Is Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) right that people will be addicted to the sugar of ObamaCare subsidies? Will people reward Democrats for giving them access to affordable health care insurance? That’s really the key question to understanding how the midterm elections will go. Many Americans are barely impacted by the Affordable Care Act at all because they already had health insurance through their employer, so the Republicans can hope to turn those folks against the law by arguing that it resulted in an increase in their premiums. It doesn’t matter whether the allegation is true as long as a lot of people believe that it is true.
That’s all the more reason that Democrats need the beneficiaries of ObamaCare to show up and vote for them. Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) seems to understand this, which is a good thing.
Such a strange political movement, that demonizes the very idea that government might provide something useful.
It’s not strange at all – if government action interferes with your business model then you will oppose government action. If government action interferes with your way of life then you will oppose government action. If you believe that government action reduces people’s incentive to act for themselves then you will oppose government action. Many of us may disagree with these perspectives but it is not strange at all.
Ah, but they love government action to provide subsidies to them and to enforce their patents and copyrights.
They earned their subsidies — government had nothing to do with it and anyway, they’re not subsidies but deferred earned compensation or paid in annuities.
Drives me nuts that Medicare beneficiaries believe they paid for their benefits. Totally ignorant of the fact that they only paid for the hospitalizations of their elders and at a time when hospitalization costs were a fraction of today’s cost (in inflation adjusted dollars).
Well, they paid in the same sense as they paid for life insurance. To wit, someone took their money and promised a future benefit in exchange. You can’t say they didn’t pay for life insurance because the money they paid went to people who died before them, salaries, and profits.
If they limit their “I paid for it” to Medicare Part A, wouldn’t quibble with your life insurance analogy even though the analogy is weak. (Long-term care insurance with no residual value is much more similar than life insurance which requires one to die before any benefits are realized.) But Parts B, C, and D are federal social welfare programs. The truth would spare us the geezers walking around with “Keep government out of my Medicare” signs.
they are opposing initiatives that do not interfere with anyone’s way of life. Yes, it is very odd.
They’re opposed to anything that shows the government in a favorable light, since that will enable the government to operate in areas that they’d rather the government not operate in. They want a mostly-impotent government, not a government that can do great and mighty things. Roads and infrastructure? Sure. Military? Definitely. Anything else? Not so much. It’s wrong-headed for the majority of Americans but it isn’t strange.
Most people were not affected directly by Obamacare one way or the other – even fewer if you exclude the kids-covered-until-26 rule. Those people’s opinion on Obamacare is being formed mostly by the media, or in a minority of cases people who know those who are covered by Obamacare. However, although I’m concerned that a lot of people’s opinion on Obamacare is being formed by wingnut media misinformation, I’m not too concerned about this shaping the 2014 vote as the vast majority of those folks are going to vote the way they were going to vote anyway.
Where the great opportunity lies is with those who are covered by Obamacare – direct or indirect. Given the income situation combined with the lack of employer insurance, this segment of people is very likely full of people who tend to vote in Presidential years but not mid-terms.
Somehow, some way, the Democrats best chance is to get these folks to understand that a GOP victory in 2014 could mean either the end of their insurance or a return to the old-style insurance-in-name-only. If they do, they’ll vote.
And while it’s true that a GOP victory in both houses won’t be enough by itself to rescind Obamacare due to the veto, it would be enough for them to shut down the government until Obama agrees to kill Obamacare. If they win, they won’t worry about the consequences of a gov’t shutdown as the voters will have rewarded them for the last shutdown.
Even if they benefit from Obamacare, they will claim that the “free market” could have done better. Then they will start chanting about limiting lawsuits and selling across state lines. I know them.
You see when they say “free market” they don’t mean a market where all sellers and buyers can bid freely and openly without fear of defective goods, “bait and switch”, and other frauds. They mean a market where corporations are free of all constraints and can lie, intimidate, cheat, and steal indiscriminately. See! They don’t discriminate. They will steal from anybody!
Oh for sure the wingnut recipients of Obamacare will do that. It’s become crystal clear in the last 10 years that while a wingnut may have test-taking smarts in, say, math, the wingnut is as stupid as a box of bricks when it comes to any complex topic such as political policy.
But that wingnut is already foaming at the mouth, going to the shooting range fantasizing about a race war, and is already a given to vote in November. So big deal.
No, I’m speaking about the occasional-voting Democrats and politically unengaged who typically sit out the mid-terms – get those people to vote based on self interest regarding health insurance. By itself it would keep the Senate and keep the House close enough to win outright in 2016.
I misinterpreted who you were talking about.
I can’t speak for anyone else, but I am delighted to be insured (even though the price tag is a little steep). I think that, as the benefits of Obamacare become more apparent (and as a result more popular) more democrats will run ON, rather than AWAY FROM, the ACA. We’re already seeing that in PA, as Schwartz’s new ad shows.
I expect to see more of this. They own it now, and they had better run on it.
I am very glad to hear the insurance worked out for you somehow. I remember our conversation from months ago and was troubled by the situation at that time. Was there any new development in particular that made it more affordable or somehow workable for you? I’m asking because I know of others that seemed to be in a similar situation.
well, it’s still a little too expensive (more “affordable” than what it used to be, and within reach, but juuuuuuusr barely).
basically, I gave up trying to do it myself and got a navigator. We got costs down to $224 a month, and she told me to go see my accountant. So when we did my taxes, that brought my income down further and I got a final cost of $177/month. And it’s only that much because I can claim my son on my taxes: if I had no dependents, I would not be eligible for a subsidy AT ALL. I know this because that is what my [previously uninsured] friends without kids have told me, all within my age group. there is no help for them.
if the administration is concerned that not enough healthy 20-30 somethings are not signing up, that’s your answer. I also like this “Copper” plan idea they’re pitching.
For the record though: this STILL makes it very difficult to afford my son’s flights to the US, forcing him (and his mom and me) to do an 8 hour round trip instead. It’s cheaper than flying (in dollars) but it’s an exhausting drive. I have to fly to Portland OR next month to see if I can find work/enjoy the culture there (I want to move out of Philly by the end of summer, I fucking hate it here and despise everything about this godforsaken city and state), and my ACA bill is going to impact that in some way.
Thanks for sharing the details. Yeah, that still leaves way too many people with too much to pay for coverage. That has to get changed going forward, but we probably need a Senate supermajority in 2016 to do it.
Good luck with the move.
I pay $168.52 for two weeks. I’m looking at my pay stub right now. AND that’s after the government pays 60%. I’m holding out for the government paying 100% for all of us. The Koch brothers can pay!
yes, also glad to hear
My Congresswoman had a poll in the field a couple weeks ago on the ACA. She’s taking getting the messaging right seriously. I’m pleased.
Ultimately, though, I’m not convinced that people are going to choose to vote for or against her based on that one issue. People really do vote for the candidate they like best, and she has been very likeable. Her devotion to the people in Oso has been unwavering. She truly does serve her district. I need to believe that matters.
It’s a factor. Put a lot of positive factors together and you get a vote.
Maybe your family’s are doing so well, and there are six degrees of separation between you and someone who was uninsured.
or someone who has a pre-existing condition
or someone who pays the equivalent of a car note for a luxury car for insurance because of previous health issues
not so for me, so Obamacare has always been personal.
ACA will help Dems in close races. It is not going to help as much as some people think.
In LA for example the linked article states 242,000 people are eligible for Medicaid extension if the state provided it. Applying some back of the envelope, national and state stats, one would come up with something like this breakdown for those 242k people:
60,000 are children
78,000 voting age adults that don’t vote
42,000 voted for Obama in 2012
60,000 voted for Romney in 2012
2,000 voted for “other” in 2012
I didn’t fine tune this with LA income demographics, but basically the point is that we’ve got 140,000 to persuade from the nonvoter, Romney voter and “other” voter groups. 20k-30k from that might be realistic with a big campaign. That would amount to 1 – 1.5% of total votes. Anyone here know the voter mindset or GOTV efforts in LA?
The number DIRECTLY affected is more like 20,000,000 if you include all the groups. Plus there’s about 5,000,000 that can’t qualify for expanded Medicade because their Governors want a “Jindal gap”. That’s 1 in 12 of the entire population directly affected. I think that almost everybody knows somebody directly affected.
The short answer, YES.
I think I said this before, but when Medicare was enacted in 1966 it didn’t seem to help the Dems much short or long term. I don’t see Obamacare as being much different save that people will just not factor it into their voting as much unless they’re balls/ovaries to the wall tea baggers.