Skip to main content

U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius testifies before a House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing on the failures of the Affordable Care Act enrollment website on Capitol Hill in Washington, October 30, 2013.    REUTERS/Jason Re
Ryan Lizza interviewed Jonathon Gruber, an M.I.T. economist who was instrumental in designing both Mitt Romney’s health-care plan in Massachusetts and President Obama’s Affordable Care Act. Based on the estimates economist Gruber gave Lizza for who the "winners" and "losers" in Affordable Care Act will be, University of Michigan professor and senior Brookings fellow Justin Wolfers made this chart:
Chart showing impact of Obamcare on U.S. population.
Six percent of the population, the part that will have to change insurance, is still lots and lots of people, lots of people who are getting a tremendous amount of media attention. So Kaiser Health News has some advice for them.
Experts say people should scrutinize the terms of their soon-to-be-discontinued policy and compare them with what new policies offer. The monthly premium is just one factor in cost. Also note the deductible. Is it per person?  What is the maximum deductible if two or more family members fall ill in the same year? Finally, note the annual out-of-pocket cap, which is the maximum you pay in deductibles and co-payments for medical care during the year.
“People need to be aware of their range of options,” said Cori Uccello, senior health fellow at the American Academy of Actuaries. Direct comparisons may be difficult, she warned, as the new policies will often cover a wider range of benefits, but you should be able to compare deductibles and copayments for various services, including drugs.

Some insurers are recommending new plans that are most similar to the one being discontinued, and could automatically enroll you in such a plan if you take no action. Those are not your only options. You should double-check and compare a range of plans, experts say. An independent broker can show you plans from various carriers. You can also check your state’s online marketplace or log onto or call healthcare.gov, the website serving 36 states that opted not to create their own marketplaces. While consumers are having trouble creating accounts through healthcare.gov, the website now allows shoppers to browse health plans without creating an account. When browsing, however, be aware that the premiums are not actual quotes because they do not reflect your exact age. Nor do they show subsidies, although several online calculators—including some on state marketplace websites and another by the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation can give you a good idea of how much you might receive toward coverage, based on your income. (Kaiser Health News is an editorially independent program of the foundation.)

That's advice some reporters and CNBC personalities might want to follow as well, before they put any more sloppy Obamacare "horror" stories out into the national discourse.

Originally posted to Joan McCarter on Thu Oct 31, 2013 at 02:43 PM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (32+ / 0-)

    "The NSA’s capability at any time could be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything. [...] There would be no place to hide."--Frank Church

    by Joan McCarter on Thu Oct 31, 2013 at 02:43:00 PM PDT

  •  I've been thinking about this all day (6+ / 0-)

    after reading the LA Times, Michael Hiltzik debunking of the CNBC report.

    Of that 3% in the red zone, many are in minimal coverage plans that would be reasonably able to move up to a plan with no cost preventive services and better co-pays, minimums and such.

    Some will be eligible for subsidies.

    Some like at the Hiltzik article will have no idea what coverage she really has and no accurate idea of the trade-offs if she got Obamacare.

    What it boils down to is that unless a person goes through  the details of their existing individual policy and compares it honestly with what Obamacare offers, there is no real way to assess whether they are hurt or helped.

    I would be willilng to bet however that less than half of one percent are actually adversely effected.

    I'm not liberal. I'm actually just anti-evil, OK? - Elon James White

    by Satya1 on Thu Oct 31, 2013 at 02:55:45 PM PDT

    •  Everybody benefits (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ferg, Glen The Plumber, Mary Mike

      Even if a few people will be paying more (for better coverage), they will still benefit from the protections in the ACA - knowing that they can never lose coverage by being dropped (as frequently happened in the past).

      •  It depends on what 'dropped' means. If one moves (0+ / 0-)

        out of state, they may be 'dropped' if their previous carrier doesn't do business in the new state. and even then, state's mandates vary, altering plans and premiums. And if they move from a Medicaid expansion state to a nonexpansion state, they might fall into the coverage hole.

      •  And it's not like their rates weren't going to (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        contrariandy

        skyrocket anyway.

        The old path was completely unsustainable.

    •  Thanks for the Hiltzik link (0+ / 0-)

      That's good stuff.

    •  Coming to terms with it . . . (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ferg, Steve15

      There are many of us who fall into the 3% that will see premiums rise. Many here want to believe that this is always because the existing plan was not as robust as a plan under the ACA . . . and in many cases this is true.  Just not in all cases.  I've pointed out our situation in other threads on this topic at DKos.  Our Blue shield plan was a pool of pretty healthy people in Alameda County, California.  In all ways we can measure -- deductible per person and per family (we are 4); Out-of-pocket maximum per person and per family; Monthly premiums (in our case, a bronze plan HSA qualified on California's exchange will represent a 34% monthly increase in premiums); Coverage -- the existing plan covers pregnancy, mental health, etc. and has good prescription drug coverage.  I could go on . . .

      The bottom line is that I knew we would likely pay more -- probably significantly more -- in premium costs in order to ensure all have access to healthcare.  At the end of the day my premiums will go up from about 5% of my net income to about 8.5% of net income.  Compared to friends and colleagues in most of Europe this is not bad.  10%+ is common there, mostly through payroll deduction into National healthcare single payer systems.   I am surprised by the rather significant increase in deductible and out-of-pocket maximums compared to our current plan -- oh well.

      The issue is transparency.  We should acknowledge the price to be payed and exactly who is going to have to pay and move on.  

      •  3% is, by definition, not "many". (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        marykk, contrariandy

        That's the first thing to acknowledge. Just look at the chart. Does the 3% look like a significant slice of the pie?

        And, if your account is true - and that's a BIG if - that is, as you admit, a small portion of the 3%.

        And, the part you leave out is this - you're investing in your future well being every time you make a payment.

        How is that? Because you're building a better health care system. One that won't discontinue your coverage when you get sick. One that won't discontinue your children's coverage when they get sick.

        How much is that worth per month? The knowledge that, if one of your children become seriously ill, the coverage for that child can't be discontinued by a death panel in the insurance company.

        Would that be worth the extra 34%?

        •  3% Is Many (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          my2bits

          3% of 300 million Americans is 9 million people. That's "many".

          "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

          by DocGonzo on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 05:03:23 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  3% will someday be much more than 3% (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            radmul

            And this is just the beginning.  Wait until the employer mandated starts rolling out (delayed by a year, even though the law mandates it should be implemented now).  Estimates are upwards of 93 million will no longer be able to keep their plans if they like it.  

            That's going to be quite a bit more than "only 3 measly percent"

            •  It will work. The mandates are required. (0+ / 0-)

              The regulations are required for employment based health insurance too.  It is a good idea to divorce health insurance from employment.  That will make our economy more able to compete with countries whose employers are not saddled with the benefit.  That is why it is key to making health insurance regulated and affordable to the individual first.  It will be just fine.

            •  That's a lie (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              marykk

              First of all the 3% does not refer to 300 million.

              At least figure that out.

              Second,  the employer mandate hits an even small percentage of people.

              Heavens - where fo there right wingers come from?

              •  Your Lie (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Pi Li

                It says right there in this diary "Six percent of the population". The chart image cites a New Yorker article that says:

                Gruber broke down the A.C.A. “winners” and “losers” for me. About eighty per cent of Americans are more or less left alone by the health-care act—largely people who have health insurance through their employers. About fourteen per cent of Americans are clear winners: they are currently uninsured and will have access to an affordable insurance policy under the A.C.A.

                Shut up with your obnoxious, undeservedly condescending tone. Just because you can't read, appreciate basic math or be honest doesn't make me a rightwinger. It does make you their kind of jerk, though.

                "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

                by DocGonzo on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 09:09:27 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  Yet another November 2013 joiner (0+ / 0-)

              Where do they come from?

          •  you don't know what you'e talking about (0+ / 0-)

            It's not 3% of 300 million.

            Do you understand? Can you figure that out?

            That's the first step. Take it.

            •  You're a Fool (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Pi Li

              If you weren't a fool you'd see where it says right there in this diary "Six percent of the population". The chart image cites a New Yorker article that says:

              Gruber broke down the A.C.A. “winners” and “losers” for me. About eighty per cent of Americans are more or less left alone by the health-care act—largely people who have health insurance through their employers. About fourteen per cent of Americans are clear winners: they are currently uninsured and will have access to an affordable insurance policy under the A.C.A.

              Shut up with your obnoxious, undeservedly condescending tone. Just because you can't read, appreciate basic math or be honest doesn't make me a rightwinger. It does make you their kind of jerk, though.

              "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

              by DocGonzo on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 09:10:06 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, it would be . . . (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          BldrJanet

          I understand that this is part of what needs to happen to create a more rational healthcare system with access to all.  Just doesn't mean its easy . . . still a lot of money for those who who won't qualify for subsidies.

        •  from the chart 3% losers, 14% winners (0+ / 0-)

          the ratio is not trivial anymore. 20 % of those that will have a change will have a negative change.

          •  I don't think that is an accurate interpretation, (0+ / 0-)

            but I believe one would have to go over the interview and do more research to find out more.

            For those who have a change in plan, they are labeled:

            14%  "clear winners"
            3%   "no real consequence"
            3%   "potential losers"

            It is also clear from the context that among the "potential losers" we don't know how many might be eligible for a subsidy.  We also don't know how many are really holding junk plans (as in the CNBC interview).  We also don't know which of these policy holders when if they do an honest apples to oranges comparison (including the many no-cost items that come with Obamacare) they find they are close to breaking even.  There are several other situations that come into play.

            So "potential losers" means maximum possible with quite a few unknowns to determine.  It is not a fixed estimate.

            I'm not liberal. I'm actually just anti-evil, OK? - Elon James White

            by Satya1 on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 09:50:43 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  agreed that the catagories (0+ / 0-)

              are somewhat fluid but mo matter how you slice it you have a lot of unhappy consumers most of them in the lower middle class, a group already shouldering a substantial burden.
              I think that the potential loser category are those people that won't be eligible for subsidies.

              •  The data are based on the insurer (0+ / 0-)

                who offers the policies and nothing else.  80% have insurance via work or a policy such that they won't be effected at all.  The remaining 20% that are potentially shopping for insurance from exchanges will all be able to take advantage of subsidies should they qualify. (There are even going to be a few people in the "no real consequences" group who will switch to exchange based policies rather than take the relabeled plans from their current insurer.)

                The median income household income in the US is about $50,000.  A household of four qualifies for a subsidy if they have a household income of $94,200 or less.

                A household of 4, with household income under $50,000  will be able to get a substantial subsidy.  And any of the households falling into that 20% share will be able to take advantage of it should they choose to go with a plan from the exchange.  

                So of that 3% "potential loser" category, the people who are hurt most (in % terms) will have higher household incomes such that they do not qualify for any significant subsidy.

                Start to whittle that group down because of subsidies and the other reasons I mention above and I think ultimately we're talking about 2 million people.

                2 million is a lot of people, but remember some of the context:

                1) they will have no-cost preventive care and no caps.  Those are two really valuable components of Obamacare that "lift everyone's boat".
                2) there will be 44 - 52 million who finally get access to healthcare coverage.
                3) there are about 8 million really poor people who will be denied coverage because their stupid f***g states decided to not accept the Medicaid expansion.

                I'm not liberal. I'm actually just anti-evil, OK? - Elon James White

                by Satya1 on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 04:13:20 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

      •  The rates are a best guess for the insurance co (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        madronagal

        Don't forget that you will get a rebate if they ended up charging you too much.  There is a limit on administrative cost as a percentage of claims.  I would guess that the end of the first year might see some major changes in rates.

      •  You cannot be looking at the exchange (0+ / 0-)

        Deductibles and out-of-pocket maximums are lowered on the exchange from what they were pre ACA.

        Also, if your cost is 8.5% of your income, you must be eligible for a subsidy. I see great plans on the Alameda exchange.

        Would you enter your info and let me know what this returns in exchange policies for your family?

        http://www.valuepenguin.com/...

        •  Gross income determines subsidies . . . (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sotiredofusernames, BldrJanet

          Not the percentage of your income you pay in premiums.  I've stated elsewhere on Dkos that our income is +/- $200,000.  We won't be getting subsidies.  In the Bay Area living costs are relatively high -- especially housing costs, putting pressure on variable costs such as healthcare.  That's why the premium increase is a pain.  And, indeed, our existing plan has lower deductibles and out-of-pocket maximum than those on the exchange . . . I might add for either Bronze or Silver plans.  This is mostly due to pooling of healthy folks and therefore reduced risk -- and lower premiums.  This pooling is unlawful under the ACA, therefore putting us out into an ocean where everyone is equally insured.  It's not hard to see why rates would increase for those of us who were in plans designed around healthier people.  

          Look, ultimately we have to look at this as a one time adjustment.  The goal must be single-payer.  As said earlier, the European example suggests somewhere in the neighborhood of 10% of gross income to make this happen.  For me, that means one more increase -- though perhaps not as large as the current one -- to get the kind of stable and sustainable system we need.

          •  I missed the chance to comment on your previous (0+ / 0-)

            response.  While I still suspect that the number of people significantly effected by this is going to be around half a percent, I can do the math and that still is going to amount to possibly 1-2 million people.  That's a lot.  Sorry to hear you seem to be caught in that.

            My brother lives in Austria and it is remarkable how little anxiety he has about retirement and healthcare.  When we get together in a group of Americans and Europeans and if the conversation shifts to IRAs, 401ks, insurance - all the Europeans just take on a blank stare.  But they look so damned relaxed!  LOL.  Ah, too late for me to move my life there though...

            It sounds like you have a pretty good plan.  But here is what I wonder with everyone who is comparing plans - whether their plan costs goes up or down:

            * Subsidy eligibility?  (for you no)

            * Have you all looked at the no-cost preventive care services now included with all plans and folded them into your calculations?  (I confess I'm not clear on how these "free" services effect me yet.  But I'm really jazzed about the idea of preventive care being pushed so hard by Obamacare.)  It looks to me like some potentially expensive procedures are covered.

            * Have you considered that if you are currently in a pool of relatively healthy individuals that in your existing plan you may get dropped if one of you family should develop a serious illness?  

            * What is your lifetime cap?  (I don't know if it comes by person or policy or both.)

            My point is there are so many factors in play and there are so many substantial changes to Obamacare compliant policies, that I think comparisons are pretty hard to do really accurately.  The cost of the plan?  Easy.  The coverage that gets paid?  Not so easy.

            Anyway, it's good to hear from someone who is feeling good enough about the broader justice of this healthcare advancement to be willing to go with it despite the personal financial hit.  I've been fortunate in life myself and would not mind contributing funds if it meant a little more justice in society.

            I spent a fair amount of time in Emeryville, Berkeley and Oakland when I worked for a DMBS vendor there.  Have fond memories of it.

            All the best.

            I'm not liberal. I'm actually just anti-evil, OK? - Elon James White

            by Satya1 on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 10:37:36 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  It's more than that. You said your pool was a (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        contrariandy, BldrJanet

        pool of pretty healthy people.  What do you think will happen as the people in that pool age and as people in the pool become less healthy?  What do you think will happen if someone in your family becomes seriously ill?

        Yes, it's possible you will have to pay more right now than you were paying.  But what you'll get for that is the knowledge that you'll still be able to get health care as you age and when you really need it.

    •  I live in LA and I'm legitimately rate shocked (4+ / 0-)

      Not only is my individual plan not being canceled, the premium is being cut almost in half, from $646 to $333

      There's one major problem though. Anthem Blue Cross isn't lifting the yearly/lifetime limits so I'm going to have to change plans—of my own accord though.

      Surprisingly Blue Cross actually "urged" me in writing to check out California's exchange because:

      Next year, you will be able to purchase more comprehensive coverage that may cost less than current MRMIP coverage.
      •  That's odd. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sotiredofusernames, marykk

        I thought ACA required all plans drop the limits. You should check that out.

        Obamacare prohibits lifetime limits (A cap on the total lifetime benefits you may get from your insurance company) on most benefits in any health plan or insurance policy issued or renewed on or after September 23, 2010.  In 2014, Obamacare  prohibits new plans and existing group plans from imposing annual dollar limits (a cap on the benefits your insurance company will pay in a year) on the amount of coverage an individual may receive.

        The only foes that threaten America are the enemies at home, and those are ignorance, superstition, and incompetence. - Elbert Hubbard -9.62/-8.15

        by GustavMahler on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 06:03:39 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Haha! I bet that's thanks to blue state (0+ / 0-)

        insurance commissioner's tough regs on insurers! You gotta include this line.

        In fact all the hooha in the media over policies canceled is probably coming from red states with their lax gummint regulation, where there is just one monopistic carrier like BC and they DON'T have to say that.

        What is MRMIP?

    •  I agree. It's a pretty funny definition of the (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Satya1

      word, "losers," to tell someone that now they can get insurance they can actually afford that has coverage they can count on.

  •  Appreciate the diary (4+ / 0-)

    but I question the pie chart.  I think the percent of employers providing insurance is less than 80% and decreasing every year.

    Democrats give you the Bill of Rights; Republicans sell you a bill of goods!

    by barbwires on Thu Oct 31, 2013 at 03:45:32 PM PDT

  •  JUST in the nick of time with me, as i start (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jan4insight

    another 'gentle conversion' with one of my 2 teahidis, both friends of my late mamma -- who permitted my challenges to cause her to vote Dem for the 1st time in her life, in 2008 -- and, despite the roller-coaster, she never regretted it. she's my 'ace in the hole,' in my quest. ;)

    thanks joan.

    Addington's perpwalk? TRAILHEAD of accountability for Bush-2 Crimes. @Hugh: There is no Article II power which says the Executive can violate the Constitution.

    by greenbird on Thu Oct 31, 2013 at 04:00:14 PM PDT

  •  One might expect the 80% "unaffected" slice to (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sherri in TX, JanL

    change dramatically when the employer mandate suspension expires. Along about Sept 2014 employers are going to have to make some hard decisions re getting out of the medical care provision business, adding another dimension to the "If you like it you can keep it" debate.

  •  if my COBRA eligibility expires, I'll pay more (0+ / 0-)

    But that's because Washington permits age-rating of individual health insurance. I'm 63.

    My COBRA policy (employer-based) doesn't have age-rating.

    Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. -- K.Marx A.Lincoln

    by N in Seattle on Thu Oct 31, 2013 at 10:01:20 PM PDT

  •  I just want to give a shout out to (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Capt Crunch, BldrJanet, marykk

    Kaiser.  They have been beyond awesome on all things ACA since the git go.

  •  Does anyone know if the healthcare.gov (0+ / 0-)

    web site is improving any yet?

    "I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

    by Jeff Y on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 02:08:49 PM PDT

  •  Graph (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ZenTrainer

    Appears to omit people who did not have and did not want insurance.

    Restore the Fourth! Save America!

    by phillies on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 02:12:35 PM PDT

  •  Rural areas-fewer choices (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sotiredofusernames

    In some states there are only one or two choices on the exchange. Although the rates are significantly lower than before, they aren't as low as in larger states with more choices. I'm glad that we have the ACA, but we still have the problem of those who can buy more are going to get more. A single payer plan would have been better.  

  •  Gee, wouldn't single payer (6+ / 0-)

    Medicare for All, be so much simpler for everyone?

    Wouldn't it?

    Blogging as Ché Pasa since 2007.

    by felix19 on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 02:14:21 PM PDT

  •  They are not "plans". They are scams. (3+ / 0-)

    Those deficient "plans" are actually scams - con jobs.

    In any good con the mark, (sucker), never realizes they've been conned.

    So yeah, you get to keep your plan. You don't get to keep getting conned.

    That's a rude awakening for some folks - to realize they've been successfully conned.

    Others never will realize they've been conned.

    •  Like "Cancer Insurance" ... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Capt Crunch, JBraden

      sometimes called Art Linkletter Insurance, because at the end of his career, Linkletter did for those insurance policies what Fred Thompson did for Reverse Mortgages.

      The premise was not unlike the idea of running an roulette game ... but with 5 Green Zeroes, 18 each red and black slot and a 35:1 return.   The GAME is honest ... every number has an equal chance of winning --  But the payout is rigged.

      This is the principle on which all casino gambling, insurance and banking are based.

      "Liars CAN figure ... and the always do."

  •  Cancellation (8+ / 0-)

    I was cancelled and offered a more expensive plan. Thanks to healthcare.gov, I am enrolled in the same plan and paying less than ever.

  •  That 80% is very questionable. (0+ / 0-)

    "It is easier to pass through the eye of a needle then it is to be an honest politician."

    by BigAlinWashSt on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 02:25:31 PM PDT

    •  Based on what? (0+ / 0-)

      What do you have that would cause you to question it?

      Someone said the same thing elsewhere in this thread.

      They too had nothing. Zero. Absolutely nothing to offer that would even imply there was anything wrong with the chart.

      Geeze.

      •  Geeze, back up the 80% then. Where's the backup (0+ / 0-)

        for that?

        "It is easier to pass through the eye of a needle then it is to be an honest politician."

        by BigAlinWashSt on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 02:32:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's down at the bottom of the graph (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Constantly Amazed

          There's a link posted and everything. Just like real reporters are supposed to do.

          http://www.newyorker.com/...

          •  Don't see the analysis there Capt., only a (0+ / 0-)

            general statement like in the diary.  You know like real people do when they say something like this.

            "It is easier to pass through the eye of a needle then it is to be an honest politician."

            by BigAlinWashSt on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 03:52:17 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Well - ya have to click on the link (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              contrariandy

              See the link I provided for you in my post.

              Somehow I just knew you wouldn't be able to figure out how to get there so I provided a link to the article.

              See - that's how it works. You reference the proof. You don't spend a diary laying out the methodology.

              You also don't question a referenced stat without at least having something, anything, to back yourself up. And you've got nothing. Zero. Kinda sad.

              BTW -

              "You know like real people do when they say something like this."
              SURE DO.

              They say, "There's a referenced article."
              They say, "Geeze, I'd look like a real idiot if I challenged that graph with nothing but my dick in my hand."

              THAT's what real people say.

              •  You bee's a ass hole ain't ya. Ok, (0+ / 0-)

                we know now man.
                I did click on the link you jerk.  You have nothing, other than a sugary cereal.

                "It is easier to pass through the eye of a needle then it is to be an honest politician."

                by BigAlinWashSt on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 05:18:32 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Perfect example of willfull ignorance (0+ / 0-)

                  You couldn't even figure out a simple article that credited the the researcher by name.

                  Sad.

                  •  Where is the researcher's analysis? (0+ / 0-)

                    It was not in the article.  You want me to search for that.  Like I said, you're an asshole. Don't talk to me.

                    "It is easier to pass through the eye of a needle then it is to be an honest politician."

                    by BigAlinWashSt on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 10:01:25 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Then don't answer my posts (0+ / 0-)

                      You have nothing. You offer nothing.

                      And yet you want to be spoon fed data to contradict what?

                      Your opinion?

                      Your opinion is less than a fart in the wind - just like you.

                      •  You're fucked up man. Did you read that article? (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Pi Li

                        I did.  All it said was some dude said it was 80%.  Where in the article is his analysis to back up that 80%.  You can't answer that can you.  All you have is insults and you started it by replying to me.  Take a look at my profile dude.  I've been here over 6 years and have a good deal of friends on the far left.  I'm an old hippie, a Vietnam era Vet.  You ever serve dude?  I bet not.  Know who you're insulting.

                        "It is easier to pass through the eye of a needle then it is to be an honest politician."

                        by BigAlinWashSt on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 08:34:53 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Gotta give you credit for service (0+ / 0-)

                          I was in the first Draft Lottery. My number was 354. I will never forget it. That number meant they weren't going to draft me unless the Russians landed in California.
                          And I sure as Hell wasn't going to volunteer. Everybody knew what a crock of shit that war was by then. That's why they had the lottery.
                          I may be relatively new here at Kos but I've paid my dues before I even hit Kos.
                          Old hippie? Yup - been there done that.
                          So we're not that much different - you should know who you're insulting as well.

      •  based on data (0+ / 0-)

        Most Americans, particularly those under age 65, rely on health insurance offered through the workplace. Thus, given these unemployment trends, it comes as no surprise that the share of Americans under age 65 covered by employer-sponsored health insurance (or ESI) eroded for the 11th year in a row in 2011, falling from 58.6 percent in 2010 to 58.3 percent.
        http://www.epi.org/...
        More than half of the U.S. population (55.1 percent)
        had employment-based health insurance coverage in
        2011,
        http://www.census.gov/...
        the 2nd is the census bureau so less shot at bias. either provide some data of your own or admit you are wrong.

  •  So let me get this straight... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BigAlinWashSt

    ...the health care overhaul was all for, what, 14% of the population?  I don't know, couldn't they have come up with something to help those people, rather than doubling down on this ridiculous employer-based system the US already has?

    I mean, what you're saying is 86% of the population either won't be impacted, or will be impacted negatively by the ACA.  So what was the rationale for the whole thing?

    All I see is a brand new market for insurance companies, some of the most unpopular corporations in the country. Of course, that was the price that had to be paid to keep them from derailing health care reform like they did with Clinton. I continue to be truly amazing how any "progressive" can support this forcing people to buy health care from these companies and doubling down on a broken system.

    Dammit Jim, I'm a lawyer, not a grammarian. So sue me.

    by Pi Li on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 02:37:38 PM PDT

    •  They're not directly impacted now, (4+ / 0-)

      but it gives them options -- for example, if they lose that job with health insurance, or decide they want to leave that job and start their own business or go back to school to make a career change, they no longer have to worry about leaving themselves and their families without coverage. Or when their kid gets out of college and can't find a job in their career field that provides coverage, those kids can stay on the parental insurance till 26, then after that can afford to get their own thanks to the exchange so there's no worry about what happens if they get sick (or in the case of young women, pregnant -- ever price maternity costs?) without insurance coverage.

      Yes, single payer would be way better, but this is a decent start. And maybe all the protests by the Religious Reich folks that they be allowed exemptions for covering things like contraception, we'll move even faster to single payer to get past that sort of crap.

      There's only one rule that I know of, babies -- goddammit, you've got to be kind. -- Kurt Vonnegut

      by Cali Scribe on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 03:25:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Not quite (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sotiredofusernames, marykk, JBraden

      The "not affected" 80% get improved coverage, for one thing, such as the fact that preventative care and the commonest screenings are all covered 100%. And too, the danger of getting kicked off is gone and lifetime caps are removed. You don't know who's going to be affected by that, but potentially anybody; a bit of a roulette there.

      For another, the escalation of prices affects everyone and in that regard the reforms make for improvement for pretty much everyone.

      Mark Twain: It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.

      by Land of Enchantment on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 03:52:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Medicare for 14% (0+ / 0-)

      We could have just added that 14% to Medicare. But if we did, the current arguments to eliminate Medicare ("save it" in Republicanspeak) would be even stronger, as Medicare would actually be in a lot of trouble. Those 14% mostly don't have insurance because they're worse than average risks, so insurance costs too much for them to get (even if it would save them money in the long run).

      To make it work we have to add a lot more people to the same risk pool. We should have added everyone to Medicare, and left insurers to goldplate Medicare coverage especially for elective treatments. But since insurers are banks, our government wasn't going to do that and cut off the bribes.

      So we gave a gift to insurance banks. That is what this country does. We are hostage to the banks in every way. Anything we want, the 99% (and really the 10-99%) must pay for while the 1% get the profits (and the 10% maybe get to survive).

      "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

      by DocGonzo on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 05:09:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  When dealing with children ... never promise (0+ / 0-)

    what you cannot deliver.

    Do not "say" what you don't know to be true.

    Because the 4 year old mind is selfish,  literal,  manipulative and not very forgiving.  It's almost pure Id, but with rudimentary language skills.

    But  it's one thing when the 4-year old is your own child ... quite another when it's your Congresscritter or TVanchor.

    Either way, there really is no rebuttal to " BUT YOU SAID !!!!"

    It's a shame really.  Our President squandered what little political capital he had,  on his Grand BiPartisan(tm) Bargain for a  Great Enormous Signature Legacy Program.  And, running rather true-to-form,  he never bothered to hunt for weakness in his own Grand Vision, nor did he delegate anyone else to do so.

    And besides: he KNEW ... he just KNEW ...  he was giving the Moderate Republicans everything they wanted ... a system that would preserve  employer-dependent health insurance and insurance company profitability for a generation to come --  AND also provide government subsidy to those who formerly couldn't afford to pay what the insurance companies charge.  AND he gave it to them, before even being asked.

    It was their own Republican program ... why didn't they embrace it ?

    Too bad he somehow didn't know that Moderate Republicans had gone extinct -- probably due to the Citizens United Decision.

    Or ... if the Nth Dimensional Chess Brilliancy Theory is correct :  He DID foresee all of this ... and knowing that a business-friendly profit-driven National Health Scheme would not be accepted by the Democratic Base, he put in those subsidy provisions KNOWING the Republicans would fuss and fulminate -- and before long, the New Deal/Great Society Democrats would rally behind him/it -- "because."

    And meanwhile, there's no available bandwidth left in the American Mind for things like  Pro Globalization, Trade Agreements, Banker-approved banking regulations, working class wage stagnation  Wage Stagnation -- and the list goes on.

    As any Child Protective Services social worker will tell you:  When one parent is the Abuser ... the other is often the Enabler.

    •  It Beat Romney (0+ / 0-)

      I agree with everything you said. Except that Obama choosing RomneyCare as his model was probably the difference between his 2012 reelection and getting ReversoRomney in 2013. I think he knew Rmoney would be back in 2012 as the nominee, since it looked that way to me as soon as Obama reversed himself on his 2008 primary campaign against Hilary and the mandate.

      So I don't think it was merely Obama arrogance that gave us Obamacare. He's a smart guy whose life forces him to realize that people like most Republicans are racists and otherwise irrational opponents. Plus he served some years in the Senate among them, even in bargains the public never saw where their actual dynamics. I think he agrees with the insurance business selling Americans insurance, but not the egregious ripoffs.

      After all, Obama isn't against war, he's against dumb wars - and he's not against Corporate America, he's just against unsustainable robbery Corporate America.

      And mainly he was against Romney, probably from the beginning in 2009. He beat Romney, and got to do all the very many other things his 8 years have given him. Including living in the White House.

      "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

      by DocGonzo on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 05:19:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  When does the media ever obsess about 3% (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sotiredofusernames

    of the population being harmed by anything? When EVER?

  •  I suspect that the people complaining have had (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sotiredofusernames

    catastrophic coverage policies with high out of pocket costs and annual caps  so that the policy holder would pick up the first 10,000.  I once had a policy like that and it cost a little over $100 a month.  My new ACA policy comes in around $500 per month but I do get a subsidy right now, but I can see I'm going to be seeing that go away gradually over the next couple of years unless the economy tanks again and my income falls once more.

  •  Show me sombody who was "lied" to. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    marykk, JBraden

    Show me somebody who had a policy
    1. on the date the ACA went into effect
    2. that they will honestly say they "liked"
    3. that has not changed in any respect since then
    4. was not "grandfathered" by the ACA
    5. is no longer available because of the ACA
    6. that they can't replace for a better price

    and I will listen to them complain that they were "lied" to by the President.  I will also show them a pig that flies.  

    A right answer to the wrong question is a wrong answer.

    by legalarray on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 03:35:35 PM PDT

    •  Junk policies are OK (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      88kathy, marykk, JBraden

      But only if until you need coverage for something serious. Most of us have something or other comes up at some time in our lives, or our family's lives.

      I don't hear people grousing about paying for car insurance year after year, even though they never have an accident.

      Mark Twain: It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.

      by Land of Enchantment on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 04:04:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I understand the junk policies have a high DR (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Land of Enchantment

        visit co-pay. From $30 to $50.

        Could we just figure out how many DRs visits it would take till they break even?

        I think they just like to complain and would never make that information available.

        Only gun owners can control their guns and they say oopsie way too much. I lost it, I forgot it, it just went off. Support Gun Kill Speed Limits and Gun Ownership Speed Limits.

        by 88kathy on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 05:31:24 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Am I the only one? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sotiredofusernames, marykk

    There's not a slice on that pie for me. I currently have insurance, on the individual market. I will be getting better coverage at a lower price, mostly thanks to the subsidy I qualify for. I can't believe there's not other people in that category, which isn't included on the pie chart above.

    Mark Twain: It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.

    by Land of Enchantment on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 03:45:52 PM PDT

  •  I am an ACA supporter and one of the 3% (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    madronagal

    It stinks, but I understand, I think.  

    My basics:  54, with a 58 y.o. spouse and an 11 y.o. child.  Husband is self employed, and I work part time for him.  Combined household income is $145,000, so too high for subsidies.  

    We had Anthem BC/BS HSA insurance with high deductibles (around $6000/person or $12,000/family, the max that the new plans allow now).  We have been paying $800/month for this coverage.  It's pretty good coverage, which is why it cost so much even with the high deductibles.  

    We can keep our current policy for a year, for an extra $100/month (total of $900/month), or we can shop on the exchange.  

    We had no trouble getting onto our state's exchange (we live in Colorado).  What we found, though, was that the cheapest comparable plan that let us keep our doctors was $1500/month -- a 60% increase!  If we do that, we will be paying 12% of our gross income on health insurance, and still be on the hook for up to $12,000 more if we have two people in our family have a surgery or a serious illness.  That's a huge increase.

    What it means for me, plain and simple, is I have to get a second job.  We make too much money to count on any help with our daughter's college costs, and we have to save for retirement like crazy right now.  

    I don't expect anyone to feel sorry for me.  I am aware that families like ours, with incomes that put us near the top 10% or so, should pay more to help the folks who had really crappy or no insurance.  I'm glad that more people will not have to risk bankruptcy or unnecessary premature death because of health care costs.  

    I must say that I don't appreciate all the articles that are trying to convince me that I just don't understand and the insurance I had was crap.  Nonetheless, I realize that I do gain personally by knowing that the insurance company cannot cancel or jack up my premiums because I'm actually using it, if I get sick or have an accident.  

    Still, it's a big lump to swallow.  Twelve percent of our income for insurance that we don't use, for the most part.

    •  $100 increase a month, grandfathered (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      88kathy

      That really isn't so much. If there had been no changes in the system, it likely would have gone up that much anyhow. My individual coverage, for one person, has been going up $50-75/month every year for a long time now.

      I can't imagine your premiums have stayed unchanged over the last decade, now have they? Some times and places have been having increases as high as 40% in a single year for keeping the same coverage.

      Keeping in mind that with your old coverage, you had to pay for your PAP smears and mammograms and prostate checks and so on out of the deductible. Now they're included. Maybe you've not bothered with those? Maybe not smart; maybe you should be having various diagnostic and screening work.

      So on and so forth. Your story is leaving things out. I'm not impressed with what you've said. Since your old coverage is grandfathered, I'd count you in the 80%.

      Mark Twain: It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.

      by Land of Enchantment on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 04:02:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I agree that the 100/month extra isn't so bad. (0+ / 0-)

        It's the $600/month more that's hard to take.

        I actually have not had to pay for mammograms, Pap smears and prostate checks.  Those tests have been covered without a deductible, mandated in our state.

        And of course our premiums have gone up again and again over the years.  And I know that they could have gone up again next year, with or without ACA. I get it.  

        I understand your not feeling sorry for me.  Didn't expect it.  Just wanted to let someone know my story, that's all.

        •  The point being (0+ / 0-)

          ... that you can continue your old policy, grandfathered, at a rate of increase like was typical without ACA. A new policy that costs more also covers more. Apples and oranges.

          I count you in the unaffected 80%.

          Mark Twain: It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.

          by Land of Enchantment on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 10:32:05 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  12% of the 90%ile (0+ / 0-)

      If healthcare reform had been sold to us as "people near the top 90% of income earners will pay 12% of their gross income for insurance", I don't think we would have bought it.

      "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

      by DocGonzo on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 05:21:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  But when you do it is better (0+ / 0-)

      few individual insurers had 0% coinsurance for hospital care, now many do. like this Rocky Mountain HMO in CO

      The old 20% co-insurance means you get hit by cancer or a bus  - for $100,000, you'd pay $20,000.

      •  My plan had 100% coverage after deductible was met (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sotiredofusernames

        But I will go through my old plan with a fine tooth comb, to be sure that there are no surprises in it, before we decide to renew for the rest of the year.  I have to assume that there's a reason the rate is so much higher.  Just haven't found it yet...   And it could be nothing more than we were lucky to be in a relatively healthy pool before.  

        •  You now that health is irrelevant now? (0+ / 0-)

          On the individual market, ACA-compliant plans on the exchanges MUST NOT even consider health, or pre existing conditions any more.

          Signing up for a plan with NO questions about pimples from 20 years ago is refreshing, I'll tell you.

          •  Yes, I have actually applied on the CO exchange (0+ / 0-)

            I understand this, and I agree, it is a great change.  I have, over the years, filled out numerous detailed medical histories for insurance companies, always with the fear and dread associated with it.  Should I mention that yeast infection?  What about the tests that turned out to be for nothing?  What were the dates I saw the doctor last?  What exactly is the medicine I took?  Hated that.

  •  What Obama Promised (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    88kathy, sotiredofusernames

    6% of Americans will probably have to change their plan, even if they were happy with their old plan. Even if their old plan sucked, even if they were happy with it, they'll still have to change their plan that they were happy with.

    Yes, the old plan sucked and ACA is saving them from their old plan. Like other government mandated minimums, like seat belts and no smoking under 18, speed limits and plenty of other government prohibitions of risky behavior. The problem here isn't whether the government is preventing people from choosing badly.

    The problem here is that Obama spent years insisting that "if you're happy with your plan, you don't have to change it". That was a lie. The lie is the problem.

    It's the kind of problem that Republicans impeach over. Yes, they impeached Clinton over "depends on what the definition of is is", and they're liable to impeach a ham sandwich. But this lie is a real lie. Repeated over and over again. That is really impossible to defend. "Lie to the American public for its own good" is the kind of platform Republicans force on us. We expect better from Democrats.

    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

    by DocGonzo on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 05:01:50 PM PDT

    •  No one guaranteed your old plan, but (0+ / 0-)

      if you have a 2014 plan thru your employer or otherwise, you will not be forced out of it and into the exchange.  That's what it meant.  No sensible person should have expected otherwise.   No one can guarantee that your employer or insurer will never change your old plan.

      •  Obama Guaranteed It (0+ / 0-)

        Obama said over and over "if you like your plan you don't have to change it". That was essential to the pitch he made in selling it.

        Don't give me "no sensible person". What you mean is "no partisan who will take whatever they're given, especially if it doesn't affect them directly". This is not your employer or insurer changing your plan - it's the government deleting your plan because it doesn't meet ACA standards, so it's the government changing your plan.

        Are you so partisan that you think I'll be fooled by your spin when the actual facts are so obvious? You're going to have to go door to door a hundred million times trying that. And mostly failing.

        "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

        by DocGonzo on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 09:13:19 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  If Republicans were selling "National Romneycare", (0+ / 0-)

    they would demonize those who buy cheap, worthless health insurance as takers and "freeloaders" who pass their larger risks on to the rest of us.  

    And, the con-servative mainstream media would back them up with story after story of those who didn't pay for expensive treatments that weren't covered by their insurance because they didn't man up to their individual responsibility to fully insure themselves.

    Of course, the GOP's "freeloaders" would be the very same people the cons and the media are crying crocodile tears over as victims of "Obamacare" rate shock and the Individual Responsibility Mandate.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site