The entire Republican strategy has been to discourage people from enrolling in the ACA Judging by these numbers, they have completely failed. Republicans are basing their entire 2014 and 2016 strategies on running against Obamacare. Their plan is backfiring, and they are setting themselves up for an epic backlash.

Millions of Americans have now signed up for access to affordable healthcare. Republicans, especially Republican Senate candidates, are going to be in a position of having to tell voters in 2014 that their plan is to take away their healthcare. This is why as more people enroll, it won’t be surprising if more Democrats follow the lead of Sen. Mary Landrieu and embrace the ACA as a part of their campaign.

The Republican tactic of campaigning only on opposition to the ACA was running on fumes in 2012. It was a narrowminded and shortsighted strategy that was born out of the fact that the GOP has done zilch for the American people and has no accomplishments to run on. Obamacare was all they had, and now that is vanishing too.

The tech team that has been working around the clock to fix the website said it can now handle 50,000 users at a time — and up to 800,000 a day — without crashing. And if folks have trouble with the site during particularly busy times, they can leave an email address to be notified later when fewer users are online trying to enroll.

It will be a largely seamless experience for most, and hundreds of thousands — if not millions — of people who were previously uninsured or underinsured will have quality, affordable coverage beginning January 1, many for the first time.

But that doesn’t mean those who have invested hundreds of millions of dollars to scare people about the reform law — including health insurers — will throw in the towel. On the contrary, we can expect them to double down, at least through 2014.

That’s because this is about politics. It is not about making sure that all Americans have access to solid medical care when they need it. It is about which political party will control the House and the Senate after the midterm elections eleven months and two days from now.

While most insurers like the requirement that Americans have to buy coverage from them, they don’t like the profit-limiting consumer protections in the law. They know they will have a better chance of weakening or getting rid of them if the GOP can take control of both the House and Senate next November.

Democratic consultants have developed a few talking points of their own, of course, but I have not observed the same level of message discipline among Democrats as I have seen among Republicans. Unless they figure out how to adapt the GOP playbook to their own advantage, they will continue to be on the defensive about Obamacare for months to come.

“Debts and deficits were of no matter, no consequence, no interest to the Republican Party until Obama was elected...I find that strange given the fact that as the recession was still growing while the nation transitioned from Bush, millions of people were flooding the unemployment, food stamps and welfare rolls...and poof! Like magic we suddenly were obsessed with the debt and deficit, wild and out of control spending and the obsessive need for cuts. Didn't have anything to do with those millions of people that suddenly needed help, did it? Equally as interesting is the Republican obsession to make those cuts, er, reforms, to the very social safety net programs those millions of people fell into...And haven't quite a few Republicans openly accused those people that fell into those nets as being deliberately lazy? Willfully jobless? At fault for losing their jobs? Labeled them takers, moochers, leaches and parasites? Is there some correlation between the outward loathing of these people, the attacks on social safety nets when they discuss cuts in spending, the recession and this incessant whining over debts and deficits?”

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single-payer-faq

7% tax on employers
2% add'l tax on employees' paychecks.
no deductibles
no co-pays

Full medical, hospital, dental, vision, mental health, and long term care

A universal public system would be financed in the following way: The public funds already funneled to Medicare and Medicaid would be retained. The difference, or the gap between current public funding and what we would need for a universal health care system, would be financed by a payroll tax on employers (about 7%) and an income tax on individuals (about 2%). The payroll tax would replace all other employer expenses for employees’ health care, which would be eliminated. The income tax would take the place of all current insurance premiums, co-pays, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket payments. For the vast majority of people, a 2% income tax is less than what they now pay for insurance premiums and out-of-pocket payments such as co-pays and deductibles, particularly if a family member has a serious illness. It is also a fair and sustainable contribution.

Currently, 47 million people have no insurance and hundreds of thousands of people with insurance are bankrupted when they have an accident or illness. Employers who currently offer no health insurance would pay more, but those who currently offer coverage would, on average, pay less. For most large employers, a payroll tax in the 7% range would mean they would pay slightly less than they currently do (about 8.5%). No employer, moreover, would gain a competitive advantage because he had scrimped on employee health benefits. And health insurance would disappear from the bargaining table between employers and employees.

Of course, the biggest change would be that everyone would have the same comprehensive health coverage, including all medical, hospital, eye care, dental care, long-term care, and mental health services. Currently, many people and businesses are paying huge premiums for insurance so full of gaps like co-payments, deductibles and uncovered services that it would be almost worthless if they were to have a serious illness.