You're not getting the Senate in 2014, you're not getting the votes to overturn Obamacare. It's that simple. (thus the realism from that conservative Republican candidate)In 2016, if you win the presidency, and you control the House and Senate then and only then can you get rid of Obamacare.

freeman3 wrote:You're not getting the Senate in 2014, you're not getting the votes to overturn Obamacare. It's that simple. (thus the realism from that conservative Republican candidate)In 2016, if you win the presidency, and you control the House and Senate then and only then can you get rid of Obamacare.

Okay. We're not getting the Senate. Whatever you say.

Gonna hold North Carolina's seat? Arkansas? Alaska? Louisiana?

I love your enthusiasm. It's great. It's just not founded on reality:

An imposing plurality of adults in states that backed Mitt Romney last year say they are more likely to oppose than support a lawmaker who backs the health care law, according to an ABC News/Washington Post survey. Forty-six percent of red-state citizens said they'd be less inclined to support the candidate; only 15 percent said they'd be more inclined.

Overall, the law's unpopularity has dipped far lower since its disastrous rollout, with disapproval of the Affordable Care Act among all adults spiking considerably since last month.

Those numbers draw a bull's-eye on the back of the four red-state Democratic incumbents who voted for the health care reform in 2010 and are up for reelection in 2014: Mary Landrieu in Louisiana, Mark Begich in Alaska, Mark Pryor in Arkansas, and Kay Hagan in North Carolina. Each already faces a slim path to victory in their respective conservative-leaning states, one narrowed further by the law's increasing unpopularity. There's little remaining doubt that the law, even with elections a year away, will play a defining role in the 2014 races, and how Democrats handle the issue will largely determine whether the party retains its Senate majority.

Could things change?

Sure. The President could resign, take Biden with him, and perhaps the GOP would be smart enough to put a competent manager in as Speaker before that happened. As long as Obama is more concerned with his golf game than with the implementation of the ACA, it's going to be a fiasco.

Same article:

Among all adults nationwide, 37 percent said backing Obamacare would make them less likely to support a candidate, while 21 percent said the opposite. That's the biggest gap the poll has ever recorded, The Post reported.

The trend is my friend, in a big way.

Here are stories of some of those millions who supposedly have it bad under Obamacare...

"One such person is Brad Camp, a small-business owner in Kingston, Wash., who received a cancellation notice in September from his insurance carrier. He went to the state exchange, the Washington Healthplanfinder, and for close to the same premium his family was paying before got upfront coverage for doctor’s office visits and prescription drug , vision and dental coverage. His family was able to keep the same insurance carrier and doctors and qualified for tax credits to help cover the cost.

Since Howard Stovall opened his sign and graphics business in Lexington, Ky., in 1998, he has paid half the cost of health insurance for his eight employees. With the help of Stovall’s longtime insurance agent and Kentucky’s health exchange, Kynect, Stovall’s employees are saving 5 percent to 40 percent each on new health insurance plans with better benefits. Stovall can afford to provide additional employee benefits, including full disability coverage and part of the cost of vision and dental plans, while still saving the business 50 percent compared with the old plans."


In Connecticut, Anne Masterson was able to reduce her monthly premiums from $965 to $313 for similar coverage, including a $145 tax credit. Masterson is able to use her annual premium savings of $8,000 to pay bills or save for retirement."

Of course, then there are the people who get covered under medicaid expansion...


If your distortions of what Obamacare is doing were true, yeah, you might be right. But the reality is that there are positives than negatives associated with Obamacare and people will discover that to be the case. A small number of people might be unfairly affected once the dust settles (as opposed to a much higher number of people positively affected) and we could work on helping these people if Republicans would work with us.

As for employers getting rid of plans, ridiculous. A survey of employers indicates very few are looking to drop health coverage for their employees.

.

It's amazing that 1 month ago we were talking about the Republicans tanking in 2014 because of the government shutdown and now we are talking about the Democrats tanking because of ACA. It's an astounding turnaround, but also a cautionary tale on how fickle the public can be.

IF the ACA were so bad then why did a Democrat win in Virginia? Why did the Republican win in Lousiana who thought Republicans should work with the president on the ACA win?

freeman3 wrote:Here are stories of some of those millions who supposedly have it bad under Obamacare...

"One such person is Brad Camp, a small-business owner in Kingston, Wash., who received a cancellation notice in September from his insurance carrier. He went to the state exchange, the Washington Healthplanfinder, and for close to the same premium his family was paying before got upfront coverage for doctor’s office visits and prescription drug , vision and dental coverage. His family was able to keep the same insurance carrier and doctors and qualified for tax credits to help cover the cost.

Since Howard Stovall opened his sign and graphics business in Lexington, Ky., in 1998, he has paid half the cost of health insurance for his eight employees. With the help of Stovall’s longtime insurance agent and Kentucky’s health exchange, Kynect, Stovall’s employees are saving 5 percent to 40 percent each on new health insurance plans with better benefits. Stovall can afford to provide additional employee benefits, including full disability coverage and part of the cost of vision and dental plans, while still saving the business 50 percent compared with the old plans."


In Connecticut, Anne Masterson was able to reduce her monthly premiums from $965 to $313 for similar coverage, including a $145 tax credit. Masterson is able to use her annual premium savings of $8,000 to pay bills or save for retirement."

Of course, then there are the people who get covered under medicaid expansion...


If your distortions of what Obamacare is doing were true, yeah, you might be right. But the reality is that there are positives than negatives associated with Obamacare and people will discover that to be the case. A small number of people might be unfairly affected once the dust settles (as opposed to a much higher number of people positively affected) and we could work on helping these people if Republicans would work with us.

As for employers getting rid of plans, ridiculous. A survey of employers indicates very few are looking to drop health coverage for their employers.

.

If you believe that, great. However, I already cited one of the "success stories." President Obama used the story in his Rose Garden presser in which he "saved" the fainting woman. That story proved false.

What's the best indicator? Anecdotes? When I cite anecdotes, you dismiss them. When you post them, they are proof that the plan is working.

I think the public mood, and the mood of the Democrats in Congress is far more telling.

But hey, have another jug of Kool-Aid.

freeman3 wrote:IF the ACA were so bad then why did a Democrat win in Virginia?

Really? McAuliffe outspent Cucinelli by more than 2:1, was a 10 point favorite a week before the election, and narrowly won, getting less than 50% of the popular vote.

Why did the Republican win in Lousiana who thought Republicans should work with the president on the ACA win?

Because he was a better candidate?

You supplied one quote and I don't know much about his race or the district.

VA was a nail-biter and it was not supposed to be that hard.

Again, if you think it's a winner, good for you. The data doesn't back you up.

Ray Jay wrote:It's amazing that 1 month ago we were talking about the Republicans tanking in 2014 because of the government shutdown and now we are talking about the Democrats tanking because of ACA. It's an astounding turnaround, but also a cautionary tale on how fickle the public can be.

True, the big difference being the ACA will continue to hurt Democrats. Just wait until the employer mandate kicks in.

Ray Jay wrote:It's amazing that 1 month ago we were talking about the Republicans tanking in 2014 because of the government shutdown and now we are talking about the Democrats tanking because of ACA. It's an astounding turnaround, but also a cautionary tale on how fickle the public can be.

Indeed. So prognostications would appear foolish. The Republicans could easily snatch disaster from the jaws of success if they flub the next set of Budget wrangles, due in weeks.

danivon wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:It's amazing that 1 month ago we were talking about the Republicans tanking in 2014 because of the government shutdown and now we are talking about the Democrats tanking because of ACA. It's an astounding turnaround, but also a cautionary tale on how fickle the public can be.

Indeed. So prognostications would appear foolish. The Republicans could easily snatch disaster from the jaws of success if they flub the next set of Budget wrangles, due in weeks.

This is partly true.

Why partly? Because no matter how badly they kick this one, it cannot have the same long-lasting effect that the ACA will have.

Well, probably not.

One more note about all the momentum building for the ACA :cough:

California may be experiencing an uptick. Great. But . . . one million Californians had their insurance cancelled because of the ACA. So, there's just a bit of ground to make up. Let me know when CA is up to a million "happy" customers.

The numbers back it up: more than 26,000 people have enrolled in coverage, more than 50,000 have started applications and more than 300,000 unique visitors have checked out what the marketplace has to offer. For a state with about 625,000 uninsured people, those are promising figures

.
Where's this?
Kentucky
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/how-ken ... re-website

The ACA battle may well end up in a comparison between states that did it right, where its succeeding. And States that resisted and relied on the federal government to fill their tole.
What Kentucky and others offer is examples of where the execution of the law has been better achieved. How do republican naysayers attack the example of Kentucky and other successful state run programs?

rickyp wrote:

The numbers back it up: more than 26,000 people have enrolled in coverage, more than 50,000 have started applications and more than 300,000 unique visitors have checked out what the marketplace has to offer. For a state with about 625,000 uninsured people, those are promising figures

.
Where's this?
Kentucky
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/how-ken ... re-website

The ACA battle may well end up in a comparison between states that did it right, where its succeeding. And States that resisted and relied on the federal government to fill their tole.
What Kentucky and others offer is examples of where the execution of the law has been better achieved. How do republican naysayers attack the example of Kentucky and other successful state run programs?

Actually, this is a perfect example of why Republicans are right, so thanks for posting it.

How so? Because the GOP, including Romney in the 2012 campaign, has said this should be an issue resolved at the STATE level. Kentucky has a well-run site and the Federal site is a disaster--you can't even pay on it yet!

In part, it's the President's fault (meanwhile, he's trying to blame Republicans--what a leader!). Did he check on the website's progress? Did he hire someone with insurance company experience and someone who had overseen a massive website to run the project? Nope and nope.

And, just out . . . new CBS poll numbers. How's it going, Mr. President?

President Obama’s job approval rating has plunged to the lowest of his presidency, according to a new CBS News poll released Wednesday, and Americans’ approval of the Affordable Care Act has dropped it’s lowest since CBS News started polling on the law.

Thirty-seven percent now approve of the job Mr. Obama is doing as president, down from 46 percent in October – a nine point drop in just a month. Mr. Obama’s disapproval rating is 57 percent — the highest level for this president in CBS News Polls.

A rocky beginning to the opening of the new health insurance exchanges has also taken its toll on how Americans perceive the Affordable Care Act. Now, approval of the law has dropped to 31 percent – the lowest number yet recorded in CBS News Polls, and a drop of 12 points since last month. Sixty-one percent disapprove (a high for this poll), including 46 percent who say they disapprove strongly.

I've got a new term for you guys: political climate change deniers. It's settled science: this program is failing, Obama lied, and the people are turning on both. You just refuse to believe reality.

fate

Because the GOP, including Romney in the 2012 campaign, has said this should be an issue resolved at the STATE level. Kentucky has a well-run site and the Federal site is a disaster

Actually its evidence that :
The issue can be resolved at the Federal level if the execution of the idea is at State level.
Not that 50 States can have 50 different ways of providing alternative ideas.Equally effective or providing equal value or even providing equal access. And equal access across the country seems an important concept .

For example what does Texas offer as an alternative to full acceptance and cooperation with the ACA law? What Texas' refusal to accept the ACA means is a million Texans will b stuck without health insurance or support . Millions who have household incomes greater than the incredibly low income levels that currently qualify Texas for State assistance. But lower than they require to be provided affordable subsidized insurance on the ACA .
A real donut hole.
For opponents of the ACA, there has to be a workable answer don't you think?


http://breakthroughs.kera.org/stuck-in- ... -medicaid/

rickyp wrote:fate

Because the GOP, including Romney in the 2012 campaign, has said this should be an issue resolved at the STATE level. Kentucky has a well-run site and the Federal site is a disaster

Actually its evidence that :
The issue can be resolved at the Federal level if the execution of the idea is at State level.

Actual evidence is that the Obama Administration is incapable of doing anything remotely as complex as the ACA. When Robert Gibbs is suggesting that "someone" should have been hired as CEO of the website, what does that say about the President's leadership.

And, the voters are getting the message, hence the polling plunge.

Not that 50 States can have 50 different ways of providing alternative ideas.Equally effective or providing equal value or even providing equal access. And equal access across the country seems an important concept .

For the thousandth time, we have a Federal system. If you don't like that, change it. States are different. Period.

For example what does Texas offer as an alternative to full acceptance and cooperation with the ACA law? What Texas' refusal to accept the ACA means is a million Texans will b stuck without health insurance or support .

Texans control that. I know it's anathema to socialists, but Texans like Texas. They don't want Texas to be like Massachusetts. If you don't like that, change it.

Is the ACA here to stay? Maybe, and maybe not:

WASHINGTON — Angry Americans voice outrage at being asked to pay more for health coverage. Lawmakers and the White House say the public just doesn’t appreciate the benefits of the new health law. Opponents clamor for repeal before the program fully kicks in.

The year was 1989, and the law was the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act, which was supposed to protect older Americans from bankruptcy due to medical bills. Instead it became a catastrophe for Democratic and Republican lawmakers, who learned the hard way that many older Americans did not want to be helped in that particular way.

Seventeen months after President Ronald Reagan signed the measure with Rose Garden fanfare, a series of miscalculations and missteps in passing the law became painfully evident, and it was unceremoniously stricken from the books by lawmakers who could not see its demise come quickly enough.

The tortured history of the catastrophic-care law is a cautionary tale in the context of the struggle over the new health law, the Affordable Care Act. It illustrates the political and policy hazards of presenting sweeping health system changes to consumers who might not be prepared for them. And it provides a rare example of lawmakers who were willing to jettison a big piece of social policy legislation when the political risks became too grave.

“It has often been said that if you get an entitlement on the books, you can never get rid of it,” said Bill Archer, who pushed to repeal the 1988 law as a senior Republican, from Texas, on the House Ways and Means Committee. “That is an example of a time we did get rid of it.”

Meanwhile, even though the guy running the government effort at healthcare.gov said the website is 30-40% away from being complete, the President is blaming Republicans for it. As he continues to prove himself an empty suit, his numbers will continue to slide. That raises the possibility of a full repeal.

Laugh all you want. But, politicians, bottom line, like to get reelected.