for everyone else? What is the effect on them and their families when they don’t pay?
I cannot cite that other than to urge everyone to take a look at your bill if you don’t have insurance. You pay a heck of a lot more. As in, several times more. YOU are subsidizing others, they aren’t subsidizing you, if you are a cashpayer.
I have exactly one data point to share (and Dopers are going to get tired of seeing it, so remember):
ER visit with real insurance card:
Insurance billed for $2800
Insurance has high deductible; insurance company says “all yours, sucker”
Hospital calls re. why hasn’t insurance paid?
Me: Deductible
Hospital: What we thought; new bill: $600, OK?
I have in front of me a note from insurance re blood work
Original bill: $312.01
Amount accepted as full because of insurance: $192.99
Yes, they also put that to deductible. I owe the $192.99.
Better than 312.01, but not $504/mo premium better.
I’m a progressive. I despise Obama as a Wall Street tool. I want Obamacare.
You may be wrong about a lot of things.
You’re probably getting used to being wrong.
I can vouch for usedtobe. I’ve had the misfortune to visit the ER on two occassions without insurance. Thankfully, nothing too horrible. The hospital automatically deducts 35%-40% off the bill if you are self-pay. The higher rates are charged for those with insurance. The same goes at most doctor’s offices. I pay less than what the insured patient pays. The exception being, lab work.