• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

GOP Nightmare, Obamacare Popularity Soars

Perotista said:
Perhaps I don't understand what you say I don't understand. I was referring to our discussion about input from the GOP. I was one of those who thought the Republicans had no input what so ever in the drafting of the ACA. You corrected me on that. What I do not understand why is it so important that the mandates was a Republican Idea back in 1993 or when ever. If the Democrats thought it was a bad idea back then, then why put it into their legislation of 2009 and vice versa. Is this a blaming game or what. I fail to see the relevance of who first came up with the idea, whether it was Heritage or not. It, the mandates was adopted by the Democrats in 2009, so they must have thought they were a pretty good idea, at least back in 2009. Do they, the Democrats think the mandates are a bad idea now and are now trying to put the onus on the Heritage/Republicans for it?

It is awful important to some who's idea the mandates originally was. I don't think it matters. The mandates are part of the law, it is that simple. Perhaps I am missing something, I can be rather dense at times. Personally I just don't care whose idea they were. I just wondered why it is so important to others.
Click to expand...

There's a reason why DP has an Ignore list.:peace
 
Jack Hays said:
There's a reason why DP has an Ignore list.:peace
Click to expand...

Jack, I have never used it and never will. At least I think I never will. I have learned quite a bit on DP, stuff I didn't know. Stuff I write down and check out later. Being on here can be a learning experience and it can be a very frustrating one at times. I just do not see the relevance of who originally thought of the mandates. Regardless of who did, the democrats either came up with them on their own or adopted them as their own. If it makes them feel better by adoption, that is fine with me. The mandates have nothing to do as to why I oppose the law anyway. I was just curious.
 
Perotista said:
Perhaps I don't understand what you say I don't understand. I was referring to our discussion about input from the GOP. I was one of those who thought the Republicans had no input what so ever in the drafting of the ACA. You corrected me on that. What I do not understand why is it so important that the mandates was a Republican Idea back in 1993 or when ever.
Click to expand...

Because, the fact that the dems included republican ideas proves that the repubs did have input.

The fact that every repub voted against ACA, after having been allowed input to the bill, only demonstrates the sort of partisanship you don't like.

It's just like how the republicans used to support cap and trade, until Obama proposed putting cap and trade into legislation. Then, the repubs decided that cap and trade was a bad idea.

If the Democrats thought it was a bad idea back then, then why put it into their legislation of 2009 and vice versa. Is this a blaming game or what.
Click to expand...

Actually, dems have been split on the individual mandate. Clinton and others supported it in the 90's. Generally, the more moderate wing of the DNC has supported individual mandates (accompanied by business mandates) while the left wing has opposed it.


I fail to see the relevance of who first came up with the idea, whether it was Heritage or not. It, the mandates was adopted by the Democrats in 2009, so they must have thought they were a pretty good idea, at least back in 2009. Do they, the Democrats think the mandates are a bad idea now and are now trying to put the onus on the Heritage/Republicans for it?
Click to expand...

Actually, who exactly came up with the idea is of lesser importance IMO than the fact that it found wide support amongst republicans. That is, until Obama decided that it was a good idea.

It is awful important to some who's idea the mandates originally was. I don't think it matters. The mandates are part of the law, it is that simple. Perhaps I am missing something, I can be rather dense at times. Personally I just don't care whose idea they were. I just wondered why it is so important to others.
Click to expand...

Because it demonstrates how the republicans opposition to ACA is motivated by politics, and not a sincere belief in the merits of what ACA does.
 
Threegoofs said:
To hide dissenting opinions and to never have to learn from anyone?

That explains a lot, actually.
Click to expand...

Thanks, but don't worry about it

Perotista is one of the fairest minded posters on DP. Unlike some others, he has nothing to fear from those with opinions that differ from his own.
 
sangha said:
Thanks, but don't worry about it

Perotista is one of the fairest minded posters on DP. Unlike some others, he has nothing to fear from those with opinions that differ from his own.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

But I wasnt referring to Perotista...
 
Perotista said:
Perhaps I don't understand what you say I don't understand. I was referring to our discussion about input from the GOP. I was one of those who thought the Republicans had no input what so ever in the drafting of the ACA. You corrected me on that. What I do not understand why is it so important that the mandates was a Republican Idea back in 1993 or when ever. If the Democrats thought it was a bad idea back then, then why put it into their legislation of 2009 and vice versa. Is this a blaming game or what. I fail to see the relevance of who first came up with the idea, whether it was Heritage or not. It, the mandates was adopted by the Democrats in 2009, so they must have thought they were a pretty good idea, at least back in 2009. Do they, the Democrats think the mandates are a bad idea now and are now trying to put the onus on the Heritage/Republicans for it?

It is awful important to some who's idea the mandates originally was. I don't think it matters. The mandates are part of the law, it is that simple. Perhaps I am missing something, I can be rather dense at times. Personally I just don't care whose idea they were. I just wondered why it is so important to others.
Click to expand...

Lots of people have lots of ideas that never go anywhere. I guess we should all be thankful for that! However, in the case of the ACA, the Dems decided to make the mandate part of their ACA law. The Republicans had nothing to do with that decision. This is nothing but a means to shift blame for a badly written law. When Max Baucus, one of the Dem architects of the ACA, called the ACA a "trainwreck," Pelosi and Reid should have listened to him, and taken the idea of the mandate out of the proposed law, but they saw money in it, and decided to incorporate it. It's not the Republican's fault that the Dems made a mistake in judgment, but that mistake totally now belongs to them.

BTW, I find it amusing that anything they do that turns out to be a mistake is anybody's fault but theirs, but when it's something they like but no one else does, people are told "We won, get over it." Hmmm...I guess it's possible to want to have your cake and eat it to, but not this time! :no:
 
Oozlefinch said:
Uhhhh, out of a population of over 317 million people, Obamacare just passed 7 million enrollees.

That is what, around 2% of the population? So how in the hell can you come up with that kind of claim?

Not to mention that it now stands at 48%. What kind of claim is that, when not even half of the people support something? Talka bout a failure!
Click to expand...

It's not like all 317 million lacked health insurance. :roll:

But, imagine how many millions more could have signed up if Republicans hadn't played their obstructionist games, expanded Medicare in all those poor states and actually helped enroll people instead of whining about ACA's shortcommings like a bunch of cry babies.
 
ThreerGoofs063105753 said:
Calling it Obamacare is a Republican idea too.
Click to expand...

Well the AFFORDABLE Care Act just didn't fit if you knkw what I mean.

I wonder if you people and the corrupt politicians you defend realize that nothing pisses a voter off, like forcing him to pay 1 percent of his Annual Income to the IRS at the end of the year.

And whats so great, is that number goes UP every year, and by 2016, it will be 2.5 percent.


Was the Democrat party TRYING to piss off every voter who isn't on Medicaid ?
 
Fenton said:
Well the AFFORDABLE Care Act just didn't fit if you knkw what I mean.

I wonder if you people and the corrupt politicians you defend realize that nothing pisses a voter off, like forcing him to pay 1 percent of his Annual Income to the IRS at the end of the year.

And whats so great, is that number goes UP every year, and by 2016, it will be 2.5 percent.


Was the Democrat party TRYING to piss off every voter who isn't on Medicaid ?
Click to expand...

Only the dumb ones pay the penalty. The rest of us function in the health care market like normal people should.
 
sangha said:
Because, the fact that the dems included republican ideas proves that the repubs did have input.

The fact that every repub voted against ACA, after having been allowed input to the bill, only demonstrates the sort of partisanship you don't like.

It's just like how the republicans used to support cap and trade, until Obama proposed putting cap and trade into legislation. Then, the repubs decided that cap and trade was a bad idea.



Actually, dems have been split on the individual mandate. Clinton and others supported it in the 90's. Generally, the more moderate wing of the DNC has supported individual mandates (accompanied by business mandates) while the left wing has opposed it.




Actually, who exactly came up with the idea is of lesser importance IMO than the fact that it found wide support amongst republicans. That is, until Obama decided that it was a good idea.



Because it demonstrates how the republicans opposition to ACA is motivated by politics, and not a sincere belief in the merits of what ACA does.
Click to expand...

Thanks for taking the time and not saying it was just for laughs. you're correct, I hate straight party line voting with a passion, when that happens the folks that were elected to represent a district or state are basically telling those who sent them to D.C. to stuff it where the sun doesn't shine. Party is more important than the people who elected them. I do wonder what has happened to politics today, I long for the days of Mitchell and Dole instead of Reid and McConnell. I long for the day when a piece of legislation passed the senate by a 55-45 margin, you had 35 Dems voting Aye, 20 Dems voting Nay, 20 Reps voting Aye, 20 Rep voting nay. You knew then each senator voted the wishes of their state.

As to cap and trade, I have not paid any attention to it. I am not really sure what it is all about. I like Billy Boy, southerner to southerner speak. I never voted for him, voted for Perot twice. But he was right down home.

Okay, I think I got it now. The fact is what you're saying is the Republicans were all in favor of the mandates until proposed by President Obama and the democrats, then they suddenly became opposed to them. Sort of like the debt ceiling votes where the Democrats opposed any rise to the debt ceiling during Bush the second and the republicans were all in favor of raising the debt ceiling back then. Then once President Obama was elected, both parties took the others view on the debt ceiling as their own as we had a change in party in power.

I have never had any doubt that opposition and those in favor is nothing more than politics. When 80% plus of all democrats support it while 90% of all Republicans are against the ACA, that pretty well spells it out. That leaves the independents, those that are not aligned with either party to decide its fate I suppose. Right now the split among independents is roughly 35% in favor 60% against thus creating the gap of roughly 12-15 points advantage in the opposition.

But one thing about the indies, they can change their mind on a spin of a dime. Remember in 2008, 55% of independent voted for Obama and the Democrats, in 2010 they switched to the Republicans with 56% of them voting for GOP candidate and in 2012, they split roughly even, 50-50. Time will tell, but I do wonder now with 4 years gone, if most Independents haven't become set in their minds about the ACA. If so and I do not know if it is true or not, that could be bad news for both the ACA and the Democratic Party.
 
sangha said:
Actually, who exactly came up with the idea is of lesser importance IMO than the fact that it found wide support amongst republicans. That is, until Obama decided that it was a good idea.



Because it demonstrates how the republicans opposition to ACA is motivated by politics, and not a sincere belief in the merits of what ACA does.
Click to expand...

You would have a more persuasive point about the mandate if it in fact had ever found wide support among Repubs. It never did. It found spotty support. That's why it was never adopted as a party position. BHO was incidental.:peace
 
polgara said:
Lots of people have lots of ideas that never go anywhere. I guess we should all be thankful for that! However, in the case of the ACA, the Dems decided to make the mandate part of their ACA law. The Republicans had nothing to do with that decision. This is nothing but a means to shift blame for a badly written law. When Max Baucus, one of the Dem architects of the ACA, called the ACA a "trainwreck," Pelosi and Reid should have listened to him, and taken the idea of the mandate out of the proposed law, but they saw money in it, and decided to incorporate it. It's not the Republican's fault that the Dems made a mistake in judgment, but that mistake totally now belongs to them.

BTW, I find it amusing that anything they do that turns out to be a mistake is anybody's fault but theirs, but when it's something they like but no one else does, people are told "We won, get over it." Hmmm...I guess it's possible to want to have your cake and eat it to, but not this time! :no:
Click to expand...

Pol, as far as I am concerned, the whole ACA belongs to the democrats. With its passage the democrats now own healthcare in the good USA lock, stock and barrel. Whether or not what happens has anything to do with the ACA, the good, the bad and the indifferent will be placed on the Democrats. I do not think they realize they own healthcare, the entire healthcare now. Perception or how one perceives something when it comes to politics is much more important than truth or fact. So much with politics is decided on whom or what party speaks the loudest and has the biggest audience.
 
Perotista said:
Okay, I think I got it now. The fact is what you're saying is the Republicans were all in favor of the mandates until proposed by President Obama and the democrats, then they suddenly became opposed to them. .
Click to expand...



That's actually not an accurate statement, nor was sangha's statement that "who exactly came up with the idea is of lesser importance IMO than the fact that it found wide support amongst republicans. That is, until Obama decided that it was a good idea."

It never had "wide support" amongst the Republicans, which is what I've been posting.

19 out of 43 Republican Senators pushed the HEART Act in 1993. It contained an individual mandate. It got no further support beyond those 19, and in fact 1 of the 19 withdrew his support 11 months later.

And of those 19 Senators, only 3 were still in the Senate as Republicans at the time of the ACA proposals and votes: Robert Bennett, Kit Bond and Orrin Hatch. The 4th remaining Senator was Arlen Specter who switched to the Democratic Party prior to the ACA vote. All of the others who co-sponsored the HEART Act were gone in the late 1990s to early 2000s.

So why is this important? The constant chants from the pro-ACA folks/Democrats/anti-Republican/whatever that Republicans were for the individual mandate before they were against it only applies to3 Republicans who were still around 16 years later to vote for or have input in the ACA. There was never any wide acceptance of the individual mandate by the Republicans from the beginning (less than half of them supported it in 1993), and those who were in the Senate for the ACA vote, only these 3 supported the HEART Act in 1993.

Three.

This is why the statements are untrue. Kit Bond, Robert Bennett and Orrin Hatch - 3 Senators - do not support the incessant claims that all Republicans were for the individual mandate. It is disingenous for people to make that claim, and I've watched people repeat that same lie for the last 4 years.

Mitch McConnell, Richard Shelby, John Cornyn, Judd Gregg, John Cornyn, Saxvy Chambliss....etc, etc, etc. List all of the Republican Senators in 2009 except for Bond, Bennett & Hatch - none of them were in the Senate in 1993, none of them were in The Heritage Foundation in 1989, and none of them ever were in favor of the mandates before they voted against them in 2009.

It is very disturbing to see people rewriting history for partisan reasons.
 
tres borrachos said:
That's actually not an accurate statement, nor was sangha's statement that "who exactly came up with the idea is of lesser importance IMO than the fact that it found wide support amongst republicans. That is, until Obama decided that it was a good idea."

It never had "wide support" amongst the Republicans, which is what I've been posting.

19 out of 43 Republican Senators pushed the HEART Act in 1993. It contained an individual mandate. It got no further support beyond those 19, and in fact 1 of the 19 withdrew his support 11 months later.

And of those 19 Senators, only 3 were still in the Senate as Republicans at the time of the ACA proposals and votes: Robert Bennett, Kit Bond and Orrin Hatch. The 4th remaining Senator was Arlen Specter who switched to the Democratic Party prior to the ACA vote. All of the others who co-sponsored the HEART Act were gone in the late 1990s to early 2000s.

So why is this important? The constant chants from the pro-ACA folks/Democrats/anti-Republican/whatever that Republicans were for the individual mandate before they were against it only applies to3 Republicans who were still around 16 years later to vote for or have input in the ACA. There was never any wide acceptance of the individual mandate by the Republicans from the beginning (less than half of them supported it in 1993), and those who were in the Senate for the ACA vote, only these 3 supported the HEART Act in 1993.

Three.

This is why the statements are untrue. Kit Bond, Robert Bennett and Orrin Hatch - 3 Senators - do not support the incessant claims that all Republicans were for the individual mandate. It is disingenous for people to make that claim, and I've watched people repeat that same lie for the last 4 years.

Mitch McConnell, Richard Shelby, John Cornyn, Judd Gregg, John Cornyn, Saxvy Chambliss....etc, etc, etc. List all of the Republican Senators in 2009 except for Bond, Bennett & Hatch - none of them were in the Senate in 1993, none of them were in The Heritage Foundation in 1989, and none of them ever were in favor of the mandates before they voted against them in 2009.

It is very disturbing to see people rewriting history for partisan reasons.
Click to expand...

I was just curious to why it was important. I do know people change minds and attitudes over time. I don't begrudge them from doing so. I know I have change many of my opinions over my life time as to what I thought about certain issues and changed my voting habits more than a few times. I think I can understand your 19 senators being for the mandate back in 1993, their goal was to stop Hillarycare. Once that was accomplished, the situation changed.

I never paid any attention to the Heart Act as you called it, the Republican proposal back in 1993 as I knew it because it had zero chance of going anyplace. I didn't even know it was called the Heart Act. In fact I never heard of the mandates until the ACA came along. me and probably 99% of every other American are probably like that.
 
Perotista said:
I was just curious to why it was important. I do know people change minds and attitudes over time. I don't begrudge them from doing so. I know I have change many of my opinions over my life time as to what I thought about certain issues and changed my voting habits more than a few times. I think I can understand your 19 senators being for the mandate back in 1993, their goal was to stop Hillarycare. Once that was accomplished, the situation changed.

I never paid any attention to the Heart Act as you called it, the Republican proposal back in 1993 as I knew it because it had zero chance of going anyplace. I didn't even know it was called the Heart Act. In fact I never heard of the mandates until the ACA came along. me and probably 99% of every other American are probably like that.
Click to expand...

I don't begrudge 3 people changing their minds either, especially almost 2 decades later. But I also don't like to see false claims made against the ones who voted against the ACA and are somehow being held accountable for what their predecessors did years before.

Nobody paid attention to the HEART Act. I didn't even remember it until I read about it in a rant from a partisan on another message board back in 2009. In 1993 I was 30 years old and more interested in having fun than in politics. And yes, apparently the goal of those Republicans back in 1993 was to present something that "wasn't" Hillarycare.

Like I said, I wanted to point out that the people who say that the 2009 GOPers were for the mandate until Obama presented it are making false claims, but that's been par for the course for the last 5 years. It's said a lot - and it isn't true. There are only 3 people who need to explain why they changed their minds on the mandate when Obama presented it - Bond, Bennett & Hatch. Bond & Bennett both left the Senate in 2011. Only Hatch remains today.

But why it's important to the Democrats, Liberals, etc.? I don't know. They don't do themselves any good when they say it. I guess they think (incorrectly) that it makes the 2009 Republicans hypocrites or something.:shrug:
 
Threegoofs said:
Only the dumb ones pay the penalty. The rest of us function in the health care
market like normal people should.
Click to expand...

Yes, the people that can't afford a over priced policy because REAL idiots elected Jr Senator to run our Country are "dumb".

Hey, Dumb people vote. How do you think we got Obama in the first place.

And the way ObamaCare is set up paying the Fine will be the only option for more and more people because cost are going to con w to increase.
 
An interesting take on the long term impact of the ACA. Anyone who didn't see this coming has got to be willfully blind.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/coming-obamacare-shock-170-million-091500303.html

Either way, the ACA imposes massive costs on employers, whether those come in the form of fines, higher premiums, red tape, or a combination of all three. Businesses that have new and massive costs imposed on them by regulatory changes no longer can use that capital for investment, risk-taking, and expansion. That means fewer new jobs for Americans, and fewer opportunities to move up the economic ladder as well
Click to expand...
 
GottaGo said:
An interesting take on the long term impact of the ACA. Anyone who didn't see this coming has got to be willfully blind.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/coming-obamacare-shock-170-million-091500303.html
Click to expand...


Mornin' GG. Here is what comes with it. ;)


There are 21 new taxes under the ACA, including a 2.3 percent medical device sales tax estimated to raise $29 billion over 10 years, and a fee for brand-name drugs that will bring in another $34 billion. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that all new ACA taxes and fees will cost taxpayers more than $675 billion over the next decade.....snip~

- See more at: Consumers Hit With Surprise Tax in Obamacare Premium | The Fiscal Times

http://www.debatepolitics.com/obamacare-aca/189925-fact-sheet-obamacare-deadline-day-7.html
 
Threegoofs said:
Only the dumb ones pay the penalty. The rest of us function in the health care market like normal people should.
Click to expand...

Is this Friday?. It's okay to call poor people ( including many black people) dumb.

Tommorrow , when the issue is minimum wage or inequality or some other misguided liberal nonsense, the poor(including many blacks) will be back to being the exploited class, needed to be taken care of by the benificent Democrats.
 
I noticed several posts that state the ACA is purely a partisan issue. So what has changed? It was partisan back in 2009 before the law was passed and continues to be so today. Looking at these polls, compliments of RCP it shows how polarized the ACA was and still is. The ACA is a political issue, not necessarily one of healthcare.
September 2009
Based on what you know about the health care reform legislation being considered right now, do you favor or oppose the plan?
Democrats 60% favor 22% Oppose 18% Don’t Know/Unsure
Republicans 7% favor 85% Oppose 8% Don’t Know/Unsure
Independents 27% favor 57% Oppose 16% Don’t know/Unsure
All voters 33% favor 53% Oppose 14% Don’t Know/Unsure

March 2014
Do you favor or oppose the new national health care law that was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Obama in 2010?
Democrats 71% favor 24% Oppose 4% Don’t Know/Unsure
Republicans 12% favor 86% Oppose 2% Don’t Know/Unsure
Independents 34% favor 60% Oppose 6% Don’t Know/Unsure
All Voters 40% favor 56% Oppose 4% Don’t Know/Unsure

So what exactly has changed in 4 years, both Democrats and Republicans either favor or oppose the law down party lines, independents by about a 2-1 margin were against the ACA in the beginning and still are against it. The only changes I can see is those in favor increased 7 points and those opposed increased 3 points as those unsure/don’t knows have come off the fence to express their opinions. Overall the ACA is still a very partisan issue and there is little room in the undecided column for opinions to change, they haven’t changed much in 4 years and probably won’t change much for the foreseeable future. But those oppose in my opinion may come down as they finally accept the law, whether they like it or not. Is this the panacea the Democrats had hoped for?
 
The indirect costs of the ACA include but are not limited to the following:

•New supply-chain taxes passed onto employers (e.g., medical device tax).
•Increased take-up rates of employer offered coverage resulting from the individual mandate; and increased cost shifting from the expanded Medicaid coverage.
•In 2010, the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated the excise tax on high-cost plans would cost employers $32 billion from 2018 to 2019
•Eliminating the employer deduction for the Medicare Part D subsidy would cost employers $4.5 billion from 2013 to 2019.
• In 2012, an Urban Institute study estimated the ACA would increase large employer health care costs by 4.3 percent or $11.8 billion in 2012 alone.
•Another survey by the International Foundation of Employee Benefit Plans found the ACA increased actual large employer health care costs by an average of 3.5 percent in 2013.
•A recent survey from Mercer found the two biggest concerns employers have with the ACA are increased administrative burdens and the excise tax on high-cost plans, and they are taking a number of steps to address those concerns and mitigate the costs.
•Seventy-eight percent of surveyed companies said they are significantly or very significantly concerned about the administrative burden the new ACA regulations create and 62 percent say they are similarly concerned about the excise tax that begins in 2018.
•According to the survey, 42 percent of employers would be subject to the tax in 2018 if they made no changes to their current plans, and many are not waiting to make changes.
•The tax provision was crafted by Congress to encourage employers to offer lower-cost health plans.

Specifically, the Mercer survey found:

•80 percent of employers have or are considering raising deductibles.
•68 percent have or are considering consumer-directed health plans, with health saving accounts.
•44 percent have already taken steps to unbundle dental and medical coverage.
•34 percent are moving to high-performance networks.
•33 percent are considering dropping high-cost plans, and 20 percent have already done so.....snip~

Obamacare Spikes Costs for Employers Who Insure Over 170 Million



damn.gif
 
For all those who were claiming, "sure they got 7 million, but only because their existing policies were cancelled." People are signing up, with lower uninsured.

040414krugman2-blog480.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom