He’s gonna spin it as “100% more Democrats support defunding Obamacare than Republicans who support keeping it!”
The public doesn’t know what it wants if it bit them in the ass. I support going against their will for their own good.
They’ll bitch and complain while paying less and getting more coverage?
As opposed to the old way where it only created losers except for the very rich
It would be bad except the health care laws are at least 6 decades out of date. Its a compliment to be said we’re fighting the last war when the GOP wants to run the system like the 1920’s
What happens if a lie turns out to be real? Oh please, let me answer that! It won’t because its a lie. The end.
You can do that, but you take a chance when you do. Better hope the President implements this law well, because a train wreck can kill it.
Employer subsidies tend to be a lot more generous than ACA subsidies. In my case, my insurance costs $700/month, with the company paying $500/month. It’s a platinum-equivalent plan. No way I can get the same coverage for $200/month on an exchange, even after the subsidy. I’d be a net loser, as would every single other employee in my company, if our insurance got dropped. For union workers, the difference would be even more stark.
See, you misunderstand the political situation. 80% of Americans were satisfied with their health insurance, thus the need to promise up and down that people would be able to keep it. If that turns out not to be entirely true, the Democrats will get the mother of all spankings. They’ll wish they were the Republicans circa 2008.
The $500 billion in Medicare savings is a fact. And if it was ANY other program it would be called a cut. As a matter of fact, it always was when Republicans tried to reduce the rate of growth, using exactly the same methods(cutting provider payments).
The only question is whether beneficiaries will feel the cuts. If they do, game over.
And BTW, I can’t help but notice that your argument indirectly admits Democratic duplicity. Supposedly there’s this $500 billion in free money in the Medicare program that was just waiting for Democrats to take it. Why did they bilk taxpayers for decades until they needed that money for another program?
First, there were already discussions that showed how silly is that point.
Second, as pointed before, the majority will not feel the cuts.
Third, Politifact, that site that you pointed recently at being very impartial and the standard to use to show if you were not wrong (did not work as you planned, but never mind) has called that point that the Republicans use a false one or mostly false:
The $500 billion is all in future spending reductions and come through the law’s attempts to slow projected growth, not cut spending.
That’s what the sequester is, yet the sequester is called “savage budget cuts”.
And again, if this was a free lunch, why did Democrats oppose Republicans’ attempts to slow the growth rate of Medicare? It’s apparent that Democrats don’t care about taxpayers at all.
Again, you were wrong, changing the goal post does not work to fix what you said. Not to mention that the “free lunch” bit here is a straw man. Meaning that the “apparent” is still a dubious thing to say.
Neither does changing the definition of what a “cut” is. Prior to the ACA, all attempts to reduce the growth of programs was called a “cut” by Democrats. It’s up to you to explain why the ACA version is different.
Politifact, the source that you rely on to show how wrong Obama is, is telling you with different examples why you are wrong on this one, give up your peculiar dictionary that very few use, it is really bad to see you now dismissing what you defended so much just recently.
Politifact was simply pointing out that Democrats are right when they say it’s a cut in the rate of growth. They did not explore the fact that up until that very moment, Democrats had decried all such things as “cuts”, and still do, as we’ve seen in the sequester battle.
So, does the sequester cut spending or not? Explain how ACA is different from a sequester.
Read it again, as they explained it, “they are not actual cuts” “the Affordable Care Act does not eliminate $500 billion out of the current budget for Medicare. Most important, there are no cuts to guaranteed Medicare benefits.” . Sequestration is causing actual cuts in many areas.
No, sequestration is cutting the rate of growth of domestic discretionary spending.
And there are cuts. Subsidies to Medicare Advantage are sharply reduced, and provider payments are cut deeply. It is true there are no cuts in benefits, but that’s disingenous, because Medicare pays no actual benefits directly to seniors. It pays providers only. Therefore, a cut to providers is a cut to benefits, unless we assume that providers will just take the cuts and still provide the same level of service.
Where did you think they could find $500 billion in Medicare savings? Magic?
Yes it does, and instead of putting the money into a new program, it reduces the deficit. The Republicans have wanted to make these cuts to Medicare for years, but Democrats always said they were savage, heartless cuts. Until they needed the money.
Which doesn’t actually contradict what I said, since 50,000-500,000 is a huge range that takes in cities we generally regard as pretty darn huge. Get back to me with data for cities of 50,000-100,000.
Why don’t you back up what you claim? Or is this just another example of “This board is just a conversation and I don’t look up cites in the middle of talking to another person?”
You just did. Take one look at your map. A sea of red with blue enclaves. Now compare that to a map of congressional districts and you figured out why Democrats don’t control the House.
In 2008, Obama managed to slightly win in suburbs, while dominating in the big cities. By contrast, Bush beat Kerry solidly in the suburbs.
It may not be precisely what I claimed, but I think I’m on pretty firm ground in saying that Republicans do well once populations get below 100,000. Otherwise the election numbers wouldn’t add up. Simple math and a little logic is better than any cite.
BTW, the cite says that “mature” suburbs are 75% to 95% urban, and those tend to go Republican(Obama’s candidacy in 2008 was an exception). Thus demolishing the contention that “urban” voters are predominantly Democrat.
Instead of putting the money into a new program that lessens the impact by changing the structure of medical costs in the country overall it goes to deficit reduction which doesn’t actually help anyone who needs help in an economy hamstrung by, amongst other things, runaway medical costs.
See, that’s the part you’re ignoring, the Republicans don’t have any problem with escalating medical costs (and the requisite hardship that causes millions of Americans, no doubt because they benefit their friends and benefactors in the insurance industry) and have no plan to do anything that would solve them. None of their suggested replacements for Obamacare address medical costs at all. They want to cut Medicare and have wanted to do so for decades, without addressing any of the factors which have caused Medicare spending to escalate.
Since the cuts are the same, they both address Medicare spending growth in exactly the same way. The Ryan plan uses that savings to cut the deficit. The Obama plan uses that savings to fund a new entitlement.
What I still want to know is why Democrats resisted these supposedly cost-free savings for 20 years.
Or, more likely, these savings actually do have a real cost and Democrats aren’t being entirely truthful about that cost. MAybe they were being truthful when they were attacking Republicans viciously in the 90s for the same cuts.