Employers shrug off Obamacare, robbing Republicans of a campaign issue

R

rdean

Guest
Just 18 months ago, a Republican fantasy seemed about to come true. (I love it. Republicans fantasize about failure. But we already knew that.)

The Affordable Care Act was in the midst of a disastrous rollout plagued by dialup-stye technology snafus. President Obama had sabotaged his own health-reform plan by falsely promising that everybody happy with their health plan could keep it. As frozen computer screens and canceled policies generated a tsunami of bad publicity, it seemed plausible that Obamacare might be such a flop that voters would clamor for its repeal when the next presidential election came around.

Now, with the next presidential election underway, nothing of the sort is happening. The problems that marred the rollout of Obamacare have been fixed. The law, meanwhile, is reducing the number of Americans who lack health coverage as intended, as a new report from the Rand Corp. shows. And just as important, many unintended consequences that critics of the law predicted have failed to materialize.

A recent Gallup poll shows a sharp rise in public approval of how the government handles healthcare, from 29% in 2013 to 43% today. By the time the 2016 election arrives, Obamacare bashers may have an even tougher time making the case against the law.

“Socalized medicine” hasn’t materialized.

Obamacare hasn’t killed jobs.

The law has helped the uninsured.

There aren’t that many people negatively affected by the law.

Employers shrug off Obamacare robbing Republicans of a campaign issue - Yahoo Finance

There are problems with the law. That's always the case when enacting a massive piece of new legislation. But Republicans are running on "let him die", not "fix the issues". Democrats are going to slap Republicans on this issue up, down, front, back and both ways sideways.
 
There are problems with the law. That's always the case when enacting a massive piece of new legislation. But Republicans are running on "let him die", not "fix the issues". Democrats are going to slap Republicans on this issue up, down, front, back and both ways sideways.

What is your point.

It has problems. And it's successes are not that easy to understand.

I don't vote on a party line.

But if you have not come to grips with the last three elections (the democrats held even in one and got their asses kicked in the other two), then I am sure 2016 could potentially be a real downer for you.
 
There are problems with the law. That's always the case when enacting a massive piece of new legislation. But Republicans are running on "let him die", not "fix the issues". Democrats are going to slap Republicans on this issue up, down, front, back and both ways sideways.

What is your point.

It has problems. And it's successes are not that easy to understand.

I don't vote on a party line.

But if you have not come to grips with the last three elections (the democrats held even in one and got their asses kicked in the other two), then I am sure 2016 could potentially be a real downer for you.

That's some kick ass analysis. The results of the last three elections always serve as a harbinger of things to come. Everyone knows that!
 
There are problems with the law. That's always the case when enacting a massive piece of new legislation. But Republicans are running on "let him die", not "fix the issues". Democrats are going to slap Republicans on this issue up, down, front, back and both ways sideways.

What is your point.

It has problems. And it's successes are not that easy to understand.

I don't vote on a party line.

But if you have not come to grips with the last three elections (the democrats held even in one and got their asses kicked in the other two), then I am sure 2016 could potentially be a real downer for you.

That's some kick ass analysis. The results of the last three elections always serve as a harbinger of things to come. Everyone knows that!

It's about as much analysis as the post deserved.

Of course, you are correct in your sarcastic statement.

The Iraq war and GWB's drunken spending pretty much pushed the GOP into a tail spin in 2006 and 2008. Nobody thought the GOP would regain the house as fast as they did. Nor did they think they would weaken the senate as fast as they did.

And the same could happen to the GOP in 2016.

The senate could easily swing back to the dems in 2016 given the number of GOP seats that are in play.

Most of the analysis I've read says the House is pretty much a lock for the GOP and could even get stronger in the years to come.

And Obamacare MIGHT be an issue.

However, it could go either way.

The claims of the left only appeal to the left.

The disinformation campaign run by the right has been successful and there are still plenty of issues to poke at.

But right now there is no reason to believe that the left is going to be able to use it as leverage (as some bright shining success) in the elections.
 
You folks are not paying attention are you?
The increases are spiking.

ALL of the grandfathered plans die Jan 1 2016.

The employer mandate hits in 2016....the fun is just beginning.
 
The Grandfathered plans expire, the mandates hit and premiums continue to rise. We lost our good insurance ($35 co-pay, everything else was covered) and got stuck on an 80/20 plan with a $3500 deductible. Our premium nearly doubled. What this means is we pay twice as much every pay day and have to pay all our medical costs out-of-pocket. So far, a $7000 pay cut thanks to rising medical costs. That's just paying for insurance and medical care for the children. We (the wife and I) don't go to the doctor, we can't afford the bills But we are white and deserve it, I suppose. The "insurance" that is being provided through subsidies has outrageous deductibles. The people who get the subsidies still can't afford health care (I know, ACA mandates free exams... the exam is "free"...but the lab work and chest x-rays and EKG are all billed full price...you didn't believe that "free" bullshit did you? Sure, the doc will give you a quick once-over to keep his billing privileges, but that ain't health care. The immunizations that are mandated have been available for free for years. No, the bills will start hitting lower middle class mailboxes in 2016. Disillusion to follow. What O'care really represents is racketeering on a scale unprecedented in all of history. The left-wing groups that are running the exchanges are getting a cut of every policy that they write. "Enroll America" IS "Organizing for America" Obama's personal bribe aggregator; getting his cut of the policies that his group writes, even after he leaves office...quite a retirement he has planned.

It's hard to dislodge any mafia once they are entrenched in power. The Dems are understandably cocky. They have the power of the Supremes, the cops, the Military. They have the cooperation of many establishment Repuglicans who run/serve on the boards of major "health care systems" (really just insurance billing systems) or who are aggregating bribes from health care syndicates. We'll see. Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Marcos, The Shah of Iran, Manuel Noriega were all on top of the world one day, and dealing with cold, hard reality the next. Political parties come and go as do mafia organizations. It used to be the Cali Cartel, now it's the boys from Mexico. We'll see.
 
There are problems with the law. That's always the case when enacting a massive piece of new legislation. But Republicans are running on "let him die", not "fix the issues". Democrats are going to slap Republicans on this issue up, down, front, back and both ways sideways.

What is your point.

It has problems. And it's successes are not that easy to understand.

I don't vote on a party line.

But if you have not come to grips with the last three elections (the democrats held even in one and got their asses kicked in the other two), then I am sure 2016 could potentially be a real downer for you.
You do realize that in all three of those elections more total votes we're cast for democratic candidates, right?
 
There are problems with the law. That's always the case when enacting a massive piece of new legislation. But Republicans are running on "let him die", not "fix the issues". Democrats are going to slap Republicans on this issue up, down, front, back and both ways sideways.

What is your point.

It has problems. And it's successes are not that easy to understand.

I don't vote on a party line.

But if you have not come to grips with the last three elections (the democrats held even in one and got their asses kicked in the other two), then I am sure 2016 could potentially be a real downer for you.
You do realize that in all three of those elections more total votes we're cast for democratic candidates, right?

I am well aware of that. Regardless, the GOP managed to more votes in the right places.

Having an excess of votes for a senator means nothing.
 
You folks are not paying attention are you?
The increases are spiking.

ALL of the grandfathered plans die Jan 1 2016.

The employer mandate hits in 2016....the fun is just beginning.

Bullshit Idiot - Healthcare cost are not spiking. Healthcare cost only spike when Repubtards are President.

fredgraph.png
 
There are problems with the law. That's always the case when enacting a massive piece of new legislation. But Republicans are running on "let him die", not "fix the issues". Democrats are going to slap Republicans on this issue up, down, front, back and both ways sideways.

What is your point.

It has problems. And it's successes are not that easy to understand.

I don't vote on a party line.

But if you have not come to grips with the last three elections (the democrats held even in one and got their asses kicked in the other two), then I am sure 2016 could potentially be a real downer for you.
You do realize that in all three of those elections more total votes we're cast for democratic candidates, right?

I am well aware of that. Regardless, the GOP managed to more votes in the right places.

Having an excess of votes for a senator means nothing.
They had more votes for congress as well. You fucks have not won a national, popular election, in years.
 
Kiss My,
I want you to understand that I am a "None of the Above" voter when it comes to republicans and Democrats--both parties are completely fucked as far as I am concerned. With that said, your assertion that health care costs only go up when Repuglicans are in office is insane. What do you mean by "in office"? Surely you don't mean the office of President. I will post a whole screen of laughy faces at you if you stick to that craziness. All Presidents since 1965 have screwed around, at least a little, with health care, and (by default) health care prices. The current occupant of the White House went over the top with a full-blown insurance subsidy/mandate program that is driving the cost of private sector health insurance (and the prices within the health care system) up, up, up. IF YOU FORCE PEOPLE TO BUY SOMETHING THERE IS NO INCENTIVE TO DROP THE PRICE. Quite the opposite, you have people over a barrel. They MUST buy. Screw them.

Between 1965 and 2015 Dems were the majority party in the House (the people who hold the purse strings) for thirty-four years (34 out of 50, or 68% of the time). Does that count as being "in office"? Because health care costs rose in every one of those years.

Dems held the White house for 24 out of 50 of those years--a year shy of half. Health care costs rose in all those years as well. But to make it clear, THE PRESIDENT isn't the decider of health care prices...there's a lot more to it than that. The fact that I have to point that out is both scary and sad.

As far as "who gets more votes", well you don't live in a country where that's all that counts, Paddy (the last hold-out Irish Catholic Dem in the world :wink_2:) WHERE the votes are cast and for what office also matter. Obama won the last election by almost exactly 1 million votes--a squeeker. To do that he had to "lose", or have his peons "lose", 250,000 ballots from soldiers and Marines stationed overseas...things were even tighter, you see we're down to 750,000.

PS:Look at the chart you posted, Kiss. Look at the monstrous decline in GDP during the first Clinton Dynastic Period...look for a repeat. Also note that, for the first time ever, health care expenditures are rising at a rate that is ABOVE GDP...happened in 2010, still happening. I'm not sure I'd drag that chart out again...just sayin'
 
Last edited:
Kiss My,
I want you to understand that I am a "None of the Above" voter when it comes to republicans and Democrats--both parties are completely fucked as far as I am concerned. With that said, your assertion that health care costs only go up when Repuglicans are in office is insane. What do you mean by "in office"? Surely you don't mean the office of President. I will post a whole screen of laughy faces at you if you stick to that craziness. All Presidents since 1965 have screwed around, at least a little, with health care, and (by default) health care prices. The current occupant of the White House went over the top with a full-blown insurance subsidy/mandate program that is driving the cost of private sector health insurance (and the prices within the health care system) up, up, up. IF YOU FORCE PEOPLE TO BUY SOMETHING THERE IS NO INCENTIVE TO DROP THE PRICE. Quite the opposite, you have people over a barrel. They MUST buy. Screw them.

Between 1965 and 2015 Dems were the majority party in the House (the people who hold the purse strings) for thirty-four years (34 out of 50, or 68% of the time). Does that count as being "in office"? Because health care costs rose in every one of those years.

Dems held the White house for 24 out of 50 of those years--a year shy of half. Health care costs rose in all those years as well. But to make it clear, THE PRESIDENT isn't the decider of health care prices...there's a lot more to it than that. The fact that I have to point that out is both scary and sad.

As far as "who gets more votes", well you don't live in a country where that's all that counts, Paddy (the last hold-out Irish Catholic Dem in the world :wink_2:) WHERE the votes are cast and for what office also matter. Obama won the last election by almost exactly 1 million votes--a squeeker. To do that he had to "lose", or have his peons "lose", 250,000 ballots from soldiers and Marines stationed overseas...things were even tighter, you see we're down to 750,000.

PS:Look at the chart you posted, Kiss. Look at the monstrous decline in GDP during the first Clinton Dynastic Period...look for a repeat.
Obama won the Catholic vote both times he ran. Though I am not aware of any breakdown in numbers by ancestry, I am certain that he did even better among Irish Catholics. "He" lost no votes. If ballots were not counted, talk to the state governments who control all elections. I have seen stories about lost votes from soldiers overseas and most happened in states the Republicans control. And the margin was not 1 million, you fucking moron:
Nominee Barack Obama Mitt Romney
Popular vote 65,915,796 60,933,500
Percentage 51.1% 47.2%
Five million more votes for the President.

"For the record, we got this official response from the Department of Defense, which as you can imagine takes this stuff awfully seriously.

“The Military Postal Service Agency dispatched to the U.S. Postal Service all military absentee ballots,” Pentagon spokeswoman Lt. Col. Melinda F. Morgan told us via email. “We are not aware of any lost ballots at DoD [Department of Defense] overseas military locations.”

— Robert Farley
 
5 Million...ok, that must be the number after the absentee ballots were counted. On the day of the election, he was up 1 million votes...and the soldier's ballots WERE "lost"...Since you went straight to "Moron" I'll look for the ignore button...gotta get back to work anyway...you remember work? Probably not...

I'd excommunicate any Catholic that voted for a Dem, but I'm not the Pope.
 
5 Million...ok, that must be the number after the absentee ballots were counted. On the day of the election, he was up 1 million votes...and the soldier's ballots WERE "lost"...Since you went straight to "Moron" I'll look for the ignore button...gotta get back to work anyway...you remember work? Probably not...

I'd excommunicate any Catholic that voted for a Dem, but I'm not the Pope.
It was "fucking moron" and your new comment confirms it. No, there were no military ballots lost according to the military.
 
There are problems with the law. That's always the case when enacting a massive piece of new legislation. But Republicans are running on "let him die", not "fix the issues". Democrats are going to slap Republicans on this issue up, down, front, back and both ways sideways.

What is your point.

It has problems. And it's successes are not that easy to understand.

I don't vote on a party line.

But if you have not come to grips with the last three elections (the democrats held even in one and got their asses kicked in the other two), then I am sure 2016 could potentially be a real downer for you.

Guess they missed the new WSJ article about the ACA failing the fraudulent claim test that was recently run.

And how they have no safe guards in place to research fraud.
 
Sun Devil is simply the point of what the National Review calls the TP Whinos.

We in the GOP are not going to do much attacking on ACA, almost nothing on SCOTUS and marriage equality. We will attack on economic, middle class jobs aspirations. Hopefully, we can reach out to women and minorities in a sensible way.

If we do it right, we might get the presidency, will probably still lose the Senate, and keep the House.
 
Sun Devil is simply the point of what the National Review calls the TP Whinos.

We in the GOP are not going to do much attacking on ACA, almost nothing on SCOTUS and marriage equality. We will attack on economic, middle class jobs aspirations. Hopefully, we can reach out to women and minorities in a sensible way.

If we do it right, we might get the presidency, will probably still lose the Senate, and keep the House.

"We"?
 
bluegin, you are not GOP, so what you think do
Sun Devil is simply the point of what the National Review calls the TP Whinos.

We in the GOP are not going to do much attacking on ACA, almost nothing on SCOTUS and marriage equality. We will attack on economic, middle class jobs aspirations. Hopefully, we can reach out to women and minorities in a sensible way.

If we do it right, we might get the presidency, will probably still lose the Senate, and keep the House.

"We"?
Yep, we. You are not GOP, so your opinion does not count. The far right TP Whinos have no say on this, only the mainstream GOP.
 
bluegin, you are not GOP, so what you think do
Sun Devil is simply the point of what the National Review calls the TP Whinos.

We in the GOP are not going to do much attacking on ACA, almost nothing on SCOTUS and marriage equality. We will attack on economic, middle class jobs aspirations. Hopefully, we can reach out to women and minorities in a sensible way.

If we do it right, we might get the presidency, will probably still lose the Senate, and keep the House.

"We"?
Yep, we. You are not GOP, so your opinion does not count. The far right TP Whinos have no say on this, only the mainstream GOP.

And you are not mainstream GOP you are a far left drone!
 
bluegin, you are not GOP, so what you think do
Sun Devil is simply the point of what the National Review calls the TP Whinos.

We in the GOP are not going to do much attacking on ACA, almost nothing on SCOTUS and marriage equality. We will attack on economic, middle class jobs aspirations. Hopefully, we can reach out to women and minorities in a sensible way.

If we do it right, we might get the presidency, will probably still lose the Senate, and keep the House.

"We"?
Yep, we. You are not GOP, so your opinion does not count. The far right TP Whinos have no say on this, only the mainstream GOP.

And you are not mainstream GOP you are a far left drone!

He never met a liberal agenda he hasn't backed up. He is not GOP either. LOL
 

Forum List

Back
Top