New England Journal Of Medicine: 20 Million Covered Under Obamacare

[Cooperstown]

Source: New England Journal Medicine/Talking Points Memo

A report published last week in the esteemed New England Journal of Medicine provided an overview of Obamacare's first year, its successes and the challenges ahead. It also offered a yet another estimate of the number of people covered by the law: 20 million.

The NEJM report pulled a wealth of information, much of it already known by those closely following the law's implementation but presented together by the journal, from think tanks and government agencies. It covered a range of topics, including the number of people covered, 2015 premiums, and the adequacy of provider networks for plans offered through the law.

But its bottom line was that millions of people have become insured under Obamacare.

"Taking all existing coverage expansions together, we estimate that 20 million Americans have gained coverage as of May 1 under the ACA," the authors wrote. "We do not know yet exactly how many of these people were previously uninsured, but it seems certain that many were."

Read more: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/nejm-obamacare-progress-report

[pnwmom]

1. And ALL the rest of us have better insurance than we did before

because the insurer can't drop us or charge us (or our small employer) more if we get sick. And if we lose a job from a large employer who already offered excellent insurance, we don't have to worry that , in the event of a job loss, we could be barred from obtaining individual health insurance.

[candelista]

12. Not me.

My premiums have tripled, and my deductible has risen from $100 to $2000. I have the Silver Plan.

[pnwmom]

14. Sorry if I don't take you too seriously. If your insurance has tripled

it's probably because you had a bare bones policy before.

And you certainly didn't have a policy with no annual or lifetime limits on coverage.

[candelista]

15. I was a state worker, with a plan negotiated by my union.

Why would I lie to you?

And BTW, it was not a "bare bones" policy. It covered 80% of hospitalization, all drugs, (with a $10-$15 co-pay), and all doctor's visits, with a low co-pay depending on the kind of service. There was no lifetime ceiling. I loved that plan!

[pnwmom]

16. Are you saying the state dropped its union-negotiated plan?

Or are you saying that that was the last plan you had BEFORE you left that job and had to buy insurance on the individual market?

[candelista]

18. I lost my job.

But I see where you are going with this. It's that something is better than nothing, right?

But if my state, which was not especially rich, could afford this insurance for its workers, surely the federal government could have provided something better than the present healthcare plan. We have spent at least $2 trillion on Iraq and Afghanistan, and at least $1 trillion bailing out the banks. The money is there, but it's being used for the wrong purposes.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

20. Your story highlights why we need a single-payer system

Health care shouldn't be dependent upon our employment status, just as police services, fire services, or public roadway access aren't dependent on our whether or not we're employed.

[pnwmom]

22. Not really. Under the ACA, access to health insurance is no longer dependent on having a job.

But I also would prefer Medicare-for-all. It just wasn't an option, given the make-up of Congress.

[Bandit]

41. Medicare isn't all it's cracked up to be

It only pays 80% and doesn't pay for many things at all such as drugs or dental. You need to add additional coverage at a cost to get such covered. I would much rather see single payer that covered all health care expenses and let Medicare go by the wayside.

[pnwmom]

42. Sure. But it ain't gonna happen. Even countries with national health programs like the UK

have what we would call "rationing." They don't cover all drugs and procedures, for example. Covered medications come off an approved list.

Something has to keep health care costs in line. And they do it in other countries by NOT paying for "all health care expenses."

[pnwmom]

21. Yes, you get the point. Obamacare didn't hurt you. Losing your job hurt you.

And without the ACA, you might not have been able to purchase ANY individual insurance.

It's true that your policy now isn't as good as your old one. But your old policy was linked to your old job, and you couldn't keep it.

And I agree that Medicare-for-all would be better than the ACA. But Medicare-for-all wasn't an option. Even a public option wasnt possible after Ted Kennedy died. The votes weren't there. We barely got the ACA through Congress. But it's the Rethugs in Congress that stopped us from getting more, not the Dems or Obama.

So, yes, you ARE better off with Obamacare. You have a policy that's not great, but it's better than what you would have had before the ACA was passed. You have a policy with no yearly or lifetime limits that won't be cancelled if you get sick or lose another job.

[candelista]

23. You seem to have changed the subject.

In your first post, you claimed: And ALL the rest of us have better insurance than we did before (your emphasis).

I do not have better insurance than I did "before."

Maybe you need to qualify your original claim.

[pnwmom]

24. No, you had NO insurance before Obamacare. As soon as you lost your job, you were screwed.

Last edited Tue Jul 22, 2014, 04:32 AM - Edit history (1)

Your only choice was to go on an expensive COBRA policy for a limited period of time, and after that you'd be thrown onto the individual market -- and the policies available would have been nothing like the wonderful state policy you'd had as a state employee.

Obamacare didn't cause you to lose your excellent insurance -- losing your job did.

[candelista]

35. I now have some very expensive catastrophic health insurance.

I will probably not use it anytime soon. Am I better off than I would have been otherwise? I don't know. But one thing I know for sure: the insurance company is happy to get my money.

[Kali]

40. a silver plan is not a catastrophic plan

I looked at those - they were MORE expensive than the subsidized plans because catastrophic plans are NOT subsidized - those are the stupid plans the morans were complaining were going to be "taken" away by Obamacare.

sure you can be "insured" for a few hundred bucks a month - with a 5 or 10 K deductible and large percent of the hospitalization amount, but that isn't what real coverage is supposed to be about.

[cynzke]

25. If you are unemployed.....

Don't you qualify for a subsidized plan? Don't forget while the ACA regulates insurance companies, not all aspects of it fall under ACA. Individual states also regulate insurance companies. They set standards, approve rates and approve networks. Why some people are happier than others. But the NYTimes had an excellent article this weekend. HHS and State Insurance Commissioners are in the process of addressing consumer complaints about the limits/narrow networks/etc. insurance companies have placed on the public exchange plans. More companies are joining in on the public exchanges this fall. There will be more competition.

[candelista]

36. Even with the subsidy, my premiums have tripled.

And my benefits are severely diminished. That's my point: the ACA could be way more generous than it is. Will "competition" between insurance companies solve this problem? I doubt it. The insurance business is filthy with collusion and price-fixing.

[intaglio]

27. So, in your account you believe your State would have continued to cover you?

Or would you have been wholly uninsured?

Did you get another job, were you offered a comprehensive healthcare package, did you check other options?

TBH your post reads like Republican propaganda - even if unintentional

[candelista]

37. I'm not a Republican.

I'm for single-payer.

And I am still looking for work. Meanwhile I have to pay high premiums for insurance with a huge deductible. Is it better than it would have been otherwise? I really don't know.

[Kali]

28. 20% of hospitalization can get expensive pretty fast

you seem to be saying that since losing your job (sorry that happened to you) you had to go with a different insurance - so that means you are now paying the "full" premium while before your employer was probably paying some or most of it.

and I wonder if you ARE paying the full premium? I have a silver plan but I am credited (subsidized) for over 2/3 of the premium. I could NEVER have afforded this policy before. I spent the greater part of my adult life uninsured.

the fact that you can even get a policy that gives the kind of coverage you are getting now for a subsidized price while you are not employed (not clear if you are or not - seems like if unemployed you might qualify for your state medicaid program), is a huge improvement. do you know what your subsidy is?

[candelista]

38. Even with the subsidy, my premiums have tripled.

The state I worked for payed half my premium, and I paid the other half. I just checked an old pay stub. My part of the premium was $142.66.

The US government spends trillions on bailing out banks and prosecuting wars. Even assuming the insurance companies have to be involved, the ACA is an extremely ungenerous program.

[Kali]

39. you seem to have a basic misunderstanding of a few things

the biggest being that without the ACA you would either be dealing with an expensive short term COBRA plan, OR you would have NO insurance at all, OR you would be paying FULL price for whatever you might have been able to find on the open market for an unemployed individual (unlikely to find anything).

the one other possibility would be as an unemployed person with no income you might qualify for your state's medicaid program. have you looked into that?

your claims that you have higher premiums don't seem to be comparing apples with apples. you are comparing an employer subsidized plan (with a 80/20 hospitalization - was there a cap on that 20%? that can add up insanely fast, low deductible or not) against a tax-subsidized plan that has what seems to be higher premiums and a higher deductible, but you have not given full details of the coverage. And here is the biggest difference: your previous insurance could have dumped you for actually needing the insurance at some point. The ACA prevents that.

Now you may indeed be paying more and getting less, but you haven't given enough info for me to be convinced yet, and you have missed the huge detail of my last point above: they can't cancel your policy just when you need it most.

[C Moon]

2. I have a friend who worked for a company for over 25 years...

she found she had breast cancer, and the employer let her go.
She got a lawyer and sued, though.
It's unbelievable companies would do things like that.

[samsingh]

3. that's 20million that were at huge risk before

if these 20 million vote, the election would be decided for the good guys.

I bet likely voter models don't account for these and I wonder if this group is smart enough to go and vote in their own self interest.

[Cooperstown]

6. According to the article, many of them are minors.

So, no, I think we might see less than 10 million or so eligible voters among the 20 million.

[samsingh]

7. that's still a huge number - so far

[Cooperstown]

8. I agree, let's be sure they are registered to vote this Nov.

We need about 10 million more Democratic ballots cast in House and Senate and Governor's races.

But, of course, many of those 10 million with new health insurance probably were already very informed people who already were voters, including a few dozen or a million Republicans.

[samsingh]

9. yes!

[JDPriestly]

4. At last! Wonderful to see this report!

[Robbins]

5. Get ready

for these 2 talking points by far right

1"Obama lied when he said if you like your doctor you can keep it
2 remuems are skyrocking over Obamacare

even though 1:If doctors won't accept new health plans that's hardly Obama's fault and 2:Insurance companys are vultures and Obama doesn't control Health care premuems

They ignore the fact many now have health insurance and some have better than before.

[cynzke]

26. These problems will be addressed!

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/20/us/insurers-face-new-health-law-rules-to-widen-networks-and-prevent-surprise-bills.html?_r=0

[cbayer]

10. I am covered and it has literally saved my life.

[ColesCountyDem]

11. Same here! n/t

[Kali]

29. I can say the same.

Not sure where I would be now without it. in extreme debt, for sure.

[cbayer]

30. I think I might actually be dead.

I had put off seeking medical care for a long time. I only hope that I didn't wait too long.

Hope you are doing well, Kali.

[Kali]

31. doing much better!

Are you still in Mexico?

[cbayer]

32. I am in Italy for the summer.

I know, I know - my life is unbelievable difficult and tragic, lol.

We are way out in the middle of nowhere in a farmhouse. It is exactly what I needed to get better.

[Kali]

33. oh wow!

I take it you didn't sail there?

I was supposed to go to Australia late this summer/early fall, but not looking good for that trip this year. Trying to think of a halfway point between SE Arizona and Germany to meet my friend. - Newfoundland seems a little cold. Is there anything west of the Azores?

[cbayer]

34. No, I flew, lol.

We put the boat up for hurricane season and will go back in September or October.

I hope you get to Australia at some point. It's great, particularly is you have a few weeks. New Zealand is also fantastic and easier to see in a short time.

Nova Scotia is great, particularly in the summer. You can bike around the entire island. Or maybe Iceland? Self-drive vacations there are relatively inexpensive.

The Azores would be great, but hard to access, I think, and expensive.

Travel will refresh your soul.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

13. K&R!

Now if only we could convince the assholes here in FL (and any other RW-governed state who refused the expansion) to accept the money for Medicare/Medicaid expansion, we'd be set!

[Cooperstown]

17. Estimates are that the number of people that could be added...

from all Republican-refusing states: up to 12 million more.

Prior to the ACA, about 45 million people were without health insurance, 20 million plus 12 milllion, pretty close to 96% of Americans would be covered.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

19. Exciting times!

I'm doing my part to GOTV here in FL. Luckily, Crist was a popular gov when he was an (R). Now, running as a (D), I think he has just as good a chance. That is, of course, until the Koch's bring out the dark money machine...

He does have John Morgan backing him, which is a HUGE plus. Morgan is the biggest (R) donator in FL, and his wife is the biggest (D) donator. They run what is probably the most successful law firm in FL (Morgan & Morgan). John Morgan's father died recently of cancer, and marijuana was the ONLY thing that helped his father in his final years. John Morgan has become the state's BIGGEST campaigner for MMJ, and Charlie Crist happens to have taken a job with Morgan & Morgan, so he's got the financial backing of BOTH the big donators right now. Things are looking good.

[bigwillq]

43. That's great.

K and R