Mad_Machine76
Mad_Machine76's Journal
I didn't really know all of the historical parallels
but it does make me feel a little better. I'm mostly worried about ACA being killed in its infancy- without really being given a chance- though I think that Republicans and their "base" are the ones the most problems with ACA but it's the polling that bothers me and them being able to use those poll numbers to hammer Democrats in the upcoming elections. I will have to say that- despite being a bit "mousy" at times about their support for the law- there are almost no Democrats in the House and/or Senate whom have committed to a full repeal of the law.
When does ACA become a "failure"?
The right-wing/Republicans, of course, have carped about ACA being a "failure" since the day it was signed into law. According to them ACA is forcing businesses to cut worker hours, lay off workers, forcing people out of the (junk) insurance plans they supposedly love and want to keep en masse, forcing doctors to quit, killing jobs, and, basically everything bad you can think of short of ushering in the apocalypse foretold in the Book of Revelations (though I'm sure they will be accusing ACA of that as well eventually).
However, for those of living in reality (or some iteration thereof) and recognizing that much of what is occurring is more attributable to long-standing employment trends and/or insurance company shenanigans, what I am curious about is, when is ACA considered a "failure"? What are the signs and symptoms that the law is failing and might possibly need to be repealed? The right-wing/Republicans and the MSM are talking up the fact that ACA is unlikely to meet its projected enrollment by the end of this month, which may be the case but if so, then what? Is it over? Does ACA go into that much vaunted "death spiral" that analysts have previously discussed? From what I have been hearing, there are likely already enough enrollees to prevent that, so then what? The end of March comes and go and then what's the next big test for the law? At what point do critics think the the law will inherently crash and burn because of its design and structure? For me, I just don't see it happening and, frankly, I can't think of lot of things that can't be administratively or legislatively fixed for smaller issues. I can't really see the law collapsing under its own weight like the right-wing/Republicans think is likely (they hope) to happen at some point.
Opening for discussion.
Sort of amazing that some people are so upset about ACA
but don't seem to realize how much better things are NOW compared to what they used to be- or they think that things are going to drastically change for the worst for large swaths of people when it actually won't. Of course, if you have never been denied insurance for a pre-existing condition or have fallen through the cracks of not being able to afford health insurance but not qualifying for Medicaid either, you might never notice the problems in the old system. Of course, ACA has been so thoroughly demonized by Republicans and the right-wing that most people seem willing to believe almost any negative thing that the Republicans have to say about it and/or blame any problems they're having with their insurance on the ACA despite the fact that nothing would have been different before the ACA, which is actually one of the law's unique problems: Because it did NOT change things in regards to health insurance provision (but Republicans have accused it of being a "government takeover" of healthcare" nonetheless), the Republicans and pundits are able to basically blame any negative actions by the insurance companies (i.e. plan changes, premium increases, doctor changes) on the ACA. In response, we have to explain to people how the law is NOT to blame, which a lot of people either don't hear or they don't get and, in the end, just leaves things muddy.
His timing seems suspect
I was WAY more worried about what was going on during the W. Bush/Cheney years in terms of what they were doing in the name of their "war on terror" than what is reportedly going on right now. I mean, people were actually being tortured with implicit government support and, of course, Bush was wiretapping WITHOUT legal authority (surprised that didn't really rankle Snowden). Plus, as I recall, Snowden was previously VERY against leakers. Granted, President Obama hasn't been able to roll some of the W. Bush/Cheney excesses back to the extent that he said he wanted to (i.e. Gitmo) but many of those shortcomings are more of a result of Congressional obstruction than him backtracking or changing his mind.
Remember
how the right-wing tore into that one family the Dems used back in 2007 to argue for Medicaid expansion?
The saddest things about these Obamacare victims
are that a.)They are allowing the Koch Bros/GOP to exploit them and their personal difficulties and b.)They are choosing to willfully remain ignorant of what ACA actually does and how it might help them. Of course, such ignorance and prevention of giving people accurate knowledge about the law is completely intentional.
I don't hate him
but I don't get all of the love and adoration he gets here. He just seems somewhat grandiose (delusional? Russia is a big supporter of human rights? WTF?) and, frankly, I'm sort of underwhelmed by his claims, some of which have described capabilities or things that might have been discussed at one point but never utilized. Still waiting until we get some confirmation about his claims that the government is watching our thoughts form. His motives and timing seem suspicious as well. I am (so far) failing to lose a lot of sleep over what he has disclosed so far. Maybe my hair should be on fire but it just isn't. 
I like going to the mall
but GAWD everything is so EXPENSIVE- from the food to the clothing to other items. If I go, I go to the food court, the movies, or just window shop. Very rarely do I walk out of the mall with anything in particular unless I find something so rare or awesome that I can't walk out without it- which is very rare.
Plus
pretty much their whole life, they've heard Republicans beating everybody over the head with their "government is the problem, not the solution" mantra (except when it comes to fighting terrorism and wars but only when a Republican is in the WH) and, to the extent Democrats have tried to do stuff, the Republicans have obstructed them every inch of the way and/or made government severely dysfunctional to the point that it gets shut down, so what has the government done for them anyway, right? They've been around as services get cut- mostly by Republicans- and then cut some more. Come to think of it, the total number of years that Democrats have really had to do anything remotely progressive- the years where they held both the executive branch and both chambers in Congress- has been a whopping 4 years out of 33 and there has only been a Democrat in the WH for 14 (soon to be a total of 16 so far. I guess- when you take all that into consideration- it does makes more sense. Clearly, we have a lot to do to show these millenials that a strong activist government can and does play a positive role in improving people's lives.
Profile Information
Name: Mara Alis ButlerGender: Female
Hometown: Indianapolis, Indiana
Home country: USA
Current location: Indianapolis, Indiana
Member since: Sat Feb 28, 2004, 01:13 AM
Number of posts: 24,412
