How to Get Republicans to Support the Affordable Care Act

[Andrew D]

If the Democrats lose seats in Congress in 2014, that will be nothing but same old same old. The party that holds the presidency for a second term just about always loses seats in Congress in the second-term midterm election. The only one since FDR not to do so was Clinton, and it didn't help him much.

The Republicans could be making a suicidal mistake by betting everything on the failure of the Affordable Care Act. (Do they have anything else? From what I've been seeing lately, Republican legislators, pundits, and operatives have been blaming the ACA for everything from bad weather to belly lint.)

By November of 2014, the ACA might be a smashing success. We know some of the good it has already done for millions of Americans -- extended provision of health care to young adults under their parents' plans, eliminating the preexisting-conditions problem, etc.

What if it goes swimmingly? What will the Republicans do then?

[rubato]

"...
Are you going to pay for it? If not, who is? Remember, the government makes $0 on it's own, and only has money taken from tax payers who's wages are declining (aka,less being collected by the gov).

We are already paying for it by unneccessarily killing and crippling people in their working years who would otherwise pay taxes and contribute to society, by killing children, by driving people into poverty and onto public assistance. By paying for tens of thousands for unwanted pregnancies and hundreds of thousands for unwanted children instead of paying a few hundred for effective birth control.

And fucking read the goddamn data (reproduced again by AndrewD above) we already pay too much for a stupid system which does not provide decent HC. WE ALREADY PAY TWICE AS MUCH AND GET SHIT FOR IT. We pay twice as much and get the worst outcome. The worst outcome. The reason that the CEOs of so many companies have said they prefer the Canadian system is BECAUSE IT IS CHEAPER OVERALL.

But to be blunt. I and people in my economic class should pay more in taxes anyway. I have said this consistently for years in this space.

yrs,
rubato

[Gob]

Get a job then.

[Lord Jim]

As even this moron must know, if he really wanted to pay more in taxes, he could do it right now; the government is happy to take the money.

The only thing that prevents this of course is that the bulk of the money involved was earned by his wife, so how much to pay in taxes isn't his decision. (His paltry contribution to the household income probably doesn't even cover their taxes now.)

[oldr_n_wsr]

And fucking read the goddamn data (reproduced again by AndrewD above) we already pay too much for a stupid system which does not provide decent HC.

And Obamacare is making it worse. People who, while not totally happy with their health plans were prety mch satisfied with what they had, are getting to pay more in terms of premiums and deductables.

You know I read something the other day and I generally agree with what was written. I'm paraphrasing as I do not have a photgraphic memory
Basically it said:
It took 3+ years from the time the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor until the Nazis were defeated. In that time we mobilized millions of people, built thousands of planes, tanks, guns, ammo, etc, all that was needed to win the war.

It was 3+ from the time the ACA was signed into law to the roll out of the website. And that rollout was an unmitigated disaster.

How is it we can do what was needed to win a world war but in about the same time we cannot roll out a working website?

[Guinevere]

We just changed providers -- from one class A provider to another (Harvard to BCBS), with about the same coverage. Got all the information last week. My deductible stays the same, my co-pay goes down, my monthly premium goes down (including on the dental piece as well), my out of pocket stays about the same.

I don't see what all the kerfluffle is about -- if my small firm can negotiate a good deal, then just about anyone else should be able to find a similar package that works.

[Big RR]

[quote]took 3+ years from the time the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor until the Nazis were defeated. In that time we mobilized millions of people, built thousands of planes, tanks, guns, ammo, etc, all that was needed to win the war.

It was 3+ from the time the ACA was signed into law to the roll out of the website. And that rollout was an unmitigated disaster.

How is it we can do what was needed to win a world war but in about the same time we cannot roll out a working website?]/quote]

How? Well, first of all, because we had a bipartisan effort to fight the war and commit whatever resources were needed to winning; quite a difference from the bickering on ACA. Second, because the business community got behind it as well. And then we had a host of allies doing their best to help, including the Russians who distracted most of the vehrmacht troops on the eastern front, leaving more reserves to fight us. Third, because we allowed the mistakes to be made and learned from; we didn't wait until 1945 to start fighting actual battles, although we couldn't test the site under actual conditions until late this years. We had plenty of starts and stops in the 1941-1945 period of time, but we learned from them and ultimately won.

And while the rollout had serious problems, it was hardly an unmitigated disaster; people are getting coverage, often at reasonable rates, as Guin said. Have your rates or coverage changed much; I have a small group (2) and mine haven't, even as next year looms. And I still get coverage for my kids in their 20s, something I didn't have until the ACA passed 3 years ago.

[Guinevere]

Good point BigRR -- I was uninsured while I was in law school, because I was paying that freight on my own and just couldn't afford health insurance and couldn't stay on my parents plan. I blew out my knee during a winter hike, and had to go without treatment for far too long, and have a permanent screwed up knee as a result. If I had been able to stay on Dad's plan, I would have had excellent affordable treatment, right away.

[Big RR]

Guin--something similar happened to me; I broke a toe when I was in college (skiing) and just taped it up because I had no insurance. It still points a little bit the wrong way.

[oldr_n_wsr]

quite a difference from the bickering on ACA. Second, because the business community got behind it as well.

Bickering was a congress thing. The law was the law and should have been developed properly while letting congress complain/fight/whatever. Congress had no play in the design/execution of the ACA site. And with a cost of $600million I'm sure plenty of businesses would have jumped at the chance to design that site.

And Giun and BigRR, I'm glad you're companies have been able to hold the cost/coverage. I'll see next near when the corporate part rolls out. For now, I know my deductable and copay have gone up. Ded. went from 0 to $500 (but at least that doesn't apply to routine checkups) and copay from $20-$30 for 2014.

[Scooter]

[rubato]

Guin--something similar happened to me; I broke a toe when I was in college (skiing) and just taped it up because I had no insurance. It still points a little bit the wrong way.

I broke a toe when I was in high school and asked my dad, a doctor, what I should do and he said "just tape it the toe next to it and wear boots with stiff soles". So I did. Painful for a while but worked ok.

Yrs,
Rubato

[rubato]

"...

It was 3+ from the time the ACA was signed into law to the roll out of the website. And that rollout was an unmitigated disaster.

How is it we can do what was needed to win a world war but in about the same time we cannot roll out a working website?

In WWII we started with equipment which was often not very good and not enough of it, officers who were not experienced, and little knowledge of strategy and logistics. We coped by killing and crippling tens of thousands of GIs unneccessarily the war took longer than it might have and millions of civilians in Asia and Europe were killed as a result.

And this is after George Marshall spent years preparing for the war.


So far the ACA is a raving success compared to that.

That is an amazingly poor analogy.

Yrs,
Rubato

[oldr_n_wsr]

So far the ACA is a raving success compared to that.

If you think so.

IMHO a website (even as complex as the ACA) is a simple matter compared to going into, and winning, a world war.

[Crackpot]

You were the one that brought the I apt comparison int the discussion.

[oldr_n_wsr]

The comparison was about how long the ACA had to bring on line a website to how long it took to win a world war. Both were in the 3 year area. It also highlighted what it took to win that war (mobilization of people, machinary, logistics, etc) with the IMHO simplicity of the design and execution of the website.

To me, the war effort was a much larger undertaking than the ACA website and thus should and could have been up and working in a quicker time frame and for much less than the reported $600milion.

You opinion may be different.

[rubato]

WW II 416,000 U.S. Dead. USSR 8,700,000 to 13,850,000 dead. &c.

That is how we did it

The comparison is insane.

[Crackpot]

How many people had to due to get the ACA up and running?

[oldr_n_wsr]

I am not comparing deaths, I am comparing the monumental logistics it took to mobilize a country and fight a world war on two fronts with the comparably simple matter of designing and implementing a web site. Both took the same amount of time. One was completed and one failed.

Time line and logistics.

[Crackpot]

So you're saying she should have mobilized the entire country and taken over private businesses in order to implement Obamacare?