danivon wrote:But if all it is to you is a means of playing out the two-party rivalry and cheering on your team in DC and booing the other team, fine.

No, wrong, incorrect. It is a political victory, but it is also a defeat for an ideology: liberalism, the notion that government is the primary solution to any given societal problem.

So basically 'victory' to you means repeal or chaos, followed by a win for the Elephant team in 14 and 16.

Something like that. I would prefer the President to either fix it or resign, but he will do neither.

So are you saying there was no problem before the ACA? Heathcare in the USA was perfectly fine, a fair and equitable market with no drawbacks whatsoever? Sheesh...

We need a strawman emoticon.

I did not say that.

I have consistently said that this was not the way to solve the problem. Former Governor Mike Huckabee, someone with whom I frequently disagree, said (paraphrase) that the ACA is an inherently dishonest law. It purports to address the needs of (at most) 15% of the population. However, to do that, the rest of us have our healthcare and insurance tweaked, transformed or cancelled. It was like using a shotgun to kill an insect: so much overkill that the cover story makes no sense.

If all we wanted to do was cover the uninsured and those with pre-existing conditions, where did the mandates for maternity coverage, pediatrics, etc. come from? There were better ways, more market-based ways to do this. However, they would not have put more power in DC, which was the goal.

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:It is a fair question. What does victory for each side look like.

Since both you and DF have been leading the debate, I would love to hear both sides of a victory perception.

Well, even though DF is steadfastly refusing to answer (because politics is more important that policy, or something)...

First of all, don't mistake this for being the Democrat view. I'm not a Democrat, and they are not my preferred party in the USA. Secondly, it's really just my impression of the intent behind the ACA.

So 'victory' would be the ACA working, and being seen to work, in terms of reducing the numbers of those not covered at all, improving the minimum level of cover of those who are covered, and curbing the rate of premium increases.

I'm not sure that's all happening - it won't happen for everyone all the time.

That's a non-sequitur. The ACA is not working, so you can wish all you want, it's not happening. You might as well wish you could visit Willy Wonka's Chocolate Factory.

I'm not wishing against the ACA. I predicted it would not work. It's not working. Worse, from a Democrat/liberal point of view, is that it is tarnishing the image of government competency in a way that conservatives could only dream. This is the $600 toilet seat on a national scale.

The CBO says we will still have 30 million uninsured in 2020--with the law.

It fails by every single metric.

The issue is not whether people lose coverage, DF. The issue is after all is said and done, when each person takes a look at their coverage they will have and how much they are paying it, will they be upset with that outcome? People could give a hoot about their coverage is canceled if their new coverage winds up being better (or cheaper) So, the numbers you cite are somewhat meaningless.

I don't know what the problem with sign-ups is in Oregon...But California is doing pretty good and some others are as well...we'll see.
As far as Republicans doing better politically better because of the ACA...we'll see. Their brand is at historic lows with their anti-government do-nothing stance on running the government. Just because people are unhappy with the ACA (for now) does not mean the Republicans will benefit much (or for long)

Doctor Fate wrote:We need a strawman emoticon.

I am here to help!

freeman3 wrote:The issue is not whether people lose coverage, DF. The issue is after all is said and done, when each person takes a look at their coverage they will have and how much they are paying it, will they be upset with that outcome? People could give a hoot about their coverage is canceled if their new coverage winds up being better (or cheaper) So, the numbers you cite are somewhat meaningless.

Swing and a miss!

The damage is two-fold:

1. The President lied. That bothers most non-Kool-Aid addicts.

2. People don't like being inconvenienced. Having your coverage canceled means: having to shop for new coverage; having to figure out who your new doctor is; having to learn new procedures for getting through the new company's procedures, etc.

I don't know what the problem with sign-ups is in Oregon...But California is doing pretty good and some others are as well...we'll see.

No, California is not doing well. They lost more than a million policies, so they're still "underwater." Many are doing quite poorly. Two States have only one company doing business in them. Hospitals are closing. Doctors are no longer taking Medicare and are opting out of taking some insurance.

That's okay. Don't let the polls fool you! Stick to your principles! ACA or die!

The administration has now delayed the small business sign up with the exchanges by a year.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:But if all it is to you is a means of playing out the two-party rivalry and cheering on your team in DC and booing the other team, fine.

No, wrong, incorrect. It is a political victory, but it is also a defeat for an ideology: liberalism, the notion that government is the primary solution to any given societal problem.

So basically 'victory' to you means repeal or chaos, followed by a win for the Elephant team in 14 and 16.

Something like that. I would prefer the President to either fix it or resign, but he will do neither.

My version of victory would not involve politics at all. Who the heck cares who "wins" this politically when we have the most messed up system on the planet? Ultimately, if you care about human life, you've got to be for reform. It can be debated what that reform should look like, but the status quo cannot be an option.

Victory would involve me and all of my fellow Americans having better access to quality care at more affordable prices, and that's a really low bar: we spend so much on care, but access is limited even though we have more medical professionals per citizen than just about anywhere. The current system is so broken that it is indefensible to defend it.

Victory would involve ObamaCare working well enough (meaning people can get insurance through an exchange that actually works) so that its effectiveness can be honestly evaluated. If it's not effective, or only marginally so, victory will mean getting ObamaCare 2.0, or HillaryCare 3.0, or ElephantCare 4.0, all of which would improve upon what's gone before. It's OK if ObamaCare doesn't work as planned, but it's not OK to just stop there.

Victory would involve Americans achieving a life expectancy is one of the world leaders. Victory would involve people worrying about their careers, their families, their education, but not so much about their health care.

There are so many victories that can be achieved in health care reform, political victory is a tiny victory in the land of (potential) giant victories. Regardless of what party it benefits, all Americans should be hoping and working toward a giant victory on health care reform.

geojanes wrote:My version of victory would not involve politics at all. Who the heck cares who "wins" this politically when we have the most messed up system on the planet?

To ask that question is to ignore the last 4-plus years of American politics. Democrats went to extraordinary lengths to pass the bill. The President has relentlessly made this a political battle. He railed against the Republicans yesterday on it.

Ultimately, if you care about human life, you've got to be for reform. It can be debated what that reform should look like, but the status quo cannot be an option.

Agreed.

Victory would involve me and all of my fellow Americans having better access to quality care at more affordable prices, and that's a really low bar: we spend so much on care, but access is limited even though we have more medical professionals per citizen than just about anywhere. The current system is so broken that it is indefensible to defend it.

The "less cost" is proving not to be a low bar.

Victory would involve ObamaCare working well enough (meaning people can get insurance through an exchange that actually works) so that its effectiveness can be honestly evaluated. If it's not effective, or only marginally so, victory will mean getting ObamaCare 2.0, or HillaryCare 3.0, or ElephantCare 4.0, all of which would improve upon what's gone before. It's OK if ObamaCare doesn't work as planned, but it's not OK to just stop there.

Would it be okay to repeal it and replace it with something that might actually work?

There are so many victories that can be achieved in health care reform, political victory is a tiny victory in the land of (potential) giant victories. Regardless of what party it benefits, all Americans should be hoping and working toward a giant victory on health care reform.

To accomplish this would take a leader willing to actually refrain from constantly bashing the opposition. GWB would have had a much better shot, had it not been for Iraq, at this than the current President. He's all partisan, all the time. He never stops campaigning.

Love him or not, that is the truth.

A couple of stories as a reminder of how the bad the systems was prior to the ACA. I don't see how government regulations contributed to these absurdly high charges by hospitals. The ACA may not improve this but better insurance coverage will help. http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar/24 ... s-20120325
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar/31 ... p-20120401
The absurdity of this is that if you have lousy insurance coverage you are worse of than if you have no insurance. Why? Because hospitals drastically cut charges for cash patients, but do not do so for patients who have insufficient coverage.
Oh, I'm sure under the pure free market hospitals would behave so much better...

freeman3 wrote:A couple of stories as a reminder of how the bad the systems was prior to the ACA. I don't see how government regulations contributed to these absurdly high charges by hospitals. The ACA may not improve this but better insurance coverage will help. http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar/24 ... s-20120325
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar/31 ... p-20120401
The absurdity of this is that if you have lousy insurance coverage you are worse of than if you have no insurance. Why? Because hospitals drastically cut charges for cash patients, but do not do so for patients who have insufficient coverage.
Oh, I'm sure under the pure free market hospitals would behave so much better...

When was there a "pure free market?"

If the ACA does not make things better, it should be scrapped.

What I am asking you to explain is how a pure free market would cure the practice of hospitals charging outrageous fees.

freeman3 wrote:What I am asking you to explain is how a pure free market would cure the practice of hospitals charging outrageous fees.

Because OBAMA, of course.

Doctor Fate wrote:Would it be okay to repeal it and replace it with something that might actually work?

If that something is defined, it might be a start. So what is it you propose, again?

freeman3 wrote:What I am asking you to explain is how a pure free market would cure the practice of hospitals charging outrageous fees.

I don't think it would cure it, but if the individual is able to shop around and ask questions about charges before a procedure, they can certainly have cost be part of their decision-making process. But if government and/or insurance is paying, the individual is not motivated to do so in most cases.

Ray Jay wrote:

freeman3 wrote:What I am asking you to explain is how a pure free market would cure the practice of hospitals charging outrageous fees.

I don't think it would cure it, but if the individual is able to shop around and ask questions about charges before a procedure, they can certainly have cost be part of their decision-making process. But if government and/or insurance is paying, the individual is not motivated to do so in most cases.

When I went to the emergency room for a kidney stone, the last thing on my mind was how much it would cost. Medicine, at least acute care, is in a special class of service that cannot be shopped.