Well, wow. That’s it, just wow.
This isn’t hard. Dispproval means disapproval. You’re asking me to prove that disapproval means disapproval, because you’re sure it doesn’t mean disapproval.
To repeat: Wow.
The latest Kaiser poll, for those not impervious to actual data:
Keep as is - 10%
Keep and improve - 49%
Repeal and replace with Republican alternative {never mind that there isn’t one} - 11%
Repeal, don’t replace - 18%
For the trend:
Based on the newest data, what side would a senior adviser tell a pol with national aspirations to be on? Class?
Not you, adaher, you’ve had your turn already, and you need an extra-credit assignment to pass. Here it is - please comment on this tidbit:
Adaher
Disapproval != Repeal
It does when you simply ask people whether to choose repeal or keep. And in the real world, those are the only two choices. Democrats do not favor any changes to the law at this time.
Fixing the law is a wonderful thing. Democrats should explain how they intend to fix the law. And pollsters like Kaiser should ask what specifically voters want fixed about the law. I bet they don’t because Kaiser supports the health care law, and if voters start saying scrap the mandate, let people keep their insurance, etc., then the law is pretty screwed.
An update on Halbig v. Sebelius:
The fun part:
At one point, Judge Edwards claimed that because the statute was entitled the “Affordable” Care Act, the court should construe it so care would be affordable.
that’s stupid. The title of an act is now legally binding? The titles of acts often have no relation to what the law actually is.
He’s just desperate for an excuse to let the administration interpret the law to mean the opposite of what it actually says.
So now it’s just a few days before the deadline and 30 million people remain without health insurance, which means a heck of a lot of voters are going to be subject to the individual mandate, at least in theory.
Republicans should be microtargeting those folks like crazy, reminding them what the Democrats tried to make them do. Are they going to take that lying down?
You *do *know better. I’m sure of that. It’s a pity that such knowledge doesn’t affect what you say.
The list is endless.
Should they also ask the 11% who want to dump it and replace it with a Republican alternative what that alternative is? I know, let’s start by asking you. What is the Republican alternative, how does it differ in any meaningful way that actually serves the public interest better, and is it not the most important characteristic that it removes Obama’s name from it? What is *your *answer to the simple question of “Okay, critic, what is *your *plan and why haven’t we seen it yet”? Might as well start working on an answer, because every Republican who tries to campaign against Obamacare is going to have to answer it.
If there were any real-world data that said that was happening, you’d have a point. You can have all the wet dreams you like, but telling anyone else about it is cause only for embarrassment.
ACA marketplace enrollment passed the sought-after 6 million enrollee number today. That’s a pretty hefty lift, right?
Not really. You have to read past the headlines.
-
The original target was 7M. It was revised last month to 6M to be more in line with what they actually thought was going to happen. That’s not what I’d call “sought after”. I call it moving the goal posts.
Just today, six Senate Democrats likely to lose their jobs in a few months came up with three small bore ideas. Unless that’s what you’re talking about, all I can say is, “CITE?”
Oh, and I’d note that Democrats control the Senate. It’s not hard to pass bill out of the Senate to change ACA, and many changes will find Republicans receptive. Even if they aren’t, actually trying to pass a change to ACA says that you’re trying to change ACA rather than just talking about it because you’re asses are on the line.
And is still 6M more than the Republicans would prefer.
I’d call even attempting to make that point something far less respectable.
Are there 60+ Democrats? If not, the Democrats do not control the Senate as long as the rules allow 40+ members to filibuster anything that doesn’t toe the right wing Republican line.
Other than total repeal, Republicans won’t support changes. At least, they won’t favor anything that might make the ACA more successful. I mean, are there any R’s that aren’t running on “repeal, repeal, repeal”?
People are talking so much about the 6 million figure, they haven’t noticed what really has Republicans shitting in their pants about the ACA:
Yes, Republicans are poopy-pants. We already know that.
Well, isn’t that special!
However, if you’d like to debate this, I’m good. Resolved: Changing the target from 7M to 6M is NOT a case of moving the goal posts and even if it is, one should not mention it.
Now, it might be that the poster was mistaken and thought that the original target was 6M, in which case he was simply mistaken and I corrected him. In which case we can debate: Resolved: One should not correct posters on issues concerning Obamacare if that correction reflects negatively on that law.
:dubious: A responsible adult approach to stating that would be along the lines of “They don’t have an alternative to the improving health care coverage, only sniping.” Which is, in fact, the case.
You are not doing a great job of making it seem worthwhile.
No, you’re still not grasping the topic. Try: “Resolved: 6 million more insured is better than 0 more insured,” and observe that forecasts are often not precise. If that sort of post doesn’t fit into a both-sides-do-it template, that’s too damn bad.
Nope, you’re still not getting it. Try “Resolved: If you’re going to criticize people trying to help fix a problem, you need to offer an alternative and be prepared to explain why it’s better.”
Or, you can go with juvenile poopy-pants cracks instead. That’s certainly easier, although far less convincing to others.
It’s not 6 million more insured. You’re not only counting those who haven’t paid for plans, you’re counting those who lost their insurance and had to go to the exchanges.
And there will be a lot more. Pretty much all of us, within the next few years. If you like your health insurance, don’t get too attached.