new studies suggest that coverage doesn't protect americans from going bankrupt over medical costs
while the contest for the 2012 republican presidential nomination is already revolving around conservative-themed attacks on "obamacare," back when the healthcare bill was being legislated, the most important debate was within the democratic party, which held large majorities in both houses of congress. on one side were the drug companies, the insurance companies and president obama -- the latter who had not only disowned his prior support
of single-payer healthcare but had also worked with his corporate allies to actively undermine
a modest public insurance option. on the other side were progressives who opposed any bill which further cemented the private insurance industry as the primary mediator between doctors and patients.
ultimately, obama and his corporate-backed allies organized enough conservative democrats in congress to win, effectively turning healthcare "reform" into a blank-check tarp-style bailout for the health industry.
but, of course, to even whisper that last truism is to now run the risk of being labeled a blasphemer in a conversation that can only tolerate misleading red-versus-blue analyses.
in today's national political debate, there are republicans who insist "obamacare" is a canadian-style "takeover" of america's healthcare system, and there are democrats who insist that the health bill is a major medicare-like achievement -- any other argument, no matter how valid, has been vaporized by election-season pressure to fall in ideological line....
... going beneath the superficial rhetoric about health insurance
and to the reality of actual health care
and health costs
, the study published by the american journal of public health
health insurance is not protecting arizonans from having problems paying medical bills, and having bill problems is keeping families from getting needed medical care and prescription medicines, a new study has found...