Health Care Bill Passed. Fallout?

[Shatner]

So "The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" has been passed after a lengthy, grueling and often-times ridiculous political saga. The legal ramifications of the bill are available all over the internet (such as here) but what I am curious about is what the political ramifications are going to be. It seems the country's diverse, conservative elements have been brought into lock-step opposition to the bill's passing and now that it's gone through I don't foresee them quieting down. Some are thinking this will result in a decline in democratic influence in the House and Senate once the next round of election come through. Furthermore, a number of states seem to be mobilizing to challenge the bill legally as a state sovereignty violation.

My powers of political prediction are pretty dull; what do you people think this means for the US politics of the immediate future? At the very least, are we going to have Glen Beck and the Tea Baggers calm down or will they go even more ape****? Is that even possible?

[Username17]

The right is pretty much forced to run on an "Oh noes! Healthcare!" platform. However, the conspicuous lack of a rapture or communist uprising over the next eight moths ought to leave them looking like the insane gibbering hate mongers that they are.

-Username17

[PhoneLobster]

My prediction goes like this.

It ill not win the democrats any votes or political capital. It is just too much of a crap plan. A good one WOULD have won them short term capital and well nigh wiped the Republicans out long term. But this won't.

However it is a good thing they passed SOMETHING because that neuters what would have been a major political win for the Republicans. If it hadn't passed the Republicans would have done very nicely out of the whole affair.

But there is a complication.

Republicans have been threatening to run against Democrats on this issue at the next election if it passes.

Cause' you know, they would not have been Democrat supporters otherwise...

(yes that is stupid as heck but its been one of their big threats to pressure this thing into inadequacy and non existence)

So anyway. If they DO do that I predict that reminding the public that the Republicans basically screwed up what might have been a good plan will actually hurt the Republicans more than it helps them.

So hopefully they will make it the main plank of their next political campaign.

[Juton]

As intense as the debate got, the Republicans will need another issue come November. After 8 months of nothing the spectre of health-care changes starting in 2013 won't be enough to propel them to victory.

[K]

The Republicans are going to try to make this a hot-button issue, but since 45 million people would risk lose their healthcare if the Republicans take back the majority and repeal the bill, I think the Dems have their votes. I mean, if the AARP and the Catholics like the bill, you already have a sizable conservative block fighting for the Dems.

This means a large portion of the Republican's base KNOWS that voting for a Republican is against their interests. Weird, eh?

That, and the douchebaggery with the Republicans trying to not let unemployment get extended, there is a lot of people with a lot to lose if Republicans get a majority. If the Dems are smart they just need to point that out (I mean, it doesn't hurt that we now have crazy proof that Republicans vote as a block, so we always know how they vote).

And the Teabagger's hate speech is just going to get crazier and poison conservative and Republican issues. All Obama has to do is issue a few liberal and reasonable executive orders and their entire movement will start to froth and ragefuck each other on the steps of the capitol, driving away any centrists attracted to their goals.

Historically, anyone who has tried to harness the Fascism snake has gotten bitten, and the Republicans and Conservatives are going to learn that lesson from their affair with Teabaggery.

[Crissa]

Things to note, that you probably won't see in the news: There are more Republican 'open' or seats without an incumbent than Democratic ones right now. It's not a very large gap, but it does mean it will be difficult anyhow for Republicans to actually get any sort of majority out of this upcoming election.

-Crissa

[Ganbare Gincun]

The Republicans won't be able to gain political traction because they are only appealing to their base at this point, the Teabaggers will continue to be worked into a frenzy by the Conservative Media, and the Teabaggers will finally cross the moral event horizon in the minds of the American people when they put on Oklahoma City 2: Electric Boogaloo. They have already committed several terrorist attacks on American soil already - it's just a matter of time before they double down on their crazy and go all in.

[Josh_Kablack]

this will result in a decline in democratic influence in the House and Senate once the next round of election come through?

Bullshit.

The usual trend of declining fortunes for the party in power in midterm elections is what is going to result in a reduction of influence in the house and senate.

Expect the usual unctuous mouthbreathers to try to spin that as a referendum on health care, Obama and the civil rights act of 1964.

[Zinegata]

It still boggles the mind how they are gonna spend 1 trillion dollars to save 200 billion

[Ganbare Gincun]

It still boggles the mind how they are gonna spend 1 trillion dollars to save 200 billion

The PPACA is set up so that 1 trillion dollars of "cost" (actually closer to $860 billion dollars) is paid for by taxes and fees that have been set up within the legislation itself. The fact that it will reduce the deficit by $131 billion is just the icing on the cake. But the benefits of this legislation will certainly outweigh the costs, especially given the grim outcome that we would be facing without this kind of regulation in place.

[Juton]

A lot of liberals on the tubes seem to have gotten cynical about Obama and the Democrats. Specifically that they are shills to the health and banking industries. No matter what they do turn out will be lower this year, at least for the left-wing.

[mean_liar]

In eight months there will be something new to be outraged over - healthcare will be a lifetime ago. Immigration reform is out there, so is the financial system overhaul... maybe Israel. Hard to say other than in eight months time, healthcare will only be one talking point amongst whatever new hay comes up.

[Ganbare Gincun]

A lot of liberals on the tubes seem to have gotten cynical about Obama and the Democrats. Specifically that they are shills to the health and banking industries. No matter what they do turn out will be lower this year, at least for the left-wing.

The "liberal" shills in the mainstream media may be singing that tune, but I can tell you right now that all of the progressives that I know are energized by this victory and are not only ready to turn out to vote in the mid-term elections, but they are going to be supporting the members of Congress that made health care reform happen with robust campaign contributions. They may not be as loud, racist, or as well-connected with the media as their Teabagger counterparts, but I can assure you they are more then ready to do whatever it takes to advance the progressive agenda, no matter what Fox News says.

[Crissa]

It still boggles the mind how they are gonna spend 1 trillion dollars to save 200 billion :P

Is it also boggling that if you put 1 trillion into a standard savings account you'll get 200 billion in interest at the end of the year?

Or that if you buy the $1000 water-heater instead of the $500 water-heater that over the life of water-heater you'll save the $500 of the second you'd need (since it lasts longer) and also save money because it used not 1 cf of gas a day, but instead 1 cf a week?

Or in a business... You buy (spend) n$ on merchandise, then spend y$ on selling them, and you make p$-(n$+y$) of profit (or 'savings with regard to your current budget deficit).

It's an idiotic argument to say you can't save money by spending money, or that you can't, in a bill, spend money and reduce current spending on different things.

Anyhow...

Most of these good things in the bill happen now: Like recision. It's now illegal. (although some may still attempt to stick people as defrauding, the courts, however, tend to take a dim view of corporations using entrapping language, even if they're okay with government doing so.)

Kids can't be excluded for pre-existing conditions. Tho adults, we have to wait another two years...

-Crissa

They have already committed several terrorist attacks on American soil already - it's just a matter of time before they double down on their crazy and go all in.

That's never seemed to hurt Republicans in the polls. Also, the amount of TV/media those events have gotten is still a small portion compared to the one guy who burned his nuts off. Or how much air the Republicans got when Bush's FBI watch issued general warnings about the right-wing movement... No media ('cept a guy on MSNBC) seems to mention that the FBI was apparently Correct on that point.

[Gelare]

As long as you're all shitting yourselves over how everything's going to be rainbows and sunshine forever and ever as a result of this bill, can someone actually take the time to tell me what's in the damn thing? USA Today tells me it's over 2500 pages long, and I just don't have enough spare time to scour the whole thing. And crap like, "This bill provides health care coverage for 30 million Americans!" doesn't count. Shut up. I mean actual, substantive clauses that, say, make certain practices illegal or create new agencies or programs for specific things or impose specific requirements on patients or insurers.

[Zinegata]

The PPACA is set up so that 1 trillion dollars of "cost" (actually closer to $860 billion dollars) is paid for by taxes and fees that have been set up within the legislation itself. The fact that it will reduce the deficit by $131 billion is just the icing on the cake. But the benefits of this legislation will certainly outweigh the costs, especially given the grim outcome that we would be facing without this kind of regulation in place.

Cha-Ching.

In short, the Dems are gonna raise taxes to the tune of about 1 trillon dollars.

They are so screwed in November.

[Zinegata]

It still boggles the mind how they are gonna spend 1 trillion dollars to save 200 billion

Is it also boggling that if you put 1 trillion into a standard savings account you'll get 200 billion in interest at the end of the year?

Or that if you buy the $1000 water-heater instead of the $500 water-heater that over the life of water-heater you'll save the $500 of the second you'd need (since it lasts longer) and also save money because it used not 1 cf of gas a day, but instead 1 cf a week?

Or in a business... You buy (spend) n$ on merchandise, then spend y$ on selling them, and you make p$-(n$+y$) of profit (or 'savings with regard to your current budget deficit).

It's an idiotic argument to say you can't save money by spending money, or that you can't, in a bill, spend money and reduce current spending on different things.

Anyhow...

Most of these good things in the bill happen now: Like recision. It's now illegal. (although some may still attempt to stick people as defrauding, the courts, however, tend to take a dim view of corporations using entrapping language, even if they're okay with government doing so.)

Kids can't be excluded for pre-existing conditions. Tho adults, we have to wait another two years...

-Crissa

Apples and Oranges.

[Maxus]

As long as you're all shitting yourselves over how everything's going to be rainbows and sunshine forever and ever as a result of this bill, can someone actually take the time to tell me what's in the damn thing? USA Today tells me it's over 2500 pages long, and I just don't have enough spare time to scour the whole thing. And crap like, "This bill provides health care coverage for 30 million Americans!" doesn't count. Shut up. I mean actual, substantive clauses that, say, make certain practices illegal or create new agencies or programs for specific things or impose specific requirements on patients or insurers.

I understand the bulk of it is telling the insurance companies they can't fuck with people now by denying them coverage for pre-existing conditions and other stuff.

Then there's a few other things...Businesses are encouraged to supply insurance for their employees. People who can't otherwise get coverage get some help from the government to buy into it. Not exactly sure of the deal there.

Then a lot is outlining how it will be paid for, the specific areas to be taxed and all (I heard they'll raise taxes on a couple of medical-related areas (heard they're hashing those out), and also things like high-dollar insurance policies).

On a down note, I understand they're talking of making some kind of insurance mandatory. Which is definitely throwing a bone to the insurance companies...sure, they can't screw people out of covering them when it comes to take, but the Insurance Market pie just got bigger.

[Zinegata]

I understand the bulk of it is telling the insurance companies they can't fuck with people now by denying them coverage for pre-existing conditions and other stuff.

Then there's a few other things...Businesses are encouraged to supply insurance for their employees. People who can't otherwise get coverage get some help from the government to buy into it. Not exactly sure of the deal there.

Then a lot is outlining how it will be paid for, the specific areas to be taxed and all (I heard they'll raise taxes on a couple of medical-related areas (heard they're hashing those out), and also things like high-dollar insurance policies).

On a down note, I understand they're talking of making some kind of insurance mandatory. Which is definitely throwing a bone to the insurance companies...sure, they can't screw people out of covering them when it comes to take, but the Insurance Market pie just got bigger.

Here's something I'd like to understand though:

Pretty much all of the upsides of the new healthcare bill seems to focus around regulatory issues. So why is it costing so much to implement?Shouldn't the cost of setting up new monitoring bodies be fairly minimal?

I understand there are subsidies (for the insurance companies and the common folk), but honestly should insurance cost $20K per person? I think that's what most Amercans make in a year.

I think that ultimately, this bill is bad for the Dems (even if the Republicans are bitten by the Fascist snake) because they're asking too much at the wrong time. Asking for a trillon bucks from the taxpayers isn't a great move when the economy just suffered (or is still suffering) a recession, several trillon dollars had already been spent on "stimulus" with mixed results, and you have a huge pile of IOUs to China.

The Dems are gonna be screwed unless there is a dramatic upturn in the economy. And I don't think that's likely to happen.

[Username17]

Pretty much all of the upsides of the new healthcare bill seems to focus around regulatory issues. So why is it costing so much to implement?Shouldn't the cost of setting up new monitoring bodies be fairly minimal?

No. Law enforcement of any kind is incredibly expensive. You're policing something that affects nearly three hundred million people. That isn't cheap.

I understand there are subsidies (for the insurance companies and the common folk), but honestly should insurance cost $20K per person?

No. But it should cost in the 5-10k per person range. And that would be 1.5 trillion dollars at the low end.

I think that ultimately, this bill is bad for the Dems (even if the Republicans are bitten by the Fascist snake) because they're asking too much at the wrong time. Asking for a trillon bucks from the taxpayers isn't a great move when the economy just suffered (or is still suffering) a recession, several trillon dollars had already been spent on "stimulus" with mixed results, and you have a huge pile of IOUs to China.

The problem with your argument is that government spending is the way out of recessions. Go ahead and look up 1937. Contracting the government accounts exacerbates recession, expanding the government eases it. You're suggesting that the proper way to get the people on your side in a recession is to make the recession worse. That makes no sense.

-Username17

[Zinegata]

Frank->

Fox (yes, I know, the crazy network) is reporting that the IRS needs about 5-10 billion over 10 years to implement the new fines on people who don't buy health insurance (based on a Congressional estimate). Granted, 1 billion a year is a huge pile of money, but that's still quite a way short of 1 trillion.

Also, I arrived at the $20K per person by simple division... a trillion divided by 45 million. If it's going to take just $10K to give a person health insurance, the bill should only cost a much more manageable $450B.

Finally, nobody has exactly proven that Keynesian economics is 100% effective in killing a recession. I woud also count 1942 in America as the crowning example of massive government spending killing a recession (not to mention saving the free world), and not 1937.

The problem is that crazy goverment spending while in heavy debt can also result in the economy blowing up and the government filing for bankruptcy before it gets better.

(It's worth noting that government spending kills recessions because it puts under-utilized industries back to work. The latter condition may not hold true anymore for the United States).

It's not a sure thing. And it's not as simple as "Spend and the recession dies".

And the public's nervousness over this massive spending is what's gonna kill the Dems, especially when they're gonna ask the taxpayers to pay for this.

Logical arguments can be made why the healthcare bill will actually help the recession. Many incidents in history will also support this argument. But when the American public believes that Fox News is the most trustworthy network in the country, logic and history kinda get thrown out the window in favor of "Shit, we're drowning in debt and they just passed a bill taxing me a trillon dollars to pay for some bum's healthcare?"

I'm no saying it's right. But even if the socialism issue fizzles (which it will) and the Fascist snake bites, the Dems will still be pretty darn screwed in November by this simple apprehension.

So if Palin ends up president in 2012 because of this fiaso and we get nuked by Cylons, I'm blaming the Dems .

[Username17]

Finally, nobody has exactly proven that Keynesian economics is 100% effective in killing a recession. I woud also count 1942 in America as the crowning example of massive government spending killing a recession (not to mention saving the free world), and not 1937.

The recession was over before 1942. Hell, the recession was over before Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. 1937 is the year of the double dip - when Roosevelt listened to the idiots who said that we should cut back on Keynesian programs and let the market fix itself with some austerity programs - and the recession dipped down again.

Logical arguments can be made why the healthcare bill will actually help the recession. Many incidents in history will also support this argument. But when the American public believes that Fox News is the most trustworthy network in the country, logic and history kinda get thrown out the window in favor of "Shit, we're drowning in debt and they just passed a bill taxing me a trillon dollars to pay for some bum's healthcare?"

FOX News is the largest single news provider, but that doesn't mean that a majority of people listen to them. If it did, Obama would never have been elected in the first place. I mean, they have a lot of viewers. But 2.4 million people isn't half the electorate. In 2008, 132 million people turned out to vote. If FOX News was airing only in Arizona or something, it would control the electorate. But it's not. It's a loud voice in a sea of cacophony. Their direct influence is less than 1.8% of the electorate. Even if all FOX viewers voted, which they don't.

-Username17

[Zinegata]

Frank->

Regardless, spending is not always guaranteed to work to kill a recession. The American economy boomed in '42 due to massive spending for the war effort, whih brought America's under-utilized industry back to life. Also, I thought you were referring to Germany in 1937, where the rearmament program did a lot to bring the economy out of its funk.

Moreover, I said Fox was polled as the most trusted news network, which is more a dig on the average intelligence of the American voting populace and their suceptibility to fear as opposed to being rational people who should really turn off the TV when Glenn Beck is on.

It'd be nice to think there won't be a fallout. But the bill is too big, too controversial, and will scare too many people for there not to be a fallout - Regardless of its merits.

[RobbyPants]

It still boggles the mind how they are gonna spend 1 trillion dollars to save 200 billion

Is it also boggling that if you put 1 trillion into a standard savings account you'll get 200 billion in interest at the end of the year?

20% interest in a standard savings account? I think that's a bit optimistic. I'm assuming this was meant more to be rhetorical than literal?

[angelfromanotherpin]

Official summary:

The key components of the Affordable health Care for America Act include:

Increasing choice and competition. The bill will protect and improve consumers’ choices.

* If people like their current plans, they will be able to keep them.
* For individuals who aren’t currently covered by their employer, and some small businesses, the proposal will establish a new Health Insurance Exchange where consumers can comparison shop from a menu of affordable, quality health care options that will include private plans, health co-ops, and a new public health insurance option. The public health insurance option will play on a level playing field with private insurers, spurring additional competition.
* This Exchange will create competition based on quality and price that leads to better coverage and care. Patients and doctors will have control over decisions about their health care, instead of insurance companies.

Giving Americans peace of mind. The legislation will ensure that Americans have portable, secure health care coverage – so that they won’t lose care if their employer drops their plan or they lose their job.

* Every American who receives coverage through the Exchange will have a plan that includes standardized, comprehensive and quality health care benefits.
* It will end increases in premiums or denials of care based on pre-existing conditions, race, or gender, and strictly limit age rating.
* The proposal will also eliminate co-pays for preventive care, and cap out-of-pocket expensesto protects every American from bankruptcy.

Improving quality of care for every American. The legislation will ensure that Americans of all ages, from young children to retirees have access to greater quality of care by focusing on prevention, wellness, and strengthening programs that work.

* Guarantees that every child in America will have health care coverage that includes dental, hearing and vision benefits.
* Provides better preventive and wellness care. Every health care plan offered through the exchange and by employers after a grace period will cover preventive care at no cost to the patient.
* Increases the health care workforce to ensure that more doctors and nurses are available to provide quality care as more Americans get coverage.
* Strengthens Medicare and Medicaid and closes the Medicare Part D ‘donut hole’ so that seniors and low-income Americans receive better quality of care and see lower prescription drug costs and out-of-pocket expenses.

Ensuring shared responsibility. The bill will ensure that individuals, employers, and the federal government share responsibility for a quality and affordable health care system.

* Employers can continue offering coverage to workers, and those who choose not to offer coverage contribute a fee of eight percent of payroll.
* All individuals will generally be required to get coverage, either through their employer or the exchange, or pay a penalty of 2.5 percent of income, subject to a hardship exemption.
* The federal government will provide affordability credits, available on a sliding scale for low- and middle-income individuals and families to make premiums affordable and reduce cost-sharing.

Protecting consumers and reducing waste, fraud, and abuse. The legislation will put the interests of consumers first, protect them from problems in getting and keeping health care coverage, and reduce waste, fraud, and abuse.

* Provides transparency in plans in the Health Exchange so that consumers have the clear, complete information, in plain English, needed to select the plan that best meets their needs.
* Establishes consumer advocacy offices as part of the Exchange in order to protect consumers, answer questions, and assist with any problems related to their plans.
* Simplifies paperwork and other administrative burdens. Patients, doctors, nurses, insurance companies, providers, and employers will all encounter a streamlined, less confusing, more consumer friendly system.
* Increases funding of efforts to reduce waste, fraud and abuse; creates enhanced oversight of Medicare and Medicaid programs.

Reducing the deficit and ensuring the solvency of Medicare and Medicaid. The legislation will be entirely paid for – it will not add a dime to the deficit. It will also put Medicare and Medicaid on the path to a more fiscally sound future, so seniors and low-income Americans can continue to receive the quality health care benefits for years to come.

* Pays for the entire cost of the legislation though a combination of savings achieved by making Medicare and Medicaid more efficient – without cutting seniors’ benefits in any way – and revenue generated from placing a surcharge the top 0.3 percent of all households in the U.S.(married couples with adjusted gross income of over $1,000,000) and other tax measures.
* The Congressional Budget estimates the bill will reduce the deficit by at least $100 billion over ten years.
* Estimates also show the bill will slow the rate of growth of the Medicare program from 6.6 percent annually to 5.3 percent annually.