It was intentional. Given that this administration came into office a big believer in the science of behavioral economics, they should know better. You can have the awesomest health care program in the world, but if people don’t know how to navigate it and get worse deals as a result, then it’s going to be unpopular. Showing people that they could have gotten better deals and that they are dumbasses doesn’t help the program get better or more popular either.
It seems to me that before you can decide if you’ve been adversely affected, you’d have to figure out what copays you save vs. the extra premium. You just might have come out ahead.
Plus I can’t know for sure how much of the 28% was due to pent up inflation. My company tried to shield us from increases but then we got bought, so the new owners might have just decided to pass on the last three years to us.
I choose to blame ACA because these changes were unnecessary. There was nothing wrong with my insurance and no one was complaining about the co-pays for preventive services. ACA meddled where it didn’t need to. Employer insurance was not inadequate except for companies that employed a lot of minimum wage help. Bigger companies with generous health plans did not need to have a single new regulation.
And that’s the big problem for ACA. While they were busy fixing what was broken they were also tinkering with what wasn’t. Unions are pissed and want changes. They are clearly losers in all this, although they remain supporters of the law for reasons of political strategy. Professional guilds lost huge, becuase their insurance met all the standards, but was unapproved because it did underwriting. So what? Leave the people that had insurance alone.
I hope you take advantage of all the preventive care that is available. I want you around in 2016 for your election predictions as well as 2020 when Republicans will be claiming they invented the ACA.
Remember, this is a guy who hasn’t yet accepted that 2012 even happened.
I already was. When you have a decent job, co-pays do not stress you, major medical bills and high premiums do.
I get regulating the minimal plans offered by the likes of Wal-mart, but messing with mine was just unnecessary.
In 2016, I’m predicting a Hillary Clinton win as of now, but that’s just based on her current commanding lead in the polling. Otherwise I just don’t know. But 2014, that I’m sure of. Republicans will take the Senate by more than one seat.
No, I just think you’re acting uncharacteristically desperate in wanting to lay this issue to rest based on an election in which few were affected by the law.
You should be wanting this law to be THE issue if it’s helping as many people as you believe it is. Your desire to have it be a settled issue like Social Security or Medicare, in the same Presidency as the guy who signed it no less(can you imagine Democrats not wanting to run on SS during the FDR years?), says a lot.
2010 was about ACA, and it went badly for Democrats. 2012 was about ACA, and it went badly for Republicans. So best 2 out of 3, right? Don’t be like an EU bureaucrat, demanding vote after vote until the public gets it “right”, followed by no more votes. 2012 wasn’t the last word anymore than 2010 was. And 2014 won’t be the last word even if Republicans win as big as in 2010, because for all the effect ACA is having it’s STILL not fully implemented and won’t be for quite some time. Which means it will still be a top subject of election campaigns.
I love this sentence so much.
I do. Which makes it a good thing that it is.
It *is *settled. It’s about time you dealt with that, as the sane faction of your party already has.
You have trouble with the statistical concept of trend, don’t you? 
You’re certain that the steady stream of lies that your party has found so effective in the past will continue, and even enhance, their effectiveness in the future, despite pretty much everyone “finding out what’s in it” and liking it, says all it needs to about how much you weight data vs. desire.
How many more repeal votes do you think it will take to finally win? 
I’m not ready to say that the Republicans will take the Senate. I put the chances at less thatn 50-50. And I’m not even conceding the House yet, according to this poll. Not an unbiased cite, I’ll grant you.
Maybe not; PPP nailed it the last time.
PPP is fine, it’s the analysis that’s wishful thinking. 17 seats are close? Okay, how does that compare to 2010? How many Democratic held seats are close? Knowing that 17 GOP seats are in danger is only valuable if we also know how many Democratic seats are in danger. It’s the net that matters. If 17 Republican seats fall, but 20 Democratic seats fall, the GOP gains, which is what most analysts see as the likely result: single digit GOP gains in the House. For them to lose the House would take a wave election.
The Democrats have pretty much given up on the House, and they can’t take what they don’t try to take. All the money is going to be going to vulnerable Senate incumbents. The Democrats are playing defense, and you can’t win anything playing defense.
There really was a 2012. You don’t have to believe me, you could look it up.
Yeah, that was when President Romney succeeded President McCain. I remember.
It isn’t obvious you’re joking.
So, give us a preview of how you’ll explain Democrats losing the Senate.
You need to review your assumptions, pard.
As a hardcore liberal guy, I’ll concede that the House is probably out of reach this cycle for the Dems. Now, I’m 100% confident that the Democrats will take back the House eventually, though I think that the earliest year in which that could happen is 2018. Unfortunately, the GOP did a fantastic job of gerrymandering the House for themselves this decade, but c’mon, that isn’t gonna last in perpetuity no matter how you slice it.
I’m also not conceding the Senate, given that I just think that a six seat net for the GOP is a pretty tall order. It’s also heartening to see the Dems’ continued dominance in polls of the generic vote.
The Democrats historically need a 3-point lead to be even. They are a half point short of that.
How about double that?
I guess that Americans want health insurance after all. I know, crazy thought!