We all know how the opponents of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) predicted the destruction of the universe, and the restaurant at the end of it, if it passed. And we all know how many times the Republicans in the House have voted to repeal it.
But has the Republican Noise Machine bothered to tell their Chicken Littles anything about the good news that's been reported concerning the ACA?
Other than the sound of their heads exploding over President Obama's remarks after the Zimmerman trial, I've heard nothing.
Report: Obamacare's '80/20' rule has led to nearly $4 billion in savingsAs "Obamacare" continues to be one of the most controversial pieces of legislation ever implemented, a new report shows that Americans saved nearly $4 billion in 2012 due to a key provision in the Affordable Care Act.
The American people have often been divided by the new health care reform, and with all Americans required to be covered with insurance by January 2014, uncertainties are up in the air. While "Obamacare" is controversial, a new report shows that it has saved consumers billions of dollars. According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the new "80/20" rule, which requires insurers to spend 80 percent of every dollar earned on medical services, helped saved American consumers $3.9 billion in 2012.
The savings were divided into two areas. About $3.4 billion was saved by insurers keeping their premiums lower in order to comply with the new law and $500 million came in the form of rebates being sent back to consumers who overpaid for their premiums. The total cost wasn't solely the result of the "80/20" rule, but it was the leading cause of premiums being kept at a lower level.
While some states have seen a rise in premiums, the result has not been pinpointed. Premiums often increase with each passing year, but "Obamacare" being the sole reason for the increase is not factual. A new report released last month noted that premiums in California will see a large decrease due to subsidies from the federal government.
"Rates will vary by region, age and level of coverage, and many lower-income Californias will qualify for federal subsidies that will greatly lower the premiums. The plans will come in four tiers, ranging from bronze to platinum. The former will charge lower premiums, but carry higher out-of-pocket benefits, and the latter will have the highest premiums but have the lowest out-of-pocket costs."
Here is Paul Krugman, Nobel Laureate in Economics:
"Still, here’s what it seems is about to happen: millions of Americans will suddenly gain health coverage, and millions more will feel much more secure knowing that such coverage is available if they lose their jobs or suffer other misfortunes....
So yes, it does look as if there’s an Obamacare shock coming: the shock of learning that a public program designed to help a lot of people can, strange to say, end up helping a lot of people — especially when government officials actually try to make it work"
And here's an opposing view by Peter Ferrara of Forbes:
"He overlooks the equal millions of Americans that will suddenly not get health coverage under “universal” Obamacare, the millions more who will choose not to get health insurance “secure knowing that such coverage is available” if they get sick later, the tens of millions who will lose their employer provided health insurance, regardless of whether they like that coverage or not, the millions more who will lose their full time jobs for part time jobs with lower incomes and no benefits, becoming truly middle class in the Obama/Krugman era, where middle class is just another word for declining real incomes."
Though opinions might vary on the new health care reform, millions of Americans will now have access to affordable health care. Whether you think the government should have a role is an open question and one that may or may not fit into your political ideology."
Here's another thought: The Republicans in Congress made a pact on the night of Mr. Obama's inauguration in January of 2009 to obstruct any and all proposed legislation, appointments, and programs so that his presidency will be a failure.
If they had worked with President Obama to help fine tune and implement what they themselves had proposed as an answer to our national health care crisis, perhaps a plan with fewer problems could have been hammered out through compromise. But the GOP, in thrall to extreme ideologues, did all they could to scare the American people into believing that the passage of the ACA would be tantamount to treason and the descent into totalitarianism led by the America-hater, Kenyan Usurper, Barack Hussein Obama.
A list of those hideous totalitarian governments that provide universal coverage for their citizens is HERE.
And here is a list of the countries from the World Health Organization that are better than the USA [ranked at 38] at providing health care to their citizens:
France
Italy
San Marino
Andorra
Malta
Singapore
Spain
Oman
Austria
Japan
Norway
Portugal
Monaco
Greece
Iceland
Luxemborg
Netherlands
United Kingdom
Ireland
Switzerland
Belgium
Columbia
Sweden
Cyprus
Germany
Saudi Arabia
UAE
Israel
Morocco
Canada
Finland
Australia
Chile
Argentina
Denmark
Dominica
Costa Rica
United States of America
Here's another ranking from Business Insider that ranks the USA better than WHO. In their ranking we're not #38, we're #37!
U.S. Ranks Last Among Seven Countries on Health System Performance Based on Measures of Quality, Efficiency, Access, Equity, and Healthy Lives
"New York, NY, June 23, 2010—Despite having the most expensive health care system, the United States ranks last overall compared to six other industrialized countries—Australia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom—on measures of health system performance in five areas: quality, efficiency, access to care, equity and the ability to lead long, healthy, productive lives, according to a new Commonwealth Fund report. While there is room for improvement in every country, the U.S. stands out for not getting good value for its health care dollars, ranking last despite spending $7,290 per capita on health care in 2007 compared to the $3,837 spent per capita in the Netherlands, which ranked first overall."
New Health Rankings: Of 17 Nations, U.S. Is Dead Last
Throughout the battle to pass legislation to bring the United States in line with other developed western democracies, President Obama received not one vote for the ACA from the GOP. And yet that same political party has offered nothing as an alternative except to vote to overturn the only legislation that addresses our health care crisis. That's not political opposition; that's self-destructive obstinancy and insanity.
The GOP will pay dearly for it as the benefits of Obamacare continue to be reported.
UPDATE: More evidence of a party in its death throes:
“Some of my Republican colleagues are already saying we won’t raise the debt limit unless there’s repeal of ObamaCare. I’d love to repeal ObamaCare, but I promise you that’s not going to happen on the debt limit. So some would like to set up another one of these shutdown-the-government threats. And most Americans are really tired of those kinds of shenanigans here in Washington,” – Senator John McCain.
27 comments:
.
"a list of the countries from the World Health Organization that are better than the USA [ranked at 38] at providing health care to their citizens: ..."
Ya, but ... but ... but ... but ... they are all socialist. And FREEDUM Freedum freedum.
It can't be true; Murdoch Media/Fox Networks tell me government bad. Health care is for wimps.
We don't need no quality health care... not if every body gets it (especially them (wink wink nod nod))... No ...
Back to reality. Sarcasm off/
It is sad the RepubllicanT Party has fought to sabotage a good effort to do the right thing for the people of USA.
Fox lies.
Ema Nymton
~@:o?
.
All of this is, indeed, wonderful news, if you have faith in the data spewed by leftist propaganda mills.
Try to live in France as well as you live here. I guarantee you will suffer a rude awakening. The price of real estate alone is enough to make you boomerang back to the good ol' USA and kiss the ground. I know whereof I speak, believe me.
This is the problem with focusing intently on only one aspect of the world situation as though it were the only thing that mattered. It gives a highly distorted, terribly skewed view of reality, and easily leads us to draw false, and foolish conclusions.
It won't work unless everyone is in, and many States refuse to join. We have no idea if it will work anyways. I have my doubts, because we did not get rid of the problem - for profit health insurance companies. Obama refused to fight for single payer, the only system that will work going into the future.
FT: "All of this is, indeed, wonderful news, if you have faith in the data spewed by leftist propaganda mills."
So any reported good news concerning the ACA--like children with catastrophic illnesses not being thrown off their parents' health insurance policy because they reached their caps, plus the reports on the savings in California and New York--is ALL leftist propaganda?
And what would one call YOUR generalization about any good news concerning the ACA? You haven't given any evidence to refute what I posted, have you? So your claim has to be taken from the rightwing ideology point of view. I provided links and stats. You provided your ideology.
FT: "Try to live in France as well as you live here. I guarantee you will suffer a rude awakening. The price of real estate alone is enough to make you boomerang back to the good ol' USA and kiss the ground. I know whereof I speak, believe me."
What has that to do with health care coverage in this country? BTW, a dear, dear friend whom I've know for over 30 years and who is French and traveled all over France to instruct new mothers on infant and child care and other health related subjects, visited here 2 years ago, came down with a bladder infection, had to go to an emergency room in the Boston area, saw a doctor who prescribe meds, and the charge was $800. In France they would have had to pay nothing for a doctor to check her urine and prescribe meds. Outrageous.
FT: "This is the problem with focusing intently on only one aspect of the world situation as though it were the only thing that mattered."
Dear Mr. Free Thinke, perhaps people like you who may not have ever had to worry about being covered for a catastrophic disease think this is "focusing intently on only one aspect of the world situation." But many Americans aren't as fortunate as you.
The Declaration of Independence states that we are endowed with certain unalienable right which include life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
No American can hope to attain those unalienable rights when they have been reduced to destitution by catastrophic medical bills. That is the chief cause of bankruptcy in this country.
Your answer to this post did not address one fact. You gave me your opinion that all the evidence was nothing but propaganda.
Then you went on to tell me how awful France is (for what reason?), when, in fact, concerning health care costs, a French citizen would NOT be reduced to destitution or lose his home because he was unfortunate enough to get sick with a major illness.
So you're not correct in that particular instance. France does much, much better for its citizens than the US does for hers.
FT, the topic is health care, not real estate.
Shaw puts out some stats for your consideration and in the right wing tradition we get the standard "leftist media" meme (whatever the leftist media includes). In other words, we have an issue to solve, providing lower cost health care to a wider number of citizens and the right DOES NOT wish to participate in this debate or the resolution.
They have asked us to believe that the for profit non competitive (health insurers have an antitrust exemption) model is ideal.
Not helpful.
Ema,
I just read that some GOP Congress people want to hold the debt ceiling hostage unless Obamacare is repealed.
Can anyone imagine anything as insanely malevolent as that?
I truly, truly believe that the election TWICE of Barack Hussein Obama has turned those people into slabbering hyenas.
FT, I'm also struck by the right wing's consternation that there may be some imperfections in this large bill (and large problem).
They seem to expect a perfect solution to arrive on primary delivery.
Don't work that way. Try Charles Lindblom's The Policy Making Process. Quite good.
So we can try to progress and as Shaw points out there are plenty of superior models out there or we can allow the right to continue the status quo with what Rudi Giuliani wanted to foist on us as "private market" solutions.
Yes sir, stick with what got us into the problem.
Not helpful, FT.
Republicans have never once offered an actual alternative to ObamaCare, and “repeal and replace” morphed into just the lonely old “repeal” after the election.
Someone should have told these respondents that under Obama our government spending has grown at a slower rate than it did under any president since Dwight D. Eisenhower, and in June we had a huge budget SURPLUS. Yes, that’s right. I know you hear nothing about a surplus, but the media has to run narratives past the RNC for satisfactory terror alert levels.
Yes, we had a huge budget surplus in June, mostly due to this magical thing we call revenue, or “taxes”, that puts more in the plus column in order to pay for the minus column. It’s sort of like trying to pay your bills while having a job versus not having a job (less taxes, no taxes).
Also, the meme that Obama drove up the deficits with liberal spending is not exactly accurate either. We got to these deficits with Republicans in charge, a war left off of the budget all together, an unpaid for Medicare Part D program, a refusal to collect revenue from the wealthy, a financial shell game based on “credit” and too-big-to-fail, and a lot of deregulation leading to wild spending and even wilder free-falls that we then had to bail out with taxpayer money (aka, the deficit) because they had been so deregulated that their failure ostensibly threatened our economy.
In fact, ‘the President’s policies are contributing to the most rapid deficit reduction since World War II.’
ObamaCare, sure to be the panrcea everyone wants.
Rather than wait until ObamaCare has been fullly implemented and up and running for a period of time to see if it soaring making things better, or floundering, the rush is on to pass judgement on how good it is.
Right... I for one will take the let's wait and see.
What's up with England's health system travails these days?
"...the rush is on to pass judgement on how good it is."
That's a curious statement.
Why would the Republicans in the House vote 39 TIMES to repeal Obamacare? That implies they believe The ACA is NOT good for the country, even though, as you said in your statement, it hasn't been up and running for a period of time.
Please explain.
FreeThinke: Try to live in France as well as you live here. I guarantee you will suffer a rude awakening. The price of real estate alone is enough to make you boomerang back to the good ol' USA and kiss the ground. I know whereof I speak, believe me.
Actually, I lived in Paris during the 1990s and know a thing or two about living in France; and everything you say is patently false. Cheaper by far than NYC, don't even think of comparing the cuisine, the culture, the medical services, et les Parisienne to any other place in the world!
ACA will work if everyone participates and that means single payer. The system depends on the healthy 27-35 year olds paying in but they seem to not be interested so the rest of us will have to bear the cost.
If an individual works hard and is successful and wants to keep more of his/her earnings, they are greedy. If generations of people have never worked and have no intention of it, they are entitled. Obamacare is just another government to aid those who refuse to take personal initiative to provide for themselves.
If Obamacare is so wonderful, why is presbo spending millions trying to convince everyone it is so great.
1) The progressive element is solidly behind ObamaCare. And, looking for ways to sing its praises.
2) Having not been fully implemented, and with moderate democrats starting to balk cmbined with delays in implementation it is early to be so positive.
3) I have no idea why the republicans voted 39 times to repeal, I don't speak for them. But I suspect it is because it is flawed legislation and some are likely playing politics for the sake of playing politics.
My view is it will likely result in long term negatives, buy as I said we'll have to wait and see.
I hope my view and prediction will turn out to be wrong. We will just have to wait and see.
I am in San Diego, California. My rates are up 25% since the ACA was passed. I nhave no faith that any guesses on what will happen in 2014are applicable.
Agree with Ducky's here, the ACA has good intentions.
My view; it is poorly written. It places almost no reform on big insurance and big pharma; while placing far too much of the burden on workers, unions, business and physicians.
Lets hope it can be rehabilitated.
Yes, the citizens of states like California and New York should see dramatic savings from the implementation of Obamacare.
That is because these states were very proactive in implementing the cost savings measures associated with Obamacare.
Thus, the citizens and businesses in those states will come out ahead.
On the other hand, various other states, where the governors made a political calculation to stand up to Obamacare and have not implemented health care exchanges and thus most likely will see their healthcare costs INCREASE!
The Republican opposition to Obamacare was based not on principles and or economics but on political calculations: It got them votes in 2010 and 2012.
Short term gains but long term consequences.
For anyone who THINKS about the issues our healthcare system creates here are two very interesting articles:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/160676/fewer-americans-getting-health-insurance-employer.aspx
http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/12/26/switzerland-a-case-study-in-consumer-driven-health-care/
As it stands right now, the blue states that adopted the Obamacare proposals will see lower healthcare costs and thus see improvements in their standard of living while the red states will see the opposite.
Of course the red states will blame Obamacare for their loss of jobs and increased healthcare costs totally obilivious to the gains enjoyed by those blue states.
How can Republicans claim ACA won't work and actually raise costs when they won't give the program a chance? And now we have news that those States that have fully implemented the ACA are saving as much as 50%. It is law and as usual Republicans refuse to follow the law because they know better than the majority that passed the law. Results will change the minds of most doubters, but not the minds of those who refuse to participate simply because of political ideology, or worse because it was an idea from a black man.
@Anon who said... "... or worse because it was an idea from a black man."
Always falling back on the racist meme. As expected.
Let me preface my remark by saying that I fully supported and continue to support the president and the congress in their efforts to reform healthcare insurance in this nation. The PPACA has some wonderful features which have been mentioned by the author of this post as well as rockync. Yet it is far too complicated of an issue and a little bit too early to trumpet huge savings. Savings was never the immediate goal of this reform. The idea was to eliminate the injustices suffered by those who fell between the cracks. The other side of the coin was to simultaneously provide new coverage for the uninsured as well as provide a larger pool for the insurers. The biggest losers in the healthcare system we have today, now as it has always been for the last forty years, remain the uninsured who are faced with catastrophic and very real enormous bills which they remain obligated to pay usually by losing their homes, savings and tangible assets. That hasn't changed. Obama can't pretend to be King David or Charlemagne. As you pointed out, we could have hammered out a better deal if we had not been trying to court Olympia Snowe and that sickening traitor, Joe Lieberman.
I can't speak for the great state of New York. But to say that California has seen huge savings is simply not true. Neither for business, medical practices who insure their employees or for private individuals who pay their own way with their own, and sometimes meager, resources. The opposite is true in many cases. An example. Blue Cross of California raised it rates twice in the last two years on private pay plans. Amounting to a 50% increase in the premiums that I personally had to pay for Blue Cross Anthem PPO insurance. I'm talking from $495/month to a whopping $752/month beginning January 1st, 2013. That's right. I was lucky enough to be in a position to cancel this insurance. It felt good. The guy on the telephone told me I was a fool to do it. I was "grandfathered in" after continuous coverage for the last twenty-eight years. That doesn't mean much. Only that they wouldn't be able to cancel me or refuse to start my insurance again after a period of inactivity. He told me that I would be under "Obamacare." I almost peed my pants. Under Obamacare, they would have been forced to take me back or prevented from cancelling me NO MATTER WHAT. You guessed it. The ONLY reason I saw my premiums go up was in direct retaliation to the passage of PPACA.
Some nice things about PPACA? No refusal for pre-existing conditions. No arbitrary cancellation. Family coverage for dependent children up to age 26. Want to know why the 80/20 rule is nice on paper but really means nothing? Because the insurers and providers are blood brothers and partners. Just re-read Bitter Pill and thank your lucky stars that you have never personally been destroyed by the chargemaster. Hospitals routinely charge double the value of their services and then "negotiate" the price down with their insurance providers by as much as 50%, if not more.
Again, I go back to my comment where I said that had the GOP worked together with this president on forging a workable universal health care law, perhaps all the glitches and downside of the ACA could have been avoided.
I hold the GOP solely responsible for what the law lacks.
The GOP had no interest whatsoever in working to give the American people universal health care, even when President Obama incorporated much of the right's ideas into the ACA.
The present GOP is a rogue party that doesn't govern. It sabotages.
It could almost be seen as the enemy of the American people.
Their main goal, as we've seen since the ACA passed, is to repeal it and, thereby, plunge into disaster the American people currently enjoying its benefits.
The GOP has not proposed anything comprehensive to replace what has passed into law and what the Supreme Court has said is constitutional.
Again, that behavior from an opposition party reminds me of the anti-abolishionists of the 1850s who used everything in their legislative power and more--murder even--to defeat any movement against slavery.
Continuing to fan the flames. Playing the racism card again, for emotional effect perhaps. Sad really that in 2013 it would appear old paradigms, or perhaps better said old prejudices, are hard to break.
Ludoc
When was the last time a white president had a national movement from the opposition party (including party Congressional leaders) demanding to see his birth certificate? Obama has been treated differently just because he is black.
Can't argue with that, Ludoc.
No other president's citizenship was challenged like Mr. Obama's was. And no other president looks like this president.
Also, I have no problem with the long tradition of political cartoons, nor in depicting Mr. Obama with huge ears. Political cartoons always take the politician's most prominent features and exaggerate them--Nixon's 5 o'clock shadow jowls, Clinton's fat cheecks and beady eyes, etc., but the cartoons that were passed around the conservative blogsphere and emails were racist, showing Mr. and Mrs. Obama as apes, or watermelons on their front lawns, or Mr. Obama with a bone through his nose.
To accuse Anon @7/24 12:02 of "fanning the flames" and "playing the race card" is not accurate.
It is the folks in the GOP who have done that.
Anon is not "fanning" anything by pointing the truth out.
What the GOP is all about (and it's not governing, it's sabotage):
"When a law is enacted, representatives who opposed it have some choices (which are not mutually exclusive). They can try to repeal it, which is perfectly acceptable—unless it becomes an effort at grandstanding so overdone that it detracts from other basic responsibilities of governing. . . .
But to do everything possible to undercut and destroy its implementation—which in this case means finding ways to deny coverage to many who lack any health insurance; to keep millions who might be able to get better and cheaper coverage in the dark about their new options; to create disruption for the health providers who are trying to implement the law, including insurers, hospitals, and physicians; to threaten the even greater disruption via a government shutdown or breach of the debt limit in order to blackmail the president into abandoning the law; and to hope to benefit politically from all the resulting turmoil—is simply unacceptable, even contemptible. One might expect this kind of behavior from a few grenade-throwing firebrands. That the effort is spearheaded by the Republican leaders of the House and Senate—even if Speaker John Boehner is motivated by fear of his caucus, and McConnell and Cornyn by fear of Kentucky and Texas Republican activists—takes one's breath away."
France is dancing on a volcano,
and Europe may go up in flames
Telegraph [UK], by Felix Marquardt
During the Bastille Day celebrations this month, François Hollande declared--to the incredulity of pretty much everyone in France--that “the recovery is here”. There are no particular economic indicators that would suggest this. Consumer spending and manufacturing remain at historic lows; growth in the third quarter is expected to be zero; the OECD has predicted that unemployment will actually be worse next year; and only this week a senior member of the FPD, Germany’s junior coalition partner, pronounced that he was “very worried” about France, arguing that Hollande’s decision to raise taxes was “fundamentally wrong”.
The strength of the ACA law, is proven by surviving the number of attempts to overturn it.
By what rationale does this "prove the ACA's strength."
We have yet to see how strong it is, or isn't. You would be correct if you said " politically resilient."
Post a Comment