ABQCOWBOY Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 Not surprising. In my experience, the overwhelming majority of Americans (left and right) are just about as well-informed on complicated policy issues as, well, you are. You are not the only one who lives in a world of talking points and truthiness.... err.... common sense. But we can agree to disagree of course. Interestingly enough, that's what this guy said as well.... You guys who know this Obamacare stuff. You are all just too smart for us, over here Left of Maryland and Right of California. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 Interestingly enough, that's what this guy said as well.... You guys who know this Obamacare stuff. You are all just too smart for us, over here Left of Maryland and Right of California. I don't know the ACA stuff either. If you included me in that Gallup poll, it would just as useless as it already is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 I don't know the ACA stuff either. If you included me in that Gallup poll, it would just as useless as it already is. This is my job, and I barely understand all the nuances of the ACA. (Actually, it's impacted what I do in a very small way up to this point). Look, healthcare is utlimately going to go in one of two directions: high deductible, catastrophic plans or single payer. The in-between system we've had for decades really doesn't work for anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABQCOWBOY Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 I don't know the ACA stuff either. If you included me in that Gallup poll, it would just as useless as it already is. Useless to mean what? Clearly, a good segment of Americans do not believe in the benefits of the ACA. Regardless of what you might think of that majority personally, it is still reflective of the Majority. If you want to take the position that the opinions of the Majority of Americans is useless, that is of course, your affair. However, it is difficult for me to see how this might improve the position of the ACA or the Democratic Party as a whole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 (edited) Useless to mean what? Clearly, a good segment of Americans do not believe in the benefits of the ACA. Regardless of what you might think of that majority personally, it is still reflective of the Majority. If you want to take the position that the opinions of the Majority of Americans is useless, that is of course, your affair. However, it is difficult for me to see how this might improve the position of the ACA or the Democratic Party as a whole. If you look at that chart, you can see that the "good segment of Americans" is almost entirely divided by political affiliation. The average Republican hates the ACA because the GOP and Rush Limbaugh have told them to hate it, and because it has been nicknamed after Obama. The average Democrat likes the ACA because the Democratic Party pushed it thorough, and because it has been nicknamed after Obama. The average Independent is skeptical (although a goodly percentage of self-described "Independents" are actually highly conservative Tea Party types who are only independent in the sense that they want the GOP to be even more conservative). So yes, a survey of the opinions of the Majority of Americans on complicated, technical policy questions that have become political hot potatoes (like this one) are utterly useless, because they just reflect the preexisting affiliations of those people. They don't say a damn thing about the merits of the issue. I like to read what heath care economists think about it, not what Joe Blow from Akron thinks about it. Edited November 12, 2014 by Predicto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 Useless to mean what? Clearly, a good segment of Americans do not believe in the benefits of the ACA. Regardless of what you might think of that majority personally, it is still reflective of the Majority. If you want to take the position that the opinions of the Majority of Americans is useless, that is of course, your affair. However, it is difficult for me to see how this might improve the position of the ACA or the Democratic Party as a whole. The majority is wrong. Did you pay any attention to the Kentucky Senate race? McConnell won in part by promising to repleal the extremely unpopular ACA while protecting the extremely popular Kentucky healthcare exchange, which only exists because of Obamacare. There is a staggering amount of congnitive dissonance surrounding the ACA. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 So your position is there has been nothing to have disapproval on, every disapproval was crap. Wow that is laughable. No, my position is that nothing that has been discussed in disapproval is a real legitimate gripe that you can have on substance. Arguing that the government can't make you eat broccoli, or that there are death panels, or that this is socialism are completely bull**** arguments. If you wanted to extract some sort of economic analysis before all this happened and come armed with well-positioned reasons, then you could have done that no one has. Furthermore, you now hear people saying that Obamacare has raised both premiums and deductibles for the country, which is not true. It is not supported by empirical data. You also hear that it is raising the cost of healthcare. That's not supported by empirical data either. Yes, you can come armed with your anecdote's of aunt Lucy paying more for insurance, neglecting to tell me that aunt lucy had a heart transplant because she was 300 lbs and suffered from high blood pressure. But that's just anecdotal. To date (which doesn't mean forever and ever, but to date) Obamacare has worked. It has allowed millions more to become insured, and the cost of healthcare has decreased as a percentage of GDP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 I like to read what heath care economists think about it, not what Joe Blow from Akron thinks about it. Liberal elitist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 Liberal elitist. he probably listened to the economists during the housing boom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 The majority is wrong. Did you pay any attention to the Kentucky Senate race? McConnell won in part by promising to repleal the extremely unpopular ACA while protecting the extremely popular Kentucky healthcare exchange, which only exists because of Obamacare. There is a staggering amount of congnitive dissonance surrounding the ACA. Don't you mean that there's a staggering amount of stupidity surrounding the GOP? Liberal elitist. <raises hand> "Here, your Honor..." I'm giggling at the absolutely real possibility of being prosecuted for such nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 (edited) Don't you mean that there's a staggering amount of stupidity surrounding the GOP? I love when a post has no substance other than to insult. All the issues with Obamacare are because of stupidity with the GOP. You can't make this stuff up. Even the Democrats didn't get what they want out of the plan. And the simple truth is we all wont know the level of success or failure for a number of years from now. But keep insulting, it keeps ya from having to answer the tough questions. Edited November 12, 2014 by chipwhich Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 well got my rate notice ....up 11% and more than twice the total my pre ACA plan was (comparable plans) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinfan2k Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 well my rate went up $.98. Damn Obamacare! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrong Direction Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 The majority is wrong. Did you pay any attention to the Kentucky Senate race? McConnell won in part by promising to repleal the extremely unpopular ACA while protecting the extremely popular Kentucky healthcare exchange, which only exists because of Obamacare. There is a staggering amount of congnitive dissonance surrounding the ACA. That you don't understand the difference between what McConnell wants and what the ACA provided is very telling. I honestly don't think that Democrats have any clue that Republicans do have a plan based on ideology and they more or less always have. The difference is that D's are making them coalesce their ideas into one plan instead of a ton of proposals, like... Tax parity for employer coverage. Tax credits to let support premium payments. HSAs (also could be funded by credits) to support payment over time. Allowing insurance plans to be offered across state lines. Fewer accreditation barriers for insurance providers (bringing more insurers to a competitive market). There are so many legit policy disagreements, but the media (right and left) focuses on death panels and broccoli. This notion that the legit policy differences were never articulated is bunk. The truth is that the best thing the ACA did was create a website (funny I'm saying this) where people can go to buy insurance. There were a ton of options prior to the ACA, and there still are. Just look at eHealthinsurance.com. The difference is we never had a massive media and presidential apparatus making a huge fuss when enrollment periods were open. Don't get me wrong, I like coverage for pre-existing conditions and subsidies for the poor, but many actual insurance offerings that are good were already available and remain so. I think the basic R position is with a few more subsidies and a few more rules, you could have accomplished the same thing (coverage-wise) without a massive new federal infrastructure. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 I honestly don't think that Democrats have any clue that Republicans do have a plan based on ideology and they more or less always have. ...... I think the basic R position is with a few more subsidies and a few more rules, you could have accomplished the same thing (coverage-wise) without a massive new federal infrastructure. Where do I find this plan? Who proposed it? When? What percentage of the GOP supported it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrong Direction Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 Where do I find this plan? Who proposed it? When? What percentage of the GOP supported it? As I said, it's because of the D focus that Rs have to coalesce around a plan. You can look at Gillespie's plan, or Orrin Hatch's. I'm sure there are others. Regardless, you surely aren't saying that R's haven't supported HSAs, or purchasing across state lines, or tax parity, or tax credits for more than a decade, are you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 well my rate went up $.98. Damn Obamacare! no worries, half is on your tab Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duckus Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 (edited) As I said, it's because of the D focus that Rs have to coalesce around a plan. You can look at Gillespie's plan, or Orrin Hatch's. I'm sure there are others. Regardless, you surely aren't saying that R's haven't supported HSAs, or purchasing across state lines, or tax parity, or tax credits for more than a decade, are you? They have supported a lot of things for more than a decade. Including ObamaCare pre-2008. It's hard to keep track of what's their idea and what's socialism. Edited November 13, 2014 by Duckus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrong Direction Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 They have supported a lot of things for more than a decade. Including ObamaCare pre-2008. It's hard to keep track of what's their idea and what's socialism. That's not true, so...yeah. This notion that RomneyCare is the same as the ACA is just flawed. Romney ran a state and acted as a state. All he really did was create a mandate, add some subsidies and build a shopping center for health insurance. Before his plan, Mass already regulated insurance, including minimum standards and patient protections. They just didn't tell all insurers to market in the same place and mandate all citizens to buy it. It's one thing for a state to do it. It's another thing altogether for the federal government to tell all states to do it, more or less exactly the same way, with massive complicated subsidy schemes run by politicians who hold all lobbies by the balls because they can change coverage requirements, subsidy levels, pharmaceutical rebate requirements, physician coverage rules and other aspects of the healthcare system if those lobbies fail to do the politician's bidding. One day, many Democrats will understand that the special interests they hate are all created by federal control over major parts of our economy. See oil companies, pharma, insurance companies, defense contractors and on and on. If you don't like these people controlling Congress, don't give Congress power over their industries. That's the fundamental difference between R plans and D plans. R plans give tax credits and let people choose what they want. D plans give the feds control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 Serious? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duckus Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 That's not true, so...yeah. This notion that RomneyCare is the same as the ACA is just flawed. Romney ran a state and acted as a state. All he really did was create a mandate, add some subsidies and build a shopping center for health insurance. Before his plan, Mass already regulated insurance, including minimum standards and patient protections. They just didn't tell all insurers to market in the same place and mandate all citizens to buy it. It's one thing for a state to do it. It's another thing altogether for the federal government to tell all states to do it, more or less exactly the same way, with massive complicated subsidy schemes run by politicians who hold all lobbies by the balls because they can change coverage requirements, subsidy levels, pharmaceutical rebate requirements, physician coverage rules and other aspects of the healthcare system if those lobbies fail to do the politician's bidding. Yea. Never any intention of a national reform. Oh, besides the Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act of 1993. http://kaiserhealthnews.org/news/gop-1993-health-reform-bill/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 Yea. Never any intention of a national reform. Oh, besides the Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act of 1993. http://kaiserhealthnews.org/news/gop-1993-health-reform-bill/ Granted, I certainly haven't read the whole thing. But it seems to include an individual mandate. And an employer mandate. And "nondiscrimination based on health status". (Is that "coverage for pre-existing conditions"?) Seems to put the IRS in charge of a lot of data collection and enforcement of the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 (edited) There's three issues: 1. Insuring people that weren't insurable before 2. Insuring people that were insurable, but didn't have insurance, but then ended up having some sort of catastrophic event. 3. Actually doing something to lower healthcare costs/spending. The ACA does something with all 3 of those things. There was little to no motivation before to insure high risk (i.e. pre-existing conditions). The ACA simultaneously makes it a requirement and decreases the incentive not to by capping profits. The ACA strongly encourages the group in #2 to get insurance. The ACA does things to do things like limit re-hospitalization, which everybody agrees raises health care usage and therefore spending. There are some other things in the ACA that are similarly driven. Some will work. Some will not. Over time we can discard the ones that won't. That's a pretty good combination. Edited November 13, 2014 by PeterMP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrong Direction Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 Yea. Never any intention of a national reform. Oh, besides the Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act of 1993. http://kaiserhealthnews.org/news/gop-1993-health-reform-bill/ Definitely wasn't aware of a bill from 1993. I confess. The politics have changed since then. That doesn't mean that the R response to Hillary-care was perfect...just that it was an alternative to something that likely provided even more government control. It certainly doesn't invalidate criticisms of the ACA. It just means that both parties have evolved over the last 21 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 Definitely wasn't aware of a bill from 1993. I confess. The politics have changed since then. That doesn't mean that the R response to Hillary-care was perfect...just that it was an alternative to something that likely provided even more government control. It certainly doesn't invalidate criticisms of the ACA. It just means that both parties have evolved over the last 21 years. Yea. Both have moved so far to the right that the Democrats can introduce Republican legislation from the post-Reagan world and be called socailists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now