“Still”? Are you using that silly old approach that anyone who wants it to go farther must be *opposed *to it?
Continuing this counterfactual, do you think it would be politically wise for your party to try to repeal *all *of it, or would you recommend keeping some things?
Red Herring, the point I made stands. You were wrong about the ACA preventing us from seeing single payer. I expect for that to be implemented while the ACA framework will still be there.
What exempt? Single-payer is what the elderly have now. It’s called Medicare and they’re not about to lose it just because everyone else in the state gets it too.
Additionally, Medicare is far more efficiently administered than any private insurance plan, with only about a 3% overhead rate. If, as we keep hearing, Private Enterprise can do anything more efficiently and effectively than Da Gummint, well, why doesn’t it?
I think some states are about to find that is not entirely true.
Not if the Republicans nominate a far right candidate. Anyone to the right of Chris Christie cannot be elected, and a Democrat will not sign a repeal. Repeal is no more likely after 2017 than it is now.
But the next election is the real referendum on Obamacare! Unless the GOP do badly, in which case it’s definitely the one after that.
Next year in [del]Jerusalem[/del] DC…
This blog post claims that the republicans have learned some lessons from the Dems, and are applying them to the 2014 Senate races. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gop-takes-lesson-from-democrats-in-attempt-to-retake-control-of-the-senate/2014/01/19/362bc8f8-811c-11e3-9dd4-e7278db80d86_story.html IMO, we’ll see. Can the GOP Senate candidates come up with a position against rape? Will they get past their Obama Derangement Syndrome enough to look coherent to voters? Will any GOP Senate candidates proclaim they are not witches? Only time will tell.
Um, you’re garbling your argument here. Many of those who want it to farther OPPOSE it. Many who wanted it to go farther opposed it vociferously when it was being debated. They correctly view it as a threat to single payer. If ACA works, that’s our health care system for the next 100 years. But let’s keep it simple: those who say they oppose ACA, oppose ACA.
In terms of the short term politics, it would be unwise to repeal the whole thing at this point. Although again speaking in terms of politics, the REpublicans could repeal the whole thing, then replace it with something Republicans like, which still looks mostly like ACA, and then take credit for it. Mainly because under a GOP plan, you wouldn’t have to buy insurance, and you could actually keep the insurance you liked.
But let’s say they repeal the whole thing and just cackle triumphantly. EVen if they take a hit in the next election, so what? It makes a point, that Democrats cannot actually pass unpopular entitlements and take the political damage yet keep the entitlement entrenched because of the people it makes dependent. It will deter Democrats in tough districts and states from ever trying it again. Plus, a repeal doesn’t hang over GOP heads for election after election, the way a disruptive government program does. If all it does is cost Republicans the 2018 midterms, fine.
Yes, it’s THEIR single payer plan, a gold-plated plan that would not be sustainable if extended to the whole country. A single payer model will look like Medicaid, not Medicare. Those who promise Medicare for all are the same people who told you could keep your insurance if you liked it, and their purpose is the same now as it was then.
That’s only true if you don’t count fraud as a cost that calls into question the efficiency of the program.
Except that Vermont has already demonstrated that ACA could actually fasttrack a single-payer system, something supporters of single-payer were unlikely to have considered initially. And if Vermont’s system doesn’t blow up you’re more likely to see the wanted-something-more camp using ACA to push for more rather than pushing for repeal in order to start from Square One.
But it’s not that simple. And now it’s less simple since those that want more know they can use ACA to get it.
First, as a conservative I applaud what Vermont is doing. And what Massachusetts, and Tennessee did before. We should have stayed with a state-level approach from the start. However, if you think what Vermont does will lead to single payer in Texas or nationwide, don’t hold your breath.
Second, if supporters of single payer who oppose ACA see things the way you do, they’ll switch to supporting the law. I assume you support the law? If so, then your feelings are different from those who oppose the law and want it to go further. Whether or not you see ACA as helpful to the goal of single payer or antithetical to it will affect your opinion about the law.
Some do. Many don’t. I think the ones that don’t are right. germany has had multi-payer since Bismarck. Countries, once they have a UHC system, stay with that system with only minor tweaks. Single payer will NEVER happen if ACA works well. And we have many examples of ACA-style UHC working in other countries. If you believe that UHC MUST be single payer, then you must oppose this bill. If you see single payer as only a means to an end, then ACA should be fine with you.
If only those evil legislators had not opposed single payer … what where they … conservatives and Republicans, I believe? Feel free to denounce them all loudly!
People like the insurance they have. You will never get the support to take that insurance away and throw everyone in the same pool.
Well, that is unless you destroy the private insurance industry so that no one has insurance they like, which seems to be what’s going on now. Then the public will have no choice but to clamor for something. Medicaid for all it is. Well, Medicaid for the regular Joes, gold plated plans for the unions, Medicare for the elderly. Call it a three-payer system.
Oh, I’m sure states will diverge in implementation as they already have. and the GOP have already indicated their willingness to keep their constituents from getting improved coverage purely for political reasons. But let’s not forget that only a decade ago gay marriage was an issue that was declared dead and buried, and if single-payer succeeds in some states it’ll start to spread…
Well, thanks for repeating my argument while ignoring the gist of it, which is that this development is likely to increase support for ACA among those who want more.
I think you’ve got something backwards there. The argument is that “single-payer” is the end to which ACA is the means, not the other way araound. And those who want UHC do not have to oppose this bill just because it’s not enough, any more that people who want lobster for dinner and only get tacos are likely to choose to starve to death instead.
You keep ignoring the view that many of those who oppose it for not going far enough think it’s better than nothing, and your repeated assertion that successful implemention of ACA will block further progress has already been proven wrong. The evolution will not be quick or even or painless or without setbacks, but the ACA is a small step in the right direction, not a dead end.
Scaremongering AND union-bashing. I thought you thought up your own talking points? These are straight out of the GOP playbook - the only thing missing is you wearing a creepy Uncle Sam outfit and some latex gloves.
“Will the Republicans ever figure out why they lost?”
Based upon the content of the GOP defenders’ posts on this thread, my opinion is “No.”
The entire party appears to be in serious denial and is being held hostage by a fringe group of genuinely insane people.
This. Oh, and Benghazi. The upcoming election will definitely be all about what keeps 300 million Americans up at night: Benghazi. If not, then the next election after that will be about every living American’s constant worry about Benghazi. Or maybe the election after that one.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that.