scherzo, on 06 August 2013 - 04:31 PM, said:
So no big deal then. Vast new federal law will cause people to lose their jobs, but not quite as many as some say. Coolness.
In other words, "Who cares if the research is being deliberately misinterpreted and the problem overstated by a factor of ten
, as long as it's kinda sorta true for a small minority of businesses surveyed?" So nice to see that truthiness is still alive.
Then there's that matter of Obamacare causing business' to drop their employee coverage altogether, but that will likely only affect 10 to 20 million give or take, so it was still totally worth it.
Well, the latest CBO estimate
is 7 million. In a country where around 160 million people get insurance from their employer, that's only about 4 percent. A figure that will be offset by the Medicaid expansion and more affordable individual insurance options through the ACA exchanges.
To y'know...move the Statist agenda along.
Do you honestly believe that liberals are pushing health care reform because of some abstract interest in expanding government power? That's mustache-twirling nonsense. They're motivated simply by a belief that the free market requires prudent government oversight to safeguard people against the negative forces that naked capitalism alone cannot put a damper on. It's not a radical notion; it's why there are laws to, say, prohibit child labor and monitor the purity of food, and few people would disagree that such government safeguards are just and necessary. And yet conservatives insist on turning a pragmatic debate over what degree
of government oversight is necessary into an ideological shouting match that brands any new oversight as unthinkably un-American.
It's worth noting, too, that the laws that kept children from toiling away in factories and consumers from dropping dead of poisoned food surely had an immediate financial cost to some Americans, whether it was the families of working children who were deprived a source of income or the businesses that had to shut down because they couldn't afford to keep up with food purity laws. But it would be silly to assume that any economic downside invalidated the whole effort, because the upside -- in terms of public health, in terms of the long-term health of the economy -- far outweighed it.
So it is with the ACA. Conservatives seem to have forgotten, in their quixotic efforts to repeal Obamacare and replace it with nothing
, why Democrats and Republicans alike started pursuing health care reform in the first place: because health care costs are one of the biggest drags on the financial health of both the federal government and the citizens of this nation. Obamacare is certainly not perfect, but it is a good first step in the efforts to bend the cost curve toward sustainability. And despite the scary articles that Kota has been quoting, the prices on the ACA exchanges have actually been coming in significantly lower than expected
, particularly in states such as California that are implementing the program in good faith instead of stonewalling and stalling to make the Democrats look bad.
Finally, it's funny to see an Obamacare opponent suggesting that any
loss of insurance coverage invalidates the whole law, since repealing Obamacare
would likely cause much more significant losses of coverage -- people with preexisting conditions, young people whom ACA allows to stay on their parents' insurance longer, people who would be subject to recission if the ACA weren't around to prohibit it. And unlike those who might lose employer coverage under the ACA, the Republican's replacement plan of [footage not found
] offers them no alternatives once their coverage is gone.