Obamacare is the law of the land

[gman1225]

So when Obama says reforms will lower the cost of health care, what he means is that they will eventually slow the rate of growth of health care expenses. This can be pretty confusing stuff.

Spinning is tough work.

[triggercut]

@gman1225

No, I’m suggesting “affected” does not mean “lose coverage.”

“Losing coverage”, how?

Because there’s “We no longer cover you” losing coverage, and then there’s “Surprise, here’s your new premium based on your pre-existing condition” losing coverage in a few months.

At any rate, the point raised by the article remains. This is a losing proposition for Republicans in a huge number of districts.

[gman1225]

Here we go again!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/president-obamas-claim-that-insurance-premiums-will-go-down/2012/08/09/424048f2-e245-11e1-a25e-15067bb31849_blog.html?utm_term=.dee323597690

“The other thing we’ve done is to say, what are the critical needs of small business? A lot of time, one of the biggest challenges is to make sure that you, as a sole proprietor, that you can get health insurance for you and your family. So when you hear about the Affordable Care Act — Obamacare — and I don’t mind the name because I really do care. That’s why we passed it. You should know that once we have fully implemented, you’re going to be able to buy insurance through a pool so that you can get the same good rates as a group that if you’re an employee at a big company you can get right now — which means your premiums will go down.” — President Obama, campaign speech in Cincinnati, July 16, 2012

[gman1225]

@triggercut

Because there’s “We no longer cover you” losing coverage, and then there’s “Surprise, here’s your new premium based on your pre-existing condition” losing coverage in a few months.

A great question. I believe the CBO’s data referred to the first kind (“We no longer cover you”), in arriving at the 3.5 percent figure.

[Soapyfrog]

@gman1225

Spinning is tough work.

I mean it seems like you are the one who is spinning; the ACA did reduce costs for the average American, but because more Americans were covered the overall cost went up (though this was expected and accounted for). Lastly the rate of increase in cost slowed considerably, which certainly is a benefit as well.

Still not univeral healthcare though. You guys should try that.

[Timex]

@gman1225

I’m not sure where the dogged desire to preserve what’s left of Obamacare from the Democratic states comes from. They are going to court to defend the Obamacare, even without the individual mandate tax that was its one chance of sustaining itself.

Because they don’t want millions of people to lose their access to healthcare? They don’t want people who are unfortunate enough to have pre existing conditions like diabetes or cancer to have their lives entirely ruined, and be forced to lose everything they own or die?

What part of this don’t you understand?

Perhaps more importantly, why is this a thing that you want?

[John_Doyle]

@Timex

I’m not sure where the dogged desire to preserve what’s left of Obamacare from the Democratic states comes from. They are going to court to defend the Obamacare, even without the individual mandate tax that was its one chance of sustaining itself.

I agree. The ACA has been destroyed by the Republicans. Democrats are moving on to embrace single payer solutions. Thanks Obama.

[triggercut]

@John_Doyle

@Timex

I’m not sure where the dogged desire to preserve what’s left of Obamacare from the Democratic states comes from. They are going to court to defend the Obamacare, even without the individual mandate tax that was its one chance of sustaining itself.

I agree. The ACA has been destroyed by the Republicans. Democrats are moving on to embrace single payer solutions. Thanks Obama.

Honestly wouldn’t surprise me a bit if single payer and legalized marijuana were both party of the official party platform in 2020. Some of that may depend on who the nominee is. (It’s hard for me to imagine Joe Biden getting behind legalization.)

[Timex]

The Democrats really need to run someone who isn’t a thousand years old.

[triggercut]

@Timex

The Democrats really need to run someone who isn’t a thousand years old.

I agree. And legalization is a winning issue for them.

[Timex]

Yes, it would likely get college kids to turn out to the polls too.

[CraigM]

All of this

@Timex

The Democrats really need to run someone who isn’t a thousand years old.

And this.

As to @gman1225’s question on why democrats are fighting to preserve what’s left of the ACA? Because preserving things like age based pricing restrictions and pre existing conditions positively impacts millions of people’s lives in ways that, not to put too fine a point on it, probably literally save some of their lives.

[inactive_user]

@CraigM

probably literally save some of their lives.

If only we knew some people who are examples of this, in order to humanize the proposed series of tragedies needed to fund the next donor giveaway.

[CraigM]

I know. It’s not like you and Tom are living examples of people who, without the ACA, would either not be alive or be permanently financially ruined. Certainly that wouldn’t feed into your strong opinions on the GOP.

[Banzai]

[Papageno]

Nice tools!

[RichVR]

It’s missing a picture of the biggest one. The tool he’s replying to.

[Oghier]

@Timex

The Democrats really need to run someone who isn’t a thousand years old.

I couldn’t agree more. As much as I like Biden and Warren, I don’t want to see either on the ticket. We need to be done with baby boomer leadership.

I see healthcare, legalization and economic opportunity for all as winning issues. With the GOP going full brownshirt, I think the racial/ immigration issues take care of themselves.

(Note, that does not mean I don’t think dems should pursue progressive policies on those issues – I do – just that highlighting them during the campaign is redundant when you’re running against a modern nazi party).

[Scuzz]

@Soapyfrog

the ACA did reduce costs for the average American,

I think the only people who had costs reduced are those who had the government pay most of the bill. Now if you mean rising costs were reduced then I guess that’s true, although for those who have seen their monthly health insurance bills go up every year that is little consolation.

Insurance before the ACA was a mess, and insurance with ACA was a mess for most of us. The GOP blames Obama (ACA) for the current state of health insurance but that rock slide started long before he got in office.

[abidingdude]

Deja vu all over again

Topher Spiro (TopherSpiro)