The anti-reform forces lose - and predictably, they go hysterical

[fpb]

I am not a lawyer and I thank God for that, but frankly, only a lawyer (or a political obsessive) could seriously treat the "purchase" of health care in the same light as the "purchase" of broccoli. And as the concept of health care did not exist in 1776, the notion that it is unconstitutional is about as helpful as to declare that the Moon landings were unconstitutional.

To me, this has the same feel as the American unwillingness or incapacity to contemplate serious legal reform - such as the introduction of a system of Administrative Justice such as most Code Napoleon countries have - and admit that new areas of life and experience have arisen. On the one hand, the monstrous complexity and private-only nature of Obamacare makes it unlikely to succeed in the long run; on the other, if the Republicans imagine that there is a majority for what America has now in the way of healthcare, they are living on the Moon.

The worst thing from my point of view is that while an Obama victory would mean a clash of State and Church not seen in a free country since the Combes government in France, on the other hand the Church's social doctrine has no friends among the Republicans and would mean that any alliance with them to resist Obama and his cohort of Church-hating harridans such as Sebelius and Pelosi would be dangerous and deceptive. Plus, the Republicans have seen fit to choose the worst possible candidate... at this point, I can't see a positive outcome.

Comments

[mindstalk.livejournal.com]

"about 1/6 of the population there cannot use their expensive insurance because they can't afford to after paying the premiums. They have nothing left over for co-pays"

Source?

Of course, there are obvious solutions like increasing the subsidies and regulating the premium/co-pay structure more...

As for being over budget -- maybe, though I remember reading that was overblown. But I also note that Romneycare started a year or two before the Second Great Depression -- which means higher unemployment, lower tax revenues, and more people than expected turning to the state system. So "over budget" may mean only "the economy is broken", not "the system is itself flawed".

[jsl32.livejournal.com]

But who's paying for the subsidies?

As for the unaffordability thing, here is one link mentioning the co-pay problem, but they appear to have locked the rest of the article down.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/06/21/costs_are_keeping_patients_from_care/

This is an unblocked article about the more general issue of people not being able to afford the fancy insurance at all, but there not being a mechanism for the state to cover them instead:
http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/health/articles/2011/02/07/more_get_waivers_of_health_insurance/?page=full

[mindstalk.livejournal.com]

Of note: "State officials said they excused the majority of waiver applicants in large part because of the protracted sour economy, which made insurance unaffordable for more people... regulators have significant latitude to authorize waivers by taking into account factors such as a home foreclosure"

"But who's paying for the subsidies? "

In the long run, taxpayers. In the short run, sovereign borrowing, until we're out of the depression. This is why it's important to keep up full employment, and why simplistic balanced budget requirements are very bad.