2016 Presidential Horse Race

[pkt77242]

What does it matter if the takeover of state governments is recent? Isn't your argument that the GOP has moved right, and stayed right? Both CO's and KY's legislatures are divided. Colorado is definitely moving left, and has been doing so for some time. As for Kentucky, it just elected an "unelectable" candidate governor, voting GOP for just the second time since 1970. The Democrats who hang around the legislature do so in many cases by positioning themselves as far to the right as the Republicans and drawing districts with radically uneven populations (this also explains why the WV legislature only just flipped Republican). Meanwhile, the pro-market agendas of GOP legislatures in MI, WI, OH, etc., do not seem to have harmed the GOP majorities in the legislatures of those states. The Democrats struggle there without be able to count on mandated union dues that go into their pockets. Voters in Michigan, in particular, can see what Democratic leadership does to cities, and have wisely chosen a different path.

Funny, the thing is that Republicans like to create gerrymandered districts just as much as Democrats. 2nd, the fact that it is recent is important because we don't know if it will be sustained or if it is a short term reaction. That matters.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/05/15/americas-most-gerrymandered-congressional-districts/

It's not the GOP's fault that its voters are more responsible at performing their civic duties. That's like saying that it isn't fair that ND's home games are always sold out and Purdue's aren't.

Elections are never cakewalks- and when the economy is comparatively strong, as it is now, voters don't automatically switch parties, even after 8 years with one party, particularly when government is divided.

I never said it wasn't fair, just something that is important to remember when considering what happened in an election.

Finally the GOP is fractured at the national level (the Dems have a similar problem but on a smaller scale) and that could become a significant issue for them for this Presidential election (though the GOP is much more united at the state and local level than Dems).

 

[pkt77242]

Campaigns lower expectations in Iowa, brace for Trump win - CNNPolitics.com

 

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

Your party has trotted out for president a 74 year old socialist who just started combing his hair a few weeks ago and a woman who could be indicted by the FBI any day.

As for Kasich, you forgot to mention the massive expansion of Medicaid in Ohio by taking Obamacare money. In a few years Ohio's budget will explode because of it, and he'll most likely be out of office and won't have to face it. Some governors refused the Obamacare money. Kasich and Christie both took it.

It's amazing to think a 74 year old socialist will likely b*tchsmack anyone the elephants trot on stage.

Cruz is a nightmare.

Trump may actually give him a run.

 

[Rizzophil]

The Affordable Care Act was a compromise position. Obama didn't start from single payer. He barely even pushed for a public option. He started from a Romney-style plan, one that was far more conservative than Nixon's (that commie pinko), that had previously been touted as a free market alternative to putting government in charge of health care.

No matter how loudly you say the opposite, Obama is a left of center pragmatist. Political polarization has been studied quite a lot. The data clearly show that Republicans have become far more conservative than Democrats have become liberal, particularly in the House. That's the major source of polarization in the country.

I don't agree. But either way, you aren't denying that Obamacare is worthless. My premium went up $500. Lost my PCP...twice. And have a $5000 deuctible.

I don't understand how Hillary is running on Obamas coat tails.

Lying about Benghazi
Releasing Gitmo prisons and they go back to trying to destroy America
Refusing to call terror attacks as they are --- sometimes even work place violence
Giving the Iranins billions
Running up the federal deficit to 18.5tril from 10 tril
Dividing the country racially
Dispatching Eric Holder to institute Fast and Furious with US agents dying

Etc etc

Listen. I don't trust th GOP either. But to try and blame the GOP for Obama Nation is not being honest.

 

[pkt77242]

I don't agree. But either way, you aren't denying that Obamacare is worthless. My premium went up $500. Lost my PCP...twice. And have a $5000 deuctible.

I don't understand how Hillary is running on Obamas coat tails.

Lying about Benghazi
Releasing Gitmo prisons and they go back to trying to destroy America
Refusing to call terror attacks as they are --- sometimes even work place violence
Giving the Iranins billions
Running up the federal deficit to 18.5tril from 10 tril
Dividing the country racially
Dispatching Eric Holder to institute Fast and Furious with US agents dying

Etc etc

Listen. I don't trust th GOP either. But to try and blame the GOP for Obama Nation is not being honest.

A couple of things. First if you work for a large company blame them and the insurance company for the increase as the ACA had little to do with it. Many large companies have been using the ACA as cover to push more of the costs of insurance onto employees, it has little or nothing to do with the ACA. Forbes Welcome. This article discusses how companies are passing more of the costs on to employees, it is more about protecting company profits than anything else.

No one has shown that the Obama admin did anything wrong in Benghazi. How about you also blame Republicans for not giving Obama the funding he requested for Embassy security.
? Do you mean lifting sanctions on Iran? If so maybe that is a good thing.
Why blame Obama for deficits he doesn't pass the bills. Even if you want to blame him do you take into account the economy that he inherited?
He didn't divide the country racially it became divided because he was elected. Now maybe he could have done a better job with it than he has done but his election brought long simmering issues front and center it didn't create new issues.
Lastly on Fast and Furious, it was a crappy operation hampered by our crappy gun laws. Lots of blame to go around there.

You might say that you don't trust the GOP but you sure parrot a lot of their talking points.

I don't think that Obama has been a great President by any means but I think that he had also faced one of the most hostile congresses over the last 6 years (and even during the first two years McConnell said that he wanted to make Obama a 1 term president).


ETA: having said that I wish that Democrats and Republicans could have worked together better over the past 8 years. Obama could have been better, the Republicans could have been better and so could the rest of the Democrats. Both sides have become excessively partisan, unfortunately.

 

[EddytoNow]

What does it matter if the takeover of state governments is recent? Isn't your argument that the GOP has moved right, and stayed right? Both CO's and KY's legislatures are divided. Colorado is definitely moving left, and has been doing so for some time. As for Kentucky, it just elected an "unelectable" candidate governor, voting GOP for just the second time since 1970. The Democrats who hang around the legislature do so in many cases by positioning themselves as far to the right as the Republicans and drawing districts with radically uneven populations (this also explains why the WV legislature only just flipped Republican). Meanwhile, the pro-market agendas of GOP legislatures in MI, WI, OH, etc., do not seem to have harmed the GOP majorities in the legislatures of those states. The Democrats struggle there without be able to count on mandated union dues that go into their pockets. Voters in Michigan, in particular, can see what Democratic leadership does to cities, and have wisely chosen a different path.



It's not the GOP's fault that its voters are more responsible at performing their civic duties. That's like saying that it isn't fair that ND's home games are always sold out and Purdue's aren't.

Elections are never cakewalks- and when the economy is comparatively strong, as it is now, voters don't automatically switch parties, even after 8 years with one party, particularly when government is divided.

I can't speak for Wisconsin and Ohio, though I suspect they are similar to Michigan, but in Michigan the GOP used their success in the 2010 election (a census year) to gerrymander the districts to the point where Democrats actually receive a majority of votes, but Republicans control the legislature through some very oddly shaped districts. And no one who has been following the stories about contaminated water in Flint and cold, leaking, rodent infested schools in Detroit, both under the control of Republican-appointed emergency managers, would suggest the majority of Michigan voters favor the Republican policies.

Incidentally, the Michigan electorate rejected the appointment of emergency managers when given a chance to vote on the issue. The Republican legislature and Republican governor then attached some minor funding to the emergency manager legislation to prevent voters from overturning it a second time. (Michigan law prohibits a public referendum on legislation containing any funding.) Such actions hardly suggest that Michigan voters love what the Republicans have been doing.

So any suggestion that the majority of Michigan's electorate is somehow in favor of Republican policies is far from accurate.

 

[pkt77242]

Iowa elections chief calls out Cruz on mailings to voters

 

[NDgradstudent]

I can't speak for Wisconsin and Ohio, though I suspect they are similar to Michigan, but in Michigan the GOP used their success in the 2010 election (a census year) to gerrymander the districts to the point where Democrats actually receive a majority of votes, but Republicans control the legislature through some very oddly shaped districts. And no one who has been following the stories about contaminated water in Flint and cold, leaking, rodent infested schools in Detroit, both under the control of Republican-appointed emergency managers, would suggest the majority of Michigan voters favor the Republican policies.

Density = Democrats. Democrats are much more likely than Republicans to not own a home. Their voters tend to be packed in cities. This means that they have a bunch of ultra-safe seats where they get 85-90% of the vote. The GOP, meanwhile, might win its safest seats with 65-70% of the vote. GOP voters are more spread out, which is an advantage in legislative elections (both for Congress and for statehouses).

And, incidentally, gerrymandering does not explain why, in a good Democratic year, Michigan voters decisively rejected a measure to ensure permanent union domination of the state.

As for Flint and Detroit, all I can say is that they were not driven into the ground by Republicans. To the contrary, Republicans are the ones paying most of the taxes that finance public services in these disaster zones.

Of course lots of voters in Michigan reject GOP policies- but given their judgment in picking leaders of their own cities, why should we think they are competent to pick a legislature for the whole state?

 

[IrishLax]

A couple of things. First if you work for a large company blame them and the insurance company for the increase as the ACA had little to do with it. Many large companies have been using the ACA as cover to push more of the costs of insurance onto employees, it has little or nothing to do with the ACA. Forbes Welcome. This article discusses how companies are passing more of the costs on to employees, it is more about protecting company profits than anything else.

No one has shown that the Obama admin did anything wrong in Benghazi. How about you also blame Republicans for not giving Obama the funding he requested for Embassy security.
? Do you mean lifting sanctions on Iran? If so maybe that is a good thing.
Why blame Obama for deficits he doesn't pass the bills. Even if you want to blame him do you take into account the economy that he inherited?
He didn't divide the country racially it became divided because he was elected. Now maybe he could have done a better job with it than he has done but his election brought long simmering issues front and center it didn't create new issues.
Lastly on Fast and Furious, it was a crappy operation hampered by our crappy gun laws. Lots of blame to go around there.

You might say that you don't trust the GOP but you sure parrot a lot of their talking points.

I don't think that Obama has been a great President by any means but I think that he had also faced one of the most hostile congresses over the last 6 years (and even during the first two years McConnell said that he wanted to make Obama a 1 term president).


ETA: having said that I wish that Democrats and Republicans could have worked together better over the past 8 years. Obama could have been better, the Republicans could have been better and so could the rest of the Democrats. Both sides have become excessively partisan, unfortunately.

See, this might be true on a large scale, but there an awful lot of people I know at an awful lot of companies where there is simply not the case. The cost increases are directly related to the ACA and the corresponding taxes/fees. Some direct, some implicit because of costs passed on to insurers to comply with the law.

What I can tell you is that my company has not changed it's coverage in a very long time. They also haven't passed on any cost to the employees... we still get it provided through the firm as a benefit to employees with ZERO contribution from any of us. I've seen the books down to the nitty-gritty details, and our cost per head to provide this same coverage has more than doubled since the ACA... some of this is quite easily accounted in the taxes, other parts of it seemed like BS. The rate of increase over these past few years is about 5x what the rate increases were over the preceding decade. That's just our personal experience.

So we shopped around for similar policies, and could not find anything better. The going market rate for insurance coverage has simply gone up... whether or not you or I thinks that's BS doesn't really matter... it's a fact that Americans are paying a lot more for the same coverage under the ACA. And it's a fact that Obama flat out lied about it being a tax, and flat out lied about everyone being able to keep the policy they liked.

I'm fine with paying a couple thousand more if that's what's needed to help the less fortunate, but I seriously question if the law was a "good" law. And of the millions of "newly covered Americans" I personally have never met a single person who has gotten a plan from one of the exchanges.

 

[EddytoNow]

Density = Democrats. Democrats are much more likely than Republicans to not own a home. Their voters tend to be packed in cities. This means that they have a bunch of ultra-safe seats where they get 85-90% of the vote. The GOP, meanwhile, might win its safest seats with 65-70% of the vote. GOP voters are more spread out, which is an advantage in legislative elections (both for Congress and for statehouses).

And, incidentally, gerrymandering does not explain why, in a good Democratic year, Michigan voters decisively rejected a measure to ensure permanent union domination of the state.

As for Flint and Detroit, all I can say is that they were not driven into the ground by Republicans. To the contrary, Republicans are the ones paying most of the taxes that finance public services in these disaster zones.

Of course lots of voters in Michigan reject GOP policies- but given their judgment in picking leaders of their own cities, why should we think they are competent to pick a legislature for the whole state?

Republican policies are directly responsible for the current problems in Flint and Detroit. Large tax decreases for the wealthiest and emergency manager decisions that ignored deteriorating infrastructure (in the case of the Detroit Public Schools) and forced Flint to get their water from the Flint River, instead of safer water that previously had been obtained from Detroit (in the case of the Flint water crisis), were both cost-cutting measures proposed and implemented by Republican appointees of the Republican governor. The austerity policies of the Republicans were behind decisions to ignore infrastructure in favor of giving nearly a billion dollars in tax concessions to its wealthy supporters. At the same time tax cuts were given to the wealthy, funding to schools and local governments was drastically cut back.

The Detroit Public Schools aren't the only Michigan school system with crumbling infrastructure under the policies of a Republican legislature and governor. If you underfund public bodies and make decisions that cause long-term health problems for thousands of innocent children in Flint, it's hard to hide from responsibility.

And where do these Republican governors turn when its time to pay the piper? They turn to the federal government, the same government they criticize as being too large. They have no hesitation in saying, "Give us some federal money to help pay for the clean-up."

The second bolded part explains why Republicans are so anxious to keep Democratic voters from exercising their right to vote. After all, we wouldn't want every eligible voter exercising their rights, would we? That might not result in Republican victories.

 

[GoIrish41]

I had a long conversation with my uncle about the Flint water situation. He has spent much of his career designing the control systems for large water systems -- including the one in Detroit. I am sad to say after our chat I have strong concerns that this "crisis" has been allowed to go on for far too long for political reasons. The Flint water crisis, he says, appears to be a ph problem that has gone unresolved. The interum time period since the problem emerged has been filled with finger pointing and political mud slinging by detractors in Michigan and fueled by overzealous media reports more interested in assigning blame than resolving the problem.

I learned during my conversation that the real problem can be squarely laid at the feet of the water plant operator. Because the ph levels are off, the water is too acidic, which would cause the lining of the pipes under the city that feeds homes and businesses to break down and bleed into the water (that is consistent with the discolored water that has been shown on news reports coming out of the faucets of Flint residents). It is unclear if they are doing this, but he said that if they are adding fluoride to the water would make this problem worse. When the acidity is too high, caustic needs to be added to the water and the system flushed so the chemical reaction that is eating the pipe lining can be halted.

Further, he balks at the notion of all the water pipes in the city having to be replaced. Finally, he said that water plant operators are sworn under oath not to release water that could harm the public and those who do generally find themselves behind bars. For that reason, it seems a reach to blame this Flint water crisis on the governor or his appointed manager, when the operator did (and apparently continues to) release water that is unhealthy to the public.

At any rate, there seems to be an appearance that the people of Flint are pawns in a political scandal meant to discredit the governor. If what my uncle said s right -- and I have absolutely no reason to doubt him -- the chemistry at the water plant should have been resolved in days instead of dragging on this long. He insists it has nothing to do with the Flint River as the water source and everything to do with an incompetent or corrupted operator. The local and state governments have plenty of blame to go around for the length and severity of the problems because of their inaction, but this does not seem to be a product of a poor initial decision by the governor or his manager. Everyone -- I'm looking at Democrats here as well as mismanagement within the treatment plant and the media -- trying to score political points should be ashamed of themselves if the fix is as simple as correcting the ph of the treated water like everyone who owns a pool or a hot tub do every summer. And the governor of the state should have stepped in long ago to prevent citizens from getting sick. His reaction to the crisis was neither swift or nearly adequate. The people of Flint deserve better from all these public institutions, particularly as they are forced to continue paying for water they cannot use.

 

[Grahambo]

I had a long conversation with my uncle about the Flint water situation. He has spent much of his career designing the control systems for large water systems -- including the one in Detroit. I am sad to say after our chat I have strong concerns that this "crisis" has been allowed to go on for far too long for political reasons. The Flint water crisis, he says, appears to be a ph problem that has gone unresolved. The intern time period since the problem emerged has been filled with finger pointing and political mud slinging by detractors in Michigan and fueled by overzealous media reports more interested in assigning blame than resolving the problem.

I learned during my conversation that the real problem can be squarely laid at the feet of the water plant operator. Because the ph levels are off, the water is too acidic, which would cause the lining of the pipes under the city that feeds homes and businesses to break down and bleed into the water (that is consistent with the discolored water that has been shown on news reports coming out of the faucets of Flint residents). It is unclear if they are doing this, but he said that if they are adding fluoride to the water would make this problem worse. When the acidity is too high, caustic needs to be added to the water and the system flushed so the chemical reaction that is eating the pipe lining can be halted.

Further, he balks at the notion of all the water pipes in the city having to be replaced. Finally, he said that water plant operators are sworn under oath not to release water that could harm the public and those who do generally find themselves behind bars. For that reason, it seems a reach to blame this Flint water crisis on the governor or his appointed manager, when the operator did (and apparently continues to) release water that is unhealthy to the public.

At any rate, there seems to be an appearance that the people of Flint are pawns in a political scandal meant to discredit the governor. If, what my uncle said s right -- and I have absolutely no reason to doubt him -- the chemistry at the water plant should have been resolved in days instead of dragging on this long. He insists it has nothing to do with the Flint River as the water source and everything to do with an incompetent or corrupted operator. The local and state governments have plenty of blame to go around for the length and severity of the problems, because of their inaction, but this does not seem to be a product of a poor initial decision by the governor or his manager. Everyone -- I'm looking at Democrats here as well as mismanagement within the treatment plant and the media -- trying to score political points should be ashamed of themselves if the fix is as simple as correcting the ph of the treated water like everyone who owns a pool or a hot tub do every summer. And the governor of the state should have stepped in long ago to prevent citizens from getting sick. His reaction to the crisis was neither swift or nearly adequate. The people of Flint deserve better from all these public institutions, particularly as they are forced to continue paying for water they cannot use.

Excellent post Sir.

 

[pkt77242]

See, this might be true on a large scale, but there an awful lot of people I know at an awful lot of companies where there is simply not the case. The cost increases are directly related to the ACA and the corresponding taxes/fees. Some direct, some implicit because of costs passed on to insurers to comply with the law.

What I can tell you is that my company has not changed it's coverage in a very long time. They also haven't passed on any cost to the employees... we still get it provided through the firm as a benefit to employees with ZERO contribution from any of us. I've seen the books down to the nitty-gritty details, and our cost per head to provide this same coverage has more than doubled since the ACA... some of this is quite easily accounted in the taxes, other parts of it seemed like BS. The rate of increase over these past few years is about 5x what the rate increases were over the preceding decade. That's just our personal experience.

So we shopped around for similar policies, and could not find anything better. The going market rate for insurance coverage has simply gone up... whether or not you or I thinks that's BS doesn't really matter... it's a fact that Americans are paying a lot more for the same coverage under the ACA. And it's a fact that Obama flat out lied about it being a tax, and flat out lied about everyone being able to keep the policy they liked.

I'm fine with paying a couple thousand more if that's what's needed to help the less fortunate, but I seriously question if the law was a "good" law. And of the millions of "newly covered Americans" I personally have never met a single person who has gotten a plan from one of the exchanges.

Obviously I can't speak for your company but nationwide on average employee based healthcare premiums rose 3% from 2013 to 2014 and 4% from 2014 to 2015 according to KFF.

Here is an interesting article on why insurance prices are going up for businesses.
The Obamacare Paradox: The Real Reason Health Insurance Companies Don't Like the ACA

 

[IrishLax]

Ted freaking Cruz, ladies and gentlemen...
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">.<a href="https://twitter.com/tedcruz">@TedCruz</a> campaign mailed <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/IowaCaucus?src=hash">#IowaCaucus</a> voters misleading "violation" <a href="https://t.co/PayPAJ84aR">https://t.co/PayPAJ84aR</a> <a href="https://t.co/StcKy2N0F8">https://t.co/StcKy2N0F8</a> <a href="https://t.co/hlzXJV8fIT">pic.twitter.com/hlzXJV8fIT</a></p>— Alex Howard (@digiphile) <a href="https://twitter.com/digiphile/status/693819888360648704">January 31, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[zelezo vlk]

Friggin' Canadians...

 

[Rizzophil]

Government needs to get out of healthcare. The unaffordable care act dispatched millions of people on their plans... To toot their own horn about Anericans getting care now.

The law didn't make better or cheaper coverage. The ACA made it more complex and worse for everyone.

I understand liberals who go to the mat defending it. It's all that Obama has to hang his hat on. Even the liberals that are getting hours and pay cuts at local hospitals are blaming republicans. It's a downer that we identify more as our political party more than as Americans.

I work in healthcare. I see at least 10 elderly people get screwed every month because of the complexities of ins and Medicade. Hospitals are becoming ICU because they get penalized for every avoidable day.

Buckle your seat belts. This law will destroy our healthcare system and hospitals. I don't know if any republican has the stones to repeal it.

 

[GoIrish41]

Government needs to get out of healthcare. The unaffordable care act dispatched millions of people on their plans... To toot their own horn about Anericans getting care now.

The law didn't make better or cheaper coverage. The ACA made it more complex and worse for everyone.

I understand liberals who go to the mat defending it. It's all that Obama has to hang his hat on. Even the liberals that are getting hours and pay cuts at local hospitals are blaming republicans. It's a downer that we identify more as our political party more than as Americans.

I work in healthcare. I see at least 10 elderly people get screwed every month because of the complexities of ins and Medicade. Hospitals are becoming ICU because they get penalized for every avoidable day.

Buckle your seat belts. This law will destroy our healthcare system and hospitals. I don't know if any republican has the stones to repeal it.

I would argue that it is private insurance companies that should get out of healthcare. Before Obamacare premiums rose much faster than inflation for decades as private insurers collected record profits. The status quo was squeezing those people who were lucky enough to have insurance and ignoring millions who did not. If the republicans would have put in half the effort to improve the deficiencies of the ACA than they did trying to embarrass the president by repealing it, perhaps we would be in a better place on healthcare as a nation. My position has always been that the law did not go far enough because it retained corporate greed as a central feature. I've heard all the dire predictions about how Obamacare will destroy the country's economy and reject them. 20 million people have coverage that were not covered under the old system. That is extraordinarily significant.

 

[Rizzophil]

I would argue that it is private insurance companies that should get out of healthcare. Before Obamacare premiums rose much faster than inflation for decades as private insurers collected record profits. The status quo was squeezing those people who were lucky enough to have insurance and ignoring millions who did not. If the republicans would have put in half the effort to improve the deficiencies of the ACA than they did trying to embarrass the president by repealing it, perhaps we would be in a better place on healthcare as a nation. My position has always been that the law did not go far enough because it retained corporate greed as a central feature. I've heard all the dire predictions about how Obamacare will destroy the country's economy and reject them. 20 million people have coverage that were not covered under the old system. That is extraordinarily significant.

Bro, do you know how many people LOST their coverage due to Obamacare?

What does the government run well and efficient? Name one. It continually tries to fix something with more regulation and more costs passed on to Americans...only to correct the errors with more regulation/waste.

We didn't get to 18.5tril in debt overnight. But we have added 10 trillion in spending during Obama's reign. The old adage about socialism/communism is true...it works until someone has to pay for all of the spending.

 

[FearTheBeard]

I would argue that it is private insurance companies that should get out of healthcare. Before Obamacare premiums rose much faster than inflation for decades as private insurers collected record profits. The status quo was squeezing those people who were lucky enough to have insurance and ignoring millions who did not. If the republicans would have put in half the effort to improve the deficiencies of the ACA than they did trying to embarrass the president by repealing it, perhaps we would be in a better place on healthcare as a nation. My position has always been that the law did not go far enough because it retained corporate greed as a central feature. I've heard all the dire predictions about how Obamacare will destroy the country's economy and reject them. 20 million people have coverage that were not covered under the old system. That is extraordinarily significant.

Yeah private insurance companies are one of the biggest problems. People are gonna pay whatever it takes when their health is on the line and greedy companies are gonna take advantage of that. I'm no expert on healthcare but i think the problem with ACA is it's a similar situation to when goverment gives out loans to any college student, colleges know they'll get their money so they can jack up prices and students will just take government student loans to pay for it. People need their insurance and if everyone is gonna get coverage theyre gonna keep raising prices since people need it and theyre gonna end up getting their money one way or another, for profit insurance companies need to be taken out of the equation otherwise theres no incentive to keep cost down.

 

[GoIrish41]

Bro, do you know how many people LOST their coverage due to Obamacare?

Not nearly as many as gained coverage. Some "lost" their coverage but were eligible for new more comprehensive policies -- often with subsidies to make the options more affordable. Again, republicans should be promoting ways to improve the law instead of trying to wreck it. We are not stripping 20 million people of health insurance.

 

[NDgradstudent]

Republican policies are directly responsible for the current problems in Flint and Detroit. Large tax decreases for the wealthiest and emergency manager decisions that ignored deteriorating infrastructure (in the case of the Detroit Public Schools) and forced Flint to get their water from the Flint River, instead of safer water that previously had been obtained from Detroit (in the case of the Flint water crisis), were both cost-cutting measures proposed and implemented by Republican appointees of the Republican governor. The austerity policies of the Republicans were behind decisions to ignore infrastructure in favor of giving nearly a billion dollars in tax concessions to its wealthy supporters. At the same time tax cuts were given to the wealthy, funding to schools and local governments was drastically cut back.

Both the Detroit and Flint emergency managers are Democrats. If Democrats were able to run these cities competently, emergency managers would not be needed. When a city cannot manage its own finances, it doesn't deserve to take more of everyone else's money until it relinquishes control. Instead, Detroit's leaders preferred to blame everyone else (following the tradition in Detroit).

The Detroit Public Schools aren't the only Michigan school system with crumbling infrastructure under the policies of a Republican legislature and governor. If you underfund public bodies and make decisions that cause long-term health problems for thousands of innocent children in Flint, it's hard to hide from responsibility.

Detroit spends well above the state average in per pupil annual expenditures on schools. Union rules that make it impossible to fire anybody, encourage affirmative action/corrupt hiring, etc., do not produce in the classroom. Nor are they GOP policy.

And where do these Republican governors turn when its time to pay the piper? They turn to the federal government, the same government they criticize as being too large. They have no hesitation in saying, "Give us some federal money to help pay for the clean-up."

Well, given that there is a federal fund to help with disasters that we are all forced to pay into, it is perfectly reasonable for GOP governors to expect their share. I'd be happy with this being a matter for local responsibility, but as we have been reminded again and again, not all localities are responsible, and prefer to blame everyone else instead. Notice how, on the Democratic account, Katrina was the fault of neither the corrupt mayor nor the governor but instead it was the fault of the President. Now, though, the Flint debacle is the governor's fault. Or something.

The second bolded part explains why Republicans are so anxious to keep Democratic voters from exercising their right to vote. After all, we wouldn't want every eligible voter exercising their rights, would we? That might not result in Republican victories.

It's hard not to notice that cities are invariably driven into the ground by Democrats. You'll have to forgive Republicans for not wanting the same catastrophes to strike our communities.

And of course there is no law preventing anybody voting. Democrats just can't be bothered to vote in state and local elections as often. Not my problem.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Not nearly as many as gained coverage. Some "lost" their coverage but were eligible for new more comprehensive policies -- often with subsidies to make the options more affordable. Again, republicans should be promoting ways to improve the law instead of trying to wreck it. We are not stripping 20 million people of health insurance.

You're still delusional when it comes to ACA. So you don't care that people lost their coverage because the ruling class made them purchase "more comprehensive" and more expensive policies they didn't ask for? Nice.

I still believe ACA was set up to fail to bring in single payer.

 

[GoIrish41]

Both the Detroit and Flint emergency managers are Democrats. If Democrats were able to run these cities competently, emergency managers would not be needed. When a city cannot manage its own finances, it doesn't deserve to take more of everyone else's money until it relinquishes control. Instead, Detroit's leaders preferred to blame everyone else (following the tradition in Detroit).



Detroit spends well above the state average in per pupil annual expenditures on schools. Union rules that make it impossible to fire anybody, encourage affirmative action/corrupt hiring, etc., do not produce in the classroom. Nor are they GOP policy.



Well, given that there is a federal fund to help with disasters that we are all forced to pay into, it is perfectly reasonable for GOP governors to expect their share. I'd be happy with this being a matter for local responsibility, but as we have been reminded again and again, not all localities are responsible, and prefer to blame everyone else instead. Notice how, on the Democratic account, Katrina was the fault of neither the corrupt mayor nor the governor but instead it was the fault of the President. Now, though, the Flint debacle is the governor's fault. Or something.



It's hard not to notice that cities are invariably driven into the ground by Democrats. You'll have to forgive Republicans for not wanting the same catastrophes to strike our communities.

And of course there is no law preventing anybody voting. Democrats just can't be bothered to vote in state and local elections as often. Not my problem.

You mean like the town in Texas that blew up a few years ago? Or the locations across West Virginia and Pa that have poisoned their aquifers with fracking or increased earthquake activity disposing of its waste? I lived in the south for about 15 years before moving back north, and their are lots of places in the south that are desperately mismanaged. The schools in the NC town where I lived spent less than half of what is spent per student in the PA school district I moved to. Your statement is a gross oversimplification.

It is difficult to see how problems in Detroit and Flint did not begin with federal laws that encouraged job migration to the lowest bidder and the stripping of tax dollars from budgets trying to make wealthy people and corporations wealthier.

As as to the claims that nobody is kept from voting -- I read an article recently that said more than 30 percent of African American men in Florida are not allowed to vote, mostly due to nonviolent offenses on their records. That is a pretty outrageous number and I suspect the war on drugs brought to us by the republicans has resulted in similar patterns across the country -- not to mention that it has led to the highest levels of citizen incarceration in the civilized world. As soon as the voter rights act was amended by a conservative judges, southern states immediately moved to reduce the voter roles in southern states.

 

[GoIrish41]

You're still delusional when it comes to ACA. So you don't care that people lost their coverage because the ruling class made them purchase "more comprehensive" and more expensive policies they didn't ask for? Nice.

I still believe ACA was set up to fail to bring in single payer.

Sure I care that people lost their insurance -- I also believe that the problem is greatly overstated. Those people were given options to retain coverage and most of them took advantage of those options. The trade off was that 20 million new people now have coverage. So I'll ask ... Don't you care that millions of people were (and millions still are) uninsured? Nice!

 

[IrishLax]

There's allegedly 20 million newly covered people, more than 5% of the US population. So you'd expect about 1/20 people who didn't have coverage are now covered, right?

If these numbers are accurate there should be a bunch of people on this board who got coverage through the ACA. I'm interested to hear who they are and their experiences.

 

[IrishinSyria]

There's allegedly 20 million newly covered people, more than 5% of the US population. So you'd expect about 1/20 people who didn't have coverage are now covered, right?

If these numbers are accurate there should be a bunch of people on this board who got coverage through the ACA. I'm interested to hear who they are and their experiences.

I don't think this is right. The demographics of this board probably (definitely) don't line up as a randomly distributed cross section of America, and the demographics of the people who did gain coverage because of the ACA aren't random either. I'm willing to bet that if we ven diagramed it, there would be almost no overlap.

That being said, I did benefit from one of the earlier changes made by the ACA. After graduating college, I enlisted in the Army, but before that there was a gap (including while I was in Syria) where I didn't have a job that provided health insurance. Because of the ACA, I was able to stay on my parent's plan. It was awesome.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

There's allegedly 20 million newly covered people, more than 5% of the US population. So you'd expect about 1/20 people who didn't have coverage are now covered, right?

If these numbers are accurate there should be a bunch of people on this board who got coverage through the ACA. I'm interested to hear who they are and their experiences.

Both parents and in-laws benefited from ACA (albeit in different terms).

1) My dad has worked in a factory his whole life. He was constantly getting laid off due to his jobs getting shipped to Mexico, etc. Now that he's older, it's harder to find full-time work w/ benefits that isn't through a temp agency. He finally did, only to find out that the private insurance company providing the service decided it wasn't in their best interest to do business with my dad's current employer. They stripped the benefits, leaving everyone w/o coverage. Thanks to ACA my dad (who has melanoma) grabbed a policy that costs him the exact same. The coverage is the exact same and w/o pre-existing condition stipulations. Although the deductible is higher. The alternative is what they used to do when he lost a job pre-ACA and that was pay much much higher premiums for equal or sometimes less coverage through companies like Anthem, etc.

2) Father-in-law owned a company. Got cancer. Had to sell the company. Lost his insurance as a result. Because of ACA and the affiliated no more pre-existing condition policies, he and his wife were able to get a new, great insurance policy to cover him throughout the remainder of his life. In the past, he would've been SOL.

Maybe those aren't the examples you're looking for, but it's my only personal experience with ACA at the moment.

 

[connor_in]

 

[GoIrish41]

I don't think this is right. The demographics of this board probably (definitely) don't line up as a randomly distributed cross section of America, and the demographics of the people who did gain coverage because of the ACA aren't random either. I'm willing to bet that if we ven diagramed it, there would be almost no overlap.

That being said, I did benefit from one of the earlier changes made by the ACA. After graduating college, I enlisted in the Army, but before that there was a gap (including while I was in Syria) where I didn't have a job that provided health insurance. Because of the ACA, I was able to stay on my parent's plan. It was awesome.

In addition, many of the newly insured are the children of working aged adults.

 

[Rizzophil]

With all due respect Lax, I don't think 20 million new Americans signed up for obamacare. That number (if accurate) includes people that lost their coverage with the new law.

I lost my coverage. Lost my PCP twice. Now I pay $300 a month with a 8000 deductible. It's better that I do private pay than use my coverage at the doctor. My coverage is useless.

There's a reason why it gets terrible news press. The law stinks for everyone.

The law is a major financial catastrophe. There's a reason why major insurance carriers are dropping out. Furthermore, it's going to add trillions more to our 18.5 trillion debt. There's no way to pay back that money with the ACA in place.