ACA Reaches Sign Up Goal Of 7.1 Million...

They did try shopping around, they are with Aetna NOT Kaiser(the most expensive in California).

Dianne Feinstein joins push to keep health plans

California democrats like Feinstein realize there are problems with Obamacare for many families. edit: That's why Feinstein wanted Californian's the option to keep their existing healthcare plan.

My parents justify the added expense because it helps people like me, their son. But at the same time they weren't expecting the increase.

So for people to say it didn't have a negative impact on some families, that's bs.

Point I was making is that the Canadian Healthcare system is actually quite dangerous to your health.

Also, in regards to Zerowone, that's only true in essence of primary essential services - unless they work privately, in which case they bill the insurance company. The real difference, is there is almost no out of pocket cash exchanging hands for life saving, or essential services.

Everything we do or put into motion is going to have an equal and opposite reaction, some times unexpected, or so far down the line we can't see the ripples our actions make, that eventually become waves.

That said, they weren't the kind of repercussions that were originally touted, and having gone through so many amendments to become legal, the PPACA won't always be affordable to everyone, but it's goal was to cover and insure as many low income people as possible, to keep them working, and spending money

For want of a nail...

This this this. My parents had Aetna, and this is why I can't understand why some people won't acknowledge that it did have a negative impact on some people. People don't seem to realize that Obamacare itself caused insurance companies and even the medical field to change policies. It wasn't some new addition that didn't affect anyone who opted to not get it. It affected others, and older generations with prior health conditions can't just go insurance shopping willy-nilly when their rates go up.

Funny, I had Kaiser for 26yrs, $10 co-payments were the business.

Can you look beyond your own anecdote, though?

Yes, some people have been considerably disadvantaged by this. That shouldn't have happened. Indeed, it probably wouldn't have happened had cool heads prevailed on both sides of the aisle instead of the Republicans whipping their pro-health policies into a froth of pointless partisan bickering and automatic rejection of EVERYTHING proposed by Democrats and/or supported by President Obama.

But does that negate what good has been and will be done? I'd accept a mathematical balance that definitively shows more people are paying more and/or fewer people are receiving necessary treatment than was previously the case. On balance, though, I don't anticipate that, even though the ACA desperately needs to be overhauled to a more sensible system (again, it could have always been a sensible system, but partisanship has ruined Washington in the past 20-odd years).

My parents are among those being disadvantaged by the change. They've taken the view, in spite of claiming to be Republican, that universal healthcare is too important and, thus, will permit the temporary injustice until the wrinkles get ironed out. I'm not entirely sure I agree with them (because I don't trust Congress to pull their heads out of their ***), but I agree with the sentiment. Healthcare was going nowhere before. This may ultimately prove to have been a terrible implementation, but that becomes the impetus to stop *** around. I hope.

Exactly my point.

Except it's not just my own anecdote. It's an example that is effecting other Americans.

Explain to me why democrat senators from California are not backing Obamacare? This is not the GOP coming down on Obamacare, but rather longtime supporters of Obama himself and the democratic party who are saying "it doesn't work for everyone." They want Americans to have the option to keep their existing healthcare plan because they understand Obamacare has major flaws.

There's a distinct possibility that we're related.

Not only are California senators not backing it, the doctors from that democrat state are bailing on it as well. Hypocrisy at its finest!

Does anything work for everyone 100% of the time?

And Democrats (or Republicans!) raising valid objections to the law is fine by me. I think the ACA was a slipshod piece of legislation that should have been buried in the backyard long before it became law. But I think that if and only if a more sensible piece of legislation could have gotten passed.

Right now, we're knee-deep in an experiment. We really shouldn't be because we collectively knew better, but the Republican Party has been working overtime to stop the President from doing anything. It's hardly a surprise that the end result of all that bitching is a pile of dogshit, but the party that should have saved us from most of these problems -- the Republican Party -- refused to play ball and still refuses to do so, so we're stuck having to do this the stupid way.

It shouldn't matter that Democrats or Obama supporters or Obama himself have objections to a law that is, on its face, a wreck. But "should" implies a sane world and that's not where our federal government presently resides. Abandoning it wholesale (AGAIN -- remember this same ***happened when Hilary Clinton spear-headed it almost 20 years ago) will make things measurably worse.

In the meantime, keep collecting the anecdotes and data, but use them to fix the problem rather than roundly denouncing it. Many people are benefiting from this, even if many others are not.

And, since I know I wasn't clear on this: I find it offensive when people claim that anything has been perfect. People ignoring your family's hardships are just as disingenuous as other people ignoring the benefits to, say, an underemployed sucker like me.

You're trying to rationalize a poorly implemented set of laws.


Denouncing roundly? No. Scrutinizing? Yes.

Why pass a law that is not as perfect as possible? The ACA was shoved through, we all know that. We are stuck having to do this the stupid way only because of that.

I can tell you from working at one of the largest, we assume people are shopping around.

Lower copayments mean higher premiums, but it's also possible you don't utilize the high cost services on your plan if your premiums are low.

Dude, it's toxic! People hate it! Support for the law is at an all time low. In one poll by the associated press support was at 26%. 26! It's hilarious to think that there are some liberals who actually believe the lies told in order to enable this victory lap. Senators are running away from it on the campaign trail. Trying to run from a shellacing this year that will no doubt be worse than 2010.

Nice fantasy nausi, just as entertaining as they were in 2012.

The White House is pretty much just a circus anymore, anything to keep the people that do believe the lie from actually having to think for themselves. They think saying 7.1mil and this whole victory lap thing will help the cause. Which it will, because we will never know the true number of uninsured people who signed up.

The hardcore supporters of this do not care, and the people who want this law gone are considered out of touch and devoid of the facts.

So basically you completely failed to read anything I wrote, huh?

The dumb *** in the Republican Party are 100% responsible for blocking legislation that most of the electorate wanted with widespread support across both sides of the aisle. Their obstinacy directly resulted in bad legislation. As usual.

I expect the Democrats to have good ideas that get implemented badly (generally because they either have no grasp of budgeting or because they're being strong-armed by lobbyists). I expect Republicans to have bad ideas (generally because they get strong-armed by their most vocal contributors) but know how to make effective plans. What has happened is the expected result of one party being *** USELESS.

But it is worse to do nothing at all. Better to light a match than curse the darkness, as anyone knows, but the Republicans have been loudly saying that we've enjoyed shuffling around in the darkness, quite in spite of silly things like an effective healthcare plan spear-headed by their most recent Presidential candidate.

Why pass a law that is less than perfect? For one, no laws would ever be passed. If you're an anarchist, I'm sure that sounds great. Let me know how that life works after I bash your head in and steal your stuff. But, otherwise, given how long this fight has been fought (certain folks like to pretend that the notion of universal healthcare has only been on the battlefield since Obama was elected or, if they're feeling really generous, since Clinton -- both are very wrong), getting ANYTHING out the door is necessary. If it is so terrible, do something about it. But prove it is worse than the alternative first.

This couldn't be more right, unfortunately. Ultimately, good ideas will most likely not be implemented correctly in our current government due to many factors. It's a sad state of current affairs, but it's basically unavoidable unless we have an entire reworking of the system. It's just sad that some people are unfortunately caught up in the ****storm and are political casualties since both sides want to fight tooth and nail without meeting in some rational middle ground that doesn't cause strife for anyone involved.

It's one party who tries and fails to do stuff right, and the other that sticks their fingers in their ears and pretends it doesn't happen...

Both are pretty bad.

It's not even this. Both sides have good ideas on different fronts. The problem is that when republicans try to legislate some of their better ideas, democrats fight tooth and nail to have it their way, which leads to the new legislation being sloppily incorporated. Same thing for when democrats have good ideas and republicans fight tooth and nail against it and the execution ends up sloppy.

It's more of a joke than anything man, don't think that much into it.

Wait since when are Feinstein, Hagan, Pryor and Manchin Republicans?

"Both sides"?!? Obama is king of appeasement. Part of why nothing got accomplished during his first years when he had a Democrat majority in Congress is because he was playing nicey-nicey with the Republicans who are a bunch of whining bullies.

No, Obama has gone way above and beyond the call of rationality to reach out and cooperate. He didn't learn the lesson that Bush learned (remember that both of them are centrists): be a ***.

Since when does a minority of Democratic politicians prevent Democratic legislation from passing?

I'm sorry, since when is 11 months shoving anything through, even by legislative standards.

I'm talking about both parties as a whole. There are also state issues, not just federal issues, where this happens. I'm also not just talking about Obama's terms. This has been a problem for a long time. Neither side wants to budge (as a whole) on a lot of issues. I would say democrats are more open to meeting in the middle, but there are also a lot of staunch democrats who will not budge on certain issues.

You just described the human condition. I could list off half a dozen personal causes that I'm adamant about, some of them very much in spite of knowing that I'm wrong. I consider myself to be on the high end of rationality, too, so if I'm engaged in stubborn-stupidity-with-clarity (someone invent a German word for that), I'm certain politicians are, too.

I know, and I agree. I'm just stating that this is the unfortunate nature of things, and why the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Even the best of ideas end up getting implemented poorly due to this problem, and it's not just a republican vs. democrat thing, it's a human thing, as you pointed out.