The advantage of having a flawed law ...

[Kablooie]

The health insurance law is undeniably flawed.
Many argue that since it's flawed we shouldn't have passed it.

I disagree.

If you have no law, all the ramifications of a proposed law are speculation. Some will point to the good things it will do, others the bad things, but no one really knows for sure. That's why it's so hard to pass a new law. All aspects of it are just educated guesses so can be argued down relatively easily. There is no hard data to support arguments.

Once you have an operating law, the ramifications become real. You can see the actual effect and argue with authority about the positive and negative aspects. It's not just speculation anymore.

This is why it's better to have even a flawed law on the books. The deficiencies become apparent and you can make authoritative arguments based on data to make changes.

It still won't be easy to pass changes like alternative options for insurance but it will be much easier than if there were no law at all.

[pnwmom]

1. I agree. And since so much of this law has been proposed by Republicans

in the past, this is calling their bluff. If the insurers prove they're unable to handle what's been handed to them -- then the alternative is very clear. Medicare for all.

[DJ13]

2. Put the new HCR in line behind all the past laws that were still waiting to fix

NAFTA, CAFTA, telecom deregulation, Glass/Steagall, the Patriot Act, Fairness Doctrine............

The more crappy bills that get passed the bigger the pile that needs cleaning up.

[Kablooie]

3. One difference is that this law affects families directly.

The others affect the public indirectly so it's much harder to generate public support for changes.

[DJ13]

4. I can see that, but

Our politicians have an incredible ability to ignore the needs of the public (see PO/single payer polling) when doing something right might interfere with their reelection slush funds.

The needs of millions may become quite dire while we wait for the politicians to do whats right by fixing a bad piece of legislation.

[Kablooie]

7. Yes, it won't be easy but the alternative was totally unregulated ins. companies...

with no option to regulate them at all because no base law would be on the books.

[Toucano]

5. I think you make a valid point.

The risky side is that the flawed law could create a backlash against further reform when it´s failures become apparent.

But one does have to walk before one can run.

[Kablooie]

8. There is a risk that the flaws will remain but with a law the possibility to fix it exists.

Whether it will be fixed or not remains to be seen but with enough public pressure it could be.

[Uncle Joe]

6. This bill will give the for profit "health" insurance corporations a stronger grip on

American Society.

It creates a government mandated cash flow feedback loop directly to the Congress and corporate media, that's logic, I don't need to see it in action to know it will happen, ultimately there can be no good from that kind of dysfunctional, corruptible, adverse dynamic working against the people's best interest.

If the Congress outlaws all lobbying, commercials and advertising from for profit "health" insurance corporations, that may help a little but even then I have no doubt they will find loopholes or ways around that barrier.

Thanks for the thread, Kablooie.

[kenny blankenship]

9. I would make that sort of argument if we had passed a Public Option -even the shitty one proposed

It would be bad, but there'd be something to build on that way.

The law they passed is just the Insurance Mafia and the rest of the health industry sticking a giant straw in America and drinking our milkshake.

[zipplewrath]

10. So the Aliens and Sedition Acts were a good idea

Better we pass the Patriot Act than not?
NAFTA is a sum plus for us because at least SOMETHING passed?