Posted by bad_luck on 10/10/2013 5:10:00 PM (view original):
Posted by examinerebb on 10/10/2013 5:08:00 PM (view original):If it gets to that point, voting/not voting Democrat won't make a difference. Exchanges will be entrenched.
Posted by bad_luck on 10/10/2013 4:23:00 PM (view original):
Posted by examinerebb on 10/10/2013 2:42:00 PM (view original):That doesn't make much sense. The ACA isn't really a social program like food stamps or unemployment. There is no benefit paid to anyone using it. And someone who had health coverage before isn't going to be happy if they have to move into a higher cost or lower coverage health plan. So they probably wouldn't vote liberal if that happened.
Posted by bad_luck on 10/10/2013 2:28:00 PM (view original):Sure. It would stand to reason that people who are dependent on liberal social programs for income/services are less likely to vote against the liberal agenda (don't bite the hand that feeds). It would seem to logically follow that the more people that can be made dependent on those programs, the less people that would vote against said agenda.
Posted by examinerebb on 10/10/2013 2:25:00 PM (view original):Please explain further.
Unfortunately it seems logical that, to liberals in power, corporations dropping benefits would be a good thing. The more people dependent on government for income/services, the larger their pool of potential voters.
Now, if the ACA is a fantastic law that helps a lot of people and makes them happy, there's a chance they will vote for the party responsible for passing the law.
Not at first they wouldn't, you are correct. However, once 50% (or some comparable market-analysis-based number) of Americans are on the exchanges, the exchanges will, more than likely, be the cheapest place to get healthcare (more volume = lower prices, in theory). Let me clearly state that that does not necessarily mean that healthcare will be cheaper than it is now overall (though it could be), and almost certainly not cheaper to the consumer than employer-subsidized healthcare, just that it will be the cheapest option at the time for that 50% of Americans (or thereabouts) who don't get employer-subsidized healthcare.
So, in this scenario, the ACA eliminates its own competition as the most consumer-friendly option, while simultaneously making its consumers reliant upon it (and beholden to the agenda that creates/empowers it) for the cheapest available healthcare.
Unless Republicans say "You, working American, are paying more out of pocket for healthcare than you were * years ago. The ACA is every bit the disaster we said it would be when it was passed. Elect us, and we'll get rid of it."
They'd be absolutely right, but do they get the vote of Americans who have had a portion of their health benefits stripped away once already? Probably not. Those Americans, while recognizing that the other party brought them to this point, probably vote to keep whatever they have left.
And this exercise illuminates the largest problem with the ACA. It might be a good thing for the majority of Americans (you may say 85% chance, I may say 15% chance) but, if it isn't, it will be too late to do anything about it if we wait for it all to shake out instead of fixing it now. It will be, as you said, entrenched.