Election 2014

[Rapscallion]

I suspect Obama's memoirs will be very much like Major's off-the-record (so he thought) comments.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013...n_4142916.html

Dull and grey figure he may have been, but here he was talking about his own party.

Rapscallion

[Panacea]

The fact of the matter is, it greatly concerns me that people seem to be shrugging off what I consider to be a massive epic fail of our democratic process: We're passing laws that we cannot even read and understand fully.

And congress is enabling this kind of fucked up process by simply saying, "alright, let's accept this law and see what it says afterwards."

And we see what has happened as a result for at least the past 15+ years: The people realize what was passed, throw a tantrum over certain parts of it, congress goes into defensive mode saying "We didn't realize what we signed", the supreme court makes a circus out of the bill, and then everyone winds up bitter and electing a new group of people to congress that will just repeat the same screwed up process...

...and people wonder why Millenials are discouraged from voting.

Huckster, anyone who doesn't bother to vote can't bitch about the results. I have no patience for people who check out of the process. I've never missed an election; not a major, not a midterm, not a primary. I vote every time.

We actually did know a lot about the effects the ACA would have when it was passed. Years of research went into that law, and we had the example of the rollout in Massachusetts to support the efforts. We also knew that health care inflation was out of control: 16% in 2009 and on track to be 21% of the GDP by 2017. It's holding steady at 17% the past two years, showing that the provisions are having the positive effects predicted.

Repealing the ACA would add to the deficit, something the GOP is currently ignoring in their effort to derail the law.

And they didn't wait 15 years to have a fit about it. That got started before it ever passed, and they've been unwilling to give it a chance, and tweak the law as time went on. I'm not opposed to changes in Obamacare to make it better.

Legislation is immensely complex, and in normal years when Congress is functional there is so much of it, it is impossible for any single person to keep up with it. That's what they have staffers for. We don't live in a perfect world; expecting every law to be read in its entirety by the member is unrealistic.

Wasn't voter turn out something like 37%? Talk about political apathy. Not that I blame them. The US political system, especially of last 10-12 years or so, is basically an Ouroboros with its head up its own ass at this point. Most politicians have no interest in actually governing or finding solutions to problems.

Well, if nothing else Obama's post presidency tell all book about dealing with politics during his presidency should be entertaining.

No doubt. More entertaining that living through it.

Our dismal turnout is a problem; we have a lot of people who bitch about our government but have nothing constructive to add. At the very least, vote!

[s_stabeler]

can I make one small point? when people bitch about Obama not "bringing both parties together" I can't help but remember that a) the ACA was actually drawn up by both parties- indeed, the Republicans got some major concessions. One being that there was no public option. Anther point is that it wasn't Obama who decided that, against all convention, they would use the Budget to try to gain leverage on a non-fiscal matter. ( previous shutdowns have always been due to fiscal disagreements. the last one was due to the Tea Party trying to effectively force the repeal of the ACA.)

Has Obama been a good president? I'd say, considering that he had to face opponents willing to reject anything just because he proposed it, then yes. Was he a great president, to be held up as an example to future generations of what a president should be? probably not. I'd say the best way of summing up Obama is that he came into office truly wanting to bring change, but found it impossible in the face of an entrenched effort from the established order.

[TheHuckster]

We actually did know a lot about the effects the ACA would have when it was passed.

How on earth is that remotely possible if nobody knew what was actually in it?

Huckster, anyone who doesn't bother to vote can't bitch about the results. I have no patience for people who check out of the process. I've never missed an election; not a major, not a midterm, not a primary. I vote every time.

Our dismal turnout is a problem; we have a lot of people who bitch about our government but have nothing constructive to add. At the very least, vote!

My last point was not an excuse for not voting, but rather an explanation, and an illustration of what the effects of what I consider a corrupt and horrible system of politics we have now. I agree that too many people are unwilling to do anything to fix it, even though they see the problem at hand. That doesn't take away from the fact that the system we have right now is crippling the democratic spirit that we once had.

I think it's only a matter of time before the tide turns and those who had become discouraged starts a grassroots movement to write in a candidate who uses social media and Kickstarter to spread the word and fund their campaign, and becomes a force to be reckoned with in the polls.

I don't know what such a campaign would be like or if the candidate(s) would actually fix things, but I know it will piss off both the oligopolic republicans and democrats, and I'm certain that, the way things are going right now, with our political climate, our technology, and our culture, it's an inevitable turn of events.

[Panacea]

How on earth is that remotely possible if nobody knew what was actually in it?

Because we knew broadly what we were doing with the provisions. It was the minutiae that was hotly debated, and ultimately more ended up being taken out to satisfy Republicans than was planned.

No one said they didn't know what the law was supposed to do. It was nit picky details that changed back and forth so rapidly to the point that on some issues we weren't sure what would survive and what wouldn't. Example: end of life care counseling didn't make it because of the "Death Panel" BS.

[TheHuckster]

Because we knew broadly what we were doing with the provisions. It was the minutiae that was hotly debated, and ultimately more ended up being taken out to satisfy Republicans than was planned.

No one said they didn't know what the law was supposed to do. It was nit picky details that changed back and forth so rapidly to the point that on some issues we weren't sure what would survive and what wouldn't. Example: end of life care counseling didn't make it because of the "Death Panel" BS.

If, as you claim, most of the congress at least knew the broad provisions about the bill, they'd at least have a bit more to say about what is in the bill than, "I don't know, let's see after it passes."

When bills in the past pass that come with ancillary bullcrap pork projects that nobody notices, I find it hard to trust them with a bill that they admit they can't read entirely, one which has a huge effect on the future of healthcare in the US.

The reason I make a big deal out of this is because we've gotten screwed by pork stuffing and other extras in bills in the past, and when you are drafting a bill that has a huge effect on peoples' lives it's something that can't be taken lightly. It wasn't just one or two items of minutiae that people were debating, but rather a lot of minutiae that, individually, might have not meant much, but when accumulated can make a huge difference in how healthcare in the US is going to be changed and implemented.

[HYHYBT]

The scary thing is that all the R's have to do now is stuff everything they want into the next appropriations or debt ceiling bill and keep re-passing near-identical versions until Obama gives up vetoing them.

[protege]

If, as you claim, most of the congress at least knew the broad provisions about the bill, they'd at least have a bit more to say about what is in the bill than, "I don't know, let's see after it passes."

That's exactly the problem I have with Obamacare. I remember Pelosi being quoted as "we need to hurry up and pass this, so we can find out what's in it" on CNBC, and the resulting outrage when it was revealed that our representatives voted on the bill...without even bothering to read it.

If it had been passed a piece at a time, it probably wouldn't have been the bloated mess that resulted, and the voter outrage might have been lessened. Throw in the website going down *multiple* times, and it's no wonder many people think it of a half-assed "solution" to the country's healthcare issues.

Then you have some of the things Obama is famously quoted. For example "If you like your plan, you can keep it." Plus, wasn't the ACA supposed to bring premiums and costs down to more reasonable levels? Right now, my company is actually switching plans...because UPMC and Highmark have a monopoly in the area. They both suck, and have raised premiums twice and actually cut benefits in the past year! All of it being blamed on Obamacare.

Voters turned on Obama and his cronies simply because of how the ACA was handled, and because our representatives claimed ignorance when they didn't realize what was going to happen.

[Panacea]

If, as you claim, most of the congress at least knew the broad provisions about the bill, they'd at least have a bit more to say about what is in the bill than, "I don't know, let's see after it passes."

I've already conceded that Nancy Peolsi is a fucking moron. It was an off the cuff remark, poorly thought out. It didn't mean what you claim it means and I've explained why.

When bills in the past pass that come with ancillary bullcrap pork projects that nobody notices, I find it hard to trust them with a bill that they admit they can't read entirely, one which has a huge effect on the future of healthcare in the US.

There is no pork in the ACA. In fact, there are no more earmarks in any legislation now. Congress banned them in 2008. It's actually a big part of why we have so much gridlock. Without the quid pro quo to offer the minority party, they have no reason NOT to be obstructionist.

The reason I make a big deal out of this is because we've gotten screwed by pork stuffing and other extras in bills in the past, and when you are drafting a bill that has a huge effect on peoples' lives it's something that can't be taken lightly. It wasn't just one or two items of minutiae that people were debating, but rather a lot of minutiae that, individually, might have not meant much, but when accumulated can make a huge difference in how healthcare in the US is going to be changed and implemented.

Well, you should have picked a better topic to complain about, then. There is no pork in the ACA. There's no pork in ANY legislation anymore.

The ACA is a complicated bill, and it's not perfect. No one crafting the bill took it lightly. Healthcare was bankrupting this country. We could not afford to keep doing what we were doing, which was nothing. Changes had to be made, and change is always difficult.

The ACA does a number of things. It mandates everyone have insurance. Uncompensated health care is the largest driver of health care inflation and health care costs. If everyone has insurance, they can get the bulk of their care covered.
Subsidies are provided to help the poor pay for their care. Medicaid was supposed to be expanded to help the poorest of the poor, but Republicans successfully fucked that up. Many states that refused the Medicaid expansion are now accepting it because they realized the good that it is doing.

The ACA gives CMS (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services) more power to pilot programs that force hospitals to be more efficient and reduce the costs of care. One of these is allowing CMS to refuse to pay for preventable complications, like bedsores and urinal tract infections that are hospital acquired. There is no excuse for anyone to get one of these, ever. The hospitals will have to cover those costs. This has encouraged hospitals to improve practices, and now we don't see the catheter acquired UTIs the way we used to a few years ago.

The ACA set minimum standards of care that health plans must meet. This elminates expensive and useless catastrophic plans favored by those who self insure: the poor or self employed. They look cheap, but they cover nothing and cost more than they are worth in the long run.

I followed the health care debate very closely while it was going on. I read the entire bill, Senate and House versions (which were very similar) front to back, side to side, backwards and forwards, inside out. A lot of people did. There's been a lot of hyperbole about "no one reading the bill" but the truth is that's common among legislators because of the vast amount of legislation they vote on. But their staff read it, and update the legislator on what's in the bill. I certainly would agree they should read every bill, especially something as important as the ACA, before voting on it. But I understand why they don't.

The scary thing is that all the R's have to do now is stuff everything they want into the next appropriations or debt ceiling bill and keep re-passing near-identical versions until Obama gives up vetoing them.

Mitch McConnell has promised no government shutdowns and no more debt ceiling showdowns. He got spanked with the last shutdown and I think he's serious about what he's said. He seems to have a spine, so I don't think he'll let Ted Cruz bully him the way Cruz bullies John Bonehead.

Obama isn't going to stop vetoing bad legislation. The GOP can try yet another symbolic repeal of Obamacare, and might even get it through the Senate if they can break a filibuster (Repubs don't have a 60 seat majority so they might not). But the House will never muster a 2/3rds majority to override the veto that WILL follow a repeal. Americans are fed up with the fight over Obamacare; 70% of Americans want to keep it. As I've predicted before; the more Americans realize what the ACA does for them, the more they like it. I'm with with it being tweaked and made better. But it's not going anywhere.

McConnell and Bonehead are going to have to decide what they really want. If they do, they can get legislation passed. Obama will sign many things, if they play the politics smart, even if they contain provisions he might not otherwise support. But continued obstruction won't play well with the American public; they have GOT to end the gridlock. If they don't, they risk a backlash in 2016 that will land Hilary Clinton in the White House.

That's exactly the problem I have with Obamacare. I remember Pelosi being quoted as "we need to hurry up and pass this, so we can find out what's in it" on CNBC, and the resulting outrage when it was revealed that our representatives voted on the bill...without even bothering to read it.

Please see my responses to Huckster on this.

If it had been passed a piece at a time, it probably wouldn't have been the bloated mess that resulted, and the voter outrage might have been lessened. Throw in the website going down *multiple* times, and it's no wonder many people think it of a half-assed "solution" to the country's healthcare issues.

The ACA is not, nor was it ever, a "bloated mess." There is no pork in the ACA. Passing it piecemeal was never in the cards with Republican obstruction in Congress. We'd have nothing at all if Democrats had done that. Comprehensive health care reform had been punted for over 10 years. People were losing their homes over medical bills.

Granted, the roll out of the federal exchange was a mess. There wasn't supposed to be a federal exchange, but the refusal of some states to make their own forced the change. I freely admit the website was bungled. That doesn't mean the ACA is a bad law. It means the implementation of the law was done poorly.

Then you have some of the things Obama is famously quoted. For example "If you like your plan, you can keep it." Plus, wasn't the ACA supposed to bring premiums and costs down to more reasonable levels? Right now, my company is actually switching plans...because UPMC and Highmark have a monopoly in the area. They both suck, and have raised premiums twice and actually cut benefits in the past year! All of it being blamed on Obamacare.

Obama always wanted for people to be able to keep plans they had. It was an unrealistic expectation. Politicians often promise things they can't deliver, and he couldn't deliver on this. But again, it doesn't make the ACA a bad law. It means that Obama couldn't deliver on a promise.

Premiums can't come down until health care inflation does. That's been at 17% of the GDP for the past couple of years. It was rising until 2012 when it slowed for the first time in decades. Insurance companies need time to enroll the 11 million uninsured Americans into plans and increase the size of their insurance pools. Open enrollment only started for 2014, and many people have failed to sign up for insurance (although 7 million did so there isn't much further to go). We need to get everyone else enrolled in plans for 2015. It will take a couple of years of data for underwriters to be able to properly evaluate risk to set premiums.

Premiums should start to decline in the next two or three years based on this. There are other things that need to be done as well, such as controlling costs in hospitals. Those efforts are also in their infancy. Fortunately, waste and fraud are seeing great strides: over 4 billion dollars in waste and fraud were saved in 2012 alone.

The problem was too big to fix all at once. The law has been implemented slowly with full implementation still not achieved because small business owners got an extra year to plan before buying plans for their workers (that gets implemented for 2015). If you expected health care to be fixed in a couple of years, your expectations were unrealistic. Medicare did not reduce elder poverty in a couple of years, and the ACA won't fix our heathcare system overnight.

Voters turned on Obama and his cronies simply because of how the ACA was handled, and because our representatives claimed ignorance when they didn't realize what was going to happen.

You haven't been paying attention if you think that. If that allegation were true, Obama would not have been re-elected President in 2012.

Voters are frustrated with our Do Nothing Congress. They blame Obama for it. The party in power traditionally does poorly in the midterm elections so the results of 2010 and 2014 were of surprise to no one who understand how our politics work. That frustration will turn back on Republicans if they don't prove they can govern.

If Mitch McConnell and John Bonehead can get their collective acts together, and get the damn Tea Party under control, then they've got a shot at the White House in 2016.

If they don't, if we continue to have gridlock, then Hilary Clinton will be elected President in 2016, and control of Congress could return to Democrats.

[Gravekeeper]

Voters turned on Obama and his cronies simply because of how the ACA was handled, and because our representatives claimed ignorance when they didn't realize what was going to happen.

Oh pssh. The average voter has NFI what ACA is or what it does. For something so important few people ever bothered to actually find out what it does. People approve or disapproval of it just based on the name you use when you ask the question. Remember death panels? Total complete and utter bullshit yet it actually caused the removal of consultation payments from the bills because half of Republicans believed it ( and an alarming number still do ). Plus individual Republican controlled States dicked about with Medicaid interfering with ACA or even outright passed laws effectively banning its implementation.

[mikoyan29]

The fact of the matter is, it greatly concerns me that people seem to be shrugging off what I consider to be a massive epic fail of our democratic process: We're passing laws that we cannot even read and understand fully.

And congress is enabling this kind of fucked up process by simply saying, "alright, let's accept this law and see what it says afterwards."

What do you expect when pre-packaged legislation is given to you to vote on? They can barely come up with their own legislation, so they have outsourced that to groups that of course have no vested interested in what gets passed.

I thought the Democrats were pretty bad to Bush during his years but they did nothing that compares to what the Republicans did. Pretty much from the moment Obama was elected, they decided they didn't want to work with him, despite the issues facing the country at the time.

[HYHYBT]

Passing something piece by piece is a recipe for deliberate disaster when the pieces rely on each other to work.

There is no pork in the ACA. In fact, there are no more earmarks in any legislation now. Congress banned them in 2008. It's actually a big part of why we have so much gridlock. Without the quid pro quo to offer the minority party, they have no reason NOT to be obstructionist.

That makes sense: remove the grease, the whole machine grinds to a halt.

As for "if you like your plan, yoi can keep it," the only way anyone's been able to pull that off as anything against either the ACA or Obama is through dishonest misrepresentation, just like with "you didn't build that." The meaning, as should have been obvious, was that *the government* would not force you out of your old plan. What happened was *insurers chose* to push people off those plans, which is a wholly different thing.

[s_stabeler]

not to mention, IIRC, the rate of lost plans is actually no higher than normal. In other words, it wasn't lots due to the ACA, but just plain due to the plan not making enough money for the insurer.

[Andara Bledin]

We also knew that health care inflation was out of control: 16% in 2009 and on track to be 21% of the GDP by 2017. It's holding steady at 17% the past two years, showing that the provisions are having the positive effects predicted.

This drives me nuts. People complain that "OMG, health care cost went up after the ACA went into effect! " while completely ignoring that health care costs went up every single year before that and that the ACA actually prevented them from going up even higher than they already did.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

They are the electorate. They make a habit of being wrong, reactionary, and obtuse.

What they are also ignoring is that the rate of increase is slowing which is normal since generally prices are sticky when falling The prices that are already inflated will stay where they are and the other prices heading up will just slow down. From there it will just stagnate (in odd cases actually slowly falling) until demand causes them to push up again. Price growth is now slowing.

In the end, the ACA was a boon for Republicans who were well aware something needed to be done but couldn't antagonize their constituents with more legislation. By just about all economic models, American pricing was completely out of whack and a major part of that justification (for high pricing) was non-paying customers. So the Democrats did something about it and took a bath in the elections for it.

The Republicans will talk about repealing it, but they probably never will (although they may try "improving" it). At some point, actually repealing it will cause stories of people losing coverage that far outstrip what happened to the people who were on crappy plans pre-ACA. Much like Medicare and Social Security, they won't touch it because they'll be escorted off premises in the following election for their trouble.