Skip to main content

There's some good Obamacare press out in the mainstream media, for a change.

A lot of folks on this site are aware of the need to weigh the benefits of Obamacare against some of its' recent troubles. However, that may not necessarily be true of the country as a whole, which has been subjected to almost nonstop negative media coverage of Obamacare by the mass media ever since the national website made its extremely awkward national debut.

However, the following article appeared on as a featured article today. It's unusual because, up until now, it has become almost expected to see one negative Obamacare story after another on My guess is that isn't significantly different than other mainstream national media outlets, in terms of their laziness/obsession with continuing to beat the anti-Obamacare drum, like the lemmings that they are.

This article, however, from the “Wall St. Cheat Sheet,” but, more importantly, featured on yahoo's main web page is very very different, though. The article, essentially, says what a lot of people here at dailykos have been saying for a while, that once people start signing up for and receiving health insurance under Obamacare it will become increasingly difficult for Republicans to be able to kill it off.

The article, written by a Meghan Foley, states what the rest of us suspected, but most Americans have not necessarily  been exposed to...a more objective assessment of Obamacare from a long term view and how the entire politics of the situation changes once those millions and millions of people who sign up start receiving benefits.

This could just be an “outlier” article, so to speak, from someone tired of regurgitating the Republicans' talking points day after day, and who sees the situation as fluid. But, my guess is that even the lazy national news media (which usually finds it easier to just “go with the flow” rather than actually engage in real journalism) will soon become tired of the same old anti-Obamacare rhetoric and Republican talking points and will start looking for a new “angle.”

The headline says it all: “For GOP, it's Time to Stop Criticizing Obamacare.”

Unless or the Obama administration hand them a new reason to continue the negative onslaught (it will be a great relief to finally see the “drip,” “drip,” “drip” phase of negative Obamacare news be finally over with), the fact that this article appeared at all, least of all on a very mainstream outlet such as gives me hope that, perhaps, we're beginning to turn a corner regarding Obamacare (and the president's poll numbers, too (?)).

Can it be said that Obamacare is now turning a corner due to this one article? No. But, hopefully, this is an indicator.

It sure would be good to start the new year with a fresh media narrative regarding Affordable Care Act.

Originally posted to wdrath on Fri Dec 27, 2013 at 12:59 PM PST.

Also republished by Community Spotlight.

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

  •  Brainwrap's updates are driving the narrative (44+ / 0-)

    as far as enrollments go. That's certainly a good thing. Pointing people to positive articles is also a good thing, wdrath. Thanks for this.

    Another good thing -- people in my very Republican family support the ACA. They'll even go on the record about it. As it turns out, the entrepreneurs among us have to buy their own health insurance, so they want a good product, not some junk plan that they might not be able to rely on. Hence, the ACA guarantees them coverage when and if they need it. They like that and, happily, they're willing to admit it.

  •  The GOP is going to get caught flatfooted on this (12+ / 0-)

      They'll keep talking about the "horrors" of the ACA long after the time it's accepted and then appreciated by the American People.
       And having nothing else to run on, they'll do that in 2014 and maybe even 2016, and lose badly.

    "We the People of the United States...." -U.S. Constitution

    by elwior on Fri Dec 27, 2013 at 03:01:45 PM PST

    •  Going to? (15+ / 0-)

      Bill Kristol warned them about this in 1993, as I Diaried in 2009.

      The sum of all GOP fears

         Passage of care plan, in any form, would guarantee and likely make permanent...the largest federal entitlement program since Social Security. Its success would signal a rebirth of centralized welfare-state policy at the very moment we have begun rolling back that idea in other areas.

          But the...proposal is also a serious political threat to the Republican Party...It will revive the reputation of the party that spends and regulates, the Democrats, as the generous protector of middle-class interests. And it will at the same time strike a punishing blow against Republican claims to defend the middle class by restraining government.

      And from the story you link to,
      According to Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, what to do about health care has been the most-discussed topic debated in recent closed-door political sessions.

      “The hardest problem for us is what to do next,” Graham said to the Times. “Should we just get out of the way and point out horror stories? Should we come up with a mini Contract With America on health care, or just say generally if you give us the Congress, the House and the Senate in 2014, here’s what we will do for you on multiple issues including health care? You become a more effective critic when you say, ‘Here’s what I’m for,’ and we’re not there yet. So there’s our struggle.”

      Wait! I know! Cut taxes, cut regulations, cut social programs, cut benefits, cut rights…So, um, what else can be promise to cut that everybody will love us for forever? Oh, but it isn't all cuts. No, we want to increase the military, and Voter ID, and abortion restrictions, and Christmas!!! Yes, Preciousss, we wants it! Nasty Democratses!

      Ceterem censeo, gerrymandra delenda est

      by Mokurai on Fri Dec 27, 2013 at 04:30:27 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I don't see it (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wdrath, Subterranean, dansmith17

    1. The enrollments are behind the CBO-projection schedule.

    2. Nobody is saying much of anything about enrollment diversity in terms of young, healthy people.

    3. Enrolling, contrary to some assertions around here, doesn't mean you're getting insurance for the first time. That is, "[insert current number of enrollments] who didn't have insurance before!" is a disingenuous ejaculation.

    4. Enrolling doesn't necessarily mean being happy about enrolling. Those who are desperate will take what they can get, whether better or worse than what they had before.

    5. "How many have paid?" may be the current right-wing talking point, but it's a valid question.

    That’s slow going, according to consultants and some insurers, raising the prospect that actual enrollment will be far lower than the figures HHS is releasing.

    “There is also a lot of worrying going on over people making payments,” industry consultant Robert Laszewski wrote in an email. “One client reports only 15% have paid so far. It is still too early to know for sure what this means, but we should expect some enrollment slippage come the payment due date.”

    Another consultant Kip Piper, agreed. “So far I’m hearing from health plans that around 5% and 10% of consumers who have made it through the data transfer gauntlet have paid first month’s premium and therefore truly enrolled,” he wrote me.

    6. Current CNN/ORC polling on the ACA is at its worst ever: 35% for and 62% against. That 62% includes 15% opposition on the grounds that the ACA isn't liberal enough, but attempts to spin this 15% in either direction are rife with non sequiturs (in the worst-case scenario, it's 15% pissed off about the ACA and vowing never to vote for Democrats again).

    Only 16% think they'll be better off, vs. 42% worse off and 40% about the same. Again, attempts to spin that 40% in either direction are rife with non sequiturs (in the worst-case scenario, "about the same" = being pissed off with the status quo that turns neither better nor worse.

    63% think their premiums will rise, vs. 7% decreasing and 28% remaining the same. It's unclear whether these people are going by actual experiences or pure speculation.

    •  . (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wdrath, notrouble
      6. Current CNN/ORC polling on the ACA is at its worst ever
      And this seems to correlate with the nosedive in Democratic approval reported in this diary:

      Some polls have Republicans ahead by as many as 5 points, but the reality is probably closer to the RCP average of 0.3. The most important thing, however, is the upward trend of Republican support vs. the nosedive and subsequent downward trend of Democratic support.

    •  good points... (7+ / 0-)'re right...we need to stick with reality on this.

      Regarding those enrollment numbers: the one thing that's driving me crazy is people throwing around numbers from both sides. But we still don't know how many people now have health insurance who didn't have it before (your point).

      It's also unclear to me whether enrollments represent the total number of people being covered or just the number of new enrollments (that is to say, if a portion of those enrollments are for family plans involving several people...the actual number of people covered would be higher than the number of enrollments).

      It would be helpful if we were given numbers in terms of how many actual human beings are receiving coverage under the exchanges.

      As far as the demographics, there have been articles recently saying the targeted younger folks currently represent about 25 percent of exchange enrollees vs. the hoped for 41 percent. To my way of thinking, that's not so bad, considering the emphasis has been on merely getting people in general to enroll, not a targeted effort to the young. If we can now start focusing more on reaching the younger demographics instead of merely trying to "fix" the website problems, we should be able to bring that percentage up. In addition, while the current 25 percent figure isn't what had been hoped for (nor planned for) , according to at least one analysis of the situation, it shouldn't affect the overall program that dramatically even if the numbers don't improve that much.  The attached Kaiser Foundation analysis says that even if we get only half of the targeted goal of young folks (20.5 percent), the overall ACA system would still be viable.

      You are right, however, in pointing out...that there are still a lot of challenges ahead.

      •  Problem with the idea of pointing out how (5+ / 0-)

        many of those enrolling didn't have insurance who will now -it's pretty much impossible to do because Obamacare has already ensured so many the last couple of years who otherwise wouldn't have been able to obtain it.

        Example, my niece.  She had insurance the last couple of years through her mother because she was under 26.  Otherwise, she would not have.  She turned 26 this month, so is still insured, but would have lost it next month without the new insurance mandates.  She would not have been able to obtain insurance without the ACA at any cost because of pre existing conditions.  Of course, that pre existing condition was diagnosed only because of the ACA - otherwise, she'd not have able to afford to go to all the various doctors to finally be diagnosed with the illness that has caused her serious difficulties for many years of her life - and receiving the diagnosis and learning how to deal with the illness will hopefully prevent her from developing full blown lupus.  The deductible she'll be facing is depressingly high for her income, but at least she can obtain insurance at a somewhat reasonable cost - about what it cost her through her mother's insurance.  

        So do we put her  under the "didn't have insurance" or "did have insurance" category.  She had it, but had it only because of the ACA.

        Is she a supporter of the ACA?  No.  Why?  Because her family are super religious and therefore staunch Republicans and the Democrats have done an incredibly shitty job of explainingn to her how much of a positive impact they've already had on her life - with the incredible helpfulness of the MSM making certain they're given as few opportunities as possible.

    •  1. The enrollments are right on schedule (15+ / 0-)

      given that such things always ramp up, even without Web site glitches. So far we have had something like 400% growth from month to month. Why wouldn't we? And so most of the enrollments will come in the last month of the open enrollment period.

      I have never understood why some people feel comforted by handwringing.

      Ceterem censeo, gerrymandra delenda est

      by Mokurai on Fri Dec 27, 2013 at 04:36:43 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  um (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wdrath, Wrench44, Sucker Politics

      It's unclear whether these people are going by actual experiences or pure speculation?

      Actually, it's pretty obvious these people are going by pure speculation.

      Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D.
      Drop by The Grieving Room on Monday nights for support in dealing with grief.

      by TrueBlueMajority on Fri Dec 27, 2013 at 09:27:59 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'd take your comment much more seriously if (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sucker Politics

      it wasn't so obviously slanted and influenced by the MSM.  However, since you focus only on the negative, it seems to me you have at least as much, if not more, of an agenda than does the diarist.

      Because of that fact, it seems pointless to discuss the various weaknesses of your position, but the holes are about large enough to bury an elephant.

      •  I don't know... (0+ / 0-)

        Your comment sounds like that of a person who has an unhealthy emotional investment in me being wrong but doesn't really have anything of substance in the way of refutation, yet you're still compelled to get a word in anyway.

        I'm happy to discuss anything I've said and concede weaknesses or overlooked details, but you're adding nothing to the discussion.

        Can we try this again?

        •  Sure, I'm happy to engage with someone who (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Sucker Politics

          chooses to throw out personal attacks against someone they don't have a clue about and assume that I, who know virtually nothing about you except the extent of negativity you exhibit, have an "unhealthy investment" in you.  Sorry, but I really don't consider you important enough to give a shit whether you're wrong. I also don't choose to waste my time engaging with someone who makes totally unsubstantiated, negative claims and who exhibits an agenda in doing so.  And speaking of adding nothing to the discussion . . .

  •  I suspect we're in for at least another year (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wdrath, notrouble, ferg, worldlotus

    and a half of ACA narratives.

  •  No matter how they attack "Obamacare", it has (25+ / 0-)

    changed the standards for health insurance in America.

    From now on health insurance must be:
    1) high-quality;
    2) comprehensive;
    3) unlimited;
    4) affordable; and
    5) GUARANTEED until eligible for Medicare.

    These standards work together to change what Americans can expect and demand of their health insurance.  Americans no longer have to accept less than this entire set of standards.

    But, it's also important to understand that the 5 standards support each other.  When the propagandists attack one of the standards, the answer is that the 5 standards work together and that you can't have the same positive result if you radically change or eliminate any of them.

    The establishment of these standards to replace total control by the private for-profit insurers isn't the final step in universal coverage, but once these become the expected standards, it will be easier to go forward and impossible to go back.

    •  Good point (8+ / 0-)

      I don't see Obamacare as a foregone policy success in itself, but there's no denying that Obamacare has put the spotlight on an important issue and created dialogue about where we want to be with our health-care system.

    •  If the ACA can change the accepted status from (15+ / 0-)

      health care is a privilege to health care is a right, it will have opened the door for improved methods to deliver that care.  But there will be no improvement until this change in attitude is accepted as gospel.

      “The future depends entirely on what each of us does every day.” Gloria Steinem

      by ahumbleopinion on Fri Dec 27, 2013 at 07:10:50 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  The big fail is #4 (4+ / 0-)

      while the ACA is designed to ensure that most of the working uninsured will be able to afford their premiums after the subsidy, the fact is that high deductibles threaten to limit access to healthcare. And regarding #1 and #3, narrow networks on many lower-cost plans may limit quality and availability. People who are just above the subsidy limit are getting "sticker shock," while the majority of people with employer provided insurance will blame the ACA if their rates go up, regardless of whether it has anything to do with the ACA.

      Although people point to the Massachusetts system as a "success" story, the fact is that healthcare there is not more affordable by any stretch, though thanks to the above-average education levels and income of the citizens of that state, most of them can afford the high costs associated with universal private insurance (they already had 92% of people insured before the mandate went into effect). It's not going to work that way in the rest of the country.

      "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." --I.F. Stone

      by Alice in Florida on Fri Dec 27, 2013 at 10:14:44 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  agree that implementation & cost reduction (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wdrath, True North

        Will be the driver of acceptance by the population. As use of the marketplace becomes easier and more dependable, and people get past the first few months of finding out how doctors and hospitals are going to work with ACA, republicans will find it much harder to keep beating the drum.

        There is still much uncertainty about what will happen January 1, if it goes fairly smooth, and the world doesn't end as republicans have predicted, I think their credibility will start to be questioned. If the story is nobody's insurance was accepted, or they couldn't pay deductibles, then the dems will have a hard year.

        Today's problems are yesterday's solutions. Don Beck

        by Sherri in TX on Sat Dec 28, 2013 at 03:34:41 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Thanks, Alice. Let's continue the conversation. (5+ / 0-)

        First, HealthCare in America is very, very expensive, far too expensive, and it will take a far stronger political coalition to deal with the cost of HealthCare itself.  "Obamacare" helped a little with some costs of HealthCare, but it deals mostly with health insurance.  The PPACA coalition did what it could with what it had, but it's our job as voters and citizens to improve it going forward.  Some of the flaws weren't fixed because the Voters failed in the MA special election in 2010 and the 2010 midterms.  

        If we think the subsidies need to be extended, we need to work for the politicians who will help to fix that problem and against those who want to retain, extend and exploit any actual, perceived or fictitious problems.

        Second, all of the standards need to be understood in relation to the failed health insurance system before ACA.  It's okay to compare ACA to Perfection as a motivator towards future improvements, but we can't allow the forces of negativity to lead us towards resignation and defeat.

        The Affordable standard (#4) doesn't mean that ACA suddenly made healthcare and health insurance inexpensive, it means that the expense is now within reach even for those who are older or unhealthy.  

        High-quality (#1) means that every policy has to provide real coverage not the unrestricted junk insurance that was previously allowed.

        Unlimited (#3) means that there are no annual or lifetime limits.  

        I'm in Massachusetts.  Regardless of the starting point, MA is a true success story and the standards have been strongly established.   It will take time to fully establish the standards countrywide, but the politicians can't do it without the voters.  

        Finally, why so negative?  It's good not to be satisfied, but why buy into so many of the RighTea talking points.  Izzy Stone had far greater opposition but never gave up the fight; neither can we.  We're far closer to total victory.  Keep up the fight for Perfection, but appreciate and shout about the lesser victories along the way.

        •  I agree - I really don't understand the negativity (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          divineorder, wdrath, worldlotus

          I was, without question, opposed to the ACA initially because I wanted single payor.  I continue to be disappointed that we didn't receive something better, but to accept that this is at least a small step in the right direction, and we need to focus on making it better, not whining about it and undermining the little we obtained.

          Yes, the deductibles are depressingly high, especially since the mandates aren't that helpful for people on the cusp.  Eg.  My niece, who's gross income is expected to be a mere $27,000 next year faces a monthly premium of over $200 a month, after the small credit she receives, and her deductible will be $4,000, plus she'll have some co-pays.  That means she will end up spending $6400 plus out of the about $21,000 after tax income on healthcare, leaving her with about $1300 a month for evey thing else.

          On the other hand, without the ACA, she'd not have been diagnosed with an illness that, with treatment, will not have a major impact on her life, but that without treatment would have led to her developing lupus in short order, because she'd not have had insurance and not been able to afford the medical care that finally provided her with that diagnosis.  She was able to obtain that through her mother, since she's under 26.  And now, without the ACA, she'd not be able to get insurance at all because of this pre existing condition.

          So, it's a mixed blessing.  It probably saved her life - certainly saved her many, many thousands of dollars in medical expenses she'd have incurred had it developed into lupus.  But it's still at a higher cost than she can truly afford.

          I'd like to see the higher credits for the lower income people, with lower deductibles and copays available to them as well.  If somehow, medical expenses could be limited to a percentage of income for lower income people.  But I'm hoping that's an improvement that will be made as time goes on, but we need to take a positive approach when trying to make these improvements, not these silly attacks talking as though the ACA itself is a total failure.

          •  If she has an illness, she is better off (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            going with the low deductible you get at the high premium plans.

            My son in the same  position got a platinum plan with just a $1,000 deductible, but that costs him $167 a month, the high end for 29 yr olds in his state/county. Bottom line he will save over $3,000 in routine annual meds needs.

            Did she thoroughly check her platinum plan options? If you are going to burn through a deductible fast, mifght as well hit it early in the year so the insurer pays from then.

            (Also, why is she not getting a subsidy?? It is there up till $45,090 income)

        •  It's personal (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          divineorder, wdrath

          I recognize that the ACA is going to be (at least if it works as designed) a very good deal for young people in entry-level jobs and others who find themselves earning in the range of 2xFPL. And it makes health insurance available to people with chronic conditions who couldn't get it at all before--if someone would have had to pay thousands every month to stay alive, it will be great to only have to pay $800 or so.

          The biggest hole in the ACA is not Obama's fault--it was a huge shock when the Supreme Court decide to ignore decades of precedent in terms of the federal government being able to set rules for federally-funded programs. The goal of the ACA to ensure access to healthcare has been dealt a huge blow by the failure to extend Medicaid, which will reportedly leave as many as 7 million poor adults with nothing.

          As for the personal part--I'm one of those whose income falls just above the 4xFPL limit. I realize that I am more fortunate than with lower incomes, in that I can more easily afford food, clothing, shelter, etc., and I'm not like those right wingers who are jealous those with less--I don't enjoy paying taxes, but it sure beats the heck out of living hand to mouth all year and getting a couple of thousand in the spring that goes straight into paying back loans or buying a shitbox (car) that runs to replace the one that doesn't.

          I had hopes of being able to find a plan in the range of $350-400 a month. Not expecting much for that, but it was what I saw on a chart for the high-risk pool (created by the ACA to provide coverage until 2013, vastly undersubscribed from what I heard). Instead, the lowest-cost plan available is $450, has a $6,350 deductible, is limited to my home county and maybe a handful of doctors that doesn't include mine. If I want to keep my doctor I have to go up in price--to at least $500 if I want a plan that might cover me if I'm away from this county for a couple of months. And still with a deductible over $5,000.

          Of course, that's life in the USA these days.

          Regarding "perfection"--it's really sad when Canada is the definition of perfection. I mean, they're nice and all, but not perfect, and their health insurance system (like those of, I think, every country in Europe) isn't perfect either, it's just not a clusterfuck like ours.

          The ultimate irony of the ACA is that its problems are not really due to Republicans, being that not a single one of them voted for it or contributed to it in any way. It was Democrats--specifically a certain handful of Senators who shall remain nameless--who cut out the public option, the one thing that could have forced prices down. The proposal to allow a Medicare buy-in for those over 55 would have been a boon to most of those now bitching and moaning about their insurance being cancelled--many are self-employed older people whose premiums have gone up instead of down--if they could have gotten on Medicare their premiums would probably have been so much lower they could have bought supplementals and still had money left over.

          Hopefully things will calm down, most people will realize that they're either better off or unaffected--the big difference between now and 2010 is that the law will actually be in operation rather than a big nebulous bugaboo that anyone could make up stories about, as it has mostly been since it was enacted.

          "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." --I.F. Stone

          by Alice in Florida on Sat Dec 28, 2013 at 08:51:11 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Very interesting comments, thanks! FWIW ACA (0+ / 0-)

            related news on the PNHP Articles of Interestpage :

            Articles of Interest

            These articles highlight many of the health care related stories in the news–ranging from single-payer op-eds by PNHP members to reports by newspapers on corporate health care.


              Americans are paying for health care with more than money
                Posted on Friday, December 27, 2013
                By Philip Caper, M.D. | Bangor Daily News
                Americans now spend close to $3 trillion a year for health care, around 18 percent of our GDP. That works out to almost $9,000 per person in Maine, almost twice as much per person as the average for other wealthy nations that provide health care for all their people. ... As one Canadian conference participant put it, “It breaks my heart to see Americans destroying your schools, libraries and public safety to pay for health care.” It breaks my heart, too. We can do a lot better.
              'Sticker shock' over Obamacare bolsters single-payer argument
                Posted on Friday, December 27, 2013
                By Jon Queally | Common Dreams
                As the political uproar surrounding the Affordable Care Act has played out over recent months, one single fact remains: the private insurance model—on which the law widely known as Obamacare is based—is more complicated, more expensive, and provides less coverage than a simple, "everybody in/nobody out," single-payer model that almost every other advanced country in the world enjoys.
              Simple solution — single payer
                Posted on Friday, December 27, 2013
                By Rochelle Dworet, M.D. | Health Policy Solutions
                So the Affordable Care Act is finally being implemented, even online. Our state has its own exchange, which seems to run better than the national model. The people in the states that implemented their own exchanges are all busy heaping accolades on each other. However, the real question is, “Where is the single-payer solution that would save hundreds of millions of dollars and lives?”

            Move Single Payer Forward? Join 18,000 Doctors of PNHP and 185,000 member National Nurses United

            by divineorder on Sat Dec 28, 2013 at 10:35:37 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  I am thinking the next step after implementation (0+ / 0-)

        and as time goes on, is working to lower these deductible amounts which are quite high. I think that is one of the tweaks that will need to be made in the future.

        As I think ACA is just the first step. I think improvements will need to be made and one of the big ones will be lowering these very high deductibles that will still keep some people from seeing a doctor as much as recommended by physicials.

        Keystone Liberals on Twitter @ KeystoneLibs , Join PA Liberals at

        by wishingwell on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 06:23:40 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  4)affordable (0+ / 0-)


  •  I guess a place to start judging the media is that (10+ / 0-)

    they vast majority of those writing or talking about the ACA have insurance from their employer.  So they don't know what not having insurance means, or having to pay very high rates as a single payer, or having insurance but it doesn't cover a preexisting condition.

    All they are really doing is following the politics is DC not the reality in the rest of the country.

    So they are going to follow one another around in circles, like they mostly do, until they realize no one cares about that particular topic.

    However come the middle of the summer and campaigns get really serious there's lots of video of the ones who were against insuring those who needed insurance.  Not to the mention millions now on the Medicaid rolls who needed the coverage.

    Unless something really major comes up, like the insurance companies hiking the prices sky high, we are over the hump.

  •  It's great the media's bored enough to change (6+ / 0-)

    their reporting, but that may not be enough to change the narrative.  

    Can't trust Government.  Government is incompetent, Government always fucks up.  Only the market (corporations) can get stuff done, when they're left alone.

    The RW message-deployers know that once the narrative is set, people don't really hear information that doesn't fit that narrative, or belief.  So they're safe now to put in some media-minutes showing Obamacare positively.  

  •  Obamacare is turning the corner (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bobatkinson, wdrath, worldlotus

    but only for people who:

    disliked it before

    didn't know what it involved

    believed the GOPropaganda about it

    Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D.
    Drop by The Grieving Room on Monday nights for support in dealing with grief.

    by TrueBlueMajority on Fri Dec 27, 2013 at 09:26:46 PM PST

  •  A good Obamacare story: (7+ / 0-)

    On December 15 my 28 year old son and I signed him up for a Blue Cross Bronze plan.  We had to do it over the telephone, maybe because we didn't see any instruction to include a numeral in his password.  It was about a 50 minute wait to talk to a human being, but only 25 minutes more once our turn came up.  Note that we live in Texas, so we were using the national sign-up system.

    On December 26 I phoned Blue Cross and got them to look up his policy.  I paid the first month's premium by "check over the telephone".  I asked the lady if my son would get an insurance card by January 1.  She didn't think so, but she reassured me that the policy number she had given me would be enough information if he turned up in an emergency room before the card came.

    In fact, his insurance card came in the mail that very day.  So did a bill, and an eight page summary of his policy.

    My son had insurance before, so he doesn't count as a newly insured person.  But I consider his experience a success.  The biggest hurdle was the fifty minute wait, but I had the sense to make the call with a speakerphone, sitting at my computer, so it wasn't that bad.  The hold music was nice and the occasional announcements weren't obnoxious.

    If we have trouble with his insurance now, I'll complain jointly to Blue Cross and our congressman.  After all, we got the insurance through a government program, so the congressman's office ought to be interested in problems with that program.  Our congressman is such a right winger he may only be interested to the extent of looking for "See, I told you so" examples, but Democratic congresscritters should be interested in making Obamacare work well.  All the more reason to elect Democrats to the House of Representative: they'll do effective constituent service because they think the government can do things well and want to see that it does.

    We're all pretty strange one way or another; some of us just hide it better. "Normal" is a dryer setting.

    by david78209 on Sat Dec 28, 2013 at 05:12:34 AM PST

  •  500 million of private insurance money (4+ / 0-)

    about to be dumped into a campaign to get people to sign up.  Looks to me like private industry has figured out this is a money maker.  Message to media ... game over, ACA is not going away.

    "The real wealth of a nation consists of the contributions of its people and nature." -- Riane Eisler

    by noofsh on Sat Dec 28, 2013 at 05:18:33 AM PST

  •   They need to fix (5+ / 0-)

    asset recovery of medicaid. Give ultralow income people with assets subsidies and breaks on copays and deductibles like the CSR silver plan. Don't force them onto medicaid. If they don't fix this, and I bet they won't, you'll know where the ACA's intent is. I guess now its up to the states, and most see money and won't fix it either.

  •  The verification system is down today. (0+ / 0-)

    That means a couple of things:

    -- Something screwed up the data draws from the primaries to the PPACA data warehouse. Again.

    -- Getting back to the primary sources is now and may always be screwed up.

    So my brother-in-law and his family are still trying to get through for health insurance. After 5 hours today I finally got everything to verify for format and legal values -- hadoop-effing-ray !!

    We knew early that the PPACA site was getting hit with such as 14,000,000 faked DOS-attack phony login requests an hour.

    Republicans and over fascists know best. People have to be defended from falling into a dependency culture, don'tcha know.

    Lie, cheat & steal.

    Receive, remember, apply.

    Dirty tricks forever !!

  •  Positive experience with MNSure (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    worldlotus, PlinytheWelder, TofG, Mike08

    My wife and I moved back to the US in September after 30 years abroad.  Neither of us has a lot of work experience in the US, so our SS payouts will be small.  She's under 65, and so was eligible to apply for health insurance through the MN exchange, MNSure.  

    A while back we went to an insurance agent at AAA to apply for her, and he walked us through the web site.  Since she had all her bureaucratic ducks in a row, this wasn't difficult, and we were through the process in an hour and a half or so.  Her online application was accepted by the system, and we have since gotten written confirmation from MNSure though we are still waiting for the paperwork with the policy choices and premiums.  We have been told by MNSure that she is eligible for subsidies, so the premiums should be quite modest.  

    Considering she has COPD, a chronic  dermatological problem, and is a breast cancer survivor, she wouldn't have had an ice cube's chance in hell of getting any kind of coverage without MNSure. Meanwhile, I've been approved for Medicare A and B.  Between the two, we're feeling a whole lot more at ease in terms of our long-term prospects in this dystopic country than we did when we arrived.  Hooray for the ACA and for a Dem majority in the MN legislature that approved a state exchange system!  

    -7.13 / -6.97 "The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion." -- Edmund Burke

    by GulfExpat on Sat Dec 28, 2013 at 11:51:47 AM PST

  •  The negativity even here astounds me (4+ / 0-)

    It never was going to be easy, like in war, its a hard slog. Imagine in WWII, May 1942 the USA in the Pacific, it was a total diasaster. Did FDR throw in the towel and seek peace with Japan. No, and three years later it was nearly over.
    We are just in the middle of the war and the turning point is coming, probably later this year. Republicans will continue to fight this, with no plan or strategy, and it will show.

    •  That's the problem - people have trouble seeing (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      the long view.  Enrollment this year went poorly - if we have good numbers despite the poor experience, I'm really happy about that.  But it's hard to deny that it went (and for some states, still is) going poorly.

      But that's this year.  Next year, they'll know what to expect, and I suspect that enrollment problems will be in the minority.  Also, folks who are already enrolled won't need to even revisit the issue unless they want to change their plans.

      The problem that I see is that there's an election between now and then :(.  If the Feds and the states that are having problems can pull the chestnuts out of the fire by then, ACA may be of some help.  But if the most recent memory is that of all of the problems, and there are too many people who wanted insurance but couldn't get it, it may feel a little bit too much like 1936-1937 and the New Deal backlash :(.

      "The first drawback of anger is that it destroys your inner peace; the second is that it distorts your view of reality. If you come to understand that anger is really unhelpful, you can begin to distance yourself from anger." - The Dalai Lama

      by auron renouille on Sat Dec 28, 2013 at 03:19:02 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  So, I'm not quite sure what to expect. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mr Robert

    Things in Oregon are bad :(.  Unlike the Federal exchange, no thanks to Oracle, our website is simply DOA.  I had a bizarre emergency hospitalization (3 days and surgery for an abscessed tooth only 3 weeks after seeing my family dentist) so I received help from a "community partner" at the hospital to apply, but a lot of folks may not have been able to seek out that kind of help.  They're still processing paper applications and, nearly 4 weeks after I applied, I still can't get confirmation that my application was received :(.

    I know that it will work in the end, but the website bullshit in Oregon and federally is so frustrating :(.  I hope that Oregon sues Oracle for every cent that they can lawfully claim; knowing Gov. Kitzhaber, the state probably will, once the contract is either performed or an impasse is reached - he's an MD and this is personal for him in the way that Jerry Brown's quests are personal for him.  But the state hired Oracle so the blame falls on the state.

    I know that it'll work out in the end, but I dearly hope that it works out this year and not next because of midterms (which are already ugly enough for us as it is, between occasional voters staying home and our incessant True Progressive circular firing squads).  Oregon will be OK, I doubt that we'd send Scott Brown to the Senate over this (I think that if he came to Portland we'd box him up and mail him to Idaho).  But other states and districts?  I dunno.

    "The first drawback of anger is that it destroys your inner peace; the second is that it distorts your view of reality. If you come to understand that anger is really unhelpful, you can begin to distance yourself from anger." - The Dalai Lama

    by auron renouille on Sat Dec 28, 2013 at 03:12:39 PM PST

  •  Fat Chance! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TofG, wishingwell

    It's a miracle for our family, with a son who has a major pre-existing condition suddenly freed from a two hour drive each day.

    I just had a dear friend ask me, "So what's up? I've heard nothing but negatives." So I told her, and explained that the last thing the insurance companies want is to insure people with pre-existing conditions. She listened.

    One voter at a time, one myth at a time disspelled. Money can't trump true experiences.

  •  Fox News-Obama Canceled My Insurance (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TofG, wishingwell

    The guy was saying "My health insurance was canceled after three heart attacks!  Damn you Obama."  

    That shit's so stupid it must makes my hair hurt.  Talk amongst yourselves.

    Men are so necessarily mad, that not to be mad would amount to another form of madness. -Pascal

    by bernardpliers on Sat Dec 28, 2013 at 06:32:02 PM PST

  •  The polls are worthless because: (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TofG, wishingwell

    1. Few ask why you support or don't support. I think it was a Kaiser poll several months ago that found a third disapproved because they wanted single payer.

    1a. Few ask if you want the law overturned or just don't like it.

    2. Most polls have under sampled the people most impacted.

    3. Virtually every poll finds people of both parties overwhelmingly support all features of the ACA except the individual mandate.

    4. When asked about ACA verses Obamacare there are large differences - much of the opposition is racism.

    5. Recent polling numbers confuse the sign up problems with features. So many don't seem to realize many parts of the law have been in effect for several years. For example, a wingnut friend commented that Obamacare had nothing to do with keeping kids on parents' policies until they are 26 because ACA had not taken effect yet she is able to keep her kids on her health insurance. And just Christmas eve, a loud liberal insisted that ACA hadn't even started so what is all the worry about.

    I don't know what consciousness is or how it works, but I like it.

    by SocioSam on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 10:07:17 AM PST

  •  I look (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    at news just about everyday.
    I shake my head at the headlines, then read where it came from & laugh.


    are the easiest to remember.
    but there are easy 10 .coms attacking the ACA & Obama daily.

    I didn't read this article till a few minutes ago.
    I saw it on a few days ago.

    Thanks for finally getting me to read it.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site