How is Obamacare not a disaster for the Democratic party? (revised)

[brentspeak]

Last edited Sun Nov 10, 2013, 01:59 AM - Edit history (2)

How many people who have been screwed by this law will support the Democrats? How many Democratic voters will continue to support the party after it's been revealed the law allows the insurance companies to completely shake them down?

And how much more bull$hit will ACA spokespeople lecture us about "made up" stories? Is the following story "made up"? Is the Washington Post in cahoots with the Republicans?

[div class = "excerpt"]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/for-consumers-whose-health-premiums-will-go-up-under-new-law-sticker-shock-leads-to-anger/2013/11/03/d858dd28-44a9-11e3-b6f8-3782ff6cb769_story.html


For consumers whose health premiums will go up under new law, sticker shock leads to anger

By Ariana Eunjung Cha and Lena H. Sun, Published: November 3

Americans who face higher ­insurance costs under President Obama’s health-care law are angrily complaining about “sticker shock,” threatening to become a new political force opposing the law even as the White House struggles to convince other consumers that they will benefit from it.

The growing backlash involves people whose plans are being discontinued because the policies don’t meet the law’s more-stringent standards. They’re finding that many alternative policies come with higher premiums and deductibles.

After receiving a letter from her insurer that her plan was being discontinued, Deborah Persico, a 58-year-old lawyer in the District, found a comparable plan on the city’s new health insurance exchange. But her monthly premium, now $297, would be $165 higher, and her maximum out-of-pocket costs would double.

That means she could end up paying at least $5,000 more a year than she does now. “That’s just not fair,” said Persico, who represents indigent criminal defendants. “This is ridiculous."

Before some ACA apologist says "Well, she can just go on the online exchange and find a better policy for a cheaper price", let's repeat what the article mentions:

(she) found a comparable plan on the city’s new health insurance exchange. But her monthly premium, now $297, would be $165 higher, and her maximum out-of-pocket costs would double.

............................................
...........................................
late, late edit: Some posters below who made good arguments in support of ACA actually made me think twice about it. I remain convinced that there are legitimate political dangers for the Democratic party (if midterm elections were to be held this week, how many Democrats up for reelection would publicly endorse ACA right now? Not many), but I could be proven totally wrong next year if the program is half as successful as proponents say it will be.

[kestrel91316]

1. I always wondered about you. I'm not wondering anymore.

[brentspeak]

3. Yeah, I actually want the Democrats to succeed

By deduction, we can assume that you want the reverse.

[babylonsister]

70. Sure you do. Your 'concern' is, as usual, noted. nt

[DevonRex]

146. Sure you do.

[SidDithers]

12. You're right. And I stopped wondering a long time ago...nt

Sid

[Romulox]

18. I take *pride* in being on the opposite side of most issues as you, Sid. It's how I know I'm on the

right track.

[BlueCaliDem]

24. You mean, "Right" track, yes?

If you're the opposite of Sid, that's exactly what it means.

Good to know.

[Romulox]

28. Sid as the opposite of "Right"? In Bizarro land, maybe!

Me liberal like Sid!

[BlueCaliDem]

48. Sid is exactly that - opposite of the Right.

You? I'm not so sure of.

Me self-proclaimed Liberal! Me like disguises on Democratic Party supporting sites.

[Romulox]

59. If you like Sid's work here, you'll hate what I have to say.

I'm against the status quo.

[BlueCaliDem]

79. No. I won't hate anything that's constructive or that goes against the status quo.

I'm innately pragmatic, and make every effort to be constructive, not destructive, of the Democratic Party because I do know how to separate the wheat from the chaff.

[HuckleB]

125. I'd suspect you're anti-science, too.

Thus, who cares what else you buy into...

[Romulox]

135. LOL. Make up whatever you like, I guess? nt

[HuckleB]

144. I'm not making anything up.

That's your game.

[SidDithers]

119. ...

Sid

[DevonRex]

123. The only one who recced the OP is toast.

Still take pride?

[Romulox]

136. Is this a threat? I think a toxic atmosphere of intimidation is taking over... nt

[DevonRex]

141. Huh? I have no power to threaten with anything here.

I pointed out a simple fact. A rather glaring fact. You've been here a long time. This is not a winning argument when you look beneath the insurance industry dirty tricks. Tricks designed to make people buy insurance policies far more expensive than those offered on ACA. Theyre canceling policies that didnt provide actual insurance and then telling them they've been switched to policy X which costs much more because of ACA.

And stupid people believe them. Without shopping on ACA. Partly because the site isn't working well. But it will. In the meantime posts like the OP and articles like he posted aren't helping.

[BlueCaliDem]

27. I've only now seen it in broad daylight.

I always try to give people the benefit of the doubt, but in this case and after such an anti-Democratic Party post, that's impossible for me now.

[brentspeak]

54. Spare us the drama and the bull$hit, please

My OP is nothing compared to what congressional Democrats and their staffers are privately expressing right now concerning ACA.

Maybe in your world they're really secret Republicans.

http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-obamacare-2014-elections-democrats-senate-2013-11

[BlueCaliDem]

57. And you *do* know that those people you find so credible, are responsible for killing the P.O.,

don't you? That's not drama and it sure as hell ain't bullshit.

[brentspeak]

62. Uh, it was Obama who bargained away and killed the public option

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/22/obama-health-care-plan-dr_n_471320.html

[BlueCaliDem]

77. Wrong.

That myth was based on hearsay - originating from Daschle. He's since retracted it. I've explained in post #40 - complete with links!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4006866

Everyone who had been paying attention - and could hear through the loud noise backed by Koch Bros' Teabagger movement - knew that the majority of Senate Dems and Republicans and Lieberman (who threatened to filibuster) were against single-payer AND the public option. They would've also seen President Obama campaigning on the Public Option in Montana, with Baucus in attendance.

It's official: The public option is dead
Updated: Friday, March 26th, 2010 | By Louis Jacobson
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/518/create-public-option-health-plan-new-national-heal/

Advocates had argued that a government-run insurance plan would keep private insurers honest by competing with them so they couldn't charge unfair rates for basic services. Opponents countered that the public option would have presented too much government involvement in the health care system.

But while the House of Representatives approved a bill with a public option, the Senate, after flirting with the concept, chose not to follow suit. When the House went on to pass the Senate version, House Democratic leaders went along with the Senate's version.

The reason for not including a public option was pretty simple. When an audience member at a March 25, 2010, speech in Iowa City, Iowa, asked why the public option wasn't included, Obama responded, "Because we couldn"t get it through Congress, that"s why."

[brentspeak]

82. Rated as "Obama: Promise Broken" by your own link

[BlueCaliDem]

88. And?

Unlike Teapublicans, Liberals and Democrats know that the president can promise you the universe, but it's up to Congress to make that happen. In the case of the Public Option, they failed. He didn't. Your argument that President Obama "bargained away and killed the Public Option" is completely wrong. End of story.

[brentspeak]

91. I'll gather my facts from news reports

rather than from personal hunches of anonymous interweb posters, thanks.

[BlueCaliDem]

93. ??

You actually believe that the Washington Post and Raw Story are anonymous intertubes posters? Really?

Why am I not surprised?

[treestar]

22. Please Don't Keep Me Wonderin' no Longer

[alcibiades_mystery]

99. I thought I had that one on ignore

Did my lapsed star membership bring this pack of you-know-what's back into sight?

Ooof!

[Pretzel_Warrior]

149. Here's a point where you and I are in agreement

[NightWatcher]

2. lets say the Dems lose everyone who has to pay more

Will they gain the vote of everyone who pays less, gets insurance for the first time, gets life saving treatments they could otherwise not afford....

I think a few people will pay more, but a lot more will benefit. Can the Dems count on gaining all of those voters?

[MrsKirkley]

63. Not if they're negatively impacted by the family glitch.

[PeaceNikki]

4. cry me a river, counselor

Oh, waaaaah. An attorney has to pay $300/ month for insurance.

[Romulox]

17. Poor reading skills AND a lack of empathy. Wonderful! nt

[PeaceNikki]

36. empathy? I have empathy for my friends, family and acquaintances who have chronic diseases

And no longer have to worry about lifetime caps, denial of coverage, etc.

[Romulox]

42. That's not what "empathy" means. It means caring about people other than you and yours.

Mocking the public defender's problems, and labeling her "counselor" in an attempt to dehumanize her isn't empathetic.

[PeaceNikki]

50. lol. you're kidding, right?

You know that attorneys are called "counselors at law", right?

You think it's "dehumanizing" to use a common title of counselor for a lawyer?

Really?

lol

[BlueCaliDem]

55. Unfortunately, that DU poster isn't kidding, PeaceNikki.

Astonishing, isn't it?

[Romulox]

56. I know *exactly* what you were trying to do. As do you.

Good to see you backpedaling, though.

[PeaceNikki]

58. no, you don't fucking know me.

[Romulox]

60. Nor do I care to. nt

[11 Bravo]

100. If by "backpedaling" you mean "threw it right back in your face", then yeah ...

she sure was backpedaling.

[Romulox]

139. Nonsense. She used "counselor" as a term of derision/entitlement...for a *public defender*. nt

[PeaceNikki]

162. um... a public defender is still a "Counselor at law" by profession. You're belittling her by acting

otherwise.

And, as we have established upthread, you don't fucking know me and never will so don't act like you *know* how I meant it. (pssst, you're wrong).

[Chan790]

167. ...and she's not a public defender. She's in private practice and owns her multi-attorney firm.

I have few sympathies for someone who almost certainly makes upwards of $250K complaining about paying more so that the same desperately poor clients she mentions representing can finally have insurance.

[SidDithers]

172. ...

Keep digging that hole.

Sid

[BlueCaliDem]

52. I missed where the definition of "empathy" excluded one's family?

Maybe you can point that out to me?

By the way? PeaceNikki never claimed she has empathy for herself. You just made that up out of whole cloth - much like your Democratic Party bona fides, I suspect.

[lumberjack_jeff]

72. Next year, when Ms Persico's FREE physical identifies a lump...

... which is further diagnosed with her FREE mammogram, and followed up with an effective treatment overseen by The Office of Women's Healthcare, because her insurance no longer has a lifetime cap and won't be cut off at some arbitrary cost level leaving her uninsured with a preexisting condition.

She won't lose her house because of the bankruptcy that would have resulted if it had happened this year.

[Romulox]

140. She'll still be cut from her insurance if she can't pay the increased premium.

That's how for profit insurance works.

[Gman]

5. The ACA did NOT make premiums go up, period stop

and repeating that meme does not help.

[brentspeak]

7. Wasn't it supposed to make them decrease?

[truebluegreen]

14. That went the way of the public option,

although larger pools with more healthy people will help some. Oddly, omitting the biggest possible savings--private companies' profits--makes for less savings.

Shocking.

[Gman]

16. Exactly

DOn't forget they still need to use 80% of premiums to pay claims with and refund anything in excess of the 20% that goes to admin costs.

[Romulox]

21. The President negotiated away the Public Option in backdoor sessions with the Insurance Industry.

Who are you blaming the loss of the Public Option on?

[BlueCaliDem]

40. That myth has been debunked. There's NO hard proof that the president

killed the public option. Just hearsay that snowballed.

A much more logical explanation is that there was no deal on the public option, and that it died because there just were not 60 Democrats willing to support it.

There simply was no reported deal to kill the public option. If you want to blame someone for killing the public option, blame marginal Democrats, who opposed it

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/obama-never-secretly-killed-the-public-option-its-a-myth/2011/11/17/gIQAZQt0UN_blog.html

And from Daschle (the one Corporate Media had been touting as the source of the myth) who retracted his earlier statement with this:

“The President fought for the public option just as he did for affordable health care for all Americans,” he said. “The public option was dropped only when it was no longer viable in Congress, not as a result of any deal cut by the White House.”

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/10/06/daschle-public-option/

I do recall President Obama fighting hard for a Public Option. I recall him in Montana campaigning for the public option, and I do recall Senate Dems being less than lukewarm for the idea.

[truebluegreen]

92. "WTF" yourself.

My post didn't lay the blame anywhere in particular but since you asked so nicely, I'd say the conservadems/Blue Dogs/etc. and more specifically Joe LIEberman were most responsible. I'd say President Obama bears a fair amount of responsibility as well but he didn't write the legislation.

Does that conform to your worldview well enough? If so, I'm hugely relieved.

[Fla Dem]

43. NO, the purpose was to improve the individual insurance people were paying high premiums for

and getting nothing but high deductibles, co-pays and other OOP expenses, so that unless you had a major health issue, the ins companies collected your premiums, and paid no benefits. And even with a major health event, the yearly deductibles and lifetime maximums were so atrocious it usually meant unless you had a Platinum plan, you ended up mortgaging the house and going through your life savings. This was more the case with individual plans, not group plans.

The ACA other main objective was to make individual health insurance more accessible and affordable to middle and lower income people. That's where the subsidies come in.

[BlueStreak]

47. They DO decrease in many markets -- even with the coverage being vastly superior to pre-ACA

Look at Detroit and most locations in California for example. I think I counted more than 15 competitors in Wayne County Michigan, and gold plans for a 50-year old with no subsidy at all were in the range of $300-500. That is a fantastic deal. If anybody was paying less than that before, they were paying for junk.

And let's talk about all this high-deductible crap. Yeah, I had a high-deductible HSA policy. I was forced into it because regular policies were completely price prohibitive. Now some people are talking like it was some kind of privilege to have a high deductible policy. What sheer nonsense.

Unfortunately the competition is not uniform Those same policies that cost $300-$500 in Detroit are closer to $1000 in Indianapolis where there are only 2 competitors who obviously colluded on their pricing. This is where the public option would have helped enormously.

But on a crass political level, it is mostly the reliable red states that have sabotaged the program, and that means most of the people who truly are paying more for less are in states that typically vote Republican. From an electoral college standpoint, that is no loss at all, although it may hurt our chances of picking up House seats and retaining Senate seats.

But a lot changes before the next election. By April most people will be dealing with facts instead of fears.

[alarimer]

68. They promised no such thing, as I recall.

The product offered is simply far superior to those cheap, shitty plans people are complaining about.

[kysrsoze]

13. Exactly, this is the market in action and it's just the beginning

It's going to take time for things to stabilize, competition to work and non-profit insurance providers to enter some market. And overall, the vast majority of people either aren't impacted or will significantly benefit. If portions of the law need fixing, you fix them instead of crying and whining about how horrible the whole thing is.

If we all think completely in knee-jerk fashion and respond to headlines with hysterics, then yes, I suppose this is a disaster for Democrats.

[tosh]

32. ^^this^^

[Romulox]

37. Then why did the government FORCE people into bed with these known bad actors?

And claim that by doing so, they were going to lower costs?

[VanillaRhapsody]

112. How do you know they won't?

Was there a time limit that said they would be lower on the first day?

[Romulox]

137. Who knows what they *will* do. We are reacting to what is actually happening. nt

[kysrsoze]

150. You're reacting to what's happening in the first 6 week.

Everyone wants instant gratification. It took 30+ years just to pass this. Republicans play the long game and Dems freak out in short order. You want change? Push to get Republicans out of office and true Independents or Dems in.

[VanillaRhapsody]

153. but it hasn't gone into effect yet...

do we judge it by the few or the many?

[Chan790]

169. You are aware that Medicare was in much worse shape at this point on its own rollout timeline?

Yes? Social Security too.

Big programs don't rollout clean...they take finesse and time to hit their stride. They take tweaks. They take trial and error on implementation. They take patience to work the bugs out. They take a few years for the system to stabilize to their existence and things to start working optimally.

Complaining about the ACA now is like complaining that you're losing an election at 1% returns.

Fuck the malcontents. Given 3-5 years, this will be a program Americans will grow to love.

[PeaceNikki]

38. well said.

[brentspeak]

39. The GOP will not allow broken portions of the law to be fixed

Only Congress can make significant changes to the law. And the Republicans will want as many people as possible to get pi$$ed off by a Democrat-passed law.

[PeaceNikki]

46. let them. millions of people are getting help due to ACA.

[kysrsoze]

151. That's why you need to play the long game and push Repubs out of office

This is only the beginning of a long process, and the alternative has been absolutely nothing positive.

[lumberjack_jeff]

75. For some people it absolutely did.

Whether it was a worth it is a different question. I think it is.

[Gman]

116. For everyone claiming the ACA made their premiums go up

I've yet to see one single person who could not find a better policy at the same or cheaper rates on the exchange. So they were likely paying for a crap policy that had to be brought up to code which is why the premium went up. But the individual could very well get a better policy for the same or less on an exchange. So the premiums they are paying can actually stay the same or go down because of the ACA.

[lostincalifornia]

134. true, insurance companies did to offset their presumed risk

[sharp_stick]

6. Well now this is a big surprise

I mean coming from someone who so zealously supports everything this President has done since he was elected and actually even during the primary process.

This is quite the turnabout....Oh wait sorry exactly the same shit on a new day, just like every day.

[jberryhill]

8. The answer is very simple

Because most people benefit under the ACA, and majorities win elections.

Next question?

[Vogon_Glory]

9. Teething And Timing Problems

I am convinced that part of the Obama/national Romney-care "crisis" would be far worse for Democrats if implementation had been delayed until next autumn, which is what I believe the Republicans were hoping for.

[99Forever]

10. Oh please.

3% of the population fit the scenario you just described. Get real.

BTW, I am about far from being a "ACA sycophant" or a member of the BOG cheering section as you'll find around here, just so you know where you can place that ridiculous attempt at a juvenile insult.

Like it or not, this is at least a start towards a better health care system, with access for MILLIONS that had NONE before, your dumbass Teabagger propaganda not withstanding.

[Pisces]

11. Oh, here you are again trumpeting the horn of negativity, bad news, and concern. More people will

be affected in a positive manner that will vote democrat. Keep focusing on 1 to 2% of the people is the look over
here and not over there strategy. In Utopia you will equal fairness. Until we find the map to this mythical land
lets deal with the facts of our current situation.

Keep blowing your horn Little Boy Blue.

[displacedtexan]

15. Simple answer:

The same reason that Social Security & Medicare weren't disasters for the Democratic Party...

Affordable healthcare for all is not a short-term political ploy.

And people who can afford to pay into SS and Medicare have supported those who can't. These programs are not and never have been free.

[Avalux]

19. ACA sycophants....lecture....ACA apologist....petulantly sniffles.....

Do you want your argument to be taken seriously? If you do, then stop using words like these to describe people you don't agree with. If you don't and just enjoy stirring the pot, then you're succeeding.

[brentspeak]

31. I've been holding my tongue on the matter

But after reading a few more threads where over-zealous ACA supporters have accused others of being "liars" and "repeating lies" -- even when the stories of cancelled policies were reported by the New York Times -- I'm at the point of "enough is enough".

[Bobbie Jo]

83. Enough is enough

Indeed.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=127885&sub=trans

You are certainly "at the point," alright.

[brentspeak]

89. You think the Senate Democrats

and their staffers who are privately chewing out the law (in much harsher words that I would be willing to use) should be compared to a banned DU'er, too?

http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-obamacare-2014-elections-democrats-senate-2013-11

[Bobbie Jo]

97. Apples/Oranges

The totality of your "work" speaks for itself.

Enough is enough, indeed.

[brentspeak]

109. Welcome to my ignore list

You'll have to troll someone else.

[Bobbie Jo]

111. "troll"

"enough is enough."

Unintentional irony at its finest.

My apologies, clearly you have dibs on the trolling function for this thread.

Carry on, professor.

eta: This "troll" agrees with you.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4007272

divine substance

Thank you for creating this thread.

It's bad enough that there are people putting down those who have found themselves in a worse position as a result of the new law but then to be accused of being some shill for Repubes or whatever is beyond the pale. And then the lies...Disgusting.

It really doesn't matter. Once the law is in effect, we will see how many people are happy with everything. And then all the shilling in the world won't do a thing but expose the liars.

Keep up the good fight. You are a true progressive.

[DevonRex]

142. Some nerve, accusing HER of being a troll after you posted RW garbage

again. JFC.

[SidDithers]

118. Yup...

at some point, enough will be enough.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=217293&sub=trans

Sid

[Lifelong Dem]

129. Republicans are really concerned too

As if healthcare insurance wasn't in need of reform. What a joke.

[cilla4progress]

20. I believe you are correct.

I don't know about brentspeak...but I am someone who 1) is a faithful Dem and DU'er; 2) individual policy is being cancelled because it no longer complies - is no longer a qualified plan under Obamacare ...ergo, BECAUSE OF OBAMACARE.

My plan did NOT change, should have met the grandfathering requirements. I'm sure the company felt it was no longer profitable.

My premium and deductible were lower than the replacement plan. The big benefit of the replacement plan is, due to the requirements of ACA, there is no annual max - which had been $100K. In other words, under the replacement plan, I don't top out, and if I suffered a serious injury, illness or accident, I won't be stuck with expenses over $100K. Because this never happened to me in my 3 years under the plan, it feels to me like my costs are going up (only) under ACA. Capiche?

Here's how the Dems avoid ACA being a disaster (and this is a meme I have recently heard, which should be stated over and over again): AT LEAST THE DEMS ARE DOING SOMETHING. They are trying to make the system fairer and more responsive for everyone. The patient's rights that are being put forth, are for everyone. The Repubs have not only proposed nothing, they have tried to stand in the way of people getting access to health care, and mending our economy on this issue.

[99Forever]

53. Your insurance provider...

... could have tweaked your policy to make it compliant. It was THEIR choice not to.

There are minimum standards for MANDATORY insurance on your car also. I don't hear Teabagger plants whining about those.

Got a bitch about it? Take it up with the insurance company that CHOSE to use the ADA as an excuse to screw you.

[Ms. Toad]

94. Grandfathered plans did not need to be tweaked.

As long as they didn't change the plan, they could still offer it - they just chose not to.

[99Forever]

131. As I said...

... this person's insurance company CHOSE to screw him and use the ADA as an excuse, whether it was grandfathered in or not.

[Ms. Toad]

143. But tweaking (your suggestion)

eliminates the ability to offer the same plan. If they tweak, they don't have the option to continue it.

The message that is out there, which is not true, is that people are losing the crappy plans that make them happy because the ACA has changed the minimum standards and they aren't allowed to offer them any more - if that was true then the critics are right - the ACA (itself) means that you can't keep your plan even if you like it. You said, tweak it so it meets the minimum standards. That plays into the false line that the ACA prevents you from keeping the plan you have if you like it - because it says that the insurance company can't offer the same plan to you - it has to change it (or drop you).

The critical point we need to get across is that the ACA expressly permits people to keep their crappy plans - it was written exactly as President Obama promised. If you are happy with your crappy plan, the ACA (itself) will not force you to change. On the flip side, it is also not a governmental take-over of insurance - so it won't force your insurance company to continue to offer that crappy plan. And that is where the insurance company choice came in. Even though it could have offered the exact same crappy plan, it chose not to.

[99Forever]

155. A distinction without a difference.

Trivial word games. There isn't anything you can say that will make people like this one not buy the lies. Period. I get it, I just don't give a damn about convincing people too damn stupid to know when they are being conned, even when the con is laid out right under their nose.

[Ms. Toad]

156. It actually isn't.

If the insurance companies were not permitted to offer their policies any more because the law prohibited them (or are required to change them), then the right wing is correct. Obama lied.

He didn't.

The policies they have been offering may still be offered. They do not have to tweak them. All they have to do is to keep offering them.

And some of those policies were not junk policies - they were good solid policies which people can no longer obtain. And even the ones which you classify as junk had their uses - I used some of them for a period of time. People wanted to keep those policies without change - so buying the right wing meme that they are prohibited because they don't meet current standards isn't accurate, and feeds the noise which is being heard by legislators, that the policies were dropped because the ACA does not require them to be offered (or requires that they be changed). Both of which are not true.

"You may continue to offer that policy" (what the law says) is very different from "You cannot offer that policy unless you change it" (the right wing frame)

[99Forever]

164. You are preaching to the choir.

I already understood that. Even if the detractors also understand, it simply doesn't matter to them. It's like the Teabagger House squealing about the website not working properly, after voting 40 odd times to repeal the entire ADA. There is NOTHING you or anyone else can say that will satisfy them EXCEPT that the ADA is being repealed. Period. You can play their game if you please. I don't and won't.

That, in my world view, makes it a distinction without a difference.

Peace out.

[RBInMaine]

166. The only problem is that insurance companies are still involved. But it is at least trying to

improve the system.

[napkinz]

23. see responses to this thread --->

What Does GOP Do Once Website is FIXED?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023997236

[Romulox]

25. It's a disaster because it doesn't do what the President said it would: a) Lower costs; b) insure

EVERYONE; c) allow people to keep their plans.

It's a failure on the criteria the President himself laid out.

[VanillaRhapsody]

115. So people not going to emergency rooms for care...costing us billions in taxes

is NOT lowering costs?

People can keep their plans....IF the insurance company continues to offer it....

[DevonRex]

126. Wrong. RW assholes going on TV with bullshit stories

about their wonderful 25¢ per day plans being canceled and replaced with $12000 premiums with $12000 deductibles and a news media that reports bullshit like 60 Minutes Benghazi doesn't mean ACA is a failure. It means the RW BS machine is loud, powerful and full of shit and is on DU apparently.

[HuckleB]

127. You're wrong on A and B is not a claim anyone ever made.

You're also mostly wrong on C.

Do you have a clue to life?

[Chan790]

171. It does "a" for most people, for "b" it insures a hell of a lot more in real plans...

and frankly I don't give a f**k about c.

It never should have been promised and now that it was, I feel we have no obligation to honor a promise to let people keep substandard offerings. "C" is the equivalent of "If you like your flaming death-wreck of a Ford Pinto, we'll let you keep driving it." No. Just no.

[Ikonoklast]

26. Better Believe It!

...is the answer to the question, "Are idiots with anti-Democratic still frantically trying to convince people that Obamacare is a disaster?"


She had crap insurance that didn't qualify under the new guidelines, you know, like real coverage...THAT IS WHY IT GOT CANCELLED.


Good to see who you are aligned with against progress.

[FSogol]

106. Exactly. When will "Enough is enough" time come?

[cali]

29. It's far too early to designate the ACA as a disaster

and many more people will have health insurance because of it. You want me to feel badly for an attorney instead of feeling good about the thousands who now have health insurance?

[treestar]

30. Then she makes a lot of money

and can afford the better plan.

[Freddie]

33. Do any of these people realize what the average employer-provided plan costs??

I'm a benefits manager for a school district. An excellent Blue Cross PPO costs the district $892/month for a *single* plan. $1890 for family. (Employees pay between 7% and 13% of that, depending on their job classification.)
People have no idea what health insurance really costs.

[Puzzledtraveller]

161. I'm a Medicaid caseworker

Since 2009. I have been trained on ACA, HBE Kynect and expanded Medicaid. Personally I believe the unintended consequences will be many. Just my 2c.

[dionysus]

34. the ghost of BBI applauds you. well done.

[Zorra]

35. Well, after our little non-profit corporation was priced out of being able to afford health

insurance because of skyrocketing premiums that increased on a yearly basis, most of our employees, me included, were left uninsured.

Now we can afford much better insurance than our company was able to offer.

Depending on if healthcare.gov ever gets its shit together, of course.

[BenzoDia]

41. The article fails to give details about people's financial situations, the "comparable plans" they

found, what their current maximum out-of-pocket costs are etc.

No one should take this article seriously.

[spanone]

44. 'screwed by this law?' be gone.

[chowder66]

45. Hello. To get the plan closest to mine I have to pay more

about $40.00 more, I really was hoping for a lower premium than what I'm paying now (was $524.00, then it dropped just below $500.00 because of healthcare laws and I got a few refund checks, small but appreciated).....BUT I DO have the option to pay less now if I change providers and/or choose a plan that covers a little bit less, more than a little bit less, much less, etc. In other words, the plans are as flexible as I am willing to be and as long as my health is stable. And if something were to happen like losing my job or if I have to take a job that pays less I still have options to get coverage. That is comforting to me.

So yes, there is a slight risk that I could have something terrible go wrong with my health but at least I know I won't go bankrupt with any of the policies I choose. May it cause a little pain to cover $6k if I have to and if I choose that type of plan, sure but my last policy had caps that stressed me out from time to time.

What I love is that I have those options now and while I may go for paying more for the plan that most matches my current one, I"m rethinking it today. I might go with a plan that covers a little less to reduce the cost while I manage some debt I have. Then I may go for the more expensive plan down the road.

I used to be able to change plans during open enrollments... that is... until I lost insurance, got sick and was no longer insurable due to a pre-existing condition that no longer exists, however, that pre-existing condition was put in my medical records and it stuck with me. Seems I cannot have it removed. So I'm still denied in the regular market.

I had to go on major risk insurance for basic health care.

I had three options before the exchange; The plan I have (major risk), a way more expensive plan (another provider that covers major risk) or no plan at all. Now I feel like I'm at a buffet!!!!

[Skinner]

49. You know what's funny?

There are people on DU who keep telling us that politics shouldn't be about party over policy. But then they argue against policy by saying it'll make Democrats lose votes. They'll dump on the Democrats the day before an actual election, loudly proclaiming how they refuse to compromise their sacred principles, but when we're a year out from an election they are all worried about winning.

Let me be clear: If Democrats lose in 2014 because of Obamacare, I'll be disappointed -- but the loss will be worth it. Because we actually did something good that will make a big difference for millions of people. This is why we run for office in the first place -- to do some good. And Obamacare, despite its flaws, is the most important piece of legislation of my lifetime. If we lose, so be it. As long as we never go back to the much-worse health care system we had before.

It sucks that this woman is paying a higher premium. I don't know anything about her old health plan -- maybe it was amazing. (Actually no, it probably wasn't amazing, otherwise it wouldn't have been canceled.) But I do know quite a lot about her new plan -- it's going to actually provide her with health care coverage if/when she needs it.

[leftstreet]

71. +1 It's the legislation, not the politicians or parties

The ACA needs a lot of work, but it has to succeed regardless of which team is in office

[brentspeak]

78. I'm not a purist

I don't like Obama's New Democrat policies, but I did vote to reelect him.

And if voters hand the GOP the next presidency and full control of Congress, I don't see how passing ACA in this form was worth it; the Republicans will simply reverse the legislation -- or, at least, they'll reverse the good things about the law, such as prohibiting denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions. And a GOP-controlled federal government will immediately push to eliminate income-level-based subsidies -- unless they make their own deal with insurance co's to allow policy costs to go through the roof, thus negating the usefulness of the subsidies.

[ScreamingMeemie]

103. Do you even BEGIN to realize how many of us have been HELPED by this legislation???

Do you?

I don't think so.

[Ms. Toad]

98. That was pretty much the first thing that crossed my mind when I read this post. n/t

[ScreamingMeemie]

101. You know what Skinner?

Thank you.

It is one of the best things that has happened lately in my life. To feel as if I matter again. That I am worthy enough to access healthcare. A decade ago, I did not realize how rough it could be.

But, participating on here and having Democrats tell me that I somehow got mine...and feeling as if I have to thank every person who has an issue with ACA for allowing me to access something that a good many of them take for granted...it hurts.

So...Thank you.

[FSogol]

107. +1 n/t

[Chan790]

173. Thank you. n/t

[ScreamingMeemie]

51. Well...here's the thing...

I am one of those who has been unhappy with the overly centrist (to sometimes rightwing) positions our party has bowed down to.

4 years ago, when I tried to sign up for my state's high risk pool, I was given a quote of $1450K a month with high deductibles and no prescription coverage.

1 month ago, when I tried to sign up for my state's exchanges, I was given a quote of $176 a month with low deductibles ($1800) and prescription coverage. I am betting there are a lot of middle of the roaders, with pre-existing conditions, who have found this same result.

Guess who I am going to continue to vote for?

And, no, I am not an "apologist" for anything.

and, on edit and before you accuse me of "getting yours," I am appreciative of the nation's community at large for helping me to carry the burden of insuring all Americans.

Thank you.

[MrsKirkley]

61. Poor families are also being negatively affected because of the family glitch.

It's not just the people who have to pay a little more because their current policies are being cancelled. Poor people are getting screwed as well. If an employer offers family coverage and the worker's portion (family's portion doesn't count) of the premium is less than 9.5% of the household's income, the entire family is ineligible for subsidies. The deductible is often twice as much for a family as it is for an employee only. Low income employees and their families will be required to purchase health insurance they can't afford to use. Families with income of 139% of the federal poverty level can't afford $5,000 + deductibles.

[alarimer]

64. People haven't been screwed at all.

SOME people have to give up their cheap, shoddy insurance that covered nothing and pay a little more for better insurance. If they weren't so short-sighted (or dupes of the insurance company) they would see that.

But many of them did not actually know that many of these plans they're on are actually canceled every year anyway. They never saw that. And they also were unaware they could go on the exchanges (when the system worked) to get a better deal than the one offered by their insurance company.

This is the Republican's fault. Because so many red states failed to set up their own exchanges, the national system that took their places was hugely complicated to do. And, while there are problems, people can wait a while longer to sign up, when hopefully those problems will be worked out.

[brentspeak]

85. We keep hearing about how "crappy" the cancelled policies supposedly are

No question some of them are. But the woman in the article was apparently happy with her's -- and she has checked out the D.C. exchange.

[valerief]

65. Why would she want a substandard plan? Oh, yeah, because she's a lawyer and probably

makes a good living (since she doesn't qualify for subsidies) and could probably afford to pay out of pocket those medical expenses not covered by her substandard cancelled plan.

But she found a comparable substandard plan on the exchange and it costs more.

WAIT! Substandard plans aren't allowed on the exchange!!!!!

I smell a rat. I'm sick of these rat stories.

[IADEMO2004]

66. "NOTHING IS OVER TILL WE DECIDE IT IS, AND IT AIN'T OVER NOW"

Animal House 1978


as I remember hearing only no transcript


President yesterday somewhere. "They will call it Obamacare until it starts working and people like it. Then they will call it something else."

[lumberjack_jeff]

67. Because medical bankruptcy is a thing of the past?

Because people won't die because they can't afford care?
Because women's contraception is now free?
Because most of the 3% of people who must change insurance plans had worthless insurance to start with?
Because most people who currently are insured by an individual policy will be able to get it cheaper because tax credit?

Second, the "at least $5000 per year more" is bullshit. Maximum out of pocket costs are just that, most people don't pay their entire deductible and copays each year. If she doesn't go to the doctor (except for preventive or reproductive health care), her extra costs are less than $2000 This does not account for the fact that her current insurance undoubtedly requires her to pay something now for mammograms and regular checkups.

[MrsKirkley]

73. People with chronic health conditions will likely have to pay at least $5,000/yr more.

Think of how common diabetes and cancer are. Most people know at least one person affected. It's not bullshit. It's a very real problem.

[lumberjack_jeff]

76. So how much does the average diabetic pay for private insurance now?

Hmm?

(answer - zero, because they are generally uninsurable due to preexisting condition)

[Mass]

86. More than what? YOu know many personal healthcare insurances that cover diabetes or cancer?

Yes, the system is far from perfect, but the idea that people will be worse off than with the current system is ludicrous.

[ScreamingMeemie]

113. Not true on the diabetes...More likely close to 1-1.5K

This is for a silver plan through Humana of Texas. We need to just stop slinging figures around as if we know... when we don't.

[nomorenomore08]

168. The ACA has its flaws, to be sure. But to claim it makes things *worse* for all of us

is plainly absurd.

[factsarenotfair]

69. Obamacare is much more than just a lower premium cost.

There are many more benefits and as a lawyer she should know that.

[fadedrose]

74. First they have to fix the website

After that, the folks who will benefit will sign up and the Republicans will stop fighting it, and maybe they will sit down with the Democrats and fix problems described in the OP. Some people will be unhappy, but the majority of the middle class and poor will be very happy....and that's the Democratic Party Base..

I feel bad that the rollout started badly, but have faith in the plan. There are ways to fix everything, but one of them is not the harsh criticism in your op...

Patience and knowing that the President will work on the bugs will tide us over. It is a law, like it or not.

[upaloopa]

80. After reading this thread it's obvious

you don't know that when you're in a hole you should stop digging

[roody]

81. My premiums went down . I'm middle class.

[Mass]

84. A lot more people have been helped than hurt. People know that. For one, I welcome a system who

helps the poor, even if it can hurt some affluent middle class people (this person is a lawyer, for example. She may not be rich, but she should be able to pay a little bit more for her health insurance). The person below 130% poverty line who will at last be able to get insurance has NO OTHER CHOICE.

I am not surprised that middle class reporters will recognize themselves in middle class lawyers and professionals. What surprises me is that people who supposedly are progressive do not get the problem. Have I made an error concerning you.

Another point, and one ignored by many single payer advocates that have never lived in a system with single payer: I bet you this person would also have had to pay more with single payer. Granted that the system would have been better (particularly is most doctors accepted single payer), but it is more than likely SHE WOULD HAVE PAID MORE AS WELL,

Now, do not think I disagree with single payer. It should have happened, but the reason it should have happened is that we should pay for healthcare according to our income, and this person clearly is in the top half of the ladder.

[brentspeak]

105. If ACA has helped more people than it has hurt

then how do you convince the public that's the case? How is it possible when mainstream news sources are reporting millions of cancelled policies? At this present time, water-cooler talk is "Obamacare is cancelling people's policies. People have to buy more expensive ones, double the cost." White House blundering has handed the Republicans a golden hammer with which to pound the Democrats over the head. That's why a group of Senate Democrats had a meeting with Obama this past week. Even if the law is overall a good one, how many Democrats are actually going to embrace ACA when they run for reelection? I'm not the only one who sees how surreal the situation is.

[Mass]

148. Actually, the Dems who met with Obama met to make a few fixes. Even Landrieu this morning defended

Last edited Sat Nov 9, 2013, 06:19 PM - Edit history (1)

the law very strongly.

The media do what they always do: support people they identify with (professionals, ...) and ignore the poor and lower middle class. They are the same people who want to see government spending reduced, social security reformed and Medicare age increased. These are the same people who rarely cared about people having their policies cancelled before (or rarely). These are the same people who have ignored people with preexisting conditions except when it was fashionable to talk about them or when they were all of a sudden hurt by these rules. These people are reporting for their own side(and those who do not understand that killing the law is not an option and that political jockeying is abject ).

And, as I said, there was no solutions that would have not seen some premiums increased and double, not status quo, not single payer, not ACA.

So, really, the two only questions are the following:

= Can we help those who are really in difficulty (not talking about a lawyer seeing $100 increase a month. This is ridiculous).
= Can we fix the website so that people can actually find the information?
= Stop defending "you wont have to change your insurance" as more than a rhetorical effect that was true for most, though inaccurate. There are ample signs that he knew it. If anything, he did not deny it during the healthcare meeting with Congress and he would have to be an idiot not to know it.

Those are the real questions that need to be fixed. Now, I am probably among the few that think some small changes would not hurt, for example force the insurance companies to finish their yearly contracts so that everybody does not have to register at the same time. But panicking is useless and cruel.

[scheming daemons]

87. you Better Believe It, dkf! hopefully "enough is enough" soon

.

[PeaceNikki]

95. ooooooo.

huh.

yeah, i can see that.

[napkinz]

102. dfk ... the second coming

and let's hope the second "going"

[Whisp]

96. of course it's a disaster, chuck fuck and his friends say so. n/t

[cry baby]

108. One word for ya......Virginia. eom

[ucrdem]

110. "Is the Washington Post in cahoots with the Republicans?"

Has it ever not been?

[spin]

114. If most Americans like "Obamacare" by the midterm election it will be a success. If not ...

expect many voters to vote Republican because they will promise to either "fix" or repeal the ACA.

I know a very conservative voter who lives in Montana and has up to now had a very low opinion of Obama as President. I received an email from her about how she and her husband will get a much better healthcare plan at a bargain price because of the ACA. She is in her late 50s and has some medical problems and he is in his his early 60s and has had a number of operations including a heart bypass and is in poor health. She signed up for the new plan over the phone.

[arely staircase]

117. a referendum on obamacare and a disaster for

the GOP.

Cuccinelli casts Virginia election as referendum on Obamacare

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/2/cuccinelli-casts-virginia-election-referendum-obam/

nice try. the whole Virginia thing has y'all in a tizzy, I know. shutdown didn't work. things must suck for y'all/

[CatWoman]

120. Obamacare, AKA the ACA

Is nowhere the disaster that this thread is

[HuckleB]

121. Oddly. I have many patients who will now have mental health coverage.

They're kind of happy about that.

Hmmmmmmm.

[solarhydrocan]

122. Obama is an excellent salesman

If everything was reversed, and the R's passed a law that required everyone to buy corporate insurance without a public option and no single payer I doubt a single person here would support such a thing. Indeed, there would be marches on the Capital, and calls for non compliance.

When Baucus had single payer advocates arrested at a hearing there was no outcry from Democrats to speak of. It was shameful.

Baucus @2:40

And to top it off, those of us that were, like Obama, against a mandate until he "changed his mind" are now called Wingers or Racists for opposing a Right wing plan. It's beyond absurd.

The health insurance mandate in the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is an idea hatched in 1989 by Stuart M. Butler at Heritage in a publication titled "Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans".[21] This was also the model for Mitt Romney's health care plan in Massachusetts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritage_foundation#Policy_influence

I won't be adjusting my beliefs based on the whims and "mind changes" of a politician, no matter how popular he/she is.

[ScreamingMeemie]

133. To be honest...?

I would be quietly signing up for health insurance for the first time in 4 years...so that I could finally access care.

It has nothing to do with the football game that you are currently taking part in, and everything to do with people at least receiving preventative care and a shot at insurance.

[leftstreet]

138. The GOP could never have passed it

Not in a million years

But it's largely irrelevant at this point. It passed - not because either party wanted to address the growing desire and noise from citizens for healthcare reform, but to limit what we'd get

People wanted national nonprofit single payer. If we can come out of this clusterfuck with people still desiring it, that will be the success

[SidDithers]

152. court jester...

Gravel Democrat
green for victory



Sid

[dionysus]

160. single payer is awesome, but we didn't have the votes for it. not even close.

i'd rather take small steps forward than getting nothing.

you don't go from our current system to single payer in one fell swoop.

[JaneyVee]

124. Because Dems just swept a southern state from a Teabagger running on your platform.

During off off year elections might I add.

[Drunken Irishman]

128. How are you allowed to continue posting your lame-ass bullshit?

I guess some things just don't have an answer, eh?

[lostincalifornia]

130. I have been critical about the aca, however it benefits more people than it hurts

The people most affected will be those on the borderline for income, that is 64 k for 2 is slightly above the income limit and if they are older they will be paying more. That needs to be tweaked

Single payer is best but that wasn't in the cards then or now unfortunately

[Peacetrain]

132. Usually the weekend works out pretty good doesn't it?

But then there are days like this

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

145. This story has already circulated

and frankly, I think it's a distraction. No one ever said the ACA would be perfect but it's better than what we had.
Have you seen this?

[ZombieHorde]

147. I don't think we will know how it will play out for at least a year.

By then, we will hopefully know how many people will have to pay more versus how many people will have to pay less, or will be able to get health insurance for the first time.

[beachbum bob]

154. remind again what us GOP

Plan for providing access to health insurance...slam dunk reply to any one...

[JoePhilly]

157. Its almost as bad as the war Obama started on Syria.

[Incitatus]

158. It is going to be interesting to see what kind of rebates are given out after next year.

With all this extra money going to the insurance companies and the 80-85% requirements for actual care. Maybe they are just charging more in an attempt to turn public opinion against the ACA, and if that is the case it is working to some extent, but the law will stand and the system will be better for it. I wonder if they get to keep the interest they earn from the premiums. I bet they do.

[Puzzledtraveller]

159. k&r

[AverageJoe90]

163. Just wondering.....

Are you perhaps a climate doomer or "Obama's a secret Bushie" guy, too? You sure do have a Davey Downer type attitude about ya.....just asking.

[RBInMaine]

165. Either you are a right wing troller or an ultra-ultra-TeaLeftist. Yawn.

[peacebird]

170. Thanks to Obamacare my brother no longer has to worry about losing his home if his wife gets sick

She had a pre existing comdition and insurance companies would not cover her. Now they have coverage, thanks to Obamacare.

I have looked at healthcare.gov and my hubby & I (without any subsidies) will be able to get very affordable policies that will let us retire next year.

Obamacare will not sink the democrats because by the next election MORE people will be helped like my family has been.