Regarding the argument that the delay in ACA implementation is a political plus for the president...

[WilliamPitt]

With the announcement that the Obama administration is delaying implementation of several key aspects of the ACA, I've seen a few people make the argumernt that it's a good thing in the long run, at least in a political sense, because it takes away the GOP's ability to run against the aspects that are now on hold in the upcoming midterms.

My concern is that by doing this, Obama has actually made it easier for the GOP to run against the ACA. Before this, their arguments would have required at least a modicum of detail to explain why these now-delayed requirements are onerous and terrible. With this delay, however, they can downshift to Plan B, which involves only this:

"See! It doesn't work! See! It doesn't work! See! It doesn't work! See! It doesn't work! See! It doesn't work! See! It doesn't work! See! It doesn't work! See! It doesn't work! See! It doesn't work! See! It doesn't work! See! It doesn't work! See! It doesn't work! See! It doesn't work! See! It doesn't work! See! It doesn't work! See! It doesn't work! See! It doesn't work! See! It doesn't work!"

...lather rinse repeat, all the way to November 2014.

We'll see, I guess.

Thoughts?

[GeorgeGist]

1. I see it differently.

People will DIE because of this delay.

[HeroInAHalfShell]

2. so many workers had their hours cut because of this, not I'm sure they will not get them back

now they have to wait till 2015 before they get help paying for their health care.

This hurts the poor.

[leftstreet]

3. Is the individual mandate being delayed?

That would help at the midterms

[Le Taz Hot]

8. Nope.

[leftstreet]

10. 'Hillary 2016! I'll repeal the Individual Mandate!'

I guess that would work

Such brilliant chess-playing!

[unblock]

12. not, afaik, at the moment. but that doesn't rule out a delay of that in the near future.

if the obama team were really devious, they would wait a couple months for the republicans to waste time revising their strategy to base it on an anti-individual mandate, then in turn pull *that* rug from under them as well....

as with the employer penalties, whether or not this is a policy plus is a different question.

[mike_c]

4. if hurting the poor and the sick has a political upside....

Damn, that's cold.

[forestpath]

6. [phone]

[HeroInAHalfShell]

14. exactly!!! how can people not see this!!??!?!?!?!!

[alc]

5. there's one way it could be a "plus"

If the actual implementation would make things politically worse than the delay. I have to believe that this is exactly what they are saying. If this is minimizing the damage for 2014 it doesn't bode well for 2016.

[Le Taz Hot]

7. This is going to backfire in a bad way.

This is what the populace will see: The corporations are exempt from mandated health care while the average American is not.

[unblock]

9. purely from the political perspective, sure, they'll always argue against obamacare, but

their remaining arguments are plan b. plan a, involving pissed off employers laying off employees and being able to point to actual bottom line impact would all have been a much stronger anti-obamacare argument.

they'll always have an argument, and they'll lie if they need to, so we can't base our strategy on that. but anything that reduces their arguments to less effective ones is a political plus, at least as far as that goes.


whether this is a policy plus or not is another matter....

[forestpath]

11. Not only is it a ludicrous rationale that cruelly treats people who need

health insurance as political pawns, if you carry it to its logical conclusion it means ACA will NEVER be implemented since the same excuse can be trotted out every two years.

[Skip Intro]

13. Two things:

First, is it really a good thing that Obama is playing politics with Americans' healthcare?

Second, why would delaying key parts of the ACA help Dems in 2014? Is there some general consensus that once implemented, the people will turn against Dems for enacting it, and therefore it makes sense politically to postpone it's full implementation until after the election? Doesn't sound good if so.

Repubs just might try to make the case that Dems are too scared to implement the healthcare overhaul they fought so hard to pass, because they know it will be a disaster.

[hay rick]

15. I think an important consideration is they are behind on implementation.

My state, Florida, like 26 other states, many Republican-dominated, declined to set up a health insurance exchange, transferring that burden to the federal government- a massive job that I think they were not prepared for. My local Democratic Party is seeking to facilitate implementation and has found that the marketplace in Florida is currently non-existent. Contacting the official site, healthcare.gov, leads to a form to sign up for email updates.

The Republicans will run against ACA regardless of the implementation schedule and they will also call it a failure regardless of actual results.

I don't like the delay because it seems like a tacit admission that the critics are right. Mr. Obama should be defending his "signature accomplishment," not running away from it. The delay also shows the President, once again, kowtowing to pressure from the business community- not an effective way to motivate party activists for the midterm elections.

[WestStar]

16. It's the Law.of.the.Land, passed by congress, signed by the President

and upheld by the Supreme Court. What other law will Obama choose not to implement for political purposes?

At least that's what I've been reading and hearing already.

And if you're a Democratic congressperson who lost their seat in 2010 because of support for ACA you have to feel like a horses ass today.