- Jan 12, 2012
- 27,286
- 113
No, I really don't don't think you do. There were plenty of people besides democrats, that were uninsured prior to ACA, that eagerly signed up for Obamacare. I was reading an article the other day about a place that is almost completely Republican, that people voted for Trump, because we he said he was going to "Fix Obamacare," they took that to mean that he would make it better for them (i.e. more benefits) than it already offers.
For people who didn't have, and wanted, insurance prior to ACA, and that's hardly unique to Democrats, the vast majority welcomed ACA.
You could well be correct. It is also possible that rather than your explanation, people who vote R and had been previously uninsured signed up because the were going to pay nearly as much for the [STRIKE]fine[/STRIKE] [STRIKE]fee[/STRIKE] tax that isn't a tax that they might as well get a return on the money. It is also possible that not all who would react poorly to its repeal would do so out of love for it as much as the fear that any 'solution' would be made up of the worst features of both sets of ideas on the matter, and consequently oppose changing anything for fear of it becoming worse yet and/or creating the chaos that the rollout of ObamaCare caused.
Methinks you've missed the point.
Republicans wouldn't act to pass repeal because some of their constituents would be affected. You can talk about districts all you want. The senate DOES NOT HAVE DISTRICTS.
They have states. Many of the senators on both sides of the aisle deal with slim margins of victory. An issue which motivates voters to go to the polls is generally a problem for incumbents.
Can you do the math now, or are we still going to talk about the validity and non-scientific sampling of an article that might indicate an issue republican senators would be concerned about?
In addition, you can blame Obamacare all you want, but we spend about 17% of GDP on health care. I don't remember the pre-Obama statistic, but it was significant. In general, our health care costs twice as much as countries providing universal health care. So, while it is possible to associate Obamacare with some of the cost increases, absent Obamacare, the medical costs in this country continue to rise at above average rates for highly developed countries and we don't necessarily see above average benefits for those expenditures.
Blame Obamacare all you want. But recognize that it is only one part of the increase in costs.
Your political math is right on target!
My question regarding the universal health care systems is how effective they truly are, particularly in determining who is worthy of what treatment. Britain's system seems to be a particularly frightening representative as I have been told by those who have witnessed it in action even by those who favor a universal system.