Will Obamacare be GOP's best friend in 2014?

[Mac1958]

.

This massive, hideous beast of a law may give the GOP an advantage in 2014, as some Democrats are having to be honest about it:

ObamaCare takes friendly fire - The Hill's Healthwatch

The Democrats had a great opportunity in 2009 to force a serious national debate on the nature of America's health care. Instead, they evidently decided that "something" was better than "nothing", and crammed through this mess. Now, critical elements of the law won't even operational in November, 2014. And there are few, if any, indications that the $2,500 annual savings so often promised by Obama during the 2008 will materialize.

So which party benefits most from Obamacare in 2014?

.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Will Obamacare be GOP's best friend in 2014?

I guess there's no harm in recycling/reheating 2012 GOP talking-points.

 

[Greenbeard]

.This massive, hideous beast of a law may give the GOP an advantage in 2014, as some Democrats are having to be honest about it:

My guess is that it's going to be huge for Democrats at the state level, if they seize on the opportunity. In states like Texas that refuse the Medicaid expansion, the door is widen open for state Dems to pick up the ball and run with it. Not only can Dems run on a popular policy, they'll likely pick up the backing of the hospital associations, etc.

Same thing for states that have decided to let the feds run their exchanges. If the SHOP functions strike you as an important issue, it won't be too difficult to notice that most of the states running their own exchanges (not by coincidence mostly run by Democrats) will have the employee choice functionality in their small business exchanges next year, while the federal exchanges will have only the employer choice for the first year. Will Dem candidates run on bringing the exchange under state control? I would.

The Democrats had a great opportunity in 2009 to force a serious national debate on the nature of America's health care. Instead, they evidently decided that "something" was better than "nothing", and crammed through this mess. Now, critical elements of the law won't even operational in November, 2014. And there are few, if any, indications that the $2,500 annual savings so often promised by Obama during the 2008 will materialize.

Tens of millions of folks getting coverage for the first time, markets that actually work, reforms of care delivery to bring down costs and improve quality, and investments in public health infrastructure and chronic disease prevention are absolutely better than the broken, neglected state of affairs we had before. And if health care price inflation, health care cost growth, and health spending increases all continue to hover near the historic lows they've reached since the ACA was passed, I imagine there will be plenty of talk about those numbers next year.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

.This massive, hideous beast of a law may give the GOP an advantage in 2014, as some Democrats are having to be honest about it:

My guess is that it's going to be huge for Democrats at the state level, if they seize on the opportunity. In states like Texas that refuse the Medicaid expansion, the door is widen open for state Dems to pick up the ball and run with it. Not only can Dems run on a popular policy, they'll likely pick up the backing of the hospital associations, etc.

Same thing for states that have decided to let the feds run their exchanges. If the SHOP functions strike you as an important issue, it won't be too difficult to notice that most of the states running their own exchanges (not by coincidence mostly run by Democrats) will have the employee choice functionality in their small business exchanges next year, while the federal exchanges will have only the employer choice for the first year. Will Dem candidates run on bringing the exchange under state control? I would.

The Democrats had a great opportunity in 2009 to force a serious national debate on the nature of America's health care. Instead, they evidently decided that "something" was better than "nothing", and crammed through this mess. Now, critical elements of the law won't even operational in November, 2014. And there are few, if any, indications that the $2,500 annual savings so often promised by Obama during the 2008 will materialize.

Tens of millions of folks getting coverage for the first time, markets that actually work, reforms of care delivery to bring down costs and improve quality, and investments in public health infrastructure and chronic disease prevention are absolutely better than the broken, neglected state of affairs we had before. And if health care price inflation, health care cost growth, and health spending increases all continue to hover near the historic lows they've reached since the ACA was passed, I imagine there will be plenty of talk about those numbers next year.

 

[Mac1958]

.This massive, hideous beast of a law may give the GOP an advantage in 2014, as some Democrats are having to be honest about it:

My guess is that it's going to be huge for Democrats at the state level, if they seize on the opportunity. In states like Texas that refuse the Medicaid expansion, the door is widen open for state Dems to pick up the ball and run with it. Not only can Dems run on a popular policy, they'll likely pick up the backing of the hospital associations, etc.

Same thing for states that have decided to let the feds run their exchanges. If the SHOP functions strike you as an important issue, it won't be too difficult to notice that most of the states running their own exchanges (not by coincidence mostly run by Democrats) will have the employee choice functionality in their small business exchanges next year, while the federal exchanges will have only the employer choice for the first year. Will Dem candidates run on bringing the exchange under state control? I would.

The Democrats had a great opportunity in 2009 to force a serious national debate on the nature of America's health care. Instead, they evidently decided that "something" was better than "nothing", and crammed through this mess. Now, critical elements of the law won't even operational in November, 2014. And there are few, if any, indications that the $2,500 annual savings so often promised by Obama during the 2008 will materialize.

Tens of millions of folks getting coverage for the first time, markets that actually work, reforms of care delivery to bring down costs and improve quality, and investments in public health infrastructure and chronic disease prevention are absolutely better than the broken, neglected state of affairs we had before. And if health care price inflation, health care cost growth, and health spending increases all continue to hover near the historic lows they've reached since the ACA was passed, I imagine there will be plenty of talk about those numbers next year.

The potential problem for the Democrats will be that most of Obamacare will still be only the promises you list, even five years after it will have been passed.

.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

States aren't setting up exchanges so O care will die relatively soon.

 

[lynn63]

Obamacare will cause the death rate to increase. People will not seek the preventative care because they do not want to be harassed about their lifestyle habits or worst face losing their jobs. If that is their goal of how they want to reduce cost in healthcare spending then it works.

 

[jwoodie]

.

This massive, hideous beast of a law may give the GOP an advantage in 2014, as some Democrats are having to be honest about it:

ObamaCare takes friendly fire - The Hill's Healthwatch

The Democrats had a great opportunity in 2009 to force a serious national debate on the nature of America's health care. Instead, they evidently decided that "something" was better than "nothing", and crammed through this mess. Now, critical elements of the law won't even operational in November, 2014. And there are few, if any, indications that the $2,500 annual savings so often promised by Obama during the 2008 will materialize.

So which party benefits most from Obamacare in 2014?

.

GOP. That's why Obama is putting so much of it off until after the 2014 election. By 2016, it will be set in stone.

 

[Truthmatters]

what do you do if a terror attack involves a need for medical care to be involved in stopping it?


why is it the right wants fewer Americans healthy?

 

[WillowTree]

why does the left want more Americans poorer?

 

[Black_Label]

Once millions of people will now be able to obtain healthcare coverage, and millions more getting better coverage than they were before, the GOP is going to get their asses handed to them even worse than in 2014.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The reactionaries are still stuck in denial and the liberals are too overly optimistic.

My own guess, and that is all that it is, that it will strengthen dem districts and pub districts alike along party lines. Don't think it will be any kind of game changer for either side.

 

[Truthmatters]

why does the left want more Americans poorer?

willow your party just did that to us.

Its the republican plan.

remember you like inequality

 

[Truthmatters]

you guys never answered the terror attack question?


why do you want us vulnerable?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

you guys never answered the terror attack question?


why do you want us vulnerable?

Are you actually mentally challenged, or is it just the part you play on USMB?

 

[Truthmatters]

do you claim a terror attck could NOT involve the healthcare system?

 

[Truthmatters]

Bio chemical weapons are no threat to anyone?


damn why did we go after Sadam again?

 

[Truthmatters]

When you have a system in which millions have no access to medical care you risk disease spread

 

[jwoodie]

When you have a system in which millions have no access to medical care you risk disease spread

Please provide an example of someone with "no access to medical care."

 

[GHook93]

.This massive, hideous beast of a law may give the GOP an advantage in 2014, as some Democrats are having to be honest about it:

My guess is that it's going to be huge for Democrats at the state level, if they seize on the opportunity. In states like Texas that refuse the Medicaid expansion, the door is widen open for state Dems to pick up the ball and run with it. Not only can Dems run on a popular policy, they'll likely pick up the backing of the hospital associations, etc.

Same thing for states that have decided to let the feds run their exchanges. If the SHOP functions strike you as an important issue, it won't be too difficult to notice that most of the states running their own exchanges (not by coincidence mostly run by Democrats) will have the employee choice functionality in their small business exchanges next year, while the federal exchanges will have only the employer choice for the first year. Will Dem candidates run on bringing the exchange under state control? I would.

The Democrats had a great opportunity in 2009 to force a serious national debate on the nature of America's health care. Instead, they evidently decided that "something" was better than "nothing", and crammed through this mess. Now, critical elements of the law won't even operational in November, 2014. And there are few, if any, indications that the $2,500 annual savings so often promised by Obama during the 2008 will materialize.

Tens of millions of folks getting coverage for the first time, markets that actually work, reforms of care delivery to bring down costs and improve quality, and investments in public health infrastructure and chronic disease prevention are absolutely better than the broken, neglected state of affairs we had before. And if health care price inflation, health care cost growth, and health spending increases all continue to hover near the historic lows they've reached since the ACA was passed, I imagine there will be plenty of talk about those numbers next year.

What you just stated was a lie of crap we given in 2009. With Obamacare's implementation only 7 months away, the effects are materializing. Premiums have skyrocketed. They increased more the last few years than anytime in the last 50. Deductibles are going up and benefits are being lost. Our health coverage is getting watered down. People with health coverage aren't saving money $2,500 a year they are losing $2,500 a year. When 2014 comes around expect these recent year increases to be dwarfed by what is to come.

See what happened here was the Dems saw a huge problem in our healthcare system, that REQUIRED attention. Pre-existing condition riders, too expensive or no healthcare options for the sick and a healthy person getting sick losing their coverage. So there was a class of people that paid a ton for their health coverage and the rest paid less. The Dems wanted to fix that, but the result is that EVERYONE will be paying up the ass for health insurance, making it unaffordable for everyone!

Then to the sick people who can now receive coverage. Most didn't get coverage, not because they could get any, but because the cost was too high. Well that won't change much. The costs will still be ginormous and these limited income individuals still won't be able to afford it. These people STILL won't be able to afford insurance. However, these people won't be lonely. More people will join them when employers drop coverage.

Once Obamacare hits, the Dems won't be able to hide the cost increases.