Skip to main content

View Diary: Obama Should Agree to Modify Obamacare in Return for Ending the Bush Tax Cuts for Top 2% (76 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  um (4+ / 0-)

    the profit motive adds a surcharge by itself that isn't present in a government run program. in our system, a multi-billion dollar surcharge that serves no public or health care interest. and the aca has huge holes in it, such as erisa 514, which should have been eliminated but wasn't, and which provides a mechanism that allows insurers to deny treatment even if they can't deny coverage- the difference between guaranteed insurance and guaranteed health care.

    The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

    by Laurence Lewis on Mon Nov 26, 2012 at 09:19:46 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Well duh. (3+ / 0-)
      the profit motive adds a surcharge by itself that isn't present in a government run program.
      Yes Laurence, but there might be other "surcharges" that are present in a government-run program versus a private one.  
      in our system, a multi-billion dollar surcharge that serves no public or health care interest
      Well, the ACA has just re-calibrated the market incentives such that they now serve a public interest.  Now, insurance costs less because healthy people are required to buy it, and taxpayers pay less because they're not having to subsidize the cost of emergency care for the uninsured.  The whole point of the ACA was to incentivize private insurers to serve the public interest.
      and the aca has huge holes in it, such as erisa 514, which should have been eliminated but wasn't, and which provides a mechanism that allows insurers to deny treatment even if they can't deny coverage- the difference between guaranteed insurance and guaranteed health care.
      ERISA was enacted in 1974 and is not part of the ACA.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/...

      A public option wouldn't guarantee health coverage or care because it doesn't require people to purchase insurance through its program.  The public option would lower the cost of insurance presumably through tax subsidies, but it wouldn't guarantee anything.

      •  you're missing the point (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        james321, corvo, qofdisks

        the continuing existence of erisa 514 is a hole in the aca large enough to drive countless deaths by denial of treatment through. it renders the requirement of insurance coverage to people with preexisting conditions practically meaningless, because insurers can just take the money and then refuse to pay for expensive treatments.

        a public option, with a mandate (which most hardcore obama supporters considered unacceptable in 2008), and a repeal of erisa 514 would lower costs and expand actual health care (as opposed to healh insurance) coverage, at lower costs to consumers, while also lowering the deficit. it would be as close to single payer as you could get without it being single payer. the aca will help a lot of people, but don't for one minute pretend it is anything but one step on a still long path toward a comprehensive solution. a path that the aca itself does not necessitate we ever take.

        The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

        by Laurence Lewis on Tue Nov 27, 2012 at 03:01:05 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site