32.3 Million have better health care because of Obamacare..

[Big RR]

SocSec was a deeply flawed system when it was begun as well and has only been gradually improved piece by piece, since then.

It has, but the electorate was a lot more forgiving in even the 60s when many of these changes were implemented. I hope they will be as patient with ACA, but I fear they may not.

[Lord Jim]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again...

If the Liberals had really wanted to sell "single payer" (the currently popular Orwellian euphemism for socialized medicine; we all know who that "single payer" is... ) they should have promoted it as a huge pro-business economic stimulus... If they'd done it that way, they might even have gotten the US Chamber Of Commerce on their side...

Especially in the context of the deep recession we were facing at the time; this approach could have had significant appeal...

But because of their innate disdain for private business, this either never occurred to them or they felt making such arguments beneath them...(preferring instead to go the pious, self-righteous, scolding route...always their go-to approach...)

The only other person besides your humble correspondent who I have ever seen even talk about the pro-business economic growth argument for "single payer" is Bill Maher...

And he said it in the context of "Conservatives should have made this argument"...

Why? Conservatives are opposed to socialized medicine. It's the Liberal supporters of "single payer" who should have made this case, but they couldn't bring themselves to do it.

[Big RR]

That does make some sense Jim; I know when I worked for a multinational company (US, UK, Sweden, and Norway) and had reports in all four countries, the amount budgeted for "social costs" (health insurance and other fringe benefits) was much higher in the US than in any of the others (even though many of my reports had company cars, private supplemental health insurance, significant job protection, and vacation time we in the US could only dream of). I don't really think an argument like that would have changed the discussion all that much, being that we are steeped in the employer provided health insurance model and given the rabid anti-government/out of my healthcare response of some (mainly on the right), but it should have been given a chance.

However, argument or no by the dems, I am surprised that the business community didn't seize on the debate as an opportunity to promote single payer and eventually get them out of the health insurance game. But old habits die hard. And, fearing ultimate caps on costs, providers and big pharma would have screamed bloody murder.

[wesw]

ACA was the biggest boon that the prvate business of medical insurance has ever had, given to them, rather, bought by them, from the democrats.

[Long Run]

There are several reasons the business community did not champion socialized medicine. First, and most importantly is the question of who pays for socialized medicine -- most likely there would be a big fat payroll tax added to every company's tax bill, and that tax bill will be more than the current cost of health coverage for most companies currently pay (i.e., with their company health plan, they pay only for their employees, not all the currently uninsured, and they have control over the plan/cost they provide). Second, the employers that do not provide health coverage would be opposed to paying for socialized medicine. Third, back to companies that do provide health coverage, many see their employee benefits as a key piece of their compensation package and do not want to want to lose that advantage. Finally, the representative organizations for business, in general, favor a pro-business environment, which they see as less government, less taxes and more freedom for businesses to make decisions.

[Econoline]

While single-payer health insurance might be good for some (or even most) private U.S. companies, there's a whole class of VERY wealthy corporations--an entire industry, in fact--that would be completely destroyed if we went to a single-payer system. That would, of course, be the entire private health insurance industry. And, like people, corporations will fight to the death if their own lives are in danger.

[wesw]

well, if we deported some folks at the same time we enacted single payer, there would be plenty of construction jobs for the insurance guys to fill....

[rubato]

SocSec was a deeply flawed system when it was begun as well and has only been gradually improved piece by piece, since then.

It has, but the electorate was a lot more forgiving in even the 60s when many of these changes were implemented. I hope they will be as patient with ACA, but I fear they may not.

They don't have to be. The current status is a huge improvement. States which have supported medicaid expansion saw a 30% drop in uncompensated care by hospitals by last year. It will be more this year. 32 million with better coverage is a huge improvement. The mandate means that the group who were paying nothing before have started paying something. Only a stupid person or someone who hated the United States and wanted us to be sicker, weaker, and poorer would get rid of the ACA now.

yrs,
rubato

[Big RR]

Perhaps, but there is also an undercurrent that sees themselves as paying more for the same (or less) coverage; and many blame the persons getting coverage for that. And I sincerely doubt that any cost savings on medicare will assuage this fear, because few states will return that back to their citizens, especially with state budgets as they are.

As I said in a earlier post, there is a real value in getting more people access to healthcare, and it is something worth paying for IMHO; but I think a lot of the electorate will have to see it that way or the ACA could be repealed. Many people who had good health insurance through their employers just don't see any real upside, just a lot more money paid into the system.

[wesw]

boy, calling people stupid, repeatedly, does not seem productive to me. how is that working out for you?

[Lord Jim]

calling people stupid, repeatedly, does not seem productive to me. how is that working out for you?

It's earned him the universal respect of all his fellow posters, wes....

Isn't that obvious?

[wesw]

it would earn him more than that if he said such things in person. not from me anymore, he could probably kick my butt these days anyway, even if i was still a violent man, which i m not, but boys will be boys....

[rubato]

The latest round of expanded coverage will grow the savings even more:


http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2014pres/ ... 0924a.html

"... News
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 24, 2014
Contact: HHS Press Office
202-690-6343
New report projects a $5.7 billion drop in hospitals’ uncompensated care costs because of the Affordable Care Act

Hospitals in states that have expanded Medicaid will receive about 74 percent of the total savings nationally

A report released today by the Department of Health and Human Services projects that hospitals will save $5.7 billion this year in uncompensated care costs because of the Affordable Care Act, with states that have expanded Medicaid seeing about 74 percent of the total savings nationally compared to states that have not expanded Medicaid.

For over a decade prior to the Affordable Care Act, the percentage of the American population that was uninsured had been growing steadily. But with the significant expansion of coverage under the health care law through the Health Insurance Marketplace and Medicaid, the uninsurance rate is at historic lows. As a result, the volume of uncompensated care provided in hospitals and emergency departments has fallen substantially in the last year, particularly in Medicaid expansion states.

“Hospitals have long been on the front lines of caring for the uninsured, who often cannot pay the full costs of their care,” said HHS Secretary Sylvia M. Burwell. “Today’s news is good for families, businesses, and taxpayers alike. It’s yet another example of how the Affordable Care Act is working in terms of affordability, access, and quality.”

Projections from today’s report suggest that hospitals in states that have expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act will see greater savings than hospitals in states that have not expanded Medicaid. Hospitals in states that have expanded Medicaid are projected to save up to $4.2 billion, which makes up about 74 percent of the total savings nationally this year. Hospitals in states that have opted not to expand Medicaid are projected to save up to $1.5 billion this year, and which is only 26 percent of the total savings nationally.

Medicaid expansion continues to help an unprecedented number of Americans access health coverage, many for the very first time. According to a recent report, as of July, nearly 8 million additional individuals are now enrolled in Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), compared to before open enrollment in the Marketplace began in October 2013.

Because of the Affordable Care Act, states have new opportunities to expand Medicaid coverage to individuals with family incomes at or below 133 percent of the federal poverty level (generally $31,322 for a family of four in 2013). This expansion includes non-elderly adults without dependent children, who have not previously been eligible for Medicaid in most states. Twenty-eight states, including the District of Columbia have expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. ... "

No, the bitchy childish attempts to change the subject by those who have nothing of importance to say don't impress me. That would be stupid.

Obamacare has been a huge success. Not admitting it is stupid.


yrs,
rubato