Latest round with Obamacare/PPC and the Public
Offline This article comes from the Bloomberg. It seems that a large majority of people (according to this) are claiming their employers are cutting benefits and thus the reason for the growing unpopularity for it. Now for me, I work for a tiny company and have not noticed really any MAJOR differences than before. So can not say for sure. This article of course is an opinion piece and it is obvious it is a bit slanted. However, it turned up on the daily Yahoo Stories. Thoughts ?
www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-03-06/supreme-court-can-t-save-obamacare
Supreme Court Can't Save Obamacare
2358 MAR 6, 2015 1:09 PM ESTBy Christopher FlavelleAfter Wednesday's oral argument at the U.S. Supreme Court, the odds that Obamacare will survive its latest legal challenge appear slightly better than even. But instead of relief, the law's supporters should take a moment to reflect on the deeper problem for the Affordable Care Act: its persistent and widespread unpopularity. Reversing that will do more to protect the law than any court decision.
That's a bigger problem than Obamacare's supporters seem to realize. Liberals' hope is that if the law can just survive this legal challenge and succeed on the merits -- insuring more people at a reasonable cost -- it will eventually gain acceptance, or at least benign indifference. By that view, the low level of public support for the law is either minimally important or beyond fixing.
To which Obamacare's supporters might ask, what do you expect us to do? The Barack Obama administration couldn’t do more to trumpet the number of people who are getting coverage through the law's exchanges. If you want to know how many Colorado residents signed up for a silver plan for 2015, the Department of Health and Human Services can't wait to tell you.
By focusing on the expansion in coverage, however, the law's defenders are fighting the wrong argument. The opposition doesn't center on the notion that the government shouldn't be trying to cover more people. It revolves around two other claims, neither of which Democrats have done a good job dealing with. And both of those arguments are mostly bogus.
First is the idea that Obamacare imposes mandates on insurance that needlessly drive up the cost of coverage and restrict choice, a core Republican argument. "Republicans understand that what works in Utah is different from what works in Tennessee or Wyoming," a trio of Republican senators wrote Sunday in the Washington Post. Under their alternative, "every state would have the ability to create better markets suited to the needs of their citizens."
Republicans are really saying that people should be free to avoid carrying insurance for problems they don't expect to have (a bout of depression, maybe, or a stroke that requires rehabilitation) or don't want to help pay for (pediatric and maternity care for men with no children, say). The former view shifts costs onto the unlucky; the latter shifts costs onto women and parents. Both undercut the purpose of insurance, which is pooling risk. Neither saves money. Yet in the abstract the argument sounds compelling. And it's going mostly unchallenged.
A second reason Obamacare remains unpopular is that many people who get coverage through their job (still slightly more than half the country) believe the law is causing their employer to cut benefits. Because that's often what their employer is telling them.
The problem is that only a fraction of companies that say they would face the Cadillac tax by 2020 are in fact likely to do so. Starting in 2018, the tax will apply to plans that cost at least $10,200 for an individual or $27,500 for a family. Yet in 2014, less than 4 percent of covered workers with individual coverage were in plans that cost that much, and less than 6 percent of those on family plans. And even if those costs grew at 5 percent a year -- about double the growth from 2013 to 2014 -- the share of covered workers on plans that trigger the Cadillac tax in 2020 would still be less than 1 in 5.
So employers are citing an Obamacare tax that probably won't affect them for years to justify benefit cuts now. Meanwhile, Republicans are claiming that the law's insurance mandates are making coverage more expensive, when all it's doing is pooling the cost of that coverage across more people (which is why medical debt troubles are down). Those are both compelling arguments. Yet Democrats have focused on touting the number of people who have gained coverage -- which is important, but doesn't feel as personal to most Americans.
The broader point remains that even if the most optimistic interpretations of Wednesday's argument are true, liberals can't count on the Supreme Court to save Obamacare. Sure, it would be nice if the justices uphold the tax credits for every state. But King v. Burwell is a symptom of a bigger problem, one that no ruling will fix. Ultimately, the only way to protect Obamacare is to convince more people that it's a good law. On that count, the government is still failing.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
- Login to post comments
widespread unpopularity?
I work for a small company and the owner complained that Obamacare was going to kill them and the company and all of us would lose our jobs. It turned out to be false. I'll agree that the public still believes the lies being pushed by Obama haters but there are just as many people who believe Obamacare is a good thing.
Poll: Fix, don't unravel, Obamacare
The American public would rather see Congress fix Obamacare than allow it to unravel if the Supreme Court’s upcoming decision in King v. Burwell tears apart the law, a new poll finds. The survey conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation finds 64 percent of Americans believe that, if the law is dismantled by the Supreme Court, Congress should act to allow people in states without their own exchanges to continue to receive federal subsidies. This includes 40 percent of Republicans surveyed and a firm majority of Democrats and independents. Story Continued Below Only 27 percent of respondents said Congress should not act if the Supreme Court effectively dismantles the Affordable Care Act’s federally run exchanges.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/obamacare-king-v-burwell-ruling-poll-114677.html#ixzz3ToXvEtPA
Yes like I mentioned when seeing this in Yahoo News this morning, the terminology and some of the delivery of this article seemed rather slanted.
One reason why I never take an opinion piece with more than a grain of salt.
It is comical to me to see how many people can take a commentary and count it as fact.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
Well yeah, even I support doing something immediately if the Court rules against the government, it would be very widespread calamity for a lot of people. That doesn't change that it is a terrible law which shifts the cost burden of health insurance from the middle aged to the young and healthy while padding the pockets of the health insurance industry.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
Obama wanted a single payer system but the insurance company didn't want it, so we got this.
I'm sick of listening to people talk politics rather than solutions. The healthcare industry, as well the insurance companies, were raping Americans. I'm glad we have what we have now. I believe it is better than the previous system but still not the best.
Again, I can not remember who it was that said : "There are lies, damned lies and statistics"
But from Business Insider, this has not been popular with doctors from day one :
news.investors.com/IBD-Editorials-Viewpoint/030615-742349-ibd-poll-finds-doctors-will-quit-under-affordable-care-act.htm
When we hear of problems cropping up in health care, such as word last week of a coming doctor shortage, we can't help thinking back on the red flags that physicians waved in a one-of-a-kind poll we took in 2009, while the Affordable Care Act was still under consideration. Following is an excerpt from the first part of a series that spelled out doctors' concerns about the system they would soon face.
Two of every three practicing physicians oppose the medical overhaul plan under consideration in Washington, and hundreds of thousands would think about shutting down their practices or retiring early if it were adopted, a new IBD/TIPP Poll has found.
The poll contradicts the claims of not only the White House, but also doctors' own lobby — the powerful American Medical Association — both of which suggest the medical profession is behind the proposed overhaul.
It also calls into question whether an overhaul is even doable; 72% of the doctors polled disagree with the administration's claim that the government can cover 47 million more people with better-quality care at lower cost.
The IBD/TIPP Poll was conducted by mail, with 1,376 practicing physicians chosen randomly throughout the country taking part.
Major findings included:
• Two-thirds, or 65%, of doctors say they oppose the proposed government expansion plan. This contradicts the administration's claims that doctors are part of an "unprecedented coalition" supporting a medical overhaul.
It also differs with findings of a poll released Monday by National Public Radio that suggests a "majority of physicians want public and private insurance options," and clashes with media reports such as a front-page story in the Los Angeles Times with the headline "Doctors Go For Obama's Reform."
Nowhere in the Times story does it say doctors as a whole back the overhaul. It says only that the AMA — the "association representing the nation's physicians" and what "many still regard as the country's premier lobbying force" — is "lobbying and advertising to win public support for President Obama's sweeping plan."
The AMA, in fact, represents approximately 18% of physicians and has been hit with a number of defections by members opposed to the AMA's support of Democrats' proposed health care overhaul.
• Four of nine doctors, or 45%, said they "would consider leaving their practice or taking an early retirement" if Congress passes the plan the Democratic majority and White House have in mind.
More than 800,000 doctors were practicing in 2006, the government says. Projecting the poll's finding onto that population, 360,000 doctors would consider quitting.
• More than seven in 10 doctors, or 71% — the most lopsided response in the poll — answered "no" when asked if they believed "the government can cover 47 million more people and that it will cost less money and the quality of care will be better."
This response is consistent with critics who complain that the administration and congressional Democrats have yet to explain how, even with the current number of physicians and nurses, they can cover more people and lower the cost at the same time.
The only way, the critics contend, is by rationing care — giving it to some and denying it to others. That cuts against another claim by plan supporters — that care would be better.
IBD/TIPP's finding that many doctors could leave the business suggests that such rationing could be more severe than even critics believe. Rationing is one of the drawbacks associated with government plans in countries such as Canada and the U.K.
Stories about growing waiting lists for badly needed care, horror stories of care gone wrong, babies born on sidewalks, and even people dying as a result of care delayed or denied are rife.
In this country, the number of doctors is already lagging population growth. From 2003 to 2006, the number of active physicians in the U.S. grew by just 0.8% a year, adding 25,700 doctors.
Recent population growth has been 1% a year. Patients, in short, are already being added faster than physicians, creating a medical bottleneck.
The great concern is that, with increased mandates, lower pay and less freedom to practice, doctors could abandon medicine in droves, as the IBD/TIPP Poll suggests.
Under the proposed medical overhaul, an additional 47 million people would have to be cared for — an 18% increase in patient loads, without an equivalent increase in doctors. The actual effect could be less because a significant share of the uninsured already get care.
Even so, the government vows to cut hundreds of billions from health care spending to pay for reform, which would encourage a flight from the profession.
The U.S. today has just 2.4 physicians per 1,000 population — below the median of 3.1 for members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the official club of wealthy nations.
Adding millions of patients to physicians' caseloads would threaten to overwhelm the system. Medical gatekeepers would have to deny care to large numbers of people. That means care would have to be rationed.
"It's like giving everyone free bus passes, but there are only two buses," Dr. Ted Epperly, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, told the Associated Press.
Hope for a surge in new doctors may be misplaced. A recent study from the Association of American Medical Colleges found steadily declining enrollment in medical schools since 1980.
The study found that, just with current patient demand, the U.S. will have 159,000 fewer doctors than it needs by 2025. Unless corrected, that would make some sort of medical rationing or long waiting lists almost mandatory. Experiments at the state level show that an overhaul isn't likely to change much.
On Monday came word from the Massachusetts Medical Society — a group representing physicians in a state that has implemented an overhaul similar to that under consideration in Washington — that doctor shortages remain a growing problem.
In 2006, Massachusetts passed its medical overhaul — minus a public option — similar to what's being proposed on a national scale now. It hasn't worked as expected. Costs are higher, with insurance premiums rising 22% faster than in the U.S. as a whole.
Other states with government-run or mandated health insurance systems, including Maine, Tennessee and Hawaii, have been forced to cut back services and coverage.
This experience has been repeated in other countries where a form of nationalized care is common. In particular, many nationalized health systems seem to have trouble finding enough doctors to meet demand.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
People elected have no clue what the people need. They get elected and then think that "because I was elected I will do what I want".
I'll never understand the current political system of you elect someone and then you can't really fire them. In every other profession, you're up for review at least once a year(excepte tunured teachers). The shareholder of corporations meet regularly to decide to renew CEO conttracts.
But in politics, you get lame ducks and people that don't care about being fired. So of course they all behave like entitled royalty.
I think in every election(twice a year or more), every politicion would need to get a majority 'vote of confidence' to stay in office one more day.
This is another reason I never vote, the rules are rigged not only for the 2 parties but for the politicians also.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
I'm against the gerry mandering that they do with voting districts which ruins voting for me, however I agree with you.
I would favor a system where every policy that affects me directly and every tax I pay should have to be placed on a public referendum, out of the hands of the politicians. It would be the public's opportunity to end the policies that the polticians use to fuck them with.