Hey, it’s just a little “glitch.”
“Old spin: If you oppose ObamaCare it’s because you want kids to die! New spin: Hey, what’s a half-million kids in the scheme of things?”
One child’s loss of health coverage is a tragedy. Half a million of them is a statistic.
So because it’s not perfect out of the gate, we must scrap it?
If an aircraft or spacecraft designer discovers some bug or glitch in their vehicles, that proves man was never meant to fly and we should just shut down the whole thing?
Here’s a novel concept – instead of 42 wasted votes to repeal Obamacare and then trying to hold the entire government hostage, why don’t we actually find and fix the bugs?
It’s “bugs” all the way down.
not perfect out of the gate
Hilarious.
Other than that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?
Completely non-responsive to my question, I note. Perhaps because the answer is obvious.
It was perfectly responsive. You cram a shit sandwich down our throats, and then get upset when we don’t help “fix” it? There is nothing in it worth fixing. The entire premise of the bill is awful policy. And fortunately, it’s turned out to be awful politics, too.
There is nothing in it worth fixing.
The premise of your post is that it would be better if 500,000 kids didn’t lose coverage. That could be accomplished by the fixes mentioned in the linked article. But now you’re saying that it isn’t worth fixing the law to give those 500k kids coverage.
So are you genuinely concerned about those 500k kids, or just using their situation to score a point?
Um, the kids had coverage. The Democrats took it away.
The premise of your post is that it would be better if 500,000 kids didn’t lose coverage. That could be accomplished by the fixes mentioned in the linked article. But now you’re saying that it isn’t worth fixing the law to give those 500k kids coverage.
The problem here is that various groups get to set policies and create the problems. Then the rest of us get to pony up for the resulting costs of the necessary fixes. As I see it, if it wasn’t my short-sighted, terrible policy that caused those problems, then that means it’s not my responsibility to make that policy work.
Because the old system wasn’t perfect it had be be scrapped in favor of a predictable trainwreck?
If an aircraft or spacecraft designer discovers some bug or glitch in their vehicles, that proves man was never meant to fly and we should just shut down the whole thing?
Well, your analogy jumps a few sharks, but then you’ve never been good at logic.
why don’t we actually find and fix the bugs?
Excellent idea, so let’s defund it until the bugs are fixed. No need to put a flawed process out there that will harm business and people. Better to delay indefinitely until the bugs are worked out. See, it’s a GOP compromise. They aren’t scrapping the law, just postponing it indefinitely by defunding it’s implementation.
let’s defund it until the bugs are fixed
Obamacare with bug fixes would be better than Obamacare with bugs, but Obamacare with bugs is still better than no Obamacare.
Obamacare with bugs is still better than no Obamacare.
That’s a good fascist sentiment, but actually, no Obamacare is better.
The premise of this thread is that it’s a tragedy for 500,000 kids to lose insurance coverage. Delaying Obamacare by a year would cost 11 million people insurance coverage.
It would have been better to work on the economy so people could afford to buy insurance because they have jobs. And/Or working on lowering the factors that drive costs so that more people could afford to buy insurance or pay out of pocket for health care.
There are always more choices than what is offered.
The premise of this thread is that it’s a tragedy for 500,000 kids to lose insurance coverage.
It is a tragedy that 500,000 kids that were covered are no longer covered because of fascist laws. If you want to live in a state that does such things, fine. But keep it in your state and out of the federal government.
Fortunately, a majority of the public is no longer stupid enough to believe that, going by the polls.
Going by the polls, the public opposes shutting down the government to defund Obamacare by 59-19.
Going by the Polls, and going by the only poll that counted
5 million more americans voted for Barack Obama
then Mitt Romney.
That was then. This is now.
That was then. This is now.
As of yesterday, the voters oppose shutting down the government to defund Obamacare 59-19. Even Republicans oppose it.
The House passed a CR that funds the entire government except for ACA. Looks like it is now in the hands of the Senate and the White House to determine whether or not they will shut down the government or agree to defund ACA
The Senate will strip the Obamacare defunding provision and send the continuing resolution back to the House. The House will either pass it (averting a shutdown), or make changes (e.g. adding language that delays the Obamacare individual mandate, approving Keystone XL, etc.) and send it back to the Senate.
It seems much more likely that the House will make changes. If they make changes there will be at least a temporary shutdown — there isn’t time for the Senate to pass a modified CR by the September 31 deadline. Depending on what the changes are, the Senate may pass the CR, or amend it and send it back. It could go back and forth for a while.
If we had voted in Mitt Romney, with his managerial skills, he would have gotten Health Care Reform to work and so established Mr. Obama’s legacy for enacting it into law. Mr. Obama hinted at the magnanimous thing of enacting the Big Things in his first term and stepping aside to let others bring them to fruition — much how the entrepreneur of the startup is asked to step aside in favor of professional management once an enterprise is established.
As it is, the Sibelius-Obama team doesn’t seem to have the wherewhithal to get Health Care Reform to function. Some of it is the bitter Republican opposition, but much of it is a core lack of experience to manage a project that size.
Obama has shown no rush to have this important legislation enacted. For something that was indeemed so important, it had to be passed before anyone could read it. And Obama forsaking a campaign promise to allow any passed bill to sit 5 days before he signed it. Yet, 4 years later, and Obama seems to waiver as many people as he can and wants to postpone the law by executive fiat. So if Obama’s not happy with it, he should want it defunded.
the Sibelius-Obama team doesn’t seem to have the wherewhithal to get Health Care Reform to function
As opposed to the teams that implemented Medicare, Medicaid, and the Medicare Part D expansion? All of them had big problems at launch, which were worked out over time. It helped that those administrations had assistance, rather than obstruction, from the opposing party.
The GOP isn’t going to the mattresses over Obamacare because they’re worried it will be poorly managed. They’re going all in because they rightly fear it will work well enough to become politically unstoppable.
They’re going all in because they rightly fear it will work well enough to become politically unstoppable.
LOL Keep dreaming. Even Obama is afraid to have this trainwreck start while he is still around to take the blame.
Even Obama is afraid to have this trainwreck start while he is still around to take the blame.
You don’t seem to get how Obama, and Democrats in general, look at this. Obama might be afraid to have Obamacare rollout happen in the middle of an election campaign. That’s one reason why it was scheduled to start this fall, and not next fall, and one reason why he has no interest in seeing the rollout postponed a year. Obama, and the rest of the party 1) still think Obamacare is good policy and 2) think that delaying it or bailing on it would hurt them more politically than seeing it through. Obama and the Democrats know they are stuck with Obamacare, and that their best option is to stick it out. That’s been the case since 2010.
For a look at how Democrats view this fight, see: “What Republicans don’t understand about the politics of Obamacare.
he has no interest in seeing the rollout postponed
Oh, so that statement about delaying the employer mandate by executive fiat was “grandstanding” by Obama. Thanks for the clarification.
delaying the employer mandate
Delaying the employer mandate — a minor, non-essential part of the policy — makes it easier to focus on the essential parts. Let me know when Obama delays something important: the exchanges, Medicaid expansion, or the individual mandate.
“Delaying the employer mandate — a minor, non-essential part of the policy”
It is just a small law, no one will care if it is ignored.
Why even have laws if Democrats are exempt from them? Oh I see what’s going on…
“As opposed to the teams that implemented Medicare, Medicaid, and the Medicare Part D expansion? All of them had big problems at launch, which were worked out over time. It helped that those administrations had assistance, rather than obstruction, from the opposing party.”
Yes.
“It is really insane when you think about it. In a sane world Obama and the Dems would be begging the House to delay Obamacare so they could try and fix the worst things about it and the story would be all about if the Republicans are so cynical they will do harm to the country in order to stick the Dems with the blame. Instead, in the insane world that is Washington, the story is about how cynical and evil the Republicans are for wanting to stop all of this harm from happening to the country.”
“John” commenting on Reason Web site
so they could try and fix the worst things about it
The Dems don’t need time to fix things, they need permission from John Boehner (who controls what bills come to the floor) and a few dozen GOP House votes. Delaying won’t help on either score.
Again, Jim, why is this situation better than repeal of Obamacare and starting over on health care reform? It’s not just one or two problems. I guess terrible law is just fine as long as you have someone to blame. Then you don’t really need to do anything. And compromise is fine as long as someone else is doing the compromising.
Personally, I’d rather we just did it over now rather than grudgingly admit in a decade or two that this was a disaster. Obamacare has fundamental problems. It does nothing to curb health care costs aside from some cost controls on Medicare (which may just mean that good doctors in expensive/urban parts of the country no longer serve Medicare) and introduces several new features which greatly increase the cost of health insurance. It’s unconstitutional in at least two ways (individual mandate, lack of severability). It’s overly complex for what it tried to do (a lot of garbage and pork got in and if costs go up enough, which I think they will, doesn’t actually improve health insurance coverage). It was hasty and poorly conceived. And someone has to pay for this.
Ultimately, the problem is that the key problem of US health care, high costs and the mechanics which make that so, are never addressed except in ways that would aggravate them. A bad fix which makes the key problems worse is worse than no fix at all.
why is this situation better than repeal of Obamacare and starting over on health care reform?
Going forward with Obamacare means that 10+ million more people have coverage in 2014, and more in following years. Repealing Obamacare means that they don’t, and may not for decades. Starting over means waiting until there’s a House majority, 60 Senators and President all in agreement about what to do. Teddy Roosevelt started talking about health coverage over a century ago, and the issue was taken up by a number of leaders after him, but it was 2010 before the political stars were sufficiently aligned to pass a law.
If someone thinks they have a plan that’s better than Obamacare, they should propose a bill that replaces Obamacare with this new system, and get Congress to pass it. In the meantime, let those tens of millions of people get coverage.
It does nothing to curb health care costs aside from some cost controls on Medicare
It’s at least partly responsible for the biggest downturn in health care inflation that we’ve seen in decades.
It was hasty and poorly conceived
The basic plan outline was first proposed (by Republicans opposed to Hillarycare) in the mid-90s. It got a trial run in MA starting in the early 2000s. A half-dozen Congressional committees worked on the legislation for a year, for a full-rollout beginning four years later. All told it’s been 20 years in the making. If you want a less-hasty process for your replacement law, you’re looking at a rollout in the 2040s at the earliest.
problem is that the key problem of US health care, high costs and the mechanics which make that so, are never addressed
If that’s what you think the key problem is, you should be thrilled with what’s been happening to health care inflation since Obamacare passed. In a world where it hadn’t passed, we’d be spending much more — the CBO has already cut $600B from its projected health care spending over the next decade. $600B! Really, if health care costs are your concern, you should check out what’s been happening. E.g.:
PwC’s Health Research Institute projects historic slowdown in healthcare spending growth for 2014
Medical Costs Register First Decline Since 1970s
“It helped that those administrations had assistance, rather than obstruction, from the opposing party.”
Uhh. Are you talking about the Democrats in congress while Bush was president? We clearly have differing memories of how obstructionist the Democrats were just like how civil the discourse was during those years.
Are you talking about the Democrats in congress while Bush was president
Yes.
We clearly have differing memories of how obstructionist the Democrats were
I’m not consulting my memory, I’m basing my opinion on the record. Democrats in Congress helped Bush fix Medicare Part D. You can look it up.
how civil the discourse was
It isn’t about civil discourse, it’s about votes.
“It helped that those administrations had assistance, rather than obstruction, from the opposing party.”
Yes, sad to say, there have always been collaborationists willing to help statism. They were called “Rockefeller Republicans,” now we call them “Country Club Republicans.” In the 18th Century, they were called “Tories.”
“It isn’t about civil discourse, it’s about votes.”
That sums up the Democrat mentality. Thanks for letting the mask slip. But Democrats should play by the same rules they hold others to.
“I’m not consulting my memory, I’m basing my opinion on the record.”
I base my opinion on the record of congressional Democrat’s conduct. Obstructionist is an accurate term to describe it, which is why it is strange seeing you claim the Democrats did not act this way. Oh wait you are talking about a single issue, well you need to look at the totality of what went on.
I am certain we can find many examples of Republicans working with Obama and the Democrats on certain issues, just not always the issues you think they should, but you would still call the Republicans obstructionists.
Really, you compare ObamaCare to MannedFlight and expect that folks don’t take you seriously. The are on two completely different stratas, Chris.
In your analogy, you would have been better suited by saying “If an aircraft or spacecraft designer came up with some bugs or glitches, that proves that mission was never meant to go and needed to be scrapped”.
Answer: Yes, Chris, the mission (ObamaCare) never should have been passed (launched) so quickly as to not find the ‘glitches’.
I wouldn’t get on an airplane (or launch a satellite) that had just a few of the ‘glitches’ that have been found in ObamaCare, much less all of them.
Try another straw-man next time.
Well, what sense does it make for an employer to pay for the health care costs of workers’ families when those families don’t actually show up and work for the employer? They’re just leeching of a working person’s salary and benefits. Fortunately the progressive Congress, in their wisdom, put a stop to such nonsense. The idea that Republicans would try to once again burden working people with employer health insurance costs just shows that Republicans hate working people, and they shouldn’t now try to second guess the genius of people who actually care about workers. Besides, if an employee did take his children to the doctor, they’d probably be put down and have their organs harvested because of some other screw up in the law.
It’s almost like no one read this thing before they signed the bill or voted on it…
There are those people who think that Government can solve all problems. They cannot be saved, move on.
Government is the problem.
We have to repeal it in order to see where the bugs are…
Mike Walsh said it best:
“Only a child, a moron, or a Democrat could believe that you could take a system as complex as medical care/insurance, impose a collectivist solution to a non-existent problem upon it, and expect the markets to function as before, only this time cheaper.”
We do have one piece of evidence on how the insurance markets are functioning under Obamacare, and that’s the exchange premiums that have been announced. As reported yesterday, in 94% of cases they are lower than forecast by the CBO — estimates that were criticized as being too optimistic. The insurance companies — the people with the most money on the line — apparently do expect the markets to function as before, only cheaper.
Sounds like a massive case of adverse selection. Customers with well bove average cost health needs may be getting matched against insurers who don’t have the assets to cover the obligations they’re dishing out. That would be the first thing I’d look at given your statement, assuming it’s true.