Obama’s failure to make good on the promise of the Affordable Care Act is an unforced error – and the public is unlikely to forgive or forget it.
House Republicans aren’t the only ones threatening to mess with Obamacare.
Bill Clinton has been one of Obamacare’s most effective advocates—the “Secretary of Explaining Things,” as President Obama famously called him. But in a new interview already getting attention and sure to get more, Clinton didn’t explain things very well. He made a statement that’s likely to create some misimpressions about the possibilities of health care reform, while giving the administration and its allies yet another political headache. But maybe it’s also an opportunity to have a serious conversation about the law’s tradeoffs—the one that should have happened a while ago.
What political pundits ignore: McAuliffe wants to expand Medicaid, which means 400,000 more people will get health insurance there under Obamacare.
The real issue here isn’t simply Republican opportunism and hypocrisy—although, please, let’s not ignore that either. The real issue is about the true trade-offs of policy. Both sides offer them. With Obamacare, a small number of people lose their current insurance but they end up with alternative, typically stronger coverage. Under the plans Republicans have endorsed, a larger number of people would lose their current insurance, as people migrated to a more volatile and less secure marketplace. Under Obamacare, the number of Americans without health insurance at all will come down, eventually by 30 or 40 million. Under most of the Republican plans, the number of Americans without insurance would rise.
Yes, it is awfully rich that Republicans and conservative commentators, after doing their utmost to undermine the Affordable Care Act these past few years, are now carping about the serious flaws in the web sites set up to process applications for health insurance coverage.
It literally kills women, kills children, kills senior citizens