USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!
- Thread starter joecct
- Start date
- Status
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!
And he got health care passed (granted, a really watered-down, right wing version, but something nonetheless) overturning a one hundred year campaign of delay, deflect and deny against it.
It's difficult to judge Obama's political chops now because the obvious measure, being able to work with Congress, was taken off the table from the very start deliberately by a nutbar opposition dedicated to destroying his presidency even if that took the country down with it. Since it looks like the GOP will cower safely in the House until the next census, a Hillary (or, please God I don't ask for much, any other Dem) presidency will give us the only real comparison possible. The closest we've had to the sabotage of this GOP Congress is Newt's coup attempt in the 90s (funny how it's always the same folks who hold their breath and opt out of governance...), and even that's not quite comparable since then the GOP was only rhetorically, not actually, terrorist.
I don't excuse 'Bams for blowing an opportunity to be more of a transformative president, rolling back and killing the last vestiges of Reagan's Folly and Dubya's Disaster. He wasted two years trying to negotiate with the Republicans when it was obvious after a couple months that even if they wanted to act like adults their base would never let them. At that point he should simply have ignored them and gone for the jugular. LBJ knew you can't run an effective ground game without being willing to stretch the defense out with passing. The other serious flaw in Obama's tactical game was, I think, well-meaning, or at last a reasonable optic ploy, and that was the ban on revolving door lobbyists for the first two years. It's clear in retrospect that was a huge blunder that lost him thousands of man-years of institutional knowledge and cost him months of momentum and public good will, and I hope when we finally elect a genuine liberal someday he or she will not repeat that mistake. But at the time it was in keeping with his campaign tone.
As with any president, it will take decades before a lasting historical consensus develops about Obama. My guess is he'll wind up seen as slightly better than average, and probably be more noteworthy as the hinge as the door closed on this sad remake of the gilded age.
And he got health care passed (granted, a really watered-down, right wing version, but something nonetheless) overturning a one hundred year campaign of delay, deflect and deny against it.
It's difficult to judge Obama's political chops now because the obvious measure, being able to work with Congress, was taken off the table from the very start deliberately by a nutbar opposition dedicated to destroying his presidency even if that took the country down with it. Since it looks like the GOP will cower safely in the House until the next census, a Hillary (or, please God I don't ask for much, any other Dem) presidency will give us the only real comparison possible. The closest we've had to the sabotage of this GOP Congress is Newt's coup attempt in the 90s (funny how it's always the same folks who hold their breath and opt out of governance...), and even that's not quite comparable since then the GOP was only rhetorically, not actually, terrorist.
I don't excuse 'Bams for blowing an opportunity to be more of a transformative president, rolling back and killing the last vestiges of Reagan's Folly and Dubya's Disaster. He wasted two years trying to negotiate with the Republicans when it was obvious after a couple months that even if they wanted to act like adults their base would never let them. At that point he should simply have ignored them and gone for the jugular. LBJ knew you can't run an effective ground game without being willing to stretch the defense out with passing. The other serious flaw in Obama's tactical game was, I think, well-meaning, or at last a reasonable optic ploy, and that was the ban on revolving door lobbyists for the first two years. It's clear in retrospect that was a huge blunder that lost him thousands of man-years of institutional knowledge and cost him months of momentum and public good will, and I hope when we finally elect a genuine liberal someday he or she will not repeat that mistake. But at the time it was in keeping with his campaign tone.
As with any president, it will take decades before a lasting historical consensus develops about Obama. My guess is he'll wind up seen as slightly better than average, and probably be more noteworthy as the hinge as the door closed on this sad remake of the gilded age.
Last edited:
Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!
Kepler
Do we give him a free pass then from 2009 - 2011 when the Democrats had bullet proof majorities in both Houses? Since 2011, IMO, the GOP has tried to reel in the overreach by the Federal Government.
Face it, El Presidente has an ego the size of Mt. Rushmore. Has anyone ever told him "No"? Unfortunately, the sycophants in his own party are yes men/women who go in the corner and deliver every time he says "Poop!". What he needs is something the old Romans had for their triumphant general in a person (slave) whispering in his ear "You, too are human."
Right now, that function seems to be delegated to the SCOTUS. It shouldn't be.
Kepler
Do we give him a free pass then from 2009 - 2011 when the Democrats had bullet proof majorities in both Houses? Since 2011, IMO, the GOP has tried to reel in the overreach by the Federal Government.
Face it, El Presidente has an ego the size of Mt. Rushmore. Has anyone ever told him "No"? Unfortunately, the sycophants in his own party are yes men/women who go in the corner and deliver every time he says "Poop!". What he needs is something the old Romans had for their triumphant general in a person (slave) whispering in his ear "You, too are human."
Right now, that function seems to be delegated to the SCOTUS. It shouldn't be.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!
On the contrary, I am saying that as of about July 2009 he should have said "fuck it" and started acting as if he had Dubya's imaginary mandate. I have no idea what he was thinking. The GOP came right out from Day One and said "our sole goal is to punish the country for having the gall not to vote for us." While it was within his power, Obama should have taken them to the wall and let the 2010 pieces fall where they might. Given that all the hyperbloviation from the far right could not have been more insane, at least having some achievements to point to (and a ludicrous, disloyal opposition to point at) would have mitigated some of the midterm damage and not stuck us with a ten-year gerrymandered disadvantage in the House.
Obama had a small window to be a truly transformative president. He blew it. He is in that regard much like Clinton, who had two years before the GOP rot set in to really change our rudder. Instead we still continued under both to move full bore towards the Club for Growth dream of an oligarchy. All I can say is, maybe next time. With the economy picking up and with the GOP likely to control both chambers of Congress from 2015-16, thus giving the country an eyeful of what they're really all about, we might finally see some progress in 2016 and in particular in 2020 when, on a general cycle, districts are redrawn based on the full electorate.
There is of course never a "permanent majority," but unless the right wakes up to how unpopular and extreme their positions are, the next realigning election is going to shift them to a (temporarily, I'm sure) regional curiosity rather than a national party. You can already see the right wing fighting the right wing of the right wing to ixne on the undamentalismfe. When Orrin Hatch is telling you to cool it with the cray-cray, you should check yourself. But it's not working, and I wonder whether at some point the adults will say, "let's let them have their nominee and their platform, unadulterated, once -- a little Goldwater goes a long way."
On the contrary, I am saying that as of about July 2009 he should have said "fuck it" and started acting as if he had Dubya's imaginary mandate. I have no idea what he was thinking. The GOP came right out from Day One and said "our sole goal is to punish the country for having the gall not to vote for us." While it was within his power, Obama should have taken them to the wall and let the 2010 pieces fall where they might. Given that all the hyperbloviation from the far right could not have been more insane, at least having some achievements to point to (and a ludicrous, disloyal opposition to point at) would have mitigated some of the midterm damage and not stuck us with a ten-year gerrymandered disadvantage in the House.
Obama had a small window to be a truly transformative president. He blew it. He is in that regard much like Clinton, who had two years before the GOP rot set in to really change our rudder. Instead we still continued under both to move full bore towards the Club for Growth dream of an oligarchy. All I can say is, maybe next time. With the economy picking up and with the GOP likely to control both chambers of Congress from 2015-16, thus giving the country an eyeful of what they're really all about, we might finally see some progress in 2016 and in particular in 2020 when, on a general cycle, districts are redrawn based on the full electorate.
There is of course never a "permanent majority," but unless the right wakes up to how unpopular and extreme their positions are, the next realigning election is going to shift them to a (temporarily, I'm sure) regional curiosity rather than a national party. You can already see the right wing fighting the right wing of the right wing to ixne on the undamentalismfe. When Orrin Hatch is telling you to cool it with the cray-cray, you should check yourself. But it's not working, and I wonder whether at some point the adults will say, "let's let them have their nominee and their platform, unadulterated, once -- a little Goldwater goes a long way."
Last edited:
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!
No worries, with the PPACA, you get your "free" contraceptives. Even when you're three months old. That's right, MONTHS. http://www.examiner.com/article/report-three-month-old-infant-gets-contraceptive-id-under-obamacare
No worries, with the PPACA, you get your "free" contraceptives. Even when you're three months old. That's right, MONTHS. http://www.examiner.com/article/report-three-month-old-infant-gets-contraceptive-id-under-obamacare
Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!
Like your reasoning but must disagree one one key point. Clinton was indeed a transformative President. The difference between him and Reagan is that the hard core lefties in the party dislike him, while the hardcare righties in the GOP have dedicated themselves to a mythical retelling of his Presidency.
Bill Clinton ended Reaganism far sooner than anybody anticipated whether you think that's a good or a bad thing. Having lived through the 80's like myself, surely you recall talk of a "GOP Electoral Lock" - not from right leaning pundits but in the mainstream press. There was also the belief that every President would be in the Reagan mold. Clinton destroyed that only 4 short years after Ronbo left office. He took head on supply side economics and crushed it. He also laid waste to the notion that you needed a right wing outlook to manage the budget and economy. Now granted Bush II has helped in these regards as well due to his ability to screw up everything that he touched. However, all of the trends you see dominating politics today (heathcare access, raising upper income taxes to bring down deficit, limited military engagements, etc) were started back then.
More than anything else, supply side/voodoo/laissez faire economics needed to end. The idea that tax cuts for GOP campaign contributors pay for themselves. With the economic growth of the 90's, the stagnation of the 2000's, and the return to growth in the last few years, only a total and complete moron now thinks broad based top income tax cuts does jack sh !t for the rest of us. Thank Clinton for taking that on way back during the 1992 campaign.
Like your reasoning but must disagree one one key point. Clinton was indeed a transformative President. The difference between him and Reagan is that the hard core lefties in the party dislike him, while the hardcare righties in the GOP have dedicated themselves to a mythical retelling of his Presidency.
Bill Clinton ended Reaganism far sooner than anybody anticipated whether you think that's a good or a bad thing. Having lived through the 80's like myself, surely you recall talk of a "GOP Electoral Lock" - not from right leaning pundits but in the mainstream press. There was also the belief that every President would be in the Reagan mold. Clinton destroyed that only 4 short years after Ronbo left office. He took head on supply side economics and crushed it. He also laid waste to the notion that you needed a right wing outlook to manage the budget and economy. Now granted Bush II has helped in these regards as well due to his ability to screw up everything that he touched. However, all of the trends you see dominating politics today (heathcare access, raising upper income taxes to bring down deficit, limited military engagements, etc) were started back then.
More than anything else, supply side/voodoo/laissez faire economics needed to end. The idea that tax cuts for GOP campaign contributors pay for themselves. With the economic growth of the 90's, the stagnation of the 2000's, and the return to growth in the last few years, only a total and complete moron now thinks broad based top income tax cuts does jack sh !t for the rest of us. Thank Clinton for taking that on way back during the 1992 campaign.
dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!
To be fair, from about 1975 to 2005 we had a fairly "flat growth" rate for the nominal GDP at about 5%. And if you look at it, that 5% average goes back even further to 1950.
Nominal GDP growth grew from about 1950 until it peaked in about 1978 and has been relatively stable since then. The only major departure was the 2008 recession.
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-...c/8NlroMyICu8/s800/Nominal%20GDP%20Growth.png
To be fair, from about 1975 to 2005 we had a fairly "flat growth" rate for the nominal GDP at about 5%. And if you look at it, that 5% average goes back even further to 1950.
Nominal GDP growth grew from about 1950 until it peaked in about 1978 and has been relatively stable since then. The only major departure was the 2008 recession.
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-...c/8NlroMyICu8/s800/Nominal%20GDP%20Growth.png
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!
I disagree. Clinton did not take on trickle down head on -- anything but. He said "the age of big government is over" and his DLC-oriented rhetoric belied his even more centrist policies. Bush Senior was actually far more responsible for the end of Reaganism when he raised taxes for the good of the country.
Clinton's presidency was valuable only in that it gave us a chance to catch our breath as a country and repair a little of the damage between the two acts of Plutocracy, Inc. He did not change the direction of the country and the little good he did on the budget was easily and promptly undone by the Chimperor, who had 1/10th of his leverage. Clinton was a leader only when he was defending what he really cared about -- responding to attacks on Clinton. He was incapable of motivating down-ticket movement, he alienated the liberal base, took the grassroots for granted, and 90% of the DCCC accused him of non-support for their campaigns unless they were a key to his EV success. He was what he remains -- a jumped-up southern governor, preening in the attention and obsessed only with his power. This was occasionally useful for the country because to gain and hold that power he had to fight the Orcs, but that was mere accident.
And Hillary appears to be exactly the same sort.
I disagree. Clinton did not take on trickle down head on -- anything but. He said "the age of big government is over" and his DLC-oriented rhetoric belied his even more centrist policies. Bush Senior was actually far more responsible for the end of Reaganism when he raised taxes for the good of the country.
Clinton's presidency was valuable only in that it gave us a chance to catch our breath as a country and repair a little of the damage between the two acts of Plutocracy, Inc. He did not change the direction of the country and the little good he did on the budget was easily and promptly undone by the Chimperor, who had 1/10th of his leverage. Clinton was a leader only when he was defending what he really cared about -- responding to attacks on Clinton. He was incapable of motivating down-ticket movement, he alienated the liberal base, took the grassroots for granted, and 90% of the DCCC accused him of non-support for their campaigns unless they were a key to his EV success. He was what he remains -- a jumped-up southern governor, preening in the attention and obsessed only with his power. This was occasionally useful for the country because to gain and hold that power he had to fight the Orcs, but that was mere accident.
And Hillary appears to be exactly the same sort.
Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!
Kep this could be the most absurd post you've ever written. For your sake I really hope you were drunk when you composed it.
Kep this could be the most absurd post you've ever written. For your sake I really hope you were drunk when you composed it.
Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!
Meanwhile a Federal Appeals court has struck down the exchange subsidies portion of PPACA.
More after the full stories get filed.
WaPo: http://m.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/federal-appeals-court-panel-deals-major-blow-to-health-law/2014/07/22/c86dd2ce-06a5-11e4-bbf1-cc51275e7f8f_story.html?tid=HP_lede&tid=HP_breaking
WaEX: http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/u.s.-appeals-court-rules-against-obamacare-subsidies/article/2551108
Meanwhile a Federal Appeals court has struck down the exchange subsidies portion of PPACA.
More after the full stories get filed.
WaPo: http://m.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/federal-appeals-court-panel-deals-major-blow-to-health-law/2014/07/22/c86dd2ce-06a5-11e4-bbf1-cc51275e7f8f_story.html?tid=HP_lede&tid=HP_breaking
WaEX: http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/u.s.-appeals-court-rules-against-obamacare-subsidies/article/2551108
Last edited:
Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!
Man I hope that this has no teeth at the state level. A successful state health exchange just drove our local health care costs to be the lowest in the country.
Man I hope that this has no teeth at the state level. A successful state health exchange just drove our local health care costs to be the lowest in the country.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!
Do you want to offer a factual rebuttal of any of the points?
I don't understand why you are so in the tank for the Clintons. Of course they are better than the Republicans -- prune juice is better than lye. Of course we will back them if they are the nominee -- as 2000 showed, making the perfect the enemy of the good is national suicide. But you respond to anybody pointing out their faults the way NRO responds to anyone offering anything but hosannas about Israel. Pointing out the IDF kills children does not equal supporting Hamas, and pointing out the Clintons are in it solely for themselves does not equal supporting the knucks.
You usually post as a centrist-liberal. Now, true, the Clintons are "centrist," in the sense that that's where the most votes are, but they are in no way liberal. They are our Lee Atwater -- if the ladder had been easier to ascend on the right, that's the side they would have taken.
It can be useful to have droids like these when there is another part of the government that will actually work towards achieving positive policy outcomes. A Clinton White House plus a Warren-led Congress would be outstanding -- they would happily rubber stamp a solid liberal program in the knowledge that the national mandate reflected in a clean sweep of elected office showed that's where the public adoration was. But you can't guarantee that, and in the meantime I'd prefer to have the standard bearer of the left be actually, ya know, left.
Kep this could be the most absurd post you've ever written. For your sake I really hope you were drunk when you composed it.
Do you want to offer a factual rebuttal of any of the points?
I don't understand why you are so in the tank for the Clintons. Of course they are better than the Republicans -- prune juice is better than lye. Of course we will back them if they are the nominee -- as 2000 showed, making the perfect the enemy of the good is national suicide. But you respond to anybody pointing out their faults the way NRO responds to anyone offering anything but hosannas about Israel. Pointing out the IDF kills children does not equal supporting Hamas, and pointing out the Clintons are in it solely for themselves does not equal supporting the knucks.
You usually post as a centrist-liberal. Now, true, the Clintons are "centrist," in the sense that that's where the most votes are, but they are in no way liberal. They are our Lee Atwater -- if the ladder had been easier to ascend on the right, that's the side they would have taken.
It can be useful to have droids like these when there is another part of the government that will actually work towards achieving positive policy outcomes. A Clinton White House plus a Warren-led Congress would be outstanding -- they would happily rubber stamp a solid liberal program in the knowledge that the national mandate reflected in a clean sweep of elected office showed that's where the public adoration was. But you can't guarantee that, and in the meantime I'd prefer to have the standard bearer of the left be actually, ya know, left.
Last edited:
St. Clown
Liberal Rebel Scum, apparently
Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!
It is stricly aimed at the federal exchanges, not the state ones.
It is stricly aimed at the federal exchanges, not the state ones.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!
In another part of the forest, a federal judge threw out the rather bizarre GOP suit that said a Congressman receiving the benefit of Obamacare would thereby be hurt with his constituents, thus giving him standing to sue. The suit alleged, in essence, that the exposure of his hypocrisy constitutes damages.
In another part of the forest, a federal judge threw out the rather bizarre GOP suit that said a Congressman receiving the benefit of Obamacare would thereby be hurt with his constituents, thus giving him standing to sue. The suit alleged, in essence, that the exposure of his hypocrisy constitutes damages.
Last edited:
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!
This is interesting, since it ought to bring a tremendous amount of pressure to bear on states that refused to set up exchanges. They used to be able to get away with it because the feds would clean up their mess, but now their partisan obstinacy directly harms their population. Could this actually be used to force states to follow Kentucky's lead?
This is interesting, since it ought to bring a tremendous amount of pressure to bear on states that refused to set up exchanges. They used to be able to get away with it because the feds would clean up their mess, but now their partisan obstinacy directly harms their population. Could this actually be used to force states to follow Kentucky's lead?
Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!
I wouldn't get too excited about the subsidy ruling. IIRC this was heard by senior or retired justices who were hearing the case due to judicial vacancies, but which will now be reversed by Obama friendly full Appeals court.
I wouldn't get too excited about the subsidy ruling. IIRC this was heard by senior or retired justices who were hearing the case due to judicial vacancies, but which will now be reversed by Obama friendly full Appeals court.
St. Clown
Liberal Rebel Scum, apparently
Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!
Either that or it will serve to just inflame the people of those states to see how much their insurance rates truly increased as a result of the PPACA, causing the number of insured peoples in those states to plummet. I don't really see a third option.
I'm curious how this impacts those covered through the expanded Medicaid coverage in those states.
Either that or it will serve to just inflame the people of those states to see how much their insurance rates truly increased as a result of the PPACA, causing the number of insured peoples in those states to plummet. I don't really see a third option.
I'm curious how this impacts those covered through the expanded Medicaid coverage in those states.
Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!
Again, this impacts nothing and was widely expected as it was a 2-1 conservative ruling. That's fine until it goes to the full court which is 8-5 thanks to recent Dem appointees. So, this will be reversed. The only thing to watch is that another appeals court is also going to issue a ruling. If they both issue the same ruling in favor of the Admin, case closed.
Again, this impacts nothing and was widely expected as it was a 2-1 conservative ruling. That's fine until it goes to the full court which is 8-5 thanks to recent Dem appointees. So, this will be reversed. The only thing to watch is that another appeals court is also going to issue a ruling. If they both issue the same ruling in favor of the Admin, case closed.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!
Here's a good write up. Money shot:
Naturally, in the Echo Chamber this will play out as "courts end Obamacare!!!11!!! Whoopee!!11!!" followed by "activist judges ignore the law!111!!11 Gah, tyranny!!1111!!!"
Here's a good write up. Money shot:
Naturally, in the Echo Chamber this will play out as "courts end Obamacare!!!11!!! Whoopee!!11!!" followed by "activist judges ignore the law!111!!11 Gah, tyranny!!1111!!!"
- Status