Skip to main content

View Diary: Democrats = Spineless Jellyfish on the ACA! (76 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Go into Medicare/Medicaid is where they (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    awcomeon, corvo, Brown Thrasher

    should go.

    The Medicaid expansion was far and away the best thing about the ACA.  Unfortunately, it was truncated by the idiotic supreme court.

    "When dealing with terrorism, civil and human rights are not applicable." Egyptian military spokesman.

    by Paleo on Thu Nov 14, 2013 at 07:24:13 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Yes, they should have phased in Medicare for all (6+ / 0-)

      But if it turns into simply an expansion of Medicaid then it's going to fail because the middle class is going to be totally screwed and they will not put with it.  You can't trick people into paying higher premiums because you don't have the guts to ask them to pay higher taxes.  It disproportionately shifts the burden to those just above the subsidy level while having almost no impact on the wealthy.  I hope I'm wrong but if they don't get hordes of healthy young people signed up the premiums for those over 50 by 2014 are going to be a nightmare.

      Affordable is the key word.  If it is not affordable for the middle middle then it collapses.

      •  I don't see how once affects the other (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        burlydee, corvo

        Medicaid expansion, like SChip, doesn't have to come at the expense of the middle class.  It doesn't affect private insurance premiums.  Or at most, it's a wash.

        "When dealing with terrorism, civil and human rights are not applicable." Egyptian military spokesman.

        by Paleo on Thu Nov 14, 2013 at 07:37:31 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Medicaid indirectly impacts how it's perceived (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          burlydee, corvo, Brown Thrasher

          The marketing failure on this of course can't be over stated.   As the numbers come out now and it's reported that the signups are 4 or 5 to 1 Medicaid and at the same time others see their premiums increasing, they associate the two.  I'm paying more because all these poor people are signing up.  Doesn't matter if that's not true.  But if the premiums do go up because the formerly uninsurable are now in the risk pool and there aren't enough healthy bodies to overcome that then the situation becomes even worse.  

          •  RE: (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            corvo

            The first is rather attenuated.  I don't believe they'll think that.

            As for the second, wouldn't poorer people leaving the risk pool and going into Medicaid lower premiums, since you'd have fewer less well off people, who tend to be less healthy, and thus use services more?

            "When dealing with terrorism, civil and human rights are not applicable." Egyptian military spokesman.

            by Paleo on Thu Nov 14, 2013 at 07:55:48 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Paleo - it depends on how Medicaid expansion (0+ / 0-)

          is funded.

          "let's talk about that"

          by VClib on Thu Nov 14, 2013 at 08:28:10 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  To the extent that the middle class pays taxes to (0+ / 0-)

          support Medicaid and SChip, they are also paying for its expansion.

          I support the ACA's expansion of these programs, but I also want to be factual about the ACA's economics.

          The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

          by nextstep on Thu Nov 14, 2013 at 09:42:34 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site