Healthcare in the present form is completely broken and no longer workable for anyone.
The bill that was passed was a disaster. It has few redeeming qualities in any manner except for one. It passed two bodies of government and a judiciary that cannot agree on which end to crack an egg is appropriate. That is the ONLY thing it has done.
What now exists is a basic framework from which those who really do care and want reform can build on.
The legal precedents here come from Medicare which came about in the mid 1960's.
Those most opposed to reform are those who want to preserve the status quo mainly for insurance carriers who only want to give health care insurance to healthy people. They do not want to spend a nickel of their profits towards actually helping anyone. The benefits that most of us have now have been eroded and reduced markedly in the name of corporate profit. Currently, most policies have a cap and a second policy is necessary for "catastrophic illness". That policy begins when the cap or maximum policy value is reached on the primary coverage.
The concept right now is to throw anyone who creates a major expense to the wolves at some point anyway. Most individuals facing common cancer exhaust their front line policies or coverage. At a point when they are most ill and unable to have any from of employment they are then forced to pay ever escalating rates through various systems to continue their care. In the end these sick people end up with care via State and Federal programs anyway. The private carriers "walk away" leaving the patient sick, broke, and often create situations where care lapses and this results on occasion in the death of the patient.
Why there is such incredible opposition by a vocal group of individuals in government is that the reform as it now stands would FORCE carriers to insure people with health care issues. It does not allow them to drop or screen out people because of pre-existing conditions. This means that all of us would be entitled to care at a price which as yet has not had caps or limitations placed on it.
It is well known that the fines and or mandatory subscription is a demand of the private companies this means that by law you are required by law to ensure their profits. The thinking is that the larger the base of individuals the less the impact sick individuals requiring care will have on the profit margins generated by the healthy individuals not needing care.
In most countries operating under a single payer plan the difference is that your health care costs are taken out of your payroll as a tax charge. The cost of that coverage per month depends on the salary you earn. Minimal rates in Canada might be in the area of $40-$50 per month for a person at a low wage to a much higher rate for an individual making $250,000 per year.
Right now you are beginning to see the problem. The guy making 250,000 does not want to pay that rate based on his income under what would appear to be a direct tax to pay for health care for "the other guy".
In most countries that offer single payer health care plans there are alternatives and the opposition to these plans seems to always leave out the details.
You can purchase a supplemental private policy that upgrades your coverage in some areas. For instance: A given amount per month would guarantee you a private room in a hospital versus a multi-bed room and other amenities of luxury during your care or recovery. Basic care would be the same for all, but the insurance pays for many upgrades in what you get.
In the United States, we have a framework already in place for a single payer plan and that is Medicare. This could be expanded at minimal cost with regards to infrastructure to cover all Americans. If it were expanded who would win? The American People would get care and universally so. The problem is that if the American People received decent care and found the system to work even with a few rough spots, most Americans would not choose to "opt out" into private insurance. This would bankrupt numerous carriers who are not prepared, and do not care to move their role into the supplemental market as is or has been done in most foreign countries with single pay systems.
A great deal of pressure has been applied to medical professionals from the insurance industry crying gloom and doom to support the current system, because under what we have right now, they the carriers have the legal ability to discriminate right and left and of course maximize profits. They can pay Executives and those occupying the Board Room multi-million dollar salaries and bonuses, and they most of all can deny you care when the chips are down.
Now, under circumstances where people were good and benevolent and cared about their fellow man and where people came in ahead of corporate greed, the system we have would be far better. The unfortunate truth is that many are now being denied care or thrown into situations where "red tape" causes a total of denial of care in the name of profit allowing people to die because death to an insurance carrier eliminates the continued expense of a sick person. I know that this sounds incredibly cynical, but after several experiences before my Mother died in 2001 it is unfortunately the facts.
The only thing of value in what was passed is the infrastructure. The actual system that was passed is a disaster. What those opposed fear most is the framework under which something good could be built.
America is a great Nation with many great people. The unfortunate situation now is that we have a select few who have gained power and great wealth who fully intend to maximize that wealth even if it costs people their lives.
I have watched this, and I have experienced this with the death of my own Mother back in 2001. As much as I hate the concept of a single payer system, I have to admit that it is now the only alternative. I have seen too much of what we have right now, versus what others under single pay systems have, first hand. I have friends in the United Kingdom and Canada. I have friends in France as well.
The United States was once the world leader in health care for it's citizens. Right now the United States has monumental technology and research, and yet, not all Americans can benefit from this technology because that technology and those developments cost money.
One example is a treatment for cancer called "particle beam". This has saved numerous lives as part of the arsenal against cancer. However ten years after it's inception and proof that it works, many insurance carriers refuse to pay for it classifying it as "experimental". This is now a common dodge for good treatments that are expensive. If we don't want to pay for something we simply re-classify a drug or a treatment or drug as "experimental".
Change must take place, and in a few years fixing health care will begin in the Court System. If that is what it takes, then it will at least be considered a beginning.