Skip to main content

There is a great diary on ACA where the writer shares his/her experience finding out about what "ObamaCare" will really do for his/her family and their friends and neighbours

In includes a link to which a pretty easy site to navigate. From what I saw on the site after Oct. 1 everybody will be able to find what plans they are eligible for, what it will cost/save them, and the benefits available.

I sent a link to the site to my girlfriend, who is self-employed and will be sharing it with my family, and friends, and everybody I know.  Once people realize what ObamaCare will actually mean, they are going to either 1) love it, or 2) realize it isn't the second coming of the evil one.

And they are going to be pissed at the Republicans for blocking it and thankful that the Dems got it passed.

And will vote in the 2014 elections to make sure the Repubs don't repeal it for the 666th time.

The point of all this is that once people (real people who have lips which are for kissing and to sing with) realize what the ACA means to them and their families, they are going to go Dem.  One way we can make sure everybody finds out about this is to share this link with them.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  By Nov 2014, the public will (5+ / 0-)

    be slightly more accepting or positive on the ACA, but it will take many years for it to fully shed its current reputation. Too many seats in the House are held by Republicans in districts too red to flip. If we pick up a handful of seats that will be a major victory. Taking over the House in 2014 does not seem to be a realistic possibility.

    •  I agree it doesn't seem realistic, (0+ / 0-)

      but neither did electing a dark-skinned man as President of the United States.

    •  You're overly pessimistic (4+ / 0-)

      Taking over the House seems to me against the odds at this time, but not overwhelmingly so. I think it is a realistic possibility. Republicans from every level of the Party seem deeply committed to policies that are both unpopular and wantonly destructive. It should be within the power of the Democrats to make them pay the price. But it requires nationalizing the fight to a greater extent than has previously been attempted.

      As for the diarist's speculation, I think it's putting more weight on the ACA than it will comfortably bear. I do think it will become steadily more popular as the implementation progresses, but not enough to turn the tide of the Congressional elections on its own, IMO.

      "The smartest man in the room is not always right." -Richard Holbrooke

      by Demi Moaned on Sun Sep 22, 2013 at 07:43:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  If only (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Demi Moaned, judyms9, Sylv

    IN another diary comment someone  linked to a Bloomberg article that found something like 160 of the 220 or so highest food stamp using congressional districts had voted for ReThugs who were cutting their food stamps. It's a pity but it seems even starvation is not enough for these "low information voters" to get it.

    •  It's the paradox of Republican dominance ... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wilderness voice

      that the party is the most popular in the places that suffer the most from their policies. I think the 'low information' critique is wide of the mark.

      Party loyalty is largely tribal in this country, particularly on the Republican side. The Republicans are popular with their base for professing (loudly) to hate the things they hate. High on the list of things to hate is the very idea of government. So they're largely uninterested in constructive (to say nothing of rational) arguments about public policy.

      "The smartest man in the room is not always right." -Richard Holbrooke

      by Demi Moaned on Sun Sep 22, 2013 at 07:50:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  yup (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Demi Moaned

        And they hate people of color and others whom they perceive to be less deserving.  Conjoin that with the fundies who hate people whom they suspect to have more enjoyable sex lives (although they would never put it that way) and people who hate "intellectuals", whom they resent for making a likelihood without manual labor, you've got a regular trifecta of ReThug resentment and hatred.  So they happily cut off their own noses to spite their faces.

  •  The House is extremely gerrymandered (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    The GOP did a fantastic job, from their point of view, in turning their 2009 and 2010 victories at the state level in Virginia, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania in using the latest in computer technology to create extremely gerrymandered districts.  We have a House that does not represent the American population.  Flipping such unrepresentative districts will be all but impossible.  

    Frankly, there are too many white people in this country who believe that no matter how bad the GOP may be, it is their racial duty to their white race to vote Republican.  Sure, Obama may have shown that these people are not a majority, but they have been gerrymandered into congressional districts where the results are rigged.

    "We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals, now we know that it is bad economics." Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Jan. 20, 1937

    by Navy Vet Terp on Sun Sep 22, 2013 at 07:51:38 AM PDT

    •  I don't think it's just racism (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      judyms9, Navy Vet Terp, VClib, Victor Ward

      I  think it's also a couple of other things:  

      1.  Some believe that the Democrats are hostile to religious beliefs and want government to take positions that do not respect their religious beliefs (i.e., that Democrats label them ignorant, or bigots, because of religious beliefs).

      2.  Some believe that Democrats, for all of the talk about reasonable gun control, secretly want to take away ALL guns of any kind.  

      3.  Some believe that Democrats want to raise income taxes a lot -- and not just on the small number of millionaires -- to fund social programs, i.e., to "redistribute wealth."

      4.  Some believe that Democrats really want a single payer health care system.

      5.  Some believe that Democrats are hostile to business, and really believe that business is fundamentally evil.

      6.  Some believe that Democrats are  anti-capitalist and want to move further on the continuum to some type of socialism.

      On each of the major issues, some who vote Republican believe that Democrats are really WAY left, and are waiting until they get a majority in both Houses of Congress, and the Presidency, to do things on the major issues that they consider too far left.  And so they see Republicans (right now, anyway) as a "check" on the President and the Democrats.  I know people here who openly say that they LIKE divided government, because that way neither side gets to do anything too extreme.  

      For those I am describing, who think that Democratic means "too far left," people like Mary Landrieu, who repeatedly get re-elected in my red state, have successfully reached enough people and to convince them that she is not those things.  It is especially important that Sen. Landrieu has demonstrated that she is a big supporter of business -- the Louisiana Association of Business and Industry ("LABI" -- a VERY big player here) and the oil and gas industry (a BIG employer here) have never mounted a big challenge against her.  

      I know people here don't like to hear this (and frankly, there are many posts on this site that would reinforce all of those points I listed above) but if Democrats are going to regain a majority in the House, it is going to have to come from electing Democrats that most people here disdain as too moderate or centrist.  

    •  even so (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Msanger, Navy Vet Terp

      19 Repubs had a margin of victory of less than 7% in 2012.  If we were able to flip 3.5% of the voters in each of these districts in 2014, as well as hold our own close races, that would flip the House.  So even a relatively small proportion of R voters getting fed up with their party would do it.  Not saying it will happen, but it is not impossible either.

  •  I think your reaction will depend (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CharlesII, judyms9, VClib, guyeda, Sparhawk

    on who you are and what you had in the way of health insurance prior to this.

    Certainly, for people who were unable to get insurance, who had pre-existing conditions, who had young adult children, this will be a big plus.

    On the other hand, if you already had good coverage through your employer, you are more likely to see some negatives -- in some areas, it's going to be more costly (and that increase is generally shared in some way by employees) or you may lose the employer coverage you had or see it change (see Walgreens, unions).  Also, some young people for whom comprehensive coverage doesn't make economic sense (economically speaking, what makes sense for many young healthy people is bare-bones catastrophic coverage) are going to see costs go up when they are required to get that far more comprehensive coverage.  All of that change was necessary to get the coverage to those others who did not, or could not, get it before.  

    And there's going to be some fallout in conjunction with (1) keeping people under 30 hours; and/or (2) keeping employees under the 50 employee threshold -- unintended consequences that you think SOMEBODY would have see when they passed this law.

    Like any legislation this big and this comprehensive, it's not going to help everybody.  It can't.  Like any big comprehensive legislation, it's going to be good for some, not so good for others. Democrats are going to focus (like Sen. McCaskill did this morning on one of the talk shows when asked) on the people who benefit, not the people who will see negatives, and say we need more legislation to fix the negatives.  Essentially, the argument is going to be that the good it does  for some outweighs the negatives for others.  

    •  While I agree with much of you say (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I think it would be helpful to clarify a few issues.

      For young people, without employer sponsored coverage, they have for the first time several options to choose from.  In the past, they were often forced to rely on catastrophic coverage or no coverage at all because of their financial situation (at the point of their career with the lowest level of earnings.)  They can now choose to remain on their parents' coverage, choose a catastrophic coverage plan (those under 30,) choose either an exchange plan of bronze level or greater and be eligible for the premium tax credit or choose a silver level plan and potentially be eligible for cost-sharing assistance.

      For democrats defending the plan, I think it would be a good idea to stress that everyone benefits, even though it may not be so obvious to some.  Lack of discrimination on the basis of pre-existing conditions, lowering of annual caps for out of pocket expenses, removal of lifetime limits on benefits, and hopefully in the long run, bending down the cost-curve for health care.  It isn't always going to be an easy case to make, however.

      •  I guess it depends on how you define things (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        For a lot of our employees, they came out financially better with a very high deductible plan ($3000?) combined with a health savings account.  Essentially, they paid all of their health costs with that HSA (since they did not reach that deductible) with the excess carrying over, but they were covered for something catastrophic that exceeded what they had in the HSA.  That was for some of our employees a financially better deal than paying their share of family premiums for a comprehensive plan.  That kind of thing is not going to be available for many of our employees under the ACA.  

        I understand that kind of thing is necessary, because healthy people are going to have to essentially pay a subsidy for people who are not healthy or with pre-existing conditions -- i.e., the mandate -- and that without that mandate, the system does not work economically.  However, there are going to be some people who are worse off financially under the ACA than they were before.

        •  I agree with the example you give. (0+ / 0-)

          Healthy people have always subsidized the ill in the insurance industry.  That very example you describe, however, is now going to be available for people (young or otherwise) that don't have employer provided coverage.  In the case of your employees, their coverage is subsidized by your company.  For others, their coverage will now be subsidized by the federal government and they will have access to the very situation you describe:  a subsidized plan that can be paired with a HSA.  In the case of your employees, and many others around this country, premiums will likely go up due to the enhanced protection all enrolees now receive.  I think that it is less likely to be due to those who were previously uncovered now being covered.

  •  Talk is nice... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    roberb7, judyms9, Sylv

    Democrats are in the minority because they have not fielded attractive candidates in enough districts. Do that and you depress Democratic turnout in those districts. The net effect is to lose the statewide races, like for governor and Senator. The governorships have a lot to do with the gerrymander of 2010...which, to complete the circle, is why Democrats are in the minority despite winning more votes in congressional races than did the Republicans.  

    Howard Dean recognized this and established the 50-state campaign. That was a tremendous advantage, which the Democratic Party regulars renounced as soon as they were able to get Howard Dean off stage.

    The ACA is a nice selling point, sort of like 50 mpg. But you need a car to go with it. The Democratic Party seems to be determined not to do that.  

    True story: After 2010, my state Democratic chair asked for input on how to recover the situation. I responded that the reason the Party loses elections is because it is widely perceived as corrupt. Democrats, of course, are not more corrupt than Republicans. But because they are wishy-washy, not fully committed to their political beliefs, every time that one does something ethically questionable or even illegal, the media message is able to paint that misdeed as a mark of corruption.

    I urge every Kossack who can to consider a run for office. Every time a talented, articulate, caring person stands up and says, I'm a Democrat, it does something to dispel the  poisonous image created by the Democratic Party regulars, who are concerned with their careers and advancement over healing the suffering and national decay their incompetence has facilitated.

    Voters want people who genuinely listen, know what they believe, say what they believe, and are willing to suffer a little to do the right thing. They are much less concerned with ideology than with character.

    And if they are offered a Republican and nobody, you can pretty well guess that the Republican is going to win.  

    •  Hope the leaders of the Dem Party in all 50 (0+ / 0-)

      read and head your comments, Charles.

      Building a better America with activism, cooperation, ingenuity and snacks.

      by judyms9 on Sun Sep 22, 2013 at 08:20:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  bring back howard dean (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      the best darn dnc chairman we had.

      "The real wealth of a nation consists of the contributions of its people and nature." -- Riane Eisler

      by noofsh on Sun Sep 22, 2013 at 08:45:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm with ya on that count! (0+ / 0-)

        I have been reading the news articles that come out when he does a speech here or there. Seems like he is keeping his presence alive.

        I just can't believe with every news story about him, the media is refreshing the public's memory about his rather loud outburst at one of his speeches back in 2004.

        They appear to be swift-boating and he hasn't even said he would run, YET.

        Makes me sick.

        For Dean in Sixteen

        by karma13612 on Sun Sep 22, 2013 at 12:48:14 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  We can't take back the House next year (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Infected Zebra

    But the Rs can lose it with a prolonged government shutdown or not extending the debt ceiling.  Some of these teabaggers may well help us down this road.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site