“Obamacare Expansion In The Offing?”: Republicans Crying About People Losing Junk Insurance Should Expand The ACA
Every few days, a new poster child for the horror of Obamacare comes along, the person who just loves their insurance plan but has been told it’s being cancelled. Pretty much every time, their story turns out to be full of holes—the plan they’re on is junk insurance, they’d be able to get better and cheaper coverage through the exchanges, and so on (here’s the latest). But without a doubt, this small group of people (and not, say, the millions who are getting free or low-cost coverage for the first time) have become the momentary face of the Affordable Care Act, at least in the mainstream news media’s eyes.
So now the administration is scrambling to deal with this political problem, and here’s the latest twist:
The most popular idea for a fix on the Hill is legislation that would entitle someone who purchases health insurance coverage through the end of this year to keep that coverage. Other legislative responses may include extending the health exchange enrollment deadline or or delaying the penalty for not purchasing coverage.
Obama is also considering a different approach.
According to the administration source, the White House is “looking at an administrative fix for the population of people in the individual market who may have an increase in premiums, but don’t get subsidies.”
Such a fix would address the issue of “sticker shock” that has been popping up across the country, as individuals are losing their coverage and finding only higher-cost alternatives. Under the ACA, there are tax subsidies to help individuals and families with income between 133 percent and 400 percent above the poverty level purchase insurance. Those with incomes higher than 400 percent above poverty get no such assistance. The proposed administrative fix would address this group.
Allowing the junk insurance plans to continue is a terrible idea, no less terrible because it’s being pushed by some Democrats. But giving more subsidies? That’s got some promise. As a big-government liberal, I’m all for the government helping as many people as possible afford coverage. I’m also very skeptical that the administration can just take this move administratively without an act of Congress, but let’s talk about it. Since for the first time in history Republicans are suddenly so very concerned about people not being able to afford health insurance, perhaps they can be pressured into signing on with something that puts their money where their mouths are.
Fat chance, I know. But as long as we’re going to start proposing fixes, how about we let everyone who got a threatening letter from an insurance company buy in to Medicare? If Republicans are going to take the opportunity to demagogue the issue, why not take the opportunity to expand our extremely popular socialized medicine program?
By: Paul Waldman, Contributing Editor, The American Prospect, November 8, 2013
“More Than Just A Message”: The Origins Of “If You Like Your Health Insurance, You Can Keep It”
There are good reasons why President Obama’s leading message on health care during the 2008 campaign, often repeated since, was “if you like your health insurance, you can keep it.” That message was created to overcome the fear-mongering that had blocked legislative efforts to make health care a government-guaranteed right in the United States for a century.
Our health is of central importance to our lives, deeply personal to our well-being and that of our loved ones. That concern has translated politically; for decades, people have told pollsters that health care is a top concern. It is why every 15 to 20 years – from 1912 to 2008 – the nation has returned to a discussion about whether and how the government should guarantee health coverage, the debate rising phoenix-like from one spectacular defeat after another. A big reason for those defeats has been that opponents have exploited those deep feelings to scare the public about proposed reforms.
As one of the people who engaged early on in building the effort that led to the passage of the Affordable Care Act, I am keenly aware of this history. I wrote in 2003 that debates over health care turn dramatically when they move from the problem to the solution. Almost everyone agrees there’s a problem, but when a solution is proposed, people’s first question will be, “how will it impact me?”
The extensive public opinion research we conducted from 2006 to 2008 emphasized that same point: people would look closely at how any proposed reforms impacted their lives. Yes, Americans are worried about high health care costs and alarmed at the prospect of losing coverage. Yes, they may be unhappy with the quality and security of the coverage they have. But at the same time, they are desperate to hold on to it, because at least it’s something.
We also knew that those who wanted to block health care reform would play on people’s fears, a lesson learned most recently in the 1993-1994 fight over the Clinton health plan, in which opponents made wild claims about government bureaucrats coming between you and your doctor and denying you coverage.
In that context, it was essential to assure the 85 percent of Americans with health coverage that reform would not be a threat. Hence, “If you like your health care, you can keep it.” That message reassured people and let them be open to the rest of the message: proposed reforms would guarantee quality, affordable coverage to everyone and fix the real problems people were facing. After all, the first part of that sentence, “if you like it,” implies that lots of people would love to improve their coverage by making it more affordable and secure and by ending insurance company abuses.
Hillary Clinton’s campaign understood this early on, and she used the message consistently when she talked about health care reform during the Democratic primaries. Soon after she dropped out, Obama made it a key part of his health care message. But the promise that you could keep your health care was more than just a message; for almost everyone, it was an accurate description of the almost identical reform policies proposed by Clinton and Obama, which became the foundation for the Affordable Care Act.
The ACA preserves (with small but important improvements) the current system of health care financing for the vast majority of Americans: employer-based coverage, Medicare, and Medicaid. Those are the 94 percent of people with coverage for whom the “if you like it, you can keep it” promise is true.
For the 6 percent of insured who buy coverage on their own, the more accurate message would have been, “If you have good insurance and you like it, you can keep it.” The ACA reforms a corrupt individual insurance market. No longer can insurers turn people down due to a pre-existing condition or raise rates and drop people because they get sick. The ACA bans the sale of plans with such skimpy benefits and high-out-of-pockets costs that they are worthless if someone gets seriously ill.
As we predicted, the opponents of reform used fear-mongering – death panels, government takeover of health care, and on and on – to try to kill the Affordable Care Act. They are still at it, including cynically jumping on the website’s enrollment problems and now insurance companies sending letters to customers which hide the fact that companies are being forced for the first time to sell a good, reliable product.
The opponents of reform have used reckless, baseless charges to try to kill reform. I’m glad that President Obama used a slight exaggeration to finally provide secure health coverage for all Americans.
By: Richard Kirsch, The National Memo, November 4, 2013
“Let’s Take A Step Back”: Despite Crappy Journalism, Things That Are Still True About Health Care
It’s been a pretty intense month on the health-care front, what with the beginning of open enrollment for the new exchanges giving rise to lots of disingenuous fulminating from Republicans, not to mention a whole lot of crappy journalism. Any time a story dominates the news for a couple of weeks, there’s a temptation to believe that what’s happening now will change everything. So I thought it might be a good idea to take a step back and remind ourselves about some things that are still true about the Affordable Care Act and still true about health care in America.
Over the long term, the problems with Healthcare.gov won’t have much of an effect on the success or failure of the law.
Yes, it has been a huge screw-up, with both the administration and the contractors sharing responsibility. Yes, it has caused a lot of people trying to sign up for new insurance a lot of hassle. But it’s the thing everybody’s focused on now in part because it’s the only thing happening with the law, until January 1st when a whole bunch of the law’s other provisions also go into effect. The problems with the web site are finite and fixable, and five years from now all this will seem like a minor footnote in the whole story.
Even if everything works perfectly with the ACA, we’re going to have a very expensive system for a long time.
The law did many things to try to “bend the cost curve,” including things like rewarding hospitals for reducing their readmission rates so there isn’t such an incentive to just pile on the procedures. But the fundamental fact is that America’s health-care system is far and away the most expensive in the world—nearly twice as expensive as the average for OECD countries—and it will still be very expensive for the foreseeable future.
There are many reasons why, but what they come down to is that there are lots of actors—insurance companies, hospitals, doctors, device makers—who make ungodly amounts of money off our health-care system, and unwinding all their influence and the points at which costs get driven up is unfathomably complicated. Other countries’ systems were designed by asking how good care can be delivered to everyone at a cost the country can afford; our system, outside of the government parts like Medicare, was basically designed by asking how to make sure everybody except patients can make as much money as possible. At its heart, the ACA doesn’t question that fundamental premise. So the curve may bend, but it won’t bend too sharply, and it’s starting from a very high place.
The expansion of Medicaid is the most significant thing the law did to help uninsured Americans.
It’s easy to forget, with all this talk about people on the individual insurance market, that they make up a small portion of the country. The most meaningful part of the ACA was always its expansion of Medicaid, promising to finally give insurance to millions of Americans who can’t afford it. So far, people signing up for Medicaid are significantly outnumbering those signing up for new private insurance, which isn’t surprising, especially given Healthcare.gov’s problems. And every time a poor family signs up for Medicaid, it’s cause for celebration—they’ll be healthier and more secure, they’ll be more productive at work, and the whole community benefits.
The Republican sabotage campaign against the ACA is unprecedented in American history. You can’t blame every problem the law has or will have on Republican sabotage, but this isn’t hyperbole. It truly is something we’ve never seen (here’s a recap). The only thing that comes close is efforts in the South to resist the school desegregation mandated by Brown v. Board of Education. That isn’t an excuse for any failures of the Obama administration, but it has made everything harder.
Republicans criticizing the ACA have no idea what they’d do to improve the health-care system. If you ask them, they’ll say, “Um … tort reform?” There are a very small number of conservative health-care wonks out there (like the people who came up with the plan that became Romneycare which became Obamacare!), but their ideas are laughably small-bore. Republicans are essentially satisfied with the pre-ACA status quo, with 50 million uninsured Americans and skyrocketing costs. That doesn’t necessarily mean that any particular critique they make of the ACA is wrong by definition, but it’s good to keep in mind.
There’s still no good reason your job should determine your health coverage. The linking of health insurance and employment is an historical accident. When wages were frozen in World War II, companies began offering insurance as a way to attract better workers, unions began demanding it as part of contracts, and today around 80 percent of American get their coverage through their job. One of the best things the ACA does is eliminate the “job lock” this produces, by making it illegal for insurance companies to deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions. Now you can quit your job to start that business you’ve dreamed of without worrying about whether you can get insurance. But the link between employment and insurance is just one more layer of complication that makes our health care system such an absurd kludge. Which leads to…
A single-payer-plus system would have made this whole thing simpler. Conservatives may roll their eyes and say, “Are you still going on about that?” but it’s something we should indeed keep talking about. The Affordable Care Act brings us to a system that is much better than what we have now, but still far worse than what it could be. I’ll continue to reiterate that we could have a system that satisfies the desires of both liberals and conservatives, insures everyone, and does it without all the layers of complication we suffer through now. If we wanted to, we could transition over time to a system like they have in France, with a basic, government-provided single-payer plan that covers every citizen, combined with a market for supplemental private insurance. That would give us the universal coverage and security liberals like, the ability to buy as much insurance as you want from a private company that conservatives like, and the efficiency and cost savings we all ought to like.
Would that be a big change? Sure. But it’s essentially what America’s seniors already have, and it has been very successful. They have their government plan so there are virtually no uninsured seniors, and they can buy Medigap coverage to give them extra benefits.
The ACA could make it easier to transition to a system where all Americans enjoy the same privilege. The exchange marketplace could be transitioned to become the place everyone buys supplemental insurance. We now have a system where a significant chunk of the population—the elderly and poor—are on government plans, and you could widen their availability in both directions (down in age and up in income) and unify the benefits.
That’s a long-term project, but it could be the next big health-care reform (in 20 years or so). Obviously, the most important priority in the next year or two is implementing the ACA and determining what’s working and what isn’t so it can be tweaked and improved. But we shouldn’t forget about what comes next.
By: Paul Waldman, Contributing Editor, The American Prospect, November 1, 2013
“Humming Along Today”: Despite Rocky Beginnings, 5 Other Government Programs Suggests Glitches Get Fixed And Forgotten
The Obama administration’s struggle with debugging the HealthCare.gov website is causing critics to ask whether ObamaCare is “Obama’s Iraq war,” and to dismiss Obama’s signature policy achievement a “quagmire.”
Media coverage is becoming increasingly hysterical, meaning some historical perspective is in order. Many large-scale government programs that are now embedded in American society also began with rough rollouts that are now mostly forgotten.
Here are five programs that are humming along today, despite their rocky beginnings:
1. Social Security
In the program’s early days, many employers failed to include worker names and their new Social Security numbers in their earnings report, leaving the government without the basic information needed to calculate benefits and cut checks. Syndicated columnist Drew Pearson turned the “John Doe” problem into a crusade, writing about the snafu once a week for two months and stoking panic that the government would be unable to pay out the promised benefits to millions. But new procedures were established to follow up with delinquent employers, and within a year the number of John Does was slashed. Today, the crisis is dismissed as a blip, while Social Security historians view the effort to build a nationwide social insurance system from scratch before the age of computers as “Herculean” and “amazing.”
2. Medicare
Last week, historian and Bloomberg columnist Stephen Mihm chronicled the myriad problems that beset the 1966 Medicare rollout. More than 700,000 eligible seniors initially refused to sign up because they mistakenly believed it meant giving up Social Security. Some Southern cities were left without any participating hospitals because the Medicare law required hospitals to comply with the new Civil Rights Act, yet many in the South remained segregated. It was more commonplace at the time for doctors to bill patients directly, and excessively long waits for Medicare reimbursement checks frustrated seniors. But as Mihm notes, “The government and the private insurers worked out most of the kinks, and by the late 1960s the system was working reasonably well.”
3. Medicare’s Prescription Drug Benefit
It wasn’t all that long ago that another presidential health care initiative ran into an online buzzsaw. In 2005, the Bush administration rolled out its new Medicare Part D program, providing seniors coverage for prescription drugs. But the debut was bedeviled by website problems. The Washington Post noted at the time that the launch was delayed twice over the course of a month. Then on the day it actually launched, “Visitors to the site could not access it for most of the first two hours. When it finally did come up around 5 p.m., it operated awfully slowly.” The glitches continued throughout the open enrollment period, but as Jack Hoadley of the Georgetown Health Policy Institute reminded in a blog post this month, “The program added both phone lines and customer service representatives and implemented other upgrades over the weeks. The website — both its functionality and the accuracy of its information — was the source of ongoing frustration for its users, but it did get better over time. By the end of open enrollment in May 2006, over 16 million successfully enrolled for drug benefits in Part D … And today, Part D enjoys widespread popularity.”
4. The Peace Corps
President John F. Kennedy established the Peace Corps by executive order shortly after taking office in 1961. Skeptics worried that the program would be overrun with immature draft-dodgers. And that concern was seemingly confirmed when one of the first volunteers mistakenly dropped a postcard before it could be mailed, telling her stateside boyfriend that her host country of Nigeria suffered from widespread “squalor and absolutely primitive living conditions.” A horrified Nigerian student discovered the postcard, made copies, and distributed it widely. It sparked an international incident. Riots ensued, and the volunteer had to be sent home “cloak and dagger” for her safety. Still Kennedy forged ahead, shrugging off the setback by joking to a new batch of volunteers, “Keep in touch, but not by postcard!” And two years later, the Christian Science Monitor reported that foreign governments were “so pleased with [the Peace Corps’] work they have called again and again for more … Although the ‘postcard incident’ in Nigeria seemed to confirm some fears that the program might do more harm than good, that has been far from the case…”
5. The income tax
It was 100 years ago this month when President Woodrow Wilson first enacted the progressive income tax that finances much of our government today. Now, few Americans would claim to be fans of our current tax system — but many of them are fans of what the income tax system helps pay for. In the early days of the rollout, however, plenty of people were sent over the edge because of the forms’ perceived complexity. As tax historian Joseph Thorndike noted, one lawyer made headlines in 1915 by saying of the forms, “It is so complicated that it is utterly impossible to understand its meaning save by consulting a palmist.”A 1915 The New York Times headline characterized the forms as “Income Tax Riddles.”
Now, some may say the tax forms have only gotten worse over the last 100 years. But by and large, the public has accepted the nature of tax forms as a governing necessity, and no politician has gotten very far in the past century campaigning against the progressive income tax. As Thorndike noted in Barron’s, “The income tax has survived because it does two things reasonably well: It raises money, and it satisfies popular notions of economic fairness.”
The lesson? History suggests that glitches get fixed and forgotten, people get acclimated to new programs, and policies rise and fall on their merits. If past is prologue, ObamaCare will be judged on the quality of the coverage, not on the first incarnation of the website.
By: Bill Scher, The Week, October 23, 2013
Share This Blog
Unknown Feed- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
mykeystrokes.com 