The next step is realizing that Obamacare, Build Back Better, and pretty much every “win” from the “resistance” is written by or re-packaged from the exact same group of people.
The ACA was never what was really wanted, ever, but it did make a difference for many people. So many that even conservatives will say they hate Obamacare, but the government better not touch their ACA. They are so close to getting it, yet never will. And we almost didn’t get the “terrible” ACA, so imagine where we’d be. It’s not a win, but it’s not a lose either. It was a compromise with conservatives to get some improvements while the door was open for getting the votes, and that slammed shut the rest of his two terms. (thanks Mr. zombie Mitch)
We sure about that? Seems the people in control of the party were quite pleased to pass it and nothing more. Also, how many times can Democrats pre-compromise then compromise again before people get suspicious?
I hear it repeated a lot with many anecdotal examples and rationalizations but by every quantifiable metric healthcare post 2010 is much worse than before.
Just the pre-existing conditions rule alone is huge. The wikipedia article is a good resource vs. just anecdotal, and it looks like the general opinion is the ACA was just a start and people wanted more adjustments to make it better. Republicans of course voted over 60 times to try and repeal it, without ever offering anything better.
The metrics you’re talking about might not be from the ACA effects, but from other issues hitting the health care industry over time. There’s mention of lots more people becoming insured with the act with a surge in doctor visits, but then later years that dwindled because the facilities couldn’t support the demand because of closures or not enough staff. That’s not the ACA.
Better health outcomes for those with “pre-existing conditions”? Because that isn’t the case, and unless diabetes suddenly changed to be more aggressive and deadly I don’t see any externalities that would explain the data. Do you?
Better financial outcomes? There was a small period between 2013-2018 where this was arguably true, for specific people. But it does show in general trends enough to maybe be true for a time.
The metrics you’re talking about might not be from the ACA effects, but from other issues hitting the health care industry over time.
Yes, and disentangling those is hard. However, the implicit assumption you’re starting from is that the externalities were significantly greater. I would agree that is somewhat true for COVID and it’s downstream effects, but there isn’t anything else I can really point to. Do you have something?
that dwindled because the facilities couldn’t support the demand because of closures or not enough staff. That’s not the ACA.
The next step is realizing that Obamacare, Build Back Better, and pretty much every “win” from the “resistance” is written by or re-packaged from the exact same group of people.
The ACA was never what was really wanted, ever, but it did make a difference for many people. So many that even conservatives will say they hate Obamacare, but the government better not touch their ACA. They are so close to getting it, yet never will. And we almost didn’t get the “terrible” ACA, so imagine where we’d be. It’s not a win, but it’s not a lose either. It was a compromise with conservatives to get some improvements while the door was open for getting the votes, and that slammed shut the rest of his two terms. (thanks Mr. zombie Mitch)
It was before Lieberman killed the public option.
We sure about that? Seems the people in control of the party were quite pleased to pass it and nothing more. Also, how many times can Democrats pre-compromise then compromise again before people get suspicious?
By what metric?
I hear it repeated a lot with many anecdotal examples and rationalizations but by every quantifiable metric healthcare post 2010 is much worse than before.
Just the pre-existing conditions rule alone is huge. The wikipedia article is a good resource vs. just anecdotal, and it looks like the general opinion is the ACA was just a start and people wanted more adjustments to make it better. Republicans of course voted over 60 times to try and repeal it, without ever offering anything better.
The metrics you’re talking about might not be from the ACA effects, but from other issues hitting the health care industry over time. There’s mention of lots more people becoming insured with the act with a surge in doctor visits, but then later years that dwindled because the facilities couldn’t support the demand because of closures or not enough staff. That’s not the ACA.
Which has had what effect?
Better health outcomes for those with “pre-existing conditions”? Because that isn’t the case, and unless diabetes suddenly changed to be more aggressive and deadly I don’t see any externalities that would explain the data. Do you?
Better financial outcomes? There was a small period between 2013-2018 where this was arguably true, for specific people. But it does show in general trends enough to maybe be true for a time.
Yes, and disentangling those is hard. However, the implicit assumption you’re starting from is that the externalities were significantly greater. I would agree that is somewhat true for COVID and it’s downstream effects, but there isn’t anything else I can really point to. Do you have something?
You sure? Because I can draw a pretty straight line between the ACA and private equity gutting healthcare facilities for the tax credits and direct payments that were promised by the heritage foundation.
Lol. Shit hole country.