RIP Obamacare, 2010-2014?

B

Big Money

New member
1379281288000-AP-Health-Care-Overhaul.jpg





When Obama signed the law more than three years ago, supporters predicted Americans would embrace it as some of the most popular provisions went into effect, including measures that have helped seniors pay prescription costs, protected children who have serious medical conditions and enabled young adults to stay on their parents' insurance plans until age 26.



But that turnaround in public opinion hasn't happened.



As the health care exchanges at the heart of the law open for enrollment in two weeks, the public's views of it are as negative as they have ever been, and disapproval of the president's handling of health care has hit a new high. Confusion and misinformation about the law haven't significantly abated, especially among the law's main targets.



Among the 19% polled who are uninsured, nearly four in 10 don't realize the law requires them to get health insurance next year.



Among young people, whose participation is seen as crucial for the exchanges to work, just 56% realize there's a mandate to be insured or face a fine.



In the states that have refused to participate in the insurance marketplaces — defaulting instead to the federal exchange — knowledge about the Affordable Care Act and support for it are notably lower than in states that are setting up their own exchanges.




53% disapprove of the health care law, the highest level since it was signed; 42% approve.



By an even wider margin, intensity favors the opposition; 41% of those surveyed strongly disapprove while just 26% strongly approve.



Fifty-three percent disapprove of Obama's handling of health care policy, an historic high.



Democrats have lost their traditional advantage on the issue. For the first time in polling that stretches back more than two decades, Americans narrowly prefer Republicans in dealing with health care policy, 40%-39%.



Most haven't seen much impact from the law, but they are inclined to expect bad news down the road.



Forty-one percent predict in coming years the effect on themselves and their families will be negative; just 25% think it will be positive.



Even more, 47%, say the law will have a negative impact on the country as a whole.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/09/16/usa-today-pew-poll-health-care-law-opposition/2817169/
 
even Rand Paul says its hopeless dude.

once the tea tards realize it too will the tea tard party be dead?
 
A lot of people in this country in good health, like myself, only see the doctor maybe once every two years on average. Many of those people opt for the catastrophic-only type coverage, to cover hospitalization and unexpected medical emergencies. That basically fits the definition of what "medical insurance" is supposed to be.

Here in NY, Blue Cross/Blue Shield offers a plan like that in the range of $700 per year. Subscribers are willing to pay the $50 to $100 for a doctor's office visit out-of-pocket. Economically, it's a wise choice for many people.

People opting for these policies are spread all over the country. And they're about to find out that this type of coverage will not fulfill the Obamacare individual mandate, and will be fined if they only have this catastrophic only coverage.
 
the tea party will crumble into a heap.

Obama and Obama care hating is all they have as a moral guide.
 
Taft2016 said:
A lot of people in this country in good health, like myself, only see the doctor maybe once every two years on average. Many of those people opt for the catastrophic-only type coverage, to cover hospitalization and unexpected medical emergencies. That basically fits the definition of what "medical insurance" is supposed to be.

Here in NY, Blue Cross/Blue Shield offers a plan like that in the range of $700 per year. Subscribers are willing to pay the $50 to $100 for a doctor's office visit out-of-pocket. Economically, it's a wise choice for many people.

People opting for these policies are spread all over the country. And they're about to find out that this type of coverage will not fulfill the Obamacare individual mandate, and will be fined if they only have this catastrophic only coverage.
Click to expand...



your bullshit will not come to fruition and the country will see you all as blind fools.
 
When it becomes part of the fabric of Americans lives the republicans will take a HUGE hit.

Mark my words in ten years republicans will be bragging about how it was a republican idea
 
Anyone who thinks a republican House threat to shutdown the government over Obamacare has no understanding of politics nor history.

And, even with a bad as the ACA is, NOBODY trusts republicans on healthcare.
 
they want to drag it over to the tub and drown this democracy.


its why they always try to weaken it however they can
 
evince said:
your bullshit will not come to fruition and the country will see you all as blind fools.
Click to expand...

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2012/04/the-individual-mandate-and-catastrophic-coverage.html

Among the flaws that I identified with this purportedly narrow defense of the mandate is that it is factually inaccurate: Obamacare does not simply make people buy catastrophic coverage that would cover their own unaffordable risks at a price that reflects their actuarial risk; instead, as several of the Justices recognized, it makes them buy comprehensive policies for a wide range of services they don’t need in order to subsidize the law’s other costly requirements, at a price in excess of the actuarial risk that they pose to the system. Rather than being a scheme to insure against the risk posed by younger persons, the Affordable Care Act creates a system of a government-mandated privately-administered redistribution of wealth from the young and healthy to older baby boomers.
Click to expand...
 
evince said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randy_Barnett


partisan blather
Click to expand...

....one paragraph of which has more substance than the "We'll have to pass it to find out what's in it" partisan blather of Nancy Pelosi.

Do a little reading Desh. If it is determined you can afford a comprehensive policy on the exchanges, you will not be able to the meet the individual mandate criteria with a catastrophic policy. Even if a catastrophic-only policy is the most logical and economical choice you can make.
 
http://www.consumerreports.org/heal...e_Affordable_Care_Act-You_and_Your_Family.pdf

Adults under age 30 can buy a catastrophic health plan that covers essential health benefits and three primary care visits per year. These
plans are likely to have lower premiums but higher cost-haring expenses than other plans in the exchanges. Preventive services and three primary care visits per year are excluded from cost sharing. People over age 30 who cannot find a plan with a premium that is 8 percent or less of their income would be able to purchase the catastrophic plan, too.
Click to expand...

This definition is even above and beyond the traditional catastrophic-only policy, since it covers up to three primary care visits per year. Which naturally makes it more expensive than usual catastrophic-only coverage. So the traditional catastrophic-only coverage is out the window completely now, the type where if you went to the doctor's office you paid out of pocket.

Now we're working with a new definition of catastrophic-only. Even so...

If a catastrophic plan is the right one for you. If it's the one that makes the most economical sense for you. If it's the plan you like and want to keep.

You can't. Obama lied.
 
I doesn't seem likely but what a joke the US is going to become if it was to kill Obamacare. With less and less employers providing benefits which includes health care, the 50 million without would soon become 100 million and the US would slip from it's position of one better than Cuba to much worse.

Too funny!
 
monty1 said:
I doesn't seem likely but what a joke the US is going to become if it was to kill Obamacare. With less and less employers providing benefits which includes health care, the 50 million without would soon become 100 million and the US would slip from it's position of one better than Cuba to much worse.

Too funny!
Click to expand...

How would repealing Obamacare make us one worse than a country that uses its national medical records to identify infectious individuals and throw them in prison?

Too stupid.
 
Taft2016 said:
A lot of people in this country in good health, like myself, only see the doctor maybe once every two years on average. Many of those people opt for the catastrophic-only type coverage, to cover hospitalization and unexpected medical emergencies. That basically fits the definition of what "medical insurance" is supposed to be.

Here in NY, Blue Cross/Blue Shield offers a plan like that in the range of $700 per year. Subscribers are willing to pay the $50 to $100 for a doctor's office visit out-of-pocket. Economically, it's a wise choice for many people.

People opting for these policies are spread all over the country. And they're about to find out that this type of coverage will not fulfill the Obamacare individual mandate, and will be fined if they only have this catastrophic only coverage.
Click to expand...


How does Big Money like to put it?

Oh yeah...

Big money said:
Anecdotal evidence? Hearsay from a purported earwitness?

Inadmissible.
Click to expand...


How's about taking another shot at it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top