GOP Nightmare, Obamacare Popularity Soars

[jaeger19]

They don't want to pay, regardless of what they may get.eace

Exactly.. they would much rather continue to be irresponsible and risk making everyone else pay if they rack up a big healthcare bill.

 

[mak2]

Good, so you are all for the ACA and the mandate, correct?

Exactly.. they would much rather continue to be irresponsible and risk making everyone else pay if they rack up a big healthcare bill.

 

[jaeger19]

Good, so you are all for the ACA and the mandate, correct?

Nope.. there is huge flaws with the ACA.. employer mandate =bad idea, subsidy = bad idea,
and the exchanges need to be more competitive, one should be able to buy from each state exchange, federal and private and should be able to change plans several times a year..

The mandate that everyone has health insurance.. yes.. you cannot have competition without it, and people have to be responsible so that they don't push huge medical bills onto the rest of us that have insurance.

 

[mak2]

It the GOP has some plan that eveyone has insurance I would be all for hearing about it. I just think the ACA does not go far enough, we need UHC and need to quit screwing around paying off the insurnace companies and just do it.

Nope.. there is huge flaws with the ACA.. employer mandate =bad idea, subsidy = bad idea,
and the exchanges need to be more competitive, one should be able to buy from each state exchange, federal and private and should be able to change plans several times a year..

The mandate that everyone has health insurance.. yes.. you cannot have competition without it, and people have to be responsible so that they don't push huge medical bills onto the rest of us that have insurance.

 

[imagep]

It the GOP has some plan that eveyone has insurance I would be all for hearing about it. I just think the ACA does not go far enough, we need UHC and need to quit screwing around paying off the insurnace companies and just do it.

Would you be willing to compromise with universal medical insurance so that our medical providers don't all have to go to work for the government?

 

[Buck Ewer]

Here is the real GOP nightmare.
The earliest date that the ACA could possibly be repealed would be Jan 2017. That is the earliest possible date that there COULD be a republican majority in the senate and a republicon in the White house. That would be only if the GOP can get their **** together enough to win six seats in the senate without losing any old ones AND nominating and electing to office a conservative republicon president.
By that date there will be well over 30 million people insured through some form of the ACA.
Good luck with all of that.
:lamo

 

[Threegoofs]

Here is the real GOP nightmare.
The earliest date that the ACA could possibly be repealed would be Jan 2017. That is the earliest possible date that there COULD be a republican majority in the senate and a republicon in the White house. That would be only if the GOP can get their **** together enough to win six seats in the senate without losing any old ones AND nominating and electing to office a conservative republicon president.
By that date there will be well over 30 million people insured through some form of the ACA.
Good luck with all of that.
:lamo

Their real nightmare is that people get used to it an appreciate it.

That's why they have been fighting against it so hard. It's not that they don't think the program is good, it's that they fear the program is going to be good and it will kill their political power for a generation.

 

[imagep]

Here is the real GOP nightmare.
The earliest date that the ACA could possibly be repealed would be Jan 2017. That is the earliest possible date that there COULD be a republican majority in the senate and a republicon in the White house. That would be only if the GOP can get their **** together enough to win six seats in the senate without losing any old ones AND nominating and electing to office a conservative republicon president.
By that date there will be well over 30 million people insured through some form of the ACA.
Good luck with all of that.
:lamo

Rush L has predicted that, ALL employers are going to drop their employee coverage and force everyone onto Obamacare exchanges. Imagine if that actually happened (of course it won't, but just imagine), by the time that republicans can repeal it, there will be hords of people saying "keep your government hands off my Obamacare". That would be a hoot.

 

[mak2]

How exactly would that be different from ACA?

Would you be willing to compromise with universal medical insurance so that our medical providers don't all have to go to work for the government?

 

[Jack Hays]

Compared to much better ideas like the public option or single-payer, perhaps...but it's a heck of a lot better than what we had before.

I disagree. What we had was better, and single payer would be second best. ACA is way back in tenth or eleventh place.eace

 

[Jack Hays]

Or the third possibility and the one that is reality is that now you understand that your initial statements were wrong.. and now have changed your narrative.

Since all the links echoed what I said, and your claim of what I said was false, I think it's clear you've been on the wrong side of this.eace

 

[Jack Hays]

Exactly.. they would much rather continue to be irresponsible and risk making everyone else pay if they rack up a big healthcare bill.

Preferable to the mandate.eace

 

[MMC]

Looks like ABC was busted out on the Question.....Imagine that. Caught tanking for the Overstock.com!!!!! tsk tsk.



ABC/WaPo poll: Democratic support for ObamaCare surges, plurality of public now supports the law.....

In November, at the depths of the Healthcare.gov 404pocalypse, support overall stood at 40/57. Today: 49/48 thanks to a collective sigh of relief over the new sign-up numbers from Democrats.

Is that an outlier or an early indicator of a broader shift in O-Care’s polling? I ask because, as of a week ago, most major pollsters still had support for the law deep underwater — Fox News at 40/56, the AP at 26/43, Rasmussen at 42/54, and CBS at 41/53. And all of that followed good news from the White House on March 17 that they’d already hit five million “sign-ups,” whatever that means, and were on pace for at least a million more (which they achieved) before the deadline. If enrollment is goosing popular support, you’d have thought those polls would have seen an uptick by then. Nope. Hmmm.

Yep, that’s how ABC/WaPo phrased it. Remove any reference to “ObamaCare” and refer to generic “changes” to the health-care system and the numbers might bump up. Then again, this is the same wording that WaPo used back in November when it got that horrid 40/57 number for O-Care that righties like me touted. There’s been movement within its own numbers even if no one else is picking up the trend. (Yet?)

What if it is a trend, though? Specifically, what if it’s true that the law has become a bit more popular with Democrats now that it’s kinda sorta in range of its original goal of seven million enrollments if you squint real hard and ignore things like nonpayment of premiums and the age mix of America’s many new O-Care risk pools? The better the polling gets, especially among independents, the more reluctant some Republicans in Congress will be to support full repeal later. In fact, forget the polling: If it’s true, as it seems to be, that somewhere between four and six million people now have coverage through the ObamaCare exchanges, the upheaval involved in tossing those millions into a new system yet again if/when the law is finally eliminated may make squishier Republicans blanch.

In fact, that was one of Ted Cruz’s key rationales for the “defund” effort last fall — the law had to be stopped before people signed up and grew dependent on the subsidies, since the more reliant they become, the harder it’ll be to take those subsidies away later. The fact that the White House now has millions on the books is a realization of that prophesy, even though more than one election modeler has the odds of Republicans winning the Senate this fall at roughly 80 percent. Obama will trade two years of Republican control for a permanent foothold for his boondoggle.....snip~

ABC/WaPo poll: Democratic support for ObamaCare surges, plurality of public now supports the law « Hot Air

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-pa...-do-not-want-repeal-aca-6.html#post1063097145

 

[Glen Contrarian]

I disagree. What we had was better, and single payer would be second best. ACA is way back in tenth or eleventh place.eace

What we had meant that many, many people were turned down for health insurance due to pre-existing conditions. My oldest son, for instance, would have had a hard time finding affordable insurance. At least now there's many more families who no longer have to make a choice between paying for health insurance and paying the rent.

 

[imagep]

How exactly would that be different from ACA?

Universal medical insurance would mean that everyone would automatically be covered with insurance - assumably by the government, since there is no other way to facilitate that.

The ACA in no way guaranteed that every citizen has insurance. We can either obtain it, or not obtain it.

It also differs from UHC in that we don't rely on the government to directly provide healthcare services, we only rely on the government to hook us up with a health insurance policy - but each individual get's to chose his own doctor, and how much and what type and of what quality care he receives, not some government buerocrate or death panel.

 

[Jack Hays]

What we had meant that many, many people were turned down for health insurance due to pre-existing conditions. My oldest son, for instance, would have had a hard time finding affordable insurance. At least now there's many more families who no longer have to make a choice between paying for health insurance and paying the rent.

I believe in a system that rewards wise choices and penalizes the unwise.eace

 

[imagep]

I believe in a system that rewards wise choices and penalizes the unwise.eace

So is being born with a defective heart valve a bad personal choice, or just some **** that happened to someone?

 

[mak2]

I could go for that. Did the GOP already attempt this? I must have missed this.

Universal medical insurance would mean that everyone would automatically be covered with insurance - assumably by the government, since there is no other way to facilitate that.

The ACA in no way guaranteed that every citizen has insurance. We can either obtain it, or not obtain it.

It also differs from UHC in that we don't rely on the government to directly provide healthcare services, we only rely on the government to hook us up with a health insurance policy - but each individual get's to chose his own doctor, and how much and what type and of what quality care he receives, not some government buerocrate or death panel.

 

[Jack Hays]

So is being born with a defective heart valve a bad personal choice, or just some **** that happened to someone?

Life isn't fair. Better to have some holes in the net than a coercive mandate for all. But as I said, the second best choice is single payer if you prefer that.eace

 

[Glen Contrarian]

I believe in a system that rewards wise choices and penalizes the unwise.eace

"Unwise" is often simply nothing more than "uneducated". Give people - even teenagers - the right information with which to make choices, and you'll find a lot of them do make the right choice. This is why it's been shown time and again that states which teach sex education including contraception have lower teenage pregnancy rates than states which teach abstinence-only sex ed or don't teach sex ed at all.

I mean, really, America has the highest rate of bankruptcies due to medical costs. If we significantly decrease the percentage of people without health insurance, chances are that we'll also significantly reduce the percentage of bankruptcies due to medical costs...

...and that saves all of us money since bankruptcies not only hurt the local, state, and federal tax bases but also cost the community money. You may argue the morality of the matter...but it makes fiscal sense for the people as a whole.

 

[Jack Hays]

"Unwise" is often simply nothing more than "uneducated". Give people - even teenagers - the right information with which to make choices, and you'll find a lot of them do make the right choice. This is why it's been shown time and again that states which teach sex education including contraception have lower teenage pregnancy rates than states which teach abstinence-only sex ed or don't teach sex ed at all.

I mean, really, America has the highest rate of bankruptcies due to medical costs. If we significantly decrease the percentage of people without health insurance, chances are that we'll also significantly reduce the percentage of bankruptcies due to medical costs...

...and that saves all of us money since bankruptcies not only hurt the local, state, and federal tax bases but also cost the community money. You may argue the morality of the matter...but it makes fiscal sense for the people as a whole.

I don't care even a little bit about bankruptcies. There should probably be more. Bankruptcy is an efficient reallocation of assets.eace

 

[imagep]

I could go for that. Did the GOP already attempt this? I must have missed this.

Nope.

I met with my GOP congressman for about an hour and a half to pitch the idea, he acted as if he couldn't understand the concept, or the cost saving benefits.

In a nutshell, my suggestion was to pay for the purchase of a major medical policy for every American, I had researched all the details, and came to the conclusion that this could be afforded for less than the cost that all levels of government already spend on healthcare and health insurance, thus saving the government money, and avoiding any tax hikes.

At that time, all levels of government combined were spending about $1.2 trillion dollars on healthcare, that works out to about $4000 per citizen, or $16,000 a year for a family of four, which could easily pay for a major medical policy.

I designed the plan to be cost neutral to the government, and to be a compromise between what liberals really want (UHC) and the broken system that we have now. It seemed to me that it should be politically acceptable by both sides. About a week later, John Stossel endorsed a similar plan on Fox News, and a few weeks after that a republican congressman proposed it during the hearings, but it was totally shot down by both republicans and democrats. Seems that they don't want a reasonable compromise.

 

[mak2]

Keep in mind it is always about the money...but if you run for POTUS I will probably vote for you.

Nope.

I met with my GOP congressman for about an hour and a half to pitch the idea, he acted as if he couldn't understand the concept, or the cost saving benefits.

In a nutshell, my suggestion was to pay for the purchase of a major medical policy for every American, I had researched all the details, and came to the conclusion that this could be afforded for less than the cost that all levels of government already spend on healthcare and health insurance, thus saving the government money, and avoiding any tax hikes.

At that time, all levels of government combined were spending about $1.2 trillion dollars on healthcare, that works out to about $4000 per citizen, or $16,000 a year for a family of four, which could easily pay for a major medical policy.

I designed the plan to be cost neutral to the government, and to be a compromise between what liberals really want (UHC) and the broken system that we have now. It seemed to me that it should be politically acceptable by both sides. About a week later, John Stossel endorsed a similar plan on Fox News, and a few weeks after that a republican congressman proposed it during the hearings, but it was totally shot down by both republicans and democrats. Seems that they don't want a reasonable compromise.

 

[jaeger19]

It the GOP has some plan that eveyone has insurance I would be all for hearing about it. I just think the ACA does not go far enough, we need UHC and need to quit screwing around paying off the insurnace companies and just do it.

The irony is that the GOP has a plan.. its had a plan for years in the works with various components. A lot of it already ended up in the ACA.

You don't want UHC and UHC sucks.. been there and seen that. Everyone clamors how great it is in Europe. Well in most of Europe that has UHC.. there are two systems,, one for the rich.. a private system..

and a system for everyone else. If you have health insurance now.. as most of America does (85%).. you would see your quality of care go DOWN as compared to a UHC system. I have worked in some of these countries in healthcare or have been an observer.. and its not the panacea that everyone thinks it is. The quality is NOT as good as the quality in the US. The services are
NOT as comprehensive.. the choice is NOT there.. and the delays ARE there. For the people that really need healthcare...

Now.., you have a cold, or infection, or something simple, like migraines? Then you love UHC... have cancer or stroke etc? Not so much.. unless you can afford the private system.

 

[imagep]

The irony is that the GOP has a plan.. its had a plan for years in the works with various components. A lot of it already ended up in the ACA. ....

Maybe they should try to make it a law instead of just a plan.