Democrats Dissing ObamaCare
Wall Street Journal - May 1 By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL
Mark Sanford and Elizabeth Colbert Busch on Monday held their first and (likely) only debate in the run-up to next week's special election for the 1st congressional district in South Carolina. The media tittering over Mrs. Colbert Busch's decision to publicly slap the former Republican governor over his extramarital affair obscured the more notable political comment of the night.
That moment came when Mrs. Colbert Busch slammed her own party's health-care law: "Obamacare is extremely problematic, it is expensive, it is a $500 billion [higher] cost than we originally anticipated, it's cutting into Medicare benefits and it's having companies lay off their employees because they are worried about the cost of it. That is extremely problematic, it needs an enormous fix."
South Carolina's first district is a conservative place—it voted overwhelmingly for Mitt Romney in last year's election—so Mrs. Colbert Busch has every political reason to distance herself from her party and its health law. Yet she becomes one of the first Democrats to attempt to win an election on the back of criticism of her president's signature achievement. Even Democrats who cast themselves as "moderates" running in conservative states in the 2012 Senate election—like Heidi Heitkamp in North Dakota, or Joe Donnelly in Indiana—were careful to maintain a generalized support for ObamaCare.
Mrs. Colbert Busch also joins a growing chorus of Democrats who are backing away from the law now that its enormous costs and implementation problems are becoming more obvious. Montana Democrat Max Baucus used a recent Senate hearing to worry that ObamaCare was looking to be a "train wreck." West Virginia Democratic Sen. Jay Rockefeller pronounced that ObamaCare is "so complicated" that "if it isn't done right the first time, it will just simply get worse." The most recent Kaiser Health Tracking Poll confirmed that the law has been plummeting in the public's opinion. Just 35% of Americans today view ObamaCare "favorably" or "somewhat favorably," down eight points since Election Day and its lowest level of support since it was passed.
Mr. Sanford, who is struggling in the race given the focus on his past indiscretions, made a point of noting in the debate that while Mrs. Colbert Busch may claim to disavow ObamaCare, she was recently thrown a fundraiser by 37 Democrats who all "supported and voted for ObamaCare." And note, too, that Mrs. Colbert Busch did not go so far as to call for ObamaCare's repeal—simply an "enormous fix." The voters of South Carolina ought to be asking the Democratic candidate how she defines such a "fix."
|by Anonymous||reply 26||05/10/2013|
"Only 35% of Americans view ObamaCare favorably." Remember when Obama told us how wonderful it will be and that those who have insurance can keep what they have. He forgot to say premiums through our employers are already going up by 40%
|by Anonymous||reply 2||05/08/2013|
Wall Street Journal, naturally.
|by Anonymous||reply 3||05/08/2013|
Wall Street Journal has turned into an even bigger right-wing-nut rag. After they reformatted the size, facts didn't matter anymore. I quit my subscription.
|by Anonymous||reply 5||05/08/2013|
[quote]He forgot to say premiums through our employers are already going up by 40%
That's because to say that would be a lie.
Overall, medical costs are stabilizing; they're not increasing as fast as they used to and some experts think the change is permanent.
Those who are protesting about higher premiums have been doing so ever since passage of the ACA, even before a single provision of the bill took effect.
|by Anonymous||reply 6||05/08/2013|
R4. Not sure why you think r2 is a moron. Estimates are 40 to 60% increase, plus my taxes went up because of how benefits are considered income. Obama/Pelosi/Reid never let us know that was coming before we had to "pass the bill to see what's in it."
|by Anonymous||reply 7||05/08/2013|
R2 is a moron because he's posting partisan drivel, just as you are. You also both happen to be posting false information, most likely because you're lying.
|by Anonymous||reply 8||05/08/2013|
R4 - read something besides your left wind drivel spoon fed to you by the Democrats. Corporate paid plans are going to see increased premiums (most already are), personal plans already in existence are going to see a hike, and the tax on your plan is going up. Did you really think all of this was free? Somebody has to pay for it and it is the people who were already covered.
Educate yourself before you call someone a moron.
|by Anonymous||reply 9||05/08/2013|
Tell us where you got the information you cited please, r9.
|by Anonymous||reply 11||05/08/2013|
Google is your friend, but here is one of the earlier articles. My employer, which is quite large, has set the expectation of a 40% hike.
|by Anonymous||reply 12||05/08/2013|
A Single-payer System would have prevented this. Democrats prefer to work with Republicans to protect the private profits of the Insurance Industry which has no real purpose being involved in Health Care in the first place. All the Insurance Industry does is siphon off hundreds of billions that could go to providing care for the ill and the injured.
|by Anonymous||reply 13||05/08/2013|
I agree with you, r13, and at this stage of my life, healthcare is my number one annual expense and fear.
It's what keeps my up at night, not the economy.
Unless the Republicans come up with a better plan, they cannot hope to get my support for any of their candidates -- local, state, or federal.
I really don't care about any other issues.
|by Anonymous||reply 14||05/08/2013|
R13, I think a lot of people assumed Obamacare *was* a single-payer healthcare system.
|by Anonymous||reply 15||05/08/2013|
Adding to R15: I recall Obamacare being described as "Medicare for Everyone."
|by Anonymous||reply 16||05/08/2013|
R9, perhaps you should follow your own advice. The article you cite contains this quote:
[quote]an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office ... predicts that once the law’s hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies and cost savings go into effect in 2014, total out-of-pocket insurance costs will fall by an average of 60 percent.
Meanwhile, out here in the real world, health care spending has actually declined, at least partially because of the ACA (see link). On the one side, we have scare tactics; on the other side, we have actual data. I'll take the data, thanks.
|by Anonymous||reply 17||05/09/2013|
[quote]Meanwhile, out here in the real world, health care spending has actually declined, at least partially because of the ACA (see link).
I read the article you linked to and it doesn't say that at all. It says "possibly" because of ACA, but the numbers show that the main reason is the bad economy.
[quote]The study by Harvard researchers, featured in the latest edition of Health Affairs, finds, like all studies of this nature, that the recession and weak economy contributed significantly to the spending growth slowdown.
[quote]In particular, they’ve been cautious about attributing any of it to the slow move away from fee-for-service medicine, which the Affordable Care Act hopes to accelerate. The new papers don’t explicitly credit the ACA for slowing down spending growth, but many experts — particularly those that support the law — believe it is a contributing factor.
|by Anonymous||reply 18||05/09/2013|
The CBO was so damn accurate about how much it would cost. Now weren't they?
|by Anonymous||reply 19||05/09/2013|
The big problem is that so many uninformed Americans actually thought 'Obamacare' WAS going to be a single payer system OR universal healthcare plan.
Of course the ReThugs pushed that lie and they also stated the negative aspects of the US having universal healthcare, by bringing up the types of problems residents in the UK have getting to see doctors etc.
'Obamacare' is basically a new health law which guarantees that people, with existing health conditions, could no longer be denied healthcare. As well as allowing older children to stay on their parents healthcare longer, which isn't that unusual. Many years ago, in the late 1970s, my sister and I were on our mom's health insurance until we were 25, because we had horrible health insurance through the jobs we had at the time.
I agree with R13, it's unfortunate that the Democrats have sided with the ReThugs to protect the private profits of the already over-bloated Insurance industry, because that is not helping US citizens one iota.
Insurance companies don not really have any purpose being involved in healthcare, they are notorious for denying diagnostic tests, which many patients, who actually pay completely out of pocket for their insurance, do NEED!
Had my younger sister not fought to get three specific diagnostic tests done, she would be dead from cancer today! Fuck the healthcare insurance companies, they are a useless industry!
Obama should have fought much harder to bring the US into this century! We are one of the last of the industrialized nations on this planet which doesn't have universal healthcare for it's citizens, yet we still give billions in US tax dollars in aid to countries which hate the US.
Our tax dollars should be working for US, to run a universal healthcare system!
|by Anonymous||reply 22||05/09/2013|
This year a friend who works for GE had three choices of health plans. The cheapest was to pay $2500 before any benefit kicks in. Until now there was only a small co-pay for a medical office visit.
|by Anonymous||reply 23||05/09/2013|
[quote]The CBO was so damn accurate about how much it would cost. Now weren't they?
Um, actually, yes, R19, they have been, so far. Other than releasing an update indicating that the costs will be $50 billion *less* than originally forecast, their estimates still stand. Did you have a point to make?
|by Anonymous||reply 24||05/10/2013|
R20, you're citing an idiotic article by a man who writes, "In 2012, I served as a health care policy advisor to Mitt Romney," and you expect me to take it seriously? I love how he includes the ten-year projections from each report without noting the reason that those projections don't match each other (free clue: it has nothing to do with the accuracy, or lack thereof, of the CBO, and nothing to do with changing estimates on the impact of the ACA). And how he downplays the impact of Congressional decisions since the passage of the ACA which, duh, have affected the costs and the revenue.
In short, that article was nothing more than propaganda, and clumsy propaganda at that, devoid of any logic, reason, or data.
|by Anonymous||reply 25||05/10/2013|
The Florida Legislature is doing its best to nullify "Obamacare" as far as the Sunshine State is concerned.
|by Anonymous||reply 26||05/10/2013|