EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
If 'Obamacare' Falls, Will 'Medicare for All' Rise?
Many observers see opening if Supreme Court kills Affordable Care Act
After last week's deliberations before the US Supreme Court over Obama's signature health care reform legislation, the Affordable Care Act, speculation is rampant about the political fallout if the nation's highest court knocks down some, or all, of the law.
Conservatives would see a move to throw out the law (which they derisively call 'Obamacare') as a victory, whereas Democrats and those who championed the legislation would consider it an affront to jurisprudence and a defeat of the president's largest domestic policy initiative. Progressives, however -- who only reluctantly accepted the law's passage after their preferred alternatives, either a single-payer system or a 'public option', were ruled out -- may ultimately be the ones who claim victory if the Supreme Court invalidates the 'individual mandate' or the entirety of the Affordable Care Act.
* * *
TalkingPointMemo's Sahil Kaptur reports this morning: Why Overturning ‘Obamacare’ Could Lead To Single-Payer
If the Supreme Court strikes down “Obamacare,” Republicans claim a huge short-term victory, but they may end up big losers in the long run. The future of the nation’s health care system would be thrown into disarray, and conservatives may be forced to swallow a more bitter pill.
The prospect of moving toward a more liberal, government-controlled health care system is fraught with political peril, and therefore far from inevitable, but may wind up being the only way to prevent the demise of the unsustainable, existing system from leaving many more millions without access to health care. Without a mechanism like an individual mandate to cover the uninsured and tackle the free-rider problem, health care costs are set to rise at an unsustainable rate and compel potentially drastic action from Congress.
“Conservatives may find that they weren’t careful about what they wished for in opposing ‘Obamacare,’” Adam Winkler, a constitutional law professor at UCLA School of Law, told TPM. “The economic, social and political pressure for health care reform aren’t going to just disappear. There’s a reason every major industrialized country has national health care. If the Supreme Court invalidates the Affordable Care Act, we are likely to see a government takeover of health care in the next decade.”
In that scenario, progressives could turn to two alternatives that have proven successful at lowering costs in other countries: A single-payer plan a la Medicare but for everyone, or a two-tier system in which private and public insurers compete. Both concepts are anathema to Republicans, but their constitutionality is not in doubt — and the GOP has been unable to devise a replacement plan, which could give liberals ammunition for their cause.
There’s little doubt that the idea behind the individual mandate — in which Americans either buy insurance or pay more in taxes — would be constitutional if rewritten explicitly as a “tax” as opposed to a “penalty” for not buying a product. But the political fallout of a Supreme Court decision to strike it down may well scare lawmakers away from the concept altogether.
“The defenders of federalism will be rewarded with an even bigger federal government,” Winkler said. “Wouldn’t that be ironic?”
Rose Ann Demoro, executive director of National Nurses United, wrote last week:
Today Medicare remains a more efficient, cost effective, humane system for delivering healthcare, and guaranteeing it to everyone who is eligible, in a far superior manner to the broken dysfunction privatized insurance system that is based on profit and ability to pay, not on patient need.
Sure, the Affordable Care Act does have positive elements, including some restrictions on the abuses that characterize the insurance industry, and the provision that lets young adults up to 26 to remain on their parents’ health plan.
But even if Obamacare survives the court challenge – a prospect looking increasingly dim – it would leave millions of Americans out in the cold.
Despite its name the Affordable Care Act has done little to actually make healthcare affordable. Out of pocket health costs for families continue to soar. It does little to crack down on insurance companies denial of medical treatment they don’t want to pay for. It leaves 27 million Americans with no health coverage, according to a Congressional Budget office estimate in early March.
And for many who are covered, it further tethers them to a callous, insurance system that treats patients as commodities, not as individuals with individual needs.
And Robert Reich, in a much cited piece, said compared to the private insurance model, "Medicare is a great deal." He continued:
Its administrative costs are only around 3 percent, while the administrative costs of private insurers eat up 30 to 40 percent of premiums. Medicare’s costs are even below the 5 percent to 10 percent administrative costs borne by large companies that self-insure, and under the 11 percent costs of private plans under Medicare Advantage, the current private-insurance option under Medicare.
So why not Medicare for all?
# # #
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...


53 Comments so far
Show AllIf the conservative, anti-government, Tea Party crowd treated the (Republican-inspired) Obamacare as "red meat", I can only imagine how they will react to proposals for a legitimate single-payer system.
It would be nice if SCOTUS's overturn of Obamacare provided an opening for single-payer health care, whether framed as "Medicare for all" or otherwise. But given current state of politics in this country, I ain't holding my breath. Congress can barely agree to continue supporting formerly non-controversial programs like the Transportation Bill these days -- much less vastly expanding the reach of government.
The question is: will the scrotum -- excuse me (I get them confused) -- will the scotus upend a windfall for the insurance industry. As far as a bunch of sick people are concerned, they were the last thing on barry's mind when he had the insurance industry lobbyists write the obamacare law.
Much will be taken away, that are actually good parts of this law, but the public mandate will stand, and thus the incredible danger of putting into law, a requirement to buy an overpriced product from a monopolized industry that has proven itself to be, greedy, corrupt, and cruel.
Even if the ACA is wholly or partially upheld by the SCOTUS, we need to keep pressing for a single payer system alternative. Of course, we already have Medicare for the elderly as in effect an alternative. It would be simple to reduce the age limit.
But then again, what percentage of employers provide medical plans to paid at least in part by the employer, to employees these days? If the businesses never intend to provide such fringe benfits that used to universal, they will balk at the employer-share tax that would part of any such program, and the race to the bottom will continue.
Sounds to me like the Rainbow Stew people saying If we reelect Obama he'll suddenly turn into FDR.
I have a better chance of waking up tomorrow as Lebron James than Obama has to turn into FDR - or for congres to pass a single payer system that doesn't enrich the oligarchs.
I think the real reason they'll kill Obummer care is the back door open for states to put in a single payer system and not the mandate - which I'm sure the fascist bastard rats in the SCOTUS love. Hey but call me cynic.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/02/23/single-payer-health-car...
This article at Forbes by single payer foe Josh Barro talks about how striking the bill down will lead to the Democrats passing it next time they're in control of Cognress because that's what they've always thirsted to do, as liberals and socialist commies.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/joshbarro/2012/03/28/how-obamacares-rejectio...
Of course, most CD posters know that the democrats were put in office, in great part, by the insurance industry -- with the head of HHS herself stating that the legislation was designed to keep their murderous derrieres afloat. Though the insurance industry has its employees out there at demonstrations shouting, "I'm for freedom!" in opposition to the bill, and all while the bill gives them at least another 55 million customers. But again, see Bertolini's statements.
I think the single payer movement is here, whatever is happening. For a long time, I have heard that this system is inevitable in the U.S., though I couldn't say so, myself. But that first article, in conjunction with this statement released by Mark Bertolini w/Aetna is the best explanation for that view that I've seen.
http://www.healthdatamanagement.com/news/HIMSS12-Aetna-CEO-insurers-face...
If anyone else can kick something in here, please go ahead and keep hope alive. The present legislation hasn't been attempted anywhere else, as far as I can see, since, as another poster points out - the Swiss system , for example, is so highly regulated - much more so than what this bill proposes (though I suppose it could head in that direction) - and they're flipping out over what are actually rather weak controls by global standards.
Whatever, they are going out of business as they know it, with the issue of health care for the country remaining.
How much we suffer under their madness and oppression, in the interim, is another question. And whether we live to see any of it, if humanity hasn't destroyed itself by other means before then.
twice as much spent on health care than Every other Developed country in the world
20% to gdp for a system that delivers #50 in the world in life expectancy......
and a broken fed government budget - all due to health care costs rising by 10% or so a year.....
the cost will grow exponentially - very quickly (10-20 years) becoming absolutely unaffordable on a national level......
the only questions are how much they'll bankrupt us 1st - and how many will die as they squeeze the last nickle from our corpses.
Oh no; here it comes....
Robert Reich is an "Obamabot shill"... "he gave us NAFTA"..."he was Clinton's favorite cabinet secretary"....he is a "gatekeeper"... he is evil incarnate.....blah...blah...blah... blah...blah...blah...blah
CD Staff: "Progressives, however -- who only reluctantly accepted the law's passage after their preferred alternatives, "
Progressives didn't reluctantly accept the law's passage. True progressives were opposed to it. Perhaps the psuedo Congressional Progressive Caucus reluctantly accepted it, but progressivism is virtually non-existent in this group when it comes time their block vote could actually affect legislation. Amazing how a minority Tea Party group within a minority controlled Congress can sway legislation and the CPC is helplessly lame.
Bottom line is, the law wasn't popular with Republicans, Democrats, Independent and the general public but Obama put lipstick on it and with help from the Democrats and Republicans (who helped design it), shoved it down our throats. Even Obama and the Demobot attempts to go back and rewrite history to make it sound like a great milestone bill to rave fell flat on their faces.
Why use the word "progressive" at all if it is always going to be defined after the fact - those who do not cave in are to be seen as the "real" progressives. "Progressive" is defined as "having all of the right positions on issues." Then, when the majority of people who accepted that definition and self-described as progressive sell out, the term gets re-defined and we have a sub-class called "true" progressives.
The problem is with the way the word was originally defined - as a matter of "having all of the right positions on issues," and with what that says about the way that progressives look at politics. The word "having" in that phrase is meaningless. It opens the door to this thinking: "don't get me wrong, I agree with you BUT...."
Politics is not a matter of "having" the right beliefs or the right positions. Those are meaningless.
I'm very careful in wishing for at the very least, expanded Medicare for all.
Also people don't get that you can't own property and collect welfare. This will be no different. If you have property you will have to sell, and if you get too sick to work and the ObamaCare has to carry you they will lien and kick out all survivors. That's how it's done. The financial industry and the MHI are the same people.
ObamaCare is a slave formula. Notice you never hear about raising wages to living wages so people can be in control of their own lives. No that's not an option. .
Like parents that overindulge a difficult child, we have allowed these financial elite to take control of every aspect of our lives. This has gone way too far and they will be demanding access to bank accounts effectively garnishing every single person's income no matter what for their out of sight for profit health care.
This health care is so inferior it is dangerous. They will never find a cure for cancer, they have way too much money wrapped up in the barbaric "radiate you till you fry" system that makes them trillions. GE is the biggest company in the world and they make these kimo machines. Not to mention that GE is a war profiteer and is part of the Wall Street Government running America. Nope, like oil, this is the system they will force on us no matter that it doesn't work and is a death sentence. No thanks.
If we had Single Payer the best medicine would be the objective, not profit and protecting antiquated barbaric methods which are nothing more than money trees for these financial elite that see the death and suffering of common people as a resource. It is imperative that we get out of this for profit system or be units of financial extraction through inferior and terrible disease maintenance care.
Don't forget Wall street also owns and operates all the major polluting industries so they will be controlling what we know about that and never pointing the finger at the poisons that send us to these for profit health care money suck funnels in the first place.
Not a chance; there are no kickbacks for the Oilybomber.