Who will Democrats blame for the failure of Obamacare?

DVSentinel said:

None of the above.

Obamacare was designed to fail intentionally. The whole thing was supposed to have an option to allow the government to seize control of healthcare but it got cut out. However, they continued with the rest, knowing it would fail, in order to re-address socialized medicine later with a better chance of getting it through. So, no need to blame anyone when it is working as designed.

Click to expand...

Although this is a bit hysterical, I'm not sure there isn't a grain of truth in it. The DNC couldn't push through the whole package, including single payer, so they went along with a fractional package. It seemed kind of pointless to me, when they did it, but it's not unlikely that they are planning to do partial implementation, because that's all they could get at the time, and then re-float single payer once people are on it and used to it. I think the single-payer modification will to through easily in a couple of years.

As for the original question, like others have said, it's too late to start grinding the tombstone for OC. Most of the predictions of certain doom are based on either hysteria about death panels, or on the bad interface, but the whole system is a hell of a lot more than just a web-interface. If the Democrats get the bugs worked out of this by November of 2014, it will be a sweep in the midterms. And they have until 2016 to get it worked out enough to use against Republicans in the next Presidential contest.

If they're able to get the systems smooth enough by those dates, the Republicans will be left holding a bag full of hysterical quotes about how America will end and there will be a government genocide if the law passes, and they'll never be able to recover their image.

If they can't get the bugs worked out by then, it will hurt the Democrats pretty badly. Not as much as the rightwingers think it will, though. After all, in 2008 people voted for health care reform. So far, only the Democrats have even made an attempt. All the GOP has offered was bitching and moaning. It won't hurt the DNC as much as the right-wing thinks it will, because a lot of voters will by sympathetic to the attempt to fix the problem, and even failure may translate into election material for the Democrats. "We're trying to fix the health care mess and the Republicans won't let us," in short. Just a question of how much such a message will resonate with the undecideds. Probably not as much as the DNC would hope for, but far better than the RNC expects.

But again, we have to see how well they can fix the bugs, whether or not they can use it as leverage for single-payer, and whether or not the voters are sympathetic enough to vote for the ones who at least tried, instead of the ones who did things like shut down the government as a protest against the attempt.

CaptainCourtesy said:

Your poll is also prefaced by the assumption that Obamacare will fail.

Click to expand...

You can wipe the truck load of egg from your yap.

CPWill prefaced it correctly. From the lessons of history, massive Socialist schemes always fail. It a matter of time... and well... this failed right out of the box after 3-years of prep work by the brilliance of government.

Of course... for a Socialist, that's not failure... it's an opportunity to grow government even more! A True Success.

Keep your Doc? Nope.
Website works? Nope.
Can tell us how many signed up? Nope.
Reduces costs? Nope.
Government lives on same plan? Nope.
No exemptions for political favorites? Nope.

Lied and deceived to pass ObamaAbortion? Yep.

This "success" was brought to you by the Socialists of Amerika Partei (SAPs).

Grendel said:

Although this is a bit hysterical, I'm not sure there isn't a grain of truth in it. The DNC couldn't push through the whole package, including single payer, so they went along with a fractional package. It seemed kind of pointless to me, when they did it, but it's not unlikely that they are planning to do partial implementation, because that's all they could get at the time, and then re-float single payer once people are on it and used to it. I think the single-payer modification will to through easily in a couple of years.

As for the original question, like others have said, it's too late to start grinding the tombstone for OC. Most of the predictions of certain doom are based on either hysteria about death panels, or on the bad interface, but the whole system is a hell of a lot more than just a web-interface. If the Democrats get the bugs worked out of this by November of 2014, it will be a sweep in the midterms. And they have until 2016 to get it worked out enough to use against Republicans in the next Presidential contest.

Click to expand...

Wait. No - the predictions about Obamacare's failings pre-date the website, are independent of the IPAB (which is an ugly, though fiscally helpful, piece), and are pretty well-thought-out. If you believe the descriptions of how this thing is doomed are dependent on what you have described, you haven't been paying attention.

By 2016 the Democrat Presidential Candidate will be running on 'fixing' Obamacare.

cpwill said:

By 2016 the Democrat Presidential Candidate will be running on 'fixing' Obamacare.

Click to expand...

:lamo :lamo :lamo

...Thousands of Californians are discovering what Obamacare will cost them — and many don't like what they see.

These middle-class consumers are staring at hefty increases on their insurance bills as the overhaul remakes the healthcare market. Their rates are rising in large part to help offset the higher costs of covering sicker, poorer people who have been shut out of the system for years…

Pam Kehaly, president of Anthem Blue Cross in California, said she received a recent letter from a young woman complaining about a 50% rate hike related to the healthcare law.

"She said, 'I was all for Obamacare until I found out I was paying for it,'" Kehaly said....

Click to expand...

BWWWAAAHAHAHAHAH :lamo

cpwill said:

By 2016 the Democrat Presidential Candidate will be running on 'fixing' Obamacare.

Click to expand...

Possibly, and the Republicans will still be running on repealing OC. We'll have to see which resonates with the voters the most. People did vote for health care reform in 2008 -- maybe not OC, but HC Reform in some fashion, and all the Republicans have offered was obstruction. We'll have to see if voters would rather fix it or scrap it. I haven't seen any polling on that.

"Fix it" probably means "single payer". People wouldn't go that far in 2008, but they might in 2016 after getting used to the idea of federally managed health care. Or, they may recoil and want the whole system brought down. I have no idea which way the majority will break on that.

Grendel said:

We'll have to see if voters would rather fix it or scrap it. I haven't seen any polling on that.

Click to expand...

Actually, I checked polling report, and there are some clues.

41% favor, 56% oppose, however, of the opposition, 12% say it's "not liberal enough". That is 53% who either favor it or want it to go even further.
24% want to keep it as it is, 19% think it just needs some minor changes, 21% think it needs major changes. Only 29% think it needs to be repealed, entirely.
However, a month ago, 52% thought it was a disaster waiting to happen, and only 45% thought it would work eventually.
The majority of independents oppose it, but without qualification (ie. is it too liberal or not liberal enough, and should it be fixed or repealed), however, they very strongly oppose the tactics the GOP used to try to defund it, and that will hurt them at the polls.

A month ago, also, 56% said make it work a well as possible, and 38% said cut funding to stop it.

So, as it stands, the majority would likely break towards fixing, rather than repealing it. There's still 3 years to go, so I'd say if it's still a mess in 3 years, the democrats will be in a bad place. If it's working relatively well in 3 years, the GOP is ****ed. They've made their entire party the Repeal OC Party. They've already repealed it like 40 times. They've already shut down the government to stop it. They'll probably repeal it another dozen times before 2016. Then, when the DNC is running on fix OC, they'll still be running on repeal OC.

So I think it really depends on the perception the public gets over the next 3 years: Is OC getting better, or getting worse, from here. I think that'll be the game, right there.

Health Policy

cpwill said:

Right, so. Obamacare is now bending the cost-curve up, millions are going to lose their health insurance, the IRS is saying that the cheapest plan under Obamacares' exchanges will cost $20,000 for a family of five by 2016 and increase out of pocket costs even AFTER the subsidies, the hundreds of billions in cuts to Medicare to fund the program will cause many doctors to stop taking Medicare patients, and if we don't make those cuts to providers, then the costs of Obamacare, which are already rising, to explode. 26 States are refusing to work with HHS, and Obamacare's implementation, already well behind track threatens to fall further and further behind even as it is announced that they will not, actually, technically, so-to-speak, be able to help the people the bill was purported to aid.

So. As this disaster of a behemoth of a bill continues to flail and fail, who are the Democrats going to blame? How far down the rabbit hole are they willing to go, ears plugged, closed?

Click to expand...

Looking at my insurance bill (Germany, about $850 a month after 35 years in the plan) $20.000 could be about right if it is subsidized.

Grendel said:

Possibly, and the Republicans will still be running on repealing OC.

Click to expand...

Any GOP candidate will have to come up with his proposed alternative. It will be a repeal-and-replace campaign.

We'll have to see which resonates with the voters the most. People did vote for health care reform in 2008 -- maybe not OC, but HC Reform in some fashion,

Click to expand...

No. People voted against Republicans, which liberals interpreted as them voting in favor of liberalism.

and all the Republicans have offered was obstruction.

Click to expand...

Because that is precisely what they were elected to do. Even Massachusetts elected a Senator largely to provide a vote against Obamacare, which was and remains overwhelmingly unpopular.

"Fix it" probably means "single payer". People wouldn't go that far in 2008, but they might in 2016 after getting used to the idea of federally managed health care. Or, they may recoil and want the whole system brought down. I have no idea which way the majority will break on that.

Click to expand...

Given the continuous unpopularity of the level of government takeover of healthcare present under Obamacare, I would put my money on the latter. The idea of government competence to run a healthcare system for Americans is going to take a double-whammy with the failure of Obamacare and the publicity surrounding Medicare/Medicaid going broke. Much as even wise military efforts such as Syria now face an impossible hill of skepticism in the context of the now-unpopular wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, so too, I suspect, shall single payer.

joG said:

Looking at my insurance bill (Germany, about $850 a month after 35 years in the plan) $20.000 could be about right if it is subsidized.

Click to expand...

Wait. You live in Germany and you have health insurance costing you $850 a month?

The Dems will always blame everyone else every time no matter what the issue is.

cpwill said:

Wait. You live in Germany and you have health insurance costing you $850 a month?

Click to expand...

Yep. Only because I have been insured so long, however. It is full coverage $ 3.500 self participation and would be a couple of Hundred Dollars more, if I had not joined so young.

It is private. I cannot switch to a public plan easily, because I have a private plan.

Hiram said:

The Dems will always blame everyone else every time no matter what the issue is.

Click to expand...

So we never see blame coming out of the GOP? What did you just start following politics or something?

They'll blame Republicans, because that's what they do, and also because the individual mandate was their idea in the first place. Romney, McCain, Gingrich...ALL supported it at some point.

So yeah, damn us for electing Obama because Romneycare or McCaincare would have been so different:roll:

joG said:

Yep. Only because I have been insured so long, however. It is full coverage $ 3.500 self participation and would be a couple of Hundred Dollars more, if I had not joined so young.

It is private. I cannot switch to a public plan easily, because I have a private plan.

Click to expand...

Huh. Given all we've been told about how awesome Germany is because they have single-payer, etc... why do you have a private plan, and why does this keep you from the public one?

The ‘Blame the Insurance Companies’ Spin Begins

Campaign Spot, 10:45 a.m. yesterday:

Democrats will attempt the shameless maneuver of insisting the problems with Obamacare — both the web site and the policy — are the fault of Republicans and that handy perennial scapegoat, health insurance companies.

Senior Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett, 8:07 p.m.:

FACT: Nothing in #Obamacare forces people out of their health plans. No change is required unless insurance companies change existing plans.

Click to expand...

Jarrett fails to mention that the insurance companies are changing existing plans because of the requirements of the Obamacare law.

Click to expand...

They wil blame Republicans, claiming Obamacare was their idea...

...and they already have.

The GOP. Politics is based on the art of war, and we all know that deception is a tactic in war. This POTUS has really excelled in seemingly making it Ok to lye, then stonewall.

cpwill said:

Huh. Given all we've been told about how awesome Germany is because they have single-payer, etc... why do you have a private plan, and why does this keep you from the public one?

Click to expand...

I know that. The Germans make a lot of their social system and tell everybody. The media continuously broadcast to the population how it is much better than the American one. If you focus on a given issue, however, you will find smoke and mirrors at work. This is true in many areas.

If you earn above a certain level, you are not forced to pay the public fee, which depends on your income up to a cap. The reason to take out private insurance is that the medical quality you receive is much better. Obviously you no longer wait in waiting rooms much. But the important thing is that you get top grade medical treatment immediately. While a friend in the public system had to wait for 2 months for a cat scan after diagnosis of a probably malignant tumor in his skull, I got one next day for what they thought was probably a harmless cyst but could have in theory been a benevolent tumor.

For a long time and in many cases still it was impossible to enter the public system, if you had been in a private plan. This led to a large number of people who, not being any longer able to pay the private plan were uninstallable and actual got treatment only if they could negotiate it on a time by time basis at the social center in a very complex ritual. Practically these people were excluded from all but emergency treatment if something happened. This was changed a bit.
I know of people in the town who have been able to switch and some that were unable to do so. I have not investigated why there is a different handling.

joG said:

I know that. The Germans make a lot of their social system and tell everybody. The media continuously broadcast to the population how it is much better than the American one. If you focus on a given issue, however, you will find smoke and mirrors at work. This is true in many areas.

If you earn above a certain level, you are not forced to pay the public fee, which depends on your income up to a cap. The reason to take out private insurance is that the medical quality you receive is much better. Obviously you no longer wait in waiting rooms much. But the important thing is that you get top grade medical treatment immediately. While a friend in the public system had to wait for 2 months for a cat scan after diagnosis of a probably malignant tumor in his skull, I got one next day for what they thought was probably a harmless cyst but could have in theory been a benevolent tumor.

For a long time and in many cases still it was impossible to enter the public system, if you had been in a private plan. This led to a large number of people who, not being any longer able to pay the private plan were uninstallable and actual got treatment only if they could negotiate it on a time by time basis at the social center in a very complex ritual. Practically these people were excluded from all but emergency treatment if something happened. This was changed a bit.
I know of people in the town who have been able to switch and some that were unable to do so. I have not investigated why there is a different handling.

Click to expand...

That is... fascinating. Thank you very much.

Should we not find out if history shows the ACA to be a failure before we cast blame?

Or, does the thread mean who to blame for the "glitches," rolling it out? For that, I blame Murphy's Law. I am not sure if it was the democrats or republicans that created Murphey's Law. But I curse the party that did. I hate Murphey's Law.

Comunitee said:

The question is flawed, since Obamacare will succeed.

And after it does, and we've seen the proof, it means single-payer should be next.

Click to expand...

...moreover, the voter will blame the Republicans, banishing them to a second rate party as this did (with modest exception) for the 20 years after the introduction of social security and 20 years after the introduction of Medicare. Once again, the Cons will be on the wrong side of history (you know, in their comfort zone)

Perhaps one day the Cons will understand that political relevancy is about having original ideas, rather than thinking that choosing only impede the good ideas of other party is somehow a policy position.

upsideguy said:

Perhaps one day the Cons will understand that political relevancy is about having original ideas, rather than thinking that choosing only impede the good ideas of other party is somehow a policy position.

Click to expand...

That really goes both ways...

upsideguy said:

Perhaps one day the Cons will understand that political relevancy is about having original ideas, rather than thinking that choosing only impede the good ideas of other party is somehow a policy position.

Click to expand...

You mean like in the 90s when Republicans wanted to do a bunch of good things, including balance the budget, citing the term Contract with America that Democrats changed to Contract on America, equating Republican legislation to a Mafia hit?

Yeah, it's a good thing that I just made that up, and it never happened. Democrats are so wholesome.

Gipper said:

You mean like in the 90s when Republicans wanted to do a bunch of good things, including balance the budget, citing the term Contract with America that Democrats changed to Contract on America, equating Republican legislation to a Mafia hit?

Yeah, it's a good thing that I just made that up, and it never happened. Democrats are so wholesome.

Click to expand...

Homework assignment - list Republican legislative achievements of the past 100 years. Don't worry, its a pathetically short list..

BTW... I loved the Contract with America. My congressman, Tom Tancredo, ran on term limits..... then when his term was to be theoretically limited (as it wasn't a law), he announced his work was much too important to step down. At least he had the guts to admit he changed his mind rather than selective memory that he had never made a big deal about term limits (because he made a VERY big deal about them)...