Polls show obamacare wave building against senate democrats

[Fanatical Meat]

I found the final chart on this very telling. We simply cannot continue doing what we were in healthcare. We by far have the most expensive system and we have unimpressive results. ACA is a start, if it doesn't work I'm fine with modifying or doing something different however going back to the same old way is failure.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danmunro/2012/12/30/2012-the-year-in-healthcare-charts/

 

[Jhhnn]

This was the argument we heard last fall during the presidential elections. In the end the Republicans lost the presidency, 2 senate seats and 6 house seats. Why would you think it will be different in 2014 or 2016?

Because Righties jes' love having a little sunshine pumped up the ol' skirt, even as they predict doom for their opponents. Keeps 'em nice & irrational, just the way their pundits & prognosticators like it.

There's still a lot of time between now & Nov 2014, plenty of opportunities for Teahadists to charge off in their delusional direction of choice, over & over again, plenty of time for issues around the ACA to be sorted out.

Repubs seem to think that problems with the federal website will go on forever, which they obviously won't. They also seem to think that low income voters in states that didn't accept medicaid expansion won't figure out just how badly they're getting screwed, either.

Once Dems start to articulate that, it'll set a lot of voters thinking rather than feeling. When voters are thinking, that's good for Democrats.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Last I checked health insurers were still privately owned and profitable.

And next year it will be because of taxpayer bailouts. Why to you think they have so many escape hatches.

Look at the numbers of insurance companies that bailed from certain markets.
They felt that even with the bailouts; it would not be healthy for their bottom line to comply with the ACA rules in certain markets.

 

[theeedude]

And next year it will be because of taxpayer bailouts. Why to you think they have so many escape hatches.

Look at the numbers of insurance companies that bailed from certain markets.
They felt that even with the bailouts; it would not be healthy for their bottom line to comply with the ACA rules in certain markets.

So what? You are worried for the insurance companies?

 

[Svnla]

Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Mark Prior of Arkansas are running for their political lives. Both jumped onto the "let people keep their insurance" bandwagon. Both will face challengers in 2014. Stay tuned if they will keep their jobs or not.

 

[Daverino]

In 2008; people believed in the BS that Obama was spewing; change and transparency.
In 2012; people were still believing - lesser of two evils.
Then in 2013; Obama's imperial cloak was revealed to be transparent; showing his incompetence in leadership; telling the truth, waffling and then show to be outright lying to the people.

People vote with the wallets; and their wallets are going to be hurting. They can not punish Obama; but by proxy, they can punish those that allowed such to happen .

I'm sorry, but did I miss the great American people transplant of 2013?

This is the same delusional thinking that 'surprised' the Republicans in the last election cycle. The same majority that has voted Democratic in the past year is still here this year. Hell Virginia just elected a Democratic governor LAST MONTH.

 

[EagleKeeper]

If the Democratic feels are so strong; then please have an explanation why all those Democratic in the Senate have started to get arms length away from Obama?

Doing so; forced him to back off on his statements on the healthcare.gov and the fact that he deceived the American public.

Those Senators would not have distanced themselves if they were not being pressured by their constituents.

 

[Daverino]

If the Democratic feels are so strong; then please have an explanation why all those Democratic in the Senate have started to get arms length away from Obama?

Doing so; forced him to back off on his statements on the healthcare.gov and the fact that he deceived the American public.

Those Senators would not have distanced themselves if they were not being pressured by their constituents.

Have they?

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/12/obamacare-anger-fading-among-hill-dems-100597.html?hp=l5

Honestly, though, how many people will have signed up for insurance through exchanges by November of 2014? Over 250,000 have already enrolled through Federal and State exchanges. Medicaid expansion (in states smart enough to do it) has added coverage to another 500,000 Americans. Now throw in the ability to keep your children on your insurance past college and protecting individuals with pre-existing conditions. All told, there are about 16 million people that the ACA is projected to cover by 2014. Let's say it fails miserably an only half that number is reached.

Who in their right mind is going to run on a platform to take insurance away from 8 million Americans?

 

[Jhhnn]

If the Democratic feels are so strong; then please have an explanation why all those Democratic in the Senate have started to get arms length away from Obama?

First, state wishful thinking as fact, extrapolate from there to get that nice warm feeling of denial.

 

[Jhhnn]

Who in their right mind is going to run on a platform to take insurance away from 8 million Americans?

Being in their "right mind" isn't something generally attributed to Teahadists.

 

[hans030390]

In 2008; people believed in the BS that Obama was spewing; change and transparency.
In 2012; people were still believing - lesser of two evils.
Then in 2013; Obama's imperial cloak was revealed to be transparent; showing his incompetence in leadership; telling the truth, waffling and then show to be outright lying to the people.

No, what you said for 2013 is every year. People, mostly Republicans, have been trying to turn anything Obama does into some sort of horrible scandal that is far worse than anything seen before. Remember how they were saying Benghazi and the IRS scandals were some of the worst scandals in US presidential history? How many people are still talking about that today?

Every year, same thing. Obama is finally showing his true, evil colors. Finally showing how terrible of a president he is.

Oh well, the media (both sides) does very well for itself by turning everything under the sun into some sort of scandal. Fools eat that up like crazy, which is odd (we seem to love being told stuff that makes us angry, as backwards as that sounds). Most just forget without ever noticing their irrational, repetitive behaviors.

 

[monovillage]

No, what you said for 2013 is every year. People, mostly Republicans, have been trying to turn anything Obama does into some sort of horrible scandal that is far worse than anything seen before. Remember how they were saying Benghazi and the IRS scandals were some of the worst scandals in US presidential history? How many people are still talking about that today?

Every year, same thing. Obama is finally showing his true, evil colors. Finally showing how terrible of a president he is.

Oh well, the media (both sides) does very well for itself by turning everything under the sun into some sort of scandal. Fools eat that up like crazy, which is odd (we seem to love being told stuff that makes us angry, as backwards as that sounds). Most just forget without ever noticing their irrational, repetitive behaviors.

Millions, whewww that was tough.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/dec/2/lawmakers-suspect-fbi-is-impeding-irs-inquiry-targ/

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/10/07/benghazi-s-al-qaeda-connection.html

Just because most attention has been on the clusterfuck called Obamacare for the last couple of months doesn't mean everyone has forgotten the other problems with this administration.

 

[dank69]

Yes. Responsible journalism reports on everything. Haven't you noticed how NBC, CNN, ABC & MSNBC are pretty much absent on any issues that concern the President's dishonesty to us when it comes to what we've been told about Obamacare? These media outlets are either controlled or they have no balls. How is it that someone like Judge Jeannine Piro calls out all the president's shortcomings and actually reports the truth, but the others won't? I can't draw any other conclusion, except that they are either controlled or ball-less?

Journalists aren't supposed to tell you what to think. They are supposed to report the facts and you are supposed to decide for yourselves what is or is not dishonest. This is why you fucking conservatives will never understand anything. You need people to tell you something is dishonest because you can't figure it out on your own. This leaves you susceptible to pundits using dishonest tactics to make something else seem dishonest when maybe it really wasn't. You will never know because you don't understand the process or fundamentals.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Journalists aren't supposed to tell you what to think. They are supposed to report the facts and you are supposed to decide for yourselves what is or is not dishonest. This is why you fucking conservatives will never understand anything. You need people to tell you something is dishonest because you can't figure it out on your own. This leaves you susceptible to pundits using dishonest tactics to make something else seem dishonest when maybe it really wasn't. You will never know because you don't understand the process or fundamentals.

I was especially impressed by how our media handled the RNC Rosa Parks tweet. Awesome!

 

[Genx87]

Have they?

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/12/obamacare-anger-fading-among-hill-dems-100597.html?hp=l5

Honestly, though, how many people will have signed up for insurance through exchanges by November of 2014? Over 250,000 have already enrolled through Federal and State exchanges. Medicaid expansion (in states smart enough to do it) has added coverage to another 500,000 Americans. Now throw in the ability to keep your children on your insurance past college and protecting individuals with pre-existing conditions. All told, there are about 16 million people that the ACA is projected to cover by 2014. Let's say it fails miserably an only half that number is reached.

Who in their right mind is going to run on a platform to take insurance away from 8 million Americans?

Lets not get all excited. How many millions will lose their insurance from their insurance company's and their place of employment? It sounds like it could easily surpass 8 million. I fully expect within 2-3 years to be forced out of our employer run insurance program. I have a buddy who works for a city in WI that will be on his own starting Jan 1 2015.

 

[fskimospy]

Lets not get all excited. How many millions will lose their insurance from their insurance company's and their place of employment? It sounds like it could easily surpass 8 million. I fully expect within 2-3 years to be forced out of our employer run insurance program. I have a buddy who works for a city in WI that will be on his own starting Jan 1 2015.

You're conflating different coverage with losing insurance. One is someone getting coverage that may be less favorable to them, which they certainly might not like, and the other is someone being completely without coverage. They can't both be referred to as 'losing coverage'.

It is unlikely that too many credible employers will cancel their health coverage due to the ACA, but in reality the more we move away from employer based health care the better it is for America as a whole. If you look at Republican plans for health care a lot of them involve removing the health insurance tax subsidy entirely (which is a good idea). That would cause a lot more people to 'lose' their insurance than the ACA despite being a positive development.

This also seems to be a two sided argument. On one side conservatives say that because more people are being insured than before that health care spending is going up. Now they are saying that everyone is losing their insurance, so shouldn't that mean spending would go down? Can't have it both ways.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Have they?

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/12/obamacare-anger-fading-among-hill-dems-100597.html?hp=l5

Honestly, though, how many people will have signed up for insurance through exchanges by November of 2014? Over 250,000 have already enrolled through Federal and State exchanges. Medicaid expansion (in states smart enough to do it) has added coverage to another 500,000 Americans. Now throw in the ability to keep your children on your insurance past college and protecting individuals with pre-existing conditions. All told, there are about 16 million people that the ACA is projected to cover by 2014. Let's say it fails miserably an only half that number is reached.

Who in their right mind is going to run on a platform to take insurance away from 8 million Americans?

The argument is not that 8M Americans are going to have insurance taken away.
It is that 50M Americans will have had their insurance costs increased via ACA. That hit into the wallet is what is going to be hammered on.

Because every Democratic Senator voted for the ACA; the inference is going to be that, that Senator went into your wallet and increased your insurance costs by supporting adding on items that were unneeded.

More people will have been hit by the insurance cost increase than those that picked up the subsided insurance.

Because of the ACA fiasco; even if their costs were not due to changes (they had a perfect policy ), such will be overlooked.

There are not that many blind faithful sheep when it comes to their wallet.

If so; then there would be no need for all taxpayers to cover this mess; the faithful could check an extra $100-200/week to cover the subsidies out of their income.

 

[Daverino]

Lets not get all excited. How many millions will lose their insurance from their insurance company's and their place of employment? It sounds like it could easily surpass 8 million. I fully expect within 2-3 years to be forced out of our employer run insurance program. I have a buddy who works for a city in WI that will be on his own starting Jan 1 2015.

If you lose your employer's insurance because it costs less for both you and your employer to buy it on a government exchange, did you lose your insurance?

Probably not.

This is the weird assumption that people are making with the ACA. Somehow if you 'lose' your insurance after the ACA was enacted, for whatever reason, you can never get it back and it's solely the fault of the law. People lose their insurance all the time. People who buy their insurance on the open market already 'lose' their insurance every year if the insurance company discontinues the policy before renewal. People who quit their jobs or are laid off 'lose' their insurance. People who work for companies that cut their benefits 'lose' their insurance all the time as well.

And finally people that 'lose' their insurance because their policy was utterly useless and ineffective and is no longer legal but can have it replaced with an actual policy that, y'know, covers their healthcare haven't really lost anything at all.

 

[Genx87]

You're conflating different coverage with losing insurance. One is someone getting coverage that may be less favorable to them, which they certainly might not like, and the other is someone being completely without coverage. They can't both be referred to as 'losing coverage'.

It is unlikely that too many credible employers will cancel their health coverage due to the ACA, but in reality the more we move away from employer based health care the better it is for America as a whole. If you look at Republican plans for health care a lot of them involve removing the health insurance tax subsidy entirely (which is a good idea). That would cause a lot more people to 'lose' their insurance than the ACA despite being a positive development.

This also seems to be a two sided argument. On one side conservatives say that because more people are being insured than before that health care spending is going up. Now they are saying that everyone is losing their insurance, so shouldn't that mean spending would go down? Can't have it both ways.

If I have insurance today from my employer and I dont tomorrow. Did I lose insurance or not? I can certainly run to the exchanges and pay more for less coverage. But that doesnt mean I didnt lose my insurance plan through my employer. That is a real possibility for millions of people. Our company is already near cadillac status, and our plan wasnt exactly the greatest in the book. I dont see us continuing such a plan if we are hit with the tax. A buddy of mine working for a city in WI is dropping him Jan 1st 2015.

I dont disagree with you that removing health insurance from employment is a good thing. However the idea that democrats wont have to address people's concerns when they are dropped is also fantasy land stuff. The uproar is already starting with people who were self insured. When people who are employed are dropped. It will get louder.

 

[Daverino]

It is that 50M Americans will have had their insurance costs increased via ACA. That hit into the wallet is what is going to be hammered on.

I would think you would know the difference between correlation and causation.

From 1999 to 2009, before the ACA was in effect, insurance premiums rose, ON AVERAGE, over 13% per year. Employee contributions to their health plans rose by over 12% per year during the same span. Everyone in America has had their health cares costs go up every year the past three decades. You cannot now mystically ascribe this trend to the ACA starting two months ago.

If you're shocked, SHOCKED! to see a rise in healthcare costs in 2014 after the ACA went into effect, you'll also be shocked to learn that water is now wet and the Pope is now Catholic.

 

[EagleKeeper]

You're conflating different coverage with losing insurance. One is someone getting coverage that may be less favorable to them, which they certainly might not like, and the other is someone being completely without coverage. They can't both be referred to as 'losing coverage'.

It is unlikely that too many credible employers will cancel their health coverage due to the ACA, but in reality the more we move away from employer based health care the better it is for America as a whole. If you look at Republican plans for health care a lot of them involve removing the health insurance tax subsidy entirely (which is a good idea). That would cause a lot more people to 'lose' their insurance than the ACA despite being a positive development.

This also seems to be a two sided argument. On one side conservatives say that because more people are being insured than before that health care spending is going up. Now they are saying that everyone is losing their insurance, so shouldn't that mean spending would go down? Can't have it both ways.

Those that lose insurance are not going to be spending on health care.
Those that have added insurance will spend more on health care.

Will those that have their insurance canceled and unable to obtain replacement at a reasonable cost be more than those that are able to get subsidized insurance.

An employee may be paying $100-$600 a month via employer.
Normally an employer used to pick up 75-90% of insurance costs.

So an employee that loses insurance from the employer (and still is employed) will be facing $400-$2400/month added costs for insurance. Unless you think the employer is going to give him the difference :\

This is based on the insurance coverage being equal from the employer provided insurance to the exchange.

 

[Matt1970]

I was especially impressed by how our media handled the RNC Rosa Parks tweet. Awesome!

I am more of a fan of how Candy Crowley decided to jump into the the Presidential Debate with a failed attempt at fact checking.

 

[fskimospy]

Those that lose insurance are not going to be spending on health care.
Those that have added insurance will spend more on health care.

Will those that have their insurance canceled and unable to obtain replacement at a reasonable cost be more than those that are able to get subsidized insurance.

An employee may be paying $100-$600 a month via employer.
Normally an employer used to pick up 75-90% of insurance costs.

So an employee that loses insurance from the employer (and still is employed) will be facing $400-$2400/month added costs for insurance. Unless you think the employer is going to give him the difference :\

This is based on the insurance coverage being equal from the employer provided insurance to the exchange.

There are no facts in your post, just random speculation.

You realize that actual analysis has been done on this, right? Why don't you go read some and see what it says about your scenarios?

 

[EagleKeeper]

I would think you would know the difference between correlation and causation.

From 1999 to 2009, before the ACA was in effect, insurance premiums rose, ON AVERAGE, over 13% per year. Employee contributions to their health plans rose by over 12% per year during the same span. Everyone in America has had their health cares costs go up every year the past three decades. You cannot now mystically ascribe this trend to the ACA starting two months ago.

If you're shocked, SHOCKED! to see a rise in healthcare costs in 2014 after the ACA went into effect, you'll also be shocked to learn that water is now wet and the Pope is now Catholic.

I am not stating that costs rising are only due to the ACA.

I am stating that the ACA is going to have the finger pointed to because costs have risen for the 50M.

 

[Daverino]

I am not stating that costs rising are only due to the ACA.

I am stating that the ACA is going to have the finger pointed to because costs have risen for the 50M.

So you're saying that there's nothing wrong with the ACA, just that it can be effectively blamed by politicians for things unrelated?

And people who 'vote with their wallet' because of the ACA were just tricked into doing so by people with some other agenda?

I guess we do agree after all.