Do you have a cite for numbers of now uninsured who lost prior coverage because of the ACA? (Those unhappy with coverage mandates must be part of the unhappy 30% of all covered - ACA or not).
Maybe you should have read some of the facts behind those numbers …
Who are those that were not counted? The fictitious category who supposedly got screwed on rates but for some mysterious reason refused to go the exchanges, the major feature of the ACA? The equally fictitious category which the ACA supposedly deprived of health insurance entirely, contrary to its fundamental objective?
Seems to me that the only ones not counted, who are mouthing off against the ACA, are those with gold-plated employee-paid plans who see no change in their status but are fearful that ordinary people getting medical care is somehow going to negatively affect them. Strange thing is, in all other civilized countries, ordinary people getting medical care is a foundational social principle.
I’m sure it’s also Medicare Advantage beneficiaries who are fuming.
What makes you sure?
well then where are the promised savings? Why haven’t the majority of the 30 million uninsured rushed to buy this? Could it be that their paycheck went down when employers lowered their work week to 30 hrs to avoid the expense of health care thrust upon them?
It doesnt’ help to save $50 on a yearly doctor visit when the monthly premium is $300.
This was an expensive pack of lies and the elections reflect what people experienced.
Yah well you have to look at the big picture. Millions of people in The United States of America, The Greatestest Country in the History of, Like, Forever, didn’t have access to even the most basic forms of health care. Regular checkups. Asthma inhalers. Inoculations. Professional weight assessment and diet/exercise counsel. General preventative care. These are quite basic things that, en masse over the entire population, create a lot of bang for the buck.
When you get really sick, well… it is best to have means, let’s put it that way. I don’t think that is a change, on top of all the other things people have pointed out are not new under the ACA. I still think more people will have coverage when ‘really sick’ under the ACA too, but I may be out of touch, I get insurance through my employer, not the ACA, so I’m not personally affected AFAIK. I did like my plan, and I did keep it, though it has always been morphing from one set of terms to the next…
Oh that, you mean RomneyCare?<circa/2020>
In a single payer system, you can’t do it any other way. But in a multi-payer system, there’s nothing wrong with allowing people to choose what they want. Introducing purely catastrophic plans into the exchanges which are more generous when you really get into trouble and less generous for routine stuff is a better choice for many people.
In any case, it’s almost certain to happen if ACA stays. Enough Democrats support the idea that it will pass the Senate easily if it comes to a vote. I can’t see the President willing to die on the hill of “Americans need less choice!”
There is also the fact that if you just ask people if they support what is in Obamacare without actually calling it Obamacare support is much higher.
Even a majority of republicans support what is actually in Obamacare, just so long as you don’t call it Obamacare.
Letting kids stay on their parents policies until age 26
Making insurance companies compete with each other
Covering pre-existing conditions
Subsidies for lower income people
Expanding medicaid
Allowing small businesses to get group benefits and pricing
There’s a lot more to ACA than that. That would be like characterizing SS privatization as simply being able to transfer your account to your kids when you die. Who wouldn’t support that?
Everytime I look at one of these threads a phrase runs through my head - Bisimark “Politics is the art of the possible”. From afar, it seems the very definition of the ACA.
If it isn’t saving the average family $2500 per year in premiums, then Obama was lying when he said it would.
Which raises a difficult question (for Democrats). If there are reasons to think that Obamacare is a great thing, then why didn’t the Dems tout those reasons beforehand instead of making up lies? And yet those Democrat pols recently that have embraced Obamacare tended to be the ones cleaning out their offices and preparing to hand over the keys to a new GOP pol.
I think this is part of the basic disagreement. I think what the majority wants is pretty much the only way to judge good policy in a democracy. The Left, especially people like Gruber, seem to think it is the job of the benevolent philosopher-kings of the Democratic party to tell the plebians what is good for them, and our duty to knuckle our forelocks and simply accept the dicta of our betters.
“You fucked up - you trusted us, and now you just have to put up with it” is not something I accept from a politician. And the recent Congressional elections indicate that I don’t have to.
Regards,
Shodan
[ul][li]It is not the case that people in the US did not have access to inoculations[/li][li]Please provide cites showing that professional weight assessment and diet/exercise counsel have a measurable effect on obesity in general populations[/li][li]Please provide cites that “general preventative care” and “regular checkups” create “a lot of bang for the buck” in whatever sense you mean it. [/ul]TIA.[/li]
Regards,
Shodan
I love that Shodan is still trying to work the Gruber thing! He seems to think people are still going to get fired up about what that guy said.
The sell-by date on that is well gone, dude.
I can understand public approval being a metric for evaluating policy, but the* only* metric? That seems extreme.
And if nothing else would seem to welcome lies from politicians. Not that they need the help.
If Romney had owned up to it, defended it, and praised Obamacare as an extension of his policy, I would have no problems giving him credit. However, he lost any positive vibes from that the moment he ran against it and attacked his own plan. As far as I’m concerned, Obama gets all the credit for it. I’ll only cite the plan’s origins in the Heritage Foundation as an attack on GOP hypocrisy.
You, of course, would LOVE that to be the case. We were blatantly lied to. What we were sold was not the actual product. That was all obfuscated in a 2,000-plus page bill that people weren’t given the time to read in its final form. And you think this is a good thing because you’re boy got his legislation through.
And to top it all off, we have one of the main architects admitting the lies. and still, you want to sweep it all away, “Move right along folks, nothing to see here.”
Your partisanship is sonly matched by your hypocrisy.
I’m more interested in how liberals resolutely define reality and then accuse those who disagree with it as insane or liars. It’s impressive, actually.
You mean like calling a 900 page law a “a 2,000-plus page bill that people weren’t given the time to read in its final form?”
That’s not resolutely defining reality unless conservatives call people who disagree liars or insane. It’s just expressing a point of view. People express points of view, factual, opinionated, and just plain wrong, all the time. It takes a special kind of idiot to express a point of view for which the facts are in dispute and act as if it’s dogma.