Democrats Fracturing Over Obamacare ?

[Nice Squirrel]

Wait? Are you saying the friends that couldn't get health insurance before Obamacare were not middle class?

 

[KeepTalking]

I suppose that is one way of arguing the exception disproves the rule. The vast majority of Americans kept their original insurance. Sorry if that fact somehow diminishes trying to exaggerate the impact of some people losing their rather anemic insurance coverage.

I was hoping this thread would focus on the political fracturing over Obamacare than seems to be growing, rather than another debate on the morality or efficacy of the legislation.

Then maybe you should have gone with that instead of derailing your own thread. My post #2 in this thread did address your silly notion that the democratic party is fracturing over the ACA, you just chose to ignore it.

To that end, I will start another thread on Obamacare's "value" and "efficacy", and attempt to expand this discussion into the cause of the fracturing.

Feel free to set up another inane argument about the ACA thread, we will be happy to knock it down for you.

Krauthammer had an interesting article yesterday, that diagnoses the broader issue of the Democratic fracturing and discord over MORE than just Obamacare.

The fireworks began even before Election Day with preemptive back-stabbing of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, by fellow Democrats. This was followed after the electoral debacle by bitter sniping between Obama and Harry Reid when Reid’s chief of staff immediately — and on the record — blamed the results on Obama. In turn, Obama got his revenge last week by sabotaging a $450 billion “tax extender” deal that Reid had painstakingly negotiated.

But the Democrats’ civil war goes far beyond the petty and the personal. It’s about fundamental strategy and ideology. The opening salvo was Sen. Chuck Schumer’s National Press Club speech, an anti-Obama manifesto delivered three weeks after Election Day openly denouncing Obamaism, its policies and priorities. In essence: Elected with a mandate to restore the economy and address the anxieties of a stagnating and squeezed middle class, Obama instead attacked, restructured, reorganized and destabilized a health-care system that was serving the middle class relatively well.

Eighty-five percent of Americans already had health insurance, argued Schumer. Yet millions have suffered dislocations for the sake of a minority constituency — the uninsured — barely 13 percent of whom vote.

This has alienated the Democrats’ traditional middle-class constituency. Indeed, in a 2013 poll cited by the New York Times’ Thomas Edsall, by a margin of 25 percent, people said Obamacare makes things better for the poor. But when the question was, does it make things better “for people like you,” Obamacare came out 16 points underwater. Moreover, for whites, whose support for Democrats hemorrhaged in 2014, 63 percent thought Obamacare made things worse for the middle class.

That’s how you lose elections, Schumer argued . And forfeit large chunks of the traditional Democratic coalition. Health care was not a crisis in 2009 (nor in 1993 when Hillarycare led to another Democratic electoral disaster); it was an ideological imperative for Barack Obama and the liberal elites in charge of Congress — their legacy contribution to the welfare state.

As are Obama’s current cherished causes — climate change and amnesty for illegal immigrants. These are hardly the top priorities of a working and middle class whose median income declined as much during the Obama recovery as during the Great Recession.

The underlying Schumer challenge is that catering to coastal elites and select minorities is how you end up losing 64 percent of the white working class — which, though shrinking, is almost 50 percent larger in size than the black and Hispanic electorates combined....

From opposite sides of the (Democratic) spectrum, Schumer and Warren are trying to remake and reorient the Democratic Party post-Obama. So while Republicans are debating the tactics of stopping presidential lawlessness — an inherently difficult congressional undertaking, particularly if you still control only a single house — Democrats are trying to figure out what they believe and whom they represent.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...0743f2-7c00-11e4-84d4-7c896b90abdc_story.html

Krauthammer is a right leaning political commentator working for a right leaning newspaper, The WaPo. Why should anyone other than a rightest pay attention to his characterization of the left. When he starts saying the Republicans are fracturing over this or that, maybe we will pay attention.

There are two takeaways:

First, voters have a pretty realistic view of Obamacare. It helps poor, punishes the middleclass "like them".

I'm a voter, I don't think that is a realistic view of the ACA at all. Sounds like something you got from a rightist, oh look, it was Krauthammer, big surprise.

Second, the middle class is no longer confident that the Democratic party represents their interests, especially the white working and middle classes. While Obama and Congressional Democrats have given a lot of lip service to helping the middle class, the focus of their efforts have been on low incomes - those in the bottom 20 or 30 percent. When it is not on low incomes, it is focused on helping millions of illegal immigrants and, and elite 'boutique' causes such as climate change and pipelines.

Interestingly, it was exactly this kind of backlash that got Reagan elected.

I'm in the middle class, and while I am not confident that the Democratic party represents my interests, it is not for the reasons you imagine, and certainly not because they passed the ACA. It is because every year they look more and more like the Republican party, kowtowing to corporate interests, and the like. The ACA is not what it should have been, but it is better than the status quo that we had. Further, I am not a cold hearted Republican bastard, I realize that the bottom 20-30 percent need help from their representatives in government more than I do, and for that reason, even though I am registered Independent, I will hold my nose and vote for the Dems more often that not.

 

[Playball40]

So I think ACA had benefits - my niece and my adult children could be covered. It didn't affect my work sponsored insurance at all. Rates increased but by a miniscule amount. However, it's not helping my son. He make $40K a year and has a wife and child. His employee sponsored insurance covers him and is below 9.5% of his pay. However, if he were to add his wife and child, it is now over 37% of his pay. Obviously he cannot afford this, but cannot get subsidy from the exchange because HIS premium is less than 9.5%. That said, Florida refused the Medicaid expansion so his wife and child are SOL. THAT is not a workable system in my opinion.

 

[maxparrish]

Frankly, it is an open question as to whether or not you should have expected ACA to affect many employer rates - at the moment. The employer mandates won't fully kick in till 2016. As 99 percent of the large firms already supply health insurance, the net effect for this group may not be as great. It won't be clearer till the end of 2015, and following years till:

- All mandates are implemented and...

- The reinsurance subsidy system expires after 2016...

Employer mandate update: Small businesses with 50-99 full-time equivalent employees (FTE) will need to start insuring workers by 2016. Those with a 100 or more will need to start providing health benefits to at least 70% of their FTE by 2015 and 95% by 2016. Health care tax credits have been retroactively available to small businesses with 25 or less full-time equivalent employees since 2010.

http://obamacarefacts.com/obamacare-employer-mandate/

 

[maxparrish]

I was hoping this thread would focus on the political fracturing over Obamacare than seems to be growing, rather than another debate on the morality or efficacy of the legislation.

Then maybe you should have gone with that instead of derailing your own thread. My post #2 in this thread did address your silly notion that the democratic party is fracturing over the ACA, you just chose to ignore it.

To that end, I will start another thread on Obamacare's "value" and "efficacy", and attempt to expand this discussion into the cause of the fracturing.

Feel free to set up another inane argument about the ACA thread, we will be happy to knock it down for you.

Krauthammer had an interesting article yesterday, that diagnoses the broader issue of the Democratic fracturing and discord over MORE than just Obamacare.

The fireworks began even before Election Day with preemptive back-stabbing of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, by fellow Democrats. This was followed after the electoral debacle by bitter sniping between Obama and Harry Reid when Reid’s chief of staff immediately — and on the record — blamed the results on Obama. In turn, Obama got his revenge last week by sabotaging a $450 billion “tax extender” deal that Reid had painstakingly negotiated.

But the Democrats’ civil war goes far beyond the petty and the personal. It’s about fundamental strategy and ideology. The opening salvo was Sen. Chuck Schumer’s National Press Club speech, an anti-Obama manifesto delivered three weeks after Election Day openly denouncing Obamaism, its policies and priorities. In essence: Elected with a mandate to restore the economy and address the anxieties of a stagnating and squeezed middle class, Obama instead attacked, restructured, reorganized and destabilized a health-care system that was serving the middle class relatively well.

Eighty-five percent of Americans already had health insurance, argued Schumer. Yet millions have suffered dislocations for the sake of a minority constituency — the uninsured — barely 13 percent of whom vote.

This has alienated the Democrats’ traditional middle-class constituency. Indeed, in a 2013 poll cited by the New York Times’ Thomas Edsall, by a margin of 25 percent, people said Obamacare makes things better for the poor. But when the question was, does it make things better “for people like you,” Obamacare came out 16 points underwater. Moreover, for whites, whose support for Democrats hemorrhaged in 2014, 63 percent thought Obamacare made things worse for the middle class.

That’s how you lose elections, Schumer argued . And forfeit large chunks of the traditional Democratic coalition. Health care was not a crisis in 2009 (nor in 1993 when Hillarycare led to another Democratic electoral disaster); it was an ideological imperative for Barack Obama and the liberal elites in charge of Congress — their legacy contribution to the welfare state.

As are Obama’s current cherished causes — climate change and amnesty for illegal immigrants. These are hardly the top priorities of a working and middle class whose median income declined as much during the Obama recovery as during the Great Recession.

The underlying Schumer challenge is that catering to coastal elites and select minorities is how you end up losing 64 percent of the white working class — which, though shrinking, is almost 50 percent larger in size than the black and Hispanic electorates combined....

From opposite sides of the (Democratic) spectrum, Schumer and Warren are trying to remake and reorient the Democratic Party post-Obama. So while Republicans are debating the tactics of stopping presidential lawlessness — an inherently difficult congressional undertaking, particularly if you still control only a single house — Democrats are trying to figure out what they believe and whom they represent.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...0743f2-7c00-11e4-84d4-7c896b90abdc_story.html

Krauthammer is a right leaning political commentator working for a right leaning newspaper, The WaPo. Why should anyone other than a rightest pay attention to his characterization of the left. When he starts saying the Republicans are fracturing over this or that, maybe we will pay attention.

There are two takeaways:

First, voters have a pretty realistic view of Obamacare. It helps poor, punishes the middleclass "like them".

I'm a voter, I don't think that is a realistic view of the ACA at all. Sounds like something you got from a rightist, oh look, it was Krauthammer, big surprise.

Second, the middle class is no longer confident that the Democratic party represents their interests, especially the white working and middle classes. While Obama and Congressional Democrats have given a lot of lip service to helping the middle class, the focus of their efforts have been on low incomes - those in the bottom 20 or 30 percent. When it is not on low incomes, it is focused on helping millions of illegal immigrants and, and elite 'boutique' causes such as climate change and pipelines.

Interestingly, it was exactly this kind of backlash that got Reagan elected.

I'm in the middle class, and while I am not confident that the Democratic party represents my interests, it is not for the reasons you imagine, and certainly not because they passed the ACA. It is because every year they look more and more like the Republican party, kowtowing to corporate interests, and the like. The ACA is not what it should have been, but it is better than the status quo that we had. Further, I am not a cold hearted Republican bastard, I realize that the bottom 20-30 percent need help from their representatives in government more than I do, and for that reason, even though I am registered Independent, I will hold my nose and vote for the Dems more often that not.

So what government agency or untaxed non-profit do you work for?