74% of Republicans on Obamacare are satisfied with it

[First]

That can go both ways. If polled, I'd say I oppose it as going too far because philosophically I oppose moving to a one size fits all federal health insurance system. I'd also say I'm satisfied with my Obamacare-compliant policy because although it costs me more, I consider it a bearable burden for what it accomplishes. It's not necessarily an either-or situation where if I don't get my druthers on methodology I'm necessarily unhappy with what I do get, and I assume the majority of Americans would be similarly flexible and honest in answering.

Given the poll questions I'd also have to say I'm opposed to repeal. Even though I am philosophically opposed to the Obamacare approach, I see no reason to dismantle the good it does simply for philosophical reasons. I'd prefer something aligned with my philosophy AND producing better results, but I see no reason to again go through the upheaval of changing our entire health insurance system unless and until I'm convinced the pain will be worth it. Thus I can be opposed to Obamacare, but within the parameters of the poll questions also opposed to its repeal. Life ain't simple.

Point is, people and poll results are more complicated than we might wish to make them. We can easily be satisfied with the results of something we oppose on principle, or dissatisfied with the results of something we support on principle. Obviously that can be a direct result of implementation, but less obviously it can simply be a recognition of reality. Philosophically I am against the dole; practically I recognize that modern life (and especially health care) is too expensive for private charity to fill the need for every person. If one's philosophy perfectly aligns with practicality then one is not thinking, because no broad philosophy is best for every situation.

Excellent post, and I don't really disagree with much of it. I'd note that most people's nuanced answer to whether they support ACA or not still probably tips in favor of ACA because of things widely deemed morally reprehensible, like denying coverage to a cancer victim. Granted, these things cost money and that's important to take into account from the insurance companies' perspective....which is why expanding the base of insured persons makes all the sense in the world, much like forcing everyone to pay into other federal insurance programs like Medicare and Social Security, and those programs affect people far less frequently than ACA will going forward. Even if you don't get insurance on the exchanges, new plans have to be ACA-compliant, and since everyone is mandated to be covered you're talking everyone from birth to age 65.

Overall, ACA will change over the years, like any law that government works to improve upon. People have little faith in the turds currently in Congress, and certainly that's understandable, but our track record on improving laws is quite good. Simplifying the tax code? Not so much!

 

[Matt1970]

You're far too stupid to be that old.

I take it you don't understand a lot of what goes on here. Most of your posts are one line insults, and not even cleaver ones. You are more than welcome to actually participate in one of the debates we have going on here if you are able....

 

[Newell Steamer]

Yeah, yeah, yeah...

I heard from a guy, that once knew a gal he dated that she saw someone, who listened in on a conversation, about another guy that was living across from a family that had their roof done by a guy who once heard another guy on a crowded bus, who knew a guy that said ACA wasn't herp-a-derp.

Eat it OP. My herp-a-derpness trumps your "proof".

Update: in bold. MORE evidence and proof that ACA is awful.

 

[Jhhnn]

He's too busy watching Fox News. All he hears is how young men are getting destroyed to cover the costs of women. He can't comprehend that more than 1 group can see costs rise at the same time, even when numbers prove it.


Suppose there is a group of 5 people sharing medical costs. 1 of them becomes extremely sick and needs intense medical care. Someone with an elementary school understanding of math would expect 4 people, including young women, to see rising costs to pay for that 1 very sick person. In Jhhnn's world, it's impossible for 4 people to see costs go up at the same time.

Heh. When confronted with a direct question, you dance away, indicating that, indeed, you don't know what you're talking about. When it's pointed out that you fail to link the source for your graph, you pretend that it never happened.

The principle you mention applies to all group insurance, either through an ACA exchange or through one's employer. I never claimed that young men are getting destroyed to cover the cost of women, nor do I believe it.

Fox News? Me? More of you having no idea what you're talking about. They spin to the weak minds of Teatards & delusional Libertopians.

What the ACA accomplishes is cost spreading over time for everybody. If you pay more when you're 27, it means you'll still be able to afford it when you're 54 or any age regardless of economic fortune or pre-existing conditions. There's little point in paying low rates when you're young & probably don't need much insurance coverage just so that you'll be priced out of the market when you get older & more likely to need care. That's the principle behind all employer sponsored group plans, always has been. The ACA just fills in where that doesn't cover, creates a different group through the exchanges & higher standards in the process.

Regardless of Matt1970's age, he has the mind of a child, which was entirely the thrust of my comment in that regard.

 

[Matt1970]

Regardless of Matt1970's age, he has the mind of a child, which was entirely the thrust of my comment in that regard.

Even if true, it's still worlds ahead of you.