By Mark Esposito, Weekend Contributor
Even as the GOP struggles to hold onto to its wacky Tea Party base and appease the country clubbers who finance the show, it finds it can unite on one thing: It Loves the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”). That’s right, the party who issued dire warnings over death panels and runaway costs, and rationing, and lost jobs just heard from its grass-roots and … they LOVE it. According to the Commonwealth Fund, a private foundation that “aims to promote a high performing health care system that achieves better access, improved quality, and greater efficiency, particularly for society’s most vulnerable,” polling shows 74% of persons who had the guts to identify themselves as Republicans “said that they were very or somewhat satisfied with their new insurance plan.” And even more remarkably for that “sky-is-always-falling” crowd, they’re optimistic .. yes, optimistic, that “new health coverage will improve their ability to get the care they need.” What ? No waiting lines, no rationing of health care ? No shadowy board saying Grandma must die because she needs hormone replacement therapy?
What is this our conservative brethren cry? Well, it’s reality and everything Republican leaders hoped — for purely political reasons — it wouldn’t be. Like the number of uninsured dropping from 15.6% to 13.4% in just one quarter. This is “the lowest quarterly average recorded since Gallup and Healthways began tracking the percentage of uninsured Americans in 2008. ” Oh, then there’s the actual people who now can get the healthcare they need (and that most civilized nations regard as a civil right). Over fifteen million Americans have signed up for coverage by the end of the last enrollment period and about 8 million went through the exchange. A Kaiser Survey found that nearly 6 out of 10 of the 8 million who enrolled in the marketplace were previously uninsured. Maybe that will reduce the 25,000 American per year who, pre-ACA, were dying from little or no healthcare.
And what about the demographics of those recently insured? Those cut across all age groups except those 65+ due to their eligibility to Medicare.
Not seeing the doctor of their choice, I bet. Nope that canard has gone the way of the buggy whip too, according to the Washington Post. “Just about one in five of those with new coverage, though, said they tried to find a primary care doctor — but of those, 75 percent said their search was somewhat easy or very easy.” So 80% kept their doctor, and 75% said getting a new one –if they had to — was easy. That lying Obama saying that everyone will get to keep their doctor and plan. Throw him in jail for that whopper!
And lastly, what about that great Republican bugaboo. You know the one where we’ll all wait years for surgeries or even just to see a specialist under Obamacare? Well, the Commonwealth Fund says that 58% of those newly insured who needed to see specialists did so in two weeks. Two weeks? That’s how long it tales me to get a plumber out to my house!
So, with the dire predictions of the demise of healthcare system via the ACA effectively debunked what does it mean for the GOP’s singular wedge issue? Plan B: The President’s travel schedule? ( He won’t “visit the border,” you know) Well, maybe, but the bigger problem is the disconnect between GOP leadership and its apparently healthy and satisfied membership. Taking away the things that people like by their own government has never really been a winning political strategy. See, Prohibition, i.e. disaster.
Even more politically challenging is that independents love Obamacare more than Republicans. By a 85% to 15% gap, independent voters can’t get enough of quality affordable health care that, for the first time in a long time, actually costs less per month than their mortgage. Try that on for size GOP. Who’s left to vote? Undocumented workers? Oh, sorry, they can’t and well, a lot are Hispanic and … you know … you’re not doing so great on immigration reform. Next subject, please.
Already facing a demographic nightmare in 2016 when even more young people and minorities are expected to vote, the GOP presidential chances stand at a crossroads. Give up the best issue you thought you had: government “takeover” of the healthcare system or change? What would a savvy political party do? Well, change of course. For the GOP? Well, they do love a good collision course with reality sometimes.
Ok, all you political operatives in the making, what do you think:
Source: Commonwealth Fund and throughout.
~Mark Esposito, Weekend Contributor
By the way and for better or worse, the views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not necessarily those of the blog, the host, or other weekend bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays of art are solely the author’s decision and responsibility. No infringement of intellectual property rights is intended and will be remedied upon notice from the owner. Fair use is however asserted for such inclusions of quotes, excerpts, photos, art, and the like.
And Elizabeth Warren is cut from the same cloth. I just watched one of her speeches from 2011 where she basically said “You didn’t build that.” She said no one got rich on their own. They used roads we all paid for, and the public education system we all paid for, etc.
Well, you know what, if you pay 4 times as much in taxes do you not get to use the roads and bridges and schools? Is it unfair to pay someone for their work while you take all the financial risk yourself? Do not the poor, who pay zero taxes, get to use those roads and bridges and schools, too? Why should the rich feel guilty for using infrastructure that they PAID FOR more than anyone else?
She uses class warfare as a voting gimmick. Typical politics.
Until Obamacare hit, I always took the position that politics was “to each his own.” But the Liberal thoughtlessness that did real financial damage to the middle class, and reduced health care choices to the point that people with cancer will have a higher chance of dying because they can no longer see the specialists they could before . . . and Liberals just walk away whistling from the effects of their own actions. It made me frustrated and angry. People of all political parties have a responsibility to research the effects of their votes and their policies. Trace them to their conclusion and then inform future decisions. But most people don’t. They just blithely vote along party lines, and refuse to listen to any facts or outcomes that they might not like.
Regan was responsible for infuriating the elderly when he tried to legislate more benefits for Medicare. That caused such a rise in premiums that the elderly turned out in droves against him and swamped his car. He was responsible for that, and he fixed his mistake.
No wonder Obama was just polled to be the worst president since WWII.
@KarenS
The Tolerant Party is all about staying in power, not about about accomplishing good things. I read somewhere that this dichotomy arose during the early 1800 ‘s during the Romantic Period when, like Lord Byron, you got to be kewl and heroic no matter what kind of cad you were in real life.
Loving your comments!!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
My insurance typically covered a few contraceptives over the years. And neither I, nor any single solitary other woman I ever knew, felt “abused” with that choice. But, suddenly, unless you have 20 choices, all for “free” (accompanied by rocketing premiums because they think women can’t do math and add), all of a sudden it’s a “war” against us.
Seriously, we can add! Do you think we won’t notice that we have “free” birth control but our net costs actually sky rocketed? And now our doctor choice reduced?
This is the real “war on women” – making health care unaffordable for all of us middle class women. Taking away doctors and hospitals that used to be covered, but do not accept Obamacare policies. So good luck if you get breast cancer. But, hey, we’ll just walk in an Avon Walk to make ourselves feel better, right? Thanks a lot for “helping us!”
An increase in deductibles of 1100% sounds dire because it IS dire!! Is this a serious question?
Does any rational person think Obamacare would have passed if they would have been honest what it would do to middle class families? Would you vote to increase your own deductible by 1100%?
Mespo:
Why don’t you pick up the phone book and try out your theory, that these are just “talking points?” Start calling doctors in CA.
I recently was given a prescription that used to be on formulary for my previous wonderful policy, but is not on the formulary for my Obamacare policy. I can’t afford it (on top of my Obamacare premium.) And it wouldn’t count towards my out of pocket max caps. So I just went without it.
Isn’t it wonderful?
This is an Obamacare policy.
Please note that the formulary is also now tightly restricted, to keep the premiums from increasing even more to accommodate all that free stuff and benefits. So if a prescription is not formulary, I have to pay out of pocket, and it does NOT count towards my maximum out of pocket.
In addition, if I want to see a doctor, I have to pay OUT OF POCKET.
Now, why would any reasonable person be upset? Must be racism, right? Because it couldn’t be simple math.
Because Obamacare math is “and then a miracle happened, and people didn’t care that they paid far more and got less for health insurance, and miraculously it didn’t affect their budget at all, because a magic money tree sprung up outside their window overnight.”
Good luck with that when the employer mandate hits.
BFM:
My previous deductible was $500/person. It is now $6,000/person.
Difference/original = ($6,000-$500)/$500 = 1100%.
Isn’t that wonderful? Now WHY wouldn’t we masses just LOVE this?
Mespo:
This is my life, not a “talking point.” These are facts, not just my personal experiences.
From your position of The Tolerant Party, you really come across as not caring very much about what your party’s policies actually do to people.
Karen:
Do you ever prick your fingers throwing out all those false Republican talking points?
Actually I too would like to know a little more about both the old and the new policy.
We know that the maximum family deductible is $12,700 so if that represents an increase of 1100% the old deductible must have been just over $1000.
We know that some will pay higher premiums and deductibles.
But to know if this was the least expensive alternative for the family, a good choice or the best choice for the family, I think we have to know more.
An increase of 1100% for deductibles sounds dire but it doesn’t really tell us what is going on with the two policies.
Paying $1154 in deductibles for a policy that works when you are healthy and gives you the boot when you are sick may be a lousy deal – without more information we just don’t know.
On the other hand, a maximum deductible of $12700 sounds like a lot to many of us but at least we know the plan will cover the needs of a family and that deductible may be entirely manageable for the families that actually incur that expense.
With out more information this is just so much blither.
Anyone who doesn’t believe me, you can do 2 things:
1) Call the CA Medical Association and ask them what percentage of doctors accept Obamacare policies.
2) Go on the Internet and start calling doctors in CA and make your own statistical analysis. It might get expensive, but this is a good method for those who won’t believe the CA Medical Association, either.
Lee:
Before you consider switching to an Obamacare policy, please call your doctors and verify that they will accept it.
Here in CA, 75% of doctors will not accept Obamacare policies. They only pay something like $24/visit. Who can keep the doors open for that? Doctors who operate a factory model – a couple of minutes per patient to maximize quantity over quality? Sound like a good health care model to you? What do you think the chances are that the 25% who do accept Obamacare are good quality doctors? And were you aware that Obamacare made deep Medicare cuts? And all the nursing homes that closed because they could not afford those Obamacare cuts? What about those elderly who lost their nursing home? Do you think they’re enjoying Obamacare?
Hopefully other states are different and the acceptance rates are better where you live.
I would not wish Obamacare on anyone.
Lee:
If you are afraid to lose your policy, how do you think millions of people like me felt when we lost our wonderful policies? Now I pay double premiums, 1100% higher deductibles, and I still have to pay out of pocket to see a doctor. Sound great to you???
What are the differences with Romneycare:
It was done on a state level, not the federal level. States are the great experimental field, and every state is different. What works in Mass might not work in CA. They do not have huge amounts of immigration. Romney’s law was crafted with the help of the Heritage Foundation, and it had unanimous support from Republicans, Democrats, and Liberals. Obama’s law was passed so legislators could learn what was in it.
Mass had a far lower uninsured rate than the national level. Romneycare was essentially a conservative idea: to stop people who could afford it from getting a free ride on health care off the backs of taxpayers. They had to pay for insurance or pay for care, unless they were poor. That’s it. Insurance wasn’t nationalized. There were no massive “freebies” that drove up the cost of health insurance or else it would be deemed a “war on women.” The goal was simple – to actually ease the burden on Mass taxpayers from those who could afford insurance but refused to buy it, because taxpayers would foot the bill if they were injured or fell ill.
I hope this clarifies the very different methodologies between simple, effective, conservative reforms (enacted with full disclosure, and complete bipartisan agreements under Romney’s leadership), and the Liberal method which a vast majority of the American people want either repealed or significantly changed.
http://usconservatives.about.com/od/healthcare-issues/a/Obamacare-Vs-Romneycare.htm
http://spectator.org/articles/36046/obamacare-vs-romneycare-crucial-difference
rafflaw:
About anthropomorphic climate change, I listed out a lengthy list of all of the sincere concerns that I, and thousands of scientists, have with the data and conclusions, including the fact that much of the original data was lost after it was “homogenized” by a computer model, so it cannot be verified by 3rd parties. That testing stations moved. That we are comparing values and accuracies with points taken a hundred years ago. We extrapolate that tiny data set (with questionable accuracy stability), to billions of years. Or that the authors’ papers were published in journals that they themselves edited, rather weakening the “peer-reviewed” status. Or that climate had always changed since Earth first gathered a gaseous envelope, and no single species can, or should, artificially “freeze” (pardon the pun) the climate at today’s averages. If all of humanity left Earth in a space ship tomorrow, the climate would continue to change, as it always has. If the climate is not changing today, it will tomorrow. We will adapt or perish. Or that we blow all our money on carbon and basically have nothing left to spend on the clear and present danger of mercury contamination in our oceans.
The list is too long to recreate here.
I asked multiple times if anyone had any answers for my sincere concerns, and there were zero takers.
My conclusion is that the studies were so flawed they would have been grounds for many lawsuits if this was a corporation under the purview of the FDA. I can draw no conclusions from such studies, one way or the other.
So forgive me if I look with a jaded eye at the same people who remained silent on my repeated offers to address the concerns of the scientific community, who nonetheless repeat the positions they refused to support.
Sqeeky:
Prophetic.
Republicans have not managed to prevent Democrats from doing anything. Democrats have gotten every single thing they’ve every wanted, including Obamacare and its funding.
They can blame no one but themselves for this albatross around their necks.
And anyone, of any political party, would have a problem when their premiums increased by 100%, and their deductibles increased by 1100% and doctor choice decreased by 75% and formularies decreased and suddenly any out of pocket cost for off-formulary did not count towards those sky high deductibles, and if they still had to pay out of pocket to see a doctor.
Seriously, for all those Liberals out there declaring how wonderful Obamacare is for OTHER people, why don’t you try it? Be honest, if you went from paying a few hundred a month to over $950, and your deductible increased 1100%, and you still had to pay out of pocket to see a doctor, it is inconceivable to be anything BUT extremely angry and discontent.
Karen I am on medicare and supplemental I am on a grandfathered plan, for the last 10 – 15 years and am afraid to lose the policy. When I checked to see what I could get under the ACA it would be costing me over 150$ LESS a month then what I currently pay. and why is it Romneycare is fine with repubs but ACA based on Romney care isn’t. If they do it they love it if Obama and dems do same thing suddenly it is poisonous
Who says no one complained about health insurance before? How do these urban legends get legs?
People ALWAYS complained about health insurance. But each and every single solitary time that Democrats proposed government health care, which would take away people’s current policies, it got voted down decisively (remember Hillarycare?) People used to complain about insurance, but they did not want to lose their policies. They just wanted more affordable choices, not less.
So how did Obamacare get passed? On lies. Obama, Pelosi, Reid, et al HAD to lie that people could keep their doctors and their insurance, if they liked them, because this would NEVER have passed based on the truth.
And if you thought 47% rate increases were bad? Well, that’s why they enacted limits to how much polices could increase every year. And if 47% was bad before those limits, how is 100% increases in premiums, and 1100% increases in deductibles BETTER?
Again, this is really BASIC math. If 47% was bad, then 100%/1100% increases are WORSE. Get it?
Wolfgang Pauli on Paul Dirac’s view of God in 1927: “Well, our friend Dirac has got a religion and its guiding principle is ‘There is no God and Paul Dirac is His prophet.'”
1930, Wofgang Pauli postulates the existence of what would be called the neutrino.
1931, Dirac postulates the existence of the positron or “anti-electron” as he called it.
1949, Richard Feynman re-interprets Dirac’s Equation; i.e. positrons are electrons moving backwards in time.
By 1971, Paul Dirac’s view of god had changed:
Dirac: “It could be that it is extremely difficult to start life. It might be that it is so difficult to start life that it has happened only once among all the planets. …Let us consider, just as a conjecture, that the chance life starting when we have got suitable physical conditions is 10^-100. I don’t have any logical reason for proposing this figure, I just want you to consider it as a possibility. Under those conditions…it is almost certain that life would not have started. And I feel that under those conditions it will be necessary to assume the existence of a god to start off life. I would like, therefore, to set up this connexion between the existence of a god and the physical laws: if physical laws are such that to start off life involves an excessively small chance, so that it will not be reasonable to suppose that life would have started just by blind chance, then there must be a god, and such a god would probably be showing his influence in the quantum jumps which are taking place later on. On the other hand, if life can start very easily and does not need any divine influence, then I will say that there is no god.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Dirac