http://www.vox.com/2014/12/5/7336807/ob ... ment-costs

I stumbled across this today.

Overall coverage has increased (despite dire predictions of a fall over 2014)

Premiums went up by 2% (so roughly in line with general inflation) instead of the 10% annual increases of before.

Healthcare cost increases are also slowing down

Cutting reimbursments to hospitals with a lot of treatment errors appears to have contributed to a reduction in deaths due to medical error.

Enrollment rates are much faster this year than last year

Choice has increased on the exchanges with 25% more options available

I am sure that the policy is not universally popular, and of course the Republicans may well try next year to use their congressional majorities to repeal part or even all of the ACA. But it seems to be having some of the positive intended effects.

Is there any part that you do not like?

bbauska wrote:Is there any part that you do not like?

I am not expressing opinion of my own above, but pointing out some of the observed positives. Based on studies, rather than feelings.

My opinion of the ACA is that it is largely a fudge arrived at because politically it was not possible to put in place a single payer model. It is by its very nature imperfect and driven by compromise. So there will be negatives. Certainly aspects of implementation being delayed and flawed have not made for an auspicious start.

But just as it is not perfect, that does not mean that there are not good outcomes. A prime argument was about whether it could reduce the rate of cost increases for overall healthcare and on premiums. Based on the studies cited in the article I linked to, that has happened so far.

If the cost curve has indeed been bent in the right direction, then that is of long term benefit to millions.

Obamacare is having a big impact on my insurance situation, but that story hasn't completely played out yet. Will report on my experience when that story has an ending.

danivon wrote:http://www.vox.com/2014/12/5/7336807/obamacare-enrollment-costs

I stumbled across this today.

Overall coverage has increased (despite dire predictions of a fall over 2014)

Premiums went up by 2% (so roughly in line with general inflation) instead of the 10% annual increases of before.

Oh brother. This article is cherry-picking stats from different sources, then touting the results.

The worst of the Law hasn't even kicked in yet: no employer mandate and no "Cadillac tax." Next year, things will look worse. Oh, and if it's still around when the tax on good coverage kicks in, standby--there are going to be a lot of upset people.

Choice has increased on the exchanges with 25% more options available

That is rubbish. There are plenty of States that have fewer options--New Hampshire for one. Hospitals are closing; doctors are refusing to take Medicare patients because of the cuts.

I am sure that the policy is not universally popular, and of course the Republicans may well try next year to use their congressional majorities to repeal part or even all of the ACA. But it seems to be having some of the positive intended effects.

Understate much? It's never been less popular than it is now. Even Schumer says Dem's erred in pushing it through. His, of course, was a political argument, but it's reality.

Don't think for a second the ACA is "settled law" or good policy. Neither is true.

Here is a post that talks about how all the info in Danivon's post is either false or not related to Obamacare.

http://nypost.com/2014/12/09/still-cook ... are-books/

Archduke Russell John wrote:Here is a post that talks about how all the info in Danivon's post is either false or not related to Obamacare.

http://nypost.com/2014/12/09/still-cook ... are-books/

I don't see that it debunks every single one. It doesn't mention premiums at all. It doesn't mention the options for plans or the number of participating companies. So not "all", sorry ARJ.

On growth in healthcare spend, we would expect it to slow during a rexession. The US is now growing but the healthcare spend has still slowed.

Your article then claims it will speed up, but this a prediction, not an observed fact.

The article I linked to acknowledged the counting of dental only plans but still showed that the uptake is higher and faster.

So it's not even a slam dunk on the few items it does cover.

As I've said, some of its "better" features, like the employer mandate, have yet to kick in.

Politically, it's a total disaster. The last election should have been a hint. Here are a few more: 1) of the 60 Senators who voted for the ACA, 30 will take the oath of office in January; 2) Even Democrats like Schumer are saying it was a political mistake; 3) the latest poll shows (see page 8) that 58% of registered voters want to see the ACA repealed.

We won't know for years how bad it is fiscally. We do know it has done damage to both the Democrats and the relationship of Americans to their government.

I am not at all concerned about the effects on the Democratic party. Argumentum ad popularum does not in any way refute the observations about the realities.

Yet again, it is not about the policy to you, DF, but the politics. Yet again I will shake my head at the dysfunctional partisan BS that substitutes for politics in the USA

danivon wrote:Yet again, it is not about the policy to you, DF, but the politics. Yet again I will shake my head at the dysfunctional partisan BS that substitutes for politics in the USA

Yet again, I will shake my head at your inability to read a short post. I wrote:

As I've said, some of its "better" features, like the employer mandate, have yet to kick in.

That's not political; it's economic. It can't be measured yet because it hasn't happened.

Again:

We won't know for years how bad it is fiscally.

That's not political; it's economic.

You say the ACA is "not a disaster." You have no bloody idea. None. At best, it's been a push so far--but, that's "so far." The truth is all the "good" stuff was front-loaded to help its popularity and the "bad" stuff was back-loaded to shield the public for as long as possible from the negative effects, thus keeping the law "popular." That didn't work, did it?

And, the worst economic effects are coming.

Politics does matter. If this thing continues to be unpopular, it's going to impact Democrats for a generation. Oh, and not incidentally, it will help the GOP modify the ACA or repeal it altogether.

The ACA was passed with lies and skulduggery. You think that the politics don't matter. That is only true if it's an economic home run. It's not.

fate

Politics does matter. If this thing continues to be unpopular, it's going to impact Democrats for a generation. Oh, and not incidentally, it will help the GOP modify the ACA or repeal it altogether.

Since 1945 the Republican party has fought tooth and nail to keep poor and even middle class Americans from gaining access to health care. They fought the creation of medicare, and medicaid.
Today those programs are untouchable politically.

As the positive aspects of the ACA hit more people "repeal" will become politically impossible. With the veto Obama will protect the ACA until the next election.
If the Republican candidate wants to fight the next election over the repeal of the ACA he or she will need to have an alternative.
A huge challenge for a party with no real health care care alternative that represents an improvement from the situation before the ACA.
Its fine to be against the ACA. Till the alternative is considered.
If you go back in history republicans continued their opposition to Medicare for a few years after Medicare was passed. But only for a few years... Same thing happening politically here.
Note: Wyoming governor gave in on the ACA last month...

rickyp wrote:fate

Politics does matter. If this thing continues to be unpopular, it's going to impact Democrats for a generation. Oh, and not incidentally, it will help the GOP modify the ACA or repeal it altogether.

Since 1945 the Republican party has fought tooth and nail to keep poor and even middle class Americans from gaining access to health care. They fought the creation of medicare, and medicaid.
Today those programs are untouchable politically.

Let's say you're right. That has nothing to do with the ACA.

As the positive aspects of the ACA hit more people "repeal" will become politically impossible. With the veto Obama will protect the ACA until the next election.

Wrong. The "positive aspects" have already hit. All the GOP has to do is leave a few aspects intact and they can gut this law. That poll I cited said 58% favor REPEAL, not "have an unfavorable opinion," but "repeal."

The negative aspects are kicking in. The 30 hour work week is a problem as employers avoid that threshold. The employer mandate hasn't taken effect nor has the "Cadillac tax." This law was front-loaded with goodies and guess what? That failed to make it popular.

If the Republican candidate wants to fight the next election over the repeal of the ACA he or she will need to have an alternative.

And, that will be simple. The GOP will have already voted and passed an alternative.

A huge challenge for a party with no real health care care alternative that represents an improvement from the situation before the ACA.

Yes, they have alternatives and will have narrowed it to one by 2016.

Its fine to be against the ACA. Till the alternative is considered.

You're so funny. The polls are all against the ACA. Oh, and the most important poll is the ballot box. Republicans ran against Obama and the ACA. How did that work out?

If you go back in history republicans continued their opposition to Medicare for a few years after Medicare was passed. But only for a few years... Same thing happening politically here.
Note: Wyoming governor gave in on the ACA last month...

Blah, blah, blah. There has NEVER been a comparable program that has been this unpopular for this long. If it's so great, why are the Democrats getting their butts kicked?

You keep dealing in fantasy, rickyp. I'll look at the FACTS on the ground.

fate

And, that will be simple. The GOP will have already voted and passed an alternative

.

rickyp

A huge challenge for a party with no real health care care alternative that represents an improvement from the situation before the ACA

.

fate

Yes, they have alternatives and will have narrowed it to one by 2016

.

And what will it be Fate?

rickyp wrote:fate

And, that will be simple. The GOP will have already voted and passed an alternative

.

rickyp

A huge challenge for a party with no real health care care alternative that represents an improvement from the situation before the ACA

.

fate

Yes, they have alternatives and will have narrowed it to one by 2016

.

And what will it be Fate?

Look it up. They've been talking about the principles for more than 6 years. If you don't know, it's because you choose to be ignorant.

They likely will keep the idiotic and infantalizing "stay on your parents insurance until you are eligible for Social Security" provision, as well as the two or three parts of the ACA that most agree on: not letting insurance companies drop you for getting sick, etc. However, we're going to see a lot of the law go down in flames.