Slashdot Mirror
Statisticians Study Who Was Helped Most By Obamacare
HughPickens.com writes We know that about 10 million more people have insurance coverage this year as a result of the Affordable Care Act but until now it has been difficult to say much about who was getting that Obamacare coverage — where they live, their age, their income and other such details. Now Kevin Quealy and Margot Sanger-Katz report in the NYT that a new data set is providing a clearer picture of which people gained health insurance under the Affordable Care Act. The data is the output of a statistical model based on a large survey of adults and shows that the law has done something rather unusual in the American economy this century: It has pushed back against inequality, essentially redistributing income — in the form of health insurance or insurance subsidies — to many of the groups that have fared poorly over the last few decades. The biggest winners from the law include people between the ages of 18 and 34; blacks; Hispanics; and people who live in rural areas. The areas with the largest increases in the health insurance rate, for example, include rural Arkansas and Nevada; southern Texas; large swaths of New Mexico, Kentucky and West Virginia; and much of inland California and Oregon.
Despite many Republican voters' disdain for the Affordable Care Act, parts of the country that lean the most heavily Republican (according to 2012 presidential election results) showed significantly more insurance gains than places where voters lean strongly Democratic. That partly reflects underlying rates of insurance. In liberal places, like Massachusetts and Hawaii, previous state policies had made insurance coverage much more widespread, leaving less room for improvement. But the correlation also reflects trends in wealth and poverty. Many of the poorest and most rural states in the country tend to favor Republican politicians.
Despite many Republican voters' disdain for the Affordable Care Act, parts of the country that lean the most heavily Republican (according to 2012 presidential election results) showed significantly more insurance gains than places where voters lean strongly Democratic. That partly reflects underlying rates of insurance. In liberal places, like Massachusetts and Hawaii, previous state policies had made insurance coverage much more widespread, leaving less room for improvement. But the correlation also reflects trends in wealth and poverty. Many of the poorest and most rural states in the country tend to favor Republican politicians.
A: the insurance companies.
---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
Bullshit. There are many other factors to blame for it.
I'm watching the same thing happen in New Zealand right now, but it's because of right wing "I've got mine!" policies.
The wealthy are hoarding away their money, pay rates for the rest of us are dropping through the floor. It's only a matter of time until we can't afford to spend, and the economy will grind to a halt. That is, unless the wealthy suddenly drop their trillions back into the pockets of the people who actually do the hard work.
It has pushed back against inequality, essentially redistributing income ...
So it is an income redistribution plan. What we really need is a prosperity plan and other than getting out of the way, that is not something government can do.
It must be nice to have the State-run Media on you side
And then you have a tiny minority of the super rich, who are strongly favored by right-leaning policies, asking the government to tax them more...
FTFY. For every Warren Buffet there's a hundred fucks who won't cough up a dime unless you punch them in the gut.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Republicanism === 'the right to be born well' W.E.D. Stokes, 1917
A fascinating read about the core principals of the Republican party.
(Note, this only applies to the top Republicans, the average "joe" working
republican isn't like this.)
Republicans === Eugenics
By far the biggest impact from Obamacare has been the expansion of Medicaid. That could've been accomplished without messing with my private insurance.
That you have to pay "cash" to get medical attention strucks me as hard as if you'd had to pay to have the police assiting you, or that if you had to pay to get your children into the school. All of those are basic rights that any development country considers "essential". Of course you pay for them, but you do so in your taxes... and if you want a premium service, then yes: you can use your cash as much as you want, and have hot blonde nurses for all I care. American republicans are fucked up around private healthcare. Why don't they ask for only-private police? that only serves and protects those that can afford it? or only-private education?
Warren Buffet never coughs up a dime without being forced to. He just grandstands about the issue. Rhetoric is not action.
you can always move to another state more in-line with your ideology without renouncing your citizenship.
In theory that works great, in practice it does not work at all.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
"In theory that works great, in practice it does not work at all."
Republican policies in a nutshell.
the republican party is incredibly successful at turning the victims of their legislation into their voter base. democrats SUCK at messaging.
Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
Are republicans so stupid that they can not see it's a Republican system? Because as a Democrat I wanted a system closer to Canadian Healthcare as it works.
Because a single Republican governor implemented a similar system in a Democrat-controlled state, then automatically, this is a Republican plan that all (or even a majority of) Republicans across the nation supported? What a stupid statement! It completely flies in the face of actual facts.
Every single Republican in Congress opposed this plan. Republican voters overwhelmingly opposed (and still oppose) this plan.
The Democrats had complete control of Congress and the Executive Branch and they passed what they wanted to pass.
This clusterfuck is all on them. If it wasn't so terrible, it would be laughable that Democrats keep trying to pin the blame on the Republicans for this mess
What about older people forced to pay for pregnancy coverage they'll never use? What about healthy 20-somethings whose affordable plans (called "junk plans" by liberals, but perfectly adequate coverage for a demographic that very rarely needs anything but coverage in case of catastrophic events) were cancelled even after Obama LIED and said "if you like your insurance, you can keep it?" You don't want to mention those things because it's more regressive taxation from so-called progressives. If you liberals are hell-bent on getting rid of every inequality you think you see, why do you insist on taking money from your fellow middle-class Americans to do it instead of from the big corps you claim to despise so much? THAT's why ObamaCare is so damn unpopular, and part of the reason the Democrats will get wiped out in next week's elections. People are sick of your bullshit.
They opposed it because they oppose everything that Obama does.
Whatever he does, they support the opposite. No one cared about Common Core originally, and it was implemented in 43 states. But as soon as Obama said it was a good idea, everyone on the started freaking out and saying it was the worst EVAH.
When he suggested bombing Syria they said no way.
When he was reluctant to bomb Russia/Ukraine they said we needed to.
If he said cyanide was toxic they would stand on the Capitol Steps and chug it just to spite him.
If he cured cancer they'd complain he was putting doctors out of work.
It's a Republican plan because they came up with it 20+ years ago.
Nearly every key aspect of it comes from the GOP plan that Heritage came up with around 1989.
Most everything in the plan is oriented around implementing and supporting a free market, ie existing insurance industry, based solution to expanding care. Even the mandate originates with Heritage, and is essential to preventing free riders so that the insurance based approach can work.
Further, the GOP HAS NO HEALTHCARE PLAN. They keep saying they want to repeal Obamacare, but when asked about what they'd replace it with, they have no answer. the few who actually give an answer, invariably end up describing something that resembles Obamacare.
Dems went with a Romneycare clone because they figured, hey, we're never going to get a nationalized healthcare system through congress, not yet. But they themselves implemented this thing up in Mass., and it's working pretty good, so lets do that. Let's compromise. Instead of pushing for a NHS, we'll push for increased access using the a market based approach thorugh the insurance companies. So thats what they did.
Its not terrible.
Its not a cluster.
And GOP opposition is just smoke and mirrors.
The only one flying in the face of the facts is YOU.
You completely ignorant of the facts, of history, and the context.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Question: Not a single Republican voted for Obamacare, so exactly how does it make it their "wet dream"?
Answer: Because Obama adopted the Republican plan in an attempt to unify the parties in implementing healthcare reform. The Democratic plan was Single Payer, which was cheaper, simpler, and more effective. Obama agreed to the more expensive, complex and ineffective Republican plan in an attempt to get Republicans to engage in the reform.
Unfortunately, Republicans immediately turned against their own plan, because they cared more about preventing reform than in their own reform plans.
The shame is that the Democrats didn't then go back to their own plan and push that through. Unfortunately there were enough Democrats tied to the insurance industry (Lieberman....) that, combined with 100% Republican obstruction, they were able to force the country to waste $trillions on insurance company waste. Because what's waste to us is record profits for insurance companies.
Enable 3D printed prosthetics!
"In theory that works great, in practice it does not work at all."
Republican policies in a nutshell.
The first statement holds true for a lot of political ideologies. Welfare sounds like a great system to end hunger, and we assume that no one would want to live on government assistance. Some people are perfectly happy giving the minimum though.
Taxes and exemptions sound ideal too except you have people who are going to take every exemption to end up not paying a dime.
Place something witty here
Common Core was another piece of legislation that "had to be adopted first to see what was in it". The federal government offered millions of dollars to states that would commit to Common Core before the standards had even been decided/disclosed..
So, which Republicans voted for the ACA? Which provisions were inserted into the ACA to garner those votes? For that matter, what Republican support was needed to overcome a filibuster? Which provisions were inserted into the ACA to get Republican support in order to overcome that filibuster? Geez, just own up to the responsibility for what your party has done.
Not only that, if the polls are to be believed, Romney is now the frontrunner for the GOP Prez candidate for 2016.
The basic problem is that the U.S. let the insurance companies into the health care system back in the 60's and didn't implement national health care under Teddy Roosevelt who wanted it.
Now we have death panels...not the panels the Republicans waxed wet dream like during the passage of the ACA but the ones the insurance companies run. Yes, those are indeed death panels just like the ones the Republicans warned us about.
Currently, Americans pay for health care through a company and individual tax. That allows the insurance companies to suck up as much as they can because they amortize risk, they do not amortize outcomes. So if your doctor schedules extra needless tests to protect against possible lawsuits, that cost has been built into the system if you have health insurance. The doctors are only too happy to order them because the insurance company will pay, it is built into their risk assessment of what your life is worth to them.
I disagree with the premise that "ObamaCare" and the ACA are the same thing. When Obama introduced his framework for health care reform, it included, among other things, a single-payer system. Controversial to be sure, but a key part of the plan. The republicans focused on that and the individual mandate as their two key talking points of opposition. The former was framed as a government takeover of healthcare, and the latter as unconstitutional. The democrats dropped the former to make it more palatable, presumably thinking something is better than nothing and perhaps it will be added in time. The republicans were quick to jump on board with that probably thinking without the single-payer element, the whole thing was dead. The latter was deemed constitutional by the supreme court, breathing new life into the legislation.
While the republicans termed the whole notion of healthcare reform as "ObamaCare" as a pejorative, in my mind the ACA is actually more of an inadvertent compromise between the democrats and the republicans. It wasn't the intention of the republicans to add things in and take things out as a means of compromise. What they did, they did to kill the legislation; but it didn't work out that way. In the end, the ACA is a democrat-led effort for healthcare reform with many compromises made to please, and at the behest of, republicans.
While the republicans didn't vote for the legislation; the legislation that passed has their fingerprints all over it.
But all of this is just political theater and bullshit. If any of you think your party is "right" or fighting for and representing your interests, you are deluded and probably of only average intelligence.
I'm sorry, but your opinion seems to be wrong.
Costs have gone up and coverage down for a lot of people exactly because of the 'Affordable' Care Act. The only people who really benefit are those who get highly subsidized coverage now because they don't make much money.
to be fair, none of them know any details about it no matter what you call it.
My family insurance rates went from ~$400/mo for a PPO plan in 2012, to ~$750/mo in 2013, and now just under $1000/mo in 2014, all with declining levels of coverage. Thank you 'Affordable' Care Act. Even a modest 6-figure household income can't realistically afford $1000/mo for health insurance so we dropped it. It doesn't end there either. After $12k in premiums, i have exposure for another $6000 per year. So now we have a bare bones plan and contribute less to the system overall. Worst law in the history of the United States.
Scott
I see, so instead of constructively engaging to modify a plan built on a Republican plan, they decided to take their ball and go home. That's so mature of Republicans
The legislative agenda surrounding the 100% partisan ramming-through of the ACA precluded any Republican involvement. The Republicans put forth a constant barrage of their own ideas and (looking back on them) very accurate predictions about all of the wreckage that the ACA is now causing. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi ran the entire show, and shut down any involvement by Republicans. Those two leaders of the Democrat party, and the chief executive, actively and deliberately lied - over an over again - about the nature of the law and the fallout that would come from it. That's why more people opposed than supported it as it was being rammed through, and why even more people are opposed to it now. The way in which the Dems carried on at the time is about to cost them a lot of legislative seats, and the president who championed this new tax/entitlement redistribution plan is spiraling downward in terms of any public support for his priorities.
The Republicans had no ability to "constructively engage" in the creation and underhanded passage of the ACA. They could only shout out loud about how outrageous so much of it is, since their votes - in committee and generally in the house and senate - were incapable of impacting the law.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Yeah, cause emergency rooms are turning away people in droves.... try again...
No, they're not, of course. But people with modest income are no more "insured" than they were before. That's the whole point. What is a family who makes $45,000 a year (gross) supposed to do with a $12,000 deductible? Well, at least they're insured now, right? Right. Thanks, Pelosi, Reid, and a Obama! Oh, and of course millions of other people who DID have insurance they wanted and could use, no longer do, and that's about to happen to millions more when the illegally-delayed changes hit the employer-provided plans. After the election, of course.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
That's like saying that rich people have to pay taxes shown in the tables that the IRS provides to everyone with their tax forms. There are so many accounting tricks and loop-holes in the laws that that 15-20% limit is NEVER going to be achieved. The real solution to the problem is universal healthcare funded directly by tax payers. The republican complaint against it is that you'll have to hire an army of people to administer it- BIG GOVERNMENT! What we have now is insurance companies with armies of administrators and lawyers working to prevent spending on health care because it is more profiable to collect premiums and not pay money out. With a single-payer system you have an army of people working to ensure spending is going to health care and not fraud. I know which I would rather fund.
Being forced to buy insurance is not "help." It's being forced to buy insurance. It may be a good idea for some, but calling it "help" is misleading. Most people with this insurance will see more of their money spent on premiums than they would receive in payments even when they do get sick and need medical care. The medical care savings accounts would have been much more helpful for most people in reducing their medical costs and in forcing them into long-term responsible behavior. But we couldn't do that. That would be too Republican an idea.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Yeah, a few years ago when I was young and didn't have insurance there was a cash doctor in town. Her office didn't take insurance at all, you paid in cash. And her cash price was the same as I would later pay for a copay when I did get insurance. That does make me think most of the cost of a doctors visit is overhead for insurance record keeping and wonder if there is any benefit to it.
Actually they did propose it. Several times. Especially in the 90s they would dust off their plan and push it as the alternative freemarket alternative to socialized medicine aka HillaryCare.
No, they're not embarrassed by the plan, some candidates in comeptitive disctricts trying to keep their jobs aside.
The website was a disaster, but for anyone familiar with government contracting, not surprising either. That's not a flaw with the law, but with governemtn contracting practices.
And what deleterious effects?
You're the one that needs to face reality.
The law is working. It is doing what it was supposed to do.
Not one GOP dire prediction has come true.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.