General Discussion

functioning_cog

(294 posts)

27. Evaluating effectiveness is not the same as declaring

Thu Mar 13, 2014, 01:58 PM

Mar 2014

Failure, packing up your tent, and going home. There will be positive effects and negative effects of this law going into force.

Those should be evaluated and acted upon.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

39 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

When does ACA become a "failure"? [View all] Proud Liberal Dem Mar 2014 OP

Let's not argue on their terms at all frazzled Mar 2014 #1

I'm not trying to be/sound defeatist Proud Liberal Dem Mar 2014 #5

Look, Social Security was famously called "a fraud on the workingman" frazzled Mar 2014 #7

I didn't really know all of the historical parallels Proud Liberal Dem Mar 2014 #14

I don't like this mindset joeglow3 Mar 2014 #10

Evaluating effectiveness is not the same as declaring functioning_cog Mar 2014 #27

We really won't know.. sendero Mar 2014 #2

Most sensible appraisal I have seen here Puzzledtraveller Mar 2014 #6

It's too bad that there aren't many (any?) people in the House/Senate speaking so sensibly Proud Liberal Dem Mar 2014 #15

If America is stupid enough to elect a Republican as President--it riversedge Mar 2014 #3

Of that we can be certain Proud Liberal Dem Mar 2014 #4

in rhetoric only. they'll rebrand it as their own. unblock Mar 2014 #31

To repeal the law it will take the House, the Senate and the President. rgbecker Mar 2014 #8

Under no formulation are we going back. In fact, expect this to functioning_cog Mar 2014 #24

If the ACA doesn't meet the projected actuarial standards, it will need an infusion of $$$$$. Romulox Mar 2014 #9

No. By next year. Resets to rates happen for following year starting Dec. functioning_cog Mar 2014 #23

Rate increases aren't the only source of ACA funding. Insurers are entitled to gov't subsidy any Romulox Mar 2014 #30

link please. they don't get wads of cash from the US government up front just because. functioning_cog Mar 2014 #32

I said they may require a cash infusion this year. Your link confirms it. What are you arguing? Romulox Mar 2014 #33

my bet is that any net loss across all states and all insurers will be immaterial functioning_cog Mar 2014 #35

Tha ACA cannot fail it can only be failed n/t Fumesucker Mar 2014 #11

Something that makes me nervous PasadenaTrudy Mar 2014 #12

Sounds like some greedy fucks who don't want to functioning_cog Mar 2014 #21

I agree PasadenaTrudy Mar 2014 #29

I'd give it a year and see if people are getting the health services they need. Jesus Malverde Mar 2014 #13

Limited choice is better than no choice functioning_cog Mar 2014 #20

For the loyalists, never. 1000words Mar 2014 #16

Your mischaracterization is also being noted functioning_cog Mar 2014 #19

Rah, rah ... Go team! 1000words Mar 2014 #22

For my neice, who's life will be saved by the ACA ... never. JoePhilly Mar 2014 #26

It doesn't. Arkana Mar 2014 #17

Ludicrous position. The ship has sailed. There is no "fail". functioning_cog Mar 2014 #18

Question on that 9% of income cap HereSince1628 Mar 2014 #25

I'm not sure. But that is one tiny fraction of the population which functioning_cog Mar 2014 #28

The cap applies to middle income families, too pnwmom Mar 2014 #36

Yes, I think so, as I understand it goes into effect for people at or above the poverty level. HereSince1628 Mar 2014 #38

It's not a bludgeon to people below poverty level. They're on Medicaid. pnwmom Mar 2014 #39

Never, it is a WIN WIN. Rex Mar 2014 #34

When we have Sarah Palin standing in front of a death panel snooper2 Mar 2014 #37