Congress passed a change to PPACA to account for volunteer firefighters and other volunteer emergency personnel. Both houses voted on it, passed it, and President Obama signed the change. PPACA was doing good, and now it’s doing even better. PPACA covers more people without the risk of volunteer fire departments having to close.
The oft-citied opposition to PPACA contains a significant percentage of people who do not think PPACA went far enough. For example, people who think that the public option should have been retained, or that a single-payer system would have been better than PPACA. When you count people who support PPACA and people who want an even better change to the old system, there is a solid majority. As the law is implemented in places like Kentucky, people who were opposed are now coming around, as they get to have health insurance and get well.
I bring up these points yet again for any third party who reads this thread. People who read the thread can come to their own conclusion about adaher’s susceptibility to evidence.
Ah, yes, the public option would just turn those numbers around.
I agree that the polling could be better. Your mistake is in thinking that your ideas on what the public is angry about are any more valid than mine. Where you especially screw up is in thinking that “disapproval” actually means “approval” but they wish it went further.
I’m pointing that out for third parties who might think that Typo King and JohnT asserting things without evidence means they know what they are talking about.
Suppose you were pushing a rock up a hill and they polled the locals if they approve of your pushing it halfway up the hill. 20% say sure, push it halfway up, 10 % say no, leave it at the bottom, and 70% say no, push it all the way to the top. If you read the poll, you’d say “gee, 80% disapprove of me pushing the rock halfway up, that must mean they want me to leave it at the bottom”.
In post 1945, Marley asked you if you knew what “Obamacare” is.
You replied, with no pretense of humor, that
This is wrong. Factually incorrect. What you just described is the single-payer system, one in which “everyone (gets) in the same risk pool.” You then, in the above, admit your fallacy… but… you still make factually incorrect statements ala “While ACA is not single-payer it is actually designed to get as many people as possible into a single risk pool.”
Had you merely changed the word “people” to “uninsured”/“uninsurable”, you would be more accurate. But, again, you can’t control yourself so you have to accentuate the facts to such a degree that they no longer register as facts. Then you use your made up definitions to argue against something that it is not.
I’m sure I’m the latest in a long line of Dopers who have explained this to you - it’s not as if you’re an unknown here - so, really, the only question for me is why am I wasting my time to do what has already been unsuccessfully attempted?
I’ll pretend this can really be described as “receiving Obamacare” even though that phrasing made no sense and move on. What is your idea here? Eliminating the minimum standards for insurance plans, I presume? Allowing insurers to drop people with pre-existing conditions again? Eliminating the requirements rules about how insurers spend their premiums? Get specific already.
That’s presumably. It could mean many things. Maybe people with incomes too high to qualify for subsidies want subsidies. Maybe people think the networks shouldn’t be so narrow.
Now it could be that both the Democrat and Republicans are wrong that this is a problem for Democrats. If so, you should call the Democratic professionals immediately and assure them that ACA is a winner and that they should campaign hard on it.
And again, it should be remembered that some of those who supported single payer campaigned hard against ACA and wanted it to be defeated. To assume that these opponents of ACA are actually friends of ACA is foolish. It’s like assuming that Commies are friends to social democrats. When in fact communists are often quite happy to break what the social dems built.
Again, if the polls say what you think they say, then Republicans have a big problem, not Democrats. Are you willing to stand by that analysis as it pertains to the coming elections?
I think that’s wishful thinking on your part. I was one of those who wanted single payer, and I’ll be damned if I’ll throw out the good because I didn’t get the perfect. If given a choice between ACA and no ACA, I think the vast majority would take the ACA. It isn’t perfect, but to go back now would be a mistake.
What I think your mistake is you think that because you hate the ACA and assume that most people think like you, then most people hate the ACA and will turn out in droves to elect Republicans. I got news for you: those people who hate the ACA already were voting Republican. You didn’t gain any voters with your vitriol.
Your own history regarding polls and electoral predictions should be enough of an answer. What have you learned is the result when you dismiss data that tells you something you don’t like as “skewed”, and what have you learned happens when you assume most people think the same way you do?
Many felt the way you did. But I remember during the battle, rabid anti-Bush site FiredogLake treated ACA as if it was armageddon. And if you support single payer, it is. If ACA works, then 100 years from now we will still be living under ACA. While I’m sure most single payer advocates will take multi-payer over nothing, the ideologically extreme who want single payer or nothing need ACA destroyed.
I don’t assume it, the polls demonstrate it. People disapprove of the ACA. Period. You can explain all you want why people might disapprove of it, but it doesn’t change the fact that they are not actually supporters of ACA.
I’m posting the polls straight and you are arguing that they are skewed. You are dismissing four years of polling that tells you what you don’t want to hear.
I understand you wanting to look deeper into WHY voters hate ACA, but you’re going further than that, insisting that those who wish it would go further are actually approving of ACA even though they say they don’t.
Might as well say that Nader voters actually voted for Gore.
Predicting the state of health care in 100 years is foolhardy, but probably not. If people found it intolerable that 40 million people had no access to health care, eventually they’ll come to the same conclusion about 10 million.
My prediction is based on the past. No country has ever gone from a multi-payer UHC system to a single payer UHC system. There’s a lot of risk averseness among the citizenry to changing what works.
Now it seems by your statement that you don’t believe ACA is a UHC system, and you could be right. But I still don’t think that gets you to single payer. If 95% of the population has insurance that they like, they aren’t going to chuck it and risk a new system just so the 5% can get something. Especially since the law in theory makes health insurance available to all at an affordable price. Anyone under ACA that doesn’t have insurance CHOOSES to not have insurance.
While ACA in practice isn’t UHC, that’s only because it doesn’t have an effective individual mandate. As designed, it allows everyone to get health insurance who wants it, and I think in America that’s about the most we should expect. Because liberty.
What I hear / understand from both this board and the news reports it references - those (Red) states that are less than enthusiastic for eg:
(cite PDF) range from actively obstructing their citizens getting insured to just not being confident of setting up their own exchange.
With the above as a backgrounder -
Just how high would enrollment / expansion of coverage have been if the 21 States hadn’t blocked Medicaid expansion?
With the “obstrutionism” that we have seen - how much of a negative effect has it had on enrollment?
Now - to build on that,
With those states that are enthusiastic, where the ACA is working well, expanding care and creating better outcomes - how much pressure is this going to put on the non-participatory states as the benefits become clearer, and better known?
What is the eventual end game for those states that are opting out / trying to block?
What will happen to the approval rates nationwide assuming that similar enrollment rates are seen nationwide, AND similar (good?) experiences with the law are seen nationwide?
TOO LONG DIDN’T READ?
a) It seems some states are trying to sabotage ACA
b) States that are participating seem to have higher approval ratings of the law
c) If those approval ratings were extrapolated nationwide, what would the enrollment figures look like, and what would the approval / disapproval split of the law look like?
First, states aren’t sabotaging ACA anymore than they are sabotaging immigration or drug enforcement. States are sovereign and cannot be made to do anything by the federal government that they don’t want to do, other than respect the civil rights of their citizens. They cannot be made to help the federal enforce federal laws. They are under no obligation to participate in federal programs. If we define “sabotage” as states exercising their sovereign rights, then the law was poorly designed, since it counted on 50 states towing the federal line. Given the opposition to the law, this should have been predictable, and adjusted for.
Second, while states refusing Medicaid expansion are certainly creating higher uninsured rates for themselves, refusing to set up exchanges has nothing to do with it. Even states that were supportive of the law mostly decided to let the federal government do it. Only 14 states set up their own exchanges. I believe those states are doing better than the federal government(Oregon is a glaring exception), but I believe that’s a competency issue. Did federal Democrats and the PResident really not see that states had no incentive to do this themselves, since they had almost no flexibility under the law to make these exchanges the way they wanted them? Again, that’s not sabotage, that’s federal lawmakers and the President failing to plan properly.
Finally, since you asked about approval, that would be another great thing for pollsters to ask. Find out if states with their own exchanges and Medicaid expansions are seeing higher approval, adjusted for the fact that most of those states are blue. I’d love to see what the numbers in Kentucky look like given that Kentucky, despite being dark red, went all-in on ACA and did a pretty good job of it. If the law is indeed more popular in Kentucky than your average red state, that would tell us something.
Can anyone find a Kentucky poll on ACA since the exchanges opened? I tried and couldn’t.
32% seems pretty awful to me. What I’m trying to find out is whether the signups are happy or not. If people signed up because they thought they had to, or because the insurance the liked was cancelled, then those aren’t necessarily going to be supporters of ACA even though they signed up.
Earlier I said that despite supposedly all those previously uninsured now having insurance, the needle hasn’t moved on the polls. That would indicate that the signups are mainly people who already supported the law, while those who didn’t like it have shunned it.