What is your ongoing opinion of the Affordable Care Act? (Title Edited)

[BobLibDem]

@ElvisL1ves

Which history is that - the history that they haven’t won a legitimate Presidential election since 1988?

I think it goes even further, Ike in 1956 was the last legitimate Republican win.

In 1968 Nixon undermined LBJ’s peace talkswith the North Vietnamese, leaving the unpopular war as a campaign issue. Of course, a tainted 1968 win de-legitimizes his 1972 win, even without Watergate.

In 1980, Reagan sabotaged Carter’s efforts to release the Iranian hostages in what was nothing less than treason, allowing him to eke out a narrow win over Carter. Without this, his 1984 election wouldn’t have happened either, nor would Bush’s 1988 win.

And we all know that 2000 election was stolen by a faulty ballot design and the corruption of the US Supreme Court. That alone would have made Bush’s 2004 “re-election” impossible, but 2004 stands as a stolen election in its own right thanks to the shenanigans in Ohio.

[2ManyTacos]

@adaher

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.

No, it’s not.

Seriously, so many millions of people are going to owe their insurance directly to the ACA by 2017, that talking about repealing it or “reforming” it in the GOP image will be complete stupidity.

I don’t even expect the ACA to remain a viable campaign issue by then outside of the Tea Party base.

[ElvisL1ves]

Besides which, it’s not underwater. Our friend can only backfill under that desired bit of partisan dogma by pretending that those who want to go further actually want to go back.

[RTFirefly]

@2ManyTacos

Seriously, so many millions of people are going to owe their insurance directly to the ACA by 2017, that talking about repealing it or “reforming” it in the GOP image will be complete stupidity.

Similar truths haven’t kept the GOP from proposing privatization of Social Security in 2005, and voucherization of Medicare just in the past few years.

[suranyi]

As someone who has actually taken advantage of the ACA – or more specifically, Covered California:

It has a lot of problems. A LOT. But much better than nothing.

[adaher]

@iiandyiiii

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.

Obama’s been under 50% for most of his PResidency. Do you think popularity is just around the corner for him too?

[adaher]

@ElvisL1ves

Besides which, it’s not underwater. Our friend can only backfill under that desired bit of partisan dogma by pretending that those who want to go further actually want to go back.

And I’m sure that also means the President is extremely popular because some people who disapprove of him want him to be more liberal.

Oh, sorry, he just fell under 41%:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

[iiandyiiii]

@adaher

Obama’s been under 50% for most of his PResidency. Do you think popularity is just around the corner for him too?

Considering how well Obama has done in the actual elections (remember? that one when you fled with your tail between your legs?) – he’s won big majorities and sweeping electoral victories both times – I don’t think snapshot approval ratings can tell us much about how the next election will turn out.

And even if it did, his approval could be 20% for 7.5 years – as long as it goes up high enough at the last minute on election day – and it wouldn’t matter.

[iiandyiiii]

This “the President’s approval rating is kind of low” is pretty much all adaher’s got left, I suppose. I expect we’ll be seeing it in every political discussion like a (sad) card up his sleeve.

[adaher]

Sure, if Obama’s rocking 55% in late 2012, that’s great for the Democratic candidate. What are the chances of that happening? The only reason I’m bringing it up here is to point out that historically, everything is going Republicans’ way. And of course you’re wrong about when approval ratings matter. They matter always. A President with a 40% approval rating lacks the ability to get anything done because there’s no cost to opposing him. Actually, at 40%, there’s a lot of political benefit to opposing him, which must be why so many Democrats are doing it in a very public matter where they have competitive races.

[iiandyiiii]

@adaher

Sure, if Obama’s rocking 55% in late 2012, that’s great for the Democratic candidate. What are the chances of that happening?

(bolding mine)

I found the secret, adaher, for you to make non-ridiculous predictions: make them about past events!

The only reason I’m bringing it up here is to point out that historically, everything is going Republicans’ way.

No, very little is going Republicans way. Their approval is far, far lower than the President’s.

Actually, at 40%, there’s a lot of political benefit to opposing him, which must be why so many Democrats are doing it in a very public matter where they have competitive races.

There’s no evidence that Republicans are getting any benefit at all from opposing him except for rallying their base and winning primaries.

[RTFirefly]

@adaher

Actually, at 40%, there’s a lot of political benefit to opposing him, which must be why so many Democrats are doing it in a very public matter where they have competitive races.

Every time the right-wing noise machine gets its bullshit attacks into the mainstream media, a bunch of candidates in the Scared Rabbit Party[sup]TM[/sup] run away from the President. It happened regularly during the Clinton years, and it’s happening with Obama now. Hell, as best as I can recollect, it happened a good deal more with Clinton.

It’s got nothing to do with Obama’s approval rating. It’s the same yesterday, today, and forever.

[Iggy]

@RTFirefly

We agree on this.
So you keep arguing that a break-even offer is an incentive.

I don’t think I need to say any more.

Actually the administration’s counsel argued precisely my point in the oral arguments.

Pick up at the bottom of page 50 in the transcript here. (Large PDF file) The questioning is between Judge Randolph and Mr Stuart Delery (counsel for Kathleen Sebelius (the administration).

*Judge Randolph is asking Delery to explain whether or not text of the PPACA providing for premium subsides is essentially copied from an earlier law, the Health Coverage Tax Credit Act of 2002 which required states to change certain state laws before private individuals could receive premium subsides for health insurance.

The discussion then shifts to section 1311 of the PPACA (which I referenced previously) which provide grants for states to set up exchanges.*

JUDGE RANDOLPH: Would you agree with me that 36B [of the PPACA], which is what you’re talking about, and the way it’s structured is copied from the Health Coverage Tax Credit Act of 2002? Have you looked at that? I don’t know.

MR. DELERY: I have, awhile ago, Your Honor. I have not looked at it.

JUDGE RANDOLPH: Yes.

MR. DELERY: And so, I don’t know the history of whether it was copied for that. My understanding is that provision expired at January 1st of this year.

JUDGE RANDOLPH: Yes, because the states or whatever, but –

MR. DELERY: Right.

JUDGE RANDOLPH: It’s the same deal. But, I mean, the structure of that is the same.

MR. DELERY: I mean, I believe, Your Honor, although, again, I need to double-check, I think that that provision also included some forms of coverage that were available nationwide, so it’s not exactly an analogy to the Plaintiffs’ proposition here.

JUDGE RANDOLPH: Yes, that may be.

MR. DELERY: In addition to premium assistance, which the tax credits were intended to be in 36B, the statute also provided state assistance, and it’s in Section 18031. And –

JUDGE RANDOLPH: What is that under the Act?

MR. DELERY: I’m sorry, it’s 1311.

JUDGE RANDOLPH: 1311. Okay.

MR. DELERY: And – sorry about that, Your Honor. So,** incentives were provided to states under the cooperative Federalism model to establish their own exchanges, grants to assist in the start up costs,** ultimately then the costs would have to be borne by user fees, and also regulatory authority vested in the exchanges to, among other things to find the scope of qualified health plans that would be offered through the exchanges.** So, states if they wanted to elect to create an exchange they had an incentive to do it in terms of grants**, and regulatory authority that they would be allowed to do. But significantly –

JUDGE RANDOLPH: Was it after 2015 that they’re on their own?

MR. DELERY: The grants expire, and once the exchanges are up and running they have to be supported through user fees, not through the grant money. But –

bolding mine, for emphasis.

The administration certainly thinks that a break-even grant to the states to set up an exchange is an incentive. I don’t think I need to say any more.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

Just out of curiosity, what’s the straight dope on rates? The only concrete figures I’ve seen are published by Avik Roy and the Manhattan Institute, which I’m about as ready to take seriously as Seralini at this point, after the massive flub he brought out last year around this time about rate shocks. So… what’s actually happening?

[2ManyTacos]

Yeah, the fact that people continue to take Avik Roy seriously is evidence of the media’s bias towards pushing this left-right false equivalency bullshit. Roy is just as much of a partisan hack as any anti-ACA GOP politician, yet he continues to get booked for TV interviews & other publicity in order to spin his nonsense. It’s unsettling, certainly.

[RTFirefly]

@Iggy

The administration certainly thinks that a break-even grant to the states to set up an exchange is an incentive. I don’t think I need to say any more.

No, one Administration official, in remarks that weren’t prepared in advance, and in a situation where he was clearly a bit flustered, used a word in a way that may or may not have any bearing on our discussion.

[2ManyTacos]

Here is a great article that documents several ACA doomsday predictions that were all laughably disproved.

Seriously, the sky-is-falling rhetoric surrounding the ACA is so overblown and stupid that at this point we should all just assume the opposite whenever an end-of-the-world prediction is articulated by a GOP partisan hack.

[adaher]

So we should assume that everyone has kept their insurance and very few people are paying more than they did before. We should also assume that Medicare Advantage has not actually been cut in a way that effects seniors’ benefits.

I expect better from Vox. Ezra’s usually a straight shooter. Instead, they cherry picked predictions that were wrong, while completely ignoring the predictions that were true. And I love how they debunked “Premiums will skyrocket”. Okay, so premiums are up modestly. So both sides were wrong. The President claimed they would fall by an average of $2500. I’d say the doomsayers came closer to being right on that one.

Ah, and “the Website will never work.” First, it’s not laughably wrong. A few states did have to entirely scrap their failed systems. And the federal government’s doesn’t even work yet. They fixed the front end so people could sign up, but there’s still tons to do and meanwhile the government and insurance companies have to play it by ear.

Vox is supposed to ‘explain the news’, but Sarah Kliff is uncharacteristically using the same methods the mainstream media does when they want to push a particular point of view. SO much is left unexplained in that article. Like how much progress has been made on the back end of the website? Why are premiums rising at all despite the President’s promises?(Hint: insurers lowballed the rates because they expected a healthier population and because they expected a bailout if they were wrong.)

[iiandyiiii]

@adaher

So we should assume that everyone has kept their insurance and very few people are paying more than they did before.

Very few people lost their insurance and were unable to get comparable insurance afterwards. And few people are paying more due to the ACA requirements.

I expect better from Vox. Ezra’s usually a straight shooter. Instead, they cherry picked predictions that were wrong, while completely ignoring the predictions that were true.

Pretty much no predictions were true. And it’s laughable that you’re criticizing anyone for “cherry picking” – which is pretty much the only way you’ve attacked the ACA. Oh, that, and goalpost shifting.

Just get over it – so far, the ACA is well on its way to long-term success.

[adaher]

Says the guy who completely ignores every promise the President or Democrats ever made. I can agree their promises were just political BS, I just wonder why you didn’t call them out on it at the time.

And let’s be clear on your other statement. Are you claiming that the vast majority of people who lost their insurance got comparable insurance that covered everything they previously needed at the same or a lower price?