obamacare

It seems like such an odd goal to want to achieve -LET’S BLOCK 25 MILLION AMERICANS FROM GETTING AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE!  It seems like such an odd thing to loathe- YEAH, SCREW THOSE SICK BASTARDS!

Sadly, that is the goal of most republican politicians these days.

However, we cannot ignore the fact that the Affordable Care Act (aka ObamaCare) is just not that popular at the moment.  In most polls, confusion is cited as the biggest reason why.

But why are we so confused?

Could it be because there are kazillions and kazillions of dollars flooding the media specifically meant TO confuse us?

Check out these ridiculous Koch Brother funded Anti-Obamacare Commercials.


If you are a republican, I’m asking you to do some soul searching regarding your party and those who fund and lead it.  Because when I watch these ads, I see a party not treating their members as intelligent, thoughtful adults, but instead as overly emotional and easily confused buffoons.

Side Note:  I find it ironic that those who support a forced transvaginal bill would create ads like these.

Could it be that President Obama has done a horrendously awful job at explaining ObamaCare?

Yes.   President Obama’s name is all over this law (literally) and he really needs to learn how to sell it properly.   This is a huge problem that needs to be addressed moving forward.  Because when there are hiccups in the program (and there will be hiccups), he’s going to need to explain it to the public.

Could it be the laziness of the local media reporting on ObamaCare?

TMJ News 4 reported a few days ago that Badger Care members will be forced to buy new health insurance on the Market Place and that 92,000 people are being dropped from BadgerCare all because of Obamacare.   Actually, that’s not really true.  It’s because Governor Scott Walker decided to reject federal money for the Medicaid expansion.

Locally, we need to put pressure on our State media to assure they are giving an honest depiction of the law, what it does and its consequences (good or bad).

Could it be the national news media worried about being called “liberal” when correcting inaccuracies?

I almost had a heart attack twice on Sunday. Once during the Packer game and the other while watching “Meet the Press”.

Host David Gregory had a congressional round table discussing the imminent government shutdown looming if ObamaCare is not defunded.  At one moment, Gregory pushed back on a Republican politician stating:

“We’ve done some checking on this as well.  Even the issue of premiums.  They have gone up in some States, but they’re coming down in other states if they have exchanges.  You know full well it depends on who the governor is.”

I was so happy to hear a major news host finally say what the data is actually showing, but unfortunately, Gregory walked back from that statement almost immediately stating there isn’t a fact pattern when it comes to Obamacare.

Actually yes there is Mr. Gregory.  You just said it. The fact pattern is this: “Insurance Premiums will go down considerably in your State if your Governor and State politicians implement ObamaCare the way it was designed to, with the State running and supporting the program. “

And then of course, this happened as well.

Could it be on you?

While all of this is confusing, ultimately the burden is on each of us to learn the truth.  I’m asking everyone that reads this article to make an effort to learn about ObamaCare in a calm, non-ideological way.  After all, if this works, 25 million more Americans will have health insurance.  I would think that is a good thing for this country.

In two sentences, what exactly is the Affordable Care Act/ObamaCare?

Basically, if you feel you are paying too much for your health insurance or if you don’t have insurance at all, you can apply through the “Marketplace” to get, hopefully, cheaper insurance based on your income or your family’s income.

Of course there are other aspects to it, like kids being able to stay on their parents insurance until 26 and insurance companies not being able to turn anyone down for pre-existing conditions, but basically that is the idea.

Is ObamaCare the fiscally responsible thing to do?

Absolutely.  From an economic stance, health care needed to be addressed since that is such a huge part of our country’s deficit.   The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) predicts ObamaCare will cut the deficit $10 billion in the first ten years.  Of course, it will cut it even more once we don’t have to deal with the start-up costs.

Is ObamaCare perfect?

ObamaCare is in no way perfect.  It’s a massive new federal program that will inevitably have some issues.  So Democrats and those who support ObamaCare should not ignore, politicize or gloss over any major bumps in the road that may occur during the implementation.  Issues need to be addressed  ASAP!

What is the right thing to do for this country?

I personally believe health care is a right and not a privilege.  Whether an American dies from not catching cancer in time or because a maniac flew a plane into a building, we should try to prevent both those things from happening.

Currently, we are the only industrialized country that doesn’t support universal health care and that’s sad to me.

So the question is this…

Why NOT give ObamaCare a shot?

Perhaps the reason why Republican politicians are fighting ObamaCare this hard is because they’re afraid that it actually is going to work.   While I understand that politically, that’s not a good enough reason to prevent millions of Americans from dying due to undiagnosed illnesses.  It just isn’t.

What do you Blogging Bluers think of ObamaCare?

I’m interested…please comment below.

You can learn more about ObamaCare at healthcare.gov or at Politfact.

 

 

 

 

 

 

16 Responses to Confused about ObamaCare? I wonder why?

  1. Ed Heinzelman says:

    “Side Note: I find it ironic that those who support a forced transvaginal bill would create ads like these”

    The ad with the Uncle Sam in the ob/gyn exam room with a few changes could easily be used against the transvaginal laws.

  2. Cat Kin says:

    President Obama spent the entire first half of his first term working on a health care plan and trying to get bi-partisan support. Boehner “led him to the altar” several times and then backed out the door. The new president (obviously shaken) then spent most of his political capital pushing the bill through Congress with only Democratic support. Reason: he knew that Health Care was America’s biggest economic problem. We have to get ACA implemented as well as possible as soon as possible.

  3. Sarah Bartash says:

    1. RE: Confusion: “Marketplace” = “Website” as far as I can gather. Like Kayak.com is used to compare flights, or ehealthinsurance.com is um, used to find health insurance (I used it when I was a working-part-time 26-year-old scared she’d break her leg and have to be in debt for the rest of her life. I was raised a good paranoid Midwesterner.)
    2. I think we need a health care bill. However, I understand a lot of people think that my attitude of “it’s not perfect, but let’s go for it” is dangerous (to the health of the country, and mainly I think, businesses.)
    3. To continue that thought, most of the reasons I see people are against it is that businesses see it as a nightmare. This transfers to employees through things like cut hours, changes to seasonal positions and the like.

    • Adam Schabow says:

      Sarah,
      The Marketplace is more than just a website. I can tell you that for sure. The website is just one way to apply. But yes, most people will apply through the website and calling in.
      Let’s use the website as an example. The idea is that you would put your information in and the website will give you a bunch of different AFFORDABLE plans for you to choose from. This will depend on your income and your family’s income.
      I, like many people, thought the Democrats should have pushed for Medicare for All way. It would have been way easier for the public to understand and for Obama to explain. It also wouldn’t have had the mandate, which I’m not a huge fan of.
      I personally believe we need to separate health care from employers. That would free up cash for companies to spend on other things like, hopefully, paying their employees more money, which employees can put back into the economy.

      Now, monstrously huge companies that cut employees hours from full time to 29 hours so the company doesn’t have to pay their employees’ health insurance is pretty damn awful. Subway, I’m looking at you! They will eventually shoot themselves in the foot.

      As for smaller companies, they get a shitload of tax credits…but of course, that doesn’t that there will not be issues. But the idea is when issues come up, the issues are addressed right away to fix the problems.

      I don’t know…that’s my rambling response.

      • Adam Schabow says:

        FROM POLITIFACT IN TODAY’S JS.

        Small businesses –

        Under Obamacare, “75 percent of small businesses now say they are going to be forced to either fire workers or cut their hours.” Pants on Fire.

        — U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), July 25, 2013, in a FoxNews.com opinion column

        Suggestions that business are laying off workers because of the health care law have so far proven to be largely unfounded, according to PolitiFact National. Most small businesses — those with fewer than 50 employees — do not have to provide health insurance to their employees. (In fact, some very small businesses with fewer than 25 employees may qualify for tax credits under the law.) The claim here that 75 percent of small business were reducing their workforce was based on a misreading of a study from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The study actually found that less than 10 percent of small businesses said they will be forced to reduce their workforce or cut hours.

  4. Laurie G says:

    ironically, ACA will impact more working class poor than the middle & upper classes; giving them an opportunity to have quality health care at reasonable costs…..but who from do we hear the most complaints? Those who employers provide health insurance; i.e. TX Members of Congress.

    • nonquixote says:

      NOT one bit of useable information nor a single fact presented, as Mr Schabow calls on the same blind party loyalty to subscribe, as he claims is the largest part of the opposition to this new excuse for criminalization of the poor who are all of the sudden supposed to be informed consumers of insurance policies. Politifact, are you kidding, they could not predict how many people might not be able to stay with their current doctor so they rate as, “False,” a claim that you will be loosing your regular doctor. Myth debunked, NOT. Nowhere is quality care or easily accessible care guaranteed under this law. Perpetuation of the myth here that there is any real difference between R’s and D’s, both merely being shills for the uppercrust who will be unaffected.

      Ten Billion toward cutting the national debt in 10 years as the six biggest (and failed) US banks get bailed out (floated by we the taxpayers) to the tune of $85B a month currently, CEOs retain and continue to receive their mega-bonuses, and yet we cannot afford a single payer options that was supposed to be the competition to the private insurers and drug suppliers to help regulate costs of healthcare, who will continue to go largely unregulated for price.

      The details of what you are supposedly buying have yet to be decided upon or reported. Some confusion, just a small misrepresentation here by yourself, right Mr Schabow? You hope the glitches will be addressed in the near future. How did that hopeless changeling stuff work out last time? Flock faithful and dutiful submission, BAAA BAA.

      How about a disclaimer from authors on this subject about whether they already have private coverage and will be unaffected.

  5. nonquixote says:

    Lipstick on a Pig

    One question, has anyone been able to get to their local official ACA connection without surrendering all of your personal information to see what is offered for coverage and what your actual costs will be, where you live?

    Ms Benjamin, guest on Democracy Now:

    http://www.democracynow.org/2013/9/27/decoding_obamacare_a_guide_to_new

    “The other thing to remember, is that even if you go for a bronze plan, there’s this incredible thing in the Affordable Care Act that you will never have to spend more, altogether, deductibles and cost-sharing, than say $8,000 a year if you’re at 400% of poverty or maybe $400 if you’re much lower income. People don’t go bankrupt for $4000 or $8,000. Under the Affordable Care Act, we will see medical bankruptcies go away. Which is sort of an amazing thing.

    Assuming you needed to reach your annual co-pay for no more than a year or so, and assuming that you paid no interest on your co-pay or penalties or outrageous charges when your co-pay is turned over to debt collection, right?

    Another take on this, for a Sunday morning:

    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/09/45883.html

    • Adam Schabow says:

      When you go to the website, you can enter in generic information to get the plans that would be available in your area.

      Then, if you like the plan, you obviously would have to put your private information in.

  6. John Casper says:

    Adam, if any of this is helpful, great.

    IMHO, the single greatest objection to the ACA is the “mandate,” that everyone buy health insurance. A lot of people, not just conservatives, get nervous when the government starts compelling us to buy stuff from private oligopolies, Blue Cross/Well Point, United Healthcare, Cigna, and the rest who have helped the U.S. be far and away the leader in per capita spending on health care.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_(PPP)_per_capita

    IMHO, the common sense anti-dote to “the mandate,” was a “public option.” That would have allowed anyone who wanted to, to “buy-in” to Medicare. People I respected pointed out that this was c-o-m-p-e-t-i-t-i-o-n for the health care oligopoly. They couldn’t just offer crap coverage and force people to buy it.

    Another critical issue is that under our current system, where employers have to offer health care coverage is that it becomes a “marginal cost of production.” That means net income is in part determined by how well any company manages its health care costs. A few catastrophic illnesses can wipe out a small business. A lot of folks with skills that this economy needs to start small businesses, don’t know how how to manage health care costs and they don’t want to learn. If there was a public option, they wouldn’t have to. If a public option had been part of the larger ACA bill, it would have been a huge boost to small business. They could have more easily hired, based on the availability of the quality coverage from the public option. They could have said to prospective employees, I’ll pay you the extra for whatever Medicare charges you for health insurance. Then they can get back to competing based on their skill set and not how well they manage health care costs.

    The health insurance oligopoly no longer provides any benefit to patients. Physicians, hospitals, nurses, allied health professionals, Big Pharma, and medical device makers do. With “single-payer” aka Medicare-for-all in place those six sectors could compete on cost, service and quality to better serve patients.

    AFAIK, the ACA still does not prevent the health insurance oligopoly from declaring a “pre-existing condition.” The change ACA made to that was to force the oligopoly to pay a small fine. That’s no problem for them.

    The “net” is that the health-care oligopoly is using ACA to replenish their war chest to fight Medicare-for-all.

    During the first two-years of his first term, Obama had solid majorities in both Houses of Congress. If he would have rammed it through as soon as he took office, it’s possible that it could have saved his second term. IMHO, his advisers told him that a safer route to a second-term was helping the health insurance oligopoly lock in their profits.

    OT, in the first two-years of his first term, Obama could have passed legislation that would have made residents of the District of Columbia eligible to vote in the Presidential election by giving them 3 electoral votes. DC’s population is greater than Wyoming and Vermont and those three-electoral votes help Dem Presidential candidates.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population

    Accusations that Obama’s a partisan Dem have always been way off.

  7. John Casper says:

    OT, our current system only pays providers if someone gets sick. That has to change and the health-care oligopoly has proven over the last few decades that they’re incapable of reining in health care costs. We have to find way to reimburse health care providers for keeping their patients healthy.

  8. Cat Kin says:

    John, there’s no reason “checks and balances” can’t be applied to oligopolies. If Insurance agencies are to compete for consumers in the government regulated healthcare system, they will be looking for healthcare providers who use the most cost effective and efficient treatments. They will resist cost increases and perhaps slow the avalanche of rising costs instituted by the bean counters and financial holding companies that have taken over so many hospitals and clinics.IMHO it has better potential than the government option.

  9. John Casper says:

    Cat, why does the U.S. spend more per capita than any other country in the world on health care? Why aren’t the “markets” working?

    Since health insurance oligopolies just have to pay a small fine to declare a “pre-existing condition,” where is their incentive to find “cost-effective and efficient treatments?”

    Their business plan is a legalized iteration of the Mafia’s Las Vegas “skim.” They “skim” premiums from the young and the healthy. As those folks get older and actually needs medical support, the health insurance oligopoly “socializes” them onto Medicaid, Medicare, or nothing.

    We’re spending per capita more than counties who have, wait for it, “universal coverage.”

    Almost 1 out of every 6 dollars in U.S. economy is spent on health care? Who is getting rich, while others go without adequate care and without any care at all?

    There’s another part of the puzzle. That pool of uninsured can be a public health menace. Those are the folks without vaccines and from whom new viruses/diseases can get a foot hold without the health care professionals being able to gather data.

  10. John Casper says:

    Cat, why does the U.S. spend more per capita than any other country in the world on health care? Why aren’t the “markets” working?

    Since health insurance oligopolies just have to pay a small fine to declare a “pre-existing condition,” where is their incentive to find “cost-effective and efficient treatments?”

    Their business plan is a legalized iteration of the Mafia’s Las Vegas “skim.” They “skim” premiums from the young and the healthy. As those folks get older and actually needs medical support, the health insurance oligopoly “socializes” them onto Medicaid, Medicare, or nothing.

    We’re spending per capita more than counties who have, wait for it, “universal coverage.”

    Almost 1 out of every 6 dollars in U.S. economy is spent on health care? Who is getting rich, while others go without adequate care and without any care at all?

    There’s another part of the puzzle. That pool of uninsured can be a public health menace. Those are the folks without vaccines and from whom new viruses/diseases can get a foot hold without the health care professionals being able to gather data.

  11. Cat Kin says:

    John,

    All corporations have the sole purpose of “making a profit.” That’s good news and bad news. But as human beings we set limits on how those profits are made and insist that they be declared.

    We don’t sell body parts; We insist on standards for food preparation and gathering; licenses for drugs, auto, medical, etc.; and certain insurances. We zone land and buildings. And we tax revenues so we can continue to do these things.

    As humans we have a responsibility to maintain human standards. That takes a government we can and must trust…a government that must manage an enormous amount of data… maybe too much but there’s no other way. The genus of our founders was the “checks and balances” approach. That helps regulation but still requires expertise, integrity and data to maintain efficiency.

    The key, IMHO, is to make sure the government has the power and expertise to regulate judiciously so as to insist the marketplace function transparently and competitively. We have to elect competent politicians and give them a platform on which they too must function transparently. Citizens must do their jobs as well. Otherwise, we get what we deserve.

    Here’s where I usually put in a hashtag for Move To Amend, but from recent communications Emoprogs, who could be corporate moles, have taken over and shattered MTA’s priorities and focus. Our local affiliate is working on this now.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *