Affordable health Care Update

[macrae1234]

I particularly like the have your cake and eat it too philosophy of the haters of the act that appears later in the article

Keeping Provisions

Still, rank-and-file Republicans want several key provisions retained. Sixty-two percent of Republicans want to retain the law’s ban on denying coverage based on pre-existing medical conditions, and 57 percent want to keep the requirement that insurance companies allow children up to age 26 to stay on their parents’ policies.

Republicans are about evenly divided on the elimination of lifetime limits on medical benefits.

Even majorities of those who would repeal the law want to maintain some of those provisions. Fifty-eight percent of repeal backers favor keeping the prohibition on denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions, and 58 percent also want to continue to allow those up to age 26 to remain on their parents’ policies. A substantial 40 percent minority of repeal advocates would keep the law’s ban on lifetime caps on insurance benefits.
Americans Stick With Obamacare as Opposition Burns Bright
March 12, 2014 8:00 PM ET

By Mike Dorning



President Barack Obama’s health-care law is becoming more entrenched, with 64 percent of Americans now supporting it outright or backing small changes.



Even so, the fervor of the opposition shows no sign of abating, posing a challenge for Obama’s Democrats during congressional races this year, as a Republican victory in a special Florida election this week showed. In addition, 54 percent of Americans say they’re unhappy with the president’s handling of the issue, according to a Bloomberg National Poll.



That’s an improvement since the last poll, in December, when Obama’s public standing on health care hit a low of 60 percent disapproval after the botched rollout of the insurance exchanges, according to the March 7-10 poll of 1,001 adults.



“Things definitely seem to be getting better,” said Paul Attard, 50, a political independent in Evergreen, Colorado and a program manager for a cell-phone company who wants the law modified rather than repealed. “It seems like they are getting a lot more people to join. It’s a sign that the system is working.”



Through March 1, 4.2 million Americans had enrolled in health plans via the Affordable Care Act’s insurance exchanges, the government said this week. The deadline for enrollment is March 31, and the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that 6 million people will sign up this year for private plans.



Highest Acceptance

Fifty-one percent of Americans favor retaining the Affordable Care Act with “small modifications,” while 13 percent would leave the law intact and 34 percent would repeal it. That’s the highest level of public acceptance for the law yet in the Bloomberg poll.



Investors are betting the law will withstand political challenges. An “Obamacare” portfolio of stocks that benefit from the law developed by the online broker Motif Investing is up 40.9 percent over a year ago as of March 12, almost doubling the performance of the Standard & Poor’s 500 index, which returned 22.9 percent.



A “Repeal Obamacare” portfolio underperformed the benchmark stock index, rising 16.1 percent during the period.



The law’s opponents have the advantage of intensity, which was on display in the March 11 Florida election for a vacant congressional seat. After a campaign focused on differences over Obamacare, Republican David Jolly turned out more of his supporters than did Democratic candidate Alex Sink. The election drew little more than half as many voters in the district as in the 2012 presidential race, when Obama narrowly carried it and a since-deceased Republican congressman was re-elected.



‘Major’ Decider

“In off-year elections, turnout is a huge factor,” said J. Ann Selzer, who conducted the survey for Bloomberg. “The anti-Obamacare segment is both more likely to say they will definitely vote and more likely to say their vote will be strongly influenced by their view of Obamacare; that can be enough to sway a race.”



Seventy-three percent of Bloomberg poll respondents who would repeal Obamacare say the law will be a “major” decider of their vote, compared with 45 percent of those who support modifications and 33 percent of those who back the law as is.



Repeal advocates are also the most likely to vote, with 73 percent saying they will “definitely” do so. By contrast, 61 percent of those who want only small modifications are likely voters as are 54 percent of those who want the law kept intact.



Alternate Perceptions

Republicans and Democrats have become so polarized over the Affordable Care Act that they have alternative perceptions of how the law has touched their families and friends.



Fifty-nine percent of Republicans say they personally know someone who has been hurt by the law and only 14 percent say they know someone who has been helped. Among Democrats: 48 percent say they know someone the law has helped and only 19 percent know anyone who has been hurt.



Party identification and political ideology track responses to the question more closely than do traits such as income, education and race that usually are more closely linked to differences in health-coverage experiences.



Even with public acceptance of the law, 72 percent of Republicans favor repeal. That’s one reason the Republican-controlled U.S. House has voted about 50 times to repeal all or part of the law and opposition is an article of faith among the party’s presidential aspirants.



Keeping Provisions

Still, rank-and-file Republicans want several key provisions retained. Sixty-two percent of Republicans want to retain the law’s ban on denying coverage based on pre-existing medical conditions, and 57 percent want to keep the requirement that insurance companies allow children up to age 26 to stay on their parents’ policies.



Republicans are about evenly divided on the elimination of lifetime limits on medical benefits.



Even majorities of those who would repeal the law want to maintain some of those provisions. Fifty-eight percent of repeal backers favor keeping the prohibition on denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions, and 58 percent also want to continue to allow those up to age 26 to remain on their parents’ policies. A substantial 40 percent minority of repeal advocates would keep the law’s ban on lifetime caps on insurance benefits.



Those provisions are more popular with the country as a whole. Sixty-five percent of Americans support the ban on denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions, 73 percent want to let children stay on policies up to age 26, and 53 percent favor the elimination of lifetime caps.



Unpopular Mandate

A 51 percent to 47 percent majority of the country opposes the requirement that all Americans carry health insurance. Political independents oppose the mandate by 55 percent to 42 percent.



Though Obama has argued that the law gives Americans security that they’ll never go without coverage, and Republicans have warned that it will undermine the medical system, the poll doesn’t detect much movement in public anxiety over health care.



Americans’ outlook on their own health-care costs has improved modestly, though a majority remains pessimistic. Fifty-two percent say they expect medical costs to be worse in 12 months, down from 61 percent in December.



Two-thirds say they have seen no change in the quality of their care compared with a year ago, while 13 percent say they are better off and 19 percent worse off.



Americans are about evenly divided on whether they face a greater or lesser risk of losing access to insurance than a year ago, with 38 percent saying they are more worried about the possibility and 41 percent less worried. The remainder say the risk was about the same or were unsure.



The Bloomberg Poll, conducted by Selzer & Co. of Des Moines, Iowa, has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.



To contact the reporter on this story: Mike Dorning in Washington at mdorning@bloomberg.net

[silverscreenselect]

Repeal advocates are also the most likely to vote, with 73 percent saying they will “definitely” do so. By contrast, 61 percent of those who want only small modifications are likely voters as are 54 percent of those who want the law kept intact.

This is the problem the Democrats have in the upcoming elections. Those who hate Obamacare are, right now, far more motivated to come out and vote. That's what probably decided the tossup Congressional race in Florida this week.

[BackInTex]

Repeal advocates are also the most likely to vote, with 73 percent saying they will “definitely” do so. By contrast, 61 percent of those who want only small modifications are likely voters as are 54 percent of those who want the law kept intact.

This is the problem the Democrats have in the upcoming elections. Those who hate Obamacare are, right now, far more motivated to come out and vote. That's what probably decided the tossup Congressional race in Florida this week.

That's because repeal advocates overwhelmingly are employed and have to pay for their insurance AND those supporters who are supporters because they had nothing and are now getting something for nothing.

[Bob Juch]

Repeal advocates are also the most likely to vote, with 73 percent saying they will “definitely” do so. By contrast, 61 percent of those who want only small modifications are likely voters as are 54 percent of those who want the law kept intact.

This is the problem the Democrats have in the upcoming elections. Those who hate Obamacare are, right now, far more motivated to come out and vote. That's what probably decided the tossup Congressional race in Florida this week.

That's because repeal advocates overwhelmingly are employed and have to pay for their insurance AND those supporters who are supporters because they had nothing and are now getting something for nothing.

Bullshit. I'm all for Obamacare because I couldn't get insurance at any cost before it took effect Jan. 1. Those who have nothing and are paying nothing could get Medicaid before.

[macrae1234]

Those who have nothing and are paying nothing could get Medicaid before.

or went to the expensive and inefficient hospital emergency and didn't pay and taxpayers got stuck with the bill anyway. At least now they (the working poor) can get continuing preventative care from a PCP, when they need care can go to a less expensive urgent care facility and can receive needed medication through a drug plan

[Bob Juch]

Those who have nothing and are paying nothing could get Medicaid before.

or went to the expensive and inefficient hospital emergency and didn't pay and taxpayers got stuck with the bill anyway. At least now they (the working poor) can get continuing preventative care from a PCP, when they need care can go to a less expensive urgent care facility and can receive needed medication through a drug plan

It's not "taxpayers" who get stuck with the bill; it's everyone who don't skip out on their bills. And the preventitive care will cost less than the emergency care they would eventually require.

[silverscreenselect]

It's not "taxpayers" who get stuck with the bill; it's everyone who don't skip out on their bills. And the preventitive care will cost less than the emergency care they would eventually require.

And it's not just the extra money that's involved in emergency room care. There's the loss involved because people die or become disabled and less productive due to preventable or curable illnesses (or have to look after family members who are sick or injured) and thus become unemployed or underemployed as a result.

[earendel]

I have to say that I'm of two minds about this. On the one hand my daughter-in-law no longer has to depend upon emergency rooms or make appointments at public health clinics that are overcrowded. On the other hand, a good friend's son who has a child with medical problems requiring expensive tests makes too much money to receive a subsidy for health care and therefore is having to spend a large part of his income for his family's health care policy. His employer doesn't provide health care, nor does his wife's.

[macrae1234]

On the other hand, a good friend's son who has a child with medical problems requiring expensive tests makes too much money to receive a subsidy for health care and therefore is having to spend a large part of his income for his family's health care policy. His employer doesn't provide health care, nor does his wife's.

I think that in the near future as the insurance companies navigate their way through like with auto insurance more premiums from people who at the monent don't make extensive use of the system will continue to subsidize the unlucky who require care from the onset. I beleive the legislation provided for insurance companies to reinvest if that's the right word excess premium money.

[Bob Juch]

I have to say that I'm of two minds about this. On the one hand my daughter-in-law no longer has to depend upon emergency rooms or make appointments at public health clinics that are overcrowded. On the other hand, a good friend's son who has a child with medical problems requiring expensive tests makes too much money to receive a subsidy for health care and therefore is having to spend a large part of his income for his family's health care policy. His employer doesn't provide health care, nor does his wife's.

He need to find a different employer then.

My employer is me and I pay over $1500 a month.