I was just about to come in here & post a link to this news. The funny thing about it all is that a clear majority of Republicans are happy with their ACA coverage. Ironic how that works, isn’t it?
The insurance coverage increase is still unimpressive. Many here have said that ACA isn’t universal. Yet the PResident made it clear that he wouldn’t sign a bill that didn’t cover everyone. In addition, he promised to sign a universal health care bill in his first year. Politifact rated that “Promise kept”.
15% uninsured is pretty unimpressive. We’ve had an uninsured rate that low before, without ACA.
However, 78% of people being satisfied with their ACA plan is impressive. I would have expected more of a 50-50 divide.
Baghdad Bob used to say stuff like that, too:
Considering that open enrollment just ended three months ago, what level of uninsured would you deem impressive?
This is extremely disingenuous and a massive goal-post shift for you. No one thought this would cover everyone in one year. The progress that’s been made in less than a year after implementation has been pretty damn positive.
It’s just sour grapes if you’re going to continue to move the goalposts past the real success and real achievements that the bill continues to show.
Quit whining and accept, at the very least, that the ACA is mostly doing what the President and supporters said it would do. You might not like that lots of uninsured people are getting insured, and that some receive subsidies, but that’s the main goal of the ACA, and it’s happening.
And, this being the Elections forum, it is long past time to drop the confident assurances that ACA is going to *cost *the Democrats.
What do you think the uninsured rate will bottom out at, assuming no changes in the law? 10%? 5%? 0%?
The President said he would not sign a law that didn’t cover everyone and reduce costs. If it falls short of that and you say it’s still doing good, then you have moved the goalposts, not me. And a 15% uninsured rate was considered a “crisis” not too long ago.
Are you predicting a Democratic win(defined as winning the popular vote)? And if not, why will they lose if not ACA?
Compared to what? The thing you’re going to replace it with after you repeal it, whatever the fuck that may ever turn out to be?
Based on your confidence in the opposite, sure. 
The silliness of that question may dawn on you if you give it a small amount of thought.
I don’t know. I doubt that in its present form the ACA will get us to 0%. I’m hopeful that we will further refine it and improve it until we do reach 0%.
This is just playing games, and tying yourself into knots just so you can try and blame Obama and call him a liar. Seriously – if Bill Clinton got this done, and the numbers were looking this good this early after implementation, I think you’d be trumpeting it as a big, big success. I think you’re terrified that your fear and disdain for the ACA might have been completely wasted, and you’ve emotionally invested yourself in its failure.
If the rate keeps getting lower, and improvements and refinements to the ACA eventually get us to 0%, then it would be ridiculous to call the ACA anything but a massive success.
It’s not a massive success yet – but the numbers for the ACA show that it is going about as well as anyone could have predicted at this point.
So if the number of uninsured people in the entire US is greater than 0, ACA is a failure? Is that your contention?
So much for Obamacare being a winning campaing issue in 2014 for Republicans. Most Republicans who bought Obamacare like it.
Looks like it’s time to retire Obamacare from the GOP playbook. I’ve got it! Why not shut the government down? That trick ALWAYS works!
And, if not: Bennnnghaaaazzzziiiiii !!!
I don’t think that the uninsured rate is going to “bottom out” until year four or five of the program, basically at the midpoint of the term of the next POTUS. Even then, it won’t level off at 0%, but rather more like at 3-5%. At the same time, however, the ACA has never been projected to result in 100% coverage; even if the Medicaid expansion were adopted everywhere - & its GOP-led rejection is the primary driver of the still-too-high post-ACA uninsurance rate - there would still be a marginal percentage of individuals without health insurance. Most of them, mind you, would be undocumented immigrants who don’t qualify for subsidies & cannot participate in any of the marketplaces, and the rest would be people who (for whatever reason) decide to remain uninsured.
Even the most outspoken ACA proponents have always conceded that - in the long run - it isn’t a true universal health care plan as a opposed to a nearly universal health care plan. Arguing otherwise is silly.
However, adaher, I do appreciate your admission that the plan-satisfaction rates are duly impressive. For a law that was ostensibly designed to negatively impact Republicans, the fact that the majority of Republicans are happy with their new policies is certainly shocking.
No. And I agree with iiandyii that taken by itself, ACA’s performance has been okay so far. It’s substantially reduced the number of uninsured, and it’s universal in the sense that now anyone who wants health insurance can get it. Since I don’t believe in forcing people to buy health insurance, it would be hypocritical of me to demand 0%, since there will always be a number of people who don’t want it. So call it 5%.
But 15%? That’s impressive only if you go back and decide that ACA isn’t even close to universal health care, despite what it was sold as. It’s like calling the Iraq war successful because Saddam isn’t dictator anymore. Never mind that the war was supposed to pay for itself, or the WMDs.
What baloney. It’s been going down steadily since implementation (which was less than a year ago). You’re just searching for a reason to criticize if a steadily lowering rate of uninsured is not impressive.
Never mind that it’s way past what republicans called “hopelessly optimistic” projections, that real universal health care was politically impossible, and that participation is really quite optional and thus contingent on the populace to go up (please don’t tell me you forgot about this). The fact is that if that 15% is fundamentally opposed to health care, then nothing in Obamacare could force them to join the rest of the country.
You complain about shifting the goalposts… But given everything that’s happened in the last 5-6 years, I don’t think changing the goal is a problem, nor do I think that what appears to be the current goal is negative. Do you really think that there’s not so many hardcore republicans who would avoid buying health insurance just to spite the president? Because it wouldn’t surprise me at all. What’s more, the point is that everyone can get insurance, and at fairly reasonable rates as well.
Which is why we don’t need to go further. We have universal health care, or at least close enough for American standards.
Yes, those “special” american standards. :rolleyes: