Nope. It would be entirely the fault of republicans because funding a law is the norm.
If they sent a whole bunch of mini funding bills.by department and left off the one that funds the ACA they could get a pass and just say that they were unable to pass a bill to fund the ACA. They are not doing that, they are sending one big bill and making DEFUND a part of it.
Lack of a funding bill would.be the way to give themselves cover. Specifically forcing the defund as part of a larger bill counts as a poison pill, which puts the blame squarely on them for putting the poison in there.
If the Repubs have lost me why would anyone else think it wasn't their fault?
If they sent a whole bunch of mini funding bills.by department and left off the one that funds the ACA they could get a pass and just say that they were unable to pass a bill to fund the ACA.
Seriously. I have not heard one reason, good or bad, as to why the Republicans are not doing it that way.
None of this will work. All of the healthcare companies have invested too much time and money into the healthcare exchange to stop now. All of the medical billing codes are already changing to go along with it. It's happening regardless of the shutdown.
Clinton's right. Call that bluff.
I still like the theory that the GOP is scared shitless of this working.
As someone else mentioned ACA funding will not be affected by a shutdown. This is basically a temper tantrum. This is the actions of a party that doesn't believe they'll be on the winning side of national elections for awhile. They have been reduced to trolling the country.
I just had to deal with the most frustrating case of 'can't find the goalposts' ever.
We were discussing how 'some' businesses are cutting worker hours to less than 30 a week to avoid the ACA fines. This associate of mine kept throwing out the recent debunkings of whacky "75% of small businesses are doing this" to say that it is not happening.
First we tried to explain that the 75% number is bullshit and irrelevant to the core claim that 'some' businesses are doing this. Then he latched onto 'small business' as a requirement of the claim. Again we had to tell him that the size of the business is irrelevant!
Then we were accused of moving the goalposts because we were pointing out that 75% and small business were irrelevant to the core claim of employers dodging the law by cutting hours or cutting employees.
The fix to employers dodging the law is single payor. Single payor was never going to fly in this country without an intermediate, flawed step to help people see why it's necessary.
Under the circumstances, the ACA is almost as good as it could have been. I do think that they "compromised" way too much with GOP demands, though, given that they picked up ZERO votes by doing so. They should have jammed it in wholesale.
Although I think Lieberman more or less sabotaged it... I don't recall now. What a snake that guy is.
What's tragically hilarious about the ACA is that if it had been initiated by a President McCain, we'd be considering it one of the most popular pieces of bipartisan legislation.
I don't think McCain ever would have introduced it. Romney certainly would not have.
I think if McCain had been elected, we might not even have SNAP anymore by now. Who knows. Obama is a piece of shit, but at least he pays some lip service to the needs of poor Americans and gives them some lube before fucking them up the ass. McCain/Romney would have been a rougher experience, I think.
The solution is a routing of Congress, but it's not gonna happen. The REAL solution is a parliamentary system that replaces our first-past-the-post bullshit, and possibly electoral districts drawn up by an independent international body, but as long as I'm having a wet dream I'd like a Lambo and two hot young models to drive around in it with me, please.
I said what I said because the ACA is very similar to a plan put forth by the Heritage Foundation (think that's the name), which is a staunchly conservative organization. A Republican President would have had a really good shot at getting such a health care plan passed; not just because it was put forth by a conservative group, but because the Dems have been trying to get health care reform since Nixon. Massive support from both sides of the aisle.
I absolutely agree that the ACA is basically a GOP plan. I still don't think McCain or Romney would ever have implemented it in the current political climate of their base (which they helped foster).
Endorsed by Democrats (who honestly, are all shit bags most of the time as well), though, it's almost Machiavellian. Let's give absolutely everybody a taste of what it's like when their unemployed, sick brother gets health insurance and can finally see a doctor, but at somewhat overpriced rates. Then a few years later when it's being taken for granted, forward a plan to bring the premiums WAY down by nationalizing the whole thing.
ugggghhhhhh.... (So angry at the current state of debate) At least this is finally showing some of the rational conservative types there is something wrong.
From my understanding, a lot of push for standardized health care came from looking at other countries that have it and saying "why can't we have it too?". But the way most other countries standardized health care works is the government basically has a bidding process for say, who can make the cheapest replacement hip that passes safety checks and quality control. The winning company gets to make all the hips for the country for a number of years. This in turn forces the overall cost of health care down and makes it affordable for everyone to have it. We have a similar system in Medicare.
However the ACA has none of these bidding provisions so there is zero incentive for companies to lower costs. Now you are forcing everyone to buy into a bloated health care system and no mechanism for lowering costs.
I think you guys have it right that this needs to be a stepping point to a competitive system. However I am not too hopeful that it will ever change much from whatever system it is now.
But the way most other countries standardized health care works is the government basically has a bidding process for say, who can make the cheapest replacement hip that passes safety checks and quality control. The winning company gets to make all the hips for the country for a number of years.
Are you sure this works? It seems to me that if you let one company make "all the hips", effects such as economies of scale and capital costs might make it difficult for another company to compete with it for the next round of bidding.
However the ACA has none of these bidding provisions so there is zero incentive for companies to lower costs. Now you are forcing everyone to buy into a bloated health care system and no mechanism for lowering costs.
Uh, what? Do you even know what is in the law?
It limits the percentage of the price of your insurance that can be profit. A certain percentage has to go to paying for healthcare or be returned. That's a price control.
It combines that price control with an exchange marketplace where people can easily find different companies that offer coverage and prevents those companies from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions, which is what was keeping a lot of us from being able to purchase health coverage in the first place. That means competition, which is a price control.
It provides the possibility of getting your insurance subsidized by the government, which lowers the cost to the consumer and gets us closer to government-provided health coverage without telling people it's government-provided health coverage.
And while I hope the exchanges will produce the competition you're expecting... I won't hold my breath.
This is a necessary intermediate step to drag the United States kicking and screaming into the new millenium (a decade or more late), but there's a very real danger that instead of seeing the light, Americans will get slathered in propaganda and we'll get stuck with this shit sandwich for a long, long time.
It's an insanely poor price control. Want more profits? Collude to raise "costs"!
Except that the government subsidies for low-income people will mean that if costs inflate, the government will crack down on that shit. Eventually. Because it will be the government paying the inflated bill, not the the insured.
It's a step. We're not going to get a 100% awesome system from scratch.
It's a painfully incremental step that is so far from a 100% awesome system that it's actively depressing, but we'll see.
And I don't share your optimism about the gov't doing fuck all about prices/costs until this Frankenstein system is replaced with something sane. I've worked in insurance/healthcare too long (and been a patient too long, too.)
Medicare has been out there for... decades, right? Since it only affects a subset of insured, it's been more or less entirely ineffective at controlling prices market wide. If anything, providers' and suppliers' contracts have been grossly inflated in all other subsets in order to "compensate" for the "loss".
Under the ACA, insurers will have a new incentive to allow providers to charge more and more for services and supplies, because their slice will grow with the pie that it's now anchored to. It'll be interesting to see how that pans out.
Comments
If they sent a whole bunch of mini funding bills.by department and left off the one that funds the ACA they could get a pass and just say that they were unable to pass a bill to fund the ACA. They are not doing that, they are sending one big bill and making DEFUND a part of it.
Lack of a funding bill would.be the way to give themselves cover. Specifically forcing the defund as part of a larger bill counts as a poison pill, which puts the blame squarely on them for putting the poison in there.
If the Repubs have lost me why would anyone else think it wasn't their fault?
Clinton's right. Call that bluff.
I still like the theory that the GOP is scared shitless of this working.
We were discussing how 'some' businesses are cutting worker hours to less than 30 a week to avoid the ACA fines. This associate of mine kept throwing out the recent debunkings of whacky "75% of small businesses are doing this" to say that it is not happening.
First we tried to explain that the 75% number is bullshit and irrelevant to the core claim that 'some' businesses are doing this. Then he latched onto 'small business' as a requirement of the claim. Again we had to tell him that the size of the business is irrelevant!
Then we were accused of moving the goalposts because we were pointing out that 75% and small business were irrelevant to the core claim of employers dodging the law by cutting hours or cutting employees.
So frustrating.
Under the circumstances, the ACA is almost as good as it could have been. I do think that they "compromised" way too much with GOP demands, though, given that they picked up ZERO votes by doing so. They should have jammed it in wholesale.
Although I think Lieberman more or less sabotaged it... I don't recall now. What a snake that guy is.
I think if McCain had been elected, we might not even have SNAP anymore by now. Who knows. Obama is a piece of shit, but at least he pays some lip service to the needs of poor Americans and gives them some lube before fucking them up the ass. McCain/Romney would have been a rougher experience, I think.
The solution is a routing of Congress, but it's not gonna happen. The REAL solution is a parliamentary system that replaces our first-past-the-post bullshit, and possibly electoral districts drawn up by an independent international body, but as long as I'm having a wet dream I'd like a Lambo and two hot young models to drive around in it with me, please.
At least, that's how it goes in my imagination.
However the ACA has none of these bidding provisions so there is zero incentive for companies to lower costs. Now you are forcing everyone to buy into a bloated health care system and no mechanism for lowering costs.
I think you guys have it right that this needs to be a stepping point to a competitive system. However I am not too hopeful that it will ever change much from whatever system it is now.
It limits the percentage of the price of your insurance that can be profit. A certain percentage has to go to paying for healthcare or be returned. That's a price control.
It combines that price control with an exchange marketplace where people can easily find different companies that offer coverage and prevents those companies from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions, which is what was keeping a lot of us from being able to purchase health coverage in the first place. That means competition, which is a price control.
It provides the possibility of getting your insurance subsidized by the government, which lowers the cost to the consumer and gets us closer to government-provided health coverage without telling people it's government-provided health coverage.
This is a necessary intermediate step to drag the United States kicking and screaming into the new millenium (a decade or more late), but there's a very real danger that instead of seeing the light, Americans will get slathered in propaganda and we'll get stuck with this shit sandwich for a long, long time.
Or maybe SUPER-Impeachment? That involves being shipped to the moon with only a copy of Atlas Shrugged and Reagan's ghost to keep you company.
It's a step. We're not going to get a 100% awesome system from scratch.
And I don't share your optimism about the gov't doing fuck all about prices/costs until this Frankenstein system is replaced with something sane. I've worked in insurance/healthcare too long (and been a patient too long, too.)
Medicare has been out there for... decades, right? Since it only affects a subset of insured, it's been more or less entirely ineffective at controlling prices market wide. If anything, providers' and suppliers' contracts have been grossly inflated in all other subsets in order to "compensate" for the "loss".
Under the ACA, insurers will have a new incentive to allow providers to charge more and more for services and supplies, because their slice will grow with the pie that it's now anchored to. It'll be interesting to see how that pans out.