Posted on 04/22/2014 4:00:01 AM PDT by Kaslin
When it comes to the politics of Obamacare, there's really only one question that matters: How many Americans are benefiting from the new health care system, and how many are hurting? Problem is, we know more about the first part of the question than the second.
Obamacare's advocates have pushed hard against Republican attempts to highlight Americans who have been particularly hard hit by the new law. "There's plenty of horror stories being told," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said in February. "All of them are untrue."
Those advocates have hit back so hard that it appears they are trying to discredit the notion that anyone has been hurt by the system. "I'm beginning to think there's not actually a single person in America who's been harmed by Obamacare," Mother Jones' Kevin Drum wrote in February.
So who has, in fact, been harmed by Obamacare? The first question, of course, is what "harmed" means. But let's define it as anyone who faces higher premiums, or higher deductibles -- adding up to a total higher cost -- and/or a narrower choice of hospitals, doctors and prescription drugs than they had before. For them, health care is a more expensive and troublesome proposition than it was before Obamacare.
Everything we know about the system suggests there are millions of Americans in that position, but how many? "There is no hard number," says health care analyst Bob Laszewski. The reasons are as complicated as Obamacare itself.
"When carriers converted their old policies to Obamacare-compliant, it was typical for the insurance company to increase costs about 35 percent to comply," Laszewski says. "That increase could come in the form of higher premiums, more co-pays and deductibles, and narrower networks. A carrier might have only increased rates 15 percent but then created a narrow network worth another 25 percent, for example. Even when they did the above, some individuals might have seen a 15 percent decrease and others a 50 percent increase -- many demographic issues skewed the rate result. So, getting any simple 'it went up 34.7 percent' answer just isn't possible."
The bottom line, according to Laszewski: "We have literally millions of people each impacted a bit differently." That's hard to quantify and turn into a neat political argument.
We know more about Obamacare's beneficiaries. First there are the roughly 3 million low-income people added to the Medicaid rolls (even though it is not clear how many would have qualified for the program had Obamacare never existed). In any event, they have coverage -- if not actual quality health care -- and it's all paid for by the taxpayers.
Then there are the people who receive federal subsidies to buy health coverage through Obamacare's exchanges. When President Obama announced recently that 8 million people have "signed up" for coverage through the exchanges, that means perhaps 6.5 million have actually paid for it. And only some of them receive taxpayer-paid subsidies: In late March, the Kaiser Family Foundation estimated that "3.5 million people have qualified for a total of about $10 billion in annual premium subsidies, or an average of about $2,890 per person."
Add to that young people who are now remaining on their parents' coverage until age 26, the fairly small number of people who were in the past denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition, and others who in some way have a better deal under the new system, and you have the universe of Obamacare's beneficiaries.
How does that compare to the number of people who have gotten a bad deal from Obamacare? It's impossible to know right now, and that makes it impossible to make much of a political calculation.
Even what appears to be Obamacare good news can mean bad news for potential voters. For example, this week the Congressional Budget Office released a report, much noted by Obamacare supporters, announcing that the program's subsidies will cost the government less than originally forecast. But Obamacare advocates didn't dwell on how that came about.
"The plans being offered through the exchanges in 2014 appear to have, in general, lower payment rates for providers, narrower networks of providers, and tighter management of their subscribers' use of health care than employment-based plans do," the CBO said. "Those features allow insurers that offer plans through the exchanges to charge lower premiums (although they also make plans somewhat less attractive to potential enrollees)."
Look at the phrase "tighter management of their subscribers' use of health care." Does that sound like something that will satisfy millions of patients -- or set off renewed fears of rationing?
And of course, on the Obamacare losers side, don't forget the people and businesses paying significantly higher taxes to pay for the program.
Will people who pay more, or who get less, or both, take their Obamacare unhappiness out against Democrats this November? Some surely will. But how many, and how strongly motivated they will be, will probably remain unknown until after the polls have closed.
Well, personally I’m hoping that with all socialist schemes, the efforts needed to sustain the population’s overall impression of its parts (e.g., healthcare, food stamps, et al) by government is stretching thin.
They run the risk of an entitlement population that becomes ‘self-aware’ so to speak, in that they begin to realize they won’t lose their benefits no matter what way the vote - if they vote. They know Democrats will always give it to them, and they know that Republicans actually won’t do away with it because they are toothless tigers.
I’m hoping that this entitlement crowd just stays lazy, too lazy to get out and vote.
I had my policy terminate by Obamacare and will walk barefoot across a parking lot of broken glass to get to the polls. I will be taking other like minded people with me. Nothng short of death will keep me from doing so.
It my come down to voter apathy
The Democrats have hidden away the ticking time bombs in Obamacare until 2015 - when they’re set to explode.
The Democrats won’t benefit from it even if by some miracle, they happened to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat in November.
No - the worst is not behind them. The worst is yet to come.
YES!
My family was hurt!! Mr Kitty worked for a computer company that created software to support health insurance companies.
Companies can’t afford that help anymore. My Kitty lost his job and there aren’t anymore around here for him to get.
FUBO!
Or it may come down to voter fraud.
“I’m hoping that this entitlement crowd just stays lazy, too lazy to get out and vote.”
If they do stay lazy, there will be the backup strategy of Progressive vote-counting, and voting by those whose residence is the cemetery.
IMHO
This country does not need a “better class” of elected leaders.
They really need a better class of voters. Up to now, the vote of the low-information or totally uninformed voter has been able to cancel my vote.
Once upon a time, there was hope that a minimum level of literacy may be enjoyed by all citizens. But through both a dumbing-down of the educational standards, and lax efforts toward determining even the achievement of those inferior goals, we have college “graduates” that can scarcely string together a coherent statement, let alone exhibit any degree of critical thinking.
Just listen to a few of the interviewees on the “Watter’s World” segment of the Bill O’Reilly show on Fox.
Well, I can’t argue with that. One bright spot though....in the past they’ve been successful at stealing elections at a national level by concentrating their cheating in selected parts of key battleground states, and they did that well.
I think now, November they’ve got a much bigger problem, and it seems to be ubiquitous. I just don’t think they have the resources to cheat everywhere. I’m hoping so anyway. Fingers crossed and whistling.
the fairly small number of people who were in the past denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition,
Wait a damn minute...I thought there were thousands if not millions denied insurance because of preexisting conditions and dogoneit it just wasn’t fay-errrr.
I am SOOO sick of these a$$holes lying about this stupid “law”.
We have been lied to brazenly and without any remorse, we have spent thousands more for coverage we do not need, want or desire so the flukes of the world can spread their legs worry free. And we are paying the premiums of people who won’t give up their flat screens to pay for their own damn insurance.
We are ALL negatively impacted...and we better show up and vote that way.
“I just don’t think they have the resources to cheat everywhere.”
They’ve cracked the foundations and are now seeping in to do what’s necessary, wherever that might be.
IMHO
I’m sure the blacks, latinos, asians and other immigrant classes and women too, don’t forget, will still vote for the rats despite the negatives.
I doubt it. I still believe that the Democrats are getting ready to steal another election and are laying low.
There is certainly a lot of that going on. The last several national elections alone bare that out.
Nothing a little amnesty and millions of new illiterate poor voters can’t fix.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.