I recall reading a number of sources to the effect that such was the deal, a bet, actually. The Republicans were willing to let it happen if they could get the terms they wanted, with much more of the pain up front and the benefits down the road. They were betting that ACA would be so unpopular that they could run on it as well as kill any hope for “socialized medicine” for a generation, if not forever and ever.
Obama made the opposite bet, or at least accepted it, having no real choice. The Dems bet that ACA could hang on by the skin of its teeth long enough for the value to become obvious. And on such high minded and principled disagreements the fate of millions depends.
I think a more accurate description - and Hell, I remember having this exact discussion with a friend of mine back in 2010 - is that most (if not all) of the 'Pubs in Congress genuinely believed that the ACA would never even survive long enough to have its central provisions take effect in the first place. It’s easy to forget now, but the law was designed in such a way that the bulk of its coverage expansions wouldn’t be enabled until four years after its initial passage.
The 'Pubs first thought they could mount huge enough gains in the 2010 midterms that would allow them to immediately repeal the law & override an Obama veto.
Failing that, they felt that the Supreme Court would certainly strike it down as unconstitutional.
Failing that, they thought that Romney would beat Obama in 2012 and stop ACA implementation altogether.
Failing that, all they really have NOW are two things in their long line of (increasingly desperate & ludicrous) anti-ACA rantings & rhetoric: (1) continued bashing against the imaginary ACA (read: Obamacare) that ignores all of its tangible benefits & millions of beneficiaries in lieu of hyperbolic nonsense about Ocare as a CONCEPT, & (2) the stupid & asinine Halbig case.
Remove those two things & the current picture of the ACA as a policy is downright rosy. Still, though, that shouldn’t discount the fact that most conservatives thought the law would never reach this point in the first place.
My wife was covered under the ACA for several months this year before turning 65 and receiving Medicare coverage. I just noted in our local paper that her insurer had lowered its rates for 2015.
Given the for profit nature of our medical system, declines in costs will be the exception rather than the rule, but it was nice to note this decline.
Yep, it’s less important, but still being used by Republicans more than Democrats. The tide has not actually turned. And in debates, Republican candidates have been going on the attack on the issue.
Mark Pryor is the only endangered incumbent willing to come close to endorsing the law, and he didn’t even let voters know what the law is that he was talking about. “I voted for a law that did this that and the other thing.” Oh, a law? How cute.
Did you read your cite? The Grey Lady can spell Gov. McAuliffe’s name correctly. Also, as mentioned in the NY Times article you linked to, Gov. McAuliffe is scaling back on Medicare expansion because he is following the law, and not playing dirty pool to get his way. The VA GOP bribed a Democratic State Senator into leaving office, just to prevent some poor kid someplace in Virginia from having a needed asthma inhaler. The GOP in Virginia - and elsewhere - has declared total war against citizens, because Obama.
It’s funny how back in October adaher was vehemently arguing that the ACA was objectively a failure in light of the canceled policies & broken website fiascos. Now, however, after he has conceded that the law is objectively SUCCESSFUL, he has resorted to arguing that it’s still a failure writ large because it’s broadly perceived negatively amongst the public.
Pick your poison dude, and stop moving the goalposts.
Also, that sucks about Virginia; I’m glad I don’t live there. There’s no good reason to NOT expand Medicaid with such generous funding & a cooperative administration in the WH. Hopefully the VA Gov. will find some way to move forward with it, but in any case it all points to the continued GOP demagoguery & evilness on this issue.
If you think that a politician trying to implement a policy but failing is the same thing as any of the array of malicious falsehoods spread about PPACA by GOP officials who knew better, you really need to get a better handle on the distinction between a truth and a lie.
Repealing Obamacare is the GOP’s tiger by the tail; they are damned if they repeal it, and they are damned if they don’t. Couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch.
Partial implementation IS a change, and on top of that the Dems have made changes to PPACA. We’ve discussed them in this very thread, sometime after Becky Sharp got to meet the King. Do you need ST-TOS Norman to coordinate for you?
The Gov. in VA was elected statewide with more votes than any single state legislator secured for his or her given office. It’s basically inarguable that McAuliffe was elected with a popular mandate to expand Medicaid in his state, so should he not follow the voters’ will?
You can’t attribute a mandate of any sort to such a slim victory, and voters gave a much clearer mandate to the legislature.
Anyway, that’s not what I came here today to talk about. Lately the media is reporting that the government is sending out letters that people enrolled in plans don’t need to take any action. Which is fine as far as it applies to their ACA insurance, but a lot of people aren’t going to be clear on the idea that they need to treat it like their taxes and report changes in income or family status, as that will affect their subsidy amounts.
So let’s say we get to the end of next year and a lot of people find out they owe a ton of money. What happens next?
I know, I know, you’ll handwave it away because some people will pay less than last year, so the people who pay more frankly just don’t matter.
But actually it was just an honest question. It has nothing to do with the success or failure of the law. But it does create an administrative problem for the IRS. THey may very well see a lot more people who owe but can’t pay than they usually do. Does the administration hold them back to avoid a political backlash? Perhaps do a preemptive tax amnesty? Or let the IRS go after them like they usually would? Because let’s face it, most people don’t tell the IRS about income or family changes until they do their taxes. Getting the public used to doing it twice a year is going to require a learning curve.
What we’re used to is that if our income goes up, our withholding goes up automatically. Now if our income goes up, our subsidy goes down, but there’s no automatic process to take that out of taxpayers’ hands. And we’re talking about pretty big money here, as much as hundreds of dollars a month.
Personally, I think that’s a positive thing, because Ronald Reagan used to oppose withholding. “Taxes should hurt.” I guess Democrats are just doing my side a favor.
