So why should I not be ticked off with the GOP right now?

[DavidJames]

Until I tire of the argument or socialists admit the error of their ways and accept that the health care and education industries do not benefit from the application of the blunt instrument of State violence.

Referring to the services society chooses, using the democratic process, the government is to provide as "the blunt instrument of State violence", is simply and completely wrong and reflect either a very poor knowledge of governance or a severe anti-social bias.

 

[Unabogie]

Referring to the services society chooses, using the democratic process, the government is to provide as "the blunt instrument of State violence", is simply and completely wrong.

Wasn't that an Ayn Rand thing? That any law was at its essence enforced "at the point of a gun". Therefore, jaywalking laws are also the blunt instrument of State violence. So are laws regulating the stock market or laws against usury.

Laws against abortion, however, are totally cool.

 

[Biscuit]

Obviously, Skeptic doesn't know what s/he's talking about. Obamacare is mandatory (fines--"taxes" to Justice Roberts if people don't participate) and government mandates on insurers that coverage include, for example, abortion services.

Lies. pure and utter lies.

This is why we can't have nice things like UHC.

 

[rustypouch]

Until I tire of the argument or socialists admit the error of their ways and accept that the health care and education industries do not benefit from the application of the blunt instrument of State violence.

Read over this article:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown...how-the-us-compares-with-other-countries.html

I'm concerned with minimizing costs and maximizing access.

What benefit do you get from spending one and a half times what the next highest spending country spends, especially when you can't even be assured of care when you need it.

 

[thaiboxerken]

My friend's aunt is entirely against the aca because it's socialized healthcare. She's 60 and had been on Medicaid for thirty years.....

 

[Kestrel]

My friend's aunt is entirely against the aca because it's socialized healthcare. She's 60 and had been on Medicaid for thirty years.....

I ran into several posters on another web forum who hated Obamacare, but gushed about the insurance the had from the PCIP. None of them knew that PCIP was part of the Afffordable Care Act.

 

[marplots]

I ran into several posters on another web forum who hated Obamacare, but gushed about the insurance the had from the PCIP. None of them knew that PCIP was part of the Afffordable Care Act.

I had to make the distinction between the ACA and Obamacare for an ebook I wrote on the subject. The ACA and its amendments constitute the law as passed by Congress, while Obamacare is broader, and constitutes the applications and rule-making that extends from the law.

Just wanted to point that out, since the terms are so often seen as synonymous (and in most contexts are interchangeable).

 

[thaiboxerken]

No. There is no real law or set of laws officially called Obamacare . It's slang term made up to describe the ACA.

 

[A'isha]

What does this word salad even mean?

Free Market Über Alles

 

[davefoc]

Do read the thread if you're going to chime in. I've already addressed the above. Once again, my point is that there are winners and losers. Many Obamacare fans are in denial that there are losers. GASP! As long as they are a winner, everyone else must be a winner, or alternatively, screw the losers.

...

There are winners and losers associated with every new law and every new program. The ACA is not an exception. Some people will be better off because of the ACA and some people will be worse off.

The question here is not whether the ACA is a good idea or not. There are dedicated threads to discuss that or if there aren't one could be started. The discussion of the ACA in this thread is a kind of validation of the Republican strategy to undermine the normal legislative process. It implies that if the Republicans had just picked something that the posters agree with to implement by threatening government shut down that this would be OK to those posters.

My view, and I thought the majority view in this thread, is that the Republican strategy is an egregious attempt to undermine the rule of law and should be rejected by everybody regardless of their view of the ACA.

If the Republicans are successful in what should be judged as an irrational and harmful scheme, will there be JREF threads in a few years when the Democrats control only a single branch of government with posts by Democratic party partisans extolling their party for using its power to eliminate some Republican favored laws that the posters don't like?

I think this is one of the simpler issues discussed in this forum. ANTpogo said just about every thing relevant to the discussion in the first two pages of this thread. The particular program the Republicans chose to go after with their scheme isn't that important. If they win here they will just continue to run the same play and the US will be endlessly held hostage to the whims of the minority party.

They won't win. I think that even most Republican legislators have an understanding that winning by the Republican party with this scheme would be detrimental to the long term stability of the US. Unfortunately, the Republican party has taken the country down this path even while it knows that they shouldn't win and probably can't win. And they knew it that many people were going to be harmed a lot and millions of other will be inconvenienced. It is hard to have come up with a plan that so thoroughly discredits what has become the Republican Party in such a high profile and obvious way.

 

[marplots]

No. There is no real law or set of laws officially called Obamacare . It's slang term made up to describe the ACA.

Exactly. It's a catch-all term that includes the philosophy, principles, and practical applications that flow from the law. Obama has used the term himself, so I'm not sure it should still be considered slang rather than a neologism.

 

[Travis]

I think the fact that Obamacare has screwed thousands shouldn't concern you, after all you got what you wanted.
Your precious Obamacare is the direct cause of those suffering from a loss of income and higher insurance, but hey, if it helps with the cognitive dissonance, yeah, it's them evil companies fault.

Please find these people that got screwed over. And then let us see if their new predicament in any way matches those that faced the prospect of death.

 

[Unabogie]

Exactly. It's a catch-all term that includes the philosophy, principles, and practical applications that flow from the law. Obama has used the term himself, so I'm not sure it should still be considered slang rather than a neologism.

No, not exactly. You were just mistaken. "Obamacare" is a slang term, meant derisively for the ACA. The ACA is the law that's got the Tea Party in a tizzy. All of the philosophy, principles, and practical applications are part of the law, not distinct from it.

 

[Unabogie]

Please find these people that got screwed over. And then let us see if their new predicament in any way matches those that faced the prospect of death.

They love to throw around phrases like "X% will see their premiums rise" without ever conceding that many of those people will get subsidies, those who don't may only see their premiums rise a little, all premiums would have risen without the law as they have for the last 50 years, and others will see their premiums rise because the quality of insurance is greatly improved and the improvement is a far better deal than the cheaper premiums e.g. their copays and out of pocket maximum could be exponentially lower.

But sure, let's see the numbers.

 

[marplots]

No, not exactly. You were just mistaken. "Obamacare" is a slang term, meant derisively for the ACA. The ACA is the law that's got the Tea Party in a tizzy. All of the philosophy, principles, and practical applications are part of the law, not distinct from it.

Here's a distinction.
The ACA says that procedures given an A or B rating by the US Preventative Services Task Force (site closed with the shut down) will be covered with no co-pay or out of pocket expenses to the patient.

However, what the USPSTF puts on their list is an administrative function of that agency, not specifically in the law itself. Obama, as the executive, also has a certain amount of sway in these matters - as evidenced by what he has delayed implementation of. But there are hundreds of decisions like this that flow from the legislation without being enumerated in it.

I'll accept it's a technical point and might be a nuance without any heft. It might mean more if another piece of legislation seriously alters the landscape, as has happened with Medicaid, for example. Even if the ACA is no longer the primary legislation, it will still be called Obamacare.

 

[DavidJames]

Republicans have done an outstanding job of defining and then demonizing words. Obamacare is one of them. While it's definition is fairly clear, the Republicans have done a great job of redefining it to be all that is evil in the world.

Hearing people regurgitate the lies shows two things. First, the Republican slime machine is effective. Second, you now know everything you need to about the person who spewed the nonsense.

 

[elbe]

Republicans have done an outstanding job of defining and then demonizing words. Obamacare is one of them. While it's definition is fairly clear, the Republicans have done a great job of redefining it to be all that is evil in the world.

From my recollection "ObamaCare" started as a derogatory term and then was co-opted by Obama himself. I always thought it was stupid and said as much back when BaC was using it.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I had to make the distinction between the ACA and Obamacare for an ebook I wrote on the subject. The ACA and its amendments constitute the law as passed by Congress, while Obamacare is broader, and constitutes the applications and rule-making that extends from the law.

Just wanted to point that out, since the terms are so often seen as synonymous (and in most contexts are interchangeable).

What?

Since the legislators write laws and Presidents don't, how do you figure this?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Republicans have done an outstanding job of defining and then demonizing words. Obamacare is one of them. While it's definition is fairly clear, the Republicans have done a great job of redefining it to be all that is evil in the world.

Hearing people regurgitate the lies shows two things. First, the Republican slime machine is effective. Second, you now know everything you need to about the person who spewed the nonsense.

This^

Polls on overtime on ACA

The latest Kaiser Health Tracking Poll found widespread misconceptions about the health care law, including the notion that government panels would be set up to make decisions about end-of-life care for Medicare recipients — the so-called death panels.

Nearly two-thirds of those polled said they did not know that the health insurance exchanges were set to open on Oct. 1, including almost three-quarters of uninsured Americans. And half of Americans were under the impression that the law created a government-run insurance plan that would compete with private sector insurance plans.

Four in 10 Americans held the misconception that illegal immigrants would receive financial assistance to attain health insurance, and the same proportion said they believed the government would set up death panels.

Among the 51 percent of Americans who said they did not have enough information to know how the law would impact their family, financial concerns were at the forefront. When asked what their main question was about the health care law, one in five wanted to know about costs of plans and what enrollees would be expected to pay, followed by a desire for a basic summary of the law and how it will work.

 

[marplots]

I had to make the distinction between the ACA and Obamacare for an ebook I wrote on the subject. The ACA and its amendments constitute the law as passed by Congress, while Obamacare is broader, and constitutes the applications and rule-making that extends from the law.

Just wanted to point that out, since the terms are so often seen as synonymous (and in most contexts are interchangeable).

What?

Since the legislators write laws and Presidents don't, how do you figure this?

Which part? Does this explain it?

Here's a distinction.
The ACA says that procedures given an A or B rating by the US Preventative Services Task Force (site closed with the shut down) will be covered with no co-pay or out of pocket expenses to the patient.

However, what the USPSTF puts on their list is an administrative function of that agency, not specifically in the law itself. Obama, as the executive, also has a certain amount of sway in these matters - as evidenced by what he has delayed implementation of. But there are hundreds of decisions like this that flow from the legislation without being enumerated in it.

I'll accept it's a technical point and might be a nuance without any heft. It might mean more if another piece of legislation seriously alters the landscape, as has happened with Medicaid, for example. Even if the ACA is no longer the primary legislation, it will still be called Obamacare.

ETA: A similar phenomenon can be seen in the term "War on Drugs" - it is more than any single bit of legislation, although the illegality of drugs has a legislative history. The legislation makes the drugs illegal, but what happens afterward is more of a philosophical and practical application of the law.