Comment on A public service announcement by RobCaswell
I haven't looked at a detailed breakdown of how the plan supports itself and what the additional load is to the operating budget. I know some of the key theories to its methods of price containment. And I know that it will mean more expense from the federal coffers. But I haven't seen a good breakdown of all the numbers yet. I suspect we won't REALLY know the numbers, anyway, until after the law goes fully into effect in January. There are a number of variables. And it also depends on how much damage the GOP can inflict on those fiscal legs. It seems that's their new goal in attacking the law: to cripple it as much as possible as to increase its chances of failure. Delaying the medical device tax for two years sounds pretty benign until you understand the money void it leaves for establishing the ACA.
Yeah, we probably won't know anything until the law comes into effect.
I'm starting to think that the GOP is just jealous that they didn't think of this first.
I'm starting to think that the GOP is just jealous that they didn't think of this first.
That last line is a joke, yes?
As someone once said (and I agree with, given what we've seen): "Republican's aren't really afraid Obamacare will fail, they're more afraid it'll succeed."
As someone once said (and I agree with, given what we've seen): "Republican's aren't really afraid Obamacare will fail, they're more afraid it'll succeed."
Halfway. From what I can tell, in theory, the law should increase competition and drive down prices, which honestly sounds like something the Republicans used to be known for insisting on: that capitalism is the superior method for economic stability (it's a lot more more complicated than that, but when you get right down to it the bill is just a way to force insurance companies to control their prices). So part of their hatred for it could very well be that they aren't the ones who thought of it first. And if it does succeed, they'll lose a major playing card they have, which is that (in their minds) Republicans are the only ones who truly understand our economy enough to save it. So I'm really only partway joking.
As childish as either side has acted over the last decade or so (locking the doors on the Republicans and changing the locks, making up easily-unverifiable lies about Obamacare to scare people), I wouldn't be surprised if the real reason for all this bickering was as petty as that.
As childish as either side has acted over the last decade or so (locking the doors on the Republicans and changing the locks, making up easily-unverifiable lies about Obamacare to scare people), I wouldn't be surprised if the real reason for all this bickering was as petty as that.
See, that's why I thought you were joking... because Republicans DID think of it first. The idea originally came out of a Republican think tank (the Heritage Foundation) in 1989. In the early 90's Republican leaders twice tried to present as an option in Congress. It's first major trial came when Republican governor, Mitt Romney, managed to put it in place in Massachusetts in 2006. Obama chose the model based on it's Republican roots, reasoning that he'd have an easier time getting this passed than the Public Option that so many Democrats - especially on the Left - favored. It was a centrist course... though you'd never know that now listening to Republicans talk of it. Even Romney got on the ACA bashing wagon during his campaign, saying "Sure I used that very model for Massachusetts. It was the right choice for that state... but not for the nation."
Ah, good ole Mr. Etchasketch....
www.forbes.com/sites/theapothe…
healthcarereform.procon.org/vi…
www.forbes.com/sites/theapothe…
Ah, good ole Mr. Etchasketch....
www.forbes.com/sites/theapothe…
healthcarereform.procon.org/vi…
www.forbes.com/sites/theapothe…
Ah, I didn't know that! It makes perfect sense, when you think about it, though. It has ALL the earmarks of a Republican law, with some Democrat flavor thrown in here and there. It probably would have been good in hindsight to advertise it as a former Republican law (if they did, then advertise it more strongly, because obviously I knew nothing of its origins), though that could have alienated the Democrats. It would have gone a long way in keeping the criticism of it down to a manageable level, at least a level at which the Republicans wouldn't have been able to stymie it so easily.
I do like that Obama at least attempted to make it something that appealed to both sides. It's a testament to his promise to work on both sides of the aisle, though he hasn't always lived up to that historically (not that he hasn't made an effort, but even the best politicians can't hope to be completely apolitical).
I do like that Obama at least attempted to make it something that appealed to both sides. It's a testament to his promise to work on both sides of the aisle, though he hasn't always lived up to that historically (not that he hasn't made an effort, but even the best politicians can't hope to be completely apolitical).