Here are some updates on the implementation of the A.C.A. that will help counter the paranoia being promoted by conservative bloggers, pundits, and pols (via Daily Kos):
"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."
Here's how "compassionate conservatism" in Republican-run states treats their poor citizens (it's ugly):
Ryan Cooper: "Because of the decision on Obamacare by the Supreme Court, which left the decision to expand Medicaid (a key part of Obamacare) up to the individual states, most Republican-controlled states refused said expansion, leaving substantial portions of the citizenry in the lurch. Ed Kilgore has been calling this the “wingnut hole,” and many have been speculating about its size. How many Americans will go without health insurance simply because the GOP dislikes the president? Well, happy 2014, dear readers: initial estimates are in, and we have 5 million lucky winners!"
And here's something to think about when you hear the howlers on the right try to drown out reality with their predictions of doom and the end of America as we all know it:
"January 1 2014. In the midst of constant turmoil over websites, enrollment snafus, policy cancellations, political attack ads, and more, we are missing something important. January 1 2014 may well be the most transformational day in the history of United States health care policy, ever, and nobody seems to notice. What's so big about 1/1/2014? First, this is the first day of fundamental reform of the business and regulation of health insurance in all 50 states:
• Banning the practice of "medical underwriting" by which insurance companies rate enrollees based on their health status and medical history,
• Banning pre-existing condition exclusions from US health insurance everywhere,
• Establishing "guaranteed issue" as the new operating paradigm for individual health insurance,
• Completely eliminating lifetime limits on all health insurance, and
• Establishing "minimum essential benefits" that must be included in nearly all licensed health insurance policies everywhere."
President Harry S Truman knew what he was talking about, and his observation on the GOP's core values still applies today. Nothing has changed in the GOP's philosophy of sticking it to the poor, the helpless, and our veterans:
A friend read my blog today and sent me this:
Same as it ever was.
19 comments:
Great quote from Truman, Shaw.
The da was a lifelong Truman Democrat, or what the current fringe right would call a communist.
Yet the right can't manage to see that most of them are supporting a system that contains their own destruction. Strange days.
Shaw, I think there are Republicans who oppose this plan not out if animus towards the president but from a legitimate policy concern.
Currently states that take Medicare money are bring told they will only ever have to pay for 10% of the expenses from their state budgets. What happens to these states if the govt changes that metric in the future?
I think it is a legit question.
Just as all Dems don't want to be lumped in the only one view pot, neither does the GOP...
Dave, good point.
Wouldn't it have been good for the country if the Republican governors with those concerns worked with the president's people when this bill was worked on?
The problem has always been that a majority of Republicans NEVER wanted anything to do with a national health insurance or health care program.
You've nicely reminded the folks on those conservative blogs that the Democrats worked with GWB, even on legislation they did not vote for or like. Medicare Part D, is an example.
Divided government and country is what's hurting us, NOT President Obama.
I also like to remind the conservatives about the fact that the top policy guys in their party got together the night before his inauguration and agreed to obstruct and stonewall every and any thing the new president proposed.
Then they blame Mr. Obama for being divisive?
I don't know how this will ever be solved..
Ducky,
My father loved Harry Truman and loved to quote him. He and my oldest sister actually saw him in person when he campaigned here in Massachusetts.
The Republicans are willing to destroy quite a bit of America because they dislike the president - even though that president's policies are old-time Republican policies.
The TeaPublicans will never admit to that Howard Brazee. They seem to love to hate the president, and especially his wife.
What I've read in the past on some conservative blogs about Mrs. Obama is truly disgusting, and one wonders if those who write such things have any humanity, never mind intelligence.
The more you prove an auhoritarian tribal loyalisst [see TeaPublicans] wrong with facts, the more their hatred will encompass you and grow to prevent their seeing said facts.
...most Republican-controlled states refused said expansion, leaving substantial portions of the citizenry in the lurch.
I live in one of those states. Actually, the dismantling of the state's Medicaid program, branded "TennCare", began under former governor Phil Bredesen... a Democrat and ACA opponent. Haslam does, however want to "pursue a private option to expand insurance to the state's uninsured"... so he's OK with insuring more poor people, so long as the big HC insurance companies can make a profit... surely an example of how Republicans work for those who don't need help (as per your Truman quote).
Thank you Dave. You are VERY correct. Many reasonable fiscal conservatives like myself indeed oppose Obama on policy only.
PS: I am not a republican for many reasons.
Dave, I admire your willingness to give the Republicans the benefit of the doubt. There are legit reasons to criticize the ACA, just as there was Medicare D. But, it's something to build on.
The Repubs have no interest in building on it, only destroying it. Their refusal to set up state exchanges is another example. If Republicans were really concerned with changing metrics, there's nothing in the ACA preventing them from opting out in the future if it proved unworkable.
It would cost those states nothing for the first 3 years to try it. It is their choice to be assholes now or assholes later. As usual, they chose the former.
I truly believe the Republicans greatest fear isn't cost. Money is no object when they're dropping freedom from a B-2 stealth bomber. It's not diminished quality of care or the end of western civilization. Their greatest fear is it will work.
I too thank Dave for his thoughtful, temperate, considerate observation.
And I'm not a Republican either, Les, and anyone else who may be interested. What I am or may be is certainly not represented in Washington, DC. I consider myself a maverick,and I follow no self-appointed or generally recognized "leader," blindly.
I see our problem with "partisanship" as being one of mutual intolerance and disrespect.
I also believe that each "side" prefers to get its information from sources profoundly biased in favor of its particular aims, objectives and philosophy. As fas as I've able to determine, however, there are no unbiased sources of news and information.
All that may be perfectly "natural," -- after all we like what we like, and tend to conflate it with the Truth, don't we? -- but it has created the log-jamb mentality that encumbers us today.
I think both sides just ASSUME that they are right, and anyone who doesn't think so must be either a fiend or a fool, period!
In this atmosphere not only are we at an impasse, we are also at the lamentable point where we feel "entitled" to try to SHOUT each other DOWN, and CENSOR each other out of EXISTENCE at every turn.
When virtually everyone is shrieking and roaring while doing little but casting aspersions on their (perceived) enemies, is it any wonder that NOBODY appears to be LISTENING?
Single-payer is inevitable. It is the only sensible solution to the needs of the American Public for affordable health care. But it will likely be a long time before good sense and the fairness of the American people triumph over the greed, narrow-mindedness and mythology which hold true reform back.
IMO opposing the ACA on "fiscal grounds" is NOT reasonable. The CBO said the ACA would save us money. And there is also the fact that nobody can be turned away from an emergency room (where care costs the most). Hospitals lose money (and pass the costs onto paying customers)... so we all end up paying in the end (and in the emergency room, where the costs are the highest). And what about the lost productivity? People who are too sick to work because they can't afford health care, or people who die because they can't afford health care (and their working years are cut short)?
To oppose the ACA on "fiscal grounds" is foolish and shortsighted. In any case, it is the RIGHT thing to do... and one of the primary reasons for the existence of government. Conservatives think we should pay for cops and soldiers to protect us (and fire fighters to protect our homes and possessions), so why the hell shouldn't it pay for doctors to protect our bodies (without which none of those other things mean a damn)? Ill health is a much bigger problem (kills more) than war or terrorism.
Regardless of whether the ACA works or not, I think another reason is behind the GOP insistence that this go away.
A while back I was listening to a very interesting discussion on the Chrysler bailout of the late 70's. History shows that the loans that Pres. Carter arranged saved the company from bankruptcy and with it, thousands upon thousands of jobs.
The conservatives, looking back from their vantage point made a very important point.
They said that the GOP opposed that bailout not because they feared it would not work, but because they feared it would.
Their feeling was that if Chrysler got bailed out, companies would line up, hat in hand, for more government aid.
I think the opposition to the ACA tends more toward a worry that America's citizenry will now expect even more from our gov't, rather than take care of themselves.
I for one find the lines here difficult. the reality for me is this... because of the ACA, today for the first time in almost 20 years, my wife and I both have health insurance. We both have ancient pre-existing conditions and my salary, while meeting my needs, is not enough for the almost $2000.00 some had quoted me.
On the other hand, my wife has been unemployed for the last three months waiting for a grant renewal to start working again. Did we access unemployment, to which we were entitled? Nope. And in the past during similar times in our lives, we have only ever received about 8 weeks of unemployment checks, even though we qualified for much more.
It does not seem unreasonable to me that people should not expect to get money just because they are out of work. Where does it come from?
I could only wish these issues had simple black/white solutions, but they don't.
Thank you guys for the kind words... Les, Craig, Free and as always, especially you Shaw.
I hope all of you have a great New Years...
Where does unemployment compensation (UC) come from?
This is a good explanation.
Although many have made bold claims about how this law will impact coverage by private and public insurance, we simply won’t know until we see the data from our major household surveys of insurance coverage, available in the fall of 2014. Ultimately, the projections of the Congressional Budget Office suggest that the ACA will not be fully implemented for three years, the amount of time it took to ramp up to full implementation in Massachusetts. So we won’t be able to draw final and firm conclusions until late in 2016.
Businesses and taxpayers Shaw. If I'm not mistaken it is a 50/50 split.
After Obama has served his time. If the results are positive the country is looking at a generation of one party rule. If not, the country is looking at... one party rule of a different stripe.
Democrats are (will be) the nervous party going into the 2016 elections.
Unemployment insurance is paid for by the employer both federal and state. Once that pool of money is raided by the politicians, the taxpayer takes over paying the bill,.
Dave,
The government did bail out Chrysler and they were paid back in full. Chrysler was a moderate success at selling minivans after that but was never a viable company. Now it is owned by a foreign manufacturer.
Mazda was in the same situation only the Japanese government said you are on your own and they are now a very successful auto company.
Industry can thrive if allowed to but the government and unions make it more difficult with each passing regulation.
Obamacare is a great deal for 9-10% of Americans at the expense of 90%. It will make the insurance companies huge profits because they are guaranteed a no loss program, what a deal for everyone.
Post a Comment