Affordable Care Act & Presidential Nominations - some questions

[Jacob]

I came across this article about church groups - traditionally solidly GOP - lobbying for fixes to the ACA, while the GOP response so far has been tepid on the grounds that the whole kit & kaboodle should be revoked. That in itself is an interesting wrinkle, I thought: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2013_06/a_test_of_republican_loyalties045300.php

It brought up a more general question (well two, really) which I was hoping some of the languishite American not-fan-of-Obama posters could shed some light on for me.

What's the game plan with the ACA? There are a lot of votes to repeal it that won't go anywhere for the time being, a general unwillingness to do anything to tweak it, and a fair amount general resistance on the local level. How is that working out for the GOP, and how will it work out in the medium turn if things go according to plan? Is it that opposition to the ACA is a good motivator for important groups of GOP voters? Do you expect that the GOP will actually end up in a position to reverse it? Or is the plan to make it as cumbersome as possible and turn it into a millstone for the Democrats with the thing is a shambles and it's clear to everyone?

Secondly, there seems to be a general unwillingness to play ball on nominations. What's the deal here? Is it just a desire to flip Obama the bird, make his life as difficult as possible, and make him come across as ineffective as possible? Or is there something more to it?

... or are these questions based on incorrect premises? If so, which ones?

[OttoVonBismarck]

I'm not an Obama or Obamacare fan*, and I'd say the most reasonable of us agree with John Boehner's comments after the Presidential election last November: "Obamacare is law of the land."

Everything else is just random fools showboating without any hope of real legislation happening.

*I think portions of the legislation introduced needed reforms, but on the whole it combines a lot of the negative elements of a free market healthcare system with a lot of the negative elements of a socialized system without really giving us the great cost controls that are inherent with true single-payer socialized medicine.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Also, on the nominations some are just foot dragging while others have an ideological cause. Recently McConnell let several nominations go through that the Republicans in the Senate had been blocking, they had no serious ideological problem with any of the nominees, they were just holding them up to be recalcitrant and after a few meetings agreed to ease the log jam. With a lot of the judicial nominees, it's an old tactic. The GOP has a strong contingent that does not want to appoint anyone to any Federal bench (at any level of Federal court) who is pro-choice, because they want to gradually reverse Roe v. Wade from the ground up and they need pliable judges throughout the Federal judiciary to do that. (A ground up reversal basically entails ever-increasing regulations of abortion that ultimately make them extremely difficult for most women to acquire, states like Mississippi for example are what the near-end result of such policies look like.)

Then some of the nominations are the result of ongoing political disputes. For example the Republicans inherently disagree with the way the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was set up, back when it was created they did not control either House so their views on the CFPB were largely ignored. They want structural changes done to the CFPB, and since Obama will not approve such legislation (nor would Senate Democrats) the Republicans want to continually block the appointment of a CFPB Director because legally many of its actions cannot be undertaken without a Director--and the "recess appointment" of the Director leaves all of the CFPB rulings in legal limbo.

[Jacob]

Thanks Otto

[CountDeMoney]

I'll let you guys know how it goes for me;  I'll be enrolling in Obamacare in October for the January 1 kickoff here in Maryland, as my COBRA coverage with BlueCross ScrewFirst will expire at the end of the year.

[alfred russel]

As you have probably picked up, there was a line of thought that there were some rough edges to health care reform when it passed, but they could be fixed later (passing the bill was challenging enough at the time).

Now there is a Republican line of thought to refuse to cooperate at all on fixing any rough edges, with the hope that they will be politically embarrassing and democrats will take the blame, and maybe cause the entire system to fail.

[Jacob]

And how likely is it that this will work?

[alfred russel]

And how likely is it that this will work?

I don't know enough to give an informed answer. My guess is that the reforms will generally work in spite of obstructionism though there will be some ugly results in places.

But if for some reason it fails, I would think Obama will take the blame.

[frunk]

And how likely is it that this will work?

I don't know enough to give an informed answer. My guess is that the reforms will generally work in spite of obstructionism though there will be some ugly results in places.

But if for some reason it fails, I would think Obama will take the blame.

I don't think it will "fail" outright, but it's quite possible (and even likely) that there are some loopholes or problems that will end up turning into huge messes unless addressed.

[derspiess]

What rough edges are the Democrats trying to fix?

[Admiral Yi]

What rough edges are the Democrats trying to fix?

One I'm aware of is the uncertainty whether the income limits are for individuals or households.

[Razgovory]

There was a taped and candid conversation between Petreus and some Fox News flunky, they were discussing that if they don't beat Obama in November their chances of abolishing the affordable health care planewere starting to look dim.  Petreus didn't seem to care, but the gofer for Murdoc was concerned.  She seemed to be of the opinion that 3 democratic electoral victories would essentially make it an institution.  I don't remember if she meant Congressional as well as Presidential or just Presidential.  If Presidential they may still have a chance to overturn it, but I suspect the chances are slim even if they do get a Republican in the White House.  I think a lot of the senior leadership has realized that SS Obamacare has already sailed.

[Jacob]

What rough edges are the Democrats trying to fix?

I linked to one in the original post.