Everyone who wants it can get it. In this country, what more do we need?
We need a system in which everyone has insurance, so that folks without insurance will not make things more expensive for everyone else by going to emergency rooms for routine care (and emergency care) and not paying due to the enormous uninsured bills.
There’s no political will to do that. Your guy is too chicken to enforce the mandate broadly. And Congress was too chicken to put teeth in it in the first place.
Increments, dude. The ACA was a good start, and we’re much better off then we were before the ACA (as the numbers continue to show). Perfecting it will probably take decades, and the work of many Congresses and many administrations.
If ACA remains, then there will be improvements over time, but there will never be the political will to force people to buy insurance. They can’t even enforce the business mandate yet. That’s the easy one.
I really wish the President would try though, those would be some pretty motivated voters.
Your “never” is not convincing. I think your prediction here is very premature, and very foolish. As the ACA continues to work, public opinion will gradually swing in its favor. Improvements to a popular bill will be much more likely to resonate.
First let’s see public opinion swing in its favor. While you’re making fun of my predictions, that’s a prediction that’s been made for a few years now and it hasn’t happened, or even shown any sign of happening.
More wrong facts, especially considering it’s been implemented for less than a year.
I know you’re so, so eager to call it a failure, whatever the facts. But you’re just going to have to be patient.
I’m very patient. And time is not on your side. If it’s still underwater in 2016 and Republicans win it all, it is going away. Or at least remade in Republicans’ image.
You’re not patient with regards to your characterization of the ACA.
I’m not very concerned the Republicans will win in 2016. You aren’t, either, based on various things you’ve posted.
If.
Given history, they are very likely to win it all in 2016. How many Presidents with 41% approval ratings see someone from the same party succeed in winning?
Pretty much every president had a 41% approval rating at some point. I don’t know why you keep on with this silly line of argument.
Republicans are not going to win it all. As it stands, they’ll be damned lucky to retain the House. Women voters will be energized by Hobby Lobby, Hispanic voters will be energized by Republican opposition to immigration and black voters will be energized by voter suppression efforts. Add that ti the fact that the Republicans have no ideas other than cut taxes for millionaires and this race is over before it begins.
“Remade in Republican’s image”? Dude, there is no “republican image” to remake it in. The ACA is the republican “alternative”, unless you want to count “every man for himself!” as a health care solution.
True, Obama has virtually no chance of winning in 2016.
If you can’t make yourself accept what the poll data says, do at least please note that Boehner now plans to sue him for not implementing Obamacare fast enough.
Which history is that - the history that they haven’t won a legitimate Presidential election since 1988?
History is a tricky lady. And the problem with using ‘history’ to predict the outcome of Presidential elections is that the sample space of relevant previous elections is pretty damned small. And with our politics having changed so much in the past few decades, IMHO history would have less to say, regardless, than current circumstances do.
Right now, we’re in a world where the likely electorate for a Presidential election leans noticeably Dem, and the likely electorate for a midterm (or other off-year) election leans noticeably GOP.
The other thing you’ve got is a likely Dem candidate with a quarter-century on the national stage and near-universal name recognition, who’s already had the kitchen sink thrown at her, and still has great approval ratings. And you’ve got a GOP pack of potential candidates, none of whom seems to be attracting more than about 10-12% support within the GOP.
The reason I bring up this latter fact is not to suggest that the GOP won’t rally around their candidate come 2016; they will. But the lack of widespread enthusiasm for any of these candidates within the GOP now, suggests that it’ll be hard to drum up much enthusiasm for the winner among the 5-6% of the likely 2016 electorate that can reasonably be described as swing voters.* If the GOP sees mostly sow’s ears now, the voters the GOP needs to get the winner over the top aren’t likely to see a silk purse.
Also, “winning it all” means more than just winning the Presidency; it means control of Congress as well. While it’s quite possible that the Dems might take a net loss of six seats and lose the Senate this November, this is due to the combination of the midterm electorate and a Senate election map that strongly favors the GOP. Both of these things change between 2014 and 2016, when both the electorate and the Senate map will strongly favor the Dems.
Barring some cataclysm (and I mean cataclysm, not just some middlin’ bad news) that the voters blame the Dems for, it’s hard to see the GOP going into 2017 with control of the Senate, even if they take the White House.
*McCain got 45.7% in 2008; Kerry got 48.3% in 2004. That’s likely a floor under the percentage of the vote that can go to a Republican or Democrat, respectively, in 2016. And the difference between those floors illustrates my point about Presidential election electorates.
I dunno - I’d give them 2004, given that Bush won the popular vote by 2.5%.
But of course he wouldn’t have had that opportunity, absent 2000.
I was referring to the voter suppression and counting fraud problems in Ohio, but you do have a point.