This should not even be a discussion. We must stop being suckered into responding to their false arguments, using their terms (such as "failure&quot .

At what point was Social Security or Medicare a "failure"? Never. So let's just not go there.

it's just the concern trolling on the ACA is just so bad out there- trotting out new polls every five seconds showing how people still don't like the law/think that it has harmed them

by Alf Landon. And there was criticism from the left as well: "“In our opinion, the Wagner bill is not designed to provide social security for the masses of the people. In our opinion this bill is designed, rather, to provide security for the rich who dominate the country."

See http://billmoyers.com/content/deja-vu-all-over-a-look-back-at-some-of-the-tirades-against-social-security-and-medicare/

Its constitutionality was challenged in 1937 (and Roosevelt tried to pack the court).
And while polls showed that people liked the idea of "old age insurance," a vast percentage of the population did not understand the law at all.

We should just be concentrating on the ACA's benefits and future potential, and probably ignore the obviously political railings against it. It's the law, it's not going to be rescinded. It's already passed its constitutionality test; it's in its infancy still. I think the more we try to rebut their crazy accusations, the more average people believe there is something to the accusations.

but it does make me feel a little better. I'm mostly worried about ACA being killed in its infancy- without really being given a chance- though I think that Republicans and their "base" are the ones the most problems with ACA but it's the polling that bothers me and them being able to use those poll numbers to hammer Democrats in the upcoming elections. I will have to say that- despite being a bit "mousy" at times about their support for the law- there are almost no Democrats in the House and/or Senate whom have committed to a full repeal of the law.

This is not related the government, our president or this bill. We should ALWAYS evaluate how something is working to determine its effectiveness. This applies in business, our homes, every facet of life, etc. It is this mindset that has led trillions in military equipment.

Failure, packing up your tent, and going home. There will be positive effects and negative effects of this law going into force.

Those should be evaluated and acted upon.

.... if the ACA is a success or failure for many years. And that could also depend on whether some tweaks are made here and there.

The ACA is very complex. Lots of assumptions were made. Some of them are not bearing out at this time, but they still might.

If we can just keep the GOP from killing it, it might be a reasonable success someday.

Two opposing sides, one calls it an unmitigated disaster, they other calls it a unparalleled success. It has to be somewhere in the middle. I can say from my experience from doing HBE applications, I'm a medicaid caseworker, that it is somewhere in between. Like you said, I think some assumptions were made that are not bearing true and other miscalculations. One in particular that both co-workers and clients agree with is there was is a conflation that wanting health care equates to having the ability to pay for it, even when payment assistance is available. I have had some clients who were over the limit for expanded medicaid yet were approved for a tax credit who declined to enroll in a plan because they couldn't even afford a bronze plan after subsidies were applied. I also do SNAP, and many of the families in my caseload do not have an extra dime to spare. In the plus side, medicaid expansion in my state has made it possible for many people to get coverage who previously were not eligible.

It would be wondrous to see an "outbreak of sanity" like prevail this in Congress.

will most likely fail.

though the right-wing/Republicans believe that it will fail (or they will make it fail) before 2017- pretty much the only time that they *might* have fully have the ability to get a repeal through (though I would argue by then, assuming the best, it will be a moot point for most people).

officially, they'll repeal obamacare and while they're stomping gleefully on its grave, they'll replace it with something barely different and celebrate it as the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Or, if the president vetoes a repeal, it will take an override of the veto.

Until that happens, the ACA is the law of the land. Insurance companies will have to provide health insurance to anyone who applies and pays the premium, including those with pre-existing conditions.

If the Insurance companies insist on raising rates or going out of the business, the ACA will become a mute point as Health care insurance won't be available to many who want it. At that point, it will be back to what we had, or forward to single payer, government administered Medicare for all. How bad would that be?

Move forward with public option and employers getting out of the insurance equation. In next five to ten years.

As early as this year.

So the bulk of any increase in subsidy payments by US gov. will happen throughout 2015.

You can bet DHS will be paying attention to how much insurance companies spend vs. what they projected to spend.

time certain actuarial standards are not met (the so-called "risk corridors&quot .

I'm talking about an infusion of cash from the US Congress, not rate-payers.

they have to prove their case. What actually happens is at each state exchange level, insurers who pay out less than anticipated, they kick money back in to the government program. Insurers who pay out more would receive money from the government.

There is a possibility that the people signing up across states will end up representing a variety of risk pools and will even each other out. We shall see. The penalties that kick in will also go toward payment. There is also a slight tax on all plans sold under the exchange which also creates a resevoir of cash for possibly higher risk pools.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2013/1205/Obamacare-What-if-not-enough-young-healthy-people-enroll-video

is this - - lately I've been seeing a few new specialists ( a dermatologist, an ENT) and when I call to make an appt, they ask if my blue shield plan is through Covered CA. When I say no, they then say okay then we can see you. My boyfriend has a Covered Ca plan so this worries us.

Treat at ACA negotiated rates. They are the next ones to go after in this unholy money pit of U.S. health care.

It must be greed. The ENT I went to didn't even take my blue shield PPO. Something about contracts between the doctors and the ins. company. Great.

All the talk is about insurance, we need to focus instead on the benefits that insurance provides.

The limited doctor selection on these full price plans is the first failure or rip off.

Which is what was far too common in the U.S. prior to Obamacare.

Your "racist hatred" for the President is being noted and logged for future reference.

Her view of what failure would mean, is far more important than yours will ever be.

They think it's good politics to keep screeching about it being one, however.

If, after the first year the risk profile for insurance companies goes up because of the makeup of people in marketplace, their premiums will go up. Because no one will be required to pay more than 9% of income on premiums, the government portion will often go up.

The federal government will be monitoring insurance companies to ensure they ate providing adequate percentage of revenue toward care.

This thing needs tweaks, and Republicans would be insane not to eventually relent, but this baby is here to stay.

Welcome to industrialized society that provides healthcare to all.

Isn't that only going to be for folks at or above poverty, or who live in states with medicaid expansion?

Which can have a fix implemented by Congress to address if they'd get off their black president hating asses.

as defined as a family of four with an income of approximately 92K. Those families will get subsidies to keep them within the cap of 9%.

But families who make more than the subsidy level of 92K won't pay more than whatever the standard amount is for a policy.

It's a bludgeon to those below it.

It's actually not a "bludgeon" to anyone, even those in states that didn't expand Medicaid.

nt.

LOL