What is with the right wing meme about 2013?

[Common Sense Party]

Suddenly, that's what many of the repuke pundits are talking about--that most health care reforms won't be enacted until 2013, AFTER the next Presidential election. So, we are fighting to hurry and pass a bill that won't help people for another 3.5 or 4 years.

Has this been part of the debate all along? Am I just waking up to this? Is there a good reason why reform--public option, insurance exchange, whatever--will take so long? I was assuming this would be well underway next year.

President Obama was talking about how reforming health care is essential to repairing the economy and creating jobs. We have to wait four years for that? That doesn't make sense.

Can anyone shed some light on this?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32013032/ns/politics-white_house/

[Bluzmann57]

1. Wishful thinking?

Who knows what the righties are thinking? Maybe they want to delay it for that long so they can say ,"See? Obama couldn't get it done. Elect our (ridiculous) candidate."

[Common Sense Party]

3. Could be...

But it's apparently in the Democratic house bill, according to the AP. So I don't think it's the tighty-righties spurring the delay. They just don't want to reform it at all.

[Curtland1015]

2. It's an awful lot of change to an awful lot people.

Money has to be moved around, businesses and the public itself needs to learn about and prepare for massive (supposed...) changes to current policy. It's not all that shocking they'd want to take their time with it.

Also, the Mayans knew the world would asplode in the year 2012, so the Republicans win no matter what.

:D

[Common Sense Party]

4. Well, money can be moved with the click of a mouse...

...or at least the stroke of a pen. So I don't know that that's the reason.

[Curtland1015]

6. Sure, from ONE place to another.

We're talking about thousands of places to thousands. Also, some of the money to be used for these proposed changes may not be "freed up" yet.

I'm not guaranteeing any of this of course. It just doesn't seem all that unreasonable to me.

[SharonAnn]

5. Medicare was implemented in less than a year.

[Common Sense Party]

7. Exactly. I think this is going to hurt millions of people who are hoping and expecting

change...only to find out they have to wait until another presidential election goes by to get any relief.

[GliderGuider]

8. It's the year after the world ends, according to the Mayan calendar

So I guess it's Republican code for, "When Hell freezes over..."

[Statistical]

9. It is an accounting scam and cheap cover for cowards

Accounting Scam.
All bills are "scored" which means the CBO determines the cost OVER 10 years from signing. Seeing the scam. Remember early in the debate the cost was much higher like $1T to $2T. By making the expensive portions of the bill not take effect until 2013 but the bill is signed in 2009 the scoring is thus 2009-2019. The bill is "cheaper" because it covers less years. The cost per year didn't go down but now we are only scored on 6 years instead of 10. 40% cost reduction just like that! It's magic.

Cowards Cover
Some Democrats are afraid the compromise will suck and there will be backlash. Due to the delayed start the bill doesn't go into effect until 2013 so the blacklash will be post 2013. What happens in 2012? Oh yeah an election so they will have comfortably won another election cycle before people realize if the plan sucks. The bill doesn't go into effect until after everyone can run on how great a job they did in the HC reforms. "Don't worry it is coming in less than a year" will be the campaign slogan in 2012. It is a win - win. The devil is in the details so most people won't know how good/bad the plan isn't until implemented. The exact prices/subsidies make a big difference. If you are a senator, get re-elected in 2012 and you are good until 2018 at which point the public doesn't even care how crappy the bill was in 2013.

[Common Sense Party]

10. That's what I was afraid of.

[customerserviceguy]

11. The point of making things effective after the start of 2013

means that you don't have the pain from the laws taking effect until after the Presidential election.

Yes, there will be pain, there will be stories of people being fined for not picking between two or three shitty choices, when they'd rather just save up some money for their own bills. There will be people denied what they thought they "had coming", until someone read them the fine print. There will be stories of people being covered for things that other people just don't think the government ought to pay for.

Politicians of both parties do it, they want the consequences of actions to come later, and the praise for them to come now.

[bain_sidhe]

12. If I'm understanding what I'm reading...

Some things (mainly insurance reforms/regulations) would go into effect immediately, other things would be phased in. I'm not real clear on which things are in which group, though.