• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The Failure of the ACA in Three Phases

LowDown

Curmudgeon
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
14,185
Reaction score
8,768
Location
Houston
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
People have until the end of this month to sign up for health insurance under the ACA. If not then they will have to wait until August to sign up next year.

It was supposed to be about getting the uninsured insured. If you were against passage of the ACA then you must not care if those people die, they said. That, too, turned out to be a falsehood.


The Washington Post sums it up: “The new health insurance marketplaces appear to be making little headway in signing up Americans who lack insurance, the Affordable Care Act’s central goal.”

American health care has been changed for the worse. Now people will have less flexibility in which doctors and hospitals they use, and it will cost them more overall. And it was all for nothing.
 

It was for getting medical care defined as a federal right/responsibility. As we now see, PPACA is a concept rather than a law - the PPACA framework appears to allow the executive to "fine tune" the law as needed.
 

pretty much. shows just what we said. can't force people to buy something they don't want. same goes for these young invincibles. they aren't signing up either i think they only number about 10-15% far from the 34% that is needed.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
It was for getting medical care defined as a federal right/responsibility. As we now see, PPACA is a concept rather than a law - the PPACA framework appears to allow the executive to "fine tune" the law as needed.
Click to expand...

All these big laws allow a lot of leeway for rule making by the bureaucrats. Whether the President actually has legal authority to make these delays in implementation is immaterial if he can get away with it. I don't think many people see it as a federal responsiblity unless the feds actually pay for it. If the proles see money going out of their pockets they are going to see it as something they were responsible for and paid for even if they were subsidized. What this means is that the usual suspects are not going to see this as an entitlement that they can't do without.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
It was for getting medical care defined as a federal right/responsibility. As we now see, PPACA is a concept rather than a law - the PPACA framework appears to allow the executive to "fine tune" the law as needed.
Click to expand...

still don't know why someone hasn't filed a lawsuit with the supreme court to stop that. this is a sever breach executive power and for someone that is suppose to be a constitutional lawyer he only seems to pick and choose which laws he follows.
 
ludin said:
pretty much. shows just what we said. can't force people to buy something they don't want. same goes for these young invincibles. they aren't signing up either i think they only number about 10-15% far from the 34% that is needed.
Click to expand...

Yeah, young people who don't need insurance wouldn't pay for it if they can always sign up for it if they do need it some day? Who would ever have predicted that?
 
Call them. that is the way to get coverage easy.

And how much did the insurance industyr spend on anti ACA propoganda so people would think it is not affordable and does not work?

How much in bribes did they pay all the made-to -fail ACA web site contractors?

Why does the insurance corps refuse to take payments after you do sign up for the ACA???
 
ludin said:
pretty much. shows just what we said. can't force people to buy something they don't want. same goes for these young invincibles. they aren't signing up either i think they only number about 10-15% far from the 34% that is needed.
Click to expand...

The point is that this thread is based upon an Obamacare "death spiral" that isn't going to happen. While the death spiral story sounds good, especially if you’re rooting for failure, you have to look at the numbers, as Sarah Kliff has in WaPo. What we're seeing is mostly older people signing up, which what we saw with Mittcare. Even if the young sign up at only half the rate of the rest, rates will go only a few percent higher. Hardly a death spiral.
 

How does a law that makes subsidized insurance costs go higher help? It seems that PPACA is favored mainly by those that see increased dependence on gov't assistance as a positive. So far less than 10% of the uninsured have been enrolled through the PPACA exchanges - hardly what could be considered as a success.
 

You're probably right about the death spiral. But I think this years midterms will have a lot to do whether or not the law remains. Right now it is playing a prominent in 9 senate races which are held by Democrats. Then there are two recently released polls that show the ACA is hurting about twice as many people as it helped. Right now, the ACA is about the only thing that is keeping the Republican Party relevant. I don't know if the GOP will gain the net of 6 seats needed to take over the senate come November. They look like winners in WV, MT, SD, AR which are held by Democrats and are ahead in LA, NC, MI. Colorado is another state where the ACA has dragged Udall's double digit lead down to around 3 points. On in AK and NH does the Democrat look fairly safe among the prognosticators ratings, but they may very well change once names are put on the nominees.

Without the ACA, AR, LA, NC, Mi. CO all would be safe in Democratic hands. We wouldn't be talking about AK or NH. Iowa may even come into the mix for a Republican pick up. There is only one thing the Republicans have going for them in these states, hatred of the ACA. So as of today, the question is, can those oppose to the ACA deliver the senate to the Republicans. Something they failed to gain in 2010. But in 2010 the Republicans needed 10 seats, they gained 6. Although they did gain 63 house seats that year.

Perhaps the main question is how can a political party be on the opposite side on most issues still have a chance of gaining 6 seats or perhaps more in the senate races this year? The answer is simple, the ACA and only the ACA. I do not think the Democrats realize how much this law is disliked among the people. But all they have to do is look at the polls. Yet the Democrats will not concede to the will of the people. Hence they may lose the senate this year, the house is safely in Republican hands and they might even gain a few seats. All due to one piece of legislation that is very unpopular among the electorate. But of course you know this already. So too do all the Democrats when they continue with a law that has hurt twice as many people as it helped.
 
I am not sure how this will happen or be presented by a media / govt complex I don't trust, but the fourth and perhaps final phase will be the presentation of the "bill." Now I'm not sure how it will be labeled or presented. My guess is it's going to be very well divided up so it doesn't look like the real burden it is and will be. The divisions will include sums for Medicaid as state subsidies, insurance company bail outs for not having enough healthy people buying in, and the flat out subsidy share. Add those up and dump another $300 billion (no idea of the real number) and our deficit soars again the impacts could be staggering. I think this is why obummer produced a revenue increasing budget, and the expenditure increases were just to keep it even with new revenues. He'll need the new money to keep the deficit from dramatically increasing.


 
Anyone that can pretend that the delays imposed by the regime aren't for his political gain is going to be viewed very poorly. The 70% of America that was happy with their health care before the ACA have yet to be impacted except by higher rates (which happens anyway each year). Theses are working people, and they saw what happened to those who lost their doctors and insurance programs. The working class isn't going to be subsidized just impacted and they know it. Obummer csn delay the inevitable to save his ass if he wants but the people know better.


 

Yep, it is surprising the Democrats haven't acknowledge the dislike of this law. It has been there in poll after poll since the ACA's inception. You had the 2010 election over the ACA and it seems like 2014 will probably be more or less on the ACA.

Your point is well taken. I think the Democrats knew of the unpopularity of this law and hence, on purpose they delayed all the bad stuff until after the 2012 election implementing only the good. In November of 2009 when the law was first passed you had 38% in favor, 53% against. This abetted in 2012 where in November it was 42% in favor, 47% against. But more important, the ACA really wasn't a hot campaign issue and for that reason I discount 2012 as an election year referendum on the ACA like 2010 was. In 2014, the ACA is a hot issue, at least at this point in time and is effecting a lot of the senate races. Today 38% favor the law, 53% oppose. That huge 15 point gap may, I say may, bring the senate under GOP control. Time will tell.
 

How can one have a "poll" to determine how many people are hurt by the ACA? People are generally rather ignorant of such matters and what people "think" may have no similarity to reality.

The ACA isn't magic. It helps older people and those with ailments at the expense of the young and healthy. But it isn't black magic either, hurting most. The minimum requirements of the ACA, such as the pre-existing condition requirement, are thought of as good things. And those requirements that people have to pay for, such as men paying for maternity care, doesn't really add very much cost.

Whether the ACA will help Republicans in the next election is a crap shoot. They are betting that their panning of the ACA will help them. But polls also show that people don't want it repealed.

While you said above, "polls show the ACA is hurting about twice as many people as it helped," that isn't what the Gallup Poll said. Most people had no effect at all and the margin for the rest is minimal -- with the trend in favor of those it helped. Where this will be in November is anyone's guess.

 
Last edited:

Rasmussen in a poll concluded on 3/1/14 had this to say:

Just 14% of all voters now say they personally have been helped by the law, down from 16% in January. Thirty-three percent (33%) say they have been hurt by the law, up from 29% earlier this year and the highest negative rating since April 2013. Fifty percent (50%) say it has had no impact on them.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/obamacare-aca/188026-failure-aca-three-phases-2.html#post1063013729

true it the poll also says 50% so far had no impact. But that will change after the election. But the 14 to 33 ratio is a telling 2-1 more people hurt by it than helped.

Your Gallup Poll says basically the same.

Number of Americans Saying ACA Has Hurt Them Inches Up

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Although several parts of the Affordable Care Act have yet to be implemented, 23% of Americans say the healthcare law has hurt them or their families, while 10% say it has helped them so far. Still, the majority of Americans (63%) feel the law has had no impact on them or their families.

10% the law has helped, 23% it has hurt. Again by a 2-1 margin the law has hurt more than it has helped. True again about the 63% having no impact. Still, it seems the democrats are willing to hurt more people than they help by keeping this law. It is all about political agenda, not so much about helping people. If the democrats really wanted to help people with healthcare, they would stop hurting twice as many people as they are helping. My opinion.

the Gallup poll which I got my information was one released on 6 Mar 2014, not an earlier one. As for the senate races, I have a state by state ACA polls which list each state and the latest poll date and how the senate election is shaping up.

1 State by state on the ACA

National Average 38.0% for 53.6% against (8 Mar 2014)
Arkansas IMPACT 27% for 63% against February 2014 Rep Cotton leads Dem incumbent Pryor by 4 points, Pryor was up by 8 in December.
California PPIC 44% for 46% against February 2014 No Senate Race
Colorado Quinnipiac 37% for 60% against February 2014 Dem Udall lost a 14 point lead and now leads by 2 points
Florida PPP 40% for 49% against January 2014 No Senate race
Iowa Quinnipiac 25% for 52% against Dec 2013 Dem Braley up by 3 points, was up by 9
Louisiana PPP 33% for 53% against February 2014 Dem Landrieu down by 4 was up by 12
Michigan Harper 35% for 55% against January 2014 Dem Peters down by 8 was up by 4
Montana PPP 31% for 58% against Dec 2013 Dem Walsh down by 14
New Hampshire PPP 39% for 46% against January 2014 Dem Shaheen even with Brown was up by 10
North Carolina PPP 38% for 51% against February 2014 Dem Hagan down by 7, was up by 16
Virginia Roanoke 40% for 53% against March 2014 Dem Warner up by 27

Outside of Virginia it does seem the ACA is having quite an effect. Will it continue to have this same effect? Who knows, time will tell.
 

It's my understanding that many Democrats met with Obama recently to voice their concerns about their reelection chances due to the public unhappiness about, and general dislike of, The ACA. They at least have acknowledged the public dislike. Yet nothing changes except BHO keeps moving deadlines until after the election in 2014. Why he is so dead set on forcing this on people who don't want it is puzzling to me, since in almost every other way he apparently feels the need to be idolized. At least that is the way it appears to me.
 
Perotista said:
Outside of Virginia it does seem the ACA is having quite an effect. Will it continue to have this same effect? Who knows, time will tell.
Click to expand...

This stuff isn't rocket science. The Gallup "effect on families" numbers track extremely closely to party ID. They reaffirm what everyone should already know: Democrats think it's good, Republicans think it's bad, Independents lie somewhere between. The fall elections, like all elections (but particularly midterms), will hinge on which side does a better job of getting its people to the polls.
 

Afternoon Pol, only Obama can answer that, what is left is speculation. What is sure is the law wasn't ready to be passed in 2009. But with the death of Senator Kennedy and the election of Scott Brown to replace him, that lowered the Democratic filibuster proof senate from 60 D's to 59's once Brown was seated. The Democrats knew no Republican would vote for cloture so they went with what they had in a rush to get something passed. Hence all the problems.

I think the Democrats knew that well over 50% of all Americans were against it, yet they had been trying to get universal health care passed since FDR and they were afraid if they let this opportunity pass, there would be no universal health care for a long time to come. I assumed the Democrats thought they would remain in control of the House past the 2010 elections and could fix what they knew was broken to begin with. But the majority of Americans didn't like being told to stick it where the sun doesn't shine when it come to them expressing their wishes against the law. The people had elected them to represent them, not some Democratic Policy Agenda. Never mind what the people thought, what the people wanted or didn't want, the time had come to pass this thing and the Democrats did with their leadership utilizing the whip, threats and bribes to get their own Democratic members to go along with it.

So as you see, even now when two different polls publish the facts that this law is hurting twice as many as it is helping, the Democrats are sticking by it. Apparently they still do not care what the people think or want is important. It is only their agenda that matters. Hence the law is sure to remain regardless if the Republicans win the senate this year or not, until we get a new president. 2016 with the huge advantage the Democrats have in trustworthy states should win that race again. But with the ACA around the Democrats necks like a millstone, an albatross so to speak, they just might lose it. Especially if they let the rest of the bad stuff kick in. Just my opinion.
 

True enough on the Democrats and Republicans. But independents are also against the ACA. According to PPP, a democratic polling firm 31% of independents are in favor of the ACA, 57% against it. According to Rasmussen it is even worse with 30% of independent viewing the ACA favorable, 66% unfavorable. According to a FOX poll of independents only 33% wish the law had been passed, 60% wish it had never been passed. Gallup question was a different of independent when asked if the law had hurt or helped them 10% of independents said the law had helped, 25% said the law had hurt them and 60% said the law had no effect as of yet.

Please keep this in mind, according to Gallup 30% of the electorate identify/associate themselves with the Democratic Party, only 23% of the electorate identify/associate themselves with the Republican Party, 47% are independents. The Democratic party has a huge advantage in numbers over the republican party. Yet it is the Democrats who are in danger of losing the midterm elections, the senate in particular. Not that I personally at this time think they will. But I would wager the Republicans capture a majority of independents. they will win the independent vote because of their dissatisfaction with the ACA. The ACA is about the only issue the Republicans have the majority of the electorate on their side. But we will see what happens as there is still a long time before people go vote. If the election was held today, the Republicans would gain a net of 5 seats which would leave the senate tied 50-50. But the Democrats would still remain in control with Biden providing the tie breaker.
 

A lot of the future hold in the GOP is how they handle this disaster, they need to rally around a plan of their own on health care, they need an economic plan, etc. They don't see to be getting their act together, which is no surprise. It's OK to say what they are against, but in the next breath they have to say what they are for and how to fix what they are against. If they want to take the Senate they better start pushing their message soon, like NOW.
 

I would give the Republicans a 25% chance of winning the senate by offering nothing, doing nothing and just being against the ACA. By the way that is down from a 50% change since the last week of February. But I agree, a common sense plan to replace the ACA and a understandable plan to the electorate on how to get the economy moving again would sure help. I also think the Republicans should avoid any topic on abortion, remember Aiken and Mourdock sticking both feet into their mouths which caused the Republicans to lose both Indiana and Missouri in 2012, two sure win states that the GOP pulled defeat from the jaws of victory from.

I am waiting for them to do that again. In a year in which the GOP should win Democrat held seats in AK, AR, LA, MT, NC, SD, WV all states with the exception of NC Romney by 10 points or better and he did also win NC but by a slim margin. Then there is MI where the Republican Land leads Democrat Peters and Colorado where Democrat Udall's lead has shrunk from 15 down to 2. This should be a banner year if the GOP doesn't blow it again. Only two currently held Republican states might go Democratic, GA and KY.
 

The re-branding of so many former Republicans as "independents" in recent years is exactly the reason it shouldn't be surprising to see the GOP-leaners showing up in the independent responses. We know how Republicans and Democrats (leaning or declared) feel about the ACA; for the most part that hasn't changed since 2010. As in 2010 and 2012, which side gets their people out will determine the outcome. The voting patterns of GOP-leaning demographics tend to give the GOP a structural advantage in midterms.
 

The wind is at the GOP's back this time around, but damn they can screw it up in a heart beat. Totally agree on avoiding the toxic stuff like abortion, leave it alone and stick with the big issues. Health care, the economy, Keystone, the EPA killing jobs. Show how to get the middle class working again. But will they?????
 

the rates for soared for everyone 40% increase average across all 50 states. how is increasing the price of insurance a good thing more so when the president stated that it would lower premiums by 2500 a year?

i guess he forgot to tell people that only on the exchange that get subsidies get the 2,500 premium reduction. the rest of us get the big finger and have to deal with the cost increases. more so business plans since that is where insurance companies are going to make up the shortage.
 

Counting the leans, which once again can be gleaned from Gallup, the numbers are 47% Democrat plus lean Democrat and 40% Republican plus lean Republican. Still a huge number in favor of the Democrats. But according to RCP which averages 6 health care polls there are only 38% in favor the ACA 54% against it as of 4 Mar 2014. Here is a history of Party affiliation:

Here is a list of party affiliation from 1935 to present. I find it quite interesting that the Republican Party has never been higher than 35% of the electorate and that occurred in both 1945 and 1955. Truman had replaced FDR in 1945 and WWII had come to an end. In 1955 Eisenhower was president and was popular with both parties. Whereas the Democrats have been as high as 52, 1965 a year after the Goldwater debacle and passage of the civil rights act of 1964 and has now reached their all-time low of 30% of the electorate. The Republicans are now at 24%, just a bit higher than their all-time low of 21% the year after Nixon resigned from office because of Watergate.


Pew Research for the 1935-2000 numbers/Gallup for 2005-Today

Year…Dem…Rep…Ind…Ind.Lean.Dem….Ind.Lean.Rep…..True.Ind
1935…51……30……19
1940…50……32……18
1945…47……35…..18
1950…48……32…..20
1955…47……35…..18
1960…51……29…..20
1965…52……24….24
1970…47……27…..26
1975…51……21…..28
1980…45……27…..28
1985…40……32…...28
1990…38……30…..32
1995…32……32…..36
2000…34……30…..36
2005…34……33……30………..14…………………....8…………………8
2010…32……33…..34………..12……………………15…………………7
2011…30……27…..42………..18……………………15…………………9
2012…35……30…..33………..16……………………12…………………5
2013…30……24….44………..14…………………..18………………..13
2014…30……23….47………..17…………………..17………………..13…..Taken Feb 9 2014

Thanks to Gallup we now have not only self identified Republicans and Democrats, but among the independents which party they lean to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…