Obamacare Rollout: The Political Fallout

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

clairefontaine

Yeah, no one saw this coming.

Fr Tod Umptious

Good posts OP

The political fallout from Obamacare was always going to be around the people who were currently paying for health care and that were to loose something from this, rather than the X million that would be newly covered by it

The electoral backlash from taking something away from those that were willing to pay for what they had was always going to be greater than the electoral gains from insuring people that were previously uninsured

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Amerika

The political fallout for democrats can’t be good going into 2014 or 2016. Regarding ObamaCare, either the president lied to everyone at every turn for political expediency, or he is completely incompetent, or both. Everything the Republicans warned us about the consequences of ObamaCare is starting to come to fruition. There is so much wrong with the whole ACA that it’s hard to figure out where to start.

So when will the calls for a single-payer system start as the only way to now save health care in America as ObamaCare collapses?

Although I have never been a fan of ObamaCare I do hope the millions who have been dropped by their healthcare providers because of ObamaCare can manage to get somewhat affordable insurance by January through the exchanges.

clairefontaine

Amerika wrote: »

The political fallout for democrats can’t be good going into 2014 or 2016. Regarding ObamaCare, either the president lied to everyone at every turn for political expediency, or he is completely incompetent, or both. Everything the Republicans warned us about the consequences of ObamaCare is starting to come to fruition. There is so much wrong with the whole ACA that it’s hard to figure out where to start.

So when will the calls for a single-payer system start as the only way to now save health care in America as ObamaCare collapses?

Although I have never been a fan of ObamaCare I do hope the millions who have been dropped by their healthcare providers because of ObamaCare can manage to get somewhat affordable insurance by January through the exchanges.

The ACA will be repealed. I give it till after Christmas.

Amerika

clairefontaine wrote: »

The ACA will be repealed. I give it till after Christmas.

Even if it did, I don't think it would get beyond the posioned veto pen of the POTUS. And there aren't enough in the (D) side of Congress willing to vote principle over party in order to overcome a veto.

clairefontaine

Amerika wrote: »

Even if it did, I don't think it would get beyond the posioned veto pen of the POTUS. And there aren't enough in the (D) side of Congress willing to vote principle over party in order to overcome a veto.

Democrats always make a weak congress.

kev9100

clairefontaine wrote: »

Democrats always make a weak congress.

Howdy. First post in very long time.

What do you actually mean by a "weak" Congress? I don't want to put your words in your mouth, but are you saying that you believe the Dems would make Congress "strong" by voting to repeal Obamacare? Forgive me, but I don't think voting to revert to the terrible healthcare system that existed before would be a strong action. Granted, Obamacare has got off to a bad start but I fail to see how anyone can really going back to the old system would do anything but make things worse.

clairefontaine

kev9100 wrote: »

Howdy. First post in very long time.

What do you actually mean by a "weak" Congress? I don't want to put your words in your mouth, but are you saying that you believe the Dems would make Congress "strong" by voting to repeal Obamacare? Forgive me, but I don't think voting to revert to the terrible healthcare system that existed before would be a strong action. Granted, Obamacare has got off to a bad start but I fail to see how anyone can really going back to the old system would do anything but make things worse.

No.

Im currently reading a book called "Fiasco." It maps out the catrostrophic lack of planning and strategy in the Iraq war.

What I have gathered so far is that at the time, there were plenty of both Republicans and Democrats who were uneasy with this invasion and did not support it. But there was a congress dominated by Democrats who were not able to buck up enough to vote against entering Iraq.

I could possibly see the same thing happenning here with congress, Republicans tend to be more stubborn and principled.

The system currently in place is still the "old system" as you call it because Obamacare has not actually worked so far. I agree it is far from ideal and full of problems but Obamacare is not the solution and will add more bad to what is already bad.

kev9100

clairefontaine wrote: »

No.

But there was a congress dominated by Democrats who were not able to buck up enough to vote against entering Iraq.

I could possibly see the same thing happenning here with congress, Republicans tend to be more stubborn and principled.

The system currently in place is still the "old system" as you call it because Obamacare has not actually worked so far. I agree it is far from ideal and full of problems but Obamacare is not the solution and will add more bad to what is already bad.

Few points. I have no idea how you can possibly say Congress was dominated by Dems in the run up to the Iraq war. The Republicans had a majority in the House while the Senate was split 50-50 up to the 2002 general election and after that there was a small GOP majority. Yes, the Dems should have done more to stop it but congress was not dominated by the democrats.

Also, while you may be right in saying the GOP is more stubborn than the Dems, I'm not sure how they can be called principled. The GOP sees Obamacare possible failure as a political weapon, I doubt they really care about the healthcare needs of ordinary people.

I would say give Obamacare time. Is it flawed? Absolutely. But I do believe it could be a good starting point in improving healthcare in the states.

Black Swan

ObamaCare had been passed by a one-party (Democrats) controlled Executive and US Congress (Senate and House). One-party control does not work well for the American form of government, no matter if it be controlled by Democrats or Republicans. One-party control removes many of the checks-and-balances needed to avoid abuses of power. I agree with John Adams (one of the nation's founders) when he warned the Americans:

"There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution."

clairefontaine wrote: »

But there was a congress dominated by Democrats who were not able to buck up enough to vote against entering Iraq.

Are you referring to Iraq I "Desert Storm" initiated (as CIC) by President GHW Bush or Iraq II "Shock and Awe" initiated by his son President GW Bush?

The 2nd Persian Gulf War began 19 March 2003 during the 108th Congress (2003-2005). The Executive and both the US Senate (51-R; 48-D) and US House (229-R; 205-D) were controlled by the Republican party when President GW Bush made his speech to the nation, claiming WMD as part of the justification for launching war that day.

Republican Dennis Hastert was Speaker of the House at the launch of Iraq II, having been re-elected to his 3rd term for the 108th Congress. If the Democrats controlled the House, they would have elected a Democrat to this, one of the most powerful political positions in America, 3rd in line of succession to the President (the VP and Presidency also Republican).

kev9100

Black Swan wrote: »

ObamaCare had been passed by a one-party (Democrats) controlled Executive and US Congress (Senate and House). One-party control does not work well for the American form of government, no matter if it be controlled by Democrats or Republicans. One-party control removes many of the checks-and-balances needed to avoid abuses of power. I agree with John Adams (one of the nation's founders) when he warned the Americans:

But how do you square your argument one-party government being terrible with the current situation where divided government has led to a perpetual cycle of crises? Although divided government may be a good idea if the two main parties both act responsibly or if there was a multi-party system, I don't think the current from of the Republican party has anything to offer in regards to good governance.

clairefontaine

Why did Obama hire Canadians to do this when there is a job problem in the US? He OUTSOURCED this?

Its fascinating to track their stock value fluctuations.

https://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE:GIB

clairefontaine

Black Swan wrote: »

ObamaCare had been passed by a one-party (Democrats) controlled Executive and US Congress (Senate and House). One-party control does not work well for the American form of government, no matter if it be controlled by Democrats or Republicans. One-party control removes many of the checks-and-balances needed to avoid abuses of power. I agree with John Adams (one of the nation's founders) when he warned the Americans:

"There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution."


Are you referring to Iraq I "Desert Storm" initiated (as CIC) by President GHW Bush or Iraq II "Shock and Awe" initiated by his son President GW Bush?

The 2nd Persian Gulf War began 19 March 2003 during the 108th Congress (2003-2005). The Executive and both the US Senate (51-R; 48-D) and US House (229-R; 205-D) were controlled by the Republican party when President GW Bush made his speech to the nation, claiming WMD as part of the justification for launching war that day.

Republican Dennis Hastert was Speaker of the House at the launch of Iraq II, having been re-elected to his 3rd term for the 108th Congress. If the Democrats controlled the House, they would have elected a Democrat to this, one of the most powerful political positions in America, 3rd in line of succession to the President (the VP and Presidency also Republican).

I'll go back and find exactly what this book says. It's possible I do not remember it correctly.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

kev9100

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

So how would you solve the healthcare problem? If the state completely retreats from the healthcare market, the only thing that will happen is that even more people suffer.

clairefontaine

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/20/us-usa-healthcare-oregon-idUSBRE9AJ0ML20131120

No one in Oregon has signed up for Obamacare.

Id call this a serious failure. They'll have to pull it.

vetinari

It's way way too early to cast a long term judgement on Obamacare.

It hasn't even started yet.
Signing up on December 10th is the same as signing up on October 1st!
They've botched the enrollment thus far but ultimately that won't matter if people can enroll before open enrollment ends.

Eggy Baby!

Why are so many Americans against Obamacare? What is the point of contention for them? Sorry, but I haven't been following this at all, and it seems so complicated that its hard to get up to speed!

What effect will Obamacare have on the U.S economy?

And lastly, on a sarcastic note, how can there be an Obamacare if Obama doesn't care?

A Primal Nut

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

Why are so many Americans against Obamacare? What is the point of contention for them? Sorry, but I haven't been following this at all, and it seems so complicated that its hard to get up to speed!

There are various reasons, ranging from the principle that Americans take pride in looking after their families without relying on government (understandable given that governments worldwide have a tendency to mess things up, fears that have been shown to be justified so far with regard to Obamacare) to the practical fear among Americans who already have health insurance that they will be forced to pay more to subsidise those who previously couldn't afford it or have pre-existing conditions - which is why Obama's original promise that people can keep their existing policy was so important.

But even some Americans who can't afford it oppose it partially on the principle of not trusting their government as I mentioned above and presumably they don't believe that Obamacare will make things easier for them to afford it.

At a time where employment is such a big issue, there were concerns of even more bureaucracy for small employers who want to cover their employee's healthcare - although obviously the pro-ObamaCare people say costs will go down.

Also, healthcare when you have insurance in the US is very good, so people are worried that this state intervention will cause the standard to drop. That's probably just scaremongering though - any bad medical care story from Canada is jumped on.

I'm not ardently against it myself, just trying to answer your question. Personally I'm open-minded about it. In truth, there are so many conflicting opinions on how it will impact various parts of the population, it seems nobody knows for sure. I hope it is given a chance; hopefully some studies will show the actual impact on people based on their situation (people who already had health insurance, healthy young people, sick old people, etc). It will be interesting to see if costs do go up or down for the various demographics. As usual with politics, the results will probably never be clear.

InTheTrees

A Primal Nut wrote: »

Also, healthcare when you have insurance in the US is very good, so people are worried that this state intervention will cause the standard to drop.

No. US healthcare is in a deplorable state. Even with insurance most americans face financial ruin if they're unlucky enough to get seriously sick. People dying from not being able to afford healthcare is not unusual. The US ranks far down the list in adequate healthcare coverage for citizens.

Prior to ObamaCare insurance policies in the United States contained a lifetime benefit limits, meaning that you can actually run out of care. They also contained the pre-existing condition limits, where if you apply for insurance and have a "pre-existing" condition (diabetes for instance), your policy will not cover it.

Healthcare in the USA was in a crisis long before Obama. Various administrations have tried to reform it. Generally Democrats try for reform and republicans go for bandaids. Hillary Clinton was famously torn apart by the republicans when Bill Clinton tasked her with researching reform back in the 90's. Bush's plan was to provide low cost plans with low premiums and little benefits.

I've had employer provided insurance in the USA for over 20 years and anyone with employer insurance has experienced the yearly meetings where they detail the increases in premiums and the reduction in benefits. On and on. Year after year.

My attitude was always that the worse it gets the more likely there will be meaningful reform and that day has actually come. SO its funny to listen to republicans now trying to make out the previous debacle was something to aspire to.

Conas

The law is the law, and the law has been upheld by the Supreme court, and the useless bunch of good for nothings in the Republican party have been hell bent on sabotaging Obamacare from the very off. They don't want people in America to have an Education or healthcare, they want people to have nothing. Yet they have no problem in wasting over a 1 trillions dollars of taxpayers money on their bulls*hit wars. Clear out the entire congress, they should all be sacked. Pack of sellouts.

InTheTrees

Conas wrote: »

The law is the law, and the law has been upheld by the Supreme court, and the useless bunch of good for nothings in the Republican party have been hell bent on sabotaging Obamacare from the very off. They don't want people in America to have an Education or healthcare, they want people to have nothing. Yet they have no problem in wasting over a 1 trillions dollars of taxpayers money on their bulls*hit wars. Clear out the entire congress, they should all be sacked. Pack of sellouts.

The California Republican party has even be caught with a fake Obamacare website they published with the goal of spreading disinformation to discourage people from signing up.

Un-fcuking-believable. If it was in a movie you say it was kind of far fetched. The amount of misinformation out there is staggering and its actively and shamelessly being spread by the republicans. They dont seem to see the basic corruption in such behaviour.

And really really really dont want people to have affordable health care. You have to wonder who their supporters are.

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-underhanded-20131202,0,1592466.story#axzz2mf9G5ZaK

20Cent

Looks like despite the technical problems Obamacare is going to be close to or exceed its target. Obamacare Enrollment Heading to 7 Million at Deadline:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-30/obamacare-enrollment-heading-to-7-million-at-deadline.html

sin_city

kev9100 wrote: »

So how would you solve the healthcare problem? If the state completely retreats from the healthcare market, the only thing that will happen is that even more people suffer.

Do you think the state is doing a good job in education, in housing, transportation?

Now consider that the state is not involved with cosmetics doctors and so on, and look at the prices go down in things such as laser eye surgery.

State programs generally do the opposite of what they say they do.

Look at the minimum wage law...supposed to help low earners but in fact keeps them out of work...pre min wage, more whites in the US were unemployed than blacks.

If you look at the issue using facts rather than emotion you may be surprised.

InTheTrees

sin_city wrote: »

Look at the minimum wage law...supposed to help low earners but in fact keeps them out of work...pre min wage, more whites in the US were unemployed than blacks.

If you look at the issue using facts rather than emotion you may be surprised.

So you're against having a minimum wage too?

InTheTrees

sin_city wrote: »

Now consider that the state is not involved with cosmetics doctors and so on, and look at the prices go down in things such as laser eye surgery.

If you look at the issue using facts rather than emotion you may be surprised.

Are you saying Lazik is cosmetic?

What about cosmetic procedures that haven't gone down in price?

These "facts" of yours seem a little jumbled up.

InTheTrees

sin_city wrote: »

Do you think the state is doing a good job in education, in housing, transportation?

Okay... so instead of fixing anything you'd rather have private education for all?

And privatizing "transportation"? What would that entail exactly?

InTheTrees

sin_city wrote: »

State programs generally do the opposite of what they say they do.

Ah. "Generally" huh?

:pac:

InTheTrees

I bet people reading the posts from the opponents of Obamacare would probably think that the US Government was running the Health Insurance business, while the reality is that you still buy insurance from the same (beloved) Insurance Companies as before.

Obamacare is trying to regulate the out of control rise in healthcare insurance costs over the last few decades. Rates were rising way faster than inflation or wages and it has been a major election issue since the 70's.

The conservatives, the republicans, the right wingers could care less about the millions of people financially destroyed by medical costs, they have no interest in fixing those issues. They're enraged by any type of regulation over the insurance and healthcare industries. Plain and simple.

Thats all their opposition is and you'll read it in these threads, its all generalizations about "big" government and how we should all mistrust anything that we elect them to do. The reality is they lost the election, failed to stop this legislation get implemented and now they're whining like babies.

Amerika

Ignore those reports of up to 150% insurance premium hikes in 2015 because of the numerous delays in ObamaCare, changes to the law, and overblown projections about the number of young healthy consumers who would enroll. ALL IS WELL!

sin_city

InTheTrees wrote: »

So you're against having a minimum wage too?

Of course, the minimum wage prices people out of work.

Countries with no minimum wage do really well. Singapore has no minimum wage.

If you are an employer and you are paying a teenager a low wage but they are learning skills and suddenly you are told you have to pay more...you'll just tell the teenager sorry I can't afford that and let him or her go.

As I said, pre-minimum wage blacks had lower unemployment than whites.

As I said, if you look at the facts instead of being emotional about these type of things you may be surprised.

sin_city

InTheTrees wrote: »

Are you saying Lazik is cosmetic?

What about cosmetic procedures that haven't gone down in price?

These "facts" of yours seem a little jumbled up.

Sure, everything increases somewhat with inflation but if you look at how much these things cost when they arrived on the scene compared to now.

At one time they were procedures for the wealthy few, now plastic, eye, and dental surgery are very much affordable.

Are prices for regular procedures seeing the same trend?

No, year on year increases.

What facts do you mean? Inflation aside do you think cosmetic surgery has become less affordable since say the 1970s and 1980s?

Do you think regular healthcare has seen the same decline?

I think you'll find that my facts are spot on and that you again are judging what I say based on emotion and nothing else.

sin_city

InTheTrees wrote: »

Ah. "Generally" huh?

:pac:

I said generally as I know the government accomplished going to the moon and I don’t know if private industry would have achieved this.

I cannot think of other areas where government has done a better job than private companies competing.

InTheTrees

sin_city wrote: »

I cannot think of other areas where government has done a better job than private companies competing.

Running the country?

Personally I'd rather it be the people we vote for and not major corporations although I realise I'm in a minority in the US.

InTheTrees

sin_city wrote: »

Are prices for regular procedures seeing the same trend?

No, year on year increases.

I think you'll find that my facts are spot on

Before ObamaCare, healthcare costs in the USA have been rising far beyond the rate of inflation.

And it has nothing to do with the prices of lazik technology getting cheaper.

Its been argued about since the 70's, it seems to me you're trying to rewrite history and claim US Healthcare was just fine up until 2008.

InTheTrees

sin_city wrote: »

I said generally as I know the government accomplished going to the moon and I don’t know if private industry would have achieved this.

I cannot think of other areas where government has done a better job than private companies competing.

WW2?

InTheTrees

sin_city wrote: »

I cannot think of other areas where government has done a better job than private companies competing.

Yikes. Behold the Right Wing ideology.

Coca Cola and Exon should be running the place huh?

One of the reasons for having an elected government is just so we dont have to experience life under the rule of private companies.

:eek:

sin_city

InTheTrees wrote: »

Yikes. Behold the Right Wing ideology.

Coca Cola and Exon should be running the place huh?

One of the reasons for having an elected government is just so we dont have to experience life under the rule of private companies.

:eek:

Who do you think wrote the Obamacare bill?

I suggest you read about the history of healthcare.

Obamacare is forcing people to do something they don't want, that's why so many would rather take a fine rather than sign up.

Obamacare increases already bloated health costs by, in some instances 3 times.

Once you come back with facts then this may be debatable. Everyone can be wrong....but you are just coming back with emotion based responses.

InTheTrees

So again... as I wrote before, the main criticism of ObamaCare is some nebulous ill defined hatred of "big" government.

The fact that there's a growing segment of society that cannot afford healthcare seems to be of no concern to the critics at all.

sin_city

InTheTrees wrote: »

So again... as I wrote before, the main criticism of ObamaCare is some nebulous ill defined hatred of "big" government.

The fact that there's a growing segment of society that cannot afford healthcare seems to be of no concern to the critics at all.

The main criticism of Obamacare is that it increases costs for already struggling families.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obamacare-raising-health-costs-for-most-poll-finds-2013-12-23
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/11/04/49-state-analysis-obamacare-to-increase-individual-market-premiums-by-avg-of-41-subsidies-flow-to-elderly/

Government programs never hardly work.

How's that war on drugs going?

Show me some facts....all you throw back is emotional stuff as I said

InTheTrees

sin_city wrote: »

Show me some facts....all you throw back is emotional stuff as I said

Seriously?

What is emotional about saying US healthcare was in dire need of reforming?

You think that statement is driven by emotion?

InTheTrees

sin_city wrote: »

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obamacare-raising-health-costs-for-most-poll-finds-2013-12-23
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/11/04/49-state-analysis-obamacare-to-increase-individual-market-premiums-by-avg-of-41-subsidies-flow-to-elderly/

Show me some facts..

Those are opinion pieces not facts.

Show me some facts.

:pac:

InTheTrees

sin_city wrote: »

Government programs never hardly work.

How's that war on drugs going?

Show me some facts..

How about you show us some facts instead of this nonsense.

"Government programs never hardly work"

And this is your reason not to regulate insurance costs?

Seriously? This is your argument against bringing down healthcare costs by regulating out of control insurance companies?

Your "facts" amount to Government programs never hardly work.

I'm sure the electorate feels much more informed with the benefit of your extensive knowledge of the issue.

:pac:

InTheTrees

sin_city wrote: »

look at the facts instead of being emotional

sin_city wrote: »

my facts are spot on and that you again are judging what I say based on emotion and nothing else.

sin_city wrote: »

Once you come back with facts then this may be debatable. Everyone can be wrong....but you are just coming back with emotion based responses.

sin_city wrote: »

Show me some facts....all you throw back is emotional stuff as I said

Seriously?

Apart from a couple of links to opinion pieces and some vague pronouncements about the horror of Big Government you haven't included any "facts" at all.

And yet you're telling other posters not to be emotional?

Craziness.

sin_city

InTheTrees wrote: »

Seriously?

Apart from a couple of links to opinion pieces and some vague pronouncements about the horror of Big Government you haven't included any "facts" at all.

And yet you're telling other posters not to be emotional?

Craziness.

I mentioned the minimum wage law, increasing health costs because of government, I also mentioned the US governments venture into education(public school are a joke and the cost of college due to student loans have made it more expensive than ever), since LBJ's great society program those at the bottom of the social ladder have become poorer, the war on drugs is a disaster, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were an integral part of the housing collapse that has dogged the world economy...after the mess up what does government decide to do? Give hundreds of billions of taxpayers money to the banks that caused the mess.

How's that for facts? And you want these morons involved more in health too now? I've shown you that prices are increasing in 49 states because of Obamacare.

I'm still waiting on success of government...Central planning does not work.

Amerika

Don’t you love when some throw out the line "out of control insurance companies."

I shake my head in disbelief, as they are also the usual ones touting ObamaCare as some success story.

Wasn’t ObamaCare to make medical insurance "affordable?" Weren’t family rates to decrease because of it by $2,500?

And didn’t ObamaCare immediately upon passage stop the supposed abuses of the insurance companies with the 80/20 rule:

Taken directly from the White House:

More Affordable Care: Today, we have the new 80/20 rule: insurance companies must spend at least 80 cents of your premium dollar on your health care or improvements to care. And insurance companies must publicly justify their actions if they want to raise premiums by 10 percent or more. And States have more power to block them.

But insurance rates have continued to rise as alarming rates. And rates have increased substantially since ObamaCare took affect. So if rates are rapidly increasing, it can’t be because of the out of control insurance companies, but rather because the insurance companies are having to pay out more in medical care for their customers, correct?

Doesn’t sound so affordable to me.

Paleface

The main argument against Obamacare is that since its inception it has directly caused insurance rates to rise.

The advocates of Obamacare say that insurance rates have always been rising year on year and will continue to do so but the rate at which they are rising is now slowing down as a direct result of the bill.

Can someone clarify which is fact and which is fiction?

InTheTrees

Amerika wrote: »

But insurance rates have continued to rise as alarming rates. And rates have increased substantially since ObamaCare took affect. So if rates are rapidly increasing, it can’t be because of the out of control insurance companies, but rather because the insurance companies are having to pay out more in medical care for their customers, correct?

ObamaCare "took effect" on Jan 1st.

And you're saying that rates have increased "substantially" since then?

So in the last three months this is all happening?



Really, it sounds like more right wing scare mongering. Garbled negative anecdotes without any corroboration.