It’s also called loving and taking care of each other. As Christ commanded, if you swing that way.
The Republicans must be feeling really chagrined (or pissed) when the President delays parts of the law after he refused to delay any part of it during the shutdown showdown. All they had to do was wait for the rollout to stumble instead of shooting themselves in the foot with the shutdown.
The ones that were for the shutdown don’t give a fuck, and the rest knew damn well it was a stupid thing to do.
January 1st is just around the corner, now. I’m curious what you guys make of this last-minute adjustment to the individual mandate. Effectively, if carves out an exemption for that sliver of the population who had their plans canceled because of the ACA and who aren’t otherwise satisfied with their new choices in the various marketplaces.
I’ve noticed a few policy folks have tried to spin this as a “crack” in the wall of the IM, and frankly, I really just do not see it that way. Basically, I look at this final move as a total political calculation meant to placate the remaining nervous Dems on Obama’s left/right flank. Also, I think the bigger point is that this move shows just how much the administration is bending over backwards in order to mitigate any disruption in the insurance market, and it’s this last point where I most differ from the folks in charge of implementing the law.
Seriously, they should’ve just sucked it up and allowed this element of disruption take place. Get it out of the way and move on.
Now you’ll have GOP members hollering about how the entire IM should be delayed whole cloth, which, contrary to my earlier statement, would constitute a huge “crack” in the law. I mean, that would be analogous to killing the entire program.
How could insurance work otherwise? Do you seriously think it is different in private insurance plans outside of Obamacare?
Thru the exchange I can choose from 29 plans. The cheapest montly payment would cost $0.00 catastrophic coverage but with decent diabetes and maternity care
You can call it insurance you can call it well-fare, you can call it public health, socialism, the key to prosperity whatever. The question isn’t its name the question is whether it is good policy.
The reason of course you want to call it welfare is so you can associate it with poor, lazy useless, layabouts, getting a undeserved hand out, they wouldn’t need if they just got up off the couch and started their own business knitting dryer lint into sweaters for the dogs of their more deserving superiors.
The problem is that pre-existing medical conditions are not the fault of those that have them. Its really and truly the luck of the draw. There is no moral failing that led them to this situation. Ayn Rand’s “ideal man” is just as likely to be born with diabetes as a moocher is, and cutting off his healthcare won’t force his pancreas to get up off the couch and start making insulin.
So you can call the ACA welfare if you want, but be aware that doing so may have the effect of legitimizing welfare more than it de-legitimizes ACA.
We’ll find out about that. So far, I’m reading a lot of “I supported OBamcare until I found out I’d be paying for it” stories.
And BTW, the law still isn’t even close to being fully implemented, and by now I think the administration and Democrats have conceded that ACA is unworkable as written.
And hundreds of thousands of people a week are signing up. By the time the election rolls around next year, millions will be enrolled, and using their insurance for months, many for the first time in years… Let’s see how running against that works out for Republicans. Your guys just can’t stop stepping on their own dicks, can they…
…just about all of which fail to hold up under scrutiny thus far; worse case, the subject of the story hadn’t fully explored all the options.
So far, the score is 5 million losers and a few hundred thousand winners. and the affect on employer insurance hasn’t even been felt yet, nor have we seen what next year’s increased premiums will look like due to the young and healthy shunning the law.
If that is the case,it sounds like Republicans would be much better off letting Obamacare run its course, instead of demanding repeal. So which is it? Are you sure it going to fail, or do you want to hedge your bet and maybe repeal it before it becomes too popular to kill?
Republicans have no choice but to let it run its course, while campaigning for repeal. If the public decides over the next two elections to give the GOP Congress and the White House, then that’s a pretty clear message.
Unless of course in 2014 the GOP gets veto proof majorities, which would send a clear message a lot sooner. Unlikely, but if ACA proves as toxic as it’s looking right now, you never know.
Short of a major disaster forcing a lot of special elections, I do not think that is mathematically possible in the Senate.
As it stands there are 35 Senate seats being contested, the usual 33 and two more special elections. Even if the Dems lost all 21 of those seats they currently hold it would only give the GOP 66 Senators. They would need one more.
True, but even if they get close I bet that gets Manchin and some vulnerable Democrats in 2016 off the fence.
The great thing about the Senate is that there are always a few scared Democrats that can get you the votes you need. They’ve held remarkably firm up until recently but now you can see the vulnerable ones starting to go into self-preservation mode.
Put me in that camp. I have a family of four and premiums for us have increased over a thousand dollars a month.
No, the healthcare.gov plans aren’t any better. Sure, I can find some cheap plans, but these are catastrophic plans with deductibles over six thousand dollars and many don’t even cover seeing your primary doctor. I used to have excellent employer based coverage; now I’m getting screwed by the President and the insurance companies.
Too add to how ridiculous my healthcare woes are, my family as a whole spent a grand sum of just under 250 dollars on medical care this year. We’re all healthy; we only went for dental cleanings and glasses. Now we’re forced to pay more for insurance, which was already basically a losing proposition for us.
Along with those who are seeing big increases in costs, the other losers are the millions of uninsured who are going to be paying the penalty because they’ve chosen to shun the exchanges.
Now I concede that the Medicaid expansion is doing much better and will probably have to be kept. And if the rest gets repealed and Democrats want to call that “Obamacare” they can knock themselves out. But it’s hard to see how the exchanges will be anything but a catastrophic failure given the risk pool they are seeing. Young and healthy people are just not interested, and with good reason. Why should they subsidize an age group that is wealthier than them?
If there’s any subsidizing going on, it’s definitely not going to me. From a glance at the posts, it’s clear some people refuse to confront the realities of higher premiums and higher deductibles for people such as me.
I’m socially very liberal, but even I feel that the launch of the ACA was horribly inept and for all the bluster the Democrats have been spewing about Republicans, you’d think that the Democrats would have better capitalized on their advantages and fixed some things for the middle class.
Instead, the Democrats proved themselves to be fairly incompetent as a party even when the Republicans have supposedly left their sanity behind. I have become more and more independent and libertarian leaning in the past few months.
As far as all the bluster about how the ACA will be the established law of the land and accepted by millions by Nov. 2014, that may be true.
But when did legislative inertia become the de facto measure of a law’s “good”? Does anyone remember slavery? Jim Crow?
Also the post hoc reasoning of some that the ACA bent the healthcare cost curve is ironic when the Republicans have the supposed monopoly on woo. The curve started bending when the President was a relatively unknown Senator in 2005.