sd'sker Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 In all seriousness though, I suppose that this is exactly why the GOP fought so hard to kill it before the benefits began. It's hard to maintain the breathless fear and outrage when your purported victims are actually better off. shows how shortsighted they were. they should have jumped on the bandwagon early and this could have been a bipartisan success (and perhaps they could have legitimately discussed alternatives on the bill that they would have liked). instead, they went all in to make it a failure in hopes to convince the voting public that obama and anything the gov't does will be a failure and now they might end up on the wrong side of the issue. also, this is a very conservative solution to a problem that should be solved with a single payer system. it is a better compromise than they could have ever dreamed of, and they fought it tooth and nail. 2 Link to comment
carlfense Posted March 12, 2014 Author Share Posted March 12, 2014 In all seriousness though, I suppose that this is exactly why the GOP fought so hard to kill it before the benefits began. It's hard to maintain the breathless fear and outrage when your purported victims are actually better off. shows how shortsighted they were. they should have jumped on the bandwagon early and this could have been a bipartisan success (and perhaps they could have legitimately discussed alternatives on the bill that they would have liked). instead, they went all in to make it a failure in hopes to convince the voting public that obama and anything the gov't does will be a failure and now they might end up on the wrong side of the issue. also, this is a very conservative solution to a problem that should be solved with a single payer system. it is a better compromise than they could have ever dreamed of, and they fought it tooth and nail. . . . but that would have virtually guaranteed Obama's re-election. The GOP made a calculated decision to deny Obama any sort of bipartisan success and then attempted to portray him as a relentless partisan. That strategy failed miserably in 2012 but it is arguably working just fine (if we define working as GOP gains) in the mid-terms. The strategy seems pretty contemptuous of the GOP base . . . but I suppose that shouldn't surprise anyone. Link to comment
sd'sker Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 . . . but that would have virtually guaranteed Obama's re-election. The GOP made a calculated decision to deny Obama any sort of bipartisan success and then attempted to portray him as a relentless partisan. That strategy failed miserably in 2012 but it is arguably working just fine (if we define working as GOP gains) in the mid-terms. The strategy seems pretty contemptuous of the GOP base . . . but I suppose that shouldn't surprise anyone. i guess that is true. they could have had romney be some 'adviser' and the creator of ACA, so at least it would not have been a liability for him. Link to comment
carlfense Posted March 12, 2014 Author Share Posted March 12, 2014 . . . but that would have virtually guaranteed Obama's re-election. The GOP made a calculated decision to deny Obama any sort of bipartisan success and then attempted to portray him as a relentless partisan. That strategy failed miserably in 2012 but it is arguably working just fine (if we define working as GOP gains) in the mid-terms. The strategy seems pretty contemptuous of the GOP base . . . but I suppose that shouldn't surprise anyone. i guess that is true. they could have had romney be some 'adviser' and the creator of ACA, so at least it would not have been a liability for him. Right . . . and that whole acting in the public good bit. Link to comment
carlfense Posted March 25, 2014 Author Share Posted March 25, 2014 http://acasignups.net/graph Link to comment
TGHusker Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2014/03/27/Hospitals-Plot-End-Insurance-Companies Carl & others, I'd like to know your thoughts on this article. I haven't taken the time to review everything about it. I just saw and thought it might add to the discussion. Link to comment
strigori Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 Doesnt look like a bad idea. And maybe another stepping stone to single payer. Looks, on the surface, to have a chance at better decision making and cutting out some level of middlemen. Link to comment
TGHusker Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 Doesnt look like a bad idea. And maybe another stepping stone to single payer. Looks, on the surface, to have a chance at better decision making and cutting out some level of middlemen. That was my thought - cutting out the middleman could reduce costs. I have talked to various types of doctors and so many are being squeezed by insurance companies paying less and less. Some docs offer one rate for payment via insurance and another if you paid the doc direct. Some are now refusing any type of insurance. Not sure how ObamaCare affects this practice but I do know the day of the independent 'family' doctor has gone the way of the corporate doc primarily due to insurance issues. Most family docs, I believe, did not intend to work in a large health care organization as just an employee. Link to comment
carlfense Posted March 28, 2014 Author Share Posted March 28, 2014 Some docs offer one rate for payment via insurance and another if you paid the doc direct. True for most. Link to comment
carlfense Posted March 31, 2014 Author Share Posted March 31, 2014 Reality, however, is stubborn. It’s eerily reminiscent of Election Night 2012 – conservatives had spent months telling themselves that the polls are wrong, the evidence was skewed, and the facts had been manipulated by rascally liberals, so they were absolutely shocked when President Obama won a second term rather easily. A year and a half later, conservatives have told each other repeatedly that the entire federal health care system is collapsing, “Obamacare” has entered an inescapable a “death spiral,” and consumers simply have no interest in signing up for coverage. The epistemic closure was unyielding and effective. Which makes it easier to understand why confused senators would rather believe the White House is “cooking the books” than deal with the facts as they exist. http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/gop-struggles-obamacare-surge#break Link to comment
carlfense Posted March 31, 2014 Author Share Posted March 31, 2014 Well . . . feeling pretty good about my prediction about how this thing is going to work. Far from ideal, but miles better than the status quo. The first yearly sign-up period for Obamacare closes today, with early returns suggesting the administration may near a projection of 7 million enrollees made before the U.S. health exchange struggled at its startup. http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-03-30/obamacare-enrollment-heads-to-7-million-initial-goal-at-deadline Link to comment
Junior Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 LOL....MSNBC. Is there a specific critique you have of the article? Or just can't really refute anything said in it, so you are generally lamenting the source? Link to comment
ZRod Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 Let's just chop of 70% of the chart so we can make our point! Link to comment
Recommended Posts