Reid finally admits the obvious about Obamacare

When Obamacare was introduced, few if any Dems would admit this (especially Obama, unless you read his earlier statement before the election supporting single-payer), but now Reid makes it clear. The goal has always been single-payer. I think it was pretty obvious from the start, and many of us pointed that out. Now that Obamacare is showing it's many problems, here we go with single-payer. I'm just surprised it's already starting before 2014 when Obamacare fully (well mainly fully) kicks in. I thought the Dems would wait until after 2014 when it became even more obvious about Obamacare's problems.

Looks like they are on the defense already.

And actually, I welcome a friendly, informed discussion of single-payer if anyone is up for it. Obviously I have my concerns, but I'm willing to air it out if anyone else will too. But I'm not up to just reading cut and paste garbage from conservative or liberal blogs.

Reid says Obamacare just a step toward eventual single-payer system
...

In just about seven weeks, people will be able to start buying Obamacare-approved insurance plans through the new health care exchanges.

But already, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is predicting those plans, and the whole system of distributing them, will eventually be moot.

Reid said he thinks the country has to “work our way past” insurance-based health care during a Friday night appearance on Vegas PBS’ program “Nevada Week in Review.”

“What we’ve done with Obamacare is have a step in the right direction, but we’re far from having something that’s going to work forever,” Reid said.

When then asked by panelist Steve Sebelius whether he meant ultimately the country would have to have a health care system that abandoned insurance as the means of accessing it, Reid said: “Yes, yes. Absolutely, yes.”

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2013/aug/10/reid-says-obamacare-just-step-toward-eventual-sing/

Look, Reid isn't just saying this off they top of his head. He's the one putting out the "trial balloon" Democrat plan, IMO. Why didn't he say this before?

Oh, I hope so... It's hardly a surprise that this would be the preferred method... Why should they have to say it over and over again?...We've got the teabaggers to say it for us, every day...

There we go Pine... LJ is "airing it out if anyone else will too." Discussion not necessary.

The point for many of the US citizens who pay attention is that we paid into Medicare for decades and into Social Security.....we worked and paid. Obama Care hands medicaid to anyone who can fog a mirror with no sacrifice...........and 30-50 MILLION illegals ........IT will not stand and many pols will fall with it.......promise..

deltamrey wrote: The point for many of the US citizens who pay attention is that we paid into Medicare for decades and into Social Security.....we worked and paid. Obama Care hands medicaid to anyone who can fog a mirror with no sacrifice...........and 30-50 MILLION illegals ........IT will not stand and many pols will fall with it.......promise..

Got a source for any of the claims in bold....or are these just more right wing blog fantasies?

archer wrote:

deltamrey wrote: The point for many of the US citizens who pay attention is that we paid into Medicare for decades and into Social Security.....we worked and paid. Obama Care hands medicaid to anyone who can fog a mirror with no sacrifice...........and 30-50 MILLION illegals ........IT will not stand and many pols will fall with it.......promise..

Got a source for any of the claims in bold....or are these just more right wing blog fantasies?

Yes....

I would agree with that it is a step in that direction if the premise is that if they will accept this huge shift in financial allocation, vs. the previous tax system where the govt administers the tax vs. you doing it or getting punished (this is kinda like what businesses have had to do with sales taxes for some time)...then yes people may just accept the next step where the govt takes over the hospitals and doctor's offices/businesses (this is what single payer means right?)

I would disagree in that single payer is a current standard in a number of other countries that are primarily Caucasian base their economies on massive overspending/debt, thus the political time to consider such a thing was now. The improperly named ACA is likely going to cost people more than what they were previously paying and in most other white/debt countries with dingle payer, people pay close to 1/2. We should not have to pay more for some time so that eventually we can pay half. By instituting the ACA we have to spend years/decades working through it before we can now go to single payer. By then we will be in more debt, and less able to focus in this issue as opposed to our other conflicts internally and externally.

I still contend that NOTHING has done more to prevent universal health care and a single payer system than the ACA/OBAMACARE. I am not saying universal care would be better or even run the same as other countries, but at least universal care would have fit under a previous model of redistribution vs. this sweeping new financial experiment (the health is another thing), this is a money game and those that talk about it like health are missing the point.

It does not matter what Reid admits, Romney, Obama, LJ and their minions have shot themselves in the foot with this one....1-2 decades of recovery, minimum.

On a related note, does anyone know who the transition worked in European countries to single payer. How did the govt take ownership of the hospitals, doctor's offices, and the uncountable equipment. In the US I believe this would fall under eminent domain. Thus the govt would be forced to pay these folks at fair market value, these folks that have countless lawyers and accountants to "accurately" come up with the extreme high value of these facilities.

Could you conceptualize the total cost of ALL American Medical Assets and then the cost of a transitional team, Doctor turnover and training in just the first year. I am curious how this could compare or contrast to say the Iraq war. Anyone have a sense of this. Even though it may be great to move to single payer and I may support this if done well, how about this cost to us at one time and then the interest as we borrow it (as we are still decades behind in paying off our debt)?

just hospitals, most are listed for sale at over 20 million (most have a single piece of equipment worth that much), 5800 in the US, valued at just 20 million per hospital (many are 10+x that large, perhaps 100+x) this would be 116 billion, at 200 million per hospital (more likely but may still be low) this would be 1.2 trillion dollars. All wars since 2001 have cost 1.5 trillion from my understanding. With other costs aside from hospitals, this could easily be many trillions of dollars. Even if you want universal care, if the govt compensates the owners of medical assets for the market cost or anything close, such a transition to universal care may cost well in excess of all of our wars for the past generation, which have cost us dearly.

Interestingly enough, the costs of the ACA have not been borne yet, it may still ruin us and if it hurts many families financially, which is what it is designed to do if they don't fall into line and buy health insurance they previously decided they cannot afford....it is unlikely anyone is going to earn support for another big govt step. But then again the govt solution when a govt program is not working is to do more of it and the govt can convince most people of just about anything, we have learned that. In the end, you will do whatever that group of a few thousand decide you will do.

Oh and as a matter of point, in my kingdom, there would have been universal health care long long before there was universal education. I am generally in LJs camp on this (before you argue my intentions too much) and if we are going to cooperate in this big mess, lets do something basic for universal care, as long as we drop the goal that we will do anything possible to save any life at any time and let some folks die or demise with dignity, people would need to retain the right to deny treatment or allocate someone who can for them. Provide the service, not the decisions. Or at a minimum I would say I support universal care over the ACA, this was not the right time to test such a large new system of wealth redistribution via forced purchases, let alone such a thing being outright immoral.

Your argument, as usual, is based on a lie... "Da Gub'mnt is going to take ownership of da hospitals, equipment, ad nauseum..." But when you don't have facts, throw a strawman up there and knock it down. For the teabaggers who scream "socialism" and "government takeover of health care", and all of the other focus-group-tested phrases at every opportunity, it's generally sufficient to substitute for actual facts. (Reagan tried to sell the same snake-oil when MediCare became the law of the land. Medicare was NOT a "Gub'mnt takeover of health care", "Da Gub'mnt does NOT own the doctors, hospitals, equipment, ad nauseum,...", and it has the lowest overhead and operating expense ratio of ANY government program....AND IT WORKS.")

The closer January 1st, 2014, comes, the more hysterical they will become. Particularly when the American people find out the GOTP's whole house of cards is built on "Repeal and Squeal"... They've long since stopped the charade of suggesting they have something to replace ACA with--They don't... Now we're down to: "We just want to take away your rights under it...and we HAVE NO plan of our own." Good luck with that.

The ability to fall back on the tiresome talking points while hearing nothing is truly awe-inspiring.

Like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, ACA is LAW...It's not--(as the daily ration of 'Bagger talking-points suggests)--a "bill." It exists and your contention that it should not (based on some libertarian view of "what the founding fathers meant") is both irrelevant and quixotic. You've already lost. Now the only thing left is to see how loud the 'Baggers can caterwaul about having lost the last 40 votes on it.

ACA:
1) Small Business Health Insurance Tax Credits: DONE
2) Allowing States to Cover More People on Medicaid: DONE (The fact that the knuckle-draggers in some GOTP-controlled states have chosen not to is not the fault of the program.)
3) Relief for 4-Million Seniors Who Hit the Medicare Prescription Drug “Donut Hole”: DONE
4) Expanding Coverage for Early Retirees: DONE
5) Pre-existing conditions covered for children: DONE
6) Wellness exams and preventative care covered: DONE
7) Specific Free Preventive Care for Seniors: DONE
8) Lifetime limits on coverage, gone..: DONE
9) Regulating Annual Limits on Insurance Coverage; Lowered now; GONE in 2014
10) Prohibiting Insurance Companies from Rescinding Coverage: DONE
11) Coverage for Young Adults to age-26 on parent's policy: DONE
12) Appealing Insurance Company Decisions with external review process: DONE
13) Pre-existing conditions covered for adults: 2014, DONE
14) Holding Insurance Companies Accountable for Unreasonable Rate Hikes: DONE
15) Rebuilding the Primary Care Workforce: Incentives, DONE
16) Additional Prescription Drug Discounts for Seniors: DONE
17) Bringing Down Health Care Premiums by REQUIRING that at LEAST 80% of premiums go to patient care...(instead of fat salaries for CEOs and Admins/advertising/etc.): DONE...People are already receiving refund-checks from the companies who did not comply.
18) Addressing Overpayments to Big Insurance Companies and Strengthening Medicare Advantage: DONE
19) Reducing Paperwork and Administrative Costs: DONE
20) Linking Payment to Quality Outcomes: DONE
21) Establishing Affordable Insurance Exchanges (where states aren't blocking it...and using the Fed Gov't to establish them if the state refuses): 2014, DONE
http://www.healthcare.gov/law/timeline/

Now, y'all go right ahead and tell all these people you want to "take away their rights"...but you have NOTHING to offer in its place.... Good luck with that too....

The more I know about the GOTP, the more I love my hamster--if I had one.

Oh, and the incessant drone about "illegals being covered"...That's a lie too:

(4) whether to grant a certification under section
1311(d)(4)(H) attesting that, for purposes of the individual
responsibility requirement under section 5000A of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, an individual is entitled to an exemption
from either the individual responsibility requirement or the
penalty imposed by such section.
(b) INFORMATION REQUIRED TO BE PROVIDED BY APPLICANTS.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—An applicant for enrollment in a qualified
health plan offered through an Exchange in the individual
market shall provide—
(A) the name, address, and date of birth of each individual
who is to be covered by the plan (in this subsection
referred to as an ‘‘enrollee’’); and
( the information required by any of the following
paragraphs that is applicable to an enrollee.
(2) CITIZENSHIP OR IMMIGRATION STATUS.—The following
information shall be provided with respect to every enrollee:
(A) In the case of an enrollee whose eligibility is based
on an attestation of citizenship of the enrollee, the enrollee’s
social security number.
( In the case of an individual whose eligibility is
based on an attestation of the enrollee’s immigration status,
the enrollee’s social security number (if applicable) and
such identifying information with respect to the enrollee’s
immigration status as the Secretary, after consultation
with the Secretary of Homeland Security, determines
appropriate.

(c) VERIFICATION OF INFORMATION CONTAINED IN RECORDS OF
SPECIFIC FEDERAL OFFICIALS.—
(1) INFORMATION TRANSFERRED TO SECRETARY.—An
Exchange shall submit the information provided by an applicant
under subsection (b) to the Secretary for verification in accordance
with the requirements of this subsection and subsection
(d).
(2) CITIZENSHIP OR IMMIGRATION STATUS.—
(A) COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY.—The Secretary
shall submit to the Commissioner of Social Security
the following information for a determination as to whether
the information provided is consistent with the information
in the records of the Commissioner:
(i) The name, date of birth, and social security
number of each individual for whom such information
was provided under subsection (b)(2).
(ii) The attestation of an individual that the individual
is a citizen.



(3) INCONSISTENCIES INVOLVING ATTESTATION OF CITIZENSHIP
OR LAWFUL PRESENCE.—If the information provided by
any applicant under subsection (b)(2) is inconsistent with
information in the records maintained by the Commissioner
of Social Security or Secretary of Homeland Security, whichever
is applicable, the applicant’s eligibility will be determined in
the same manner as an individual’s eligibility under the medicaid
program is determined under section 1902(ee) of the Social
Security Act (as in effect on January 1, 2010).
(4) INCONSISTENCIES INVOLVING OTHER INFORMATION.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—If the information provided by an
applicant under subsection (b) (other than subsection (b)(2))
is inconsistent with information in the records maintained
by persons under subsection (c) or is not verified under
subsection (d), the Secretary shall notify the Exchange
and the Exchange shall take the following actions:
(i) REASONABLE EFFORT.—The Exchange shall
make a reasonable effort to identify and address the
causes of such inconsistency, including through typographical
or other clerical errors, by contacting the
applicant to confirm the accuracy of the information,
and by taking such additional actions as the Secretary,
through regulation or other guidance, may identify.
(ii) NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY TO CORRECT.—In the
case the inconsistency or inability to verify is not
resolved under subparagraph (A), the Exchange shall—
(I) notify the applicant of such fact;
(II) provide the applicant an opportunity to
either present satisfactory documentary evidence
or resolve the inconsistency with the person
verifying the information under subsection (c) or



(h) PENALTIES.—
(1) FALSE OR FRAUDULENT INFORMATION.—
(A) CIVIL PENALTY.—
(i) IN GENERAL.—If—
(I) any person fails to provides correct information
under subsection (b); and
(II) such failure is attributable to negligence
or disregard of any rules or regulations of the
Secretary,
such person shall be subject, in addition to any other
penalties that may be prescribed by law, to a civil
penalty of not more than $25,000 with respect to any
failures involving an application for a plan year. For
purposes of this subparagraph, the terms ‘‘negligence’’
and ‘‘disregard’’ shall have the same meanings as when
used in section 6662 of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986.
(ii) REASONABLE CAUSE EXCEPTION.—No penalty
shall be imposed under clause (i) if the Secretary determines
that there was a reasonable cause for the failure
and that the person acted in good faith.
( KNOWING AND WILLFUL VIOLATIONS.—Any person
who knowingly and willfully provides false or fraudulent
information under subsection (b) shall be subject, in addition
to any other penalties that may be prescribed by
law, to a civil penalty of not more than $250,000.

But you already knew that...

Of course, all of the "illegals" that can't take advantage of it, (those who are already in the States), are GUARANTEED BY LAW, to be able to get health care in emergency rooms... So, that's where they go--The MOST EXPENSIVE and wasteful form of healthcare there is... And guess whose tax-dollars pays for that? You're paying for it anyway... You're just paying a LOT MORE for it so that your sense of Randroid superiority is upheld.

I think that the ACA is a giveaway to the insurance companies. They are and will continue to raise their prices and gouge the American people with no push back. They wrote the law. Anyone who is for the ACA as a step in the right direction is misguided. Single Payer on the other hand, would have been a BIG step in the right direction.