Obama knew millions could not keep their health insurance

[astralis]

z,

Your source- 14,000 people a day of a nation of 317 million, and an individual market of roughly 10 million. At the rate of 14,000 a day it will only take a little over 2 years to enroll everyone in the individual market. It will take around a decade to enroll the people about to be thrown off employer plans...

the numbers will likely accelerate. in any case, i wouldn't be surprised if full implementation does take that long. the swiss took approximately 5 years to get everything set up, IIRC.

either way it's increasingly unlikely that it will be repealed.

The website has really enrolled as many people as you claim- about half the enrollments are so full of errors the enrollments failed on the back end so double the above listed times...

Polls are increasingly showing the Republicans with an edge in the 2014 senate race...

suffice it to say that i think this is mistaking a tactical bungling with a strategic failure. i do not think this is the case, and judging from the GOP response, it's likely the GOP leaders do not think so as well.

and that's my point with this article. "he hasn't gotten away with it" is a fairly meaningless statement in this context, because politically speaking the only real impact of the website bungling/obama's overpromising was to cancel out the Dem high coming off the Tea Party governemnt shutdown.

[astralis]

JAD,

Asty:

Did you read the article? The thesis is that Obama has enjoyed gentle media treatment on a number of sticky issues, but he can't escape scrutiny over the ACA debacle because this time he's on record for making blatantly false statements. You know the ones: 'like your insurance, you can keep it..."

The other issues got a fair amount of MSM coverage, but Obama's teflon coating somehow leaves him unscathed amidst all the fuss.

of course i did. as i said to Z, though, i doubt it will have lasting political effects, or for that matter i doubt the personal hit to obama will last particularly long (not that it matters all that much anymore-- he's not up for re-election, after all).

is it more potent than the other issues which the GOP have tried to feather and tar obama with? perhaps, but not significantly so. to try to forecast some long-term doom for the ACA or for obama based on this is a lot of wish-fulfillment...which in turn actually makes the teflon coating stronger. we saw that with the first President to be given such a nickname. :)

[JAD_333]

No one wants to be called racist for criticizing him....

The conservatives regularly criticize him and lately some in his own party have expressed frustration. I don't know why the MSM would feel they alone would be considered racist if they were harder on him. Perhaps the MSM's the long-standing liberal bias is simply alive and well. It tries to appear balanced, but often slips in little cuts, for example during the Virginia governor's race this year, the media always labeled the GOP candidate as the 'Tea Party backed' candidate in news reports and his opponent as the 'former chairman' of the DNC. All this during the battle over defunding Obamacare, when the Tea Party congressmen were taking heavy flack for forcing a government shutdown. In reality, the Tea Party always backs Republicans in general elections.

[JAD_333]

JAD,


is it [Obamacare] more potent than the other issues which the GOP have tried to feather and tar obama with? perhaps, but not significantly so. to try to forecast some long-term doom for the ACA or for obama based on this is a lot of wish-fulfillment...which in turn actually makes the teflon coating stronger. we saw that with the first President to be given such a nickname. :)

Asty:


You are in for a rude shock, not today but in a year or two, when it becomes apparent that Obamacare is (as Z pointed out sometime back) a theft of the birthright of today's young people. The ACA will add $780 billion to the budget over the next 10 years. At the same time entitlements, which are now 62% of the budget will rise even more. Unless something is done to deal with some realities our young people will inherit enormous debt. Imagine the future impact of the fact that every day 8,000 baby boomers retire on Social Security and Medicare while only 2,000 new potential workers are being born to support them. Not only are entitlements growing, they are pushing down investment in research, education, infrastructure. Once at 32% of the budget, now they are at 12% and dropping. Progressive social programs are eating our seed corn...

[astralis]

JAD,

ah, you yourself mentioned it a while back; the costs have to be eaten somewhere. and i don't see young people not paying their own way in healthcare as a "birthright"; i see it as an abdication of responsibility. an abdication -i- have to pay for, as someone with insurance.

Not only are entitlements growing, they are pushing down investment in research, education, infrastructure. Once at 32% of the budget, now they are at 12% and dropping. Progressive social programs are eating our seed corn...

certainly, this is what the Third Way says as well. unfortunately i find conservatives, or at least Republicans, arguing this point to be unpersuasive. entitlements may eat the seed corn, but tax cuts or tax rates cannot be touched. what non-mandatory budget cuts they do propose are -precisely- the seed corn.

either way at this point in time we're sort of whistling past each other. the compromise solution is not difficult to envision, although it is fiendlishly difficult politics-wise. ultimately it'll involve a combination of higher tax rates, an acknowledgment that the US debt load will stabilize at a somewhat higher level than in the past, plus cuts to entitlements, probably through some combination of means-tested SS/chained CPI.

in short, something which obama put out there, which boehner accepted...and then was forced to back away from two years ago. it's too damn bad that in the intervening time since, the GOP decided to put all of its chips into fighting obama/ACA to the end.

[zraver]

z,

the numbers will likely accelerate. in any case, i wouldn't be surprised if full implementation does take that long. the swiss took approximately 5 years to get everything set up, IIRC.

Doubt it, at a certain point the people who really want insurance (the sick) will be signed up and the people who don't want it wont have signed up which will set up the death spiral. its already happening. especially as it turns out that despite paying more in premiums than an older and sick person, the average subsidy for a young person is 1/4 that of an older and sicker person of the same means. There is simply no incentive for the young to sign up and sign away their future.

either way it's increasingly unlikely that it will be repealed.

100% disagree, I don't think it will make it to the 14 elections.

[quote]suffice it to say that i think this is mistaking a tactical bungling with a strategic failure. i do not think this is the case, and judging from the GOP response, it's likely the GOP leaders do not think so as well. [/qupte]

The entire thing is a job killing strategic failure. The only reason its still around is Harry Reid and now it looks like his time in job is limited and a Republican controlled congress after the 14 elections will defund it.

and that's my point with this article. "he hasn't gotten away with it" is a fairly meaningless statement in this context, because politically speaking the only real impact of the website bungling/obama's overpromising was to cancel out the Dem high coming off the Tea Party governemnt shutdown.

So effectively retursn us to status quo ante-bellum which is good for the right since the President's party usually loses seats in a mid-term election. Plus unlike the shut down which is done and over, ACA is a bleeding, festering stinking wound the Dems cant get away from. Even if Obama gets the individual market fixed on both ends, next up are 10x as many people losing their employer coverage and doctors.... If you like it you can keep it redux.

[JAD_333]

JAD,

ah, you yourself mentioned it a while back; the costs have to be eaten somewhere. and i don't see young people not paying their own way in healthcare as a "birthright"; i see it as an abdication of responsibility. an abdication -i- have to pay for, as someone with insurance.

I did, but I was arguing the proposition like a debater, taking the pro side then. Now I'm taking the con side. Anyway, I'm looking for that 'somewhere' you mentioned. Let me correct you on one thing. I sure as hell wasn't saying that the birthright for young people is to pay nothing for their healthcare. Rather I am inclined to believe that it's wrong to make them pay premiums that are a greater percentage of their income, than the percentage that higher income middle-aged people pay. I understand the concept of shared risk, and it sounds appealing. But as time goes young people will also be carrying more of the burden of servicing the debt and maintaining the fat-and-getting-fatter entitlement programs we already have. Entitlements took 32-35% of the budget during the early Bush years. Now they take 62%. It doesn't take a genius to see that today's young workers are going to have a harder time building wealth than their parents and grandparents had. How do we free them from the load?

We need a comprehensive solution, and I don't think it will happen while the dems have control of the White House and the Senate; they don't want to take responsibility for the unavoidable fixes to entitlement programs coming down the road. They'd rather be seen as fighting rear guard actions, compromising to save what they can.

certainly, this is what the Third Way says as well. unfortunately i find conservatives, or at least Republicans, arguing this point to be unpersuasive. entitlements may eat the seed corn, but tax cuts or tax rates cannot be touched. what non-mandatory budget cuts they do propose are -precisely- the seed corn.

Well, the seed corn refers mostly our young people. If the life is sucked out of them to service the debt and pay for our fast growing population of retired seniors, we may see something worse than the Tea Party rise up. History has seen this play out before. I think we'll fix it; we have time, not much, but enough. First, we have to get someone in the White House who can lead and some smart folk elected to Congress.

BTW, the recent fight over the debt ceiling and keeping the government open wasn't about cutting non-mandatory spending; it was over one thing: Defunding Obamacare. Or, to put it another way--avoiding $780 billion in entitlement spending over the next 8-10 years, most of it new.



]

[JAD_333]

Good news. The Obamacare website has been fixed. You can sign up here.

Affordable Care Act

[astralis]

JAD,

We need a comprehensive solution, and I don't think it will happen while the dems have control of the White House and the Senate; they don't want to take responsibility for the unavoidable fixes to entitlement programs coming down the road. They'd rather be seen as fighting rear guard actions, compromising to save what they can.

i disagree. what was the 2011 proposed debt deal, then? obama has said that he wants a grand bargain, and him being able to offer it up and negotiate with boehner back then showed that the Dems could be corralled into a compromise solution.

I think we'll fix it; we have time, not much, but enough. First, we have to get someone in the White House who can lead and some smart folk elected to Congress.

peh, that means the GOP will need to eliminate the Tea Party as an insurgent faction, or at least regain party unity/discipline. if they can't even agree on tactical matters, god help them on strategic ones. in any case the strategic goals of the party remain much more focused on further tax cuts and shrinking government than trying to reduce the debt (NOT the same thing, i'd mention).

Or, to put it another way--avoiding $780 billion in entitlement spending over the next 8-10 years, most of it new.

[JAD_333]

JAD,



i disagree. what was the 2011 proposed debt deal, then? obama has said that he wants a grand bargain, and him being able to offer it up and negotiate with boehner back then showed that the Dems could be corralled into a compromise solution.

A comprehensive solution in the context of GOP control would take in much more than what Boehner worked out with the president. It would include the fate of departments, all manner of spending programs, entitlements, the debt...a sea change of significant proportions all aimed at eliminating the debt. If you ask, what will happen if the GOP controls congress and the White House, that's what I see. Do you see something different? And, if what I see happens, what else can the dems do but save what they can of their legacy. They would much rather be in that position than in the position of having to dismantle it themselves. The dems can't win elections taking apart their legacy, but they can defending it.

peh, that means the GOP will need to eliminate the Tea Party as an insurgent faction, or at least regain party unity/discipline. if they can't even agree on tactical matters, god help them on strategic ones. in any case the strategic goals of the party remain much more focused on further tax cuts and shrinking government than trying to reduce the debt (NOT the same thing, i'd mention).

Eliminate the tea party? They can't. The tea party is more than a formal organization. 80% of its avowed members are long-time Republicans. Many more Republicans are tea party sympathizers. If you mean get rid of Members of Congress in the tea party caucus, there too the GOP is hamstrung. They are there to stay, although if a few of the more radical ones lose elections, the rest will moderate a tad. Asty, the tide is moving right. It is not a pretty move or one that isn't facing opposition and fears of party breakup, but it is going to move. There is little you or I can do about it. The debt and the likelihood of it rising still higher (despite the bitty decreases recently) is working against the dems. The GOP won't give the dems new taxes to cover rising entitlements.

[ATTACH]34577[/ATTACH]

The chart only covers Medicare....is that meant to refute the claim the ACA will add add $780 to entitlement expenses over the next 8-10 years?

[bonehead]

Good news. The Obamacare website has been fixed. You can sign up here.

Affordable Care Act

Thanks but no thanks. I already have insurance and I am keeping it.

[JAD_333]

Thanks but no thanks. I already have insurance and I am keeping it.

Come on. At least push the button to see what it is all about. :)

[astralis]

JAD,

A comprehensive solution in the context of GOP control would take in much more than what Boehner worked out with the president. It would include the fate of departments, all manner of spending programs, entitlements, the debt...a sea change of significant proportions all aimed at eliminating the debt.

oh, i know. it was not for nothing that mitt romney picked paul ryan for his VP. such a platform would be as revolutionary, if not more so, than the ACA. and my guess is that it would be substantially more unpopular. consider how unpopular the ACA has been even when majorities agree with its precepts.

that would not be the same for revolutionizing medicare or SS; republican ideas for turning medicare into a voucher system and privatizing SS have been deeply unpopular, to say the least.

Eliminate the tea party? They can't. The tea party is more than a formal organization. 80% of its avowed members are long-time Republicans. Many more Republicans are tea party sympathizers.

it's quite possible that the establishment get some semblance of control, which in fact it's busy trying to do now. note how quiet Ted Cruz has been lately, or how the Republicans aren't champing at the bit for another round of government shutdown.

yes, tactical in nature, but this combined with what some business groups are doing to eliminate the crazier ones, will cause some moderation.

you simply can't negotiate if the other side doesn't have the authority or the discipline to impose that compromise.

Asty, the tide is moving right. It is not a pretty move or one that isn't facing opposition and fears of party breakup, but it is going to move.

the tide is not moving right in the electorate as a whole any more, but rather in the GOP...and even there i think we're bumping against the limits. but we've discussed this issue at length before.

The chart only covers Medicare....is that meant to refute the claim the ACA will add add $780 to entitlement expenses over the next 8-10 years?

i think it's important to point out that the ACA will increase costs in some areas while lowering costs in others. over the long-term i expect the ACA to reduce overall healthcare spending as we saw in the case of switzerland.

[Parihaka]

Good news. The Obamacare website has been fixed. You can sign up here.

Affordable Care Act

Genius I must say the website has improved enormously....

[gunnut]

Obama didn't know millions would lose their insurance.

Really, other than where Osama bin Laden was, what does he know?