General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIf the Supremes do gut Obamacare, the Firedoglake wing of the Democratic party will get their way
These are the folks who have always been against Obamacare. It's a giveaway to the insurance companies they say. It was a gift to Corporate America they say. We should have had single payer they say.
Now the gutting of Obamacare is a real possibility and they will get their wish. What does Bernie Sanders know anyways? He was tricked into voting for and praising that monstrosity.
Surely the next Congress will get right on the single payer bandwagon once Obamacare is no more.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)The Supreme Court backed the ACA (well, simple majority of justices), now they just want to rule on clarifying a technical discrepancy. At worst, they can ask Congress to revise law making subsidies available regardless of exchange. It's back to the tax issue that 'saved' the Act to begin with.
They couldn't dawdle, this has to be resolved for 2014 income tax period.
pnwmom
(108,978 posts)yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)the intent was not to exclude subsidies for the states that didn't set up exchanges, then no need for Congressional action.
Now, what if Supreme Court does say Congress needs to revise, or those people who were subsidized will owe back the money? I think the lame duck Congress would somehow find a way to fix. Which could be a consideration of the timing of judicial review.
I just don't think 5 justices will try to hurt us that bad when the intent of the law was so clear.
I'm an optimist.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)We'll be long past the lame duck Congress when the ruling comes out.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)we will have billions in subsidies paid out. This issue could be resolved easily by Congress. All bills have technical issues that are just rewritten. Used to be how Congress worked. If Congress comes back and starts to work, the issue will be resolved.
The Republicans have said they want to fix ACA. Here is a place to start.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)be gutting and crippling it.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)That the architects of the law miscalculated and it's blowing-up in their faces is not the fault of those who, from the beginning, have been calling for actual HEALTHCARE rather than billions of dollars of taxpayer money being sent each year to for-profit private corporations.
This law was never a segue to SP and anyone saying so is delusional. Once it was passed we had two choices: claim the law was a success or admit the law was a failure that needed replacing. If it were a success there would be no need to change it. If it was a failure we demonstrated we have no idea on how to properly administrate national projects. No politician in their right mind is going to make either of those arguments and they never intended to do so. They were never going to ask for the law to be morphed into SP.
Add in the fact the ACA has a slush fund to prop-up corporate profits and this pig of law is to buy off corporate complicity which in turn makes the pols hidebound to the corporations. It's incestuous at best.
But hey, let's just blame those who warned us and were actually correct.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)are just wrong. As usual.
The law is working.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)How you got from FDL to TP staggers the imagination. Rather sad in its obvious desperation.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)The only ones claiming that are Teabaggers.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)If you want billions of dollars of taxpayer money given to for-profit corporations to supply people with policies with prohibitively high deductibles then you might consider the law a success.
I don't know if corporate profits are a regular complaint of the Tea Party. You, apparently, are more familiar with their literature than I.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)Isn't it about time you guys recognized that the ACA is far better than what the GOP with the aid of SCOTUS want to give us?
Will you enjoy your smug righteousness while others suffer?
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)It's not my fault they sabotaged their own law. It was obvious from the contention during the law's debate that this would be the only chance they would get to make such a sweeping proposal. They had 60 votes in the Senate and a decisive majority in the House. The GOP was irrelevant and the newly-elected Obama was riding a wave of approval unlike any modern president has enjoyed.
They had one chance and they pissed it away.
I have nothing to apologize for. Go talk to the corporatists in DC if you want an explanation about what is to become of those who will be left holding the bag if this blows up.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)I am for single payer too but pretending that Obama could have gotten it passed is ridiculous.
And I will not participate in your glee at seeing the ACA overturned and people suffering because of it.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)I guess being wrong and copping-out about it aren't enough for some people. They have be nasty when reminded of the fact they were destined to be wrong.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)I am a realist however and able to acknowledge the difficulties faced in trying to pass it. That they got anything passed was remarkable and losing those benefits will hurt many people. That is what I find nasty.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)What I find nasty is claiming I take glee in it. That was uncalled for.
If someone proposes to build a bridge but others take note that the plans and materials are sub-standard and will never hold up under the stress of operation it would be vile to suggest that those warning of a collapse in any way "take glee" when the structure fails and people fall to their dooms.
"Well, it's the best bridge we could get at the time," doesn't mitigate the vileness of the insult.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)Glad to here you aren't joyful that many will lose their access to any healthcare.
By the way, many of us in states that implemented it as perceived will retain our hard fought access.
Have a great day.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)one passed the Senate. The tweaks could not overcome his joining of the Republican filibuster, so it was passed via reconciliation.
To claim Democrats could have gotten single payer in 2009/2010 is to claim you could have convinced Lieberman to vote for it. The "Senator from Aetna". Who knew he'd never win another election.
Tell me how you'd get him to pass single-payer. Then we can move on to Senator Ben Nelson. And so on down the list of conservative Democratic Senators.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)at their disposal and a wave of public approval.
Maybe I'm just young and naïve but I thought when we voted for leaders they ought to display -- you know -- leadership. Had I known I was voting for an impotent, passive observer I would have stayed the hell home.
Enjoy you ACA -- while you can. It's the culmination of everything people worked for the last 2 generations.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)And senators are quite proud of their independence.
Again, to pass single-payer in 2009/2010 you had to get Lieberman's vote. What, specifically, could Reid or Obama have done to get Lieberman to vote for it? You can't just whine about leadership if you can't even imagine a path they could have taken.
We're still tweaking Medicare, 50 years after it started. To believe the ACA is the end of time is just moronic.
The ACA moves the battle for single-payer to the states. Get the blue states to pass single payer or public options and you get concrete examples of it working to destroy Republican FUD. That then gets you the ammunition to pass it in the purple states. Which then gives you a much stronger hand when the battle returns to DC.
It's exactly how Canada got single-payer - province by province.
The ACA even throws in a poorly-indexed "Cadillac plan tax" that will gradually shift people from employer-based coverage to the exchanges. Where public options will easily out-compete the private options because they don't need to profit.
So if you want single-payer, get to work. The ACA gave you a great tool to use to get there, if you're willing to use it.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)a state exchange.
mmonk
(52,589 posts)decided against single payer when they had control of all 3 branches of government?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)mmonk
(52,589 posts)Do they control the Supreme Court?
nationalize the fed
(2,169 posts)advocates arrested at a hearing.
Baucuss Raucous Caucus: Doctors, Nurses and Activists Arrested Again for Protesting Exclusion of Single-Payer Advocates at Senate Hearing on Healthcare
Advocates of single-payer universal healthcare the system favored by most Americans continue to protest their exclusion from discussions on healthcare reform. On Tuesday, five doctors, nurses and single-payer advocates were arrested at a Senate Finance Committee hearing, bringing the total number of arrests in less than a week to thirteen. We speak with two of those arrested: Single Payer Action founder Russell Mokhiber and Dr. Margaret Flowers of Physicians for a National Health Program. (includes rush transcript)
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/5/13/baucus_raucus_caucus_doctors_nurses_and
What kinds of noises do you think the Democrats would have made if the Republicans did exactly that?
There would have been marches on the Capitol, for one.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Kennedy
Roberts
Alito
Thomas
Scalia
That makes 5/9 by my count.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)the three branches are.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)Or maybe they knew they didn't have enough of a majority to get the deed done. Which is more likely?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Oh, and maybe a specially designed tank called "The Lieberman" that would be given exclusively to Israel.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Lieberman was offered cash for CT. He still said no.
Personal cash would run into the problem of being a crime. Though if he had accepted, it would have gotten him thrown out of the Senate.
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)I mean, that would only help the people of the state. No, cash for the things he cared about: Banks and Israel.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)which then got several other Democratic senators upset.
pampango
(24,692 posts)themselves. I am sure that these same conservative justices would have found nothing to rule against with single payer or a national health service.
Historic NY
(37,449 posts)Were looking at Obamacare right now. Once we start with those benefits in January, how are we going to get people off of those? Its exponentially harder to remove people once theyve already been on those programs we rely on government for absolutely everything. And in the years since I was a small girl up until now into my adulthood with children of my own, we have lost a reliance on not only our own families, but so much of what our churches and private organizations used to do. They used to have wonderful food pantries. They used to provide clothing for those that really needed it. But we have gotten away from that. Now were at a point where the government will just give away anything.
Thats the fundamental belief that motivates most, if not all, the conservative opposition: Health care should be a privilege rather than a right. If you cant afford health insurance on your own, that is not the governments problem.
My guess is they will defund major componets of it...so it dies.
greatauntoftriplets
(175,735 posts)JHB
(37,160 posts)iamthebandfanman
(8,127 posts)and do think single payer is the only real way to solve our health care problems...
but I am not for repealing obamacare.. and I fully understand that the ACAs impact was lessened by the SCOTUS ruling not requiring medicaid expansion..
what wing of the democratic party does that make me?
Cha
(297,232 posts)you're not for repealing it.. so that makes you different than they are.
ACA is a good start for single payer.. Social Security didn't start out so well, either.. but it was a good foundation.. at least we have something which is more than we ever had before. I just hope with all my heart that the SCOTUS 5 do not do away with it for the 7 million American who it is Helping now..
In my view that makes you on the sane wing
KMOD
(7,906 posts)It will obviously have to be reworded. and corrected. Unfortunately, we have to deal the with Republicans now. But even they must know that it would be a huge, losing mistake, to take away insurance from people who need it.
Cha
(297,232 posts)KMOD
(7,906 posts)Once they open it up for the wording fix, I'm sure the Republicans will try to add, and take away a whole lot more.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)So instead we got a "comprise" of the biggest corporate giveaway in history.
Rex
(65,616 posts)What would you be saying right now if we would have won single payer and the GOP was right now going to take it away? Same thing I hope.
Does it really matter what we passed? We got it and now the assholes in Clown Congress are going to work with the SCOTUS to fuck it up...it helps people.
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)While it helps people, it also helps corporations, immensely.
We know Scalia and Thomas will vote to quash it simply because they are spiteful assholes. But, will corporatists Alito and Roberts vote to be spiteful assholes, or to continue to shovel taxpayer dollars to for-profit healthcare, and potentially give Democrats a club to wield* in 2016 for those thrown off coverage by the repeal?
And Libertarian Kennedy is most likely a vote to repeal, because people should be free to die horribly.
*Assumes Democrats grow spines and actually use this against Republicans, which based on recent history is laughable
Rex
(65,616 posts)I have to agree Kennedy and Alito are wildcards. We know Scalia and Thomas will want to gut it.
Yeah what the hell is up with our party not using all these facts against the GOP? I mean, I know the M$M is controlled by the GOP but damm...maybe the Dems could at least try and make a stink about people being thrown in the trash if they get sick?