Do Republicans REALLY want to repeal the ACA?

[Mxylplyx]

Read an interesting bloomberg article that supports what I believe to be the case since the ACA went into effect, that Republicans opposition to the ACA is only half-hearted at best, because if the ACA were repealed all eyes would be squarely on them to come up with an alternative. It's obviously a requirement to come out firmly in opposition to the ACA in order to win a Republican party, and routinely register votes to repeal it to protect yourself in the next primary, but I think they would collectively shit themselves if the onus was put on them to come up with a credible alternative. When the marketplace descended into chaos after such a repeal, they would obviously do their best to blame it on Obama for ever passing the ACA in the first place, but I think most would agree that would gain little traction beyond their base. The individual mandate, which was a conservative policy prescription until Obama signed his name on it, would obviously be off the table, so what would the Republican response be after they are done congratulating themselves for eliminating health insurance for 10M+ people in the name of freedom? Extend the ACA provisions until they came up with a viable alternative? Republicans have not prepared for repeal any more than Obama has, which is interesting since they are the ones advocating for it. I can only surmise that is because they have never realistically considered that it may happen, so it is therefore just rhetoric.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-02-26/the-return-of-the-death-of-obamacare-i6m1baro

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Read an interesting bloomberg article that supports what I believe to be the case since the ACA went into effect, that Republicans opposition to the ACA is only half-hearted at best, because if the ACA were repealed all eyes would be squarely on them to come up with an alternative. http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-02-26/the-return-of-the-death-of-obamacare-i6m1baro

I've been arguing this for a long time. It would be foolish for the Republicans to repeal the ACA because they would end up taking ownership of the health care issue and they don't have any plans other than, "Don't get sick, and if you do get sick, die quickly."

 

[dullard]

It is just like the abortion issue*: it is a rallying cry to get votes with no intention to actually follow through. Because as soon as they do something with the ACA, then they no longer have a rallying cry.



* Look back at the early 2000s with majority in congress, presidency, and majority in supreme court and nothing happened.

 

[Bitek]

I think you are giving too much credit to the GOP having any sort of long term planning or strategy on this. They seem to be totally acting on anger and emotion.

I'd put their level of thinking on par with a barking dog on a leash. All in on what's in front of them, no idea what to do if they had to act.

This is how they shut down the govt multiple times. This is how we got in Iraq. This is how they are on the verge of shutting down DHS when we're actively arresting Jihadis at our airports.

 

[DCal430]

Yes they do. They want to see the poor, sick, and most vulnerable roll over and die.

 

[Patranus]

I think you are giving too much credit to the GOP having any sort of long term planning or strategy on this.

What is the Democrat strategy for Medicare and Social Security? Tax millennials into oblivion?

 

[shira]

What is the Democrat strategy for Medicare and Social Security? Tax millennials into oblivion?

They're waiting for Republicans to propose legislation reforming Medicare and Social Security. You DO know, don't you, that it's Congress that must write the laws, and that since Republicans control both houses of Congress, it's up to them to offer the new legislation?

So where are the really innovative Republican proposals that will carry SS and Medicare into the 22nd century?

 

[nickqt]

What is the Democrat strategy for Medicare and Social Security? Tax millennials into oblivion?

Strategy for Medicare and SS?

Well, SS has been and will remain just fine. It's always 25 years away from going "bankrupt". 10 years ago, it was 25 years away from bankruptcy. 10 years from now, it will be 25 years away from bankruptcy.

We better cut benefits now, that way we won't have to cut them later! Brilliant.

Second, even if SS goes "bankrupt" in 25 years, all that means is that SS will require funding. Which means that SS will go bankrupt just like the Pentagon does every. single. year. Which is why we have to refund the Pentagon every. single. year. Oh noes!

Third, SS would be solvent for eternity and a day if you removed the FICA Cap.

Fourth: Medicare and the ACA are basically two sides of the same coin. Just enact a Medicare for Everyone, allowing people to opt out and not receive any benefits if they opt out. Simple and easy, although our legislators are busy playing Kabuki to do what is actually popular and cost-effective.

There's still way too much money out there that can be directed into the right pockets with the status quo.

 

[rudder]

Once entitlements are let loose in the wild... they will never be reigned in at a federal level.

Under obama, the number of people getting SS disability has skyrocketed... so much so that money needs to be moved from the regular SS funds to the disability side to prevent it from running out of money sooner than it normally would. Will this ever get fixed by either party? No it will be political suicide. Same with the ACA... as damaging as it will be to the U.S. healtcare industry.. it is out there and the longer it stays the harder it will be politically to fix it.

 

[Vic]

Once entitlements are let loose in the wild... they will never be reigned in at a federal level.

Under obama, the number of people getting SS disability has skyrocketed... so much so that money needs to be moved from the regular SS funds to the disability side to prevent it from running out of money sooner than it normally would. Will this ever get fixed by either party? No it will be political suicide. Same with the ACA... as damaging as it will be to the U.S. healtcare industry.. it is out there and the longer it stays the harder it will be politically to fix it.

The only time Republicans don't like government entitlements is when they're not the beneficiaries.

'Keep your government hands off my Obamacare! '

 

[senseamp]

ACA exchange map:

Senate seats up for 2016 election map:

No incumbent Democrat senators running in 2016 would have their home state impacted by King v Burwell. They are all form states with ACA exchanges. Around 18 Republican senators running in 2016 are from states with no ACA exchange whose constituents will lose exchange subsidies because of a Republican supported lawsuit.
Republicans will have angry constituents who they left without insurance subsidies, hospitals going bankrupt, insurers pulling out, and all that other fun stuff. Democrats on the other hand can keep their boot firmly on GOP's neck and filibuster anything but a clean fix to restore subsidies with complete impunity. GOP will be hammered at the federal level and state level unless they bend over and vote for either re-extending ACA subsidies on Federal level, or opening exchanges at state level. Either way, they will be forced to vote to support Obamacare. It's a beautiful end game for GOP's resistance to Obamacare, because they engineered their own defeat. Unless of course SCOTUS saves them from themselves and votes for Burwell. Then they can go back to whining about it and voting 50 more times to repeal it.

 

[MagickMan]

No incumbent Democrat senators running in 2016 would have their home state impacted by King v Burwell. They are all form states with ACA exchanges. Around 18 Republican senators running in 2016 are from states with no ACA exchange whose constituents will lose exchange subsidies because of a Republican supported lawsuit.
Republicans will have angry constituents who they left without insurance subsidies, hospitals going bankrupt, insurers pulling out, and all that other fun stuff. Democrats on the other hand can keep their boot firmly on GOP's neck and filibuster anything but a clean fix to restore subsidies with complete impunity. GOP will be hammered at the federal level and state level unless they bend over and vote for either re-extending ACA subsidies on Federal level, or opening exchanges at state level. Either way, they will be forced to vote to support Obamacare. It's a beautiful end game for GOP's resistance to Obamacare, because they engineered their own defeat. Unless of course SCOTUS saves them from themselves and votes for Burwell. Then they can go back to whining about it and voting 50 more times to repeal it.

What's funny is you've constructed this fantasy about people giving more fucks about this than they actually do. If anyone's really pissed regarding healthcare, it's because the ACA fucked with the coverage they already had or made it more expensive. You're too damned stupid (and partisan) to see that, and that's your problem.

 

[senseamp]

What's funny is you've constructed this fantasy about people giving more fucks about this than they actually do. If anyone's really pissed regarding healthcare, it's because the ACA fucked with the coverage they already had or made it more expensive. You're too damned stupid (and partisan) to see that, and that's your problem.

I don't think you understand the implications of King v Burwell for non-exchange states, if you think people won't give a fark. The article in the OP does a good job explaining it, so I will leave it up to you to do your homework.
I will enjoy Republicans kicking, screaming, and name calling, but having zero leverage except to fold and vote for a clean fix at the Federal level or ACA expansion at state level. It's their ass on the line in 2016. Democrat senators can filibuster any fix they don't like with complete impunity, because all their states have ACA exchanges.

 

[nickqt]

What's funny is you've constructed this fantasy about people giving more fucks about this than they actually do. If anyone's really pissed regarding healthcare, it's because the ACA fucked with the coverage they already had or made it more expensive. You're too damned stupid (and partisan) to see that, and that's your problem.

You've constructed a fantasy where there aren't millions of people who now have health insurance through the ACA in those states who might wake up one day with a letter saying that because the Supreme Court ruled a certain way, they are now back to not having health insurance.

Maybe they're voters, maybe they aren't. We'll see one way or the other.

 

[sportage]

You bet your ass they do (want to).
Ever promise a 4 year old a trip to the zoo?
That's all they think about, come rain or shine or earth quake or flood.
I WANT TO GO TO THE ZOO. YOU SAID WE COULD GO TO THE ZOO.

Well, think of those republicans in congress as a 4 year old.
Once they get that idea planted in their head, they never let it go.

Two things a totally republican controlled country would do on their first two days.
#1, kill off ACA no matter who it hurt or the damage that does to the uninsured or to the economy.
#2, A Constitutional Amendment banning SS marriage.

If you believe nothing else, believe that.

 

[Genx87]

I dont believe they really want to repeal it. I think they want to tinker with it. They also wont repeal it because it is possible one of these court cases wipes out the law anyways. Why put their neck out there when the court can do it for them?

 

[Sonikku]

Liberals think Conservatives are stupid. But Conservatives got liberals to pass their plan for them while their opponents got all the blame.

Doesn't seem stupid to me.

 

[JockoJohnson]

Republican voters might want it repealed. Republicans in Congress do not. They put votes to repeal it (55+ now?). They know it will fail. But they now get to go back to their stupid electorate and say that they voted to repeal it. I think this is the main reason for them voting so many times to repeal it. Give everyone a chance to show that they didn't like ACA.

 

[MagickMan]

I don't think you understand the implications of King v Burwell for non-exchange states, if you think people won't give a fark. The article in the OP does a good job explaining it, so I will leave it up to you to do your homework.
I will enjoy Republicans kicking, screaming, and name calling, but having zero leverage except to fold and vote for a clean fix at the Federal level or ACA expansion at state level. It's their ass on the line in 2016. Democrat senators can filibuster any fix they don't like with complete impunity, because all their states have ACA exchanges.

You mean, unless there's a Republican president elected, then he'll just kill it with an EO, you know, Obama-style.

 

[Jhhnn]

What's funny is you've constructed this fantasy about people giving more fucks about this than they actually do. If anyone's really pissed regarding healthcare, it's because the ACA fucked with the coverage they already had or made it more expensive. You're too damned stupid (and partisan) to see that, and that's your problem.

The ACA didn't fuck anybody's coverage- it forced better overall coverage. How that's fucked is beyond comprehension.

Most people have employer sponsored plans, and of those many were ACA compliant way back in 2013. Mine certainly was. The change was basically imperceptible to people who had solid plans in the first place.

It's pretty much the solid cadre of dependable right wing sour grapes ravers going on about it at this point.

 

[Jhhnn]

Once entitlements are let loose in the wild... they will never be reigned in at a federal level.

Under obama, the number of people getting SS disability has skyrocketed... so much so that money needs to be moved from the regular SS funds to the disability side to prevent it from running out of money sooner than it normally would. Will this ever get fixed by either party? No it will be political suicide. Same with the ACA... as damaging as it will be to the U.S. healtcare industry.. it is out there and the longer it stays the harder it will be politically to fix it.

That's largely occurred in response to the persistent dearth of jobs in the wake of the ownership society looting spree. Previously, lots of people who qualified for disability worked anyway, worked through the pain, and their employers let them even if they weren't the most productive. After the mass layoffs, employers simply didn't pick those people up as employees, leaving them in the lurch.

SSDI doesn't pay for shit, so the vast majority of those receiving it would really rather work if they could get work.

So, uhh, you go, Job Creators! You go!

 

[Jhhnn]

I've been arguing this for a long time. It would be foolish for the Republicans to repeal the ACA because they would end up taking ownership of the health care issue and they don't have any plans other than, "Don't get sick, and if you do get sick, die quickly."

Their idea of winning doesn't preclude being the last man alive in a shattered wasteland.