The trouble I see in Obamacare

[chucky2]

I don't see a lot of evidence that Reid had the ability to whip an extra 10 votes+ on the issue. What makes you think that he did?

You don't see a lot of evidence because Reid et al didn't try hard enough. What they needed to do was both carrot (do whatever it took to get the votes) and stick (nuclear 'you are either with us or your career is over') options to those undecided/unwilling. These people are Politician. They have the same type of morals as Lawyer, more likely, even worse. They'll go along with it, the pot just needed to be sweetened enough, and the consequences for not doing so needed to be dire enough.

Instead what the Dems did was a joke. A few no shit things that taken individually the Reps would have even joined with them in passing, with some sh1t thrown in.

Here is the end result of this historic failure: The US public will now drift along with Bummercare for however long, instead of UHC. Taken on an individual and collective level, really, I don't think any Congress has produced a larger failure than that - ever. Stop making excuses for them, or deflecting. Their failure is so large if they had any self respect (and I know they don't, they're Politician after all), they'd hang themselves with an apology note.

 

[fskimospy]

You don't see a lot of evidence because Reid et al didn't try hard enough. What they needed to do was both carrot (do whatever it took to get the votes) and stick (nuclear 'you are either with us or your career is over') options to those undecided/unwilling. These people are Politician. They have the same type of morals as Lawyer, more likely, even worse. They'll go along with it, the pot just needed to be sweetened enough, and the consequences for not doing so needed to be dire enough.

Instead what the Dems did was a joke. A few no shit things that taken individually the Reps would have even joined with them in passing, with some sh1t thrown in.

Here is the end result of this historic failure: The US public will now drift along with Bummercare for however long, instead of UHC. Taken on an individual and collective level, really, I don't think any Congress has produced a larger failure than that - ever. Stop making excuses for them, or deflecting. Their failure is so large if they had any self respect (and I know they don't, they're Politician after all), they'd hang themselves with an apology note.

So you're just declaring that they could have done it without any evidence?

Asking for you to provide anything whatsoever to back up your assertion isn't making excuses for anyone, it's asking you to back up your assertion.

EDIT: To be clear, the following would help.

1.) What Senate Democrats (or Republicans!) do you think were sure votes for UHC?
2.) What Senate Democrats were not sure votes for UHC?
2a.) What would have been required to secure their votes? (generally)

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

That whooshing sound I just heard must have been the goal posts blowing by.

That noise is what's important because it determines just what things are going to be required for any given reform. That's why things need to get done before settling on a particular and irrevocable course. You linked to things which have some general information in a hypothetical world, but that doesn't get shit done nor is it how things are in the real world. This isn't about your love for your party or your political system. This is about the future of the health of the American people. You pull up studies from sites that have an agenda and that is the One Way. You haven't bothered to lower yourself to explain why things which are in complete control, things which are so incredibly trivial by comparison aren't making things better from a care giving perspective, or is care no longer relevant, but how much gold you can get from the goose? Do you know anything about how things really are or are you restricted to your reams of paper with no connection to the hear and now?

You don't really care what's best. You want to win, and that's why I get annoyed with you.

 

[fskimospy]

That noise is what's important because it determines just what things are going to be required for any given reform. That's why things need to get done before settling on a particular and irrevocable course. You linked to things which have some general information in a hypothetical world, but that doesn't get shit done nor is it how things are in the real world. This isn't about your love for your party or your political system. This is about the future of the health of the American people. You pull up studies from sites that have an agenda and that is the One Way. You haven't bothered to lower yourself to explain why things which are in complete control, things which are so incredibly trivial by comparison aren't making things better from a care giving perspective, or is care no longer relevant, but how much gold you can get from the goose? Do you know anything about how things really are or are you restricted to your reams of paper with no connection to the hear and now?

You don't really care what's best. You want to win, and that's why I get annoyed with you.

No, it means there has been a great deal of research into the effects of UHC, specifically as was asked. These studies all use different assumptions as to the effects of UHC in the real world, etc.

You said something that was clearly, obviously wrong. It's the same mantra you've been repeating for a long time now. I'm quite sure that you simply had no idea as to the mountains of research that has been done into UHC implementation, etc, and when confronted with it tried to reach for reasons why you could protect what you already thought.

You don't really care what's best, you want to preserve your idea of what is.

 

[theeedude]

Because they are politicians and politicians haven't the first clue about health care and how to implement real reform. Asking why one idiot doesn't come up with something great because another didn't isn't very smart.

But we should trust the politicians who "haven't the first clue about health care and how to implement real reform" when they tell us repealing Obamacare is a good idea?

Also, I didn't say they had to come up with "something great", just "anything better" than Obamacare that they claim is so awful. They came up with nothing. In 5 years since Obamacare got passed, or 20 years since they defeated Hillarycare. They basically are incapable of coming up with anything even marginally useful, forget about greatness.

 

[uclabachelor]

We don't yet know what will happen if the vast majority of signups are older and disabled people. Will rates skyrocket if the younger people needed to pay for it stay away or are not enough for our aging population?

In other countries with 'forced' healthcare (Canada, England, Norway...) they pay for the system with taxes. This actually captures more younger dollars through sales, property and/or estate taxes.

And what happens in a few years to already financially-strapped states who will start losing federal funding for their Medicaid programs?

I hope our system isn't doomed to failure from underfunding a heavy load. The penalties for not signing up can add up though.

It's like social security - the younger folks pay, the older folks reap the benefits! At least with this the young has a limit on bills if catastrophe strikes.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

No, it means there has been a great deal of research into the effects of UHC, specifically as was asked. These studies all use different assumptions as to the effects of UHC in the real world, etc.

You said something that was clearly, obviously wrong. It's the same mantra you've been repeating for a long time now. I'm quite sure that you simply had no idea as to the mountains of research that has been done into UHC implementation, etc, and when confronted with it tried to reach for reasons why you could protect what you already thought.

You don't really care what's best, you want to preserve your idea of what is.

You haven't a clue as to what I know or don't. So since you have mountains of research you tell us a few things you will probably find trivial.

Which is better, Sweden or England or Canada or France for our needs?

Is there a single best option for every area or do they need to be different? What criteria have you determined to be best? How do you get it through so regulations are free from unintended consequences? Who handles that? What does health care need, really need and how is it obtained? I'm not talking dollars? Are there options? What are they? What are the plusses and minuses of each? What can we expect in terms of rationing in each case? What are the Constitutional limits on changes? What can you make people do and not? How is this rolled out? How do you make sure people don't fall through the cracks or be harmed by bureaucratic nonsense, which you've pointedly ignored?

You know all this, or pretend to. A room full of experts with centuries of experience and dealing with care and the system wasn't sure how to make all wonderful things happen, but you do? Pull the other.

Give specifics, not wave studies under our noses. Do it. Tell us how you make it happen. Tell us how you are so certain.

In another thread you summed it up when people complained about the economy. You said it was hard. Well it is. So is this, but you go in the internet and find the solutions all (not) worked out. It's like you drew a rocket on paper and say "This will work". Ridiculous.

 

[Ban Bot]

Ask a normal human being; give it some time. Lets see what happens. If anything, I would prefer free healthcare,... like almost every other country on this planet.

As nothing is free, you mean single payer.

Invariably the end game, based on the dismal performance of Obamacare but the lack of coverage of the current system, is a single payer system. My guess it will be a tax, similar to FICA, at a fixed rate with a cap + whatever service fees to prevent the system from being overloaded. Only a guess.

 

[Ban Bot]

I'm a libertarian, not a greedy evil piece of crap. I dont think the government owes me a god damn thing, nor do I owe the government anything more.

Thank you for your service. That said you will continue to serve. You owe the government taxes on any taxable income or assets or required fees as well as obedience to all laws and regulations and various public duties you may be called upon to exercise select rights such as voting.

 

[chucky2]

So you're just declaring that they could have done it without any evidence?

Asking for you to provide anything whatsoever to back up your assertion isn't making excuses for anyone, it's asking you to back up your assertion.

EDIT: To be clear, the following would help.

1.) What Senate Democrats (or Republicans!) do you think were sure votes for UHC?
2.) What Senate Democrats were not sure votes for UHC?
2a.) What would have been required to secure their votes? (generally)

You declared 10+ votes were needed. To declare that you'd already have that information for 1 and 2. Why would you ask me to provide something you already had to know to make your 10+ statement?

For 2a, that would depend individually on those 10+ people. I'm quite sure given Politician, they could be bought/blackmailed into agreement. We're talking about the health needs for the entire country going forward, and, if you listen to UHC proponents, massive $$$ the Fed gets to pocket. Plus what we're really talking about is large incentives for these 10+ Politicians and/or their states, along with effective death of a career if their vote is a No. Most Politician like to stay Politician, that is their priority #1 mission in life. Pretty sure they'd buy in once they extracted enough for themselves and/or their states - and whatever the price was, it'd have been worth it for UHC.

Again, stop making excuses like you're asking profound questions here like it couldn't have been done, oh gosh, just, geeze, how would poor Ol Harry have got those votes. He didn't want them, else he'd have pulled out all the stops, including Bummer, who was just along for the ride with Pelosi and Reid but given his popularity at the time, could have been used as an effective asset/club, to get them. Talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory...

 

[werepossum]

We don't yet know what will happen if the vast majority of signups are older and disabled people. Will rates skyrocket if the younger people needed to pay for it stay away or are not enough for our aging population?

In other countries with 'forced' healthcare (Canada, England, Norway...) they pay for the system with taxes. This actually captures more younger dollars through sales, property and/or estate taxes.

And what happens in a few years to already financially-strapped states who will start losing federal funding for their Medicaid programs?

I hope our system isn't doomed to failure from underfunding a heavy load. The penalties for not signing up can add up though.

I think the design is to cause our system to fail. However, what you're describing is not necessarily fatal to Obamacare. From the original design, penalties quickly escalate to the point that not being insured becoming the more expensive option for the vast majority of young people. Those are being postponed for mostly political reasons, but will eventually kick in. Even if they are eliminated, similar results can be obtained by directly subsidizing those who earn too much for Medicare but too little for subsidies via tax redirection. Proggies will assure you this can be done forever because we can borrow as much as we want for as long as we want forever with no ill effects. I doubt that, but so far we've been quietly monetizing our debt without much ill effect so at least in the short term they are correct. Maybe if/when the world economy really recovers that will fail, but we'll also have more tax revenue. And at the rate we are borrowing, the additional debt from Obamacare will be a small fraction of what kills us even if/when they begin direct subsidies.

As far as already strapped states, part of the plan is to force states to raise taxes. Rational people (especially on my side of the aisle) are not going to be happy about that, but given that this is the kind of situation where the winners gain a lot and the losers usually lose a little, it should be a bearable pain, and part of that will hopefully be offset by lower emergency room usage and by catching problems early when they can be more cheaply and more successfully treated. I've a friend for example who lost her adult son to (I think) colon or stomach cancer. He had no health insurance and did not go to the doctor until he could not ignore the pain, by which time he was riddled with metastasized cancer. He got some very expensive but unsuccessful treatment - the best in the world - for which he could pay virtually nothing. That is part of our systemic health care cost, even though he did not pay it. Had he had insurance it might well have been caught at a treatable stage, which not only would have been much cheaper but would also have left a productive worker in the system. So we can't count only the cost of Obamacare, there are intangible as well as tangible but difficult to measure mitigating factors which offset some of those costs.

At the end of the day either the Dems want to crash the system to usher in brave new world of socialized medicine and will succeed, or like any government program it will be adjusted to remain a bearable burden. Good questions though - shows you're thinking rather than blindly following one side or the other.

Do you have data to back that statement up? Better in what way? name on country that does more MRI's than the U.S.... or one country that has a higher MRI scanner/Patient ratio. How about cancer survival rates.. have you ever compared U.S. data to Canada or Britain? What countries have the best access to cancer screening? How many hip replacements are done in other countries vs. the United States? Which countries have the highest rates of diabetes or obesity? Did you know that since the mid 1970's the Nobel Prize in medicine has gone to American residents more often than all other countries combined? American healthcare innovates.

My guess is you actually have no clue as to how other countries systems are better than the U.S.

And if Universal healthcare is the bomb.... why to people in Britain carry supplemental insurance (well the ones that can afford to)?

I think universal care plus supplemental insurance might be what we end up with. Rationing would be done by reduced care and long queues. MRIs for example - most people will be fine without them, and some of those who aren't fine without them can be successfully treated. If we (and Canada) can provide MRIs for pets, we can provide them for people who can pay for a diagnostic procedure deemed desirable but not necessary. Some of course will be screwed without the MRI, but there will be other people who are screwed now who will be unscrewed (so to speak) by having access to health care between the doc-in-a-box and true emergency room level or life-threatening care. We'll be like Canada, with a health care system which is good enough for most people most of the time. We won't have a highly advanced neighbor as an option like Canada, but probably sophisticated for-pay clinics will spring up in Mexico and Brazil to fill that niche.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I think universal care plus supplemental insurance might be what we end up with.

Most likely. The devil of course is in the details, and waving the magic UHC wand doesn't do anything. As I've said there's a whole lot we need to consider. For example rationing. When we have a trillion dollar tab no matter what system we use waiting in terms of the aging population how is that handled? Who is going to give that care and how is it going to be done? You don't wring your hands once a crisis is upon you and expect the heavens to rescue you simply because you wouldn't plan for the obvious. Getting any of this through? It's already been painfully obvious that the normal excoriating of one party by the other isn't going to help. I expect when the time comes they'll sit a bunch of old people in chairs and make an emotional appeal bereft of genuine ideas. If the there were anyone in DC with two working neurons who was honestly interesting in something other than credit for themselves there would be effort put into asking the sorts of questions I've been. At that point there would still be a political struggle but if you were to go before your boss with a proposal do you think it would be better to have a package with concepts, specifics and contingencies or lovely pics of far away places where people are oh so healthy and cared for? Given any sense it wouldn't be the latter. Of course we're in America dealing with the American public so not everyone wants to get it however if a path is plainly laid and scrupulously researched and explained that might provide enough weight in the balance to shift things in that direction. Judging from the hacks here I'm doubtful that would happen. People really want the fight.

 

[chucky2]

snip

Of course we're in America dealing with the American public so not everyone wants to get it however if a path is plainly laid and scrupulously researched and explained that might provide enough weight in the balance to shift things in that direction. Judging from the hacks here I'm doubtful that would happen. People really want the fight.

The Dems had years to get those ducks in a row while they played second fiddle to the Reps in the first Bush years...they blew it. Then they had control for the remainder of Bush and could have actively done this in prep for whoever won 2008...they blew that. Then their guy won in 2008 and they again blew it again.

I know exactly what you're saying here, and agree...but don't you think with the political capital, and control, the Dems had from 2006 and then especially in 2008/9, if this could have ever been done, by a more Bleeding Heart/Fo the O-pressed party no less, that it would have been done?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The Dems had years to get those ducks in a row while they played second fiddle to the Reps in the first Bush years...they blew it. Then they had control for the remainder of Bush and could have actively done this in prep for whoever won 2008...they blew that. Then their guy won in 2008 and they again blew it again.

I know exactly what you're saying here, and agree...but don't you think with the political capital, and control, the Dems had from 2006 and then especially in 2008/9, if this could have ever been done, by a more Bleeding Heart/Fo the O-pressed party no less, that it would have been done?

The problem is that they don't understand the problem and if they do they can't comprehend that perhaps they ought to set things up and lead by getting out of the way. There is no "bleeding heart" Democratic political leadership. Politics has been bad before and historically worse, but this seems to be akin to "stagflation", something continual and perverse. The response will be "yeah but they started it first". I don't bloody care. There is need, and differences of opinion, but when the primary consideration in any undertaking is to look good above all we'll get just what we have now. There was a moment when this discussion started that a leader could have taken advantage IF the consideration was really for the welfare of the citizen. I think we've gotten so far down the wrong road that even understanding there is a difference between political agenda and good leadership and this goes back well before Obama. He's merely a continuation of the status quo.

 

[chucky2]

The problem is that they don't understand the problem and if they do they can't comprehend that perhaps they ought to set things up and lead by getting out of the way. There is no "bleeding heart" Democratic political leadership. Politics has been bad before and historically worse, but this seems to be akin to "stagflation", something continual and perverse. The response will be "yeah but they started it first". I don't bloody care. There is need, and differences of opinion, but when the primary consideration in any undertaking is to look good above all we'll get just what we have now. There was a moment when this discussion started that a leader could have taken advantage IF the consideration was really for the welfare of the citizen. I think we've gotten so far down the wrong road that even understanding there is a difference between political agenda and good leadership and this goes back well before Obama. He's merely a continuation of the status quo.

Sure there is Bleeding Heart Dem political leadership. There is not a cause where their hearts do not bleed to get those votes. We know the Reps don't have this attribute because they are Big Business only.

What you are talking about regarding the public aspect doesn't take weeks, or a month, for the scale of this undertaking, it takes probably a year - and that's with a sustained concerted effort. Politician can't handle that man, they need soundbites and shit. And what they really need is to be able to point at something, anything, and say, Look, We did accomplish something! Else they become even more useless than they're already perceived to be in the public eye...that doesn't help re-election efforts, or do anything for your legacy...

 

[fskimospy]

You haven't a clue as to what I know or don't. So since you have mountains of research you tell us a few things you will probably find trivial.

Which is better, Sweden or England or Canada or France for our needs?

Is there a single best option for every area or do they need to be different? What criteria have you determined to be best? How do you get it through so regulations are free from unintended consequences? Who handles that? What does health care need, really need and how is it obtained? I'm not talking dollars? Are there options? What are they? What are the plusses and minuses of each? What can we expect in terms of rationing in each case? What are the Constitutional limits on changes? What can you make people do and not? How is this rolled out? How do you make sure people don't fall through the cracks or be harmed by bureaucratic nonsense, which you've pointedly ignored?

You know all this, or pretend to. A room full of experts with centuries of experience and dealing with care and the system wasn't sure how to make all wonderful things happen, but you do? Pull the other.

Give specifics, not wave studies under our noses. Do it. Tell us how you make it happen. Tell us how you are so certain.

In another thread you summed it up when people complained about the economy. You said it was hard. Well it is. So is this, but you go in the internet and find the solutions all (not) worked out. It's like you drew a rocket on paper and say "This will work". Ridiculous.

Lol. This discussion was about the costs inherent in expanding Medicare nationally and there is tons of information in all of those studies about the various hurdles and expected costs. That's what was asked for, that's what you denied, and that's what I supplied.

I sincerely doubt you bothered to open a single one of those studies or take any time to familiarize yourself with the research on the issue. You have tried so hard to cling to the idea that this research doesn't exist that you do whatever you can to deny it when it is waved under your nose.

If you have specific critiques of the studies I presented and how they relate to his question cite the study and question. If not, accept reality.

 

[fskimospy]

You declared 10+ votes were needed. To declare that you'd already have that information for 1 and 2. Why would you ask me to provide something you already had to know to make your 10+ statement?

For 2a, that would depend individually on those 10+ people. I'm quite sure given Politician, they could be bought/blackmailed into agreement. We're talking about the health needs for the entire country going forward, and, if you listen to UHC proponents, massive $$$ the Fed gets to pocket. Plus what we're really talking about is large incentives for these 10+ Politicians and/or their states, along with effective death of a career if their vote is a No. Most Politician like to stay Politician, that is their priority #1 mission in life. Pretty sure they'd buy in once they extracted enough for themselves and/or their states - and whatever the price was, it'd have been worth it for UHC.

Again, stop making excuses like you're asking profound questions here like it couldn't have been done, oh gosh, just, geeze, how would poor Ol Harry have got those votes. He didn't want them, else he'd have pulled out all the stops, including Bummer, who was just along for the ride with Pelosi and Reid but given his popularity at the time, could have been used as an effective asset/club, to get them. Talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory...

You said they could definitely have done it. At this point it is abundantly clear that you have no idea if it could have been done or not, you are just declaring it so.

What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. If you come up with anything to back up your statement please let me know.

 

[chucky2]

I take it you didn't want to answer your own questions 1 and 2. Oh well...

 

[fskimospy]

I take it you didn't want to answer your own questions 1 and 2. Oh well...

You were the one who made a statement. You need to back it up. You can't do that by simply declaring your premise correct.

 

[chucky2]

Nick Nick Nick...we can all use Google, as we have in the past in the HC threads, and know the Senators who were slobbering all for it, were positively receptive to it, were guarded but were willing to listen, and who were psycho against it.

You yourself came up with the 10+ number - that statement was yours, not mine. To come up with that, you'd have had to known what was understood by All anyways, that Reid needed a true super majority to get past the fillibuster and bring it to a vote. We had numerous threads on this over the years now.

Please...Nick'ing isn't duhverting from the failures of Reid and the Dems on this. You know it, I know it, Everyone reading the thread knows it. Why you are even attempting to do this is...puzzling...

 

[werepossum]

Most likely. The devil of course is in the details, and waving the magic UHC wand doesn't do anything. As I've said there's a whole lot we need to consider. For example rationing. When we have a trillion dollar tab no matter what system we use waiting in terms of the aging population how is that handled? Who is going to give that care and how is it going to be done? You don't wring your hands once a crisis is upon you and expect the heavens to rescue you simply because you wouldn't plan for the obvious. Getting any of this through? It's already been painfully obvious that the normal excoriating of one party by the other isn't going to help. I expect when the time comes they'll sit a bunch of old people in chairs and make an emotional appeal bereft of genuine ideas. If the there were anyone in DC with two working neurons who was honestly interesting in something other than credit for themselves there would be effort put into asking the sorts of questions I've been. At that point there would still be a political struggle but if you were to go before your boss with a proposal do you think it would be better to have a package with concepts, specifics and contingencies or lovely pics of far away places where people are oh so healthy and cared for? Given any sense it wouldn't be the latter. Of course we're in America dealing with the American public so not everyone wants to get it however if a path is plainly laid and scrupulously researched and explained that might provide enough weight in the balance to shift things in that direction. Judging from the hacks here I'm doubtful that would happen. People really want the fight.

A big part of the problem is that specifics get a politician in trouble. For the Dems, there are always parts of Obamacare that most people don't like, and most people will hate some part of it. For the Pubbies, there are always parts of Obamacare that most people do like, and most people will love some part of it. Therefore specifics get one into trouble and vagueness becomes a winning strategy. Thus we get a malformed, over-ambitious and poorly implemented program from the left that contains some good parts, and the right can only oppose the whole because individual voters hate and love different parts and they cannot afford to alienate any of them that might vote Republican.

 

[chucky2]

A big part of the problem is that specifics get a politician in trouble. For the Dems, there are always parts of Obamacare that most people don't like, and most people will hate some part of it. For the Pubbies, there are always parts of Obamacare that most people do like, and most people will love some part of it. Therefore specifics get one into trouble and vagueness becomes a winning strategy. Thus we get a malformed, over-ambitious and poorly implemented program from the left that contains some good parts, and the right can only oppose the whole because individual voters hate and love different parts and they cannot afford to alienate any of them that might vote Republican.

But for the Dems, that's a beautiful thing, don't you see? They had to do zero real hard work. They got it passed, so they can record a political Win plus they can embellish their legacy, which strokes the all important ego. They can blame anyone else for their failure to do the hard thing, which was could have been accomplished, and the best part about this is, a.) used a negative against their detractors/opponents, and b.) keeps those votes a coming in for future elections because 'we got a long ways to go'...

...really, a pretty good Political bunch of work by them. Fucking disaster when looked at for the health consequences nationally, but really, no one expects Politician to care about that, so it's moot.

 

[werepossum]

The problem you are seeing was observed years ago.

And never dealt with. The whole problem with communal ANYTHING is that it always ends up with a handful of relatively responsible, productive people taking care of a crapload folks who are either lazy, stupid and useless, cheats, or horribly self-destructive. At the very least they dont produce enough value to society (trading goods or services for a paycheck) to balance out all the handouts they'll be getting.


Shit, thats basically me right now. I been out of work for a while, going to school with the GI Bill. So basically I am one of the people milking the system and not providing any value in return, other than volunteering with small local groups to do basically bullshit jobs.
Am not getting any government assistance but still not doing anything truly useful. And when I get my degree theres no promise of any job waiting for me. In fact it looks like there will be more jobs shipped overseas or just plain disappearing by the time I get done.

Just wanted to say that is not true. The GI Bill is an earned benefit; one provides a certain amount of one's life (with a severe loss of freedom over that period) in return for that benefit. That is only different from saving up to go back to school in the currency banked - and given that government issues the currency, even that is a technicality.

 

[werepossum]

But for the Dems, that's a beautiful thing, don't you see? They had to do zero real hard work. They got it passed, so they can record a political Win plus they can embellish their legacy, which strokes the all important ego. They can blame anyone else for their failure to do the hard thing, which was could have been accomplished, and the best part about this is, a.) used a negative against their detractors/opponents, and b.) keeps those votes a coming in for future elections because 'we got a long ways to go'...

...really, a pretty good Political bunch of work by them. Fucking disaster when looked at for the health consequences nationally, but really, no one expects Politician to care about that, so it's moot.

It's a big win for the Democrat agenda of collectivism, not just their legacy. If it works, they've given millions of people health care at someone else's expense. If it fails - as I suspect it is designed to do - then the existing system will be devastated and restoring it will be near-impossible, leaving the only practical alternative as even more control by the very people who destroyed the current system.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

A big part of the problem is that specifics get a politician in trouble. For the Dems, there are always parts of Obamacare that most people don't like, and most people will hate some part of it. For the Pubbies, there are always parts of Obamacare that most people do like, and most people will love some part of it. Therefore specifics get one into trouble and vagueness becomes a winning strategy. Thus we get a malformed, over-ambitious and poorly implemented program from the left that contains some good parts, and the right can only oppose the whole because individual voters hate and love different parts and they cannot afford to alienate any of them that might vote Republican.

That's a major reason to have this done by people based on qualifications other than what party they belong to. After all legislators are not compelled to do the work, indeed it's been stated that they don't have the time, and they certainly don't have the expertise. IF the goal is to get things done right then a third party selected by other professionals and advocates, that is non-partisan, but knowledgeable and have demonstrated to the ablity to work with others. This has advantages for the politicians. If it goes well then they can pat each other on the back and tell everyone how smart they are. If it goes tits up they can do what they do and blame others, in this case the experts and of course they can always say "well we tried what have you done" and this time with some credibility.

But the question comes down to this- do they really want improvement or to make hay? Are they so dense that they can't figure this out or are they fearful that someone might share credit? All this remains to be seen.