That’s a poll, not a trend. What happened is that Democratic-aligned pollsters changed the question they were asking because they didn’t like the results of the old one: “Would you repeal or keep ACA?”, and replaced it with a new one: “Would you keep ACA as is, change it, or repeal it?”
As I keep saying, the first question is more reflective of political reality. Democrats have not put any changes to ACA into bill form and have no intention of doing so anytime soon. The choice for voters is the Democrats’ way(Keep it as is), or the Republicans’ way(repeal it).
You’re being too simplistic. Many Democrats freely admit that the law could be improved. The choice is between doing surgery to the law with a scalpel or with a chainsaw. Even if the choice is as you wish, between repeal or keep as is, how do you think the millions who now have insurance who didn’t before are going to vote?
They admit it, they just don’t have any plans, because the dirty little secret is that the changes voters want would probably damage the law. Such as keeping your insurance plan whether or not it meets ACA standards. So they stick to unspecified “changes”.
For anyone watching the King case progress, the administration was granted an extension of one month to file its response to the petitioner’s request for cert to the Supreme Court. Response now due October 3, 2014.
Just for the fun of it, with ACA *anybody *can now get health insurance, and for a reasonable price too. If that isn’t a fair definition of universal coverage, it’s not far off.
Sad that the consistent 18% who want “repeal and replace” have not the faintest idea of what the replacement would be, other than that it wouldn’t have Obama’s name on it. That’s still less than the well-known 27% crazification factor, though, so perhaps we can dismiss them as being only a fraction of even the crazies?
The nonsense Halbig ruling has been withdrawn by the DC Court of Appeal. According to this article, that means the Supreme Court is less likely to take up the issue. There will still be an en banc hearing where the full court is expected to overturn the original ruling. I look forward to the spin on this.
A new study from the Urban Institute challenges the claim that ACA would cause employers to cut employee hours to escape the obligation to provide health care.
The article does point out that this might change in the coming months as mandate comes in effect, but thus far things seem to be going well.
If you think him repeatedly assuring the people that they can keep their coverage, their health plan, and their doctor is hyperbole, you have zero idea what the word means.
Defining universal coverage three different ways to clearly mean 100% covered and calling it “covering everyone” isn’t hyperbole. Hyperbole is “Our health care system is the best in the world!” Hyperbole by its nature sounds like BS but you can’t definitely prove it’s BS because you don’t know by what metric the speaker is calling it the best in the world. Saying something covers everyone when it doesn’t is just lying. Or being ignorant. So is telling people they can keep their insurance if they like it.
Besides, in the latter case, if it was just hyperbole, it wouldn’t a) be contrary to the very purpose of the law, and b) they wouldn’t have responded to the cancellations by letting as many people as possible keep their insurance. If they had really wanted everyone to keep their insurance, the administration had the power to write the regulations to allow 100% grandfathering. Instead, they wrote it so even fairly minor changes caused a plan to lose its grandfathering status. Unless the President is again ignorant of what goes on in his administration and gave no guidance on how to implement his signature legislative achievement, the President intentionally made it hard to keep your plan. So when the backlash occurred, the backtrack occurred.
Because while you and I think of it as “close enough”, it’s not really universal health coverage. “Universal” means everybody, and Obama specifically used the word “everyone” in reference to coverage.
But either way, it doesn’t matter. They spent all their political capital to get this and they’ll spend any political capital they build up over the next couple of decades just defending it. No red state Congressman or Senator is going to fall on their sword for the Democrats to try this again. Everyone was told that this was “universal coverage”, so why would Democrats in tough districts and states sacrifice their careers for “This time it’s really universal coverage, we mean it this time!”
Plus there’s simple inertia. In order to pass ACA, there had to be a “crisis” in health care. This crisis involved 80% of Americans being satisfied with their care. So let’s say 10 years from now, 90% are satisfied. Where’s the political momentum to spend more money, or risk people’s insurance? No one’s going to believe they’ll be able to keep their insurance a second time.
I did read the last few pages. I acknowledge there was a chance you were referring to something else, which is why I started my comment off with the “If you think…”. Since you evidently don’t think that, excellent.
How can I answer something I never said? I never said ACA was a failure because it wasn’t universal, because despite the President’s lies, it was never meant to be universal.
ACA is a failure because aside from failing to meet the goals it wasn’t designed to meet, it hasn’t met the goals it was designed to meet, except to expand coverage. Which is a no–brainer. Welfare expanded the welfare rolls, but few would call welfare “successful” compared to what Democrats wanted to accomplish with it. They believed it was possible to eliminate poverty in their lifetimes, and this was the way to do it. Instead, it entrenched poverty. But hey, it ameliorated it a little, so success! It’s easy to define success if all you’re doing is considering the number of people needing government assistance a sign of success.
So, adaher, criticizing the President for saying the ACA was part of bringing the US to universal coverage, while at the same time saying yourself that the ACA is (by American standards) universal coverage, is… let’s be kind and say ‘very foolish’. That’s a very foolish and silly thing to be saying at the same time.
You don’t seem to be learning anything from these many, many free lessons that you are offered by kind and generous Dopers.
When are your guys going to come up with the Replace part?