Oh yeah, we’re in such a panic.
Obama just declared that the law is working, which is going to go down in history alongside “The fundamentals of the economy are strong.”
We will hang that statement around the necks of Democrats all over the country.
Question? Why can an employer avoid ALL responsibility for helping pay for employee’s health insurance by cutting their hours? Pro rata? Why not?
You surely can’t fault Obama for 5+ years of steady recovery? After the crap he fell into as a new President? What sort of idiot would fault Obama for the problems of the economy when they are so clearly caused by people who can’t even support bringing the minimum wage back to the levels of 40 years ago? Who won’t support jobs programs? Who allow corporations to hide their profits overseas? Who take money from corporations intent on having their campaign money slaves write tax code to save them more and more in taxes?
I was comparing his statement that the law is working to McCain’s statement that the fundamentals of the economy are strong.
This law has created a lot of losers, and he’s just given Republicans the tool to motivate them to vote.
Plus he’s still lying and his supporters like it: Insurers continue to say that 15-20% haven’t paid, so we’re looking at 5-6 million insured on the exchanges, not 7 million. While that’s not bad, he wanted to make it seem like they hit their goal, so he padded the numbers.
BUt of course REpublicans are the real liars. Because liberal Dopers don’t like what they have to say. Lying while telling them what they want to hear, that’s dandy.
And the changes Reid is bringing up for a vote are…?
All laws need adjustments, you’re right, even the most successful ones. We’re not talking about normal adjustments here, we’re talking about aspects of the law which are creating major opposition from the public. Are you willing to see the parts of the law the public hates changed?
Nice try. Do you know what it actually is?
Sure. It’s supposed to get everyone in the same risk pool so that the healthy can subsidize the sick, the young subsidize the old.
The relevant point is that most of these people are getting insurance from a private company and the rest are getting Medicaid. So when you say “People would only receive Obamacare for as long as it took them to switch to something else,” what does that actually mean?
If a person liked their insurance before and were forced into either a more expensive plan or a plan that didn’t cover their precise needs very well, then if ACA is repealed they will seek out a plan more like what they had before. And be pretty happy about having access to such personalized plans once again.
Now as for people who lost their insurance and are now in Medicaid, that’s gotta really piss them off.
Yeah, that’s sort of how it works. Healthy people subsidize sick people. People whose houses don’t burn down subsidize people whose houses do burn down. People who don’t crash their cars subsidize people who do.
Look, the Republican anti-Obamacare fervor reached its zenith in 2010. Since then, many of these rabid voters have not seen the apocalypse, they have the same insurance as before or even better insurance for less, they haven’t seen granny put on an ice floe and pushed out to sea, they haven’t lost their doctor, they’ve seen friends get insurance who otherwise couldn’t. Despite the Republican insistance that everybody hated Obamacare, Obama was easily re-elected in 2012, Democrats gained in the Senate and in the House, and Democratic House candidates on the whole outpolled Republican House candidates. Are we to believe that after the disaster didn’t come, that we’re all going to descend on the National Mall with torches and pitchforks to oust all the Democrats?
You forgot “Mission Accomplished”. 
No, that’s single payer insurance. Whatever Obamacare is, it’s not what you just described.
You really don’t know, do you?
Explain it then. And explain why it is that people losing their insurance was essential to make ACA work, even if their insurance was adequate.
I’m aware of the justifications for it, but whether it is justified in this case is actually a subject of debate, and one we will continue to have for some time. Especially since that is an aspect of the law that can be changed.
Let’s find out. The reasonable scenario that can be explained away is Democrats losing the Senate by losing six seats. How would you explain it if they lost 10? According to MOnkey cage, there can lose a maximum of 11 if there’s a wave election.
I’d say a wave election sends a message of some sort, wouldn’t you?
Uh, I’m not the one supporting a near-2000 post thread arguing against something that I clearly don’t understand. It’s even worse than that guy who spent all that time arguing against Special Relativity, admitting he couldn’t, didn’t and wouldn’t do the math, but insisting that his thought experiments were just as valid, as this has real-world implications affecting tens of millions of people.
Shameful, Adaher. Completely and utterly shameful. You ought to be embarrassed.
Ah, so I’m wrong(even though BobLibDem agreed that was the purpose of the law), but you can’t explain it to me.
Then explain it to Bob. Or admit you have nothing to contribute other than a cheap debate trick.
You’re spiking the ball at the 50 yard line. We’ve got 7 months for people to settle down and realize that the apocalypse hasn’t happened. The deadline has come and gone, the enrollment goals have been surpassed, the horror stories have been pretty much debunked except to the Right Wing True Believers, who won’t be voting Democratic in any event. We might easily see a blue wave instead of a red tide.
I’m not spiking, of course things can change. The GOP should have won the Senate in 2012, but not only fell short, but went backwards. That came as a rude shock to me. I was prepared to see Romney lose, but not for Republicans to fail to gain seats in the Senate.
But I think your scenario is quite rosy. The horror stories are real. People are paying more, or getting less, or both, and the administration fell short of its goals. The President’s padding his numbers by counting those who haven’t paid.
One thing you guys could be right about now is that it can’t be repealed anymore. But it is not at the point where it can’t fail completely on its own, nor is it set in stone to the point that Republicans can’t completely remake it enough that it qualifies as “repeal and replace”. The only thing that might be impossible now is repealing it and just cackling loudly.
No, you’re wrong because you made a factual error.
Not because you made the same factual error as somebody else, you’re wrong solely because you made a factual error.
The underlying motivation and reasoning is irrelevant. The fact that you may have made the same factual error as an opponent you’re debating is also irrelevant.
The only thing that is relevant is that you keep making factual errors.
Which you assert without evidence. Saying “you’re wrong” is not evidence that I’m wrong. In order to prove that, you have to explain what ACA is actually for.
While ACA is not single-payer it is actually designed to get as many people as possible into a single risk pool. If that’s not the point, enlighten all of us as to what it is, please.