Obamacare Has Lost the Uninsured

Whitehouse.govWhitehouse.govObamacare has lost the uninsured.

A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll released this week asked uninsured individuals whether or not they thought the law was a good idea. Just 24 percent said they thought it was. In contrast, half the uninsured polled said they thought it was a bad idea. As the Journal points out, that represents an 11 point drop in support for the law amongst the uninsured since September. The same poll also finds that 56 percent of the uninsured believe the law will have a negative effect on the U.S. health care system.

Let that sink in: What that means is that regardless of how bad the old system—the system that for whatever reason left them uninsured—was, a majority of people without health coverage now think that Obamacare makes it worse. 

That’s how poorly the rollout of the health law is perceived to have gone. The exact group the law was designed to help have instead turned on the law. It’s never been particularly popular with the wider public, but now even those who were supposed to be beneficiaries are skeptical.

That’s more than a political problem. It’s a policy problem—a threat to the law’s viability, especially when combined with other recent poll numbers showing that young people, who are crucial to the law’s coverage scheme, are rejecting the law as well. A Harvard Institute of Politics Poll released earlier this month found that 56 percent of young adults age 18-29 don’t approve of the health law. Only 29 percent of uninsured young adults said they expected to enroll.

As the sharp declines of the last few months show, poll numbers can always shift,  sometimes rapidly. But if these low numbers persist, it represents a body blow for the law. It’s telling that Americans are now so soured on Obamacare that a majority say they would prefer to go back to the old system, flaws and all. As this week’s Reason-Rupe poll found, 55 percent of Americans now say they prefer the old, pre-Obamacare health care regime.

Numbers like those will help fuel efforts to repeal or otherwise block the law, regardless of whether or not there’s a replacement. They should also make Obamacare-friendly Democrats up for reelection more than a little nervous.

When the health law passed back in 2010, the thinking amongst many Democrats was that controversy around the overhaul would eventually fade, and the law would become popular as people felt its effects. Part of the thinking behind that argument was that the American health system was already so bad that nothing could really be worse. But nearly four years later, with the law’s health exchanges launched, its various interim benefits in place, and its biggest insurance market changes just weeks away from kicking in, the verdict from the public is in: Obamacare isn’t just a bad system. It’s a bad system that’s worse than the old bad system. And at least for now, even the uninsured, the people who supposedly stand to gain the most from the law, think so too.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Fascinating. Just who, in fact, was this law passed for then?

  • John||

    That is a very good question. As best I can figure it seems to benefit people who have expensive, chronic, pre-existing conditions. Other than them, I don't see a single person who benefits from this monstrosity.

    This is why I have never believed the predictions that this law would become popular because people would grow to like the free things it provides. It doesn't provide any free things. At best it gives subsidies to people to help them buy bad, over priced insurance, they likely don't want.

    This thing literally has no constituency beyond Obama dead enders who will do or say anything in defense of Obama.

  • Lord Humungus||

    As you said before, the "not free" healthcare is probably doing some of the largest damage to the law. Even with subsidies, most people - especially the young - don't want to pay for something that they don't think they need.

    At least when I was young, health insurance was a nebulous thing that I never thought about because the only time I went to the doctor was for a sinus infection or a broken bone. Hardly catastrophic and not expensive at all.

    Rotten analogy, but it's like forcing people to buy full car insurance for their beater when PLPD will do.

  • John||

    It is not a rotten analogy at all. It is exactly like that. But an even better analogy is that this act is like creating "comprehensive vehicle insurance" whereby everyone in America must by a single insurance policy that covers cars, boats, motorcycles, RVs and snowmobiles with no regard to whether they actually own any or all of those things.

  • KDN||

    Covers all those things and provides for routine maintenance.

  • Jan S.||

    YES. It's like buying insurance for your home and expecting to get the lawn mowed and the windows washed for "free."

  • 2Sirius||

    Yeah, and THEN they decide to "write you off" when your proverbial house burns down.

  • johnl||

    It benefits people who
    1 - have expensive pre-existing conditions
    2 - find themselves unable to hold down job with HC benefit
    3 - are too wealthy to qualify for assistance
    There must be literally dozens of people like this, so it makes sense to upend the system just for them.

  • NoVAHockey||

    don't forget AHIP. they thought they were getting new customers. oops.

  • johnl||

    And they are. Dozens of new customers. Customers they didn't want before, people not well enough to stay upright through an entire BHO speech, but they are getting new customers.

  • ziggy||

    There have been several stories of people with cancer who had insurance they could afford and get treatment from who have now lost their insurance.

    As for who it benefits. Im sure plenty of congressmen and senators will receive donations, jobs or gifts from insurance companies for helping pass this law. The insurance companies for sure aren't losing money or they never would agree to this.
    This is what I love about Obamacare it reeks of crony capitalism and government benefiting corporations which is what the Dems criticize republicans for.

  • the wolf||

    Yet when it all falls apart the Teflon Obama administration will look for someone to blame and the insurance companies will be on that short list.

  • ||

    et when it all falls apart the Teflon Obama administration will look for someone to blame and the insurance companies will be on that short list.

    Here it is:

    AP-GfK poll: Another worry about new health law

    [...]

    In the survey, nearly half of those with job-based or other private coverage say their policies will be changing next year — mostly for the worse. Nearly 4 in 5 (77 percent) blame the changes on the Affordable Care Act, even though the trend toward leaner coverage predates the law's passage.

    [...]

    Employers trying to control their health insurance bills have been shifting costs to workers for years, but now those changes are blamed increasingly on "Obamacare" instead of the economy or insurance companies.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    As best I can figure it seems to benefit people who have expensive, chronic, pre-existing conditions.

    Them, those who now qualify for Medicaid, and 18-to-26-year-old children of federal workers who can stay on their parents' insurance plans.

    That's it, really.

  • Andrew P||

    The Medicaid expansion benefits the very core of the Democratic coalition - poor minorities. Other than that, people with expensive pre-existing conditions, as long as those conditions don't require the best doctors or hospitals. And it benefits the health care and insurance industry owners, who are now guaranteed that they will be paid. Since the Obama Democrats represent a coalition of the poor and the ultra rich, it all makes sense.

  • 2Sirius||

    I'm not even sure if the poor (minorities or otherwise) benefit from it, because at the hospital I work at, they normally just visit the emergency department since we HAVE to see them there, then don't pay the bill. It's not always like that, but typically. It might save them a few harassing phone calls from a collection agency, but that's about it. It seems to me the only ones really excited about this are the hospital administrators, because this way they get a few crumbs thrown at them from Medicaid when they treat poor patients rather than having to wait for a DSH (Disproportionate Share) payment from Medicare, which is intended to reimburse them for uncompensated care. Even people with chronic, pre-existing conditions quite often qualify for charity care if their medical expenses are really high in relation to their income, so I don't hear them getting all worked up over it either.

  • Lord Humungus||

    the Insurance mafia?

  • Pro Libertate||

    Maybe, but even they appear to be getting screwed.

  • Lord Humungus||

    I bet they were gleeful when the law passed. Be careful what you wish for.

  • Andrew P||

    Of course they are getting screwed. Obama throws all his supporters under the bus at some point. It is his MO. His entire history says so. ObamaCare is designed to ultimately put the insurance industry out of business, after allowing them to milk massive profits for a while.The whole point is to make a Single Payer system (Medicaid for All) the only viable option.

  • johnl||

    I can't wait for the shareholder lawsuits. There had better be some warnings in the Q4 reports or else the shooting starts with Q1 earnings. It would be great to see some SEC enforcement actions against firms who play hush hush for the administration.

  • Sevo||

    "It would be great to see some SEC enforcement actions against firms who play hush hush for the administration."
    Except the SEC works for Obo, as much as the IRS does.

  • johnl||

    But the SEC bureaucracy, on autopilot is going to want to enforce. It's going to take some doing to prevent an SEC vs HHS war.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    But the SEC bureaucracy, on autopilot is going to want to enforce

    The SEC was too busy surfing porn to go after Maddow, even after his shenanigans were reported to them.

    It wasn't until the whole ponzi blew up that they decided to do their job. I doubt they'll be motivated enough to pursue insurance companies unless it's politically expedient.

    Ennui and lethargy is the default stance of goverment unless movement is required to avoid dissolution.

  • CatoTheElder||

    Madoff?

  • The Last American Hero||

    I always thought the insurers were against the law, resigned to the inevitability of it getting passed, and therefore determined to participate in writing so as to minimize damage to themselves and even grab a few bucks from Uncle Sam in the process.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Probably. They're used to being under the government thumb, of course.

  • Lord Humungus||

    If they were against it, they sure didn't put push back very hard.

  • Drake||

    Insurance may be the most regulated industry in the country. Eery insurer is regulated in every state in which they do business - as well as massive federal regulations on health insurers in particular.

    Complaining in public about government is suicidal.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Property/Casualty insurance is regulated only at the state level.

    And they spend a great deal of money to ensure it stays that way, not that I blame them.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    They weren't against it at all. They thought that it would bring new customers and limit their competition and need for marketing. They willingly accepted the federal yoke in exchange for becoming utilities with a guaranteed profit level.

    And it would have worked too, if it weren't for that damn meddling American public that refused to do as they were told.

  • Andrew P||

    It would have worked if it was a better designed system. As the law was written it was guaranteed to fail. It was after all, written by advocates of a Single Payer system.

  • ||

    For grandstanding politicians and their sycophantic TEAM followers?

    This shit was passed for Obama's and Pelosi's egos, and to stroke the socialism boners of all their supporters. As always, those scum do everything for themselves but use the pretense of it being for the poor to cover themselves. No wonder they freak out about Rand's altruism ideas; they project their own abject selfishness on Rand's philosophy and hate her as a way of directing their own self-hatred elsewhere.

    Nothing these people do is for any other reason but their twisted, jealous, envious personal issues. They dress it up about being for the less fortunate but all the outcomes of their schemes prove that's a lie, because if they actually gave a fucking shit they'd look at consequences, which as we all know, they ignore so completely that reality isn't even a factor.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Of course, my question was rhetorical, but the great news is that there are a lot of people really asking this question, many for the first time in connection with any social welfare program.

  • John||

    I think what happened was they all wanted to make "history" and finally get health reform. The problem was that they were complete fucking morons who had no idea what they were doing. But once they started they couldn't admit they had no idea what they were doing. They had pass something. So that is what they did. And the four years since has been nothing but one long exercise in delaying and trying to wish away the disaster they had created.

  • ||

    You're just reinforcing my point, John, that they did this for themselves. In your version, they did it for their legacy, to make history, which is almost assuredly a factor. But that plays into exactly what I said: this wasn't for poor people or to help everyone get insurance; this was for them. For their legacy. For their ego. For them.

  • John||

    Yes I was reinforcing your point. Sorry I didn't make that clear. I think you are dead on in saying this was about ego.

  • ziggy||

    Completely agree. What always amazes me is how people never realize this with politicians! The overwhelming majority just like the power and pass laws that will either benefit them either financially or by "stroking their ego".

  • ||

    This is what happened.

    According to these writers, it is indeed fortunate that Heaven has bestowed upon certain men — governors and legislators — the exact opposite inclinations, not only for their own sake but also for the sake of the rest of the world! While mankind tends toward evil, the legislators yearn for good; while mankind advances toward darkness, the legislators aspire for enlightenment; while mankind is drawn toward vice, the legislators are attracted toward virtue. Since they have decided that this is the true state of affairs, they then demand the use of force in order to substitute their own inclinations for those of the human race.

    Open at random any book on philosophy, politics, or history, and you will probably see how deeply rooted in our country is this idea — the child of classical studies, the mother of socialism. In all of them, you will probably find this idea that mankind is merely inert matter, receiving life, organization, morality, and prosperity from the power of the state. And even worse, it will be stated that mankind tends toward degeneration, and is stopped from this downward course only by the mysterious hand of the legislator. Conventional classical thought everywhere says that behind passive society there is a concealed power called law or legislator (or called by some other terminology that designates some unnamed person or persons of undisputed influence and authority) which moves, controls, benefits, and improves mankind.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Doesn't Bastiat get tired of being right all the time?

    Also from The Law: "Oh, sublime writers! Please remember sometimes that this clay, this sand, and this manure which you so arbitrarily dispose of, are men! They are your equals! They are intelligent and free human beings like yourselves! As you have, they too have received from God the faculty to observe, to plan ahead, to think, and to judge for themselves!"

  • Sudden||

    they too have received from God

    SOCONZ.... KULTURE WARZ!1!1!!!

    /progtard

  • Bill Dalasio||

    "Doesn't Bastiat get tired of being right all the time?"

    That would make an awesome t-shirt.

  • ||

    Who cares what some old French guy has to say?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    His shit's all fucked up and he talks like a fag.

  • Rufus J. Fisk||

    where's your tattoo?

  • ||

    Not to mention, he totally interrupted me during an episode of "Ow, My Balls!" That is not cool!

  • tarran||

    I seem to recall that they were frantically and hastily slapping provision after provision into the law in order to get different legislators to agree to it. The law at 9PM would be substantially different from the law at 8PM and 10PM.

    There was no sober consideration whatsoever. If one used this method to cook Thanksgiving dinner, half the guests would get salmonella poisoning from the turkey guts that were tossed on the apple pie as a garnish to make room for the juicer pureeing the smores for the mashed potato a la mode.

  • John||

    I honestly think the original plan was to create a public option and destroy the individual insurance market forcing millions of people into that option. Then the thinking went, once people were on the public option and saw how wonderful it was, it would be expanded until everyone was on it and we had single payer.

    The problem was that the public option couldn't pass. So the back up plan was to pass it anyway and delay its implementation. They thought that passing comprehensive health reform would ensure a Democratic majority for the next generation. So, they figured they could just put the public option back in after they won big in the 2010 midterms. The problem was they got killed in the midterms. So the plan as passed is going to create millions of uninsured. And they have known this and just have ignored it and hoped for the best.

  • creech||

    I agree -the tacit backroom talk was that this was a way to piss off enough people that the majority would eventually demand a "Medicare for Everyone" solution.

  • Andrew S.||

    So, what you're saying is that this is clearly the fault of the obstructionist rethuglicans?

  • Sudden||

    Now they're banking on the millions of uninsured, blaming the insurers for the whole mess they created, and then they'll say "hey, I know how we can fix it: that public option we originally wanted."

  • Lord Humungus||

    The Dems certainly picked a really shitty way of making Healtcare "better". It definitely has all the earmarks of being written by a committee, not anyone with a grand vision of actually making healthcare affordable. I mean it just doubles down on stupidity. Yeah, I know - no shock there.

  • Lord Humungus||

    or what Tarran said, which sounds better than my rambling.

  • CatoTheElder||

    The progressives knew that the Senate bill sucked. They also thought they could work out the details in conference committee. Then Scott Brown did the unimaginable, and won a Senate seat previously held by Ted Kennedy in Massachusetts. So the House voted for the Senate bill, knowing full well that it sucked, since a Senate vote on a bill out of conference would certainly fail.

    There were two things that they probably did not know. First, just how bad the PPACA sucked. And, second, just how incompetent the Obama Administration would prove to be.

    The plan was for PPACA to fail forward into single payer in about five years. Little did the progressives know that PPACA flop from the get-go and prove to any moderately objective person that the US government is only good at fleecing taxpayers and killing brown people.

  • amelia||

    And for those who had doubts that it would work out, and those who knew it wouldn't work and wanted single payer all along, taking a hammer to the existing system was just the price to pay for getting single payer down the line. But for the most part, I'm guessing that event the doubters didn't anticipate the transition going this badly. So now they're just ignoring it as best they can and thinking wistfully about getting Hillary in the White House to soothe themselves.

  • amelia||

    Well duh. I should read ahead before putting my obviousness on display!

  • Andrew P||

    They did know what they were doing. They may not have anticipated a big enough backlash to lose the House for 2 straight election cycles over it, though, but they designed a system that would wreck the preexisting system and make a Single Payer system the only realistic option. And their ultimate plans may yet work. 2-3 years from now, expansion of Medicaid and Medicare to everyone may be the only viable path, regardless of what happens in the Midterm election. If employers drop insurance en masse and the insurance industry abandons ObamaCare, what choice will there be? Especially if the market crashes in 2015, unemployment doubles, and most Americans become poor.

  • BSubversive.com||

    It was on Obama's to do list. Fix healthcare. The law passed and he got to check it off the list and get back to golf. As long as you remember that everything Obama or any other pol does is to benefit themselves, we get the consequences they get the benefits.

  • Drake||

    It was passed for the politicians and bureaucrats to have more control over the economy and our lives. HHS and the IRS are the biggest beneficiaries.

  • GILMORE||

    ^^uh, what he said.

  • GILMORE||

    "Pro Libertate|12.13.13 @ 1:01PM|#

    Fascinating. Just who, in fact, was this law passed for then?"

    I would think it was obvious =

    Politicians.

    The Progs (or their evolutionary forebears) have been trying to 'take over' healthcare ever since WWII. Its been a perennial dream of the left to own Health as "their" issue. There have been generations of wonks coming up with committee-invented versions of 'new frameworks' to implement... so much so that they effectively ceased to have any real connection to the reality of how the healthcare market actually *works*. They've been pushing ideas around on paper for so long, the issue has primarily been *getting something PASSED as a law*, full stop.

    Now that their dream has come true, they are finding that reality has a funny way of not conforming to their legislative mandates. In addition, rather than win the gratitude of the "masses" they so frequently pretend to speak for, they've become completely disassociated with the public, to the point where they are plainly frustrated that people wont just shut up and Produce The Intended Results. They continue to remind everyone of the fundamental "good intentions" of the law.... but unlike other Good Intentions laws, this one is affecting EVERYONE (normally its always 'for someone else's own-good, not their own), and for the majority its creating pain and problems and expenses. Which you can't "feel-good"-rhetoric away.

    Its only going to get uglier.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Control of healthcare could mean an insane amount of power over personal behavior and decision-making, too, especially if they get their goal of socialized medicine.

  • Andrew P||

    Since WW II? This has been a Progressive dream for far longer, since at least the Progressive movement began in the late 1880s. It has been the dream of Socialists ever since Marx wrote his Communist manifesto. Dreams this grandiose and long standing do not ever die. True believers will move heaven and earth and pay any price to make their dreams a reality. One little problem, though. Most industrialized countries socialized medicine during an era when substantial economic growth still existed. That era is now over, and that means we don't have the kind of growth necessary to smooth over the political rifts caused by huge redistribution schemes.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Just who, in fact, was this law passed for then?

    Insurance companies and bureaucrats.

  • itsnotmeitsyou||

    Obama's legacy, that's who. All those whiney uninsured people just don't understand his brilliance. They should stop complaining and fall in line. Obama's legacy is the ONLY outcome that matters.

    Wait... shit.

  • Ted S.||

    The politicians, of course.

  • golds||

    A lot of reasons are listed for the passing of this law. Many of them are sort of correct as they are side issues. The real reason the Democratic Party has wanted to pass a health care law of this type is to campaign on.

    It was even used in the last election. Vote Democrat as Republicans want to take your health care way from you. That is the tv commercial that has millions walking in voting....Democrat.

    Who does it help? Democrat politicians, their cronies, and their bank accounts.

  • KajunTex||

    Seeing as the law was passed in the dark bowels of the Liberal Elitist Cronies and against the will of the vast majority of American citizens...I suspect that all the Democrats and their cronies have and are feeling the financial windfall....Obama friends built the site at over $600 million and counting, the drug companies suppressed generic drugs....we will not find out for a generation the rest of the lies hidden by the Obama Regime

  • msimmons||

    The law was passed as an interim step and is working as designed. You have to show people how the insurance industry is a complete failure on the road to single payer (and serfdom).

  • fish_remote||

    Bu.bu bu...but shreeky said there was another poll that show the law was being received positively.

  • Dweebston||

    "Positive" meaning most Americans merely want to see the law changed significantly.

    Once you start chipping away at it, the whole edifice collapses to expose the workings of the infernal device. What can you take away that doesn't castrate or utterly distort an already appalling law? The mandates? Differential pricing? The “minimum standards” that resulted in so many cancellations? And good luck walking those back, since it’s already happening. The Medicaid expansion? Curtailing or expanding the subsidies offered? Any one of these changes would significantly compromise a law which even in its infancy already reeks of failure, and any change would likely cascade to make the rest of it feasible.

    Reforming the law is a defacto repeal.

  • Lord Humungus||

    I imagine lots of voters would just love the law if you removed the mandates, the new policy thresholds, and if somehow the resulting higher prices dropped. Of course if would cause the insurance companies to go bankrupt...

  • ||

    Omelets, eggshells, you know the drill.

  • Being Waterboarded||

    On NPR this morning they were discussing how insurance companies were crafting new policies to meet the law, and in order to maintain affordability, they decided to remove coverage for procedures done at certain facilities (like higher priced uni hospitals, children's hospitals, etc.). Some specialty procedures at such facilities would still be covered, but the insurance company would get to decide whether the patient really needed the procedure. People were appalled at this outcome - that the insurer would make medical decisions. If the insurance policies are found to be legal, then I foresee these type of policies expanding as more companies compete for the customers on the low end. Ultimately, I think that would lead to outcry when some patient dies because an insurer denied some care, and a government agency will then be created to make such coverage decisions on behalf of the insurers.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Brilliant. It's brilliant. I know what they're going to do. Outsource medical services. "Here you are, sir, a referral to a fully paid procedure in lovely Laos."

  • johnl||

    I would be ok with that.

  • Pro Libertate||

    ". . .as performed by this highly trained and qualified duck."

  • BiMonSciFiCon||

    I have been to Laos. I would not.

  • eyeroller||

    It's quite simple: since the insurers can no longer deny coverage, they'll have to deny treatment.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Setting a bone? I'm sorry, sir, that's an experimental procedure. Not covered.

  • SusanM||

    but...but...ACCESS!!!

  • Sevo||

    "People were appalled at this outcome"
    Fortunately, not all people were, and to those who were, I'll point out 'you got what you paid for; suck it, pal!'

  • Bryan C||

    1. Release rock over foot.

    2. Express appalled outrage at dreadful foot injury.

  • mr lizard||

    Feature.... No bugs here.

  • CatoTheElder||

    It's high time for you libertarians to face up to the facts. After all, this is the Reason website, and you guys are supposed to be all sorts of objective.

    President Obama, Rep. Pelosi, and Sen. Reid let you have your way when they passed the PPACA. It was a Republican, market-based system designed by the Heritage Foundation. It followed on the design of Republican Romney's plan in Massachusetts.

    They created a market-based system, with private insurers, private pharma, private hospitals, private physicians, and other private providers.

    The markets failed.

    The Republican plan for healthcare failed.

    It should be clear it's time for single payer, regardless of whether one is a Republican, Democrat, progressive, conservative, or libertarian.

    /sarc

  • Brian D||

    Clearly the president has not made enough speeches clarifying how great the law really is to the ignorant masses.

  • The Other Kevin||

    When the health law passed back in 2010, the thinking amongst many Democrats was that controversy around the overhaul would eventually fade, and the law would become popular as people felt its effects.

    Here's why the Dems are going to be hit hard next year. The effects are not happening to "some people" you hear about on the radio. More and more of us will lose our insurance, or will personally know someone who will. If that hasn't happened already. When it comes time to vote, people will remember being screwed. They will remember that they are out the extra $300 every month, or that they can no longer see their doctor. It won't be some story they heard 6 months ago.

    This is no longer an abstraction, these problems are becoming real for a lot of us.

  • SusanM||

    And people will be getting 10 reminders of how much this sucks until election day.

  • John||

    And since they passed it without a single Republican vote, they own the entire thing. And better still, since it got pass cloture in the Senate by a single vote, every single Democrat in the Senate cast what amounts to the deciding vote for it. You couldn't dream up a situation that would screw them worse.

  • ||

    Just watch - if one of those (D) senators switches parties, the claim will be that Obamacare was a bipartisan effort.

  • SusanM||

    Sad thing is, though, that now that they're scenting blood, they're ramping up the Culture War shit again.

    We can have a long chat about morality and virtue later, but the thing is that people generally don't want the government up in their business for any reason.

  • John||

    The problem is that the Democrats live and die by the culture war and are the aggressors. Expect the Democrats to do everything they can to keep the culture war going over the next couple of years. Expect to see the government fucking with religious people to the maximum extent possible in hopes of creating culture war issues when the religious fight back.

  • SusanM||

    You've got a point, there.

  • CatoTheElder||

    No! No! No!

    PPACA is a Republican bill. It was designed by the Heritage Foundation. Mitt Romney, the Republican nominee, pushed a similar program in Massachusetts.

    The Democrats wanted single payer, but conceded to the Republicans with PPACA.

    Then the Republicans refused to cooperate with their own plan.

    This is all the Republicans' fault, and only a koolaid drinking partisan would think otherwise.

    This is going to be repeated over and over and over again until you finally get it!

  • SusanM||

    cuz', you know, racism and stuff.

  • amelia||

    This is the point to make when Obama defenders say it was a bad Republican plan modeled on Romneycare.

  • johnl||

    AFP is already running TV spots targeting vulnerable Dems.

  • Pro Libertate||

    My premiums went up and my deductibles doubled. And, no doubt, more tests and procedures will be added to the "not covered" list. And I'm in the upper-middle class category. What happens to the people who bleed already to get adequate insurance and coverage? This law is making things worse for almost everyone. In fact, it's so bad that even today, I'm surprised the Democrats haven't agreed to repeal it. They'll bleed come November if they don't.

  • ||

    it represents a body blow for the law

    For how many people does that cause an immediate and unavoidable Nintendo flashback?

  • SusanM||

    For me certainly, Glass Joe...

  • Pro Libertate||

    What? Just hit him in the head.

  • Swiss Servator, Alps avast!||

    PISTON HURRICANE!

  • ||

    JOIN THE NINTENDO FUN CLUB TODAY, MAC!!

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    It is generally a painful experience for the left when it gets what it wants on a major policy issue -- there are not that many people out there who buy into the managed society, certainly not for themselves. Sure, people like free stuff. They are not libertarian. The right sees this and despairs. The left sees this and thinks that this means that the American public is "functionally progressive", despite only around 1/5th of the American public identifying as such. They then proceed to ram their agenda -- teeth and all -- through the legislature when they have power, thinking that any protest is non-representative and transient.

    Here's the thing: no one particularly likes the non-free stuff aspects of government. The only visible parts of the prog agenda that survive contact with the American public are the giveaways, but that is a small part of the proggie agenda. In the case of ObamaCare, it is almost non-existent.

    In all likelihood, ObamaCare will die -- either a death of a thousand cuts through piecemeal bills, death in the bureaucracy and courts, or a prominent repeal effort. One way or another, it will be an albatross on the backs of progs everywhere until the voting public forgets why they hated progressives so much in the first place.

  • John||

    The thing to remember is that the Left hadn't gotten what it wanted since the 1970s. They had spent the 80s, 90s, and 00s playing defense trying to preserve what they already had gained. So an entire generation of leftist grew up in a fantasy world having never seen what them getting their way actually looked like.

    Democratic politicians who lived through the 1970s tended to be a bit more humble and understand that even though they didn't like them, the Republicans and the Right occasionally had a good point and it was usually about the economy. They understood that to do anything the economy had to be good and that for the economy to be good there was a limit to how much your could regulate it.

    The Democrats who grew up too late to have experienced the 70s never learned those lessens. They never had the experience of getting their way and seeing it turn into a disaster. The whole journolist crowd are a good example of this type. They are totally smug and uninformed and completely unaware of the possibility they might be wrong about something.

    That crowd is who gave us this monstrosity. Its failure is going to be a soul crushing experience for all of them.

  • ||

    We can only hope, John. We can only hope. Maybe they'll be considerate enough not to fall on someone when they jump out of windows.

  • John||

    That too.

  • Lord Humungus||

    I blame Bush.

    The left got so rabid over his presidency that they thought the '06 and '08 elections were proof enough of their "mandate from teh people". Now was the time of the ascendency. They really have gone batshit crazy, off the rails with this shit. Back in the days, lefties hid their agenda behind a thick veneer of populism.

  • John||

    They really went insane after Bush v. Gore and 911. They could not handle losing a close decision before the court. Leftist look at the Supreme Court as their personal tool for political advancement. And 911 put lie to multiculturalism and is something that few of them have really come to terms with.

    The combination of those two things and Bush winning again in 04 caused them to completely lose touch with reality. I kept thinking during the 00s that something had to be done to fix the Democratic party because God help us when they took power again.

  • Overt||

    I don't really agree that the 80s/90s were about defense for the Dems. They were winning hearts and minds all that time.

    Bush played to the center (fiscally) so hard that the Democrats needed to out Leftist him in 08.

    In the 80's GOP was proposing reductions to Social Security and Medicare while promising to eliminate the Department of Education. Bush ran on the premise of No Child Left Behind and Medicare Part D.

    I think the big problem is that the Dems saw these obvious examples of a public demanding more from the government, and thought that meant they were good to just nationalize everything. In reality, Americans hadn't had recent experience with how bad the government is at this shit, so the Government seemed more attractive for limited cases. The best thing about Obamacare is that it is making us cynics again.

  • ||

    I'm actually glad that they got so overconfident that they engaged in epic mask-slippage. Many of us knew that they were actually all about, but the mask slipping really showed a lot of people who didn't.

    One of the best personality flaws of those who like to control others is their inability to stay concealed when they think they're close to winning. They have the opposite of a poker face, and it fucks them every time they think they're close to getting something they want.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    That is true. Voters always vote for progs thinking, "Free Things X, Y, and Z sound good" and end up surprised and dejected that the progs decided to pass Bills Criminalizing Crimes Against the People A, B, and C. The truth is that A, B, and C *are* the point -- X, Y, and Z are at best a subset of larger plans A, B, and C, and at worst a complete lie meant to get people to support those plans.

    Except in cases where costs are highly concentrated among a group of citizens most people don't interact with, A, B, and C usually don't survive first contact with the voting public because that is not what they voted for in the first place.

  • Andrew P||

    Free things must be paid for by someone. Most Low Info Voters don't realize that if they don't know who the sucker paying for it all is, they should always look in the mirror.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Yup. If the left were simply about free stuff, they would not be as despised as they are. They would also not be as economically poisonous.

    Of course, if the left were to abandon managed society programs they would no longer be the left.

  • SusanM||

  • rudehost||

    "The thing to remember is that the Left hadn't gotten what it wanted since the 1970s"

    The left has gotten plenty of what it wants. Keep in mind GWB socialized the airline security workers, created a new prescription drug entitlement and criminalized some political speech. I think what you really meant is the biggest progressive policy achievements in recent years have been at the hands of republicans.

  • ||

    I guess they'll just have to keep making the insurance companies and doctors jump through multiple bureaucratic hoops. Then when one of the inevitably stumbles and does something unpopular the government can point to the insurers and say "See! Market failure! We need single-payer to fix this just like happy, healthy Europe!"

    Of course the sycophants and brain-dead true believer progressives will lap it up and recite the talking points, but how could the average voter possible trust the Democrats to 'fix' healthcare again?

    All it would take is for a slightly less stupid member of the Stupid Party to point out that the law gives HHS incredibly broad regulatory authority over the health insurance and health care industry and the jig should be up.

  • SusanM||

  • BakedPenguin||

    I could totally see Obama calling someone a pig-eyed sack of shit.

  • Andrew S.||

    President Obama, for those people who didn't ruin their families' Thanksgiving by trying to berate everyone about Obamacare, now wants people to ruin Christmas for the same reason.

  • ||

    It is, however, appropriate to discuss Obamacare at Festivus during the Airing of Grievances.

    I GOTTA LOT OF PROBLEMS WITH YOU PEOPLE!

  • ||

    And you - Cougar. You couldn't smooth a silk sheet if you had a hot date with a babe...I lost my train of thought.

  • fish_remote||

    I find your belief system fascinating!

  • Rufus J. Fisk||

    Festivus Yes, Obamacare No!

  • BakedPenguin||

    Some good replies there.

  • LynchPin1477||

    I don't really know how twitter works, but the replies to that tweet in your link are almost universally negative. Which is awesome. I can only hope it is a representative sample.

  • Loki||

    Yeah, because family holiday gatherings are totally the right time an place to berate your rethuglikkkan relatives about healthcare. Seriously? Fuck this shithead.

  • Sevo||

    "Only 29 percent of uninsured young adults said they expected to enroll."
    When it becomes revealed preference, I'll believe it.

  • John||

    "Expected to enroll" isn't the same as "enrolled". The "death spiral" seems pretty inevitable now doesn't it?

  • Sevo||

    I posted them in the AM Links, but the Chron had two stories:
    1) 'Only a "few" CA residents lost insurance', where the boot-licker defines "few" as ~1m. His word, "few".
    2) 'Sign-ups are rising!'; 175K compared to the 1m losing insurance. And 'sign-ups' undefined.
    You'd think that water would be getting heavy, but not for dedicated lefties.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I have a prexisting condition, and even when I was uninsured, I was against ObamaCare.

    ...and I can prove it!

    Look in the archives here at Hit & Run. It's all there.

    I knew I wasn't alone.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    Ditto

  • amelia||

    I have pre-existing conditions, was denied coverage twice in the last two years, and am still opposed to both Obamacare and single payer. I don't expect to be insured any time soon unless I get a full-time, professional level job, either.

  • waffles||

    In 2008 yinz told me I would be getting a pony. I'm older now and still pony-less. What gives?

  • ||

    While this is not surprising, one ought not to get too overjoyed. The natural response of the Left will be their archetypical one - that the poor / uninsured / unwashed are simply too stupid, selfish, or racist to realize just how valuable are the good intentions of the Left when made flesh. The stupid proletariat will be blamed, as will mysterious shadow-organizations campaigning for the Right (KOCHTOPUS!!!) that preyed upon the addled brains of our poor deluded countrymen. It will be asserted that once people Really Understand in a few years, they will be bless the current overlords for their generosity.

    Years will pass.

    As the system collapses under its own weight and economic and philosophic inconsistency, the failure will be blamed on the attempts to "fix" or neutralize the more hideous parts of the law over time. Any previously-uttered predictions of rousing success will be disavowed or lost to history. The Left will campaign for decades on "restoring the promise" that Obamacare intended all along.

    No wisdom will be gained. People will be worse off.

    Here ends the lesson.

  • mkreitler||

    "The exact group the law was designed to help have instead turned on the law."

    Something about this triggered an epiphany: Progressives are the Agents from the Matrix. See for yourself:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32jHiAkQzfk

  • ||

    I just turned on the TV and there is shitweasel swearing we can all keep our plans and docs...period.

    I hardly know what to say about any of this. I am just watching, jaw dropped, completely fascinated. I knew they were going to fuck things up, but never in my wildest dreams did I imagine how badly. The more Obumbles doubles down the more joy I feel. He seems determined to not only step on his own dick, but to rip it right off. Yay!

    Does that make me a bad person?

  • SusanM||

    No worse than me...

    "@BarackObama I'm going to be spending x-mas talking about Obamacare. And how it's made the health care I need unaffordable. Best wishes..."

    I'm definitely on the no-fly list at this point :P

  • BiMonSciFiCon||

    RIP. I'm assuming you've already been droned.

  • SusanM||

    No, but as yo-ddjaioeie9r49r9fiojfwjiow;mkd

    I would like to go on record for supporting our most glorious leader an no must retire from commenting to work for the social good.

  • Andrew P||

    He said all that stuff with the full knowledge that most low info voters won't realize they have been lied to until it is too late.

  • Lost in AZ||

    You're missing a huge point - vast numbers of the uninsured in this country are working poor southern conservatives who NEVER supported this law. The polls quoted here don't show that Obamacare has "lost" the uninsured, there is a question as to whether they ever had it.

  • RG||

    The hypocritical tears are so delicious!

    New York City cultural elite losing their coverage

    http://reason.com/24-7/2013/12.....-h#comment

    "Ms. Meinwald, the lawyer, said she was a lifelong Democrat who still supported better health care for all, but had she known what was in store for her, she would have voted for Mitt Romney."

    “We are the Obama people,” said Camille Sweeney, a New York writer and member of the Authors Guild.

    “I’m for it,” she said. “But what is the reality of it?”

  • RG||

    The hypocritical tears are so delicious!

    New York City cultural elite losing their coverage

    http://reason.com/24-7/2013/12.....-h#comment

    "Ms. Meinwald, the lawyer, said she was a lifelong Democrat who still supported better health care for all, but had she known what was in store for her, she would have voted for Mitt Romney."

    “We are the Obama people,” said Camille Sweeney, a New York writer and member of the Authors Guild.

    “I’m for it,” she said. “But what is the reality of it?”

  • RG||

    The hypocritical tears are so delicious!

    New York City cultural elite losing their coverage

    http://reason.com/24-7/2013/12.....-h#comment

    "Ms. Meinwald, the lawyer, said she was a lifelong Democrat who still supported better health care for all, but had she known what was in store for her, she would have voted for Mitt Romney."

    “We are the Obama people,” said Camille Sweeney, a New York writer and member of the Authors Guild.

    “I’m for it,” she said. “But what is the reality of it?”

  • RG||

    The hypocritical tears are so delicious!

    New York City cultural elite losing their coverage

    http://reason.com/24-7/2013/12.....-h#comment

    "Ms. Meinwald, the lawyer, said she was a lifelong Democrat who still supported better health care for all, but had she known what was in store for her, she would have voted for Mitt Romney."

    “We are the Obama people,” said Camille Sweeney, a New York writer and member of the Authors Guild.

    “I’m for it,” she said. “But what is the reality of it?”

  • RG||

    The hypocritical tears are so delicious!

    New York City cultural elite losing their coverage

    http://reason.com/24-7/2013/12.....-h#comment

    "Ms. Meinwald, the lawyer, said she was a lifelong Democrat who still supported better health care for all, but had she known what was in store for her, she would have voted for Mitt Romney."

    “We are the Obama people,” said Camille Sweeney, a New York writer and member of the Authors Guild.

    “I’m for it,” she said. “But what is the reality of it?”

  • Andrew S.||

    Funny enough that I don't mind the quintuple post.

  • 0x90||

    This is why I support mandatory trigger-locks for Submit buttons.

  • theheat||

    The insurance companies absolutely wanted this to pass. A law that said EVERYONE needs to buy insurance??!! Guaranteed business!

  • Michael S. Langston||

    The insurance companies absolutely wanted this to pass.

    Citation please? As while I do agree with your point overall, that insurance companies would welcome regulations which reduce future competition, that doesn't by itself mean insurance companies were in favor of this law.

    & quick note - the fact they helped craft it, isn't proof, as whether they hate, like, or love it, the fact the law was going to pass and includes tons of new health insurance regulations means they were going to do everything in their power to be at the table when it was written and push it in various directions when possible.

    But maybe insurance companies really did want this - I'm not sure, but I don't see the evidence.

    If you have a link or two - I'm interested.

  • Wlinden||

    " Obamacare isn’t just a bad system. It’s a bad system that’s worse than the old bad system."

    I suspect that was exactly the point. The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy will now cry "See! We tried a compromise, and it didn't work! This proves that there is no alternative to a government-run, er, SINGLE-PAYER system."

  • Cytotoxic||

    Given the state this is in kind of takes the sting out of the scrotus decision. They could have just passed ACA no strings attached and we would be worse off. The scrotus to its limited credit did make subtle but important sabotage.

  • Blacksaint||

    Obamacare is the biggest example of Mass stupidly and Gross incompetence ever displayed by a political party!

  • theakeman||

    Come On! Obamacare will work just swell as soon as everyone gets their big subsidy checks! - http://modeltstocktrends.blogs.....gical.html

  • barry1817||

    and who could have possibly thought that support for a bill that nobody read, that was full of lies, and is a failure would not lose support, when people finally read what had to be passed to learn what was in it.

  • Jocon307||

    "Part of the thinking behind that argument was that the American health system was already so bad that nothing could really be worse."

    Really? A system were 85% of the population had health ins. and 87% of those people were happy with it?

    That's over a 70% satisfaction rate, nothing could be worse than that?

    Who said this? Who thought this? And how stupid were they?

  • shipley130||

    Obama hasn't achieved all that he wants, so he is going to ply more of that fake charm he is so good at. When his "deadline" draws near, we will witness his true, vindictive nature. He's not going to tolerate any more heckling, so be careful out there in Obamaland.

  • ebola131||

    Some of us read the obamanation of a law.
    We warned you.

  • ibcbet||

    It was passed for the politicians and bureaucrats to have more control over the economy and our lives. HHS and the IRS are the biggest beneficiaries.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement