freeman3 wrote:Here is the most important number--34 Senate Democrats. I was reading a conservative website and they were saying there were 20 Democratic seats were up for re-election of which 9 were considered safe. Even if you win all 11seats that are up for grabs and hold serve on all of your seats you would have have a total of 56 seats. Still not enough and there are only 10 Democrats up for reelection in 2016--there are 23 that come up for reelection in 2018, so they will not be subject to pressure because of the ACA. You're not going to get the numbers. Would Obama yield to pressure from Democrats or would Senate Democrats vote to override the veto? Obama will not give in and while Democrats in conservative areas might be able to vote against the ACA, that won't be true in most areas of the country. I just can't see many Senate Democrats voting to get rid of the signal achievement of a president of their own party. Maybe a few would do it, not many. Not enough.
Really? If the President is at 35% and the law is at that or lower? You really think there are so many brave Democrats (read "arrogant" or "condescending") to keep pushing a law Americans don't like? Really? They're already moving away from it. Even socialist know-nothing Franken thinks the mandate may have to be pushed back.
Here's the thing: it's not just the anecdotes that are going to kill this law: it's the absolute incompetence in implementing it.
This whole article bears digesting:
Rate shock round two. Most insurers thought they could break even on the exchanges, but that outlook has soured to losses of 3% to 5% with a 5% to 10% downside over the long term. Also in February and March, the insurers will start the months-long process of repricing their premiums for 2015, on the basis of what they learned this year.
The insurers will try to pass along the higher costs of the failed launch in the next year's rates. The consumers who were forced to buy more expensive ObamaCare-compliant insurance this cycle will be exposed to another big price spike.
You can't even keep your ObamaCare plan. The White House and regulators will lean on insurers to block these price hikes, but they can't deny reality forever. Companies accountable to shareholders will flee unprofitable states as some are already doing, leading to even fewer options. New Hampshire already has just one for the entire state.
. . .
The fee-for-service status quo is largely intact and reimbursement is merely being squeezed down. Exchange insurance with Medicaid-style networks pays Medicaid rates, while ObamaCare's Medicare cuts are also sending that program's price controls to Medicaid levels.
These rates are already so low that many doctors won't take new government patients. Look for many doctors to start to conclude they will make a better living—and have more autonomy—by opting out. Providers participating in federal programs are subject to onerous quality-reporting rules, even if the metrics don't accurately measure quality. The Affordable Care Act treats health professionals like robots on a factory line who can be reprogrammed to execute federal work orders.
Will young people sign up? Not if they value their
identity and info being safe:Warning to Americans: Don’t use HealthCare.gov.
That was the advice from four tech experts Tuesday morning who testified before a congressional committee about security concerns related to the new federal health insurance marketplace.
The experts warned that the website central to Obamacare’s implementation still contains serious security flaws that make user information vulnerable to hackers. Three of the four experts agreed that the site should be shut down until security flaws are resolved.
“I would say the website is either hacked already or will be soon,” David Kennedy, head of the computer security consulting firm TrustedSec LLC, located outside of Cleveland, told the committee. He added, “There’s not a lot of security built into the site.”
As for Familes USA I understand why you would be skeptical since they support the law; however, I don't think the numbers are that controversial. If 3.6 percent of the country buys individual plans it stands to reason that some of those folks have plans that meet ACA standards and of the rest many of them will be eligible for subsidies. I guess if their numbers are wrong, we'll hear about it from some conservative source, right. So far, there has been no response...
That's not the heart of the problem. Again, you make it sound as if it's all roses and sunshine. "Well," you say, "what's the problem? After all, look at all the subsidies!"
Right, because subsidies are free. Um, except they're not. We are paying for them. And, they don't cover deductibles, co-pays, etc., which are exploding.
Furthermore, the biggest problem in the next year is the employer mandate. When that kicks in, estimates are that anywhere from 50 million to 170 million will lose their insurance. They will go into the exchanges and then what?
You can't see it: even if people break even, they've been jolted into paying attention and the one lesson they all will have learned? Obama lied. Pelosi lied. Democrats lied.
Then they'll go to the website that they've been told is unsafe and put in all their private info?
You think the ACA is immune to repeal?
Read The New Republic. I know, it's almost moderate and you like your magazines to fly the hammer and sickle, but the author is correct:
What, then, are the lessons that Americans and supporters of Obamacare can learn from Australia’s experience? The most obvious is that no piece is legislation is permanent, but must be sustained politically. If it is passed over the opposition of a rival party, and if that party comes into power, it can always repeal it or simply make it impossible to implement. The only way to ensure that the legislation will survive a change in the party in power is if the legislation becomes thoroughly popular. If it can’t be fully implemented—which is what happened to the original Medibank legislation—it will be vulnerable to a challenge.
From all appearances, the Obama administration seemed to believe that the mere act of getting the Affordable Care Act through Congress would ensure its survival and popularity. But now it faces the very real possibility that the Republicans, campaigning on the failure of Obamacare and flagging recovery, would win back the Senate in 2014, and be in a position to force the administration to accept changes in the Affordable Care Act that will weaken the program. Obama has already embraced modifications to the act—allowing insurance companies to bypass the exchanges and their regulations—that will hurt it. And if Republicans were to win the White House and Congress in 2016, they could simply repeal the Affordable Care Act.
. . .
For those of us who think America should provide access to healthcare for all its citizens, the lessons of Australia are not cheery. They suggest that it is possible that Obamacare would be dismantled in the years to come, but they don’t suggest an easy way in which it can, like the Australian system, be re-installed after the public suffers from the effects of its demise. Obamacare is a mess, but it’s not clear that the existing structure of healthcare in America invites a less messy alternative. One can only hope that the Obama administration can finally get its act together and get healthcare,gov to work properly. And do so quickly enough so that in November 2014, the political ax doesn’t fall on Democrats’ heads.
(Emphasis added)
The website won't work. People are not enthralled with the law and won't want to hear about calling different companies, shopping around, etc. They liked what they had in many cases and the President told them they could keep it.
This is a political millstone. Liberals keep cheering the President on, "You can do it, Mr. President!" But, no one swims across a lake with a millstone around his neck, not even the man who used to walk on water.
23 Nov 2013, 10:30 am 
