Reid says Obamacare just a step toward eventual single-payer system

[PoliticAverse]

...

But already, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is predicting those plans, and the whole system of distributing them, will eventually be moot.

Reid said he thinks the country has to “work our way past” insurance-based health care during a Friday night appearance on Vegas PBS’ program “Nevada Week in Review.”

“What we’ve done with Obamacare is have a step in the right direction, but we’re far from having something that’s going to work forever,” Reid said.

When then asked by panelist Steve Sebelius whether he meant ultimately the country would have to have a health care system that abandoned insurance as the means of accessing it, Reid said: “Yes, yes. Absolutely, yes.”

Read the rest at: http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2013/aug/10/reid-says-obamacare-just-step-toward-eventual-sing/

[sufrommich]

1. Good,I hope sooner than later. nt

[Demeter]

2. Anyone Who Believes Anything Hairy Reed Says Is NOT Paying Attention

Get it in writing, on a legal contract.

[nadinbrzezinski]

30. It's not Harry

It's a collapsing medical system. The ACA just buys it a decade...maybe.

[Demeter]

47. Trust me, It's Harry

And it's not the medical system collapsing, it's the privatized, medicine-for-profit, Capitalistic Insurance scheme.

[leftstreet]

3. How does mandating insurance premiums lead to their extinction?

[Nye Bevan]

5. Let me try to explain.

Pretend for a moment that instead of the ACA in its current form, President Obama had succeeded in pushing through something like Britain's National Health Service. Everyone gets health care for life, paid for by an extra 7% tax on everyone's income.

Wonderful, no?

But isn't that 7% tax a "mandated insurance premium"? Oh no, when I phrase it like that it's horrible!

The ACA is a cobbled-together, ugly approximation of a true universal care system. It's a lot better than what it replaces and Reid is entirely right in pointing out that it is a step in the right direction.

[leftstreet]

7. Try again

Your comparison would only work if the ACA included a public option

Britain's health system is nonprofit
apples oranges

[Nye Bevan]

11. My point is that more and more people will realize that

the ACA is an ugly approximation of a single payer system. The essential features are in place like no discrimination based upon health, and premiums dependant upon income. So when people realize this, they will ask (I hope) why the hell we need these insurance companies inserting themselves into the picture, trying to profit by nitpicking claims and reducing doctors' income? With no medical underwriting (thanks to the ACA) healthcare really is not "insurance" any more. So the ACA makes it a lot easier to say, hey, let's just get rid of the extra profit-making layer (the insurance companies) that really serves no useful purpose.

That's what I hope will happen but I do admit it may not be as soon as we would like.

[leftstreet]

13. But they'll be breaking the law

If people 'realize' the ACA is bullshit and say hey let's not buy this for-profit insurance, they'll be penalized and forced to pay a 'tax.'

Again, how does that get the US closer to single payer national healthcare?

[Nye Bevan]

22. No, I didn't mean break the law. I meant fix the system.

Last edited Sat Aug 10, 2013, 11:31 AM - Edit history (1)

One approach is to squeeze the allowable profit margins of the insurance companies. More and more they will exit from the system; eventually none will be left. What then? The government needs to step in with its own system. Mission accomplished!

[HiPointDem]

80. bullshit. 1) once you subsidize private corporations it makes it harder to stop, not easier. it

establishes power bases that employ people who will fight to hold on to their jobs.

2) premiums set by the insurance companies are different depending on geography, health condition, age, & factors like smoking. it's nothing like nhs.

[Nye Bevan]

82. If you believe that under the ACA premiums depend upon "health condition",

then you unfortunately have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the law is all about.

[HiPointDem]

83. yes, you're right. they can only charge different rates based on geography, risk factors, & age.

that's much better, because it will allow similar profit margins with less work.

[Nye Bevan]

85. And it allows someone with cancer to get millions of dollars worth of chemotherapy

in exchange for a premium of a few hundred bucks per month.

[HiPointDem]

86. yes, that's good. but it's a subsidy to both big pharma & big insurance, allowing them to profit

big-time at public expense.

and making it harder to take them off subsidies in the future.

it basically adds to their economic & political power.

[Enthusiast]

14. The point is, our system, including the system after the implementation

of the ACA, will have to morph into a not for profit system. Circumstances dictate this.

The cost of care has reached unsustainable levels.

I'm encouraged that Reid would recognize this and acknowledge it.

The Netherlands, for example, uses private insurance companies to administrate their health care system. But profit making is against the law. So rather than the 80% dictate in the ACA, they have a 99% rule, or some such.

The Western European systems are widely varied but they all achieve high quality care at a fraction of the current US system.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

16. when we win the House back in 2014

a public option can be put in place and .....

[1StrongBlackMan]

18. But the Commenter said ...

The ACA is a cobbled-together, ugly approximation of a true universal care system.

Which the med-loss ratio rule brings a heck of a lot closer to a non-profit system.

[pnwmom]

26. But the way it's set up that's a logical next step.

That, and experiments like in Vermont will help move us toward national single payer.

[leftstreet]

33. Will auto insurance soon be nationalized?

It's mandatory right now, and payments go to for-profit insurers

So I guess the logical next step...

[pnwmom]

35. Most people don't think autos have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

So, no.

[leftstreet]

39. LOL insurance premiums are patriotic! n/t

[TBF]

40. Intentionally missing the point ...

but that's ok.

We all know insurance companies are considered people - entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

When that changes we may be able to get somewhere.

[JustAnotherGen]

9. +1

[bravenak]

27. That's exactly how I see it.

The republicans were right all along. We democrats couldn't get what we wanted so we settled for being sneaky. We will have single payer, it will just take so long we will be mostly dead by the time it gets implemented. But my grand kids will have it. Now we need to work on bankrupting the insurance companies. And we will. And our kids will benefit.

[NJCher]

36. call it sneaky if you want

But there is a term for it in the education system: "experiential learning." It was the best Obama could do, given the republicans.

So they had to go this route which, btw, will in the end result in a greater acceptance by the public because they will be a part of the change.


Cher

[bravenak]

38. I like feeling that we got over on them.

Makes me smile. I want to win.

[NJCher]

50. hahah

I can identify with that!


Cher

[TheKentuckian]

45. Being better than what we had is arguable but this isn't anything like your example of an NHS

even actual single payer isn't a NHS and the Wealthcare and Profit Protection Act will have to sensibly evolve quite a bit with from design to even transform the current system to a utility type arrangement much less actual single payer and certainly a complete revisiting of the current paradigm to move to a NHS, in fact I see zero tracks laid in that direction which would largely mean not only an end to the cartel but to the for profit delivery system.

I think it is beyond optimistic to expect natural progression even to the utility model, even that would be no less than twenty years out because it will take about that long for the adjustments passed to be fully implemented, observed, and tinkered with at all.

The current reform is to extend the viability of the insurance cartel not to end it. It is the cartel that desperately needs mandated customers with substantial subsidies to exist. Reverse incentives and the rate of growth inflation dictate that no matter how much people want to be covered that the cartel was within sight of pricing its self out existence. Folks and companies just simply cannot afford the ever increasing costs and would be forced out of the market, this would shrink pools and make those that still could afford to hang on to plans less likely to be able to do so. Eventually there would be cascade failure. No profits to be mined out of rapidly shrinking pools and no consumer benefit as cost shares would ever be on the rise.


Supporters of the kind of theories you forward are often locked into an unsustainable calculation which is that left as is that most folks would be able to keep paying the extortion forever but they can't and were already reaching the threshold of systemic collapse.
We are still heading toward choking off the rest of the functional economy at 16%+ of GDP, the hope is that brakes enough to reduce the rate of growth are there and if not that the impacts of cost sharing, self denial of care, squeezing of benefits, wellness programs, subsidies hiding cost, and other machinations slow growth of costs enough to stabilize the for profit system enough to keep the extraction going for the foreseeable
In the end when the collapse does come that a broke and desperately indebted government will be too hogtied to do anything but abandon the public to a true wild west not only in the healthcare arena but overall.
By feeding the cartel and making their well being an essential government responsibility (too big to fail), we will be forced to "drown the pig" as the sector out black holes the real deals, which appear to have periods of calm.

I once upon a time believed what you described as the intent but we aren't on that trajectory yet. Closer, okay but at a stiff price, increasing the longevity of the cartel and forcing the biggest structural showdowns into a most likely lower resource (and horrible distribution) period. This I think has been a pretty huge lift for leaving fully the existing structure and profit centers in place.
We also are left with little to negotiate with for future "rounds" so we need a whole new SOP politician wise, no "careful consultations with the stakeholders", no collaborations between aides and lobbies to draft marks, no CEO's testifying but rather a "telling them how it is going to be" of a nature I can't say I'm familiar with.

Steps where made that does not automatically follow that those steps changed the trajectory to the degree required to reach escape as laid out.

[Jackpine Radical]

51. But ACA is a mandated payout to private insurers.

That's the difference.

[Nye Bevan]

52. Yep. Very unfortunate. They needed bribing to enable any reform at all to take place.

But now their profits from healthcare can be squeezed, more and more, and limited by regulations. As this field becomes less and less lucrative they will start to exit from it. Eventually the government will have to step in to ensure that healthcare is still provided for, which is what many of us wanted anyway.

When all is said and done, yes, it will be somewhat distasteful to have bribed the likes of United Healthcare with several years of profits in order to push through the ACA. But unfortunately it was necessary.

[Jackpine Radical]

53. Yup. It was the alternative

to a frontal propaganda assault by Harry & Louise, the couple who took down Hillarycare in 2003-4.

[leftstreet]

56. They didn't NEED bribing

Our overlords CHOSE to bribe them

They could have been abandoned for a single payer nonprofit system that completely circumvented them. Period.

This idea that Big Insurance and Big Pharma have *magical powers* over us is bullshit. They LINE THE POCKETS of our legislators. THEY bribed THE POLITICIANS

Period

[Nye Bevan]

70. The ACA in its current form scraped through Congress by the skin of its teeth.

Yes, another way of looking at it is that it was necessary to allow the insurance companies to participate (and make profits) in order to get the politicians that they supported to vote for the bill.

That saying comparing laws being made to sausages being made is very applicable here.

[phleshdef]

54. Theres plenty of mandates forcing insurers to payout in there.

Why do you anti-ACA folks keep focusing on that part while ignoring the rest and how it all works together.

[leftstreet]

57. But nothing controlling costs n/t

[phleshdef]

71. "Nothing" is incorrect.

I believe the cost controls aspect needs to be much, much stronger. But there ARE provisions that do help control costs such as the 80/20 rule. And there are many provisions that attack drivers related to higher healthcare costs, like lack of competition, fraud and taxing higher priced insurance plans that cover things that aren't health detrimental.

The ACA mostly is focused on regulating the healthcare insuring mechanism and no the provider mechanism. Until we regulate more on the provider side, I don't think costs can really be fully controlled. Both sides needed attention. We gave attention to one side. Now we just need to give attention to the other.

[bluestate10]

59. The alternative is nothing. I know what your comeback will be, it's the same old comeback.

The ACA is better than what the far Left and the screamers here on DU have delivered in decades, or are likely to deliver in many more decades. Single Payer will happen, but it will be the middle, not the far Left that make that happen.

[Demo_Chris]

84. It doesn't. It's both parties payoff to the insurance industry. nt

[Mass]

4. When? When his great grand children will be his age?

Because frankly he does not seem to care about this issue.

[1StrongBlackMan]

21. Unfortunately ...

lasting change happens grindingly slowly.

It took us how long to get to ObamaCare?

[Demeter]

48. There wasn't a need for Obamacare before all the jobs were shipped overseas

[1StrongBlackMan]

96. Yes there was ...

the corruption of the health insurance system has always been a problem ... a problem masked, but a problem never-the-less.

[Demeter]

98. Obamacare Institutionalizes the Corruption of the Health Insurance System

It is not a solution, it is a hardening of the arteries, until the economy has a stroke!

Maybe then, if there are any sane, honest persons of integrity in political office, we can get universal single payer. Like any sane, honest government with integrity....anywhere else in the world!

[1StrongBlackMan]

99. Beg to differ ...

while not single-payer, or even a public option (that can be added later ... and I suspect that with all the states opting out of operating their own, that is right around the corner), but the med-loss ratio requirement does a lot to clean the profit out of the arteries.

[bluestate10]

58. Beats never. Which is what has and will continue to happen if the far Left's dream of

forcing single payer instantly is the only choice. The general public must start to see the benefits of controlling healthcare costs. Canada didn't immediately go to single payer, that country got to it's current state over a period of years as resistant provinces were shown the error of their ways.

[Doctor_J]

63. Actually more than 60% of Americans believe HC is a right

so the "far left" which you denigrate is actually more than half of the electorate. Ask how many believe we should be forced to buy private insurance from companies that take 30% off the top.

[Ron Green]

6. Read the replies to the story from his constituents

and you see how much work we've got ahead of us for a single-payer system.

[COLGATE4]

10. Proof positive that the late great

H.L.Mencken had it right: "Nobody ever went broke overestimating the stupidity of the American people."

[Enthusiast]

19. They are paid responders.

They are employed by the various right wing groups to overwhelm any discussion. You see the same thing after Yahoo articles. These posts in no way demonstrate the sentiments of Reid's constituents.

[Lee-Lee]

8. All this statement will do

Is give the rethugs a new talking point as they keep trying to kill the ACA. I have already had them tell me the ACA is intended to fail and cause massive problems to make it easier to push into single payer- Harry just handed them more credence for their little conspiracy theory.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

15. We have to be bold and take on the Republicans

not worry about them

[Rosa Luxemburg]

12. Thanks, Harry!

Great!

[millennialmax]

17. That's what I've always believed. Glad to hear it come from Sen. Reid. eom

[Sheepshank]

23. I absolutley believe that Obamacare is just the seed to move in another direction

Republicans hate the idea that BUSINESSES have to foot the bill for employee health care. Dems hate the idea that healthcare is dictated and only given to those with enough money. Via Obamacare, the Feds will already be subsidizing a goodlyportion of health care premiums. The answer to all of these issues is to remove the employer based health care, and move it to a tax system. Voila, Single payer.

[lonestarnot]

20. :)

[kenny blankenship]

24. And he'll be right about that, like he is on everything else - right?

I suppose by being a crashing failure that will be have to be pulled out by the roots, eradicating the insurance industry in the same fiery debacle, Obamacare will in some sense lead to Single Payer. If only by showing what cannot work and should not be retried. But how many more people have to die and must be driven into the poorhouse 'til we finally face up to WHAT MUST BE DONE?

[ZombieHorde]

25. I really hope so. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

28. Many of us here argued that

Because politics in this country is incrementalism.

The insurance companies know it.

[Egalitarian Thug]

29. The old, "Once things get bad enough, we'll be forced to make it better" argument.

This is one of the less popular arguments that was floated, and failed, in '09. One thing about this is true, things are going to get worse.

[Whisp]

31. yes, yes. Absolutely yes.

Things must work in steps and progress. This is what normal and intelligent human beings have believed in throughout history. You can't stamp your feet and demand things RIGHT NOW like a brat in a department store aisle.

You know who you are.
And so do I.

[MNBrewer]

32. I hope he's correct

[liberal_at_heart]

34. We sucked up to the insurance companies. We let them help write ACA. And Reid wants me to

believe we are moving toward single payer? Yeah. I'll believe it when I see it. Kicking the insurance companies out of health care will take one hell of a fight, and I have only seen a handful of democrats with the courage to put up that kind of fight.

[NJCher]

41. maybe not

Kicking the insurance companies out of health care will take one hell of a fight,

In California, I believe, many insurance companies voluntarily backed out. Why? Again, it's been awhile, but I think it was because they were doubtful about their chances for profit.

Companies can and do see the writing on the wall. Some have been successful, some not, but all companies have had to undergo enormous change in the digital revolution.

An example of a company who pushed against change was Philip Morris, who publicly denied what cigarettes were doing to people, all the while continuing to market and sell their product. After the huge 365 billion dollar settlement they had to pay the states, P-M went into the food business, acquiring Kraft and General Foods. While it was a long time in coming, Kraft has been the first to acknowledge their products are overloaded with salt, fat, and sugar.

In his book about processed food companies, Moss says it is because they had no appetite to go through what they went through with tobacco.


Cher

[liberal_at_heart]

42. some insurance companies failing only means the ones that are left grow stronger and more profitable

If you like capitalism then you want some insurance comapanies to fail. That is how capitalism works. I do not beleive capitalism has a place in health care.

[NJCher]

79. in the interim

I am in agreement with you. There is no room for profit in healthcare.

I disagree that the ones left grow stronger, as they are all subject to the profitability margin rules.

It's a shame we can't just "pass go" and get straight to single payer.

I guess we could say the U.S. is a big boat and turning around a big boat takes a wide circumference.


Cher

[Recursion]

68. And meat packers have always written the food safety laws

Getting buy-in from industry isn't a bad thing.

[riverbendviewgal]

37. I do suggest you read the history of Canada's health care

My son and husband were diagnosed with cancers.
Son in April 1998 - Glioblastma multiforme brain tumour..(same one Ted Kennedy had, and Kevin had the same treatments/operations)
Husband in June 1998 - Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma
They got everything needed to treat, no denials of anything, plus palliative care and counseling.
Kevin died October 1999 , Husband died May 2001
we got funeral reimbursement ...$2300 for each of them.
Cost of their health care - ZERO


THANK YOU Tommy Douglas for starting it...He was voted Canada's greatest Canadian.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Greatest_Canadian


now read the whole wiki on our health care. It was resisted at first but now we won't ever be without it. Harper will try but he will fail to take it away from his. It will be goodbye Harper before that happens.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada

Canadians strongly support the health system's public rather than for-profit private basis, and a 2009 poll by Nanos Research found 86.2% of Canadians surveyed supported or strongly supported "public solutions to make our public health care stronger."[8][9] A Strategic Counsel survey found 91% of Canadians prefer their healthcare system instead of a U.S. style system.[10][11] Plus 70% of Canadians rated their system as working either "well" or "very well".[12]

A 2009 Harris/Decima poll found 82% of Canadians preferred their healthcare system to the one in the United States, more than ten times as many as the 8% stating a preference for a US-style health care system for Canada[13] while a Strategic Counsel survey in 2008 found 91% of Canadians preferring their healthcare system to that of the U.S.[10][11]

A 2003 Gallup poll found 25% of Americans are either "very" or "somewhat" satisfied with "the availability of affordable healthcare in the nation", versus 50% of those in the UK and 57% of Canadians. Those "very dissatisfied" made up 44% of Americans, 25% of respondents of Britons, and 17% of Canadians. Regarding quality, 48% of Americans, 52% of Canadians, and 42% of Britons say they are satisfied.[12]

[lobodons]

43. Makes no sense

Makes no sense to pay more than the absolute minimum (@ .05 on the dollar) of your premeum for administrative costs.

[sulphurdunn]

44. "Eventually," we're all dead.

[Scurrilous]

46. K & R

[pampango]

49. That is what is happening in Switzerland. Mandatory private insurance with a referendum on

single payer coming up in 2014.

[Doctor_J]

66. The Swiss private insurers are forbidden to make a profit

ours make enormous profits. No comparison whatsoever.

[joshcryer]

76. You confuse the basic plans vs supplimental plans.

They can't make profit off of the basic coverage.

Big whoop. Raise the MLR and you have the same system.

[pampango]

78. They don't make a profit on basic insurance. They do on supplemental plans. This profit will be

eliminated if single-payer is approved next year - which is why Swiss voters will likely do just that. But you are right their current system is better than ours since private insurers cannot profit on basic insurance.

Swiss are required to purchase basic health insurance, which covers a range of treatments detailed in the Swiss Federal Law on Health Insurance. It is therefore the same throughout the country and avoids double standards in healthcare. Insurers are required to offer this basic insurance to everyone, regardless of age or medical condition. They are not allowed to make a profit off this basic insurance, but can on supplemental plans.

In 2010, the average monthly compulsory basic health insurance premiums (with accident insurance) in Switzerland are the following:

CHF 351.05 for an adult (age 26+) ($375/month)
CHF 293.85 for a young adult (age 19–25) ($320/month)
CHF 84.03 for a child (age 0–18) ($90/month)

The compulsory insurance can be supplemented by private "complementary" insurance policies that allow for coverage of some of the treatment categories not covered by the basic insurance or to improve the standard of room and service in case of hospitalisation. This can include dental treatment and private ward hospitalisation, which are not covered by the compulsory insurance. Most Swiss elect to purchase complementary policies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Switzerland

[Cha]

55. Yes, a lot of DOOM and GLOOM on this thread.. I remember

when Obamacare was first in its embryonic stage and going forward. You'd think the fires of hell had been unleashed. Well, too bad. It became a law in spite of all the naysayers and nit pickers and now we have a solid foundations that can become Single Payer someday.

Social Security didn't happen overnight either.

Thanks PA

[bluestate10]

61. The far Left tend to be unrealistic. I am not talking about liberals, most of them are sane.

The purest that are fundamentally lost. They are the type that support 3rd party candidates without any fucking concern about the horror that can lead to. They are the type that voted for Nader in 2000 and gave us eight years of Bush destruction. They are the one that don't take one fucking ounce of responsibility for their mistakes, while denouncing anyone that don't subscribe to their myopic and ineffective worldview. The ACA will lead to Single Payer, the far Left will have no constructive role in making that happen. And, the far Left won't admit that they were wrong.

[Recursion]

67. First they insult it, then they scream about it,

then they ignore it, then it happens, then things get better.

[joshcryer]

74. The DADT thing was one example.

Huge outrage over Obama not signing an executive order when he'd planned to get a vote on it all along.

The totally myopic even credited Republicans with actually getting rid of DADT. (Not kidding, it's crazy land here sometimes.)

By the time the military did the study, implemented the changes, and such, those hating on Obama for not signing an executive order were completely silent on the issue.

[Recursion]

60. Quite a few here hate it because it makes the system more humane

It's always troubling when someone is more interested in changing the system than actually helping anyone.

[Doctor_J]

65. More hate it because is codifies the worst HC system in the developed world

We have the highest costs and worst results in the industrialized world. There is nothing humane about that, unless your definition of humanity is the insurance executives.

[joshcryer]

75. Which is why I don't consider them progressive.

Progressives welcome any positive change toward left leaning goals.

Those who don't are simply not able to be called progressive because they don't want progress.

[Fumesucker]

81. Mandated private insurance isn't remotely a "left leaning goal"

It's exactly the opposite, Romneycare and hence Obamacare came from the Heritage Foundation, hardly an organization that promotes "left leaning goals".

[leftstreet]

88. +1

[joshcryer]

89. I didn't say it was.

Don't put words in my writing, please.

[Fumesucker]

91. Your words verbatim

Progressives welcome any positive change toward left leaning goals.

Those who don't are simply not able to be called progressive because they don't want progress.

You may not have actually said that mandated private insurance is a left leaning goal but any reasonable person would say you certainly implied it.

[joshcryer]

92. I said it was positive change.

Going toward left leaning goals.

I stand by that because I know how this ends.

Look at all the stuff that's coming down in 2014.

Private insurance isn't going to be able to survive a massive Medicaid expansion and employers covering their employs. The MSP mandates that at least one non-profit insurer exists. It won't be until 2017 that all states have a non-profit MSP but that's what's going to be the eventuality. The non-profit plan will be the most cost effective because everyone will get it. We will then be on the cusp of single payer. Maybe not 2017 but definitely it will be a discussion for the 2020 elections.

[Fumesucker]

93. Eh, I see it as an attempt to hold off single payer for as long as possible

Single payer advocates were locked out of negotiations for the PPACA, the insurance companies on the other hand were stakeholders given a seat at the negotiations.

Mandated private insurance is not moving toward a progressive goal, it's moving away from it.

[joshcryer]

94. I don't disagree mostly.

I think that it is lamentable that the leading candidates were for this "go around" approach. But they managed to make MSPs (Multi-State Plans) require a non-profit option. This isn't single payer, and it's not really public option (since it will be decentralized among tens of thousands of non-profits as opposed to a central, efficient, government run public option), but it's a step in that direction. A significant step.

And it was something that the DINOs, because they fail to understand Administrative Policy (after all, they hate "big government" and are for corporate bailouts), allowed to pass even though it means that HHS can implement it. So going forward, after 2017, no one can argue that they must pay a for-profit "private" insurer.

I think ultimately it is shameful that the biggest candidate could on one hand espouse single payer while pushing for the insurance approach.

[Doctor_J]

62. I don't see how

Big Insurance talked the WH and Congress into giving them 30% of an enormous pie - probably the second biggest in the country, behind education. You think they're going to give it back for some reason? What Reid is lying about, and the BOGers are either lying or clueless about, is that Obama is a Reagan/Bush devotee. He actually believes that everything in America should be privatized. That's why he lied during the 2008 campaign about insisting on a public option. That's why anti-public school zealots Rhee and Duncan are his choices to "reform" US education.

Also, Vermont went straight to SP without insurance mandates. MA went to Heritage/Romney/Obamacare and that's where they remain.

[cprise]

72. It pumps up a for-profit model that makes them even bigger lobbyists

...in future. Then they will develop new laws and "financial instruments" that result in half the population being excluded anyway.

[woo me with science]

64. We are expected to celebrate so many

glorious achievements in the future.

[Xolodno]

69. Obama Care is not the cureall....

...its only a step in the right direction. Like it or not, its the best that can happen at "this time". Legislating a single payer system would result in heavy health insurance companies layoffs....job layoffs are a big no-no. With that said, the ACA gives strict numbers on "expenses" that force a health insurer, to cut costs....which will result in layoffs...but not en-mass. Eventually, some companies will suck it up and just provide coverage above the government mandated for a cost while not providing basic coverage. Essentially becoming niche carriers. With their exit, the government will have to step in via a tax...which ironically is already provided in the ACA.

Its going to take at least a decade for this to happen...but its the best that can happen when you have a large segment of populace that is so driven by "republican emotion"....nothing you can say will convince them.

Given that they (non-informed voters)...will eventually get used to paying a tax for their health care....and decry the "liberal elite" for being able to pay for it. And demand a tax for everyone for basic coverage.

Yeah it sucks...but what can you do when too much of the populace would vote themselves into oblivion due to ideology.

[joshcryer]

73. It's like people forget why Obama and Hillary were for private insurers.

They even argued in the debates that the private insurers were the only way it could be done.

[leftstreet]

87. So were Reagan, Bush, McCain, Romney n/t

[joshcryer]

90. None of them had the ultimate goal of single payer.

They would not have had MLRs or exchanges or mandated that employers cover all employees if they have any health care plan. Note: that mere fact means that people will choose government subsidized plans as employers inevitably drop people from their employee plans in 2014. There will be a lot of moaning about that as this gradual plan happens; the myopic will typically lament the loss of their private employer health care plans...

[earcandle]

77. Insurance companies are just middle men. We don't need them. Lets just invent a nifty way to do

health care billing. Then we are minus all of those administrative costs.

[B Calm]

95. If not for republicans we would have single payer right now!

[eridani]

97. It is going to have to happen state by state

If you really want to work to get single payer, states are where you have to start http://www.pnhp.org/stateactions