PDA

View Full Version : Interesting assessment of Obamacare



Concordia 33
08-30-2011, 09:20 AM
From the Washington Post


Health reform: A message battle both sides are losing By Sarah Kliff (http://www.washingtonpost.com/sarah-kliff/2011/07/28/gIQAoLzSfI_page.html)

The expansion of health insurance to more than 30 million Americans is easily the most concrete and sweeping way that health reform will effect individual citizens. That should make for a pretty easy, and compelling, Democratic talking point on the law: The Affordable Care Act will get the uninsured covered.
Turns out, that message has barely broken through -- even among the uninsured themselves. Fewer than a third of uninsured Americans think the health reform law will help them, according to a new Kaiser Family Foundation poll (http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/8217.cfm). Nearly half think it won’t do much of anything, as this chart shows.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/WashingtonPost/Content/Blogs/ezra-klein/StandingArt/kaisergraph1.jpg?uuid=MUbhxtJdEeCf1aXdOD-gyw

Which is not to say Republicans are doing much better on the politics of the Affordable Care Act.
At the beginning of this year, any Republican mention of “repeal” was nearly always followed by “Obamacare.” But it has since drifted into the background, barely factoring into a new regulatory repeal push that House Republicans announced Monday (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/house-gop-revs-up-a-repeal-reduce-and-rein-in-agenda-for-the-fall/2011/08/28/gIQAWNmolJ_story.html). A memo (http://majorityleader.gov/blog/2011/08/memo-on-upcoming-jobs-agenda.html) outlining the strategy, sent out Monday by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), includes just one paragraph on a grandfathering rule for health insurance plans that will become a target in the winter.
So while Republicans pivot away from a health repeal agenda, Democrats look to be struggling to explain what exactly the health reform law will do for Americans.
Another graph from the new Kaiser poll is particularly revealing on this point. It shows both Democratic and Republican voters drifting away from their party’s position on the health reform law, by nearly equal numbers. Here’s what that looks like:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/WashingtonPost/Content/Blogs/ezra-klein/StandingArt/kaiserchart3.jpg?uuid=gaqbTtJdEeCf1aXdOD-gyw

Despite their best efforts, Republicans and Democrats see their bases gravitating away from them on health reform. Since March, when the law passed, the number of Republicans who have a favorable opinion has gone up by 9 points. Over that same time period, Democratic approval ratings fell by 10 points. Independent voters, all the while, stubbornly stayed in place, with nearly the same number favoring the law as did 18 months ago.
Both parties are running up against the same two challenges here. First, the health reform law is really complicated. Beyond “repeal and replace,” the law doesn’t lend itself easily to slogans that convey how, exactly, it works. This hurdle has been particularly vexing for Democrats, who have seen low support for the health reform law, despite its individual provisions polling really well.
Second, the reform law has barely come online yet. Aside from a few early-to-implement provisions that rolled out in 2010, the big parts of the law -- the health coverage expansion, insurance subsides and end of pre-existing conditions -- don’t start until 2014. As Kaiser Family Foundation president Drew Altman writes in a column today, it’s hard to get voters jazzed about an intangible law.
“People who are busy in their everyday lives (and who are being bombarded by a highly spun, confusing political debate about the ACA), will only understand what a complex law like this does when it is tangible for them,” he writes, “When they either get the benefits themselves, see family members and friends benefiting, or see news reports about how the law is working after it is implemented.”
Likewise, it’s hard to get Republican voters incensed about health reform when the law hasn’t done that much yet.
Both sides, it seems are losing the message war.

Y Bar Ranch
08-30-2011, 11:26 AM
The average American probably couldn't give you even a very rough idea of what ObamaCare means to them personally.
My rates went well up in response.

elf
08-30-2011, 11:29 AM
A great reflection of how poorly the act is designed. Surely you understand that it wasn't designed to make health care less expensive, not even really in the long run.

As long as we buy insurance, health care will never get less expensive.

ccmanuals
08-30-2011, 11:30 AM
My rates went well up in response.

Of course they did. Health insurance companies are going to use any excuse they can to raise rates. If if wasn't the ACA it would have been the sky is blue.

Y Bar Ranch
08-30-2011, 11:33 AM
Hmmmm... since health insurance rates have been going up well in excess of the rise in inflation for years, and are expected to continue doing so, can you tell us all exactly how you know that YOUR rate increase was a consequence of ObamaCare... when its siginificant provisions have yet to kick in?
When they went up, my employer said the increase was explicitly in response to ACA.

ccmanuals
08-30-2011, 11:35 AM
When they went up, my employer said the increase was explicitly in response to ACA.

And I suppose your employer really didn't explain what provision of this law, which as Norm mentioned really doesn't take effect till 2014, caused your insurance to go up?

Garret
08-30-2011, 11:58 AM
Isn't it really Romneycare?

hokiefan
08-30-2011, 12:01 PM
Hmmmm... since health insurance rates have been going up well in excess of the rise in inflation for years, and are expected to continue doing so, can you tell us all exactly how you know that YOUR rate increase was a consequence of ObamaCare... when its siginificant provisions have yet to kick in?

Well, for starters eliminating the lifetime cap would increase costs for insurance companies. Thats pretty clear.

I'm not as clear about how keeping kids on longer affects their costs. In many cases the premium adder for family isn't that big. Thats also a relatively healthy age group, but one that also tends to incur the costs of having babies.

Cheers,

Bobby

TANSTAF1
08-30-2011, 12:02 PM
surely you know that the "funding" (tax and fee) provisions of Obamacare kick in before the so-called benefits?

Y Bar Ranch
08-30-2011, 12:03 PM
And your insuror would NEVER lie to you.... right? :)

Hmmmm.... are you really that gullible? Can you tell us what aspect of the ACA caused rates to go up for you.... or are you satisfied with the answer, because you oppose the ACA anyhow, so it doesn't matter if it's true or not?
I work in my day job for a major land grant research university (ergo a bastion of liberalism) with tens of thousands of employees, so even if they would lie to me surely there is at least one person here who has their stuff together and can ask questions. The University negotiates on our behalf with insurers.

You asked if there were anyone who could say what O-care means to them personally. I gave an answer.

Concordia 33
08-30-2011, 02:26 PM
Ehhh not such interesting assessment after all. Get back to me in 2014,then it might be interesting. Otherwise just partisan fluff & meaningless charts.

Kind of hard to call something Partisan when it does not endorse either side. Unless you are being partisan by saying that anything that doesn't fully endorse Obamacare is inherently wrong. I liked this article because it did not favor either side and more looked at how issue-weary people are getting on both sides of this issue.

ccmanuals
08-30-2011, 02:33 PM
I always go with the sage advice my sister gives me who is been in the insurance racket for over 40 years and has been with Wells Fargo (Wachovia) for about 20 of those years and that is, "never, never, ever, trust the insurance company to do the right thing".

Concordia 33
08-30-2011, 02:45 PM
Again re post in 2014

Now that is a partisan post.

ccmanuals
08-30-2011, 03:17 PM
Just popped up on my radar, Highmark in PA is looking for a huge rate increase. According to this web site:


"Unfortunately, PA doesn't have real rate review protections -- in fact, we haven't had an Insurance Commissioner hold a hearing on any rate increase in ten years! "

http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/6560/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=7724

Garret
08-30-2011, 03:33 PM
Now that is a partisan post.

He didn't mean 2014 so it's after the election, he meant 2014 when the major changes go into effect. IOW - "I will wait & see". I don't see that as partisan at all, but YMMV.

Kevin T
08-30-2011, 03:33 PM
I always go with the sage advice my sister gives me who is been in the insurance racket for over 40 years and has been with Wells Fargo (Wachovia) for about 20 of those years and that is, "never, never, ever, trust the insurance company to do the right thing".

I've got near 35 years in the industry, although only on the periphery of the health insurance end of it, and my experience with the health insurance field tracks spot on with your sister's assessment, but don't take my word for it, take a look at what Wendell Potter had to say from his vantage point, directly inside the belly of the beast;

Potter began his trip from health care spokesperson to reform advocate while back home in Tennessee. Potter attended a "health care expedition," (http://www.ramusa.org/projects/ruralamerica.htm) a makeshift health clinic set up at a fairgrounds, and he tells Bill Moyers, "It was absolutely stunning. When I walked through the fairground gates, I saw hundreds of people lined up, in the rain. It was raining that day. Lined up, waiting to get care, in animal stalls. Animal stalls."
Looking back over his long career, Potter sees an industry corrupted by Wall Street expectations and greed. According to Potter, insurers have every incentive to deny coverage — every dollar they don't pay out to a claim is a dollar they can add to their profits, and Wall Street investors demand they pay out less every year. Under these conditions, Potter says, "You don't think about individual people. You think about the numbers, and whether or not you're going to meet Wall Street's expectations."


Nothing like a profit motivated insurance clerk to stand between a person and their doctor, oh wait the accepted wisdom is " we don't want a government bureaucrat standing between us and our doctors."

Keith Wilson
08-30-2011, 06:47 PM
Surely you understand that it wasn't designed to make health care less expensive, not even really in the long run.Actually, there are a lot of things in the bill that are designed to reduce costs (or at least reduce the growth rate) - far more than I originally thought. They're not big and dramatic, but I think the cumulative effect will be significant.

Dan McCosh
08-30-2011, 07:17 PM
constricting the flow of a service always results in less being spent on it Dunno, but it does raise the price.

Keith Wilson
08-30-2011, 07:28 PM
That's not an assessment of health care reform. It's an assessment of what people think about it. Not the same thing at all.