Skip to comments.CNN Poll: Twice As Many Americans Were Hurt By Obamacare Than Helped
Posted on 07/23/2014 2:46:24 PM PDT by Kaslin
Not an unusual data point at all, based on the polling trend -- but a timely reality check for the delusional "people love Obamacare!" propagandists. CNN's latest national survey includes a number of noteworthy nuggets, including the "Affordable" Care Act fallout verdict referenced in the headline (via Ed Morrissey):
(1) President Obama's job approval rating is mired at (42/55), languishing roughly where it's been for months. He is underwater with men (39/58), women (45/52), young people (45/49), and independents (34/62). Seventy-seven percent of Democrats and nearly two-thirds of non-white voters continue to give Obama high marks, but virtually everyone else's views have soured.
(2) The president is sucking wind on personal characteristics, as well:
- Is a strong and decisive leader: (48 yes / 52 no), which is amazingly generous, in my book.
- Generally agrees with you on issues you care about (43/56)
- Can manage the government effectively (42/57)
- Cares about people like you (51/48), down from his 2008 high water mark of (73/27)
- Shares your values (46/53)
- Is sincere in what he says (49/49). Ahem.
(3) Obamacare's overall approval rating remains upside-down by nearly 20 points (40/59), virtually unchanged from its March "rebound." Democrats' self-congratulatory convulsions over "eight million new enrollees" failed to move the needle. (Reasons for scare quotes here, here, here, and -- new today! -- here). Asked whether the law has helped or hurt their families, respondents shared the bad news:
As we've seen in the other polling linked above, a plurality of Americans say they haven't been impacted too much by the new law -- yet, at least. As I've said in the past, I generally fall into this category, as the "only" effect I've felt is a monthly premium increase of nearly $100. But of those consumer who have been affected, they break two-to-one into the "worse off" camp. Obamacare is helping some people; mostly Americans with preexisting conditions and those who are eligible for very generous subsidies. But it's hurting far more people. And a substantial majority oppose the law. Obamacare was pitched as a win/win for everyone, with no trade-offs and no losers. That has not been the case. Indeed, Politico is showcasing one class of Obamacare losers, who've encountered "access shock" -- a phenomenon we've been tracking for quite some time:
Anger over limited choice of doctors and hospitals in Obamacare plans is prompting some states to require broader networks and boiling up as yet another election year headache for the health law...Its not just a political problem. Its a policy conundrum. Narrow networks help contain health care costs. If state or federal regulators or politicians force insurers to expand the range of providers, premiums could spike. And that could create a whole new wave of political and affordability problems that can shape perceptions of Obamacare.
The Tampa Bay Times profiles one woman whose frustrating experience underscores this problem
Charlene Lake thought she got a decent deal through the Affordable Care Act marketplace: a Humana HMO that included a family doctor a few miles from her home. Five months later, Lake wonders if she can even use the insurance she bought. Her plan's dominant health care provider, JSA Medical Group, recently announced that it would take no new patients covered by Humana's exchange HMOs at least until fall. That leaves Lake no choice but to use the community health centers left in her plan's network, rather than the traditional physician's practice on which she planned. She has company...aside from first-year fumbles, the case also shows the downside of limiting consumer choice of physicians through what is known as narrow networks. Or, in Lake's case, a network so narrow it barely exists. "You can't make people sign up for a health care plan and then not have a doctor," said Lake, a St. Petersburg antiques dealer who is in her 50s. Narrow networks of hospitals and physicians help insurers maintain profitability while holding down premiums and complying with ACA rules.
Lake's quandary is redolent of the doctor-finding headache an Obamacare supporter and 'beneficiary' from New Jersey described in April. The good news is that there's at least one group of Obamacare enrollees who have voiced zero complaints whatsoever about their benefits: The fake ones.
GAO Sting Finds It Easy To Fake It, Get Obamacare Premiums
Low end datapoint: My kids in their 20’s, healthy, report that low-end insurance (the kind you get in between jobs) has doubled.
Twice As Many Americans Were Hurt By Obamacare Than Helped
Only that many eh ???
Barry must be slipping...
Higher costs, higher deductibles, lower coverage, lowered standards of healthcare, useage as a regulatory tool on what you can eat or drink or your personal habits, people out of work because of it, gross invasion of privacy sharing information with other agencies, implantation of tracking and data stoarge in devices embedded in skin, etc...
Yep definitely a liberal / progressive / DemonRat thing....
Probably more like 20x.
Whaaaaaat a shame.
Pesky elections and their consequences.
This is why we need single-payer. /sarc
ANYONE who kids themselves that Ocare is about health is delusional. It is about CONTROL and uses the health industry as its vehicle.
Twice As Many Americans Were Hurt By Obamacare As Helped
Pubblic school is destroying the language.
You’re right, although it “looks” good with the apostrophe. If I were spelling it out, I would have no doubt said “twenties.”
The party of Detroit ruining your health care. Do tell.
Interesting that CNN ran this poll
Everyone has been harmed by obummercare.
Some will just need more time to figure it out.
Medicine, aided by government-directed and mandated minimum requirements, an entire marketing demographic exists around marketed and sold medical services advertised as "urgent." Medicine has always done this -- there is nothing new under the sun. Adding government to power and enforce that drive is guaranteed to fail. That is its one certain outcome.
And most Americans, who hold the MSM in extreme contempt on the whole, know it.
You have to distinguish between real insurance and routine health care. I think kids should have catastrophic insurance, especially the way today's health system is set up. We're talking about getting hit by a car, mugged, or contracting an expensive and unlikely disease. If they don't, any savings they have, and often any savings their parents might have, can be wiped out before they go on the medical dole.
On the other hand, I agree that the maintenance component is an un-necessary ripoff for them, where they are forced to pay many times what it is worth to subsidize others.
Maybe they should, but that should be their choice, and if they end up in debt or needing charity, that's their and MY (as a charitable Christian) challengs. Government, you, me, gramdma, dad, doctor, teacher, nanny -- NONE of the above have any business dictating to a young person how they should or shouldn't spend their money.
For me, even with my blood pressure medication AND doctors appointments and lab tests (I pay CASH for all and get a substantial discount because of it), I spend about as much IN A YEAR total, as I would for one lousy month of health insurance. Without government, that's a rip-off -- WITH government, it is beyond a rip-off, it is lunacy.
I agree--I think prudence is one thing, the Obamacare/RomneyCare mandate quite another.
... is this all you do is correct people’s grammar?
Public. Not “Pubblic”.
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.