General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsForget the Polls. Here's the Real Obamacare News that Broke Monday.
BY JONATHAN COHN
Most of the Obamacare press coverage on Monday was about a pair of pollsone from the Pew Center for the People and the Press, the other from NBC News and the Wall Street Journal. Obamacare detractors seized on the fact that majorities said they disapproved of the lawand that opposition to the law seemed, if anything, to be growing. Obamacare defenders quickly pointed out that only a minority seemed to support the Republcan position, which is to wipe the law off the books. Even among opponents, about half prefer that public officials work on fixing the laws shortcomings.
Both the detractors and the defenders had a point. But the biggest news on Monday wasnt about Obamacares poll numbers. It was about Obamacares reach. And there the news was much clearly better. In Michigan, Republican Governor Rick Snyder signed a bill that will expand the states Medicaid program, as Obamacare envisions. The signing was the culmination of a long, difficult effort by Synder and a bipartisan, statewide-coalition to overcome Tea Party resistance. This is about the health of fellow Michiganders, Snyder said. In Pennsylvania, Republican Governor Tom Corbett announced that he would no longer block a similar Medicaid expansion, as long as the state legislature enacts a version of the expansion that fits his policy specifications.
That last part is important: As in several other states, among them Michigan, Corbett wants to modify Medicaid so that it requires more payments from beneficiaries and requires the unemployed to show proof they are seeking a job. Jeffrey Young of the Huffington Post has the details and its hard to know, right now, whether Corbetts demands will be more than the Obama Administrationwhich would have to issue a waiverwould go along. In situations like these, advocates for low-income groups worry that the restrictions officials would place on Medicaid would make it impractical, or harm people the program is supposed to help. The concern is well-founded.
But the two sides will negotiate, as frequently happens now when states wish to modify their Medicaid programs, and most observers I know think the result will be expansion spreadingnot just to Michigan and Pennsylvania, but later to states like Ohio, where another Republican governor, John Kasich, wants to do something similar. And that suggests weve hit a critical milestone. As Sarah Kliff noted in the Washington Post on Monday, if the Pennsylvania expansion does go through, it would be the 26th state to expand Medicaid, meaning that the majority of states had decided to opt into a massive health law provision that the Supreme Court decision last year accepted.
- more -
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/114740/obamacare-polling-badly-gop-governors-embracing-it
The polling isn't new or surprising. Most polls have framed it as approve/disapprove since the law was signed. Kaiser is the only poll that breaks out the specifics in terms of what people like about the law and what "disapprove" means. Consistently, a significant number of those opposed want the law expanded.
Under Obamacare, Millions Of Americans Will Pay Less Than $100 Per Month For Health Insurance
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023683018
The Magistrate
(95,255 posts)Because I favor single-payer, and see this law as giving far too much leeway to insurance profiteers.
But the last thing i would want to see done is the law repealed, or even delayed in going into full effect.
tridim
(45,358 posts)Their profits are now capped at 20%. My insurance company has sent me three refund checks in the past four months.
Do you believe my insurer enjoys cutting my premium in half because of Obamacare?
The Magistrate
(95,255 posts)tridim
(45,358 posts)And it will result in millions of healthier people in this country.
You're right, it's not perfect, but it's real and it's working.
IronLionZion
(45,532 posts)Yes Medicare's administrative costs are percentage-wise lower than any insurance company because its public and its goal is not profit.
However, the 5% number is very misleading in that administrative costs are actually shared by other agencies like IRS, SSA, HHS, state medicaid programs, etc. In spite of all that, they have revenue issues and the Repubs still try to cut their funding even more.
Talking about profit being "dead loss" to the system could go deeper into the profits of health care providers and medical device suppliers too, and that opens even more problems with quality of care.
The Magistrate
(95,255 posts)Because insurance companies add nothing; they just rake off the top of the betting pool.
Insurance is simply a bet by the purchaser something will happen, and a bet by the seller it will not. The seller, like any bookie, tries to set the odds so that what he has to pay out in total losses is less than what he gets to keep on total wins. When the bookie is selling payments to doctors, he no more adds a value of health care than a bookie selling payments if the Packers win provides points on the board.
A company manufacturing medical equipment, such as pace-makers or artificial joints, say, or a laboratory providing diagnostic tests, provides something of value, something which can actually further health of a patient, so profit to them is not a dead loss to the system. It may be exorbitant in some instances, but that is a different matter: profit to such bodies is a proper enticement towards adding real value.
But insurers simply stand between a mass of patients and potential patients, and persons who actually provide health care, and short-stop as much as they can manage into their own pockets of the total outlay made by the former for the services of the latter. In the course of this, they very frequently engage in sharp practice, and welsh on their obligations to pay, denying services or even cancelling policies when they have lost their bet with a policy-holder.
IronLionZion
(45,532 posts)Thank you!
roamer65
(36,747 posts)Hopefully the act gets amended to make it something like 6-8 pct.
Melissa G
(10,170 posts)global1
(25,270 posts)it isn't single payer. They lump you in with people that oppose ACA and use you to justify their need to get Obamacare repealed or compromised.
I really thing ACA is a stepping stone to single payer and we will eventually evolve into that. However, if we stifle ACA now - will never see that evolutionary process through.
Most of these polls - ask the simple question - for or against. They don't go the step further to analyze why some people are against and it is my feeling that a lot of the people that are against ACA is because it didn't go far enough and take the private insurance companies out of it and it isn't single payer. Those same people - if you ask them - are basically for most all of the provisions of ACA and really do support it. But if you don't ask the right questions - you get the skewed result that allows the Repugs to use the against votes to their favor.
The Magistrate
(95,255 posts)I would answer that I support the law.
I agree it is a stepping stone to something better, at least that it could be.
And you are correct that the usual polling on the subject is misleading ( quite possibly deliberately so ), because it does not indicate a respondent's reason for disliking the law.
Daniel537
(1,560 posts)ananda
(28,876 posts)I start Aetna Medicare Advantage 3 in two weeks.
My cost for that will be $180/mo which is $100 less
than what I'm paying now.
roamer65
(36,747 posts)they will never want to go back to the old broken way.
russspeakeasy
(6,539 posts)and it costs about $1 million per month......I got that "news" from yahoo.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)by Joan McCarter
Ah, your very well-informed Republican voter.
Republicans like the 2010 health care law better when it's called by its proper namethe Affordable Care Actinstead of Obamacare, according to a new Fox News poll.
Republican support for the law jumped eight percent, from 14 percent for Obamacare to 22 percent for the Affordable Care Act, when pollsters revised the question's language.
Now imagine how much that support for the law would increase if they actually bothered to learn what it did.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/09/17/1239470/-For-Republicans-just-don-t-call-it-Obamacare
Some Republicans disapprove of the law because...Obama!!!
russspeakeasy
(6,539 posts)IronLionZion
(45,532 posts)leftstreet
(36,113 posts)Awareness higher, at 81%, among all Americans
by Jeffrey M. Jones
PRINCETON, NJ -- The vast majority of Americans, 81%, say they are aware of the 2010 Affordable Care Act's (ACA's) requirement that most Americans must carry health insurance or pay a fine. Americans who are currently uninsured -- those most directly affected by this requirement -- are much less likely to be aware of the provision, with 56% saying they know about it and 43% saying they are unaware.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/163280/uninsured-unaware-coverage.aspx?utm_source=email-a-friend&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=sharing&utm_content=titlelink
BumRushDaShow
(129,491 posts)roamer65
(36,747 posts)The coverage is lousy and I can get better plans on the exchange. I don't mind paying for it myself when the coverage is better. If I lose my job, then I get the subsidy and can keep my plan I like.
They should think about doing the same scheme for dental insurance.
Chellee
(2,102 posts)If your employer requires you to spend more than 9.5% of your household income for coverage, or if the coverage doesn't meet the minimum guidelines, you can get subsidies and use the exchange anyway. At least that's how I read it.
http://kff.org/interactive/subsidy-calculator/