I do call them out – they’re politicians. But we’re talking about the ACA – a flawed program that is, nonetheless, a significant improvement to the US health care system by just about every measurement conceiveable so far.
I’m saying that most people who lost their insurance got comparable insurance. If you have data that suggests differently, please cite.
If that’s what you are saying, we have no disagreement on the facts, only on what the facts means. “Most” as opposed to “vast majority”, means that a heck of a lot of people were hurt by the law. But I guess you can’t make an omelet without destroying a few Democrats’ careers.
And what does “a heck of a lot” mean? Compared to the people who were helped by the ACA, this number is miniscule. Again, if you have contrary data, please cite.
Give me a percentage estimate of what you mean by miniscule. If you believe that, then you should agree with “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?”
If you are claiming a simple majority, say, 51%-75%, then we’re talking about an awful lot of people hurt by the law despite promises to the contrary. These people have a right to be angry. If you’re going to have people sacrifice for the greater good, you have to be honest with them. If you lie to them, they are justifiably pissed.
If you are claiming somewhere around 90% or above, then we’re talking about a relatively small number of people, although enough to have electoral consequences since they are motivated.
Why should anyone bother engaging with you? - Even me, with my rather pedestrian intellect and debating skills can see the trap and gotcha that you’re trying to lay.
Hardly. I haven’t even asked him to back up his assertion. I know of no studies that tell us how many people were net losers because of the law.
In case it matters, the Brookings Institution had a blog post today about how projected federal health care spending estimates are much lower than they were 5 years ago, this decrease brought about partially because of ACA reforms.
Oh, I’m still for it, by the way. In case anybody was keeping score on how all this has changed minds, that is. 
Which again, falls well short of the promises made to sell it. I might as well tout the Iraq war as a success because only half as many soldiers died as doomsayers predicted.
When you’ve shifted from comparing the success of something to the promises made to sell it to the worst predictions of the doomsayers, it speaks volumes. What program in history isn’t successful compared to the worst predictions of the doomsayers?
Your success in this thread comes to mind.
President’s promise that premiums would drop by $2500 per family? Promise broken.
And yet you continue to rail on this talking point.
As does iiandyii. It is clear that some people have been hurt by the law, we just don’t know how many.
Big picture: PPACA has not only slowed the increase in the number of uninsured, it has reduced the number of uninsured. PPACA has not only reduced the growth rate of health care expenses, it has (in many cases) reduced health care expenses in absolute terms.
Either of these would be a major success after a decade. To have both points - and the stronger version of both points - is huge.
To have the stronger version of both of those points after just one year of implementation is fantastic.
And that is after the most vehement opposition campaign I have seen to any political issue in the US. Going back to when I was too young to follow politics (i.e., before I was 9), opposition to PPACA is behind only to opposition to the Civil Rights movement of the early 1960s, or opposition to the Vietnam War. No riots or fire hoses or murders against Obamacare, but every other stop was pulled out. SSM was not so opposed, neither was the Iraq War, nor Watergate.
For PPACA to be at all successful after just one year of implementation and in so toxic a political environment is a ginourmous success.
You can claim PPACA is a failure because, for example, average family savings are $2,499.99 instead of a “promised” $2,500.00 but you would be wrong. Right now PPACA has reversed to hugely bad trends in our economy, which had previously been thought to be intractable.
That is what success looks like.
And this is all you’ve got. You can’t attack the ACA any more, so you just go back to your admitted personal animus for the president. Yes, we get it – you don’t like Obama.
But this thread is about the ACA. So a politician made extravagant promises… dog bites man. The number of uninsured dropping big? Health care expenses curve going down? That’s a man bites dog story.
Well, this thread is about our opinions of ACA, not whether it’s successful based on what came before(which is a pretty low bar).
My opinion is that the law has fallen well short of the promises made to sell it, which is having continuing electoral consequences for the Democratic party and has severely diminished the President’s political capital. And he hasn’t even started seriously enforcing the individual or employer mandate yet, which will further damage the law’s popularity. Even after rolling out as much of the good stuff as possible while delaying the bad stuff, the law isn’t gaining in popularity:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html
What happens when people start paying fines, employers start laying off workers citing ACA, and insurers stop lowballing their premiums to attract customers, knowing they’ll get bailed out if they lose money? And just how popular will that bailout be when it hits the headlines?
Comparing it to health care before is a pretty reasonable place to start when looking at the ACA.
Which goes to show you are determined to look at the policy in whatever way you can to make the president look worse. If the situation were the opposite – the law was very popular, but the actual numbers were not moving yet – I have little doubt you’d be screaming the exact opposite: ‘Sure, people like it, but they’ve been sold a rotten bill of goods – the uninsured haven’t dropped at all!’ And in that case, you’d actually have a far better argument. In this case, the law is actually working.
Says you. I am not convinced, due to your pathetic history of political predictions.
And yet large majorities oppose repeal. Most Americans want to see if the law succeeds in the long term.
Don’t know. We’ll see.
Employers have been doing this already for several years. The ACA has been blamed for many, many things by various employers, even before being implemented! Why would they stop now?
Not convinced by the predictions of a poor predictor.
The primary purpose of the ACA was always, and still is, to reduce costs and reduce the number of uninsured. So far, it is succeeding on both of these measures.
It is not, due to the cost and increased regulation on business and individuals. Every single health care program ever passed, small or large, has helped make things a little better. ACA is the most expensive since Medicare and Medicaid. Therefore, it should produce results comparable to Medicare and Medicaid. So far, it’s hard to make a case that it’s done more than Part D or SCHIP.
My main issue is how politicized the implementation of the law has been, which is why I think it’s more than fair to judge how the politics of it is affecting the President and his party. And that politicization has contributed to the unpopularity of the law.
In what world would more people paying fines make the law more popular?
Sure, if you frame the question in such a way that makes major changes to it possible. If you just ask straight up(which no polling company has in awhile), then a majority favors repeal. In the real world, no changes are coming. The choice is actually between keeping it as it is and repealing it.
You predict that insurers will continue to lose money?
The Republican alternative will succeed on both measures too. ANY health care program will succeed by that pitiful standard.
The ACA IS essentially the Republican alternative to Hillarycare. Pray tell, WHAT is the current Republican alternative to the former Republican alternative? Don’t tell me: tort reform and buying insurance across state lines.