-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2013 |OT3| 1,000 Years of Darkness and Nuclear Fallout
- Thread starter bananas
- Start date
- Status
Nope. If only for the reason they make more money off having Republicans hold their bags for them.
Aaron Strife
Banned
You know, as much as the media loves to salivate over the idea of some perfectly centrist third party rising up as a dominant force in American politics, it's far more likely for the Greens to gain any traction. A credible "Tea Party" would ultimately just replace the Republicans, and libertarians are a pitifully small coalition made up mostly of nerdy white boys who've built a Ron Paul personality cult on reddit.
In the Democrats, there are probably enough disgruntled liberals who could make the party a success, though they mostly just operate within the party. Lieberman was ousted in 2006 because he was in a safe Dem state and he was an asshole. No one ever seriously talks about primarying Joe Manchin or Jim Matheson because liberals have accepted they're not going to do much better in those districts or states.
TacticalFox88
Banned
lol, they made this bed. Time for them to lie in it.
That and large parts of the party are batshit insane and will primary the moderates that rebel. Tea Party is here to stay until the party dies.
speculawyer
Member
You can't expect a guy who makes his living on TV & radio to know about advertising.
empty vessel
Member
Yep, only conservatives know that monopsony power is effective at reducing costs. That's why they are staunch supporters of single payer health care as the solution to out-of-control health care costs.
ridethepiggy
Banned
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Let him. The bill will not pass and obama won't sign it
He already has the authority to change open enrollment
Let him so what he has to do. He was with the party when it was important
ridethepiggy
Banned
Yep. it's completely political so he can go to his constituents and say he tried to delay it.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Approval of Affordable Care Act Inches Up
That's a very good sign. I think that's because more people are simply being informed about what exactly Obamacare is, even without the website. Businesses have been doing the Obamacare education that they are forced to do, and individuals now know they have to look into what it actually is whether they want to or not.
If it's only the shutdown that is effecting those numbers, that's a bad sign since the shutdown will eventually be forgotten, but I don't know why anyone would change their mind about Obamacare because of the shutdown.
Hopefully the site is fixed soon so by December we'll already have crossed the line to Obamacare having a positive approval rating. If we did +3 in one month with site errors, surely we can do +5 in the next two.
The approval rating of Obamacare was about the only statistic Republicans had to use as ammo during the shutdown. Imagine they did it again with that stat going the opposite direction.
That's a very good sign. I think that's because more people are simply being informed about what exactly Obamacare is, even without the website. Businesses have been doing the Obamacare education that they are forced to do, and individuals now know they have to look into what it actually is whether they want to or not.
If it's only the shutdown that is effecting those numbers, that's a bad sign since the shutdown will eventually be forgotten, but I don't know why anyone would change their mind about Obamacare because of the shutdown.
Hopefully the site is fixed soon so by December we'll already have crossed the line to Obamacare having a positive approval rating. If we did +3 in one month with site errors, surely we can do +5 in the next two.
The approval rating of Obamacare was about the only statistic Republicans had to use as ammo during the shutdown. Imagine they did it again with that stat going the opposite direction.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Whats the logic that makes Democrats want to change their ways in the face of success.
makingmusic476
Member
I have a good friend that went from "no opinion" to "interested" to "has insurance" in the span of three weeks.
The exchanges, despite all their problems, are changing opinions. People now see the bill for what it is - a quick way to compare and buy relatively cheap insurance - as opposed to what they once were told it would be - death panels for granny, doctors quitting, etc.
Black Mamba
Member
Which is exactly why I say I welcome the GOP anti-Obamacare stance this time next year. They will look like fools fighting against millions of people who have finally entered the insurance marketplace and prices they can afford and coverage they at least find decent enough.
The Dems need to embrace this by next summer full-on.
ridethepiggy
Banned
Only way for Dems to embrace it is for the system to be working. I.E., the websites need to be working.
It'll all be up and running relatively smoothing with plenty of time for the election itself.
theprodigy
Member
that American electorate's short memory working in the Dems' favor for once
ridethepiggy
Banned
Oh, I don't doubt that. But until it is more dems will be running.
Black Mamba
Member
Of course. I have a hard time believing they won't be by then.
great article here about the GOp crocodile tears: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...c9ba9a-3bdd-11e3-b7ba-503fb5822c3e_story.html
Love this bit at the end:
makingmusic476
Member
My friend got insurance through the federal website in North Carolina. By all accounts it's improved considerably from three weeks ago, and things will presumably continue to get better by the day.
speculawyer
Member
Seriously. If a lot of people sign up and get decent insurance and this whole thing dies down, the GOP are going to look like huge dickbags for shutting down the government over nothing but a program to help people get some reasonably priced health insurance.
10 years from now they'll have thrown the shut-down into the memory hole and will instead be talking about how this system came out of the Heritage Foundation and was pioneered by Romneycare. Just like they completely ignore that Reagan said that freedom would be dead if we passed Medicare.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Then the fight moves to Medicare for all
Btw There was an extremely funny anti aca alternate future editorial in the wsj today by a doctor. Ill see if I can dig it up
Btw There was an extremely funny anti aca alternate future editorial in the wsj today by a doctor. Ill see if I can dig it up
ridethepiggy
Banned
Yep.
I was debating with a republican/libertarian even on FB about the ACA. He hates it, we were going back and forth. He took issue with Obama lying that people can keep their new plan and said carriers shouldn't be able to kick people off of their own plans. I brought up preexisting conditions and asked if he is against carriers denying folks. He said he is. I asked for a system that would be better than ACA but would also cover those with preexisting conditions. He refused to answer and so I said the followin
His response?
It's funny that when people actually come to understand why the mandate is needed that they understand no option is perfect.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
Seems more like jumping than inching.
Black Mamba
Member
Obama never said people wouldn't lose their plans. Obama said the gov't itself would never force people out of their plans. Technically, he didn't lie.
cooljeanius
Member
eh... Normally I'm all for things that are "technically not lies", but even this here seems kind of shaky... :-/
I just thought of something. You know how Erick Erickson said that he'd be boycotting Walgreens and Rite-Aid because they're participating in Obamacare? By the same logic, doesn't that mean he should be boycotting all the insurance companies that are also participating in Obamacare?
Black Mamba
Member
But he's right. Insurance companies changed plans on you before the ACA. As did employers. From that perspective, nothing has changed. Obama was countering the notion that the gov't would take away your insurance, which it's not.
- Obama in 2009.
why are the dems letting the gop get away with bashing the federal exchange which is only a problem because GOP governors refused to implement their own working exchanges? It seems pretty easy to frame it on conservative terms as a project that would've worked better at the state level if they hadn't blocked it
Wow. The level of analysis is kind of hilariously disturbing.
Probably because the law allowed them to. Youre basically criticizing the law if you do that. Democrats bet and lost that republicans would be more pragmatic, rational, and philosophically consistent than they actually are.
It would be tantamount to admitting that the states have new costs to deal with to implement the ACA.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
The argument being made by those challenging the IRS rule extending tax credits to federal exchanges is that the statute limits the availability of tax credits to state exchanges, and the IRS doesn't have the authority to contradict a statute by regulation.
The argument goes something like this (I'm summarizing this article):
1.) Section 1311 of the PPACA provides rules for states setting up an American Health Benefit Exchange. While the section provides that states "shall" set up those exchanges, the federal government can't command states to participate in federal programs.
2.) Recognizing that it couldn't actually command states to establish exchanges, Congress, in section 1321, requires the federal Dept. of Health and Human Services to establish exchanges in states that fail (or refuse) to do so in compliance with 1311.
3.) Section 1401 amends the Internal Revenue Code to provide a tax credit for certain taxpayers. The credit is equal to "the sum of the premium assistance amounts . . . with respect to all coverage months of the taxpayer" during the year. A "coverage month," in turn, is defined as any month if, "as of the first day of such month the taxpayer . . . is covered by a qualified health plan . . . that was enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State under section 1311" (and if the taxpayer pays the premium for coverage for such month). If an exchange wasn't established by the state under section 1311, then there can be no "coverage month," and if there is no "coverage month," then there can be no credit.
4.) Section 1513 amends the Internal Revenue Code to provide penalties to "applicable large employers" who fail to provide health insurance--this is the "employer mandate." However, the penalty is only triggered if "at least one full-time employee of the applicable large employer has . . . enrolled . . . in a qualified health plan with respect to which an applicable premium tax credit or cost-sharing reduction is allowed or paid with respect to the employee." "Applicable premium tax credit" refers to the credit created under section 1401; "cost-sharing reduction" refers to a cost-sharing reduction under section 1402. 1402 specifically states that "no cost-sharing reduction shall be allowed with respect to coverage for any month unless the month is a coverage month[.]" Hence, if an exchange wasn't established by the state under section 1311, then there can be no "coverage month," and if there is no "coverage month," then (a) there can be no credit (as mentioned above); (b) there can be no cost-sharing reduction; and (c) there is no employer mandate for employers in that state.
5.) Section 1501 imposes the "individual mandate," but exempts certain taxpayers who can't afford insurance. In determining whether a person can afford insurance, the law takes into account any credit allowed under section 1401. For at least some taxpayers--the article I'm summarizing estimates about 12 million--the availability of the credit would push them out of this exemption, and so impose a penalty. But, if there is no credit available, then those 12 million would not be subject to the penalty.
6.) Despite the plain language of the law, the IRS rule purports to extend the tax credits to individuals in states where the federal government has established an exchange. In effect, the IRS has (a) granted tax credits that Congress has not authorized and (b) raised taxes that Congress has not imposed. Regardless of whether you think credits should be available on federal exchanges, who can argue with the proposition that the IRS should not craft regulations that contradict acts of Congress?
This argument, when properly understood, is pretty persuasive. That's not to say that it will win, but it's well worth your time considering the actual argument being made rather than just a newspaper report summarizing it.
Seriously. "There is no excuse for the technical glitches people have had to experience, but the website is getting better every day and people are working around the clock until it's fixed for good. It's also important to note that the online exchanges in states, like California, that chose to create their own exchanges have been running very smoothly. If the GOP were so serious about their love of states' rights, then Republican governors and legislators in state capitols around the country would have taken advantage of their right in the law to set up their own exchanges and websites, rather than cede that authority to the federal government."
Is that really so hard? Something like that should be said by every Democrat questioned about the healthcare.gov glitches.
So far no one else is reporting this. Until we get confirmation from another source odds are they got the wrong info and will have to issue an apology tomorrow.
Understandable if true, but honestly, aren't there alternate way to apply other than online? The problems are wide spread, but people can still sign up. It's a clusterfuck, buy the white house doesn't need to give the gop anymore fuel to its hateful fire.
Black Mamba
Member
Damn, someone is losing their job over this....
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
I think you have to be careful about using your enemies' words against them as they could be seen as an endorsement of those enemies' words. Saying states would have done the website better can be countered by saying states could do the entire bill better.
Black Mamba
Member
my guess is what they're doing is changing the mandate to "proof of insurance bought."
Right now, the way the mandate works, is you can't not have insurance for 3 months, so you must have it by march 31st.
But as anyone who has ever gotten insurance knows, insurance
A. starts the 1st of the month
B. takes 2 weeks or so to process.
So the "real" mandate date was like February 15th to be able to have insurance by March 1st (and therefore the 31st).
So my guess is they're going to allow people who prove to have at least bought insurance by March 31st be exempt from the penalty. This way they keep the actual open enrollment date (which was up to march 31st regardless) and all they do it move the purchase cutoff date. Honestly, this is also less confusing for people. Purchase by the day the enrollment period ends.
edit: technically speaking, they only have the change the mandate to 3 months + 1 day to move it back 4 weeks).
empty vessel
Member
This all just turns on whether the exchange set up by the Secretary is considered "an Exchange established by the State under 1311" within the meaning of 1401. I see no reason why it shouldn't be so considered, because all 1321 does is authorize the Secretary to establish an exchange on behalf of a state that does not, i.e., 1321 authorizes the Secretary to establish an "exchange established by the State under 1311." The reason this makes sense is because of the language used. The Secretary establishes "such Exchange," which is a reference to an exchange under 1311.
ridethepiggy
Banned
That's nice, but if I may modify that into something even more effective:
Obama said:
Problem solved.
- Status