Yeah, right. That’s exactly what happened, isn’t it?
Now that there’s something actually effective in place, however meager, you want to *repeal *it. :rolleyes:
Lying comes back to haunt you. Democrats said for decades that any attempts to cut Medicare growth would hurt seniors. Then they acted shocked and saddened when 70 Democrats lost their jobs due to those dirty, dirty lies Republicans told. Man up, Democrats! All the GOP did was flip the script.
*When *are you going to show us you really do know the difference between benefits and administrative bloat? It’s been explained to you enough times by now.
Why only discover the virtues of cutting administrative bloat in 2010?
Your team *still *hasn’t, remember? Oh yes, there’s always been some talk to that effect, image management for the voter base, but not when their *actual *constituents’ interests are involved, right?
Now that it’s happened anyway, what do you want to do? Yeah, repeal it.
The Republicans voted to do it and Democrats took full political advantage of it. Remember Mediscare? Democrats invented the tactic. IT’s entirely fair to turn it around on them.
Then there’s the fact that Medicare Advantage is actually being cut. The argument that the cuts don’t affect beneficiaries has always been incredibly dishonest, since Medicare doesn’t pay money to beneficiaries. It pays money to providers. When you cut money to providers, you cut benefits.
You’re going to have to tell us when that was.
Democrats got it passed, despite the stream of lies, most notably Reagan’s, your team told (and still does). I’d be happy to see them implement an idea anywhere near as progressive as Medicare, instead of reflexive opposition.
Nope, you’re still not getting the benefits-vs.-overhead problem. Dear, dear.
Is administrative bloat, executive salaries, bonuses, perks, etc. uncuttable? :dubious: The ACA cuts are only to the worst of that. Please try to be more factual.
You’re not being factual. Payments to Medicare Advantage insurers are simply cut under the bill.
That’s what I said - reimbursements for bloat are reduced, and the insurers are going to have to become slightly less inefficient and greedy as a result. Are you guys in favor of responsible, efficient management as you say, or only on occasion?
How you get from that to benefits inevitably being cut, dollar for dollar, is still something you can’t explain.
The insurers can’t offer as generous benefits now. I mean, this is still theoretical since the administration keeps on putting off the cuts. Which pretty much proves that they are actually cuts.
They can’t get any more efficient than this? None of them, not even the worst? Really? 
That’s a fine argument for single-payer you’re making.
Some can, some won’t. It still affects beneficiaries. Or will, once the President has the poitical courage to actually implement the law he signed.
Which gives me another opportunity to say again, the law has still not been fully implemented, and will never actually be implemented as written.
Repeating an assertion doesn’t make it true.
The lawless tyrant your party is suing for that, you mean?
It’s up to those of us who still believe in responsible governance to keep fixing problems and making improvements and performing other maintenance as required as we go along, yes. It’s a feature, not a bug.
This isn’t hard. Insurer gets less money. Insurer can respond by being more efficient, or they can respond by cutting what is offered.
So the employer and individual mandates should never be fully implemented, correct? Because they aren’t now and never will be.
As for the various taxes and cuts, those kinda fund the program. Switching to funding it through deficit spending isn’t a “fix”.
No, not correct. That is neither stated nor implied.
Probably false.
They aren’t now. Only 3 million people will be subject to the penalty this year, and that’s even assuming the President won’t get cold feet given how motivated those voters will be. The employer mandate, not fully implemented, that’s why he’s getting sued. Medicare cuts, not fully implemented, they keep delaying them.
So why aren’t these good ideas now? What will make them better ideas a few years from now? And remember, this is Obama’s law. Why would a Hillary Clinton want to own the unpopular aspects of it if he didn’t?
A bit of a change from your earlier insistence, isn’t that?
WTF?
Your last administration operated the entire government for eight full years on precisely that basis. When did you learn?
The PResident said he would not sign a bill that increased the deficit.
And I referred to the mandates because they are not fully implemented. Is this a “fix” in your view?
When come back, bring coherence.
Your way of conceding. I accept.
The PResident said he would not sign a bill that increased the deficit. But if he doesn’t go through with all the cuts and taxes, the bill loses its funding and increases the deficit. Current projections showing the bill reduces the deficit assume that all taxes and cuts will happen. So far, they have not and there is no evidence that he ever intends to fully implement all of them.