Not sure i agree but it is a point worth listening too.

for change in this country."
This guy is great. I for one, am glad he is not in the Obama admin. He gets to speak his mind.
Gotta love the guy.

On one hand I agree because in reality its a conservative idea.


I'm not sure that forcing people to buy a product from an industry that has proven time and time again how corrupt it is is a solid plan to fix health care in this country. No matter how many regulations and oversights we put on these companies they're always going to find a way to fuck us over.

HCR mandate benefited the insurance industry. HCR without the mandate will bankrupt health insurance companies.

What we need is single payer. Too bad it was never on the table.

Unfortunately I think things are going to have to get a lot worse before the American people go out in the streets and demand fair and equal access the health care in this country. That fact that health care isn't seen as a basic human right in the "greatest country in the world" is fucking disgraceful.

The only thing I've ever been annoyed about him was his DNC's huge support of blue dogs. The one Congressional candidate from Idaho particularly, having only then recently switched to Dem, rather than the long standing actual Dem running for the Senate. I was very involved with the 2008 IDP and was privy to the $$s flowing through IDP from DNC to candidates and virtually none went to the Senate candidate and tons went to the BlueDog Congressional asshole who won and then voted 98% with Reps and was even the only Dem in the country to be endorsed by the TeaParty.

He screwed up with that. I think I read recently that he recognizes that now, better late than never.

On this topic, I think he's dead on.

mandate to spend 80% of premiums on actual health care. So if the individual mandate is chucked aside, will the insurance mandate follow suit?

FYI, I support Medicare for All, but I don't see that happening soon with the Congress we have.

The individual mandate is probably unconstitutional because the federal government is regulating a commercial act that does not cross state lines. The commercial activity of most large insurance firms clearly crosses state lines and is within the purview of the Congress per the interstate commerce clause.

Congress can regulate economic activity that doesn't cross state lines. There's a SCOTUS decision that came back into the news recently due to Scalia's book: Wickard v Filburn. In that case, the SCOTUS ruled that Congress could regulate economic activity that didn't leave Filburn's farm, much less cross state lines.

In addition, the large insurance firms are actually 50 smaller insurance firms. You can't sell health insurance across state lines, so even though your insurance card says "Blue Cross", it's actually "Blue Cross of California" selling the insurance if you live in CA. Someone in NY will buy their insurance from "Blue Cross of New York". So the insurance companies are NOT crossing state lines.

There has been some thought that the conservatives will use the ACA case to reverse Wickard v Filburn and similar cases in order to strike down the ACA, and since the insurance companies are not crossing state lines, they could not be regulated by the federal government.

That means if they strike the mandate down, they can only send it back to congress to change it or do what they want. This congress will not put single payer in place or a public option. IF the mandate were in play already, the court could replace it if they ruled against it, as they did for Medicare and put a single payer system in place overnight. Because the mandate is not in play YET, the court can only send it back to THIS congress. That is why the AG's in states rushed to file suits, to get this taken down before it's in play. The last thing they want is a good solution to the mandate. This way, the court can't put a reasonable solution in place, if they get the case and rule before that part goes into effect.

Just so you realize, the solutions you hope for, will have to come from this congress. Not the court if they strike the mandate. The court can only replace something with another option, if it's already in play. People keep forgetting this in the dialog.

Medicare was in play...and a mess...when it went to court. The mandate is not in play. Yet. Or not?

advocates for single payer here in CA for that very reason. Can't compete with nations that provide healthcare for their workers. Putting that responsibility on businesses in the US is a big reason why companies open up shops overseas. That and tax subsidies. (aka other countries bribing businesses to take jobs from Americans and give them to their citizens.)