Welcome back, David. You have been missed.

The audio of the proceedings were disheartening and disillusioning even to disillusioned old me.

Sadly true. This is a thought I ponder almost daily. Did the country I thought I knew ever really exist?

I agree. Her comment is a good summary of where we are now, politically speaking.

I’m following the arguments with interest. Armando (Big Tent Democrat) has a good run down of the law on the Daily Kos site, as does bmaz at Emptywheel.

On a personal note, I really hope the Supreme Court supports the act. Not that I love the insurance companies, but I hate to see so many without any health insurance at all. With the subsidies, and the expansion of Medicaid, a greater number will have access to health care. And preventative health is required to have no copays. There will be more regulation of the insurance industry.

In MA, the law has helped most people afford insurance. It’s not perfect, but it’s a step in the right direction.

I don’t see any scenario where something like Medicare for all is enacted if this goes down, short of a massive backlash against the right wing and a total collapse of the Republican party.

After over 20 years of participating in thought-provoking and revealing conversations on race, I have gotten to the point where I think we need:

1. Civil rights movement 2.0 (3.0 or 4.0)
2. A much more proactive federal Justice Department
3. A campaign to educate people, government officials, and police in nonviolence, and appropriate policing of nonviolent demonstrations
4. State and local activism against racial profiling and stereotyping

Occupy Wall Street has already started #4. Department of Justice under Obama has been missing in action.

I’m not really sure how much good conversation does. If it is sincerely engaged in by small groups, it can enlighten and change individuals. But institutional racism is exceedingly difficult for even extremely well-meaning and brave individuals to change from within.

The Trayvon Martin case evokes lynchings that were prevalent from emancipation well into the 20th century.

Recent GOP extremist language (anti-immigrant, anti-Black, anti-liberal) as well as race-coded language that one hears both in political campaigns and on the nightly news have created a dangerous climate.

The Blunt amendment sponsorship will hurt him with independents, especially with low-information voters who are not following politics closely. A lot of voters do not really know about his stand on contraception yet.

The fragmentation is the second greatest problem, after lack of access to health care & insurance.

If I were emperor, I would combine all the various programs into one Medicare single-payer system, supported by progressive Medicare/Social Security tax (with no cap on high earners).

Medicare for all. No mandate, just make it available on a sliding scale for everyone who wants to buy in.

Re: credit unions. I recently decided to switch checking account to my credit union. Not only are there no fees, they give me free checks! and pay interest on balances over $100. And a no-fee debit card.

I, too, fail to understand why Greece doesn’t leave the Euro and default immediately.

What does anyone in Greece, aside from a few oligarchs who probably no longer have any money in Greece, gain from going along with this disastrous deal?

This is great news. At last the Obama administration is proposing something that will address the inequalities structured into the tax code.

It might not result in actual legislation this year, but it is good for campaign rhetoric. We need to change the conversation from cutting benefits for deficit reduction to increasing revenue from superwealthy to fund investment in American infrastructure and people.

I don’t think people are stupid, I think they are stressed by pressures that are driving wages and incomes down. It was partly relieved by the housing bubble, refinancing (the house as credit card) and credit card debt.

The real problem is declining wages, declining household incomes in the mid and lower-mid ranges.

People want to have a sense of pride and self-worth, and if they are forced by circumstance to turn to government help it is a great blow to pride.

The opportunity for the left is obvious–and the occupy movement with its appeal across ideological boundaries seems to me to point a way to change minds and change consciousness.

The unions could be organizing more effectively, and maybe with recent anti-union right-to-work pressure in states like Ohio, Indiana, Wisconsin, etc., they will gain momentum.

Tom Frank’s many insightful books analyze the right wing forces that have created this situation. They also highlight an important reason the right has been so successful–the failure of mainstream Democrats to fight for policies that really help the working and middle classes. They have left a vacuum in “middle” America that the right has filled with an ideology that serves the super wealthy while attacking the poor.

Right wing populist movements with the right mix of circumstances and scapegoats can lead down very dangerous paths.

This isn’t a phenomenon to take lightly or mockingly. It’s been developing for a long time, since the Reagan years at least. And the downturn in the economy from 2008 has increased its potency.

The response should be renewed effort by progressives to publicize and fight for policies that raise wages, increase jobs, and focus on taxing the superwealthy.

The biggest misconception I found in the article was that the working poor and middle classes needed to be taxed more. The fight needs to be to raise taxes on the wealthy–those making $1 million or more–and to tax capital gains on the same level as earned income. And all income should be subject to social security taxes, with no cap, and no exception for capital gains. An effort also needs to be made to stop off-shoring of income by individuals and corporations.

Even if those battles are lost in the short run, fighting them publicly and openly will eventually raise consciousness.

How does the Missouri indictment of DocX affect the settlement, David?

lower costs for regular people normally means less profits for health care companies

This is such a significant point, which cannot be repeated often enough.

Your reporting on this story is fantastic David. Keep up the good work. Amazing that it takes off-the-radar blogs like this to keep a securities fraud story of this magnitude in the public eye.

Shame on the major news organizations. And shame on the Justice Department and the Obama administration.

What book is that? I don’t see author or title.

So folks interested in real solutions should gear up for a campaign starting now and peaking in 2014 in favor of Medicare for All, which requires only the removal of age qualifications on Medicare and rolling all other medical coverage (VA, Medicaid, etc) into Medicare, eliminating deductibles and co-pays, and funding it out of the general tax fund as an entitlement to cover costs. That system is simple enough for folks to understand.

Hear! Hear!

After wading through three changes of insurance in the past 3 months, and helping my daughter wade through another change after a job loss, I am flummoxed by the incredible complexity of the current system. Your solution is the most appealing proposal I’ve seen.

Obamacare and the individual mandate may even further fragment the system. It’s unnavigable for anyone but the most highly-educated health savvy consumers, basically a series of traps and gotcha’s laid by insurance companies to amass the most profit and pay out the least.

After having gone through 3 insurers in the past year, after loss of a job, getting private insurance for a month, and then getting another job with different insurer/plan, I have decided that tying health insurance/care to employment is a serious problem with our entire system and with Obama’s approach. Having insurance linked to states is also an obstacle to decent health care.

A decent system would not only be universal, but would be nationwide, and non-employment based. Every change in insurer/plan means disrupted care, often delayed care, and changes in what is covered and what is not. If you have a serious or chronic condition a loss of a job can wreak havoc on continuity of care.

My kid, age 25, lives in another state. She has had 2 different plans this past year, one was partly subsidized that she bought as an individual, the other came with a fulltime job. She has just been laid off and now has no insurance. I cannot put her on our plan because she is out of state.

Is this any way to run a health system in one of the most developed industrial countries in the world, and, as the politicians keep reminding us, the ONLY superpower?

It’s pure insanity.

The fragmentation, I had hoped, would be somewhat addressed with a nationwide public option, and then I hoped that at least the exchanges would be nationwide. Now, if I have followed developments correctly, each state will have a different system with different rules. Medicaid will vary state by state.

Personally, I am not as opposed to the mandate as I am to the continued fragmentation of the system (and the lack of a public option).

My issues with the mandate are:
1. Why a fine rather than automatic enrollment?
2. No public option (ability to buy into Medicare as an option vs. private insurance)
3. Why not require employers to contribute more toward cost of subsidies for uninsured employees?
4. High salaries of private insurance executives, lobbyists, & profits passed onto shareholders. If this is a public service with a mandate on individuals to buy the product, with government subsidies, there should be a strict cap on CEO salaries, payments to lobbyists, and profits.
5. Price gouging by medical and drug industries.