People are still fighting Obamacare?

From FOX

"
Harry Reid will no doubt try to strip the defund language from the continuing resolution, and right now he likely has the votes to do so. At that point, House Republicans must stand firm, hold their ground, and continue to listen to the American people.”

House Republicans are concerned that this kind of approach effectively pins the entire effort on the House.

"We expect them to stand and filibuster like Rand Paul," fumed one senior House GOP aide.

"It's time to put on the big boy pants," said one House Republican who didn't want to be identified. "Maybe this will wean us of the bed-wetters."

...

Obama blasted Republicans during an interview Tuesday with Telemundo.

"We're hearing that a certain faction of Republicans, in the House of Representatives in particular are arguing for government shutdown or even a default for the United States of America ... if they don't get 100 percent of what they want," Obama said."

It certainly sounds like the Republican party is getting closer to a formal split though I don't think that's actually going to happen any time soon.

Demosthenes wrote:

My complaint about food stamps, just to avoid having that poorly worded sentence of mine above misconstrued is this: I hate that we actually have people who need food stamps due to underemployment/low wages/unemployment. It is really sad to me that healthy food is not available to everyone, and that's why I always choose to end world hunger at the start of SRIV.

Good points, but I chose to f*ck cancer.

obirano wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:

My complaint about food stamps, just to avoid having that poorly worded sentence of mine above misconstrued is this: I hate that we actually have people who need food stamps due to underemployment/low wages/unemployment. It is really sad to me that healthy food is not available to everyone, and that's why I always choose to end world hunger at the start of SRIV.

Good points, but I chose to f*ck cancer.

I greatly dislike cancer, but to me, it was a numbers game. Not everyone gets cancer in their life, but everyone needs to eat. Even Gallactus needs to eat (though that's a different kind of world hunger, heyoooooooooooooo!). So, hunger first, ride the tidal wave of good publicity to more political power to then f*ck cancer.

Kehama wrote:
Tenebrous wrote:

It is simple economics. We are increasing demand for healthcare while keeping the same supply. It is not the backlog of untreated health problems that is the problem, but the net increase in demand overall caused by adding those people and the systems ability to expand appropriate skilled labor pools and increase capitol to meet that demand.

Lack of health insurance does not stop most people from seeking healthcare when they need it, it only stops them from being able to pay their bills for said healthcare. With an increase in the number of insured parties you will likely see a decrease among emergency services and an increase for GPs and preventative care. Admittedly, the US healthcare system is already feeling the shortage of GPs as all of the new med school graduates are trying to become specialists since that's where all the money's at, but they've been working on that issue for the last decade.

Two things

1. The bolded statement is simply not true. While people do go the ER for some things, there is such a thing as people forgoing treatment because they do not have coverage, plus coverage allows you to treat more things than what an ER is set up to do so people will consume more health care overall.

2. You confirm what I have said. You are increasing demand where there is already inadequate labor to meet demand, thus increasing price. The fact that they are working on the same problem for a decade or more points to the inadequacy of the proposed solutions.

I am not arguing against the bill per se, but rather saying it was radically inadequate in the cost space.

Tenebrous wrote:

Not to this extent no (see missed deadlines below), this is a signature piece of legislation that remains controvercial. It is important to get it right more times than not.

You should really re-read that Forbes article and the CRS Report because neither of them actually say what you think they say. In fact, the Forbes article actually admits that most of the missed deadlines are basically for a particular committee, group, or department to submit a report. Those are hardly mission-critical items.

And it's really not a controversial piece of legislation. If it actually was, you would have every provider of healthcare product and services beating down the doors of Congress to get it repealed. But they haven't. Because they know they can make a buck from it.

All of the opposition to the law comes from the GOP who have made the ACA their Waterloo. They've invested too much in opposing the law (and, by extension Obama) so they can't let be implemented without losing a massive amount of political capital and face. At this point their opposition has nothing to do with what's in the best interest of Americans.

Tenebrous wrote:

So they passed a law that was not written yet that was meant to end too big to fail (it's still around!), and prevent the kind of financial collapse we saw in 2009. I already knew this but thanks for reminding me. Wow.

Legislation takes time to be developed.

Tenebrous wrote:

That is simply not true. You can look at a a forbs article on the subject which cites an internal USG memo listing the missed deadlines. Many if not most seem pretty significant.

You mean the Forbes article that states "most of these deadlines aren't for mission-critical features of the law" and that the "law isn't going to “collapse unto itself” or any such thing that conservatives appear to pine for"?

And if you actually read the CRS report you'll quickly see the not so subtle bias of the Forbes article. When Forbes writes something like "when the CRS analysis was completed, the White House had yet to meet 9 of 12 deadlines from the first year after the Affordable Care Act was enacted" that sentence was specifically designed to make you think "holy sh*t, things aren't getting done and this law's a goddamned mess."

But then you read the CRS report and you quickly see that all 12 of those items have actually been completed or they have committees established who are working on the issue. So while they technically missed an arbitrary deadline, the actual work still got done.

If you think there are pretty significant parts of the law that aren't being addressed, then point them out in the CRS memo and we can discuss those them. But I think you'll find that the important bits are getting handled and, unsurprisingly, it's taking a bit longer than was thought.

The CRS memo actually covers this. If you read the end of the memo it acknowledges that the deadlines established by Congress mostly get jettisoned in favor of the "rule of reason" for whatever agency is responsible for that bit of law. That means the courts understand that while Congress may want something to happen now, it might not be physically possible (or rushing it would be a bad idea). The memo also admits that no group has actually sued to enforce the ACA deadlines, meaning no one really considers missing them terribly important.

Tenebrous wrote:

Do you have anything that is authoritative and non-partisan that says this, preferably from the USG. I have been looking for info on this.

It's in the Department of Health and Human Services interim final ruling on 45 CFR Part 158, which deals with the Medical Loss Ratio (MLR). The MLR establishes the percentage of insurance premiums that have to be spent on actually providing health care services.

The HHS realized that the ACA law clashed what is known as "mini-med" insurance programs that have low annual caps or lifetime caps, something that the ACA makes illegal. Those insurance programs were favored by companies like McDonald's.

HHS Interim Final Ruling on 45 CRF Part 158 wrote:

HHS has established a process under which certain health plans with annual limits below those established in the interim final regulation implementing section 2711 may be granted a temporary waiver from the application of higher limits if compliance with the standards would result in a significant decrease in access to benefits or a significant increase in premiums.

So McDonald's and other companies got waivers, but the HHS stated "this special circumstances adjustment applies for 2011 only" because they literally didn't have any financial data from those plans with which they could calculate the MLR. The HHS has since allowed mini-med programs to use a special modifier rate to calculate their MLR, but have reduced that multiplier each year and they will phase it out entirely after 2014.

The HHS also lessened the blow for companies that had these mini-med programs by granting waivers that phased in the requirement that there be no lifetime caps on medical coverage. They allowed the cap to be $750,000 for 2011, raised it to $1.25 million for 2012, and it's currently $2 million. Come January 1st, there can't be any cap.

The HHS also granted similar waivers for several states, allowing them to gradually come into compliance with the ACA over the past three years.

So while conservative groups and news sites have focused on the number of companies (and states) getting waivers, they've completely ignored the reality of the situation. Those waivers have all be temporary in nature and, importantly, designed to give companies some time to adjust to the new law.

OG_slinger wrote:
Tenebrous wrote:

Not to this extent no (see missed deadlines below), this is a signature piece of legislation that remains controvercial. It is important to get it right more times than not.

You should really re-read that Forbes article and the CRS Report because neither of them actually say what you think they say. In fact, the Forbes article actually admits that most of the missed deadlines are basically for a particular committee, group, or department to submit a report. Those are hardly mission-critical items. . . . You mean the Forbes article that states "most of these deadlines aren't for mission-critical features of the law" and that the "law isn't going to “collapse unto itself” or any such thing that conservatives appear to pine for"?

How about you reading what I wrote perhaps?

The article does mention that there are some busy work and pretty significant deadlines in there. Given that most of these things will guide policy and help determine where billions of dollars would be spent, I would think even busywork would be have influence.

It is called bad management and incompetence. If I missed half my deadlines at work, arbitrary or not, I would be out on the street. Should government be held to a lower standard?

No one has sued because those that are for the bill will not want to make the bill look worse and those against the bill does not want it implemented faster.

As to the missed deadlines that I find problematic. I will put them in spoiler tags so people don't have to read them if they do not want to:

Spoiler:

The failure to provide standards for companies that provide "an accurate summary of benefits and coverage." They have made two glossaries, but that is far from what is required. People need this to make good buying decisions.

The requirement that the Committee for Quality meet and submit findings to increase quality care was problematic. They had their first meeting about a year and a half after they were suppose to submit their report. You think that is ok? Increases in the quality of care was a main goal of Obama Care, and this just makes them look like they don't care.

The lack of any finalized rule for those that have been overcharged fro drugs seems problematic.

That the requirement to "develop requirements for health plans to report on their efforts to improve health outcomes, prevent hospital readmission, ensure patient
safety and reduce medical errors, and implement wellness and health promotion activities" remains completely undone is alarming. Reporting is the only way to ensure compliance and improvement. Taken together these items would help reduce cost and increase quality of healthcare and nothing has been done on these.

I could go on but I actually want to eat lunch here.

And it's really not a controversial piece of legislation. If it actually was, you would have every provider of healthcare product and services beating down the doors of Congress to get it repealed. But they haven't. Because they know they can make a buck from it.

Low public opinion about the bill and pretty strident opposition make it pretty controversial IMHO. People called the Iraq war controversial for the same reasons back in the day.

Just because the Administration has thrown enough in the honeypot to . . . bribe? . . . the industry, does not mean the it is not controversial.

OG_slinger wrote:

At this point their opposition has nothing to do with what's in the best interest of Americans.

Because you can read their minds and know the motivations of every single congressperson in the GOP, who are just a bunch of evil, mustache twisting, villains that just want to make sure poor people die in the streets. Plus anyone who wanted the best interest of Americans would think the same as you do, right?

Look at the polls. This is unpopular whether you think people understand it or not. These guys are following the will of the people, like it or not.

OG_slinger wrote:
Tenebrous wrote:

So they passed a law that was not written yet that was meant to end too big to fail (it's still around!), and prevent the kind of financial collapse we saw in 2009. I already knew this but thanks for reminding me. Wow.

Legislation takes time to be developed.

I would call this dereliction of duty, but to each their own. This is suppose to be a critical fix for the economy, but not having it there seems ok for you. Again, this speaks to the competence of the administration in the nitty gritty of fixing problems.

Can the administration do no wrong in your eyes? I give the Administration an A for intentions, but a C- on execution, and it is the execution that matters. Saying that there are no problems when there plainly are just enables their lackluster performance.

Anyone post this yet?

Norman, as a side note, any time you talk about what's in the ACA, you have to remember that it was developed hand in hand with the Republicans in Congress, in the full expectation that they were negotiating in good faith and would eventually vote on a compromise bill. Then, they simply walked away after a year or so, with just two months or so remaining in the session, with the idea that the whole thing would die on the vine. They felt that with the incoming Republican gains in Congress, they could simply make sure it never came up again. That's why the plan to push it through at the end of a session was adopted.

And that's also why it didn't have single-payer. It was not Democrats who rejected that, it was Republicans, at the negotiating table, and pulling that out was supposed to be one of many things that would keep Republicans working on the deal. In reality, they were playing the long game to kill the bill, both in Congress and in public opinion, and they are still continuing after their miscalculation allowed it to be pushed through without them.

The whole reason to tag it with "Obamacare" instead of "Universal Affordable Healthcare Coverage" is that no one would be against the latter, but nearly half the population would stop eating food if it were called "Obamameals"...

Tenebrous wrote:

Once again, someone who can read Republican Congresspeople's minds! No wonder they are putting on their tin hats.

So you're saying that you know why Republican Congresspeople are putting on tin foil hats? Now who's reading their minds?

Once again, someone who can read Republican Congresspeople's minds! No wonder they are putting on their tin hats.

BTW Robear, The way I remember it, there were plenty of Democrats who did not like single payer too.

The whole reason to tag it with "Obamacare" instead of "Universal Affordable Healthcare Coverage" is that no one would be against the latter, but nearly half the population would stop eating food if it were called "Obamameals"...

How about the fact that it is shorter and easier to say?

Jonman wrote:
Tenebrous wrote:

Once again, someone who can read Republican Congresspeople's minds! No wonder they are putting on their tin hats.

So you're saying that you know why Republican Congresspeople are putting on tin foil hats? Now who's reading their minds?

I've been caught! I will have to wait until Ted Cruz has his Tinfoil show at the next NY Fashion week so I can ask him.

Tenebrous wrote:
The whole reason to tag it with "Obamacare" instead of "Universal Affordable Healthcare Coverage" is that no one would be against the latter, but nearly half the population would stop eating food if it were called "Obamameals"...

How about the fact that it is shorter and easier to say?

RomneyCare is a full syllable shorter, more accurate, and potentially more appealing to a subset of Americans, why not call it that?

Atras wrote:
Tenebrous wrote:
The whole reason to tag it with "Obamacare" instead of "Universal Affordable Healthcare Coverage" is that no one would be against the latter, but nearly half the population would stop eating food if it were called "Obamameals"...

How about the fact that it is shorter and easier to say?

RomneyCare is a full syllable shorter, more accurate, and potentially more appealing to a subset of Americans, why not call it that?

I think that is what they called his healthcare plan in MA. This was Obama's plan that built on that, hence Obama care. It would be like calling West Side Story Romeo and Juliet.

Tenebrous wrote:

It is called bad management and incompetence. If I missed half my deadlines at work, arbitrary or not, I would be out on the street. Should government be held to a lower standard?

What do you want, Tenebrous?

Do you want the various agencies and groups involved to take the time to do things right, to fully consider the implications of proposed rule changes, to make sure they're basing decisions off of actual data or do you simply want them to dash some sh*t out so they can mark an action item complete on their project status PowerPoint?

I've worked for companies whose management team blindly stuck to arbitrary and wildly unreasonable deadlines. And it never ended well. I've watched those companies rush products out the door because the CEO promised the BoD that it would happen by X date. I've watched those same companies lose new sales because of that new product was a steaming pile of sh*t. I've watched companies have to write off millions of dollars in consulting work they had to do to get that incomplete product to work at a customer site. And I've watched them spend millions of dollars in outside resources or halt all development on other products for months at a time to fix the product.

And all of it was done because the CEO wasn't man enough to tell the BoD that, based on the professional opinions of the people they hired, that the product needed additional time to be properly developed (actually, the much more likely situation was that hitting that product release deadline was one of the CEO's Management By Objectives goals that he needed to hit to get his bonus and he cared more about getting a chunk of new stock options than he did about anything else).

So the government isn't being held to a lower standard. They're being held to a higher standard. They're trying to do things the right way the first time.

Tenebrous wrote:

No one has sued because those that are for the bill will not want to make the bill look worse and those against the bill does not want it implemented faster.

Your statement simply doesn't make any sense. First, the ACA is a law, not a bill. And people have been implementing it for three years now.

Nor are there "people who are for the bill" and "people who are against the bill." The ACA is the law of the land. Period. The people who don't like the ACA--Republicans--have made 41 attempts to repeal the law and none of them have been successful. They're now preparing their Hail Mary move, which essentially involves shutting down the entire government, because they haven't gotten their way.

Of course none of that changes the fact that the major effective dates of the ACA aren't going to change. The exchanges will open in October and people will have to have their insurance by early 2014.

Republicans haven't sued over the missed deadlines not because they don't want the ACA implemented sooner, they haven't sued because they have nothing to gain by doing so. The missed deadlines crap simply fodder for conservative news sites and blogs and scary sounding talking points that can be dropped by pundits.

Tenebrous wrote:

The failure to provide standards for companies that provide "an accurate summary of benefits and coverage." They have made two glossaries, but that is far from what is required. People need this to make good buying decisions.

Alright, now I know that you're not being serious. You haven't actually bothered to read either “Summary of Benefits and
Coverage and Uniform Glossary,” Final Rule (77 Federal Register 8668)
or “Summary of Benefits and Coverage and Uniform Glossary – Templates, Instructions, and Related Materials,” Guidance for Compliance and Notice of Availability of Templates, Instructions, and Related Materials (77 Federal Register 8706).

If you actually had read those documents, you'd know that they go into nauseating detail about what information, exactly, the SBCs have to contain as well as how the document should be structured and presented.

Tenebrous wrote:

The requirement that the Committee for Quality meet and submit findings to increase quality care was problematic. They had their first meeting about a year and a half after they were suppose to submit their report. You think that is ok? Increases in the quality of care was a main goal of Obama Care, and this just makes them look like they don't care.

Google "improving quality of care" and see how many hits you get. Simply put, this is a *massive* topic in health care and covers everything from staff washing their hands more frequently to specific improvements for specific medical procedures to better utilizing technology.

I honestly don't expect the committee to come up with the final word on improving quality of care. But what they have done is establish three key goals: 1) reduce preventable hospital admissions and readmissions; 2) reduce the incidence of adverse health care-associated condition; and 3) reduce harm from inappropriate or unnecessary care. Each of those goals is a massive project in and of itself and requires a tremendous amount of work to even establish the national metrics that will be used to determine which way the needle is moving.

And you seem to forget that having 50 million people get access to healthcare when they haven't had it before is a huge increase in the quality of care they're getting.

Tenebrous wrote:

The lack of any finalized rule for those that have been overcharged fro drugs seems problematic.

HHS is creating an administrative oversight process from scratch that covers more than 1,100 federally qualified health centers (basically community and migrant health centers that get federal dollars to operate). That's quite a bit of feedback that has to be solicited and sifted through.

HHS has long known that drug companies have overcharged for their products. There's been numerous studies and reports written on it. It's been estimated that the total cost to taxpayers for drug overcharging is around $2 billion a year. But this ACA requirement only covers a teeny tiny slice of that $2 billion since it only applies to drugs purchased by those 1,100 federally qualified health centers.

The rules will be finalized, but doing so isn't going to shave billions of dollars in costs from our healthcare system. A couple ten million, sure, but that's about it.

Tenebrous wrote:

That the requirement to "develop requirements for health plans to report on their efforts to improve health outcomes, prevent hospital readmission, ensure patient safety and reduce medical errors, and implement wellness and health promotion activities" remains completely undone is alarming. Reporting is the only way to ensure compliance and improvement. Taken together these items would help reduce cost and increase quality of healthcare and nothing has been done on these.

Things have been done.

The HHS has established a group of 60 public- and private-sector organizations representing consumers, businesses and purchasers, labor, clinicians, hospitals, and Federal partners to work through all of the above. Rather than simply go off and make up sh*t on their own, they're actually talking to the various players and getting everyone to agree on the various things that will be measured--and how they will be measured--to ensure compliance and improvement.

You really seem to be underestimating the complexities of some of these tasks (as well as the number of different groups and organizations affected). You also seem to think that because there's not some sort of deliverable--a report, for example--that absolutely nothing has been done, which is most certainly not the case.

Tenebrous wrote:

Low public opinion about the bill and pretty strident opposition make it pretty controversial IMHO. People called the Iraq war controversial for the same reasons back in the day.

Just because the Administration has thrown enough in the honeypot to . . . bribe? . . . the industry, does not mean the it is not controversial.

Well, that's your opinion. Mine is that the law is only being opposed by the bat-sh*t crazy wing of the GOP and a certain segment of the population who live inside the conservative bubble.

Had the population truly been up in arms about the law then we would have seen radically different election results in 2010 and 2012. But we didn't.

And, as Paleocon pointed out earlier, the ACA is a virtual carbon copy of the Republican's 1993 proposal to reform health care. You are essentially claiming that what the GOP found perfectly suitable--nay, ideal--in 1993 is now effectively a bribe.

Tenebrous wrote:

Because you can read their minds and know the motivations of every single congressperson in the GOP, who are just a bunch of evil, mustache twisting, villains that just want to make sure poor people die in the streets. Plus anyone who wanted the best interest of Americans would think the same as you do, right?

At the end of the day all of this boils down to whether or not we think it's appropriate for Americans to die because of untreated medical conditions, live a degraded life because they aren't getting enough medical attention, or go bankrupt because they don't have adequate access to healthcare, something that every Western, industrialized country except us provides its citizens.

Tenebrous wrote:

Look at the polls. This is unpopular whether you think people understand it or not. These guys are following the will of the people, like it or not.

It's unpopular because the every conservative group has been bashing 24/7 it for four f*cking years while simultaneously denying any funding that was needed to help educate voters about the law.

Barring it being defunded by some federal shutdown compromise, Obamacare is going to implemented. And people will quickly realize that the sky isn't going to fall, that they aren't going to be forced off their existing health insurance, and that it really isn't terrible.

That's not because I'm a brainless cheerleader for the Administration, that's because people only get worked up politically about sh*t that affects them personally. Once they see that their health care insurance isn't going to be radically affected or that they can suddenly afford to be covered, then all this fervor will pass and people will move on.

And that's what the Tea Party fears: once people can actually benefit from the ACA that they will like it.

Tenebrous wrote:

I would call this dereliction of duty, but to each their own. This is suppose to be a critical fix for the economy, but not having it there seems ok for you. Again, this speaks to the competence of the administration in the nitty gritty of fixing problems.

Congress writes the laws, not the President. It's kind of hard for the Executive Branch to enforce non-existent laws.

Tenebrous wrote:

Can the administration do no wrong in your eyes? I give the Administration an A for intentions, but a C- on execution, and it is the execution that matters. Saying that there are no problems when there plainly are just enables their lackluster performance.

When have I ever said that there are no problems? I see that there are things that still need to be done, but I'm OK with that because I know there's a process in place and that people are working on it. I also cut them some slack given how mind-bendingly complex and vast the issues they're trying to address are.

And, as I've pointed out, the things that you think are terrible failures of important chunks of the ACA really are neither. I'd much rather have things take a little extra time and make sure that the HHS talks everyone affected than have the government simply crank out rules and regulations that f*ck things up just so they can be seen hitting an arbitrary deadline.

OG, that's a fantastic response, but the thing we need to remember is that Obama isn't a real American and the ACA is evil socialism. Nobody cares if the poor or minorities get sick and die - we're here to make that extra 1% on top of our billion dollar paychecks.

... Sorry, I couldn't finish that with a straight face. That's a spot on list of points, OG. The unfortunate thing about this debate is that it's been poisoned by the far right, and the folks following them sadly don't have the time or the inclination to practice critical thinking skills and do their own research. I think there's a fairly obvious reason as to why Republicans are suddenly against many of their own ideas, and it has much to do with who sits in the oval office.

Tanglebones wrote:

Anyone post this yet?

F'n Koch brothers. That thing is retarded.

Well, hey, as I saw elsewhere on the Interwebs today, maybe that ad means that Republicans are now against government mandated gynecological procedures!

Soooo... flag burning... not ok. Making a different symbol of the nation creepy and trying to get into a lady's exam... ok? What?

Tenebrous wrote:
The whole reason to tag it with "Obamacare" instead of "Universal Affordable Healthcare Coverage" is that no one would be against the latter, but nearly half the population would stop eating food if it were called "Obamameals"...

How about the fact that it is shorter and easier to say?

No, Robear was right.

Republican support for the health care reform law jumps by 8 points when it's referred to its proper name and not Obamacare.

Republicans called the ACA Obamacare because they wanted it to have a negative connotation among their base. What better way that to name it after the president their supporters passionately hated?

Lest I get accused of reading minds again, look at this pretty graph:

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/JV2B7DL.png)

Of course, none of this is new. Controlling which words are used to describe things shapes the conversation, such as when Republicans suddenly started using "death tax" to talk about the "estate tax."

The only difference with Obamacare is that Obama eventually stepped up and publicly owned the alternative naming.

Edwin wrote:

I can't believe no one has written the real reason.

HE'S BLACK.

Edwin still nails it. Depressing, but true...

JC wrote:
Edwin wrote:

I can't believe no one has written the real reason.

HE'S BLACK.

Edwin still nails it. Depressing, but true...

Sort of what I was getting at, really. Next time you look at a Tea Party crowd, take note of what color almost all of them are, and you'll have your answer.

Socialism has very little to do with it - most of them are on Medicare.

Podunk wrote:

Well, hey, as I saw elsewhere on the Interwebs today, maybe that ad means that Republicans are now against government mandated gynecological procedures!

Not a chance--they love intrusion when they're doing the intruding.

Demosthenes wrote:

Soooo... flag burning... not ok. Making a different symbol of the nation creepy and trying to get into a lady's exam... ok? What?

Seriously. That looked a whole lot like the sort of creepy ass crap you'd see from North Korea.

fcuk the Koch brothers. I hope they get run over by a train.

Paleocon wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:

Soooo... flag burning... not ok. Making a different symbol of the nation creepy and trying to get into a lady's exam... ok? What?

Seriously. That looked a whole lot like the sort of creepy ass crap you'd see from North Korea.

fcuk the Koch brothers. I hope they get run over by a train.

Also... I am confused. How exactly is that image of Uncle Sam trying to get into some lady' vagina any different than conservative pushes for transvaginal ultrasounds for abortions?

Demosthenes wrote:
Paleocon wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:

Soooo... flag burning... not ok. Making a different symbol of the nation creepy and trying to get into a lady's exam... ok? What?

Seriously. That looked a whole lot like the sort of creepy ass crap you'd see from North Korea.

fcuk the Koch brothers. I hope they get run over by a train.

Also... I am confused. How exactly is that image of Uncle Sam trying to get into some lady' vagina any different than conservative pushes for transvaginal ultrasounds for abortions?

Because the transvag is for sluts.

Creepy Uncle Sam wants to defile good Christian women.

So we guys don't feel ignored, the fine Opt Out folks made an ad just for us.

geeez Koch brothers are really doubling down on this garbage. These guys are worse than pond scum.

JC wrote:

geeez Koch brothers are really doubling down on this garbage. These guys are worse than pond scum.

Pretty much.

I hope they die in a fire.

there were a reasonbale number of Republicans on board until the Dems insisted on the individual mandate

Correct if I'm wrong, by all means, but didn't Republicans actually suggest such a thing before? If so, as I remember it, that makes this "the thing that makes the WHOLE BILL UNACCEPTABLE!" really questionable, and kind of does make me wonder if they were just waiting for something they had a good prepared bit of rhetoric to throw down about how the President was trying to destroy America with healthcare.

Robear wrote:

Norman, as a side note, any time you talk about what's in the ACA, you have to remember that it was developed hand in hand with the Republicans in Congress, in the full expectation that they were negotiating in good faith and would eventually vote on a compromise bill. Then, they simply walked away after a year or so, with just two months or so remaining in the session, with the idea that the whole thing would die on the vine. They felt that with the incoming Republican gains in Congress, they could simply make sure it never came up again. That's why the plan to push it through at the end of a session was adopted.

And that's also why it didn't have single-payer. It was not Democrats who rejected that, it was Republicans, at the negotiating table, and pulling that out was supposed to be one of many things that would keep Republicans working on the deal. In reality, they were playing the long game to kill the bill, both in Congress and in public opinion, and they are still continuing after their miscalculation allowed it to be pushed through without them.

Hmmm - I followed the negotiations fairly closely and I remember the opposite - there were a reasonbale number of Republicans on board until the Dems insisted on the individual mandate, which caused most if not all to pull out. I suppose that could be part of some political master plan, but I'm not aware of a single payer version of the bill being under consideration - would be interested in a cite if you have one.

EDIT: FWIW, wikipedia seems to agree with me

However, following the adoption of an individual mandate as a central component of the proposed reforms by Democrats, Republicans began to oppose the mandate and threaten to filibuster any bills that contained it.

Also, given the fact that a bunch of sweeteners were required in the Senate to lock up moderate (pro-life) Dems and the fact that a bunch of blue dogs voted against it in the House, I'm not sure you can make the claim that a single payer bill would have even passed a straight party-line vote.