Supreme Court upholds Obamacare

I am completely stunned that it was upheld, and even more stunned that Roberts joined the majority. I will be very interested in how this plays out in political circles.

In theory, this should reduce the cost of health insurance by getting healthier people (e.g. young adults) into the system. Of course, health insurance companies could take this decrease in cost as profit which is why a non-profit system would be better for the consumer.As a country? I think everyone understood the political reality that we were never going to go to a government run universal health coverage system in one fell swoop. Hopefully this program is a success and will be a baby step towards universal coverage.

The first step is the idea that we all need to be part of the system since it affects everyone. That is what ACA does, IMO. The next step is to offer a government run health insurance option that is available to everyone (not just the poor and old). Of course, I might be a bit idealistic and overly optimistic . . . but that is how I see it.

I think it does matter because of who each entity is accountable to. A government run system is ultimately accountable to the people. There is every reason that they would fight for cheaper and accessible health care because they are focused on serving the people. Compare this to a for-profit system where the insurer is accountable to the stockholders and investors. They have no interest in making health care affordable or accessible. What they are interested in is profit. There is no incentive for private insurers to make health insurance affordable to everyone since they can profit more from richer and healthier clients. As an analogy, Mercedes-Benz does not make a profit by making their cars affordable for absolutely everyone. In fact, no car company does.I remember seeing signs at Tea Party rallies where they were equating ACA to socialism while telling their senators to keep their hands off of Medicare. Once people get used to ACA and even test out a public option they may grow more comfortable with it, especially if the public option is able to offer cheaper but equivalent benefits. Who knows.

I was thinking more of public perception and how many americans are averse to change. First, you need to conquer the aversion of being forced to participate in the health care system. That is what ACA will do. It doesn't matter at this point if it is government run or private. The main fear is being forced into a system. Once that fear is overcome then the next hurdle is selling government run insurance over private insurance. From my own experience, I really don't think you could do both steps at once. Just look at the backlash against ACA.

From the polls I remember the public option was not favored by the public, and Democrats lost seats because of their yes votes on ACA. No Republicans I am aware of lost seats because of their opposition to the bill. I see no way that a socilist system could have been put in place because it is not popular. If it was popular then Democrats would have pushed it. That is the political landscape that I see, but I could be wrong. It surely does. Frankly, I think this is going to come down to the states to start their own public option. If these programs are successful then people in other states may consider the idea of a federal program.

Good point. Perhaps this is where a government run system, be it state or federal, can really make headway. They can show people that it is possible to make health care affordable and accessible.This will also take major concessions from the health care industry. Costs have to be cut. We can not continue to pay twice what other first world nations spend on health care (and only increasing from what I have seen). Private health insurance is only half of the equation. ACA did put measures in that will hopefully cut back on administrative costs, but more needs to be done.

When I look at doctors as a group I don't see them working on a solution for affordable health care for all americans. They whinge, but refuse to engage.

It makes their complaints irrelevant.

It is interesting, but not in the way you might think. Doctors want to protect their pay and are resistant to change. I can't say as I really blame them, but I really don't care either. We kinda need affordable healthcare. What good is a doctor if you can't see one outside of an emergency room?The whole point is to make healthcare affordable. Afterall, it is called the "Affordable Care Act". It isn't called "Let's Make Doctors Happy Act", or "Let's Make Doctors Rich Act".What we need are doctors who are interested in healing people, not doctors who are interested in buying boats. Other first world countries spend HALF as much as we do on healthcare, and they seem to have enough doctors to go around. What we need to do is make changes to the healthcare system that are beneficial to patients, not doctors. That is why their whining is irrelevant.