They didn’t try to divert discussion away from the successes - they tried to avoid the topic altogether. Unsuccessfully, of course, but they didn’t have much choice - every discussion of ACA is going to founder on the hard rocks of all the lying they had to do to get it passed, and the contempt Gruber and Co. have for the US electorate.
“When you wish upon a star…”
Regards,
Shodan
From RealClearPolitics
General Election: Bush vs. Clinton CNN/Opinion Research Clinton 54, Bush 41 Clinton +13
General Election: Christie vs. Clinton CNN/Opinion Research Clinton 56, Christie 39 Clinton +17
General Election: Paul vs. Clinton CNN/Opinion Research Clinton 58, Paul 38 Clinton +20
General Election: Ryan vs. Clinton CNN/Opinion Research Clinton 56, Ryan 41 Clinton +15
General Election: Huckabee vs. Clinton CNN/Opinion Research Clinton 59, Huckabee 38 Clinton +21
General Election: Carson vs. Clinton CNN/Opinion Research Clinton 56, Carson 35 Clinton +21
General Election: Cruz vs. Clinton CNN/Opinion Research Clinton 60, Cruz 35 Clinton +25
As I said, that’s just at this point - lots of time left. I’d say double digit leads over any and all Republicans is a good sign.
IIRC, FEHB includes a lot of insurers, and you can choose HMO or PPO or high deductble, right?
I was on my parents’ FEHB for years; we had Blue Cross regular (then PPO), and it was like a platinum card. I’d pay to have that again.
Where does this $30,000 figure come from? New Hampshire is supposed to have high healthcare costs (more expensive than 42 other states), and even here the cash price for a vaginal delivery at the hospital is only 10K. Insurance companies demand better pricing than the poor suckers without insurance, so I’m sure they’re not paying three times as much as the uninsured do.
A little over one-third of the electorate (a 75-year low) bothered to vote in the last election.
Pretty thin stew you’re making from that one oyster.
I liked the health care plan I had prior to the ACA, and so far, no one has told me I couldn’t keep it through the last two renewals. Of course the price has gone up, just like the price of EVERY HEALTH INSURANCE POLICY OFFERED BY ANYONE FOR AT LEAST THE LAST 30 YEARS.
I’ve also seen the non-marketplace policies my church purchases for its employees increasing almost exponentially. In 2015 the premiums for our 50-year old administrative assistant will be more than $10K.
Of course my daughter couldn’t keep her old plan, because prior to Obamacare, she couldn’t even get a plan. No insurance company would write her a policy, with any kind of exemptions, for any price. It seems that a health problem she had when she was 12 years old continued to disqualify her even though that was 20 years ago.
Or you can ask my friends who either wanted to start or work for small businesses only to discover they couldn’t afford/obtain health insurance on their own.
But go ahead ITR champion. Tell us how good it was in the old days.
“Lack of the individual mandate”? When did that happen? The individual mandate is in effect. Granted, the Obama Administration has created so many exemptions that almost anyone who’s willing to make the effort can avoid paying the fine.
It’s worth remembering what the Democrats promised when they were fighting to get the law passed. “Everybody will have lower rates, better quality care, and better access.” A typical family was supposed to pay $2,500 less. Now supporters are reduced to arguing that costs are increasing, but only increasing at a slightly lower rate than they otherwise would.
What problems did the ACA create? Radical increases in premiums and employers offering crappier coverage has been going on since the 90s.
Our health system needs structural reform that politicians do not have the stomach for.
Also health inflation has been consistently low for the last 5 years or so. There are several reasons, but one is the ACA. Health inflation is only about 3% a year now, as opposed to the 5-7% a year it was.
It was also supposed to save money but the administration wants to extend the higher Medicaid payments rates, which are supposed to be temporary.
The law will never save money if the administration won’t make the hard choices.
The law is already saving money.
Perhaps you know this, but plainly not everyone does. In this very thread, Hentor the Barbarian has claimed that Democrats can win by touting the “success” of Obamacare. Obviously he’s not on the same wavelength as you. He’s not alone; many Democratic pundits and journalists also seem to be scratching their heads and wondering why Democratic candidates didn’t embrace the ACA. The fact that you can’t win an election by bragging about unpopular decisions that you made seems to have escaped them.
Well, that will be interesting to see. I’ve seen some proposals: cancel the medical device tax, cancel the employer mandate, let everyone purchase catastrophic coverage. Hopefully some of these will make it through Congress.
Perhaps. But a big part of projected savings are some pretty politically difficult items, like Medicare Advantage cuts, Medicaid provider cuts, the medical device tax, the individual mandate… Hard to see the savings being sustainable if most of those aren’t kept in place.
Part of making something popular is to tout its successes. ACA has had successes, but no one is selling them except the President and the public has tuned him and his 42% approval rating out…
I don’t think the Democrats can make the law popular just by advertising it, but it could probably be a little more popular than it is. Right now the Big Guns of the political system are all on the anti-ACA side while the pro- side runs and hides. All of the good defenses of ACA are on this board or on liberal blogs. And when Democratic pols do try to defend it, as Nancy Pelosi sometimes does, they end up sounding stupid and out of touch because they probably still don’t actually know what’s in it or what effects it’s had.
The catastrophic option is a good idea and one embraced by at least six Democrats in the Senate.
I am not sure what you are saying.
Do you think that the ACA is actually quite popular? Are you saying that for this reason, Democrats ran away from it? Do you suggest that if the Democrats had enthusiastically embraced the ACA, then the roughly two-thirds of the electorate who dislike it would have voted for Democrats? Or do you believe the Dems really won the elections?
Regards,
Shodan
Obama: I want every American to have health coverage.
Republicans: No.
Obama: Medical expenses are a leading cause of bankruptcies. If everyone has health coverage, it’s better for the economy.
Republicans: No.
Obama: We will have health care reform!
Republicans: Well… OK. (Tee hee! We didn’t say how much reform!)
Obama: This isn’t enough!
Republicans: That’s all you’re going to get! Americans don’t want insurance! Why should healthy people pay for irresponsible people who get injured and stuff?
Obama: OK, fine. I’ll take this Republican-based plan, trim it down to your Tea Party plan, and we’ll fix it later.
…
Republicans: Look! Obamacare doesn’t do what Obama said it would!
Obama: I said it would take some tweaking.
Republicans: Repeal!
Obama: No, we’ve identified problems. Now lets fix them.
Republicans: Repeal!
Obama: If we’d done it right the first time, instead of you running roughshod over it, we wouldn’t have these problems!
Republicans: Repeal!
Obama: You’re the ones who caused the mess. You have to help fix it!
Republicans: No.
And so on…
Wait a minute, Obama’s asking for fixes? What problems has he identified that he wants fixed, other than the “problem” of spending cuts being politically hard. Those cuts aren’t a problem with the law, they are a problem for Democrats in elections.
It’s an interesting idea to promote catastrophic coverage as the answer to America’s health care problems.
If the country got bad news and the unemployment rate suddenly shot up to 15% or something really high, and President Obama proposed that what America really needs is more minimum wage McJobs, would you think that is a great idea?
ITR, as I detailed in a prior post, your OP consisted of significant exaggerations and outright misstatement of facts. Are you able to address that post? Did you simply overlook it?
Catastrophic coverage should actually be superior health insurance, because it would only cover events that are beyond the ability of most people to pay. Having comprehensive coverage seems nice, until there’s only one $50,000 drug that can save your life and it can’t be paid for because the government decided that regular checkups being free was more important.
If anything, “comprehensive care” is the McJob in this analogy. It covers your everyday expenses but won’t be there for you when you really get sick because only the cheapest most common procedures and drugs will be covered.
Compound interest claims another victim.
A 131% increase over 10 years is an average of 8.7% increase a year.