Originally Posted By ecdc ...just don't actually call it Obamacare. A majority of Americans in *both* parties overwhelmingly support 7 out of 11 Obamacare measures. On three more issues, a majority of Americans support those as well, but only with a minority of Republicans. Only the individual mandate (which is of course essential to all the other provisions Americans do like) is supported by a minority of Americans. <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/may/07/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-says-people-dont-health-care-law-i/">http://www.politifact.com/trut...e-law-i/</a> This is unquestionably a comment on the administration's inability to sell this and be aggressive. But mostly it's just a sad commentary on the ignorance of Americans, and that unique ability to have a strong opinion about something they know nothing about. At dinner a few weeks ago, I listened to my in-laws bemoan Obamacare. As the conversation proceeded, it became clear that they didn't know anything about it, nor even understand the basics of health insurance. I had to explain the difference between the individual market and the group market (and that the ACA doesn't directly affect group markets). What was my mother-in-laws job for twenty years? Insurance billing for a large hospital.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I KNOW why the individual mandate is necessary to make the ACA work. I know why group coverage works... you cover EVERYONE in the group, which includes both those in good health and those in bad. The ACA essentially creates a huge group and to make coverage possible NEEDS to have all eligible participate. I get that. I also know Americans... they will NEVER like being told they MUST purchase something. It is why we should have gone with single payer, paying the expense out of general tax revenue. Yes, I know... it would have been a very difficult sell. But probably no more difficult than the individual mandate.
Originally Posted By Yookeroo "Yes, I know... it would have been a very difficult sell." It would've been an impossible sell.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip They couldn't have even convinced DEMOCRATS? They are the only ones who voted for the ACA anyway. They pissed away an opportunity they will likely never have again. People are so irritated by the individual mandate that we will likely never again (at least not in the near future) have a chance to go to single payer. Obama gambled (he wanted single payer but was unwilling to bet on his hand) and he lost. Is what we have now better than what existed before? Yes it is. For now... assuming enough young and healthy people signed up for ACA that premiums won't sky-rocket next year. The jury is still out.
Originally Posted By Mr X "They couldn't have even convinced DEMOCRATS?" We'll never know, because they didn't even try. Honestly, the impression I got over the whole thing was that Obama WANTED to create that whole touchy-feely 'new era' of changed tone in Washington and all that garbage, was naive enough to believe that his political enemies would get on board if he handed them what was essentially their plan to begin with - and we all know what the Republicans did to repay him for his efforts... It was a nice sentiment, perhaps even a valiant effort on his part, but I've always felt like Obama was the right person at the wrong time. In an era of more cooperation (which HAS actually existed in times past) he might have been the perfect leader. He should've paid more attention to his hero Ronald Reagan and belittled his opponents though, because that's the only thing that might have worked. On the other hand, there is so much wrapped up in this (a dying breed, racism rearing its' ugly head, a country who's population really is divided more than practically anytime since the freaking civil war to begin with thanks to idiot Bush), perhaps that's all Obama could really have done given the situation. Can you imagine how viciously the right wing would have attacked him if he'd actually gone at them head-on? Hard to even fathom, given their level of 'outrage' at the extremely moderate barely-even-a-Democrat President that Obama has always been. Remember how much they were attacking the guy as President-elect, before he even set foot in the White House?
Originally Posted By Mr X "They are the only ones who voted for the ACA anyway" And yet at the time the majority was naively optimistic that they *could* somehow wrangle a few Republican votes. Remember that? Looking back, it's pretty hilarious that they even believed for a second it was remotely possible given the tone that already existed. But they did seem to actually believe that, and basically gave away the farm in the attempt, whereas they'd have been better off doing what the liberals would have wanted and forcing their own more conservative members to get in line, and damn the Republicans since their votes didn't matter anyway. Oh, but if they'd done THAT perhaps people would've accused Obama of being a tyrannical and dangerous socialist bent on the destruction of Amer...er, oh, right. They did that anyway.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Remember too that the more conservative Democratic senators realized they were in the catbird seat and demanded (and got) concessions in the ACA; they never would have voted for single-payer or even the public option. Thinking of Mary Landrieu, Ben Nelson (both from red states - remember Nelson's "cornhusker kickback?"), and most especially Joe Lieberman from CT, a blue state but one where several major insurance firms are headquartered. They employ a lot of CT residents and give a ton of campaign cash. Now I still think there was a small chance we might have gotten a public option if Obama had used single payer as his starting point, knowing that you never get your opening position, but could compromise down to public option, which would then seem like the middle position. Instead he started with public option as the "big reach" (and that half-heartedly), trying to, as Mr. X. said, be the guy of "changed tone and listening to the other side" and all that. And so Republicans were able to paint public option as the "extreme" position instead of the compromise it should have been, and the conservative Democrats were scared off it. (Though CT's Lieberman wouldn't have supported it in any case.) But I still think in the environment we had with the conservative Democrats holding the balance of power, even public option was a long shot, and single payer was never going to happen. Still, I wish he'd started there, got it in the conversation, and then more people would have come to understand it really isn't a scary thing; it's how most advanced countries do it, and have better outcomes than we do.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer We'll join the first world nations of the world when two things happen: 1. The GOP realizes that following the Tea Party off the cliff to the right is a losing strategy for political longevity, and 2. Businesses realize that they can reduce their labor expenses by shifting the burden of providing health care to a single payer system rather than from their own budgets.
Originally Posted By ecdc Dabob2 (as usual) is correct. It's easy to say "Democrats had a majority!" but the details are much more messy. The power was held by the blue dog Democrats, and never forget Liebermann from Connecticut, where Hartford's nickname is the "Insurance Capital of the World." All the stuff that pisses off liberals today? Liebermann demanded them. Of course, other concessions were made to try and attract moderate Republicans like Olympia Snow, but that ultimately failed. Remember, for everyone who's just as mad that they didn't get single payer, others are just as mad they "rammed this one-sided bill down our throats." Historically, compromising to actually get a bill passed is a sure fire way to anger both sides. It means Obama is doing his job.
Originally Posted By MoondoggieCA People can minimize Benghazi all they want, but had the same thing happened under Republican leadership, 4 Americans killed in an attack (that had way more to do with than just a video) and the sitting administration knows about it but sells another story for months, the Dems would be in an uproar too. What happens in a situation like that is when you can't defend what happened, you minimize it, ignore it, or make a joke about it to make the other side look partisan and overzealous and whatever. I'm somewhat conservative, but I will be perfectly fine admitting that GWB was far from my favorite president. At some point you just have to admit that things are not going as well as you'd hoped and move on. When BO ran for second term, it was pretty obvious how many Dems weren't jumping on his bandwagon. They were supporting, but doing so as silently and passively as they could. If things had been going well you know the Dems would have been out in full force in support of his reelection. I just don't remember that happening. Things were not going well and he could no longer blame Bush (even though if one is to be completely truthful, the Dems who were in power under Bush…as well as some decisions that Clinton made as he left office... had a lot to do with the economic debacle as well. Even Kucinich, one of the most liberal politicians in Washington, admitted that, saying both parties had a hand in it). For those who think BO is not liberal though, I don't know how you'd categorize him then. At the end of the day, the US has had a long tradition of celebrating their freedom of choice. And the whole health care thing and the way it was rolled out didn't do much to make US citizens feel all that confident. It started with a plan that was backed by a comment of having to pass it to find out what's in it. Followed by the knowledge that many of those supporting it hadn't even read it through. The lack of confidence from the American people wasn't surprising. Having something pushed on them that even the supporters knew little about, can't blame Americans for being skeptical.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>4 Americans killed in an attack (that had way more to do with than just a video) and the sitting administration knows about it but sells another story for months<< Mitt Romney tried to spin this same silliness in the second Presidential debate. It didn't work out so well for him. Obama was very clear by day two it was a terrorist attack. And it's hilarious that conservatives have somehow talked themselves into this frenzy of "Can you imagine if this'd happened under Bush?" Uh...we lost far, far more embassy lives under Bush than Obama. And then there was that whole, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike Within U.S." thing. Here's a "can you imagine if?" for you: Can you imagine if Obama had been President on 9/11 and it came out the administration had advance warning of a plot to attack the country? Democrats rallied around Bush; Republicans would've lynched Obama.
Originally Posted By oneyepete Wow I just looked at the last wo posts and wondered where this got of the original post. Maybe I'll look at the other comments to see.... maybe. Anyway back to the title of the post. I would sign up for Obama's health insurance if I had to which is why I think so many people have signed up, because they have to or pay the tax. But, I have insurance with my employer for the rest of my life if I want it and the premiums are cheaper than Obama's. I don't mean to make this sound as anti-Obama, just a personal obsevation and comment.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip In response to #11 I'll quote the words of different conservative LP'er: <<Wow, all around.>>
Originally Posted By ecdc >>But, I have insurance with my employer for the rest of my life if I want it and the premiums are cheaper than Obama's.<< Sure, that's the whole point. Companies offer health insurance as a great perk, but they mostly do it because it's untaxed. So I can pay employees more money and have it taxed, or it can pay them less and give them health insurance tax free. So your health insurance and mine is cheaper. The other benefits of the group market become apparent here too. I used to work in a call center. There a lot of obese people with a positively alarming number of health problems. But they had health insurance because they were offset by someone like me (young, healthy nonsmoker...if a tad overweight). That large amount of diversity spreads risk and allows for lower premiums, plus the company kicks in...so...cheaper. In the individual market, those people could've never, ever gotten health insurance. Now they can't be discriminated against, but the flip side is, the market needs young healthy people to spread risk...hence the individual mandate. But no company is chipping in, so it will cost more money.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>Here's a "can you imagine if?" for you: Can you imagine if Obama had been President on 9/11 and it came out the administration had advance warning of a plot to attack the country? Democrats rallied around Bush; Republicans would've lynched Obama.<< +1
Originally Posted By oneyepete I understand that. I guess my point is, of course they would support it because they have to by mandate even if they didn't support Obama. It's like doing what the boss says whether you like it or not or lose your job. But what you are saying makes sense to me.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip The Federal Government already insures the most high-risk populations out there... the elderly and the poor. Wouldn't it make more sense to expand Medicaid to include those who had been refused coverage by insurance companies? Those wanting insurance would have access to it. Those not wanting insurance would not be forced to buy it. Those who are happy with "low value" high deductible policies could have kept them. I certainly support access to health insurance for all who want it. But it has ALWAYS seemed to me that the ACA combined the absolute worst or both worlds... the bloated insurance industry combined with the bureaucracy of the Federal Government. How could ANYONE have ever thought that would be a good idea?
Originally Posted By fkurucz Want to hear the latest canard? Some are blaming the slowing of home sales on "Obamacare", insisting that its allegedly onerous costs are forcing families into poverty.
