Your provider may have to drop coverage. There are too many mandates. ....eventually Companies will find that paying the tax penalty is better than having a healthcare plan. As soon as a competitor drops their healthcare plan and lowers their costs and prices because of it....your company may have to do the same or be out of business. You will then go on the Government system. You won't have your own. It will be a "one payer system" and because of this.....that one payer will decide care and benefits through a Government run healthcare. It won't be personal for you or your family. If you worked hard and stayed in a company in order to maintain a good plan for you and your family...it will no longer matter. You will be lumped in with the "millions" who did not do the same as you. You will also get in line behind "the new millions" of people, competing for care.
The prices will sky rocket because just like in any other "non-competive" Government run situation drug companies, hospitals etc will know that the Government is paying regardless of price. The tax payers will simply pay more. The results of this will not matter to the "rich". Just like in Europe the very rich will still have private doctors in which they will pay cash. They will still have their surgeries and care ahead of the rest of us. It is the middle class that will see their care decrease and their taxes go up.

It would have been a lot easier and "right" just to set up more Government run clinics for the 30 million without care instead of "touching my healthcare". But there is a "big Government' mentality right now that says "they know better"...

Those that own Section 8 apartment buildings can attest to the above concept.

Section 8 pays more than the market will bear in a retail market.

Govt has a few rules to follow and sends the check the first of the month every month.

Renters get worse and worse.

All on the Gov dime.

you can do nothing to stop it. But you could defect. Stand up for your principals.  Where you going to go? We're the last industrialized country to enact some form of qauasi-universal care.  You could go 3rd world, embrace Christian Science or Jehova's witness, read up on the Boy Scout First Aid Merit Badge and do your family's health care on that platform.  Sound like a winner?

But were effing going to extend healthcare to as many people who don't have it as we can and aholes like shitface Jindal are just gnats on freight trains. Same with Ryan and Romney.

They aren't going to be allowed to fuck up this country's efforts to get people out of the fucking emergency rooms where docs don't have time or frankly the skills to practice chronic care that  primary physicians (FPs and internists deliver in an office setting).

Ryan, Romney, and McConnell look like ranting hyenas. They have no understanding of what constitutes decent clinical care whatsoever, and they have no substantive alternative. They're effort to destroy ACA is headed for the graveyard  like the Titanic.

But keep ranting--you're up to about 50-60 a day and maybe that's what your therapist would want.

Why do you think it will work so well here when it has not really worked well anywhere else?

and it's going to work here after 2014.  I curse Leiberman, Landrieu, Ben Nelson and the recalcitant Republicans on  Senate Finance everyday for holding up the implementation by insisting on a CBO paradigm that holds most of it's components up until 2014 because you are going to see a paradigm shift.  The disinformation campaign is working very very well.

For example the lie that ACA is cutting Medicare for seniors which is just total bullshit is believed by a lot of them. The donut hole which I can explain if you need it explained gets closed for Medicare beneficiaries by ACA.  There also is a free physical exam offered now in place and now available that the vast majority of medicare beneficiaries don't know about and aren't taking advantage of now.

There is the lie you can be jailed if you don't comply with the mandate.


Personally I get to talk with a lot of MDs day in and day out and they are confused about what it is.  Medicare is not being cut by ACA, but there is the "doc fix" problem that the medical profession and CMS call "SGR 2012".  There's a $340 billion dollar deficit that Congress won't deal with. They task a lawyer who is near the top at CMS and his team called Jon Blum to cut Medicare fees 30% more. They are already reduced to about 60% of regular premium insurance reimbursement.  So Blum's team responds to Congress suggesting a 30% cut in fees knowing that a 20% reimbursement would cause all docs to drop out of Medicare, because they are essentially throwing the problem back in Congress' lap. If you want to read about SGR 2012, just google SGR AMA News and they are following with accuracy in detail. You will hear little about it on the political cable stations or the major networks and read little about it in the media although WSJ and NYT do cover it.

Back to your question though:  Universal Health Care called the "Bismark model" is analagous to many but not all tenants of ACA.  It's in Switzerland, Netherlands, France, Belgium, Japan, Latin America.  I don't know it in detail in some of those countries, and would have to do some reading and talking to people to find out, but it is working pretty well in Switzerland and the Netherlands.

The Swiss and Dutch Health Insurance Systems: Universal Coverage and Regulated Competitive Insurance Markets
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Publications/Fund-Reports/2009/Jan/The-Swiss-and-Dutch-Health-Insurance-Systems--Universal-Coverage-and-Regulated-Competitive-Insurance.aspx

Nothing prevented companies from dropping coverage without penalty before.  
Now they will face a penalty for not covering workers.  
With minimum standard for coverage.  In the past some like Walmart claimed to offer coverage, but the cost to employees was higher than what the minimum wage workers could afford.  

The ACA is the law of the land and it is here to stay!

No personal attacks, you stated your case and cited examples. I will have to look in these other countries, but you must understand from what I have heard, its all abount Canadians coming here when they really get sick because they have to wait too long under their healthcare system. There have been MPs who have come from Canada for that very reason.

Personally, I think socialzed health care is great if you need asparain and to make sure you do not have to pay large insurance bills, but when the time comes when you may really get sick, YOU'RE SCREWED!!! That is why so many SERIOUSLY ILL patients come to the U.S.

One other thing I have to consider is the overall quality of docotrs we will wind up with. I'm sorry, but it is human nature. Who wants to go to school for 8-10 years and then do a residency pulling 36 hours shifts making crap money so they can eventualyl make 80K - 100K a year!! Not to sound racist, but I sense we are going to have a lot of doctors named Patel coming in from over seas as we have to relax our standards due to a lack of skilled physicians.

So explain to me where this thinking is off? Seems to me that Obamacare still only guarantees what most liberal programs do, that we are all equally miserable.

Yes, there were minority complaints after the passage of both the original Social Security Act of 1935 and Medicare Act of 1965 (SSA Amendments of 1965). You may or may not know more than most people about healthcare delivery but it’s unfortunately too painful to know for sure due to your writing style. I usually cannot (as I suspect many here cannot) finish most of your posts due to their repulsive nature.

Anyway, there is a fundamental political difference between then and now that transcends the “blather”. That difference is the voting record of all three laws or more specifically the Republican voting record. Examining all three laws reveals Yea votes were cast in both the House and Senate Democrats by anywhere from 83% to 95%. The difference of course is in the Republican record. Most everyone that followed the ACA are familiar with the essentially ZERO Republican votes cast in the Yea column for the 2010 ACA. Listening to your “blather” comment about SSA and Medicare and similar ones espoused in the media, one would assume the Republicans in the past were also total Nay votes 40 and 70 years ago. Not so.

In 1935, 76% of Senate Republicans and 84% of House Republicans voted Yea. In 1965, the numbers were still 43% (Senate) and 51%.(House)  In 2010 they were 0% and 0%. Even with all the “blathering” after 1935 and 1965 there was never a chance of repeal or major change precisely due to the large Republican votes FOR the Acts. No so today. Even if the Republican do not gain a repeal capable majority this Fall it could most likely happen at a later date. I’m not predicting it will happen but the circumstances are far different than when the previous two major social changes occurred.