It was by intent. Elvis defines wanting to repeal ACA as “untrustworthy”, so fine, we’re untrustworthy. It’s a weird way to define doing what you said you would do, but whatever.
You don’t even try to understand what you’re being told, are you? What makes your team untrustworthy is their steady flow of lying and tantrums.
Plus it gives Republicans an issue. Leave the law in place, and Democrats get blamed for everything that goes wrong. Repeal it, and then it’s about Republicans taking away people’s health care. Although if they promise to repeal it and win it all in 2016, they’ll do it. They’ll have to grandfather in the people who gained insurance from the law.
Nobody tell Marley he’s making an erroneus assumption.
I used to think the same as you, until I actually looked at the 2016 Senate map and realized that the Republicans didn’t win enough races to put them in a troubling position. They aren’t defending only four seats that Obama won in 2012, and none of those four are likely to see open seats. Only Ron Johnson is really in danger as of right now. And the Democrats are defending three seats that could be vulnerable: Colorado, Nevada, and West Virginia. Reid could very well retire and he was almost defeated in 2010.
Democrats haven’t covered themselves in glory lately. Have you noticed the huge drop in trust for the President since the health care law rolled out?
But like Gigo, I suppose you can just console yourself that an election in which Democrats get shellacked is something that just happens, has nothing to do with their performance or trustworthiness.
You think if the Republicans sweep in 2014 that Obama will go along with repeal?
We already worked through that it is a mathematical impossibility for the Republicans to take a veto-proof majority in the Senate in 2014. There just are not enough seats being contested, unless another Democrat quits or dies.
So, yes, the next two elections will be telling. And arguably if the R’s get the votes they can claim a mandate to do what they pledge.
And what if they don’t?
Can we get some sort of hypothetical outcome here?
Mostly with regard to you flouncing again. Any insight on that?
Ah, finally some acknowledgement from **adaher **that there really was a 2012! Maybe that’s the first crack in the dam …
The bottom-line question: Has the GOP Establishment figured out how to shut up the candidates who know how to shut down the effects of “legitimate rape” without resort to witchcraft or a doctor visit paid for in poultry… without offending the Teanut Gallery voters who eat that stuff up?
At long last, something close to the truth.
Now we’re pretending they’re leaving the law in place? They ran a repeal-based campaign in 2012 and lost, did what they could to sabotage it, and failed.
A charge that stings mostly because it’s true.
I’m sure their supporters would love that.
I don’t see a problem. People would only receive Obamacare for as long as it took them to switch to something else. Those who were already insured and liked their plans will probably be thrilled to leave Obamacare and go back to those plans.
Grandfathering is not going to be too hard or painful for the base to accept.
Don’t get your hopes up about that. The “replace” part of the Republicans’ “Repeal and Replace” slogan is another of their lies, as the lack of same in the subsequent years [sic] has demonstrated - although you do have to give them credit for thereby recognizing that the people demand something, despite their refusing to actually *do *anything but snipe and sneer.
This sentence makes me wonder if you know what Obamacare is supposed to be.
You’re only starting to wonder that now?
I guess I could’ve said wonder again, but it seems like such an elementary error that it threw me. Li’l help, adaher?
Here’s a great article from Politico that talks about the ways in which the Pubbies are spinning their heels in light of yesterday’s victory lap.
I forget, which stage of grieving is “petulance”? Looks like it’s followed by “sullenness”.
Different than what it was promised to be? Yeah, I think we all figured that out now.
It was promised as something that would cover the uninsured and make the insured’s health care better and cheaper.
What it is is a program that redistributes health care resources more evenly.
BTW, from an article about rate hikes coming, Cigna’s CEO has a reasonable suggestion:
David Cordani, CEO of insurer Cigna, said his company has raised the issue of potential rate increases with the Obama administration and has suggestions for changes to the program that could help mitigate sharp spikes, including providing new lower-cost options to consumers and giving them a greater choice over which health benefits are covered
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/01/us-summit-rates-idUSBREA301UR20140401
Now I realize Marley, that this is at odds with what Obamacare IS, but it would bring the law closer to what was promised to make these changes. Do you have any problem with these changes, or are you determined to enforce the lie?
And since we’re in campaign season now, let’s be clear about something: The President and his supporters are saying the health care law is working. So any Democrat who says it isn’t and promising changes is blowing smoke up your ass. The Democrats like the law as it is, are not proposing any changes, and have encouraged Democratic incumbents to say whatever they need to say to win. And that’s exactly what it is: just talk.
Democrats say the law is working. That’s their chosen position and they should be forced to stick to it.
Dems say the PPACA is largely working but is not perfect, and will perforce need adjustments and improvements. The need for changes to a newly implemented law is, to quote one of my professors, as obvious as the balls on a dog. The GOP opposed, and continue to oppose, every aspect of PPACA with the fury of a thousand suns, and they will just as surely burn the world to a crisp before they change their minds. That’s beyond blowing smoke.
We’ve all seen the President’s statements about the ACA. His attitude is far better nuanced than those folks who blindly oppose anything he does, including the ACA. He does say that improvements need to be made. He does say, too, that the purpose of the law is being fulfilled and that Democrats should rightfully be proud of their part in making insured health care available to over 10 million more people.
what the heck is wrong with that? It is the position of far more value than that of those recidivist R’s who don’t care what it is, if Obama supports it, they oppose it and will wipe it from the face of the earth as soon as they get the chance!