This chart showing support for several provisions of Obamacare needs more exposure.

[ProSense]

http://kff.org/health-reform/poll-finding/kaiser-health-tracking-poll-march-2014/

[Fred Sanders]

1. Instead of the remarkably misleading polls that simply ask if you are in favour or not in

favour of Obamacare were to include those not in favour because it does not go far enough towards single payer were broken out the numbers would change to more in favour than not, but that is not the narrative the greedy media wants to tell....keep the nation divided, let the ad money flow.

Also people should be asked if they favour the ACA more than Obamacare, half would say yes.
Polling the uninformed American public is as useful as polling kittens.

[ProSense]

8. Yes, those polls show people want more. n/t

[spanone]

2. K&r...

[ProSense]

10. You know

people don't like to see this.

[sufrommich]

3. That republican column is hilarious. They're

against it except when they're for it. Morons.

[ProSense]

5. They think Obamacare and the ACA are two different laws. LOL! n/t

[Iliyah]

13. Shows you how misinformed people are.

The governor of Kentucky had to name Obamacare something else and Lord Behold his constituents just love it now.

[ProSense]

14. The chart goes to show why Republicans' repeal efforts are folly n/t

[Jamaal510]

15. Nobody said

that the average Republican voter was exactly the sharpest tool in the shed.

[KittyWampus]

4. Interesting. And useful. Wonder if there's some way to ameliorate the last three unfavorables.

[ProSense]

6. The only unfavorable is the mandate.

My feeling is that the opposition is more hype driven than anything.

[Iliyah]

12. People had to warm up to monies being taken out of their paychecks

for SSI and Medicare huh.

[UtahLib]

7. Thanks for the info. nt

[ProSense]

9. You're welcome. n/t

[Recursion]

11. That's the US public in a nutshell: for programs, but not for paying for them.

You can't have guaranteed issue or no lifetime caps without either
1. mandated purchase, or
2. astronomical premiums

(That's why, for instance, Medicare has a mandate.) Just like the public is for every single government program out there but not for paying for them. Sigh.

[Bluenorthwest]

29. The issue is not the mandate itself, it's the mandate along with the for profit nature

of the products. Medicare does not make a profit, other countries with mandates offer public options and severely restrict profiteering on basic health insurance products while ACA builds in the fact that 15% of your costs go to some fat cat's pocket.
Obama ran supporting a strong public option and opposing individual mandates, which he mocked endlessly. Cynicism is a turn off.

[ProSense]

33. Actually,

"The issue is not the mandate itself, it's the mandate along with the for profit nature of the products. Medicare does not make a profit, other countries with mandates offer public options and severely restrict profiteering on basic health insurance products while ACA builds in the fact that 15% of your costs go to some fat cat's pocket."

...a public option would have been just that, an option. Obamacare would still be exactly like it is, but with a public option on the exchange along with private plans.

Employer-based health coverage would still be private insurance.

[Recursion]

34. A non-profit option is required in every state

Medicare does not make a profit

Not, but the private provisioning insurers make a big profit off Medicare and Medicaid. It doesn't even have the 20% cap requirement ACA does. Medicare's "2% overhead" only counts the cost of getting the money to Blue Cross or Cygnus, not what those insurers take once they have to make the actual payments to providers.

What's more, on Medicaid you don't get any say on which provisioner you're assigned, which can make a huge difference.

The fact that the corporate involvement in Medicare and Medicaid is more deeply hidden makes it more popular, but I don't think that's actually better.

[TheKentuckian]

37. Post tax dollars mandated to for profit corporations is a sick precedent.

I'm not against every possible form of mandate but this one I don't tolerate too well.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

16. Democrats need to call Republicans out on the Big Lie about "Obamacare"...

Namely the claim by Republicans that "Obamacare" is free healthcare for black people paid for by white people.

[Shandris]

17. Until 'subsidy assistance' is less misleading for some states, I wouldn't go talking about...

...it too much. Yes, I recognize that that isn't directly the President's fault, but as it stands there are a couple of ways in which it simply does not apply (and I find it positively infuriating to hear about how wonderful all those subsidies are with nary a mention of the fact that if your work provides the opportunity to get insurance you are ineligible for them).

[ProSense]

18. It should be talked about at every opportunity

"Yes, I recognize that that isn't directly the President's fault, but as it stands there are a couple of ways in which it simply does not apply (and I find it positively infuriating to hear about how wonderful all those subsidies are with nary a mention of the fact that if your work provides the opportunity to get insurance you are ineligible for them)."

People need to know that Republicans are the ones blocking access to health care.

[Shandris]

20. Republicans are doing half of it.

They're the ones blocking our access to expanded Medicaid, and may they rot in hell for it. But they're not the ones who said "if your work offers you insurance, you don't get a subsidy on it and if you shop on the exchange, you don't get the subsidy there either".

[ProSense]

21. Huh? n/t

[Shandris]

22. What I just said.

Take Joe. Joe works for just above the Federal Poverty Limit. Joe's work offers him (virtually useless) insurance. Joe doesn't get a subsidy because he lives in Indiana. If Joe shops on the exchange to get a different plan, he doesn't even get the discount of what his employer currently pays for its share -and- he doesn't get the subsidy. Joe has one choice: pay full price for the useless insurance offered.

[ProSense]

23. "Joe's work offers him (virtually useless) insurance"

If you have employer-based insurance, you cannot shop the exchange.

Joe also benefits from aspects of the law.

[Shandris]

24. Oh, you most certainly CAN shop on the exchange, you'd just have to be an idiot...

...to do so.

And no, Joe doesn't benefit from a damn thing.

So, like I said...unless you want more Joe's crawling out from the woodwork -- and I can probably name about 20 in a one-block square radius of where I live -- I'd probably keep the bragging about the 'subsidy' to a low roar. There was ample opportunity for the President to fix this damn thing so it could actually help people in our state, but it didn't happen for some reason.

[ProSense]

25. True on the "idiot" part, and

"And no, Joe doesn't benefit from a damn thing. "

...wrong on that point. All Americans benefit from no more copays, free preventive care (like colonoscopies http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251288922), not having to worry about being dropped because of a pre-existing condition.

If his heath insurance cost more than 9.5 percent of his income, then he becomes eligible to shop the exchange. There are other factors, including penalties against the employer. Employers must also meet federal minimum standards.

[Shandris]

28. I'll look into the colonoscopy thing -- the 'Joe' I know actually needs one...

...but not that first word was mentioned of him not having to pay for it. I know he still pays to go see his doctor (and there's not even a 'co' to that -- its $160 flat-out and I have seen the bill to prove it). But it would be handy if that's accurate, so I thank you for that.

His insurance is more than 9.5%, but its irrelevant because once you lose the employer-paid portion, every single plan on the exchange is even more expensive unless that somehow end-arounds the 'no subsidy' requirement that is attached to when your employer offers healthcare. If it does, no one has previously mentioned it to me (nor did the websites I used back in January indicate any such thing).

[ProSense]

36. If you are

His insurance is more than 9.5%, but its irrelevant because once you lose the employer-paid portion, every single plan on the exchange is even more expensive unless that somehow end-arounds the 'no subsidy' requirement that is attached to when your employer offers healthcare. If it does, no one has previously mentioned it to me (nor did the websites I used back in January indicate any such thing).

...allowed to shop the exchange you are eligible for a subsidy.

<...>

Can I Save Money on my Health Insurance Premiums in the Marketplace?
You may qualify to save money and lower your monthly premium, but only if your employer does not offer coverage, or offers coverage that doesn't meet certain standards. The savings on your premium that you're eligible for depends on your household income.

Does Employer Health Coverage Affect Eligibility for Premium Savings through the Marketplace?
Yes. If you have an offer of health coverage from your employer that meets certain standards, you will not be eligible for a tax credit through the Marketplace and may wish to enroll in your employer's health plan. However, you may be eligible for a tax credit that lowers your monthly premium, or a reduction in certain cost-sharing if your employer does not offer coverage to you at all or does not offer coverage that meets certain standards. If the cost of a plan from your employer that would cover you (and not any other members of your family) is more than 9.5% of your household income for the year, or if the coverage your employer provides does not meet the "minimum value" standard set by the Affordable Care Act, you may be eligible for a tax credit.1

<...>

http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/pdf/FLSAwithplans.pdf

http://kff.org/infographic/employer-responsibility-under-the-affordable-care-act/

[Shandris]

41. If you're right and these charts are accurate...

...(and I'm not insinuating they're not), I'll send him out to find you and give you a big hug. And maybe I'll tag along to cook dinner or something!

I'll have to go over his numbers again, but unless my memory has suddenly gone bad -- not impossible, but not likely, what with that whole 'human' thing going on -- his insurance is something to the effect of 12.8%. I thought it was less previously until I did his taxes for him.

Still, some hope > none at all.

[Bluenorthwest]

31. No more co-pays? There are still co-pays.

Jesus.

[ProSense]

32. For preventive care and wellness visits.

Please read up on the law before rejecting claims.

[JNelson6563]

19. Lots of charts and info at link!

I posted your chart on my FB page, time to spread the info!

Julie

[ProSense]

26. Thanks. n/t

[Cha]

27. K!

[WillyT]

30. K & R !!!

[steve2470]

35. k&r nt

[Romulox]

38. Where's the question about approval for WAVING the corporate mandates, huh???

[ProSense]

39. "WAVING"

like this:



It ends in seven months for large companies, and in about 19 months for business with between 50 and 100 employees.

[ProSense]

40. Also,

the corporate mandates don't affect the exchanges.

While most employers offer coverage, people who don't have such coverage will be able to shop the exchange, and that's a good thing.

Millions will qualify for Medicaid or subsidies.