I find this “cliff” so outrageous that I wanted to start a new thread. But I couldn’t decide whether the thread would belong in GQ, GD, IMHO, or BBQ Pit.
And I see that a month ago, a new poster also mentioned this:
(No Time For Fishing made four other posts in toto, and disappeared. I guess he had no time … or finally got to go fishing.)
My question is: HOW did such an extremely bad “cliff” become law? Surely law-makers are acquainted with the concept of such cliffs and their adverse results. Was it stupidity by the D’s, malice by the R’s, greed by insurance industry, or a combination of the three? Or is there some ‘Gotcha’ we’re overlooking and it really is more sensical than it appears?
I even Googled ‘Contact my Congresscritters’ since it was their “idea” and, with great tedium, sent a message. (However I expect, at best, gibberish in response. :rolleyes: )
The bill passed with zero R votes, so I don’t see how you can pin any of the blame on Republicans. The Democrats own this monstrosity. And they’ve shown time and time again they have no grasp of economics.
Having said that, this is pretty typical of government, and plenty of bills passed by both sides, and bipartisan, have absurd aspects. Congress is so insulated from real life, and so beholden to lobbyists and special interests, this is what we get. The first step is term limits. 12 Years is plenty long, and get rid of their pensions.
A view that I’ve heard is that early legislation often has flaws that need to be ironed out, but that, with the goal of deliberate sabotage, the R’s filibustered any attempt to improve ACA. No?
Yeah, there’s probably truth in that, at least to a degree. It seems reckless to pass legislation that you expect to be cleaned up later. Sort of a cop-out and an excuse. But we are talking about congress, and that’s how they do things. And then you have the insurance industry, who played key rolls in writing the legislation. The whole thing is a horrible mess.
I heard the same thing, but on the opposite side - that ACA would mess things up so badly that the US would have no option but to go to single-payer.
It is difficult to say what the motives were, since one of the chief architects of Obamacare mentions a deliberate effort at obfuscation about what it was and what it would cost, because the bill would not have passed if people realized what it did -
Since that “chief architect” wasn’t actually a legislator who sponsored the bill or voted for it, his opinion is irrelevant. For example, Justice Roberts did not address Gruber’s comments in the majority opinion in King v. Burwell.
Failure of Obamacare isn’t going to be enough to shake up the insurance industry enough to force the government to implement single payer. There’s about 12.7 Million Americans under Obamacare, or about 4% of the population (the other 8.3 million in the commonly thrown out 20 million figure are due to Medicaid expansion and the age 26 mandate, neither of which are central to the ACA). If an additional 4% of the population can’t get individual insurance it’s not going to cause a crisis. They’ll either get jobs that offer insurance or go without, and either have to pay cash or have their costs written off and passed on to everyone else. Even assuming a 4% rise in uninsured that’s not enough to break the multi-payer system for everyone else.