Skip to main content

From WaPo's The Plum Line:

A crucial GOP line of attack against the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is that millions of people will supposedly lose coverage thanks to shifting requirements on the health insurance exchanges — a flagrant violation of President Obama’s infamous “if you like your plan, you can keep it” proclamation. The truth has always been more complicated, of course. Republicans are constantly blurring the line between people who lose a plan and people who lose coverage. That is, many people might lose a particular insurance plan but immediately be presented with other options.

Now, a new report from the minority staff of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce has destroyed the foundation of that particular GOP claim. It projects that only 10,000 people will lose coverage because of the ACA and be unable to regain it — or in other words, 0.2 percent of the oft-cited 5 million cancellations statistic.

The report starts with an assumption that 4.7 million will receive cancellation notices about their 2013 plan. (Notably it doesn’t endorse that figure, just takes it on for the sake of argument.) But of those, who will get a new plan?

According to the report, half of the 4.7 million will have the option to renew their 2013 plans, thanks to an administrative fix this year.

Of the remaining 2.35 million individuals, 1.4 million should be eligible for tax credits through the marketplaces or Medicaid, according to the report.

Of the remaining 950,000 individuals, fewer than 10,000 people in 18 counties will lack access to an affordable catastrophic plan.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

The full report from the Committee on Energy & Commerce can be read here:

http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/...

No surprise, really, that the GOP scary 5 million number turns out to be B.S. But the fact that the real number is 0.2 percent of that, is somewhat shocking. Hats off to the minority staff of the House Commerce & Energy Committee for uncovering the truth, and to the Washington Post, for broadcasting it.

Just waiting now for Bob Woodward to bemoan the fact that Democrats in the House took their report to Greg Sargent and not him. Lolz

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 (136+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gerard w, IndieGuy, LookingUp, kjoftherock, skillet, Glen The Plumber, gchaucer2, koosah, htowngenie, alguien, louisev, katesmom, sallyfallschurch, DavidMS, jrand, murrayewv, DRo, i saw an old tree today, Dartagnan, middleagedhousewife, Tinfoil Hat, Amayi, markdd, Dave in Northridge, ItsSimpleSimon, mod2lib, Pinto Pony, Matt Z, wasatch, WisVoter, Farkletoo, ArtemisBSG, Mother Mags, ExpatGirl, Chrislove, nupstateny, Sun Tzu, Mary Mike, enemy of the people, Jodster, BlueJessamine, belinda ridgewood, zerelda, northcountry21st, tgypsy, WattleBreakfast, awcomeon, bear83, Aquarius40, harlinchi, JDWolverton, TomP, wader, Steven D, Most Awesome Nana, thomask, Susipsych, createpeace, VTCC73, sharman, rja, Drocedus, dotsright, lurkyloo, kerflooey, Tonga 23, anodnhajo, S F Hippie, brn2bwild, sulthernao, GAS, leftykook, nomandates, peacestpete, IreGyre, theKgirls, assyrian64, Pat K California, ER Doc, dagnome, Lying eyes, bleeding blue, smartdemmg, HedwigKos, Polly Syllabic, TXdem, SeaTurtle, rapala, worldlotus, eeff, shrike, askew, mrsgoo, buckstop, greycat, BadKitties, yet another liberal, marykk, jayden, Lawrence, TofG, Avilyn, sow hat, eru, smileycreek, exNYinTX, blue jersey mom, I give in to sin, YaNevaNo, SaintC, kyril, randomfacts, MKHector, Jakeston, bbctooman, badlands, SheLawyer, Noelle in MPLS, drdana, 1BQ, ColoTim, Bonsai66, gramofsam1, rb608, paradise50, thankgodforairamerica, fcvaguy, dotdash2u, ctkosh, bwintx, ArthurPoet, Oh Mary Oh, BeninSC, Creosote, splashy, Larsstephens

    I ♥ President Barack Obama.

    by ericlewis0 on Wed Jan 01, 2014 at 07:31:16 AM PST

  •  I think it depends on what is meant by (8+ / 0-)

    "if you like your plan, you can keep your plan."  Does it mean "you can keep the coverage you have at around the same pricing structure"?  or does it mean "you'll be able to have some insurance, even if you have to pay more for more coverage (even if you may not want more coverage"?  

    I think most people hear the President's statements as the former rather than the latter.  I have relatives who were in the individual market, and had a very high deductible, catastrophic plan-- covered not much up to that deductible level, but good coverage after that, because that was their best option financially.  No pediatric care, maternity care, etc. because no need. They got a cancellation notice, and the best option at renewal was a plan that covered all those things at about double the premium.  They don't think they could "keep their plan."  Of course, they are insured, so they are not in that 10,000.

    I think it depends on what point you want to make.  If you want to discuss how many people are without ANY coverage, then yes, that 10,000 number is accurate.  If you want to talk about how many people were part of that "small group" to whom the President's promise was not accurate -- who didn't "keep their plans" even though they "liked their plan" (85% of everyone who had insurance in 2009 "liked it" according to polls) I suspect the 4.7 million number is more appropriate.  

    I'll be more interested to see what happens when small businesses like ours (who were given the option to renew early at our old plans for our employees) have to renew this fall for plans that are ACA-compliant, and the employer mandate kicks in.  I think how that plays out will be more important in the 2014 elections, because that will affect far more people than either the 10,000 or the 4.7 million.  

    •  I find it hard to get too worked up.... (7+ / 0-)

      since it is a tax.  These people should pay their taxes and get some health care with it.  That is what the Roberts court decided it was, so tax it is.  Some people are unfairly taxed, and that is too bad.  Perhaps their situation will spur Republicans to expand their healthcare costs.  

      You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad. Aldous Huxley

      by murrayewv on Wed Jan 01, 2014 at 08:01:16 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Small businesses (21+ / 0-)

      I guess we have different ideas about what a small business is. If your business is facing the employer mandate, coffeetalk, that means you have more than fifty full-time employees.

      That sounds a lot bigger than a "small business" to me.

      •  France... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VClib, patbahn

        ...has a comparatively high proportion of 49-employee companies because no one wants the onerous requirements associated with having 50 employees (French law exempts sub-50 employee companies).

        The ACA has similar 50-employee cutoffs. If I was a 52-employee US company (say), I would be thinking long and hard about how to get to be 49 employees and not have to comply with the ACA. Do I really need the extra 3 employees?

        (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
        Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

        by Sparhawk on Wed Jan 01, 2014 at 08:29:54 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  No, if I were the owner of a small business (20+ / 0-)

          I'd think about how to improve the product so that more people purchase it so that I have to hire more full-time employees at a living wage

        •  If you were a 52-employee US company (15+ / 0-)

          I would be thinking long and hard about whether or not I would want to work for someone who obviously doesn't give enough of a shit about their employees to provide them with healthcare.  

          This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

          by DisNoir36 on Wed Jan 01, 2014 at 10:09:22 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Economics trumps everything (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            nextstep

            Maybe I can't afford it.

            (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
            Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

            by Sparhawk on Wed Jan 01, 2014 at 10:21:19 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  DisNoir - I agree (4+ / 0-)

            That's the beauty of the free market. No one is ever required to work for a specific employer. If an employee does not believe they are receiving adequate pay and benefits they are free to find a job where they are valued more in line with their expectations. It's a beautiful thing.

            "let's talk about that"

            by VClib on Wed Jan 01, 2014 at 10:36:57 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  In a good market that's working (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              bwintx, Tonedevil

              it is a beautiful thing.  Problem is there is NO such thing as a free market in our world.  Unemployment is high and large corporations have tilted the market so much in their favor that employees no longer have much of a choice in jobs.  Labor is not valued whatsoever by the capitalists.  With globalization it's even worse because now you're not only looking for jobs competing against equally qualified candidates in this country but now you have to compete with people overseas who can either come here on H1B visas and work for less or you have to directly compete with employees in other countries with lower costs of living and lower wages.  

              I pray for the day when an employee can walk into the Walmart corporate office and demand better wages and benefits or they'll walk and get a better job elsewhere and Walmart will actually give a shit if they do.  

              This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

              by DisNoir36 on Wed Jan 01, 2014 at 02:49:56 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  Sparhawk - we will be seeing a lot of small (5+ / 0-)

          businesses slimming down to 49 employees by using overtime, contractors and temps. My guess is that everyone below 60 employees is at least looking carefully at the mandate and making a decision about what they can afford and how to manage their small business in a way that keeps the doors open.

          We will also see a lot of workers with hours not to exceed 29 hours per week.

          "let's talk about that"

          by VClib on Wed Jan 01, 2014 at 10:33:23 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I can make predictions too! (9+ / 0-)

            I predict that a some companies that are owned by doctrinaire Republicans, or by people like you and Sparhawk, will indeed do this... not necessarily because it is good for them, but because it causes physical pain for them to spend any more money than is legally required on their employees, regardless of whether it would actually make their company more profitable or not. (C.f. Costco, which found that treating its employees like human beings actually made it significantly more profitable (by making it much more productive per capita), but which was heavily penalized by the stock market, which is incapable of believing that such a thing could be possible.)

            I also predict that the actual number of companies doing this will not be statistically significant, because most companies are not owned by zealots. And I further predict that the Republicans, and, again, you and Sparhawk, will find a few of these companies and wave them around excitedly and imply that they are the majority, dammit, the majority of small businesses!

            •  You do not understand (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              coffeetalk, VClib

              You psychoanalyze everything and there is no need for it. Businesses do not leave money on the table out of spite. Business owners would have to be extremely stupid to do what you are suggesting.

              And Costco's business model is completely different than for example Walmart. I suspect you can't pay $15/hr at a company that tries to operate like Walmart.

              (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
              Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

              by Sparhawk on Wed Jan 01, 2014 at 11:57:31 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Inappropriately personal (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              VClib
            •  Fred - have you ever run a business (0+ / 0-)

              made a payroll, or worried about keeping a company solvent? I have never met a business owner who made difficult decisions in a manner to intentionally hurt his or her employees. I have met many who didn't take a salary so they could pay their employees or skipped a paycheck to pay the health insurance premiums. I have run companies and took two of them public. I have been fortunate in that my companies have always been able to provide top tier benefits, but others are running on the margin. I have met hundreds of business owners and their view of their employees is the complete opposite of your perception. I take no pleasure in people losing their jobs, or having their hours cut, or not having health insurance. However, when you have a law that has specific cliffs where your mandatory expenses spike there will always be people who out of economic necessity will adjust to those limits.

              "let's talk about that"

              by VClib on Wed Jan 01, 2014 at 04:00:53 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  i think a lot of 49 person companies will bleed (6+ / 0-)

            1) Overtime is expensive and lowers productivity.

            2) Temps don't give a crap, i've hired a few, they
            are awful when you are on deadline.

            3) Contractors tend to not be much better.

            4) laying off 5 employees to get to 49 to hose
            the workforce out of benefits will do two things.

            a) Slam morale as everyone wonders who is next and
            the workers mourn their colleague.

            b) Slam morale as everyone realizes this was done to hose
            them out of health care.

            5) Replacing full time workers with a bunch of part timers
            gives you a work force with zero dedication to their jobs.

            Historically big business hates hiring part timers, they don't think part timers are dedicated. Compare part time job listings to full time, there is a reason there is so few of them.

            Think it's hard to make it on 40 hours/week, try making it on 29.  Try Scheduling your life at 29 hours at Job 1 and 15 hours at Job 2.  WHat happens when the 2 schedules conflict?
            a full time gig, is dominant and able to be planned for, work 9-5 and then work a few evening shifts at Bob's Corner store, so he can sit in the back and do paperwork.

            but how do you schedule 2 29 hour jobs?  

            Talk to any store that has a lot of P/T employees.
            what happens to stock shrinkage, what happens to morale,
            what happens to reliability.

            training costs increase, turn over rises,  management effort
            increases.

            What's easier to do?  Manage 12 Full Time Employees
            or 16 part time employees?  Do you think supervisors
            need to deal with 30% more work?

            that also applies to all the back office functions, HR, Training, safety, inventory control, security, LP,....

            And with more turnover, more of the company gear walks out. you think LP is easy, with the staff you got, what happens when Bob quits, gives his hat and uniform coat to his skeezy buddy.  Think it's easy to manage LP if you have Skeezy Sam, going around and changing price tags on gear in the back?  

          •  This will include a lot of places you might (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Sparhawk, VClib, Creosote

            Not even think about.

            I work for a college. I know our hr dept is being really careful about how many hours temp/part time workers get. It used to be you could have someone in two part time non benefit positions, effectively giving them full time hours but limited benefits. No more. In some instances that means no part time job but a full time one, but more often it means only part time. And two people, making half the money that the one person used to.

            I suspect you'll see a lot more of that, and a lot more overtime, because it's cheaper to pay somebody overtime than to hire a new person.

        •  Different in Massachusetts (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ericlewis0, patbahn, worldlotus, Tonedevil

          In Massachusetts, more businesses offered health benefits after the law changed there--not fewer.

          For true small businesses--such as the ones in which the owners are the primary workers--ACA opens up possibilities for the owners and their few employees to finally get health insurance they can afford.

          As I recall, about 95% of large employers offered health benefits long before ACA came along.

      •  The major small business issue is for those (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VClib

        who provided health insurance prior to ACA.  While not required to provide health insurance, the insurance they offer is to become ACA compliant - which frequently results in significantly higher premiums and higher deductibles - for plans that most certainly were not "junk" insurance.

        Many such small businesses have chosen to take early renewal of their policies in Dec 2013, to delay the price increase of going to ACA compliant insurance for 2014.  For example, in my case early renewal resulted in a monthy premium of $1950/mo instead of the ACA compliant policy for $2390/mo. In my case ACA resulted in 20% higher premiums and higher deductibles.

        The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

        by nextstep on Wed Jan 01, 2014 at 12:12:41 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  There is more than one definition (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VClib

        of "small business", but I don't think what it means to you personally is particularly relevant.

    •  I think success will depend on how badly the costs (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ericlewis0, nextstep

      are shifted onto the middle class in order to cover the poor and high risk.  (Now, when it comes to attorneys, we should tax the hell out of them and that won't upset the public at all.)

    •  Obama made a major error in saying that, and (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VClib

      saying it repeatedly.  How hard would it have been to be honest as say that policies that seemingly gave poor coverage for preventive and minor issues with high deductables would be canceled.

      (My dad was like the example given, pay lower costs himself as charged by the md., high deductible, and have great catastrophic.  But he and my mother both taught and had decent incomes so they could pay most things out of pocket, and they good state employee insurance where needed.)  

      Obama could have pointed out that there would be good policies available in the ACA for those whose policies were canceled.
      (My parents would probably have ended up in the same situation as the example in the diary.  Maybe that is a fix that is needed.)

      Most adults resent being lied to and it is unlikely that Obama's reputation will ever get rid of that rather significant stain.  its ability to spread distrust into other areas is a stick the Repubs will use, probably all the way through 2016.

      •  The President should have made more nuanced (0+ / 0-)

        statements, but I think he feared that the ACA legislation wouldn't receive public approval and wouldn't pass in Congress. However, that doesn't excuse what he said.

        "let's talk about that"

        by VClib on Thu Jan 02, 2014 at 10:02:49 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Who are these 10,000? (18+ / 0-)

    I don't understand who the 10,000 are.  Anyone can enroll in a plan.   No one can be denied.  

    If it is a matter of affordability, these people are either poor, in which case they will qualify for Medicaid or a subsidy, or they are not poor, in which case they should be able to find a plan they can afford.  

    I suspect what is really happening is simply that they don't want to pay more than they were paying before, not that they are unable to regain coverage.   But that raises the question of what they had before.  Was it anything that deserves the name "insurance"?

    Even the 10,000 number will be pumped up the Fox and friends as innocent victims of the evil Obamacare.  I say baloney.  These people are not being denied coverage, they simply refuse to obtain it.  

    •  I think for some people in their 50s and early 60s (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ericlewis0, annan, worldlotus, Creosote

      who run small businesses, there will be a higher cost.  They might need to restructure their businesses so their income in decreased and their investment is increased.  They should see a tax adviser.

      You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad. Aldous Huxley

      by murrayewv on Wed Jan 01, 2014 at 08:03:17 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Maybe they live in a red state (8+ / 0-)

      that failed to expand Medicaid. Once again, leave it to the GOP and Fox to blame Obama for something that's their fault.

      Filibuster reform, 2013 - woulda, coulda, shoulda.

      by bear83 on Wed Jan 01, 2014 at 09:16:18 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Or employees whose bosses are (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ericlewis0

        intentionally offering unaffordable/crap insurance just to disqualify their employees from the subsidy.

        There are undoubtedly some small number of assholes who will game the numbers to do this.

        "What could BPossibly go wrong??" -RLMiller "God is just pretend." - eru

        by nosleep4u on Wed Jan 01, 2014 at 11:28:31 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  And? (0+ / 0-)

        Despite the fact that I'd probably qualify for Medicaid in some states, I apparently don't here in Michigan.  I still got a good enough subsidy that I was able to find a platinum level plan for 40 a month.

        If you're not poor enough to get a decent subsidy, it's because you make enough that you should be able to afford it on your own.

    •  I found some, unfortunately (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      greenbell, OrganicChemist

      Okay, so first off, I am a (tepid) supporter of the ACA, so please don't take this as a 'burn it down' post. But I am someone who provides help with computer stuff to a number of people, and I have been helping out several people in getting signed up. In particular, I have one couple who has asked me for advice, and I just can't find anything useful to say.

      The sticking point is, if your family is eligible for health care through a job, the ACA test for affordability is 'does it cost less than 9.5% of your AGI to cover THE EMPLOYEE ALONE'. The cost to cover the entire family is not factored in, and it is often much more expensive to cover the family, because the individual's coverage is often subsidized by the company, but the family's often isn't.

      In their case:

      * The man and the woman both work.

      * Man is not eligible for health insurance through employer.

      * Woman is eligible for health insurance through employer, and is subsidized, so her coverage would cost almost exactly 9.5% of joint income for just her. (They miss qualifying for ACA by a couple hundred dollars given their 2013 income, and might make a bit more in 2014.)

      * Man is eligible to be covered under woman's plan, but the combined cost to them is over 24% of their joint income, since his coverage is entirely unsubsidized.

      They are not eligible for the ACA, and I am fairly certain that he cannot sign up as an individual on it either. As far as I can tell, their choices are 'pony up the 24%' or 'pay the penalty for not being insured'.

      This is a nasty, nasty loophole, and one that I very much hope will be closed soon.

      •  if the family wasn't covered before, (0+ / 0-)

        what's the damage now?

        in 2012, take your scenarios, are they
        any different?

      •  They are eligible to buy, but not for subsidies (0+ / 0-)

        "Eligible for the ACA" or "qualifying for the ACA" does not make sense to me the way you're using it.

        I agree that the way they've defined "affordable" for married couples is a bit bizarre, and one of the things that should get tweaked (administratively, if possible) in the coming year.

        But the non-employee spouse is eligible to sign up for ACA coverage through the exchange, as an individual. They may not be eligible for subsidies, unless their household income is under the $62,000 or whatever the threshold is for married couples.

        So these are not people who can't buy coverage; they are people who have decided that it's too expensive for them.

        Suggestion: Instead of serving as an untrained informal navigator, have these people sit down with an actual exchange navigator to look at their options. It's great to try to be helpful, but sometimes professionals know more.

    •  The 10,000 are a forecast, the real number has yet (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TofG

      to be seen.

       In addition, after the report was written, the rules of ACA were changes, so those who had insurance canceled, can decide to not get insurance and don't need to pay a penalty.  They can then take the approach of going without insurance until they expect to have high costs.  We will soon see the extent that people take this approach.

      The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

      by nextstep on Wed Jan 01, 2014 at 12:20:41 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  i couldn't keep my plan and it has nothing to do (33+ / 0-)


    with Obamacare.  My employer changed plan providers and I have to use another carrier.  Am I supposed to blame Obama for that? I don't think so.  In fact, for a similar price I could go back to 'my old plan' now that Obamacare offers it.

    "Kossacks are held to a higher standard. Like Hebrew National hot dogs." - blueaardvark

    by louisev on Wed Jan 01, 2014 at 07:52:54 AM PST

    •  Similar boat myself (5+ / 0-)

      Employer dumped high deductible catastrophic coverage plans and only offered 'wellness plans', 4 doctor visits per year, no maintenance Rx.  Great if you;re young and healthy.  I'm not, so it's off the the marketplace, new silver plan has lower limits, OK co-pays on meds, but the premiums are 50% higher and I make too much for supports.

      “that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry.” Thomas Jefferson

      by markdd on Wed Jan 01, 2014 at 08:19:15 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  If spouse is eligible for insurance (12+ / 0-)

      Two years ago my company added the stipulation that if your spouse is eligible for insurance anywhere else, they have to use it and not our company's plan. Which once again has nothing to do with the ACA.

      People seem to forget how mucked up everything was before the ACA. Every year we changed insurers, and every year people complained about losing their doctor or preferred hospital. Change is nothing new.

      “We can always count on the Americans to do the right thing, after they have exhausted all the other possibilities.” - Winston Chuchill

      by se portland on Wed Jan 01, 2014 at 09:16:27 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  And every year rates rose 10% or more (12+ / 0-)

        as deductibles and co-pays rose. It's been happening for a decade or more - and is clearly Obama's fault...

         

        Filibuster reform, 2013 - woulda, coulda, shoulda.

        by bear83 on Wed Jan 01, 2014 at 09:18:31 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  But another concern is that next fall the plans (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ericlewis0, VClib

        may well change again, some carriers may drop out, and premiums may go way up.  People are going to tolerate a bit of chaos in year 1, but if they don't have a grip on this next October they're in for real trouble.

        •  Can we wait until next fall (0+ / 0-)

          to deal with the predicted catastrophes of Year 2? Please?

          Of course the plans will change again, and premiums will go up. That's been happening annually to all health insurance, both employer-paid and individual, as well as to Medicare Part D and Medicare supplements. (It also happens regularly to other types of insurance such as auto and homeowners.)

          Somehow this has not crashed the economy, or our political system, or even the health insurance business. (I wish it had, so we could get single payer, but no, it's resilient.)

          Will things be better under the ACA than they were before, overall and for most people? We hope so. That doesn't mean there are no glitches, no one unhappy, etc.

    •  That's what happened to me, too. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      smartdemmg, ericlewis0, worldlotus

      And the costs were raised, which basically means I have to take a pay cut.  But that doesn't have anything to do with the ACA, it has to do with bad management.

      Still, there's nothing I can do about that, except sigh and get used to the fact that I'm going to have even less cash flow than I have now.

      Have to figure out what to cut out of the budget to make up for it.  I'm thinking the cab rides home from work when I stay past the time that the buses run.

      All because my employer made some really bad business decisions in the past two years.  That's not an Obamacare consequence.  

      Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

      by a gilas girl on Wed Jan 01, 2014 at 10:36:45 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Bob Woodward's nom de plume "Deep Fraught" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ericlewis0
  •  And I think it's "Health Coverage" with air quotes (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ericlewis0, nosleep4u, worldlotus

    because it's barely worthy of the name.  People will call something health insurance if it insures only against complications from werewolf bites.

    If Hobby Lobby is against contraception, why does it buy its inventory from China, the country that limits the number of children by law?

    by Inland on Wed Jan 01, 2014 at 09:01:34 AM PST

  •  why no surprise at coffeetalk and sparhawk (13+ / 0-)

    their comments to be expected - a new year brings them no cheer, does it?

  •  In 2009 15,000 people lost insurance every day (14+ / 0-)

    Pulling it Together: A Holiday Reminder on the Economy and Health Care

    Sure most of that was due to the economy and unemployment almost doubling, but that is 4.2 million people who lost their health insurance. Because of the ACA will never see those kind of numbers ever again. If you leave your job for any reason, you can enroll in the Market place and can not be turned down for pre-existing conditions.

    Even if it was 100,000, that is less than a week's worth of the loses in 2009.

    “We can always count on the Americans to do the right thing, after they have exhausted all the other possibilities.” - Winston Chuchill

    by se portland on Wed Jan 01, 2014 at 09:10:30 AM PST

  •  So many things wrong with this post.... (7+ / 0-)

    The question isn't whether the 4.7 million and growing number who have lost policies have access to new plans.

    The issue is are the new plans more expensive or crappier for the same benefits.

    Sure, when they cancelled the policies most had the option of going into a new ACA compliant policy - and many complained of sticker shock.  And, no this was not all junk insurance.

    And, many might qualify for subsidies - but if you take a bronze plan, which is all many can afford, you might qualify - but not actually be able to get a subsidy because of the calculation used to determine eligibility.

    So, whether you support or oppose ACA it just seems like something issued by the Democratic staffers are cherrypicking numbers to put spin on what has been a miserable rollout.  

    Just for once, I'd like to see something completely honest from either side that addresses things honestly.  Is ACA giving access to health insurance to a lot of people who couldn't get it before. Yes.

    Is ACA driving up costs for a lot of people who are in the middle class and now have sharply higher premiums, reduced networks and higher deductibles. Yes.

    See, that wasn't so hard.

    Now, can we get some real numbers, please? To see if this law is fixable or not.

    •  ROBERT REICH: Get a Grip (11+ / 0-)

      Why You Shouldn’t Succumb to Defeatism About the Affordable Care ActFRIDAY, DECEMBER 27, 2013

      Get a grip.

      If the past is any guide, some fixes will probably be necessary – but so what? Our current healthcare system is the real disaster — the most expensive and least effective among all developed countries, according Bloomberg’s recent ranking. We’d be collectively insane if we didn’t try to overhaul it.

      But we won’t get it perfect immediately. What needs fixing can be fixed. And over time we can learn how to do it better.

      If enrollments are lower than anticipated, the proper response is to keep at it until larger numbers are enrolled. CHIP, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, got off to a slow start in 1998. The Congressional Research Service reported “general disappointment … with low enrollment rates early in the program.” CHIP didn’t reach its target level of enrollment for five years. Now it enrolls nearly ninety percent of all eligible children.

      “We can always count on the Americans to do the right thing, after they have exhausted all the other possibilities.” - Winston Chuchill

      by se portland on Wed Jan 01, 2014 at 09:44:30 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  This approaches my take on things (4+ / 0-)

        though Reich's aloofness is off-putting.  On the other hand, ignoring or minimizing the problems meriting repair does nothing to advance solutions.  ACA significantly restructures the healthcare market.  The Administration and Democrats in Congress need to get in front of the inevitable disruptions with fixes in hand, not carrying on with Reich's "so what?" attitude or savaging their own for shining a light on the matter.

    •  Agree (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VClib, rduran, denise b

      I was stunned when I saw how much my monthly premiums would go up if I bought a plan through the marketplace. If I picked the cheapest bronze option (which has a higher deductible than my current plan) it would increase 55 percent. I make to much to get a tax credit or any kind of subsidy. Also, reading the fine print I see that if I made less and did qualify for a tax credit I would have to buy a silver plan to get it, so my monthly premiums would go up even more.

      I am really disappointed in the ACA. I think it will do a lot of good for a lot of people, and I'm willing to pay a little extra if someone else can get affordable insurance, but not 55 percent more. That's the story that needs to be told.

      •  So u make more than $ 46k/yr adjgross ($94K for (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ericlewis0, worldlotus

        family of 4), since that's the generic subsidy cutoff.  Frankly, I don't care if you have to pay more.  That's far above medium US income, meaning more than 1/2 of households make below that.  Who do you think can pay for the stuff we as a society needs and that benefits everyone>  I'll give you a clue: it isn't those arely scrapping by.  

        And btw, you do know you have been subsidizes by insurance companies for years by simply letting many of your fellow Americans die.

        Finally, the issue is not did you have to pay more, its what % of your income are you paying for what kind of coverage.  I was paying 1/4 of my adj.gross.  Now, I'll be paying a fraction of that for better coverage.  I'd be paying even less if my state wasn't run by knuckledragging Mommon-worshipers.
        I'm willing to bet that even after your 'increased costs', you're paying a fraction of your adj.gross for it.  

        And btw, that % would not be less under single-payer (likely more, bc more people and procedures would be covered).

        So, if you're truly a Democrat (or even more, a progressive) what exactly is your complaint here?

        •  "I don't care if you have to pay more" (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Rp, denise b, mmacdDE, OrganicChemist

          Isn't likely to win many elections.  The ACA cannot be successful if it fails with the middle class.  Democrats sold this as the AFFORDABLE Care Act.  Not the MIDDLE CLASS PAYS MORE Act.  If you think voters are going to thank you for tricking them into paying to expand a poverty program by raising the cost of their family's health insurance I think you will find that few Americans are THAT progressive and I say that as a liberal.  

          This has been the problem from the getgo with having this program accepted by the public.  Too few understand how it's going to impact their own family.  Representative government implies, "What's in it for me?" and "I don't care" isn't a very good answer.

          •  Thank you (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            greenbell, denise b, OrganicChemist

            I am a long time liberal democrat and supported healthcare reform all along but whenever I point out how shockingly expensive the plans are in the exchange I get this kind of knee jerk response. Implying I must not be a "real" progressive and "I don't care if you have to pay more" is not going to win many hearts and minds.

            •  REAL centrism as opposed to elitist centrism (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              mmacdDE, OrganicChemist

              is understanding that you can't win without serving the needs of the middle class.  You're never going to help the poor in the long run if you alienate the middle class.  And the poor have no place to take their aspirations without a strong middle class.

              I've said before that liberals understand that you have to bribe the middle class to get them to accept increased regulation.  Penalizing them isn't going to do it.

          •  Reply to all: 75% of US make below $94k/yr. (0+ / 0-)

            The simple fact is very few of those who pay more bc of ACA will be middle-class in fact, excluding the deluded  25-40 cohort who have no insurance or junk bc they delusionally believe they won't need it, and who we pay for when they end up in the ER.

            You all remind me of the crowd who wailed against BO proposing to repeal the Bush tax cuts above $ 250 k, claiming it would alienate middle-class voters.  It obviously didn't.  For a simple fact: 98% of US makes less than $250 k/yr.

            Just as 75% make less than $ 94 k/yr, and medium income is less than the single-person adjusted-gross cut off.  

            IOW, it is obvious very few actual middle-class voters will pay more.

            So put the fainting salts and Thug talking points away.

      •  And we were stunned when we went on COBRA (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mmacdDE

        last February.  Granted we have very good insurance, however without the employer paying a part of the monthly premium our monthly premium is a bit over $1200.00  for two.

        Although we have been relatively healthy & maybe went to the doctor a couple of times a year (if that), unforeseen stuff happens in a heartbeat that creates a PreX condition that makes one un-insurable.

        Although our rates did not go up when we went COBRA or due to the unavoidable & unforeseen in 2012-2013, apparently rates will go up for the entire employer group plan in 2014 by $100.00 a month.  

        Which will means we will be paying over $1300.00 a month for health insurance on COBRA beginning January 2014.

        Those premiums have zero to do with the ACA but is on the insurance company.  The generous employer just happens to have the philosophy that company employees should have a choice between three quality levels of health insurance amongst other company benefits.

        The employer pays half the monthly premiums pre-tax (cafeteria style) for employees (not us).  No idea if this will continue to be sustainable if the insurance company continues to raise rates....

        Being currently self employed, my spouse & I will be signing up with the ACA prior to our COBRA ending.  I seriously doubt it will cost more in premiums if there is a duplicate or similar plan available to the one we currently use.  

        The bottom line for us is that we have to have health insurance now-due to stuff happening that we had no control over.  I think some just do not realize how very costly treatment, hospitalization, doc visits & RX can be without insurance.  

        Just as I think that some do not realize just how much insurance through an employer actually costs.

    •  Poster has Dec. 8, 2013 join date FWIW. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      assyrian64, ericlewis0, TopCat

      While I do not question his motives for being here, I do find it ... interesting... how many critics of the law have suddenly joined Kos.

      •  And........ (0+ / 0-)

        And, my messages are financed by and underground network of coal mining, bible thumping, abortion opposing, global warming denying, oil company executives, who hunt baby seals in their spare time and believe any form of social spending by the government is a sign of the decline and fall of western civilization.

        Maybe it took something that was as much of a clusterf--k to bring on my comments.

    •  You answer so definitely (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TopCat, worldlotus
      Is ACA driving up costs for a lot of people who are in the middle class and now have sharply higher premiums, reduced networks and higher deductibles. Yes.
      I have yet to see any good proof that this is happening to a significant number of people. All I have thus far are a bunch of very loud Republicans complaining that this happened to them, and a couple of statistics generated by methods that are transparently dishonest. Many of the individual cases have been debunked, but that doesn't even matter: I want to know if there really are a statistically significant number of people for whom this is the case.
  •  One of the very first things I thought of (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ericlewis0, Chinton, annan, worldlotus

    this morning when I woke up was that I had health insurance. Our cobra ran out at the end of November and even being without some insurance for a month made me nervous. Thank goodness for the ACA.

    "Compassion is the keen awareness of the interdependence of all things." Thomas Merton

    by createpeace on Wed Jan 01, 2014 at 09:47:30 AM PST

  •  Put into Perspective (7+ / 0-)

    This needs to be compared to the now over 6M and growing who know have health coverage under the ACA (either through the private exchanges or the Medicaid expansion) who didn't have it before.

    Let's see that's 6,000,000 minus 10,000, or 5,990,000 more people with health coverage thanks to the ACA.  That's a ratio of:

    600 to 1

    And the Republicans would like to reverse that ratio.  

    "Some men see things as they are and ask, 'Why?' I dream of things that never were and ask, 'Why not?"

    by Doctor Who on Wed Jan 01, 2014 at 10:13:37 AM PST

    •  Exactly. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ericlewis0, worldlotus

      When we legislate anything, there are almost always going to be winners and losers.  If we can create legislation that benefits 600 people to the detriment of every 1, then I think we're doing a good job.  And keep in mind that that 1 person isn't always going to get the short end of the stick.

      The Republicans have always been trying to sell this idea that the laws they support benefit everyone ("We're going to cut everyone's taxes!").  The side of the story they never tell is that they're also cutting programs that benefit large numbers of people.  The dude making minimum wage who pays no federal income tax doesn't give a shit about a tax cut, but when he then loses access to food stamps, he's screwed.

      It may suck for those 10,000 who are now paying more for health insurance that they don't need, but guess what, it's their sacrifice that makes it possible for millions of others to get access to health insurance they didn't have before.  They'll just have to lump it.

    •  Or the one ONE-THOUSANDTHS of a % (1/600). (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ericlewis0

      Completely consistent for Thugs.

  •  There is so much misinformation out there (6+ / 0-)

    that I have to hold off my judgement of the ACA until a more clear picture emerges.

      Personally, I think only a single-payer system will fix our health care system.

    None are so hopelessly enslaved, as those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. -Johann von Goethe

    by gjohnsit on Wed Jan 01, 2014 at 10:49:08 AM PST

  •  If I told them Republicans once . . . (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dagnome, ericlewis0, jayden

    . . . I told them a Billion times -- not to exaggerate.

  •  conservatives have nothing to lose (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ericlewis0, Lawrence

    by lying, and everything to gain.

    My heroes have the heart to live the life I want to live.

    by JLFinch on Wed Jan 01, 2014 at 11:37:08 AM PST

  •  The modern day GOP basically are one of the (0+ / 0-)

    worst groups of liars that this nation has ever seen.

    Tipped and recced.

    "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

    by Lawrence on Wed Jan 01, 2014 at 12:21:57 PM PST

  •  great diary (0+ / 0-)

    chock full of facts that are like a fire hose on hair-on-fire GOP BS.

  •  We attempt change to a problem that should have (0+ / 0-)

    been addressed and resolved 50 years ago, and which in the intervening years has become more expensive and more exclusionary, and people are crying that it's NOT A PERFECT SOLUTION.
    All this ruckus is based on one thing: fear. ACA is a new thing; the devil of a healthcare system we had before was bad and unfair but we knew it, were comfortable with it.
    The feeling can be summed up by the song of the pitchfork and torches mob of villagers in Beauty and The Beast cartoon:
    "We don't like what don't understand, and it scares us..."

    Many people - mostly Republicans -- were strongly against Social Security when it first came out. For a lot of the same reasons they're against the ACA now.

    Ash-sha'b yurid isqat an-nizam!

    by fourthcornerman on Wed Jan 01, 2014 at 02:38:33 PM PST

  •  "Only" 10,000? Sure wouldn't want to be one (0+ / 0-)

    of those 10,000. Net shouldn't more, not less, people have coverage? Wasn't that the whole point? How is this a positive?

  •  The Republican PR citing the number of people who (0+ / 0-)

    would be not able to get ACA coverage in the same breath as the fact that insurance companies kicked millions out of their low coverages plans always, notably, never mentioned  the number of those who would be eligible for subsidies when they applied under the ACA.

    It was not likely that that was an accidental omission,  I was just waiting, and waiting until some one who had the actual data available proved it.

    It would have been political self mutilating artery cutting in the town square if the democrats had not tried to make sure that all those who had low cost junk would get the help they needed getting a policy under the ACA.

    Hopefully the Dems will put this note card in their file for use in their next election(s).  The Republicans lied, to scare sick and low income  people about their ability to get health care, for their own political ends.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site