Plan B Forum

It is a given that the Republicans will take all of their time and effort trying to tear down US society by crippling Romney/Obama care; but what ought the rest of us to do? And how do we minimise their destruction by not wasting public bandwidth having to oppose it?

Where is the biggest opportunity for improvement?

yrs,
rubato

Given the delayed implementation of O'Care, it is likely that the next Congress will seek to make it (at least arguably) Constitutional and more in keeping with principles of individual freedom and Federalism.

Insurance companies will be permitted to sell across state lines, and the resulting healthy [play on words intended] competition will dramatically improve the insurance options that the currently uninsured might have. Onerous state regulations will cause citizens of those states to seek insurance elsewhere, at more reasonable cost.

The "mandate" will die an ignominious death, and be replaced by a formulaic BASIC insurance policy, defined by the new Act, which will be available at a very modest cost, but will have high deductibles and co-pays, after which it will cover the catastrophic injuries and illnesses which were the theoretical basis for the mandated coverage of O'care. Parenthetically, THIS is the insurance program that was endorsed by the Heritage Foundation and many Republicans in the past, as contrasted with the mandated coverage of O'Care, which covers, among other routine medical and health-related expenses, BIRTH CONTROL PILLS (for fuck's sake).

The requirement for "family" coverage including wastrel young adults still living at home will probably survive, as it costs the government nothing and is somewhat defensible in these times of the horrible job market for graduates in "Ethnic Studies."

As for those with the dreaded "pre-existing conditions," the Feds will create a subsidized program analogous to many states' "assigned risk" insurance programs, where each insurance carrier is required to cover some portion of those unfortunates, albeit at elevated premiums.

And having done all this, the evil, nasty Republicans will have succeeded in "tearing down U.S. society by crippling O'Care."

Heaven help us.

dgs49 wrote:Given the delayed implementation of O'Care, it is likely that the next Congress will seek to make it (at least arguably) Constitutional and more in keeping with principles of individual freedom and Federalism.

That fight was ended last week. Didn't you hear? It was in all the papers.

Insurance companies will be permitted to sell across state lines, and the resulting healthy [play on words intended] competition will dramatically improve the insurance options that the currently uninsured might have. Onerous state regulations will cause citizens of those states to seek insurance elsewhere, at more reasonable cost.

Now that would be an unconstitutional federal power grab and expansion of the Commerce Clause. Regulation of insurance has always been a matter of state law. If you want less "onerous state regulations" (whatever you think those are), you are free to move to the state that suits your view.

The "mandate" will die an ignominious death, and be replaced by a formulaic BASIC insurance policy, defined by the new Act, which will be available at a very modest cost, but will have high deductibles and co-pays, after which it will cover the catastrophic injuries and illnesses which were the theoretical basis for the mandated coverage of O'care.

So now you'd have the federal government mandating what private insurance companies must provide, regardless of what ther own state insurance law might allow or require? And without the "mandate," what, pray tell, will induce those currently gambling with everyone else's money to purchase coverage of their own?

As for those with the dreaded "pre-existing conditions," the Feds will create a subsidized program analogous to many states' "assigned risk" insurance programs, where each insurance carrier is required to cover some portion of those unfortunates, albeit at elevated premiums.

So now the federal government is going to be paying private insurance companies to charge higher premiums and secure even greater profit at public expense? Who thinks that is a good idea?

Heaven help us.

If we were left to your ideas, indeed.

A prettly lame response, overall.

(1) The law that was actually passed was clearly stated by the majority opinion to be unconstitutional. What the court upheld was a different law, made up by the Chief Justice. Congress would be grossly derelict in its duty to allow it to continue in its present form, regardless of the makeup of the next Congress.

(2) "Regulation of insurance has always been a matter of state law." Now don't you go all "constitutional" on me. Are you seriously suggesting that the United States Congress that passed the abomination we affectionately refer to as "Obamacare" would hesitate for one millisecond before making this change. You are purposefully delusional.

(3) People should move to another state to save a few bucks on insurance? See above.

(4) Most of the people who have the wherewithal to purchase insurance but choose not to do so (the ones targeted by the "Mandate") choose not to purchase insurance because it is too fucking expensive. But if they could buy catastrophic insurance at a modest cost - i.e., if they could avoid personal bankruptcy in the event of, for example, a serious accident - then they would likely do so.

(5) "So now the federal government is going to be paying private insurance companies to charge higher premiums and secure even greater profit at public expense?" Are you truly this ignorant about how insurance rates are set? One could write a small pamphlet just summarizing the stupidity that is contained or implied in this absurd rhetorical question.

Barring something truly bizarre, what's "next for healthcare", at least at the federal level, will be pretty much nothing for the foreseeable future....

So long as neither party has a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, (which ain't gonna happen this election cycle) both parties will be in a position to thwart any changes in the law the other might attempt, no matter who has a majority in the House, or which party holds the Presidency.

The next thing that's going to happen is that all of the provisions of the law that were deliberately delayed till 2014 will go into affect, and then we will see what the results are, both in terms of costs and benefits.

Those results, good bad or ugly, will set the table for what is done next.

Actually, quite a bit of the law has already gone into effect. The lifetime limit has been removed, and the allowable annual limits increased. Essential health benefits required as not subject to such limits. Age 26 dependents covered under parents' plan. New independent review of denied claims (most plans). These all have been cost drivers to a lesser or greater extent.

The big things yet to come are the requirement to get insurance, elimination of preexisting conditions, and healthcare exchanges. The SCOTUS ruling puts in doubt whether states will need to have the exchanges.

What's next? USA makes vague gesture at joining the rest of the first world in terms of free at the point of delivery healthcare provision, no big change noted.

I think that has to be the ultimate goal. Our system has failed completely, catastrophically, and utterly and hurts <<"Small Businesses">> (the angel faeries of the Repuglican world) because no <<"Small Businesses">> can afford to provide even half-assed HC to their employees. <<"Small Businesses">> those mythical << Job Creators >> in the current instance can never provide Heath Insurance.

All of the G-20 do this better than we do. Two of them (Germany and Switzerland) use a private-insurance model which is heavily regulated, but most use the Kaiser model, I mean national health model.

yrs,
rubato

Indulging in a bit of pre-Independence Day cheer, are we rube?

Once again, we see that the best hope for America is the eradication of right-wingism.

When right-wingism becomes as contemptible in the US as is communism, we will finally have outgrown our infancy.

Fascism, which is the converse of communism, is already contemptible to most thinking people in the US I believe.

"Right-wingism"[sic] will never be eradicated.

No, right-wingism will probably never be eradicated.

There will always be people who believe that God created everything some six-thousand years ago.

There will always be people who believe that our planet is flat.

There will always be people who believe that Reagan won the Cold War.

There is still a Communist Party in the US. When the republicans get no more votes than do the communists, my country will have outgrown its infancy.

There will always be people who believe that God created everything some six-thousand years ago.

There will always be people who believe that our planet is flat.

There will always be people who believe that Reagan won the Cold War.

Now now, let's not be mixing myths and superstitions with demonstrable facts...

Indeed. Someone relying only on their own eyes can easily come up with empirical evidence that the earth is flat...

Andrew D wrote: No, right-wingism will probably never be eradicated.

There will always be people who believe that God created everything some six-thousand years ago.

There will always be people who believe that our planet is flat.

There will always be people who believe that Reagan won the Cold War.

There will always be people who obfuscate.

Andrew D wrote:There is still a Communist Party in the US. When the republicans get no more votes than do the communists, my country will have outgrown its infancy.

Wow, I won't be holding my breath on that happening.

Indeed. Someone relying only on their own eyes can easily come up with empirical evidence that the earth is flat...

Okay, right, that's it then...



Now you go sit in Smart Ass Corner along with Dale and Strop...

Lord Jim wrote:

There will always be people who believe that God created everything some six-thousand years ago.

There will always be people who believe that our planet is flat.

There will always be people who believe that Reagan won the Cold War.

Now now, let's not be mixing myths and superstitions with demonstrable facts...

No, let's not. I have presented three equally implausible propositions.