hypocritexposer
Well-known member
:lol:
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) appeared on ABC’s This Week on Sunday with a surprising revelation: his own family was experiencing issues while attempting to comply with the mandates associated with the Affordable Care Act. He said that the state’s insurance exchanges would not talk with him directly for weeks and he discovered that, without his knowledge, that his own son was “automatically enrolled” in Medicaid.
“At this point I’m unsure,” Paul said when asked by host George Stephanopoulos whether his family had successfully enrolled in the ACA.
He produced his son’s new Medicaid card. “We didn’t try to get him Medicaid,” Paul said. “I’m trying to pay for his insurance, but they automatically enrolled him in Medicaid.”
“For months, they wouldn’t talk to us because they said they weren’t sure he existed,” Paul continued. “He had to go down to the welfare office, prove his existence, and the next thing we know we get a Medicaid card.”
He says that he’s now unclear as to whether he and his family are enrolled in a Kentucky exchange or a Washington D.C. exchange. Paul added that he receives an “error code” every time he attempts to access his family’s plan online.
In response to the Supreme Court's recent decision upholding the constitutionality of Obamacare, Texas Congressman Ron Paul issued a statement that was unpredictably critical.
“Today we should remember that virtually everything government does is a ‘mandate.’ The issue is not whether Congress can compel commerce by forcing you to buy insurance, or simply compel you to pay a tax if you don’t," said Paul. “The issue is that this compulsion implies the use of government force against those who refuse. The fundamental hallmark of a free society should be the rejection of force. In a free society, therefore, individuals could opt out of 'Obamacare' without paying a government tribute.”
And he is absolutely right. The Affordable Care Act, while promising to attack the myriad of problems associated with our health care system, lower costs, and expand coverage, will do the exact opposite for precisely the libertarian objections Paul raises. The fundamental flaw in this legislation is that it will be using the same powers — government intervention, regulation, and central planning — that have created the problems in the first place.
March 20, 2014, 03:03 pm
Opposition to O-Care near its all-time high
By Elise Viebeck
Opposition to President Obama's healthcare law is close to its all-time high as the reform reaches its fourth birthday.
A new survey by the Pew Research Center found that 53 percent disapprove of ObamaCare, compared with 41 percent who approve.
Disapproval has not markedly risen over the last six months as the rollout encountered its most severe technical and policy problems.
But the consistency of public opposition to healthcare reform is creating challenges for the White House and Democrats as they seek to keep the Senate in November.
The survey offers insight into the public's opinion of ObamaCare, just as Republicans are ramping up campaign attacks over the law.
Notably, there is a strong sense within the public, including among a majority of ObamaCare's opponents, that elected officials should try to make the law work.
Slightly more Republican detractors, however, want lawmakers to make it fail more than to make it work. This view is boosted by those affiliated with the Tea Party, 60 percent of whom want elected officials to encourage ObamaCare's failure.
In broad strokes, older, less-educated whites tend to oppose the law, along with people who are more affluent. Blacks strongly support ObamaCare, while Hispanics are evenly split.
The survey was conducted Feb. 27 to March 16 among 3,335 adults. It has a total margin of error of 2 percent.
.
Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/201311-o-care-opinions-holding-steady-despite#ixzz2wYuPhy3q
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook
There are a lot of factors in the health care law — and health insurance in general — that make it difficult to pin down whether people are paying more or less for coverage.
In general, insurance premiums were increasing every year well before Obamacare became law. In fact, rates have increased consistently during the last 15 years. But there are signs that the rate of the increase has declined since the law was passed.
SEE CHART
Other than a sharp increase between 2010 to 2011, the Obama years have experienced the smallest rate increases of the last 14 years. Throughout much of the early 2000s, premium increases of 9 percent or more were the norm.
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid also found a slowdown in the increase in health costs during the last four years, including a modest 4 percent increase from 2011 to 2012.
The government attributed the decrease in health costs to the economic downturn. Kaiser, too, said the recession accounted for much of the decline, though they said the health care law may have played a role, too.
Because of the law, people making up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level are now eligible for subsidies to buy insurance, and for many of them, costs are going down. Those costs are capped at a percent of their income.
But some people may see rate increases on existing policies or as they transition to new plans.
Insurers can no longer deny individuals with pre-existing conditions, and there is now a much larger pool of people looking to purchase coverage. For younger, healthier people, this means they are now taking on some of the financial burden so older or sick people can buy insurance at a reasonable price. (This is especially true for young males, since young women were often charged more, and even more so if they don’t qualify for premium subsidies.)
There were also people who previously purchased very cheap plans. But those policies provided very little coverage or capped their benefits at low levels, which the new health care law bars. So they’re getting more coverage, albeit at a greater cost.
Getting less?
Which gets us to our next point.
We found it strange that the ad claimed that people are getting less under the Affordable Care Act. In fact, we’ve usually heard the opposite from critics of the law that people are now paying for types of coverage they don’t need.
The favorite example is single men who now will now have maternity coverage if they buy a plan on the individual market. In October 2013, Rep. Renee Ellmers, R-N.C., grilled Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius on this very point.
"An insurance policy has a series of benefits whether you use them or not," Sebelius said during her testimony on the Hill.
"And that is why the health care premiums are increasing this high," Ellmers said. "We’re forcing them to buy things that they will never need."
"Individual policies cover families. Men often do need maternity coverage for their spouses and for their families," Sebelius responded.
"To the best of your knowledge, has a man ever delivered a baby?" Elmers asked. The discussion ended there.
So are you getting less coverage, or getting more than you need? We asked Americans for Prosperity to clarify their position.
"Getting less speaks to a multitude of data points that has been America's Obamacare experience so far: botched website, shrinking provider networks, a string of broken promises, missed deadlines, and unilateral rule changes that have kept the entire country in limbo ever since this debacle rolled out," said spokesman Levi Russell.
That’s a pretty ambiguous definition of "less." We think most people would assume "less" is referring to the amount of coverage or benefits under the law.
Americans are getting more benefits under the law in a number of ways -- including, in some cases, being able to buy affordable insurance for the first time.
In addition, insurance purchased in the individual and small group marketplace must meet 10 essential health benefits. This includes coverage for emergency services and hospitalization, prescription drugs, free preventative coverage for things ranging from basic immunizations to HIV screening, and maternity care.
The law also caps out-of-pocket costs, providing greater protection from exorbitant hospital bills. The most a person could pay for health care in a year is $6,300; the most a family can pay is $12,600.
Before the law passed, some insurers capped annual or lifetime benefits, forcing people who thought they were covered to pay large hospital bills once they passed the threshold.
People with pre-existing conditions are also seeing a lot more benefits, since they previously couldn’t buy a policy at all.
So it’s a tough sell to say millions are getting less. And for many, they aren’t paying more, either.
SEE CHART:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/mar/20/americans-prosperity/americans-prosperity-claims-people-are-getting-les/
Oldtimer said:While there is a majority that are opposed to how the law was rolled out and is being put into affect there are still a great many that recognize the need for health care insurance reform-- and like me, prefer the long time conservative plan of making all folks accept responsibility- the mandate...
And even some of the more common sense Republicans are realizing that its too late to go back- and we need to go forward- do some changing and fine tuning and make this law work... Like before the law passed and it became such a partisan football- many Republican leaders could see and said "Doing nothing is no longer an option"...
..
poll--------------date----------repeal------oppose repeal
RCP Average 6/28 - 12/16 ---- 52.3 ------42.8---------- Favor Repeal +9.5
FOX News 12/14 - 12/16 ------ 53 ---------41------------ Favor Repeal +12
Rasmussen-- 11/9 - 11/10 ------ 55-------- 41 ----------Favor Repeal +14
Quinnipiac---- 7/1 - 7/8 --------- 49-------- 43------------ Favor Repeal +6
CNN/Opinion 6/28 - 7/1 -------- 52-------- 46------------- Favor Repeal +6
All Repeal of Health Care Law: Favor/Oppose Polling Data
And this was in an article from the National review in Jan 2014
Quote:.The survey shows that 48 percent of Americans would choose to repeal the Affordable Care Act, compared to 46 percent in September. Currently, only 36 percent would choose to keep it
the Obama years have experienced the smallest rate increases of the last 14 years.
The reasons CMS economists cited instead were:
The economic slowdown and subsequent sluggish recovery
Drops in some prescription drug costs brought about by the expiration of patents on several costly medications including Lipitor, Plavix and Singulair, which are now available in low-cost generic versions, and
A one-time reduction in Medicare payment levels to skilled nursing facilities.
The authors of the Health Affairs article suggested the slowdown in health spending may only be temporary, as has been the case after past recessions.
“[T]his pattern is consistent with historical experience when health spending as a share of GDP often stabilizes approximately two to three years after the end of a recession and then increases when the economy significantly improves,” the authors said.
![]()