You don’t know what you’re talking about, or you do and have simply chosen to be provocative. The sign-up for ACA is a component (actually a system of components) on the healthcare.gov website, which was set up by [probably contract] coders, technicians, and engineers who are not at all the same people who planned the ACA. This is not to excuse the challenges and obvious bugs in the system, but your assertion is false. Talk about bandying.
In order to repeal Obamacare, Republicans would have to gain 20 seats in the Senate, and 55 seats in the House of Representatives. Given they just sat on their own balls and trashed the Republican brand, they will be lucky if they don’t lose seats in both houses. Repeal is not possible.
No law is written in stone. If Obamacare turns out to be the disaster the Republicans are predicting, then its flaws will soon appear in the real world. The Democrats will pay the price for having backed a bad program and the Republicans will win elections and have enough votes to repeal the law. So if the program really is bad, it’ll cause its own destruction.
That’s one possibility. The other possibility is that the program will work and people will see that it’s a good idea. No country that’s started a public health care system has ever chosen to abolish it. In the United States, program like Social Security and Medicare became popular once they were in effect and there is no public support for ending them. If this is the case, then the Republicans will lose public respect for having opposing a popular program and the Democrats will win elections.
How does the GOP figure The ACA will cost jobs?
Because they say so. They seldom feel any need to provide cause-and-effect reasoning for their accusations.
Generally through reduction of hours or people so that the requirement for insurance won’t apply to the employer.
It’s hard to tell if that’s actually happening, since employers these days are happily blaming any change (even ones they’d have made anyway) on “Obamacare.” Clearly it’s not happening at a rate that shows up in the unemployment statistics, though.
Of course it can be. It can be repealed at any time, just like any other legislation. But it will not be repealed by this Congress. If it turns out “the fear is real,” then that will strengthen Pubs, or ACA opponents generally, in the 2014 midterms, and the next Congress might repeal it. But I don’t think “the fear is real.”
Obama will be president until the beginning of 2017. It’s technically possible the next Congress will be Republican enough to override a veto, but in real life, it’s not happening.
Oh, they’ve been claiming for years that *it already has. *:rolleyes:
It’s worth mentioning that across the board, the people who oppose the ACA are the people who brag about having never read it, and that the people who have actually read it all support it. It’s almost like those folks who read know something the others don’t.
“The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.”
- Mark Twain
Yeah, I was going to say, doorhinge, for somebody who apparently thinks the details of a bill that has been made into a law and has been public domain for 3 years now are arcane, you nevertheless seem very eager to oppose it. Even if you have no idea what it does.
I’ll be litotical here and say that does not sound smart.
They mean theirs. [rimshot]
Fuckin’ English majors.
I despise the name Obamacare. Probably the President isn’t crazy about it either, but decided not to fight it.
In the long run, we need a neutral non-partisan name. While affordable care is non-partisan, it is a bit too pushy. Not everyone will agree the co-pays are affordable, despite their being tremendously more affordable than list price hospital bills.
Maybe something like “Exchange care” will become popular.
The non-partisan congressional budget office says that it slightly reduces the deficit. Are you going to believe politicians over them?
Some of the GOP proposed changes, like elimination of the medical device tax, might push it from slightly helping the deficit to slightly hurting it. Then they could say Obamacare is costing the government millions of dollars without being slapped down by fact check sites.
As for the problem with disincentive to hire full-time employees, that is unfortunate. We will have to see what the effect is as measured by peer reviewed economics studies.
There are technical changes that could address employment incentives by making cutoffs gradual. When medicare was passed, even opponents voted for technical changes that it was discovered during implementation were needed. Back then, people who voted against a government program thought that if we were going to do it, best to make it a success.
Will use 10-dollar words for food.
:dubious: You mean, “Prepared to employ sesquipedalian loquacity in exchange for comestibles.”
It’s too late. The Republicans have spent three years insisting it’s Obamacare in every speech and ad, so it’s Obamacare. That won’t be the name for the health care exchanges or individual components, but it’s how the law is going to be remembered. In a decade or two, when everybody agrees the number of people without insurance is still unconscionably high and we need a public option or some other alternative to fill the gap, they can pretend they were against it because it doesn’t cover enough people and demand it be fixed post haste.
Fiscal responsibility!
Don’t worry. In the long run, we’ll get a non-partisan name. As soon as the program starts working, the Republicans will start claiming credit for it and do all they can to disassociate it with Obama. Think about it: when’s the last time you heard Roosevelt getting credit for Social Security or Johnson getting credit for Medicare?
It’s law, it will stay law. Very soon it will be a plank in every Republican campaign platform where it will be referred to as Romey’s inspired ACA plan.
Sho’ Nuff.