Fewer people are uncovered than before. The numbers are changing for the better each month. Virtually everyone of the relatively small number who lost or had their coverage changed because of ACA provisions still was able to get coverage later.
You continuously shift the goalposts so that your specific “failure” definition just happens to apply to present circumstances, even though the numbers continue to change, and in the right direction. If the ACA is still around in 5 or 10 years, and there are still tens of millions uninsured, then I’ll agree it failed at least in its goal of providing near-universal coverage. But why do you insist on calling it a failure just at this moment, when it’s helping millions and millions more each month?
Or, to look at it another way, the GOP plan cuts benefits without replacing them with anything, disadvantaging many, whereas ACA provides some benefit in return to the disadvantaged (which will itself cut the deficit according to CBO projections).
Who knows what he was talking about? But this quote is about discretionary accounts having a surplus on their own, without SS cash counted. SS had a surplus every year of Clinton’s presidency. Not sure what Adaher was trying to say.
The lockbox thing is sheer stupidity. SS funds are not used for other programs. The cash was, of course, but it went with an IOU (government bonds, actually). It is supposed to be paid back to SS later. Now, whether Congress will honor that is another issue, but using SS cash to pay bills now is not the same thing as using it up for good.
I can’t say that this is altogether surprising given the political dynamics of the “keep your plan” nonsense. The article also points out that the number of individuals that this effects is becoming vanishingly small; honestly, at this point, I think that we should all just expect these old policies to naturally die off as people actively migrate towards ACA-compliant plans.
It’s not small if you count the employer plans. He had to head off massive cancellations in October which would have occurred.
And it’s not nonsense. If the public had known they couldn’t keep their plans, ACA would not be law today. Personally, I think this kind of massive fraud should be actionable in court. Laws sold on lies should be overturned by courts if people are substantially harmed by them, thus giving them standing to sue.
Piffle. Many of the plans people were upset about losing were piece of shit plans. So they have to at some point upgrade to ACA-compliant plans that actually provide coverage. My heart bleeds for those poor souls. Of course, some may pay more. Big deal, they’re getting more. The notion of suing due to a law “sold on lies” is silly. If it was true, every Iraq War casualty family should sue Dick Cheney.
They left the death panels out because of Sarah Palin? Yay!
I get what you’re saying, my flipness aside, but the bill wasn’t watered down because of lies. It was watered down because Democrats had to not commit political suicide. So they watered it down, and only Obama’s ass was saved, mainly because he made sure nothing bad happened before Nov. 2012.
Now bad stuff has happened, so we get to see how voters react.
