Only a Third of the Public Support Obamacare

[Frodo]

But they also strongly favor having Congress and the White House begin work on a new health care reform bill if the current law is overturned by the Supreme Court.

[NVGonzalez]

Cool. So they wanted a real health care reform bill with a public option rather than a watered down corporate influenced mandate.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Cool. So they wanted a real health care reform bill with a public option rather than a watered down corporate influenced mandate.

A public option would destroy the insurance companies!

Those poor insurance companies!

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

The current bill is far from anything desirable, but a new bill just isn't happening.

[Frodo]

The current bill is far from anything desirable, but a new bill just isn't happening.

Probably not this year -that would be too optimistic.  Next year might be a different story, though. 

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

The current bill is far from anything desirable, but a new bill just isn't happening.

Probably not this year -that would be too optimistic.  Next year might be a different story, though.  

The Democrats would have to get a 60+ seat majority in the Senate and win back the House to bring the public option back to the table.  There is absolutely no chance of both happening this year.

[greenforest32]

Have corporate giveaways ever been popular?

Instead of the mandate and subsidies for private insurance, the bill should have had a much larger Medicaid expansion (at least 200% of the federal poverty level instead of 135%) and a focus on transitioning out of employer-sponsored insurance (ESI) by ending the ESI tax deduction and opening up Medicare with a buy-in option and/or lowering the eligibility age to 55 (plus repealing the ban on it negotiating prescription drug prices). Just one of many opportunities Democrats squandered.

Giving public subsidies for a service administered by private, for-profit entities when the government can handle it better (same service for less cost, no conflict of interest with private ownership and profit, etc) is the perfect example of a neoliberal/moderate hero "solution". While I wouldn't like SCOTUS striking down the entire bill, I wouldn't mind them striking down the mandate as private health insurance will not see a long-term expansion without it.

[anvi]

The public option would not have sunk insurance companies.  It had a means-tested eligibility cap.  Providers were pissed about the reimbursement rates the public option was going to offer, and they rounded up enough Dem Senators to kill it.

[© tweed]

it's been one hell of a 2.5 year propaganda onslaught.  meanwhile if you ask the public if they want universal single-payer in neutral language it probably has 3:2 or 4:3 support.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The current bill is far from anything desirable, but a new bill just isn't happening.

Probably not this year -that would be too optimistic.  Next year might be a different story, though. 

Even assuming Obama is re-elected, I don't see any chance of anything better passing under his administration.

[Badger]

The public option would not have sunk insurance companies.  It had a means-tested eligibility cap.  Providers were pissed about the reimbursement rates the public option was going to offer, and they rounded up enough Dem Senators to kill it.

Yeah, one---Leiberman. Landreau and Cornhusker kickback were on board in a pinch.

[anvi]

Well, Carper, Lincoln, Conrad, and Baucus were opposed also.  I was Conrad's former constituent and corresponded with him a few times in 2009 about this, and he wrote back long personal letters both times, in the second one showing the dismal state of financial affairs the hospital in my hometown is in and voicing the concerns of its board that if it had to take lower reimbursement rates from a public option in addition to the Medicare and Medicaid rates it was already receiving from a largely elderly population, it could fold, forcing all of its patients, and not just trauma emergency patients, to make a one-hundred mile hop to Bismarck to get treatment.  It was at least a legitimate concern on his part, I think.  It's a symptom of so many things that are wrong with our health care system, including the almost complete lack of control we have over cost inflation outside of fragmented and competing bargainers.  

After the last couple of big go-arounds on health care though, I've become cynical about public opinion on this too.  Americans favor the idea of comprehensive health care reform right up until the moment they find out it's going to cost them anything.  The American left clamors a lot about single-payer, but it's worth noting that the the entire tax-paying populous, and not just the wealthy, pay significantly higher taxes to finance it in the countries where it exists.  I personally think it's a fair trade and all--but maintaining that kind of system does cost lots of money, and it has to come from somewhere.

By the way, Badger, I somehow missed the boat on your changing to a blue avatar.  Any special reasons?  

[Joe Republic]

The Democrats would have to get a 60+ seat majority in the Senate and win back the House to bring the public option back to the table.  There is absolutely no chance of both happening this year.

The Democrats had a 60 seat majority in the Senate and control of the House, and still couldn't keep the public option on the table.  Nor would they again, because any Senate majority of that magnitude will always include moderates and conservatives in red states.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

The current bill is far from anything desirable, but a new bill just isn't happening.

Probably not this year -that would be too optimistic.  Next year might be a different story, though. 

The Democrats would have to get a 60+ seat majority in the Senate and win back the House to bring the public option back to the table.  There is absolutely no chance of both happening this year.

I thought we were going to have filibuster reform by next session.

[muon2]

Well, Carper, Lincoln, Conrad, and Baucus were opposed also.  I was Conrad's former constituent and corresponded with him a few times in 2009 about this, and he wrote back long personal letters both times, in the second one showing the dismal state of financial affairs the hospital in my hometown is in and voicing the concerns of its board that if it had to take lower reimbursement rates from a public option in addition to the Medicare and Medicaid rates it was already receiving from a largely elderly population, it could fold, forcing all of its patients, and not just trauma emergency patients, to make a one-hundred mile hop to Bismarck to get treatment.  It was at least a legitimate concern on his part, I think.  It's a symptom of so many things that are wrong with our health care system, including the almost complete lack of control we have over cost inflation outside of fragmented and competing bargainers.  

There have been a lot of problems with provider relations for Medicare and Medicaid over the years. They largely stem from over-centralization of decision making creating strange cost structures and oversight requirements.

An example of the first is with proton and neutron cancer therapy which typically require a third the number of treatments needed for gamma or x-ray therapy. But government-managed health care systems were slow compared to private insurers in adapting to the new technology. Private insurers recognized that it was the whole regimen that should be looked at while the government locked into a cost per treatment by radiation regardless of the regimen.

An example of the second is a one-size-fits-all mentality to flag potential fraud and a case from 20 years ago. Psychiatrists covering nursing homes are expected to spend an average of 15 minutes per patient. If the doctor can identify 3/4 of them for medicine administered by nurses and the remaining quarter for more extensive counseling, you might think that was good work by the doc. However, Medicare says that could be fraud because now the doctor is billing an hour per patient on average and could take away the license unless he lists a visit for the entire population. That means spending time with patients (not just checking the chart) that don't need it and therefore shorting time with others who do.

Despite the issues with private insurers, they have generally been more rapidly able to integrate new medical technology and more adaptable to case-specific needs than the government. That's why you hear providers concerned about expanded single-payer systems.

[anvi]

Oh, I agree, muon2, I think a lot gets missed in "single payer" systems.  Having spent a lot of time in Canada over the last two and a half years, I think folks up here do the best they can, but the hyper-centralization really hurts lots of things.  I'm more of a Bismarck system fan myself, though providers do get shorted in that too.  Really my biggest concern with the U.S. is getting as many people coverage as possible, and we ought to be able to find a framework for that.

[Silent Hunter]

No ruling on Obamacare today from USSC.

[Purch]

Well yea... Just because people want healthcare, doesn't mean people agree with Obama's method of obtaining it.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

That's because the jobs have cut health care coverage and most of the jobs giving out health care are the union jobs like auto unions that got bailed out by the government.  It was a good bill had the jobs been there when it was enacted, but we got a watery down version and the real cost was the prescriptive drugs that the cost still haven't gone down,

[Person Man]

Well, if SCOTUS overturns it, I guess we will have to wait until Big Business policy runs its course...just like we had to do in our nation's past.