And speaking of worst case scenarios and predictions, Steve Forbes predicts that the PPACA will be repealed before the 2014 elections:
Prediction: even if HealthCare.gov is fixed by the end of the month (unlikely), Obamacare is going to be repealed well in advance of next year’s election. And if the website continues to fail, the push for repeal—from endangered Democrats—will occur very rapidly. The website is a sideshow: the real action is the number of people and businesses who are losing their health plans or having to pay a lot more. Fixing the website will only delay the inevitable.
My reaction to that is “No how, no way”. There are enough Democrats in safe seats in the House and Senate that a presidential veto, all but certain in the event of a vote to repeal, cannot be overridden.
Every bone in my body tells me you are right. But I can’t shake the notion that this issue is different on two fronts.
First is media air cover, the mother’s milk of Obama politics. We now have CBS, of all entities, running a prime time feature on the security risks (identity theft) hidden from the American people due to Obamacare. That’s visceral, and yet another lie. When you lose CBS…….. (and let’s not even talk the O’Keefe fraud video, which will have a limited audience)
Second, unlike much of politics which is just hooray for our side and, importantly, doesn’t hit the majority in the pocketbook, this one hits the pocketbook broadly. Its not someone else’s problem read: “the rich.”
A couple posts ago you used the phrase “rats leaving a ship.” Vulnerable 2014 Democrats are lining up right now, but some of these issues will still pertain in 2016. Dem Senators may still be running scared…………..and Hillary will be, stiletto in hand, saying if only you had elected me in 2008, but now you get a do over.
One of three things would need to happen. Either
a) the president would need to voluntarily surrender on what’s been described as “the signature accomplishment of his presidency”.
b) Congressional Democrats would need to prevail on the president to surrender the PPACA and he’d need to accede.
c) Democrats would need to turn on the president and blame everything on him.
c) would tear the Democratic Party apart. Not going to happen.
a) or b) would require qualities in the president that have not been seen heretofore. Extremely unlikely.
The Act won’t be repealed under this Administration. It may not be readily repeal-able in any case; states will have a hard time shrinking their medicare roles; health plans have changed to be in line with the PPACA; people like coverage for their kids until 25 and the no-preexisting conditions.
What MAY be in the offing is a delay of the penalty for the insurance mandate. I can actually see situations where it is delayed for a year… then another… then another… ad infinitum.
Rats may leave the ship, but the ship has left the port.
I thought from the beginning that partisan passage of the ACA meant continuing efforts to repeal unpopular portions, including the individual mandate. But I think repeal/delay of the individual mandate is harder under these circumstances.
Right now, there is really no incentive for Young Americans to sign-up, when there is uncertainty about whether rules might change in the next few months, and the tax might be avoidable. If you delay the mandate, the pools will be almost purely people with high health needs. What would be the probability that insurance companies effectively abandon the individual market after a delay? Would the stabilizers last another year, or would that be a year lost?
Steven Hayward’s article was nothing short of provocative. I especially was struck by how he drew this analogy:
However, even with my unequivocal joy in reading about such a possibility, I don’t see it happening. Like TimH said in his post,
it seems the ship has already sailed, and Obamacare has placed enough tentacles in place that it would take something akin to a major upheaval in order to pull them out, going back to a ‘restore’ point, before Obamacare careened into our life. IMO, even the dire implications of the 2014 will not make Obama give up this signature achievement — a path he chose over one that would generate a more robust economy and jobs.
Also, Drew’s point about identity theft and unsolved security issues is spot on, as well. Who would want to expose themselves to such an unprotected site, anyway?
I did find it interesting, though, how even Bill Clinton is veering a little south on Obamacare, stating this morning that changes should be made to the bill insuring that Obama’s promises are kept — that people should not lose the health insurance and doctors they want to keep.
“Obamacare has become the domestic policy equivalent of the Iraq War”
That’s probably the dumbest fucking thing I’ll read all day.
Similar to what PD brought up, these continuing problems and unmet expectations are putting insurance companies in a quandry. They can either abandon the exchange market, or they can raise premiums to compensate for the poor demographics of people signing up. Neither of them, though, are appealing solutions or enduring fixes turning healthcare into the glorious reform that was sold to the people.
That’s probably the dumbest fucking thing I’ll read all day.</i?
I can see where such a blunt analogy must painfully crush all your sensibilities.
Sure, jan, the domestic response to a war entered into on the basis of claims found to be false; a war in which thousands of Americans were killed, and many more thousands were grievously wounded is equivalent to the domestic response to a program that seeks to extend health insurance to those who don’t have it.
You don’t think that dumb?
Sam,
What ties these two blunders together are a presidential disconnect with ‘intentions’ and ‘outcomes.’ Both administrations had their own ideological intentions of what they saw as having positive outcomes. And, because of their zeal to accomplish these foreign/domestic goals, both administrations were blind-sighted by a failure to take into account the enormous side-effects and losses the execution of their plans might have on the people.
Whether or not Bush knew Tenet’s intelligence was false is still up for debate. However, evidence is pretty clear now, from leaked memos, that the Obama team knew over 3 years ago that the POTUS’s repeated adamancy, about keeping insurance/doctors/hospitals, was misleading and false.
It is a morally obtuse analogy.
Sam
Ideologically invoking pain and suffering onto people,whether it’s by the right or left, is morally wrong — especially if one consciously realizes what they are doing.
“That’s probably the dumbest fucking thing I’ll read all day.”
What? You don’t read Jay Carney’s briefing transcripts? Well, maybe bald faced lies and dumb are different, I’ll give you that. But I digress.
Dave – at 10:07. You may be right. Actually probably right. But “c” is the potential avenue. “a” ain’t gonna happen as this creep doubles and triples down on his absurdities everyday. He’s got a story, and he’s stick’n to it, until he reads polling results for tomorrow…….
Politics is bloodsport. Do the math. Obama accomplished zero this year. Next year is probably another zero because of this issue. Then, like all, he’s a lame duck. A lame duck emerging out of weakness, by the way. ObamaCare. The economy sucks – only Michael and Menzie Chin are still banging the drum. Self preservation might motivate Senate and certain House Dems to abandon him, as he has abandoned them.
Obama is about Obama. It was convenient for Congressionals to ride the wave until the wind went out of the sails. But Obama sold them out like pawns. They know it; they get it. What’s the line from the old song? “Now yer playin’ the game!” But payback is a bitch.
OK, sam. The Iraq War had some “glitches.”
No chance in hell of repeal, before or after midterms.
OK, sam. The Iraq War had some “glitches.â€
OMG, Drew, is that how Bush should have reinvented the ‘lie’ accusation to be? How clever!
More importantly, we can’t go backwards now. I saw somewhere that Bill Clinton stated Obama should honor his commitment that no one should lose their insurance. Really? Clinton knows better than that. If you repealed all provisions of PPACA today, people would not get their cancelled policies back. Not this year and perhaps not ever. The insurance companies cannot turn on a dime like that with about six weeks left in the year.
This bill has been hitting in ways large and small for three plus years now. That can’t be undone. This may lead to another large reform, but that is the most that can be hoped for.
Agree that Obama’s personality doesn’t lend toward owning up and correcting mistakes but I would think if the pressure keeps mounting so that the numbers of vulnerable Dems increase, that perhaps party leaders will stage an intervention. It aeems to me that the party’s standing as well as his legacy will depend on making a correction.
This repeal vs not repeal os a false and misleading dichotomy. There are other, much more likely, possibilities like these two:
– The ACA can be gutted without repeal in the name of “reform.” It won’t’ be “repealed” it will be “amended” or “fixed” but the result will be non-trivial changes to the program.
– The ACA can get its own version of the “doc fix” – ie. some kind of annual “fix” to its problems without actually altering the original law. Given the sticker shock some are experiencing, I would not be surprised to see some sort of annual “fix” to keep people’s existing insurance from increasing in prices due to the ACA.
While either of these are more likely than “repeal” I think it’s still tricky, from a prediction standpoint, because of the partisan politics surrounding the program. Any “solution” would have to provide some face-saving for both sides in order to justify votes which will not, obviously, be easy. The GoP, especially, seems to have little incentive to do anything but continue to demand repeal and watch with glee as the negative effects cause political problems for Democrats.
I would have thought that if there were another large reform on the horizon there might have been a bill making the rounds by now. Actually, that’s been my complaint since 2010. The PPACA sucks all the air out of the healthcare reform room. Nothing will happen until all of its provisions have been active for a couple of years. What’ll that be? 2020?
Schuler, I agree that nothing seems to be afloat right now. That said, I think some kind of reform is likely sooner than you do. The number of new Medicaid enrollees is going to require a federal response with in a year or so, and that won’t be cheap.
The question is what kind of reform will we get? Most likely a bandaid like the doctor fix. But I also won’t be surprised by something that looks like the HC system version of Dodd-Frank becomes the end result.
Andy:
The difference between the Medicare SGR’s and the PPACA issues is that the PPACA is a 100% Democratic law. Rightly or wrongly I strongly suspect that Republicans will see an ongoing PPACA train wreck as good for them.
Andy, your comments about the GOP read true to me. I think they have no more interest in actually governing than Obama.
ice
re: Bill C knows better. I meant to add to my comment that you can count on the Clinton’s to start the process of stabbing Obama in the back to position Hillary. And they will be talking to Congress, making promises and threats.
Don’t underestimate how Congress Dems might turn. The Clinton’s don’t play with rubber knives.
Red, I think the Clintons are much less fearsome these days. They can stab Obama wherever they want, rhetorically, but Obama is the actual POTUS. (Someone should probably inform him of that fact.) And given that Obama has shown that he will use everything in his power, including the IRS …. Do you really think the Clintons are THAT scary?
For example, what if the SEC were to start investigating the firm where Chelsea’s husband works? (I assume for this purpose that he’s still in finance.)
The Republicans gained the House for possibly ten years thanks to Obamacare, and they might gain the Senate too. They will blame healthcare issues on Obama for a long time.
And the Clintonistas are getting ready to return, and they think a lot of the people Obama surrounded himself with were not very good. They cannot return to power in the context of a “third term” without a subtle, or not so subtle, critique of the Obama Administration. For example:
Recently, a letter to Larry Summers is released, showing how dysfunctional the people and agencies setting up the exchanges were. Who leaks that?
Meanwhile, James Carville says: “We can admit that there’s some real, deep, fundamental problems with this president. But I think we’re throwing the dirt here too soon.â€
Bill Clinton: “When people sneeringly say, ‘McAuliffe is a dealmaker,’ I say, ‘Oh, if we only had one in Washington during that shutdown.’ â€
An oldie: Larry Summers: “We’re home alone. There’s no adult in charge. Clinton would never have made these mistakes.â€
Here’s a fun parlor game, if you like the idea of omnipotent Clintonian power. Can Obama be forced by the democrats to step down, on the condition that he must first replace Biden with Hillary?
“The Republicans gained the House for possibly ten years thanks to Obamacare, and they might gain the Senate too. They will blame healthcare issues on Obama for a long time.”
Well, you know, Obamacare might then be like the Cheshire Cat. And it would then be their problem to “fix”, no? I mean, Repeal Obamacare! What does that mean. Get rid of the following?
1) No denial for pre-existing conditions.
2) No recession if you get sick.
3) No lifetime caps.
4) Ability for parents to keep their adult children on their policies.
5) Doing away with the “donut hole” for seniors in Medicare, Part D.
6) Creation of health-care exchanges
7) Subsidies for purchase of insurance
8) Medicaid expansion
Which of those do you think they would do away with?
I, of course, meant “no rescission”
“Do you really think the Clintons are THAT scary?”
Yes. Obama is a lying and incompetent schmuck. But its just politics for him. I think he has limits.
The Clintons? “Hey, you know that thing we talked about….you know, that thing?” Its power.
@sam, a Republican Presidential candidate will probably have to be more active in addressing healthcare issues than I suggested, but its not clear that the Republicans will hold the White House any time in the near future.
Republicans will try to get rid of the tax on medical devices and the individual mandate (which I think Ezra Klein may have supported eliminating last year; he may have had a point whenever he wrote). If the individual mandate disappears, now, I think the exchanges will eventually fail. The Republicans will re-offer catastrophic care policies w/tax deductions.
Medicaid expansion gets pruned-back, but perhaps not all the way. Basically, healthcare in the U.S. is provided by a tier of Medicare, Group Insurance, Exchanges, and Medicaid. If the Exchanges whither away, an opportunity to buy Medicaid might be offered.
Apparently Feinstein now wants to co-sponsor a bill to FORCE insurance carriers to keep people in their current plans. In the middle of November!
When this bill passed, I assumed that the intent was to crash the system, because I didn’t see how it couldn’t. I assumed that the people behind the bill had to realize this. Now I realize they’re just that much dumber and more ignorant than I thought they were.
As I’ve said before, I never worry about being too cynical. I only worry about not being cynical enough. Case in point above!
@Icepick
… Now I realize they’re just that much dumber and more ignorant than I thought they were.
And people think you are always negative.
The intention was to entangle Obamacare into the health insurance/care system. It was designed to be unrepealable. It was meant to be the first step towards single payer.
It turns out that the “smartest people in the whole-wide world” are a bunch of idiots with shit for brains.
And people think you are always negative.
My wife constantly accuses me of both optimism and idealism. She really knows how to cut me to the quick!