Does Texas observe a different a calendar or something? The economy cratered before Obama took office.
I just want to point out that Roy’s article has been thoroughly debunked by a bunch of different columnists.
I’m increasingly finding it more and more difficult to take Roy seriously. I mean, I’ve never agreed with anything he has asserted, but at the very least I’ve always respected the fact that he genuinely believes all of the rightwing bullshit that he’s spewing.
But now, he’s had to resort to half-baked wingnut nonsense in order to retrofit the clearly ACA-validating news out of CA to make it fit into the GOP mindset. He’s losing more and more credibility.
It hasn’t been debunked by columnists, a phrase insipid on many levels. Columnists can’t debunk very much to begin with, and in any case, they didn’t debunk, they simply gave a counterargument: don’t compare the rates because it’s not an apples-to-apples comparison. Fair enough, but what will insurance-buying customers think? The right never claimed that people would pay more for the same insurance, they simply claimed that there would be “rate shock” precisely because insurance was going to have to cover more. And that’s what happened.
Oh, and the low rates are contingent on forcing young people to buy insurance. Something which is not going to happen given the limitations imposed on the government by the Supreme Court:
If young people don’t get in, the insurance rates have to go up even further.
And BTW, I really wish the media would start reporting the mandate accurately. You are not “required” to get health insurance and you do not pay a “fine” if you don’t. The Supreme Court ruled that the government cannot require people to obtain health insurance and that the mandate is a tax.
Therefore, the proper way to report it is to state that people must either obtain health insurance or pay a tax, which would put them in full compliance with the law.
What limitations?
The fact that the mandate is a tax means that full compliance can be achieved simply by paying the tax. The government cannot later go and create other penalties if the tax does not get people to buy insurance. THe ability to punish violations is a commerce clause power and the Supreme Court held that the mandate was illegal under the commerce clause. It’s a tax, nothing more, nothing less.
I hope you will come back and admit you were wrong about this when the ACA is a resounding success. with lower rates for everyone, and more people of every age with health insurance.
Lower rates for everyone is impossible and the administration long since abandoned that prediction. More people with insurance is a certainty.
I suppose that is true, because you will be able to find one person whose rates did not go down, and say, “See? I told you so.” I’m not sure how that destroys my prediction that Obamacare will be an overwhelming success, but I sure it will make you feel better.
That depends on how you define success. If you define it simply as expanding coverage, it will be a success. If you also expect lower health care costs, that’s gonna be a tough one. If you expect average insurance costs per person to decline, that’s more likely, but still not very, since the whole idea is that the healthy will pay more so the sick can pay less.
Plus there’s the mandates. Since insurance has to cover more, it’s going to cost more.
That is contrary to the principles of insurance, where rates go down as more people are covered.
Well, there’s this:
"Boycotts seem to be today’s tactic for Republican obstruction. First they refuse to attend a committee hearing to vote on a nominee, shutting down the confirmation process, and now they’re boycotting even an opportunity to offer up GOP nominations.
House Speaker John Boehner and Mitch McConnell have written to President Obama, declaring that they will not offer nominees to the Independent Payment Advisory Board, e.g., Obamcare’s “death panels.” They say they’re doing it to save Medicare.
'As you know, we opposed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act because we knew it would increase health costs, impose costly burdens on job creators, and raid Medicare to pay for a massive new entitlement. In order to allow supporters to claim that the law’s Medicare cuts would be realized in the future, it tasked IPAB with reducing payments to providers or eliminating payments for certain treatments and procedures altogether. These reduced payments will force providers to stop seeing Medicare patients, the same way an increased number of doctors have stopped taking Medicaid patients. This will lead to access problems, waiting lists and denied care for seniors.'
Which is, of course, bunk, on many levels. …"
Oh, for God’s sake.
No, I mean the mandates to cover more services, many of them at no out of pocket cost.
You really can’t make this shit up. Any bum who voted for this monstrosity should have to suffer just the same as everyone else. That includes them and their aides.
If a brain drain happened in Congress, would we notice? Doubtful. Seems like the only thing Congressmen and their aides are brilliant at is finding legalistic ways of getting around the Constitution. We might actually have better rule of law if that kind of smart person just went away.
Again, I look at this situation and I just laugh. Seriously, if anybody wants to point fingers over this issue, lay the blame on Grassley for proposing the amendment in the first place.
Or, better yet, how about everybody just wait to see how the agency rules before running for the hills? C’mon, all of these sky-is-falling predictions surrounding the ACA have been so ridiculously unfounded and overblown at this point, so why now chill out before you guys start sympathizing with these lawmakers?
It’s true that the sky is falling predictions have been overblown, which is annoying me to no end because it’s allowing ACA supporters to compare what’s actually happening to those predictions instead of comparing health care under ACA to what came before.
Still, I’m hopeful that voters will vote based on what they have now vs. what they had then.
“What came before” ACA was a slo-mo train wreck. The US has the most expensive health care in the world, but worse outcomes than most (all other?) industrialized countries. The costs of health care and insurance were skyrocketing, and the percentage of the uninsured was creeping up every year. ACA did not disrupt a stable situation, it will stabilize an untenable one. And I say this as a guy who’s relatively happy with his insurance. Except for the kafkaesque parts for my kids coverage (claims handled wrong every month, with a new cock-up each month) and my dental coverage (yes we paid for your gum surgery, but we’re rejecting your periodontal cleanings because we don’t have evidence you have gum disease. Evidence like the surgery we covered).
that’s the thing, most people are happy with their insurance. ACA is successful politically if most people continue to be happy with their insurance. If people lose their insurance or the cost increases dramatically, it will be unsuccessful.