Happy 5th Birthday to the ACA
- Thread starter Expect2Win
- Start date
S
Stevedangos
Guest
And God Willing it will never see a 6th
As soon as the Supreme Court rules the Federal Exchange cant grant premium subsidies in June its done for thank god.
The ACA is very clear where it says that subsides are available for state ran exchanges, then it goes on to define what a state is. Supreme court is going to leave it up to Congress to clean up their own mess.
Maybe Pelosi should have taken time to read what she voted for
Isnt it funny that after five years of Obamacare there are still a larger percentage of uninsured Americans than back in the early 2000's when Bush was president and we had a strong economy?
As soon as the Supreme Court rules the Federal Exchange cant grant premium subsidies in June its done for thank god.
The ACA is very clear where it says that subsides are available for state ran exchanges, then it goes on to define what a state is. Supreme court is going to leave it up to Congress to clean up their own mess.
Maybe Pelosi should have taken time to read what she voted for
Isnt it funny that after five years of Obamacare there are still a larger percentage of uninsured Americans than back in the early 2000's when Bush was president and we had a strong economy?
Republcian Leg Humpers Unite...........
5 years later, 'Obamacare' critics can't believe their lying eyes
03/23/15 08:00 AM-Updated 03/23/15 12:17 PM
facebooktwitter512
BySteve Benen
Exactly five years ago today, the White Househosted a signing ceremony in the East Room for one of the most important policy breakthroughs in a generation. Policymakers from both parties have talked about providing health security for all of the nation's families for roughly a century, but on March 23, 2010, officials gathered not just to talk but to celebrate action.
Vice President Biden introduced President Obama to the audience and, in comments that weren't intended for the public's ears, said to the president off-mic, "This is a big f***ing deal." Five years later, there's little doubt that Biden was entirely correct.
If you'd told me five years ago that on March 23, 2015, the Affordable Care Act would exceed expectations onby a third, I'd say "Obamacare" would look like a great success. And fortunately for the country, that's exactly what's happened.
Anniversaries are a good time to pause, reflect, and take stock, and when it comes to health care reform, objective observers are going to find it easy on the ACA's fifth anniversary to appreciate the law's triumphs. But it's also a good time to take a moment to acknowledge those who told Americans exactly what to expect from the Affordable Care Act - and who got the story backwards.
Failed Prediction #1: Americans won't enroll in the ACA
In 2009 and 2010, it was widely assumed among Republicans that Democrats had fundamentally miscalculated public demand and consumers would show no real interest in signing up for coverage through the Affordable Care Act. Indeed, among some on the right, this was a foregone conclusion - Americans wouldn't trust "Obamacare." We now know, of course, thatthe opposite is true and that millions of families have eagerly signed up for benefits through the ACA.
Failed Prediction #2: The ACA won't meet its enrollment goals
OK, so maybe some consumers would enroll, Republicans eventually said, but the ACA would inevitably lose the numbers game when the enrollment projections proved overly ambitious. In reality, both this year and last year, enrollment totals exceeded the Obama administration's preliminary projections.
Failed Prediction #3: Insurers will want no part of the ACA system
the opposite of the truth, as insurance companies have been eager to compete for Americans' business.
Failed Prediction #4: The economy will suffer terribly because of 'Obamacare'
Among Republicans, there was near-certainty that 2014 - the first full year for ACA implementation - would be an abysmal year for the American job market. After all, it seemed obvious to the right that "Obamacare" would crush job creation and push unemployment higher. In reality, 2014 wasthe best year for American job creation since the '90s; the unemployment has shown sharp improvement; and there's literally no evidence that the ACA had an adverse effect on economic growth at all.
Failed Prediction #5: Even if Americans enrolled, they won't pay their premiums
When the evidence started looking good for the ACA, Republicans got a little desperate, looking for ways to downplay good news, and the "people won't pay their premiums" talking point took root. It was, however, completely wrong.
Failed Prediction #6: Even if people pay their premiums, the flawed ACA structure will send premiums soaring
Those hoping to see the American system fail counted on soaring insurance premiums. Thisquite effective.
Failed Prediction #7: The ACA won't reduce the uninsured rate because it will only help those who already have coverage
This was a GOP favorite for quite a while, right up until the evidence proved the righthad this backwards, too.
Failed Prediction #8: The ACA will lead to a "net loss" on overall coverage
This line was pushed by House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) for a while, with the Republican leader arguing a year ago that "Obamacare" would end coverage for more people than it would expand coverage to, "a net loss." Boehner said, "I actually do believe that to be the case." As it turns out, his actual beliefs wereridiculously wrong.
Failed Prediction #9: The ACA will lead to higher deficits and a weaker fiscal footing for the nation
One of the projections that never sat well for Republicans, who sometimes pretend to care about the deficit, was that "Obamacare" would reduce the nation's deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars in the coming years. The GOP assumed the non-partisan budget analyses were wrong and proceeded to tell the country the law would make the deficit larger and "bankrupt" the country. According to the Congressional Budget Office, however, Republicans smaller than previously projected.
Failed Prediction #10: Americans will end up hating the coverage they receive through the ACA
Customersatisfaction rates came as a huge surprise to Republicans, who expected the opposite results: "A majority of Americans give good reviews for insurance they recently acquired through government exchanges within the past year, a new poll shows. With the second round of Obamacare enrollment set to begin on Saturday, 71 percent said their coverage through the exchanges was good or excellent, according to a Gallup poll released Friday. Another 19 percent said the coverage was fair, while 9 percent rated it poorly."
That's 10 failed predictions and we could keep going. ACA criticswere wrong about the "death spiral." And "rate shock." And the notion that young people wouldn't enroll. And assertions that Medicare patients would suffer. None of these predictions - literally, none of them - stood up to scrutiny.
Making matters slightly worse, five years later, none of the prominent figures in Republican politics who were wrong are willing to take responsibility for their failed predictions. On the contrary, there's apparently no real accountability at all - the same GOP policymakers who've been wrong about every aspect of the debate haven't even tried to offer an explanation for their mistakes and misjudgments. They're far too busy scheduling dozens of floor votes to repeal the successful law and have neither the time nor the inclination to explain their abysmal predictive powers and fact-free critiques (or offer a credible alternative).
The debate has descended into an unsatisfying dialog between those who can point to evidence and those who say the law is a "disaster" out of habit, without regard for substance or reality.
Five years after the White House signing ceremony, however, the facts are not in dispute among those who choose to see them.
5 years later, 'Obamacare' critics can't believe their lying eyes
03/23/15 08:00 AM-Updated 03/23/15 12:17 PM
facebooktwitter512
BySteve Benen
Exactly five years ago today, the White Househosted a signing ceremony in the East Room for one of the most important policy breakthroughs in a generation. Policymakers from both parties have talked about providing health security for all of the nation's families for roughly a century, but on March 23, 2010, officials gathered not just to talk but to celebrate action.
Vice President Biden introduced President Obama to the audience and, in comments that weren't intended for the public's ears, said to the president off-mic, "This is a big f***ing deal." Five years later, there's little doubt that Biden was entirely correct.
If you'd told me five years ago that on March 23, 2015, the Affordable Care Act would exceed expectations onby a third, I'd say "Obamacare" would look like a great success. And fortunately for the country, that's exactly what's happened.
Anniversaries are a good time to pause, reflect, and take stock, and when it comes to health care reform, objective observers are going to find it easy on the ACA's fifth anniversary to appreciate the law's triumphs. But it's also a good time to take a moment to acknowledge those who told Americans exactly what to expect from the Affordable Care Act - and who got the story backwards.
Failed Prediction #1: Americans won't enroll in the ACA
In 2009 and 2010, it was widely assumed among Republicans that Democrats had fundamentally miscalculated public demand and consumers would show no real interest in signing up for coverage through the Affordable Care Act. Indeed, among some on the right, this was a foregone conclusion - Americans wouldn't trust "Obamacare." We now know, of course, thatthe opposite is true and that millions of families have eagerly signed up for benefits through the ACA.
Failed Prediction #2: The ACA won't meet its enrollment goals
OK, so maybe some consumers would enroll, Republicans eventually said, but the ACA would inevitably lose the numbers game when the enrollment projections proved overly ambitious. In reality, both this year and last year, enrollment totals exceeded the Obama administration's preliminary projections.
Failed Prediction #3: Insurers will want no part of the ACA system
the opposite of the truth, as insurance companies have been eager to compete for Americans' business.
Failed Prediction #4: The economy will suffer terribly because of 'Obamacare'
Among Republicans, there was near-certainty that 2014 - the first full year for ACA implementation - would be an abysmal year for the American job market. After all, it seemed obvious to the right that "Obamacare" would crush job creation and push unemployment higher. In reality, 2014 wasthe best year for American job creation since the '90s; the unemployment has shown sharp improvement; and there's literally no evidence that the ACA had an adverse effect on economic growth at all.
Failed Prediction #5: Even if Americans enrolled, they won't pay their premiums
When the evidence started looking good for the ACA, Republicans got a little desperate, looking for ways to downplay good news, and the "people won't pay their premiums" talking point took root. It was, however, completely wrong.
Failed Prediction #6: Even if people pay their premiums, the flawed ACA structure will send premiums soaring
Those hoping to see the American system fail counted on soaring insurance premiums. Thisquite effective.
Failed Prediction #7: The ACA won't reduce the uninsured rate because it will only help those who already have coverage
This was a GOP favorite for quite a while, right up until the evidence proved the righthad this backwards, too.
Failed Prediction #8: The ACA will lead to a "net loss" on overall coverage
This line was pushed by House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) for a while, with the Republican leader arguing a year ago that "Obamacare" would end coverage for more people than it would expand coverage to, "a net loss." Boehner said, "I actually do believe that to be the case." As it turns out, his actual beliefs wereridiculously wrong.
Failed Prediction #9: The ACA will lead to higher deficits and a weaker fiscal footing for the nation
One of the projections that never sat well for Republicans, who sometimes pretend to care about the deficit, was that "Obamacare" would reduce the nation's deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars in the coming years. The GOP assumed the non-partisan budget analyses were wrong and proceeded to tell the country the law would make the deficit larger and "bankrupt" the country. According to the Congressional Budget Office, however, Republicans smaller than previously projected.
Failed Prediction #10: Americans will end up hating the coverage they receive through the ACA
Customersatisfaction rates came as a huge surprise to Republicans, who expected the opposite results: "A majority of Americans give good reviews for insurance they recently acquired through government exchanges within the past year, a new poll shows. With the second round of Obamacare enrollment set to begin on Saturday, 71 percent said their coverage through the exchanges was good or excellent, according to a Gallup poll released Friday. Another 19 percent said the coverage was fair, while 9 percent rated it poorly."
That's 10 failed predictions and we could keep going. ACA criticswere wrong about the "death spiral." And "rate shock." And the notion that young people wouldn't enroll. And assertions that Medicare patients would suffer. None of these predictions - literally, none of them - stood up to scrutiny.
Making matters slightly worse, five years later, none of the prominent figures in Republican politics who were wrong are willing to take responsibility for their failed predictions. On the contrary, there's apparently no real accountability at all - the same GOP policymakers who've been wrong about every aspect of the debate haven't even tried to offer an explanation for their mistakes and misjudgments. They're far too busy scheduling dozens of floor votes to repeal the successful law and have neither the time nor the inclination to explain their abysmal predictive powers and fact-free critiques (or offer a credible alternative).
The debate has descended into an unsatisfying dialog between those who can point to evidence and those who say the law is a "disaster" out of habit, without regard for substance or reality.
Five years after the White House signing ceremony, however, the facts are not in dispute among those who choose to see them.
Re: Republcian Leg Humpers Unite...........
President Obama could secure world peace, cure cancer, create a billion jobs, eradicate ISIS and all other terrorist groups, tell everyone that all the bad things that ever happened in the history of mankind were his fault and repubs would still want blood.
President Obama could secure world peace, cure cancer, create a billion jobs, eradicate ISIS and all other terrorist groups, tell everyone that all the bad things that ever happened in the history of mankind were his fault and repubs would still want blood.
S
Stevedangos
Guest
Re: And God Willing it will never see a 6th
Thats pretty funny since I havent listened to Rush in probably a year
What I do know is a fact is that the Afordable Care Act did nothing to make health care afordable. I would applaud the devil himself if he made that happen.
The wife lost her job at the University of Missouri Rehab Center at Mt Vernon when it closed and the excellent health care plan that went with it. Couple of weeks ago when the flu was goiing around she went to the doctor for a 15 minute exam and they wrote her a prescription and told her what they tell everyone that has the flu. The bill was $415 that we paid out of pocket for a 15 minute trip to the doctor. At her new job the premium is double what it was, deductable 5 times what it was.
Until someone has the stones to actually address the fact that we spend twice on healthcare of every other western nation does for about the same level of healthcare its going to be getting worse and worse every year
Thats pretty funny since I havent listened to Rush in probably a year
What I do know is a fact is that the Afordable Care Act did nothing to make health care afordable. I would applaud the devil himself if he made that happen.
The wife lost her job at the University of Missouri Rehab Center at Mt Vernon when it closed and the excellent health care plan that went with it. Couple of weeks ago when the flu was goiing around she went to the doctor for a 15 minute exam and they wrote her a prescription and told her what they tell everyone that has the flu. The bill was $415 that we paid out of pocket for a 15 minute trip to the doctor. At her new job the premium is double what it was, deductable 5 times what it was.
Until someone has the stones to actually address the fact that we spend twice on healthcare of every other western nation does for about the same level of healthcare its going to be getting worse and worse every year
Re: And God Willing it will never see a 6th
You do realize that the Republicans lobbied against every cost containment measure that was in the bill, right? Remember death panels?
I will be the first to admit the ACA is about access to care, not the cost of care, but I think the President was far more willing to take action on the cost of care than what is in the bill. I think his team knew that putting more cost containment in would be too valuable from a PR-perspective for Republican opponents (think "Obama wants to deny care to your grandma"). So they left stuff out that should have been in the bill.
Further, the Rs have proposed nothing that substantively lowers the cost of care in the US. They have proposed items which lowers the cost via providing less care by kicking people out of health insurance plans. But, they haven't proposed a single item which addresses the real cost problems in the US.
The Ds haven't really done much here, either - both sides treat the cost of health care as more of talking point than an item to be addressed, because the political implications are tough and the corporate lobbying groups are almost universally opposed.
You do realize that the Republicans lobbied against every cost containment measure that was in the bill, right? Remember death panels?
I will be the first to admit the ACA is about access to care, not the cost of care, but I think the President was far more willing to take action on the cost of care than what is in the bill. I think his team knew that putting more cost containment in would be too valuable from a PR-perspective for Republican opponents (think "Obama wants to deny care to your grandma"). So they left stuff out that should have been in the bill.
Further, the Rs have proposed nothing that substantively lowers the cost of care in the US. They have proposed items which lowers the cost via providing less care by kicking people out of health insurance plans. But, they haven't proposed a single item which addresses the real cost problems in the US.
The Ds haven't really done much here, either - both sides treat the cost of health care as more of talking point than an item to be addressed, because the political implications are tough and the corporate lobbying groups are almost universally opposed.
Yes. Website was a short-term issue that was never going to make or break the ACA. What matters is the stability of the ACA individual markets.
Re: And God Willing it will never see a 6th
The individual and employer mandates are not fully phased in yet; the full impact of the ACA on the rate of insurance has not yet been fully recognized. The uninsured rate is expected to continue to trend down.
And, the rate would be even lower if all states had expanded Medicaid as was intended by Obama.
Originally posted by Stevedangos:
As soon as the Supreme Court rules the Federal Exchange cant grant premium subsidies in June its done for thank god.
The ACA is very clear where it says that subsides are available for state ran exchanges, then it goes on to define what a state is. Supreme court is going to leave it up to Congress to clean up their own mess.
Maybe Pelosi should have taken time to read what she voted for
[/QUOTE]
Law is not nearly as clear as you make it out to be either way. There are references to the subsidies in sections of the law which apply to Federal exchanges.
What's really sad is that this could easily be fixed via a technical corrections bill because the meaning of the law was clear to everyone.
And, technically, the ACA wouldn't be "done" after Burwell; you'd still have the Medicaid expansion and subsidies in states which elected to set up their own exchange. You'd still have the ACA rules mandating that pre-existing conditions be covered, that kids are covered to age 26, the employer and individual mandates, etc. Overall, you'd have an America where blue states had materially better health care than red states with the cost of that care being funded by all states.
Lastly, gun to my head, Kennedy isn't overturning the ACA subsidies. He was noticeably concerned about ruling to gut the subsidies, whereas he was quite hostile in the NFIB case (and voted no.) I think the government is going to win this case for that reason.
100% wrong. You're just making things up. The uninsured rate is lower right now than it was at any point in the Bush II Presidency. The rate was about 14% when Bush took over. The current rate is under 13%.
The individual and employer mandates are not fully phased in yet; the full impact of the ACA on the rate of insurance has not yet been fully recognized. The uninsured rate is expected to continue to trend down.
And, the rate would be even lower if all states had expanded Medicaid as was intended by Obama.
Originally posted by Stevedangos:
As soon as the Supreme Court rules the Federal Exchange cant grant premium subsidies in June its done for thank god.
The ACA is very clear where it says that subsides are available for state ran exchanges, then it goes on to define what a state is. Supreme court is going to leave it up to Congress to clean up their own mess.
Maybe Pelosi should have taken time to read what she voted for
[/QUOTE]
Law is not nearly as clear as you make it out to be either way. There are references to the subsidies in sections of the law which apply to Federal exchanges.
What's really sad is that this could easily be fixed via a technical corrections bill because the meaning of the law was clear to everyone.
And, technically, the ACA wouldn't be "done" after Burwell; you'd still have the Medicaid expansion and subsidies in states which elected to set up their own exchange. You'd still have the ACA rules mandating that pre-existing conditions be covered, that kids are covered to age 26, the employer and individual mandates, etc. Overall, you'd have an America where blue states had materially better health care than red states with the cost of that care being funded by all states.
Lastly, gun to my head, Kennedy isn't overturning the ACA subsidies. He was noticeably concerned about ruling to gut the subsidies, whereas he was quite hostile in the NFIB case (and voted no.) I think the government is going to win this case for that reason.
S
Stevedangos
Guest
Re: And God Willing it will never see a 6th
It passed without a single republican vote ( I think)so I dont see how anything they did had anything to do with what was in the bill that passed.
I would support single payer govt healthcare like in Canada in a Heartbeat if our government didnt have anything to do with actually runnning it. Friend of mine was in the hospital for major heart problems and the only thing he had to pay for when he left was a parking space and the cable TV bill for his room. Their taxes are higher than in the USA to some extent but not that much higher and nobody has to ever worry about going broke because of getting sick.
It passed without a single republican vote ( I think)so I dont see how anything they did had anything to do with what was in the bill that passed.
I would support single payer govt healthcare like in Canada in a Heartbeat if our government didnt have anything to do with actually runnning it. Friend of mine was in the hospital for major heart problems and the only thing he had to pay for when he left was a parking space and the cable TV bill for his room. Their taxes are higher than in the USA to some extent but not that much higher and nobody has to ever worry about going broke because of getting sick.
S
Stevedangos
Guest
Re: And God Willing it will never see a 6th
with single payer no medicare or medicaid. THose two programs spend about 1 billion dollars a year.
Population of the USA is about 320 million
Just the current money spent on medicare and medicaid would pay for about $3000 health care expenses for every person living in the USA. IF medicaide and medicare was abolished and that money funneled into a single payer system everyone could kick in $50 a month premium to raise another 250 billion for healthcare and nobody have to pay a single dime.
Maybe someday
with single payer no medicare or medicaid. THose two programs spend about 1 billion dollars a year.
Population of the USA is about 320 million
Just the current money spent on medicare and medicaid would pay for about $3000 health care expenses for every person living in the USA. IF medicaide and medicare was abolished and that money funneled into a single payer system everyone could kick in $50 a month premium to raise another 250 billion for healthcare and nobody have to pay a single dime.
Maybe someday
Re: And God Willing it will never see a 6th
Single payer is the only logical conclusion. It outperforms our system exponentially and costs much less.
But big insurance companies can't make absurd profits...so there's that.
Good ol' capitalism with a slice of cronyism. Without the lobby industry we'd have saved countless lives and dollars. Greed.
Single payer is the only logical conclusion. It outperforms our system exponentially and costs much less.
But big insurance companies can't make absurd profits...so there's that.
Good ol' capitalism with a slice of cronyism. Without the lobby industry we'd have saved countless lives and dollars. Greed.
Re: And God Willing it will never see a 6th
There's also TriCare, active military health care, and Federal employer health care spending - Feds pay for more than Medicare and Medicaid. Plus the Obamacare subsidies.
Fundamentally, you'd have to also address the cost side - what do you get for that $3,000? But, I agree with the general idea.
There's also TriCare, active military health care, and Federal employer health care spending - Feds pay for more than Medicare and Medicaid. Plus the Obamacare subsidies.
Obamacare was signed into law 5 years ago and Obama won't allow it to be implemented yet people claim it's a success! Until it is implemented there can be no claims of success or failure. Some things are certain though. There were numerous promises about what it wouldn't do that it does.
