Local constituents in Florida demand that their Congressman repeal Obamacare.
No, sorry, I read that wrong. Local constituents in Florida demand that their Congressman stop trying to repeal Obamacare.
Not to mention the Congressman in North Carolinawho was similarly challenged last week.
If I were adaher, right about now I’d be claiming these examples as definitive proof that the country wants to keep Obamacare. Instead, I’ll just leave them there for him to tell me why they don’t count.
We already know that something like 40-45% of Americans want to keep the ACA.
Perfect timing.
Of the remainder, what percent want something more comprehensive like universal single payer?
Many do. That does not translate into support for ACA, because ACA is fundamentally different from single payer and despite some liberals’ contention, is not a transition to single payer. What ACA does is force people to buy health insurance from private corporations, and a lot of lefties would rather see it repealed than do that.
Plus smart liberals know as well as conservatives that once this thing gets entrenched, it’s the system we’ll have forever. In order for ACA to be a transition, it has to fail. If it succeeds, people will want to keep what they have.
A few of the systems in Europe already do that, and no, it is really nonsense to assume that a lot of lefties would like to see it repealed when there are no better options in the cards now, the demand now is that something better will have to be plugged in in the future and it can be an option and I do think the ACA is a good way to create a structure that will include eventually plans that will be non-profit based and backed by the local or the federal government.
What you seem to always forget is that as this was originally a plan proposed by conservatives in the past, I see this as the last chance for private industry to demonstrate that they indeed are capable of offering affordable health care, what I have concluded is that the option of keeping it the same was indeed the unsustainable option, without the ACA in place I would had expected to see a future where the health care bubble was going to make the housing bubble to look like child’s play. Instead with the ACA I expect to see a future where variations on public plans and other non-profits can be added to the exchanges in case private industry is not the “beesnees” as many conservatives claim.
And that is nonsense as even several conservatives can tell you, the only thing needed is for a few insurers to remain as inefficient as usual to make not only the federal government but local ones to take matters into their own hands and offer more common sense plans in the exchanges.
Well, it’s nice to see adaher admit that people will want Obamacare once it’s implemented. This guy certainly does:
Of course he’d rather that the GOP come up with a better alternative. The problem is that 1) Obamacare IS the GOP alternative, and 2) they’re too busy telling people how terrible it will be while ignoring how much worse things will be without it.
Republicans were shut out of the process. Sure, there was the Gang of Six, but Democrats hated all of their ideas and nothing came of it.
Democrats also hated the Senate bill, but they didn’t have much choice but to pass it after Scott Brown won his election.
And now they are petulantly staying out of the process, determined to teach us a lesson. No health care for you!
Which ideas were those? Do you mean the idea that Obama should go fuck himself, that one? 'Cause I don’t remember any others.
Obama wasn’t even part of the process. He was as shut out as the Republicans.
What color is the sky on your planet?
Well, apart from the parts they weren’t shut out of. From here:
AFAICT, “being shut out” in GOP terms means “didn’t give us everything we wanted”. Which is petulant whining from grown men.
Yeah, little things like requiring the Senate to live on the Obamacare exchanges, and keeping pedophiles from getting viagra. Not actually important things, like not having zillions of new mandates that raise the cost of insurance. None of those things are necessary, they are just part of the Democratic wish list.
Does your healthcare plan cover carpal tunnel syndrome caused by excessive handwaving? Because despite your inevitable sour-graping, the quote above still refutes the point that the Republicans were “shut out”. If they were things the Democrats wanted in the first place, why were they Republican amendments? And note that the majority of them were accepted - hardly a token gesture.
I also note that in your view whenever the Democrats don’t get what they want it’s because they’re incompetent and because the public don’t want it, but when the Republicans don’t get what they want it’s because they’ve been unfairly excluded from the process.
And let’s not forget the fact that the *basic structure *of Obamacare was a Republican proposal.
This is exactly how I see the Republican Party.
That’s like saying that the basic structure of Ryan’s reforms to Medicare are that it makes Medicare like Obamacare.
And if ACA is so great, then it shouldn’t be a problem to put the whole country on it, right?
More deflections. No one is saying ACA is the bestest thing ever. What we’re saying is that it’s far better than the pre-ACA system and far better than the (non-existent) Republican alternative.
That said, maybe everyone SHOULD adopt it. According to the Rand Corporation:
That’s an admission that Medicaid is worse than having no insurance at all, which is inline with a recent study.
Let’s consider the data. The top peer-reviewed medical journals are filled with proof that Medicaid patients have worse outcomes than fully comparable patients with private insurance, outcomes sometimes even worse than those with no insurance at all. Owing to Medicaid’s restrictive guidelines for diagnosis and treatment, Medicaid patients experience significantly more deaths, longer hospitalizations and more serious complications from major surgery, cancers, heart disease, interventional procedures, transplants and AIDS than equivalent patients with the same illnesses and same health status but with private insurance – objective data-based conclusions proven by medical scientists in the world’s top peer-reviewed medical journals like Annals of Surgery, Cancer, Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation and the American Journal of Cardiology. Medicaid outcomes are so shamefully poor that, when comparing patients with the same risk factors and same health status, Medicaid patients at times even fared worse than those with no insurance at all.
Beyond outcomes, Medicaid insurance has been only a facade for millions of patients for years because they cannot even find doctors. More than one-third of primary care doctors and one-fourth of specialists already refused adding new Medicaid patients back in 2008 because Medicaid pays below costs. And from a 2009 survey of 15 large metropolitan areas, almost half of doctors in the five most commonly used medical fields refused Medicaid patients, about four times the percentage that refuse new private insurance patients.
And now, in Oregon’s controlled, randomized study comparing thousands of previously uninsured, poor Medicaid applicants who received Medicaid to those who did not receive the insurance, we see further evidence that “comprehensive” government insurance failed to improve health beyond no insurance at all.