tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8264148977155820969.post2426392745882128692..comments2024-01-28T15:51:01.643-05:00Comments on Spirit of a Progressive: Rachel Maddow Bitch Slaps Senate DemocratsPeter Feganhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10949239024795435039noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8264148977155820969.post-27788697510677787532014-10-19T23:28:23.045-04:002014-10-19T23:28:23.045-04:00Sir:
As much as I respect Rachel Maddow's vie...<br />Sir:<br /><br />As much as I respect Rachel Maddow's views, I don't believe she has this one correct. Republicans still control the message on the ACA. Why is that so? The reason is that the ACA, at best, is a mixed bag among the electorate. Has it done some good? Yes, indeed it has. Who has it helped the most? It's helped uninsured young adults up to the age of 26 maintain coverage through their parents' employer-provided plans. It has helped those with pre-existing conditions, who may have lost coverage through no fault of their own, to obtain new coverage. And it has helped those whose situations make it impossible to afford any coverage to finally be able to obtain some basic benefits, mainly through the expansion of Medicaid. These are all good things, no question about it. So how do Republicans continue to control the message on the issue? It's an easy one to see when it's all laid out. The largest demographic that actually takes the time to vote is not affected by the ACA; they're covered under Medicare. So they're out of the picture on this one. Let's take a look at the groups who are helped the most by the ACA. Do they regularly vote or have any type of influence in large numbers? I do not know for certain about those who have pre-existing conditions. In the aggregate, their numbers are probably not that significant, statistically, to influence elections one way or the other. Regarding the uninsured young adults who are now covered under their parents' plans, they generally don't vote in large numbers and have very little political influence. What about the largest group that has benefitted from the ACA, i.e.: those who are now covered under Medicaid? Well, they don't vote in large numbers either, and have little to no political influence.<br /><br />Now, who has the ACA pissed off? A whole bunch of middle and working-class individuals who had coverage that they liked and who were forced out of that coverage by the Act. In a lot of cases, and I mean A LOT of cases, the new coverage was found to be substandard to the old. It was also found to be more expensive. These people's lives have been greatly inconvenienced by the ACA and they are NOT happy one bit. And do you want to know something else? There is a significant number of these people out there .... and they VOTE. And this time, they are VERY motivated to vote.<br /><br />I'm a bit surprised that Ms. Maddow doesn't know this; it's not proprietary academic research. I'm a whole lot less surprised, however, about the other individual that you're often fond of quoting. He's probably a bit distracted, waiting for the invitation to arrive for Lally Weymouth's next Georgetown cocktail party. <br /><br />So there is your reason, sir. Makes perfectly good sense now, doesn't it? As far as the upcoming election is concerned, the Senate shifts by one: 51 (R) - 49 (D).<br /><br />Thank you for the opportunity to respond. Prof. Walter Jamesonnoreply@blogger.com