Up next: the ACA goes into effect, and the very same year, health insurance and pharmaceutical lobbyists in DC win “surprising” victories on the legal and regulatory updates to the law, effectively gutting the portions of the law that might tend to protect the well-being and financial interests of average people while leaving untouched the requirement that we all buy private corporate insurance products with no public alternative.

In 2016, Coca-Cola corporation wins a “surprising” law requiring people to purchase supplies of coca-cola products as part of the local public utility water contract.

I heard on the news that 2/3 of those polled want part or all of the law struck down. Is that true, Jon?

I never can seem to get an answer to this question: What is the difference between a mandate by govt or a mandate by a private or corporate employer? Both are compulsory. Is one obligation better or qualitatively different that the other? Am I not interpreting the law correctly? I realize that a mandate means that people who do not want coverage or do not have a corporate employer may be have to pay, but there are also govt subsidies for low income people in the bill. The polls suggest that there are objections by a much larger population that only those with low incomes. Maybe the ACA will level the playing field for small employers and private citizens by extending the tax deduction for premiums to them. Currently employers who pay for health care insurance can write it off, but private citizens cannot. The cost difference between after tax payments and pre-tax payments is HUGE.

Mr. Walker, how does this fly given much of what I’ve read suggests 72% of those polled dislike the mandate?

I’m not getting it, all this ‘most are kewl with ACA’ but majority by far are against the mandate . . .

How does this reconcile in reporting about this subject?

At SOME point, I have to believe that polling on ACA is rigged in that the electorate in general is ignorant of its real impacts (until the uncovered who can’t afford insurance find out they HAVE to buy insurance).

It would appear from your reporting, and Mr Dayen’s and Bmaz and more, that the SCOTUS is gonna pass this and condone the mandate.

Do you believe there will be a MIGHTY backlash amongst the populous when this happens? Or when people have to start paying for something they have no money for?

I can appreciate that you and Mr. Dayen are NOT in the business at FDL to do predicting, but come on, where do you see all of this heading in the next two years?

Throw us a bone!

;-)

It’s been factually reported that polling shows some 72% of those polled are against the mandate . . . I BELIEVE (I could be wrong), I thot that I read it from Mr.’s Walker AND Dayen in these very pages?

If not, it’s been quote quoted elsewhere and DISCUSSED on these very same pages.

N so, I remain quite confused about the REALITY between ACA and mandate, on all fronts . . . outside of believing the polled electorate is ignorant of details regarding both ACA and mandate (which we all know is true).

I gotta say, it’s getting pretty weird when even the ‘hasbarah’ about these issues, the psyops, the faux reporting . . , it’s danged weird when I can’t follow at least the basic talking points.

They are muddled beyond belief from one read to another.

;-)

roydavis–

There is no difference. Most folks don’t want a “mandate” period.

We have an excellent single payer system for seniors–why not open it up to everyone? Remember, no one is required by law to carry Medicare, or Medicare Advantage, but because the premiums are affordable, most seniors participate. And, of course, Medicaid is there to pick up the slack for those who absolutely cannot afford the Medicare premiums.

Obamacare is not only a favor to corporations, but to small businesses. The “mandate” which eliminates “pre-existing conditions” for those covered under individual health insurance policies comes at the expense of those who are uninsured because they can’t afford to carry a health insurance premium.

It was not any accident that the mandate doesn’t come into effect until AFTER the presidential election. I am convinced that it is one of the main reasons that OWS encampments have been dismantled all over the US. It would be hard to believe that the powers to be are not concerned about the “backlash” down the road when millions of low income and working class individuals are foisted into an “insurance racket” that will destroy their already tenuous existence, all for an insurance policy that will be so expensive (with deductible and co-pays), that they’ll never be able to afford to use it.

Yes, there are subsidies, but they cut off at a “very low” income level. For a couple, it cuts off at approximately $46,000 combined annual income. That’s sure not a very high income to be forced to shop on the private market for “age rated” insurance, is it?

Blue

“…but there are also govt subsidies for low income people in the bill. “

Compare the administrative costs of Medicare to the administrative costs of any private insurance company. Medicare is much more efficient in terms of the amount of money that goes directly to providing actual health care as compared to any private, for profit, insurance company.

As a taxpayer, I much prefer that my tax dollars go directly to health care providers as opposed to lining the pockets of insurance executives.

Additionally, every business will try to maximize profit by cutting costs. Private insurance companies do this by denying and postponing payment of claims.

“…when people have to start paying for something they have no money for?”

The backlash will come when people realize that they are spending a substantial sum, with or without subsidies for insurance and still can’t afford treatment when the get sick.

Using a conservative definition, 62.1% of all bankruptcies in 2007 were medical; 92% of these
medical debtors had medical debts over $5000, or 10% of pretax family income. The rest met criteria for
medical bankruptcy because they had lost significant income due to illness or mortgaged a home to pay medical
bills. Most medical debtors were well educated, owned homes, and had middle-class occupations. Three
quarters had health insurance. Using identical definitions in 2001 and 2007, the share of bankruptcies attributable
to medical problems rose by 49.6%. In logistic regression analysis controlling for demographic

http://www.pnhp.org/new_bankruptcy_study/Bankruptcy-2009.pdf

Just so you know, I think the ACA is awful. Obama, with bipartisan support, has not done us a big favor with this law, but it is the law at this point. I cannot envisions a second 18 month of wasted Congressional time trying to pass a new one. It seems prudent at this point to think of it as a starting point for adding amendments and making changes to transform it into something truly helpful. SS went through such changes. Of course, the opposite can also occur, but maybe some who benefit from the changes will become converts and see the value of universal coverage as well as all the very good arguments for joining the developed world in a sane, workable, cost saving universal system. First, however, we have to vote into office legislators who see the wisdom of such a course of action. That’s the hard part.

This scam, is affordable for whom?

I think opinion remains unchanged because No one has seen any benefit from it. For most Americans this bill is simply vaporware and offers nothing.

The status quo before the bill seems the staus quo now. If the bill was repealed no one would notice either IMO.

I didnt have insursance before the bill…dont have it now. Ive also had 2 relatives DIE since its passage because they couldnt afford the healthcare they needed.