PRINCETON, N.J. -- Over seven in 10 Americans who bought new health insurance policies through the government exchanges earlier this year rate the quality of their healthcare and their healthcare coverage as "excellent" or "good." These positive evaluations are generally similar to the reviews that all insured Americans give to their health insurance.

A Center for American Progress analysis of 2015 premium rates for the individual market in states with Federally-Facilitated Marketplaces shows that premiums will increase by an average of only 3.9 percent from 2014 to 2015. This average is for individual coverage for a 27 or 40 year old across all plans in each metal level in each state and weighted by each state’s enrollment by metal level in 2014.

Over all, about 10 million Americans who had no insurance in 2013 signed up for it this year, according to the Enroll America/Civis model. The groups estimate that the national uninsured rate for adults under 65 fell to 11 percent from 16 percent. (Because of the federal Medicare program, which provides universal coverage to Americans over 65 who meet certain basic requirements, more than 98 percent of that group has health insurance.)

Other estimates, including those from Gallup and the health research group the Commonwealth Fund, show higher uninsured rates but a similar reduction in the number and percentage of Americans without insurance. Enroll’s data analysts said their survey appears to have undercounted the uninsured a bit in both years, because they interviewed a smaller number of Hispanics, men and people with low incomes than the census measured. Those people are less likely to be insured, but were also harder for Enroll to reach because they have smaller digital footprints than other groups.

rickyp wrote:Your an idiot,.

rickyp wrote:The manufactured out rage that is Gruber is distraction.

One example cited by Mr. Gruber is the so-called Cadillac tax, as the ObamaCare excise tax on high-value employer health plans is known. The tax, which he helped devise and will take effect in 2018, imposes a 40% levy on individual health plans worth more than $10,200, and on family plans worth more than $27,500. As Mr. Gruber’s remarks were unearthed last week, economist Mark Wilson and I released a study of the excise tax that shows he is right about its deceptive design. The tax is likely to hit many people who don’t have high-end coverage.

Mr. Gruber says in one video that his real aim was to reduce the tax break available to those who get employer-sponsored insurance, about 170 million Americans. He lamented that it would be hard to persuade Congress to reduce people’s tax breaks: “You just can’t get through. It’s politically impossible.” True enough—the excise tax does the job instead. It is a stealthy way to reduce the tax preference for health care without taking it away from employers.

Mr. Gruber also noted that the real impact of the tax would fall on individual Americans: “We just tax the insurance companies, they pass on higher prices that offsets the tax break we get, it ends up being the same thing. It’s a very clever, you know, basic exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the American voter.” In another video that surfaced on Friday, he explained that the only way to get rid of the tax preference for employer-sponsored insurance was “by mislabeling it, calling it a tax on insurance plans rather than a tax on people, when we all know it’s a tax on people who hold those insurance plans.”

Our study bears this out. While the tax is designed to be paid by companies, employees or consumers will see significant increases in costs. These cost increases will be passed on in several ways. Large employers who are subject to the excise tax in 2018 will pay an average of more than $2,700 per employee a year from 2018 to 2024. As Mr. Gruber admits, and basic economics confirms, this cost will be passed on to consumers or to employees in higher prices and lower compensation.

Its as if the original ACA debate should be repeated without the context of the effects of the actual implementation of the ACA.

Because the ACA is generally working.

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- As the Affordable Care Act's second open enrollment period begins, 37% of Americans say they approve of the law, one percentage point below the previous low in January. Fifty-six percent disapprove, the high in disapproval by one point.

Two well-placed sources on Capitol Hill say that the Congressional Budget Office effectively used Jonathan Gruber’s model to score Obamacare. That model favors government mandates over market competition and claims that essentially the only way to achieve a large reduction in the number of uninsured Americans is to impose an Obamacare-like individual mandate. Moreover, because the model that the CBO used in scoring Obamacare is the same one it uses today, any alternative to Obamacare that doesn’t include an individual mandate — which is to say, any conservative alternative — would be scored by the CBO as falling well short, in terms of coverage numbers, of Gruber’s preferred legislation.

While the CBO’s model isn’t exactly the same as Gruber’s, one well-placed congressional source says that the two models are “eerily similar.” That source adds that, not only was Gruber one of the CBO’s academic advisors at the time that Obamacare was scored — a claim echoed by the Huffington Post — but two of Gruber’s graduate student protégés worked on the scoring.

Gruber himself describes his model and the CBO’s as being “very similar.” In early 2011, he wrote:

“CBO and I both estimate [the] that Affordable Care Act will cover about 60 percent of those who would be uninsured absent the law. We both find that there would be a very modest reduction of employer-sponsored insurance, that premiums in the nongroup insurance market for the same quality product would fall, and that there would not be much effect on premiums in the employer-provided insurance market.”

For the record, before Obamacare passed, the CBO predicted that the president’s signature legislation would have led to 19 million more people having health insurance by 2014 (see Table 4). In reality, Obamacare has maybe hit half that number — and many if not most of Obamacare’s newly insured have simply been dumped into Medicaid.

While failing to disclose it at the time, the Obama administration paid Gruber almost $400,000 in taxpayers’ money because, in the Department of Health and Human Services’ words, he had “developed a proprietary statistically sophisticated micro-simulation model” to which the Obama administration wanted access. Noting how “similar” Gruber’s model is to the CBO’s, the Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler writes that, with access to Gruber’s model, the Obama administration “could predict with reasonable certainty how CBO would score legislation.” Kessler adds, “Given that legislation in Washington often falls or rises depending on the CBO score, that made this model a very powerful tool for administration officials.”

Given the importance of Gruber’s role, why wasn’t it made more transparent? Well, as Gruber might say — and has said — “lack of transparency is a huge political advantage,” especially given “the stupidity of the American voter.”

geojanes wrote:McKinsey may be the most influential business organization in the world. Yet, their profile to the common person is so low Hacker hasn't heard of them, which is pretty astounding.

It's not even fully implemented, so any data you offer is partial at best.

No, but now that we're "beyond the fog" (as Pelosi once said), it is time to examine what we actually were handed. After all, few in Congress actually read the bill before voting, so maybe it's time to dissect it and figure out what's in it?

Oh, and let's talk polls:

And, when you cite the Center for American Progress, which was led by John Podesta who then moved to the White House, you're not really budging the credibility meter.

rickyp wrote:fate

It's not even fully implemented, so any data you offer is partial at best.

Well its still more than what you've offered.

Which is warmed over dickering resulting because, according to you, no one understood the bill.

Including apparently Republican's spewing crap about death panels and otehr nonsense rather than catching this nefarious act that Gruber describes...

If the Gruber stuff is actual lies, why didn't a competent opposition catch them up back when?

fate

Oh, and let's talk polls:

Sure. But this includes a third of people who think the ACA is crappy because it isn't medicare for all...

But that's old ground. So is Gruber... The only people listening are committed viewers of Fox.

The question is, how is it actually working and what is the offered alternative.

fate

And, when you cite the Center for American Progress, which was led by John Podesta who then moved to the White House, you're not really budging the credibility meter.

If the research is as faulty as you imply, you should be able to take a quick look at the format and offer genuine criticism rather than a smear.
Please .... enlighten us .

That’s not all. Daily Kos also helpfully links to five White House blog posts citing Gruber. One of them, by Nancy-Ann DeParle (then assistant to the president and deputy chief of staff for policy) demonstrates how much the administration relied on his expertise in public debate. Titled, “MIT Economist Confirms Senate Health Reform Bill Reduces Costs and Improves Coverage,” it begins like this:

Jonathan Gruber, PhD, a MIT Economist who has been closely following the health insurance reform process, issued a compelling new report based on data from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office. As the Politico wrote, “The report concludes that under the Senate’s health-reform bill, Americans buying individual coverage will pay less than they do for today’s typical individual market coverage, and would be protected from high out-of-pocket costs.” Here are some key points:

Gruber concludes that the Senate proposal’s health insurance exchange, choices and competition, and policies to hold insurers accountable would reduce costs. Savings for people purchasing coverage in the individual market would range from $200 to 500 for individuals and families, and would be greater if people opted for basic benefits. People with low incomes would receive premium tax credits that would reduce the price that they pay for health insurance by as much as $2,500 to $7,500 in 2009 dollars.

Let’s pause for a moment and reflect on the magnificence of these paragraphs. Not only do they demonstrate the White House’s reliance on Dr. Gruber, they also call into question who truly suffers from “stupidity,” White House policy “experts” or the American voter? Look at those projections of cost savings. Now, compare them with the reality, where Obamacare premiums are rising by an average of 7.5 percent.

. . .

Democrats, including the White House, were proud of his involvement, eager to parade him in front of the public, and considered his involvement a “key requirement for . . . legislative proposals to be put forth for Congressional consideration.”

So, when Gruber states repeatedly that the law was deliberately opaque, that subsidies are not available through the federal exchanges, and that Obamacare’s drafters were deliberately attempting to exploit perceived voter “stupidity,” he was most definitely in a position to know. The Obama administration owns his comments. Every single one.

I'd like to see you cite a recent poll indicating 1/3 of those who disapprove are mostly upset that it's not socialism.

The Kaiser Family Foundation has released a health care poll almost monthly since early 2012, the most prolific and persistent public tracking of the bill’s popularity. According to the nonpartisan organization’s latest Health Tracking Poll conducted between March 11-17, 46 percent of Americans have an unfavorable view of the law against 38 percent with a favorable opinion.

How does that compare to people looking to repeal? While only 10 percent want to keep it as is it is, a plurality, or 49 percent, want to keep it in place but work to improve it. Just 29 percent said it should be repealed and replaced with a GOP alternative or nothing at all.

Corruption in government occurs when a program is created that no one wants. The ACA was rammed down our throats using reconciliation and lies. Americans still don't like it. Why shouldn't we be able to alter and/or repeal it? It's a bad bill with many unintended consequences

Your an idiot,.

Well, they are pretty well known in the corporate world, and also in government. I can understand if the man on the street doesn't know who they are and what they do, but I would expect someone who is interesting in world politics and economics to have at least heard of them.

McKinsey can be tainted by many things, but a Democrat mouthpiece they are not. While Ricky does have form in picking partial links, he did not do so here.

Ironically, back in 2011 McKinsey published the outcome of a study that suggested that 30% of employers intended to stop offering health insurance after 2014 following the ACA. Democrats then (some of them, at least) attacked the study and made accusations that it was biased towards the right.

A bit of research will tell you that McKinsey are one of the big three management consultancy firms in the US, and their long history.

rickyp wrote:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/08/obamacare-not-liberal-enough_n_5106981.html

fate

I'd like to see you cite a recent poll indicating 1/3 of those who disapprove are mostly upset that it's not socialism.

your right. Its only between 9 and 15% in the dozen or so CNN/ORC polls noted above.

But it still shows why your number is bogus.and from the Kaiser health Group Study

Fate

Corruption in government occurs when a program is created that no one wants. The ACA was rammed down our throats using reconciliation and lies. Americans still don't like it. Why shouldn't we be able to alter and/or repeal it? It's a bad bill with many unintended consequences

.
If your claiming that Americans weren't clamoring for less expensive health care, more certain access to insurance and a solution to the problems of millions totally uninsured ...you have a memory problem.

The ACA is a crappy program because of corruption in government. That is the unhealthy influence that big pharma and the insurance business has over politicians of both stripe.

But it is still an improvement over the situation before the ACA.

Doctor Fate wrote:The law has NEVER been less popular!

geojanes wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:The law has NEVER been less popular!

The law was clearly less popular at this time last year when the website didn't work and virtually no one had actually benefited from it yet. The website now works and some people have experienced positive benefits. So I think the low point for the ACA was this time last year, don't you think?

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- As the Affordable Care Act's second open enrollment period begins, 37% of Americans say they approve of the law, one percentage point below the previous low in January. Fifty-six percent disapprove, the high in disapproval by one point.

Doctor Fate wrote:
I'm just going with the Gallup poll. They indicate it's never been as low as it is now. So, congrats to Mr. Obama!

Again:

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- As the Affordable Care Act's second open enrollment period begins, 37% of Americans say they approve of the law, one percentage point below the previous low in January. Fifty-six percent disapprove, the high in disapproval by one point.