Be very careful when purchasing insurance in regards to the industry's requirement of meeting deductibles and high co-pays. Just because one has insurance doesn't mean you can afford to get sick. As Elmer Fudd likes to say, "Be vewwey vewwey careful."

Affordable Care Act's Achilles Heel? Blaming Patients, Not Profiteering

Here are several ways the ACA shifts the hardship of cost cutting to those who need care, and promotes delivery models that result in limiting care, even among those with health insurance.

1. What they’re not telling us about the exchanges

The ACA health exchanges are marketplaces set up to enable the uninsured who the law requires to buy private insurance or pay a financial penalty to choose among competing private insurance and qualify for a federal subsidy to cover some of the costs.

But premiums, deductibles, co-pays and other fees can run to thousands of dollars. Even in the cheapest plans buyers are expected to pay 40 percent of the cost. Subsides may not make these plans “affordable.”

Many younger, healthier people are likely to select the cheapest plan, one outside the exchange with fewer covered services, or just go without coverage entirely and pay the fine.


Further, small businesses can buy coverage for employees through the exchanges, but the premium and co-pay subsidies will not cover family dependents, a huge hole that will leave many uncovered.

Insurers offering lower rates the first year in hopes of acquiring many new customers are likely to raise rates later, as has occurred in Massachusetts, the model for the ACA. A recent study in the journal Health Affairs found that 38 percent of families buying plans through the Massachusetts exchange reported a financial burden and 45 percent said costs were higher than they had expected.

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2013/june/a...t-profiteering

Originally Posted by Deb C

Be very careful when purchasing insurance in regards to the industry's requirement of meeting deductibles and high co-pays. Just because one has insurance doesn't mean you can afford to get sick. As Elmer Fudd likes to say, "Be vewwey vewwey careful."

Affordable Care Act's Achilles Heel? Blaming Patients, Not Profiteering



http://www.pnhp.org/news/2013/june/a...t-profiteering

Obviously one of Miss-Information's ploys is to provide only partial information. The ACA limits total out of pocket expenditures (deductibles, co-pays) to $6350 for individuals and $12,700 for families regardless of size.

People, if you are in the private insurer exchanges I urge you to read my response to Bad Dog for a practical way of dealing with your health care cost by way of smart self-insuring - that is going to do you a hell of lot more good than continuing to listen to toads croaking nonsense.

Originally Posted by Deb C

Be very careful when purchasing insurance in regards to the industry's requirement of meeting deductibles and high co-pays. Just because one has insurance doesn't mean you can afford to get sick. As Elmer Fudd likes to say, "Be vewwey vewwey careful."

Affordable Care Act's Achilles Heel? Blaming Patients, Not Profiteering



http://www.pnhp.org/news/2013/june/a...t-profiteering

I hope someday we can have a sane congress again. That would enable us to improve the Affordable Care Act to make it really affordable. The question is will it work well enough until that time comes. That depends on the intelligence of the American people, which has been gravely lacking.

The problem is people don't see that "mistrusting government" does not work if it means just allowing business and corporations to do whatever they want, in the name of "freedom" and "job creaters." All it means is that we exchange one distrusted institution for another. The government and the law can screw up if people make mistakes, and has done so. But if people buy the Reagan propaganda that "government is the problem," as many (especially in southern and red states) still do, then we turn our country over to the greedy. That has put us in even worse shape. Even with all its flaws, the law and government is needed to rein in and guide the greedy and powerful. Only the government can do this, when run increasingly by the people. Powerful people do not equal government people, although that's what the Republicans and Libertarians want us to believe in the social/economic field (even though the Republicans actually love government that supports their cultural, anti-ecological and military agenda, or which bolsters, boosts and subsidizes the greedy "free market" capitalists).

We need politicians in office and in congress who are interested in what works for the people, not just in tearing down the aspects of the government that restrain and guide the powerful economic interests. Just turning over our country to them, as the Republicans and Libertarians want, is not a cure for abuse of the people by the powerful. Until the reactionaries are thrown out, and the "government is the problem" phony ideology defeated, we will not be able to improve the affordable care act. The Republicans are only interested in defeating it, not improving it. They must be defeated, and it must happen soon enough so that the ACA can be made to work for the people and not just for the insurance and drug companies and hospitals. I don't know if that will happen. But if not, another chance for genuine reform will come in the 2020s. It's true that the increased influence of millennials will make the tide for change rise higher, and also the increased influence of non-whites, and especially the decreased influence of whites from the South.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Yes, Oklahoma's government is stuffed to the brim with folks who have Randism. That is the result of course due to the majority of the electorate here. Perhaps we're not treating our water properly and there's some unknown parasite in the water that infects brains and causes Randism. It's like any other disease, some folks are resistant to said parasite, while others get an infection.

Yes, that's a good way to put it. I alluded to it in my previous post above. Of course, Oklahoma is not the only state so infected (which is why I refer to "red states," some more red than others, of course; Randism or trickle-down economics, whatever you call it, being the basic aspect of the Republican Party ideology today, although Democrats can also be infected).

But I doubt that Randism is covered by the Affordable Care Act.

Combining the exchanges' sign-ups for private insurance and Medicaid with what agents have likely done and the 3.1 million 20-somethings!



Croakers? Croakers??

Okay, cue the crickets; toads got nothin.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I hope someday we can have a sane congress again. That would enable us to improve the Affordable Care Act to make it really affordable. The question is will it work well enough until that time comes. That depends on the intelligence of the American people, which has been gravely lacking. .

How do you see us getting to an awakened American people? When enough people go bankrupt because they can't afford the high deductibles? A few thousand dollars may seem like chump change to the well off, but for people living pay check to pay check, it's a boat load of money. As it stands now, much of the insurance that's sold to people, who don't have a considerable amount in savings to pay the deductibles for an unexpected serious illness, are at risk for a serious financial situation. Besides, we need to work toward a health care for all, not this duct tapped ACA that keeps Americans chained to worry about financial ruin or having to wade through the fine print of the insurance policies every year.

I agree, Americans will need to get on board with insisting we join other industrialized nations that have a real honest to goodness health care system. Maybe it will gain momentum when people on the left stop defending the ACA and put more energy into a system that works best for people, not the insurance industry.

Originally Posted by Deb C

Most primary care and ER doctors make no where near $500,000 a year. It's more like $150,000, to maybe, $200,000. And, the growing practice for hospitals is to rent a doc from a contracted agency. The winner in that game is the owner of the corporation. Health care in this country is joining the race to the bottom.

No, no ... that's not what I meant. What I meant to communicate is that many M.D.s will enter their practicing years with $500,000 in DEBT!! I totally understand. There are still some lucrative specialties, but they sure as hell aren't primary care!!

Originally Posted by TnT

No, no ... that's not what I meant. What I meant to communicate is that many M.D.s will enter their practicing years with $500,000 in DEBT!! I totally understand. There are still some lucrative specialties, but they sure as hell aren't primary care!!

Thank you for explaining. I apologize for jumping to conclusions.

Originally Posted by Deb C

How do you see us getting to an awakened American people? When enough people go bankrupt because they can't afford the high deductibles? A few thousand dollars may seem like chump change to the well off, but for people living pay check to pay check, it's a boat load of money. As it stands now, much of the insurance that's sold to people, who don't have a considerable amount in savings to pay the deductibles for an unexpected serious illness, are at risk for a serious financial situation. Besides, we need to work toward a health care for all, not this duct tapped ACA that keeps Americans chained to worry about finanacial ruin or having to wade through the fine print of the insurance policies every year.

I agree, Americans will need to get on board with insisting we join other industrialized nations that have a real honest to goodness health care system. Maybe it will gain momentum when people on the left stop defending the ACA and put more energy into a system that works best for people, not the insurance industry.

This is just insanely stupid. You mouth these words without a single attempt at intelligent thought.

The ACA has raised the income bar on who can get Medicaid - no one on Medicaid is going to go bankrupt because of medical bills.

For those with incomes too high for Medicaid coverage, the ACA sets an upper limit on their out of pocket expenses of $6350. Many policies set that limit lower particularly the Silver Plans that a lot of people are going for because they are getting subsidies that make the premiums reasonable. The reality is no one making the incomes that puts them in the private market is going to go bankrupt over $6350. The health providers are not going to force bankruptcy over such an amount and the bankruptcy court is not going to let it happen anyway. At a minimum, it will be negotiated down and it will be extended to longer pay back periods.

There are other safeguards within the ACA and there are other support programs at the local, state and federal levels that will kick in under just about any scenario any body can come up with.

The ACA is going to make medical-related bankruptcy extinct in this country. Yes, $6350 in deductible can be hardship, but to hyperventilate about it forcing bankruptcy is fear mongering of the worse kind. At some point even you, Miss-Information, are going to have to stop this insanely stupid croakings or risk never being taken seriously again - not a good foundation for those truly interested in making single payer ACTUALLY happen.

Oh, and if someone doesn't understand that the worse thing that could happen to the chances for single payer is the ACA failing or being repealed, well, that's just a clue of their being completely clueless about how the real world actually works.

One of the reasons that we are in this mess is that most people are bad at evaluating risk. Fear drives the process more than logic. And, to be fair, most should not have to run through a risk matrix, or compute pot odds for something like health care. Rag's example of police service run by the insurance companies is dark humor at it's finest.

Fear also put the reactionaries in power. Again, Rags is correct in identifying this as something out of the DSM for mental illness.

This is the Götterdämmerung for our dysfunctional society. The alcoholic is getting ready to trash the family to the eighth generation.

These people can do much of what physicians used to do -- before they went into extreme specialization.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

A physician assistant or associate (PA) is a healthcare professional who is licensed to practice medicine as part of a team with physicians.

Physician assistants are concerned with preventing and treating human illness and injury by providing a broad range of health care services under the direction of a physician or surgeon. Physician assistants conduct physical exams, diagnose and treat illnesses, order and interpret tests, prescribe medications, counsel on preventive health care and may assist in surgery.

Physician assistants typically obtain medical histories, perform examinations and procedures, order treatments, diagnose diseases, prescribe medication, order and interpret diagnostic tests, refer patients to specialists as required, and first or second-assist in surgery. They work in hospitals, clinics and other types of health facilities, or in academic administration, and exercise autonomy in medical decision making. Physician assistants practice primary care or medical specialties according to a legal scope of practice that may vary across jurisdictions. A period of extensive clinical training precedes obtaining a license to practice as a physician assistant, and similar to physician training but shorter in duration, includes all systems of the human body. Renewal of licensure is necessary every few years, varying by jurisdiction. Physician assistants may also complete residency training, similar to physicians' residencies but significantly shorter, in fields such as OB/GYN, emergency medicine, critical care, orthopedics, neurology, surgery, and other medical disciplines.

The PA profession was first proposed in the United States when Charles Hudson recommended to the American Medical Association (AMA) in 1961 the "creation of two new groups of assistants to doctors from nonmedical and nonnursing personnel." Dr. Eugene A. Stead, Jr. of the Duke University Medical Center in North Carolina assembled the first class of physician assistants in 1965, composed of former U.S. Navy hospital corpsmen. He based the curriculum of the PA program in part on his first-hand knowledge of the fast-track training of medical doctors during World War II. Two other physicians, Dr. Richard Smith at the University of Washington, and Dr. Hu Myers at Alderson-Broaddus College, also launched their own programs in the mid and late 1960s

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physician%27s_assistant

You might not want these people doing internal surgery, but if you want someone to diagnose an ear infection and prescribe an antibiotic for it -- this might be who you see in some medical clinics.

Originally Posted by Deb C

How do you see us getting to an awakened American people? When enough people go bankrupt because they can't afford the high deductibles? A few thousand dollars may seem like chump change to the well off, but for people living pay check to pay check, it's a boat load of money. As it stands now, much of the insurance that's sold to people, who don't have a considerable amount in savings to pay the deductibles for an unexpected serious illness, are at risk for a serious financial situation. Besides, we need to work toward a health care for all, not this duct tapped ACA that keeps Americans chained to worry about financial ruin or having to wade through the fine print of the insurance policies every year.

I agree, Americans will need to get on board with insisting we join other industrialized nations that have a real honest to goodness health care system. Maybe it will gain momentum when people on the left stop defending the ACA and put more energy into a system that works best for people, not the insurance industry.

I'm all for advocating and supporting single payer, and I do; but playwrite is right; the ACA is progress, and moves the ball forward. It helps a lot of people, perhaps including me (I'm still waiting for an answer). People on the left can do both. It is not the people on the left that are the problem, and you need to stop attacking your allies, I think. The people on the right are the problem; and they are too strong. Otherwise we clearly would not even have to compromise, and we could easily pass single payer/medicare for all. The right is whom need to be attacked and defeated politically.

But I don't like high deductibles either. It defeats the purpose of insurance.

It's up to the American people to get Awakened, and that basically means dumping the predominantly-Republican trickle-down free-market ideology, and realize that government is needed. If it doesn't work, it's because we didn't make it work. I don't know how or when that will happen. This decade is going to continue to be frustrating, I'm afraid. Perhaps you are used to that anyway, always being on the far left edge. But it doesn't seem too hard to me for Americans to dump an ideology that is clearly extreme and wrong. On that depends the chance of improving the ACA so it really IS affordable for more people than it is now.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

These people can do much of what physicians used to do -- before they went into extreme specialization.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physician%27s_assistant

You might not want these people doing internal surgery, but if you want someone to diagnose an ear infection and prescribe an antibiotic for it -- this might be who you see in some medical clinics.

Also, automation is going to hit the medical sector like a ton of bricks over the next few years.

Just yesterday, there was some health policy expert on CNN talking about what's just around the corner. One example is people being able to get their EKG and other diagnostics with an app on their cell phone and having that instantly transmitted to a doctor. What was funny was the doctor now has an EKG app that helps him read what the EKY means -

http://www.imedicalapps.com/2011/08/ecg-app-iphone/

- at some point the expert software is going to provide a better diagnosis than 99.9% of the doctors.

Expert software is going to do the same to the medical profession what it is now doing to the legal and financial professions. It's going to first greatly assist those dong the basic work and then eventually replace much of them. Just like those other professions, you are going to have the 'stars' that interact directly with the public and get the big bucks. However, even they will be faced with better and much cheaper robots for even the most complicated surgeries. Also, once you start wacking away at the "backroom" with automation, the salary cuts start to impact the front room. Just ask anyone in the legal or accounting professions.

This will be good news for medical costs for the general public, but it is going to be another round of people losing employment and having stagnant wages.

People, societies are still operating under the paradigm of limited supply; we are almost hard-wired to do so given that lack of goods/services has been around since human history began. The problem we are increasingly facing, and it is going to get worse, is over supply - over supply that needs less and less human labor to provide. It's not only that we don't have the programs and institutions to deal with this, more importantly, we don't have the mindset.

Not to mention insurance is yet another thing that just doesn't fit in the capitalist paradigm, yet it's another thing we shoe horned right in there. That's the biggest problem. All of the things we're having problems with are things that just don't belong within the realm of capitalism. Insurance, lending, money supply, infrastructure... These are things that, for one reason or another, do not conform to the one time only mutual agreement nature of capitalism, for one reason or another.

a great interview of one of the most important behind-the-scenes persons who made Obamacare happen.

If you want a sense of the political inside game that did what no one else has been able to do since the 1960s, this is a good read.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...nd-going-home/

The group that got health reform passed is declaring victory and going home

Here's one insightful piece -

...HP: Susanne Mettler’s terrific book, The Submerged State, is very much about how so much public policy is done through tremendous subsidies, provided in relatively opaque ways, often with perverse consequences. Student loans and 401(k) programs would be two obvious examples.

To connect back to your book, single-payer folks would respond to your description by saying: “Well, a single-payer system would have an obviously social insurance structure. We would avoid all this nonsense with the exchanges, all the layers of complexity barnacled onto our crazy system.” These advocates might ask: “Wouldn’t we have a better system if we had a single payer? Why didn’t HCAN and its friends push for that?”

RK: What’s the expression: “If wishes were horses, beggars would ride?”

Yes -- if we could wave a magic wand and design a rational health-care system that would control costs while providing much better access, we wouldn’t design our current one. The ACA was the best that we could get through the American political system. The fact that we failed in every previous instance in the past 100 years reflects the reality that there hadn’t been a reform designed to deal with the realities of American politics, and there hadn’t been a broad-based movement built effectively for the country to pass this reform. That was the contribution that HCAN made.

The two things came together in passing the ACA. The legislation was carefully constructed to engage, instead of alienating, the biggest interest groups, which have huge amounts of money that could effectively be used to kill health reform. Both because of their lobbying clout and their ability to use paid media to scare the public. These interest groups were neutralized enough, in some cases even mildly supportive. Then we built a whole grass-roots movement to overcome the opposition.

Yes, there are much better ways to run our health-care system. The question is now that we have the ACA in place, will the conservatives’ nightmare be realized? That nightmare is that ACA really does turn, over time, into something much broader, more collective, more affordable, and that government does a better job of controlling costs by confronting private interests. That’s going to be the battle for the next few decades.

and perhaps this points to where the evolution toward single payer will take place -

In the legislative campaign, our biggest issues with the bill concerned affordability. A lot of the cost to people was made much worse by the president’s unfortunate (to put it nicely) decision to spend less on subsidizing people because he wanted to get the cost of the subsidies under the magic 1-trillion-dollar figure.
But doing so didn’t change the debate at all; Republicans still called it a “trillion-dollar program.” But it did mean lower subsidies for people, higher premiums, higher deductibles. It has resulted in making insurance less affordable, making the plan less popular. It’s going to shape a lot of the contours of the upcoming debate in the next few years of how we make the program work better.

Again, I think the biggest move toward single payer will come through specific state exchanges offering the public option (which will lead to killing off the private insurers for primary insurance). However, this second front of upping the subsidies to have more people qualify and reducing their out-of-pocket is very promising. Both these avenues where not even wishful thinking before but now with the ACA in place the framework is there.

Originally Posted by playwrite

a great interview of one of the most important behind-the-scenes persons who made Obamacare happen.

If you want a sense of the political inside game that did what no one else has been able to do since the 1960s, this is a good read.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...nd-going-home/



Here's one insightful piece -



and perhaps this points to where the evolution toward single payer will take place -



Again, I think the biggest move toward single payer will come through specific state exchanges offering the public option (which will lead to killing off the private insurers for primary insurance). However, this second front of upping the subsidies to have more people qualify and reducing their out-of-pocket is very promising. Both these avenues where not even wishful thinking before but now with the ACA in place the framework is there.

I see that Playwrite still has not abandoned the sinking Obamacare ship.

pssss, don't tell anyone!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...talk-about-it/

Medicaid is Obamacare’s biggest success. But neither side wants to talk about it.

... in October and November alone, more than 4 million people signed up for Medicaid coverage. This number may be millions higher when December’s totals are released.
It’s hard to say exactly how many of those Medicaid enrollments Obamacare is responsible for -- the government’s numbers don’t distinguish between people who signed up through Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion and those who entered the program through pre-existing channels. But the fact remains that Medicaid enrolled well over twice as many people as signed up for private insurance through the exchanges.
It’s “the biggest ACA success story that has not yet been told,” says Ron Pollack, head of Families USA, a nonpartisan health-care advocacy group.

..If the point of health-care reform is covering people who need health insurance, the expansion in Medicaid coverage should be a huge win. The people qualifying for Medicaid are, on average, poorer, sicker and more desperate than the people signing up for private insurance. Instead, it’s rarely mentioned, and when it is mentioned, it often seems, somehow, not to count.

But why?

this exposes a core reality of U.S. health-care politics. “Republicans don’t like entitlement programs, and Democrats want to portray the ACA as mostly a marketplace solution based on private insurance and not another expansion of a government program,” he said, “so neither side wants to emphasize the ACA’s success enrolling people in Medicaid even though it may be the law’s biggest achievement so far in terms of expanding coverage.”
This has left both the Obama administration and Republicans in a tight spot. The White House can’t really tout the Medicaid expansion because it’ll revive fears on the right that Obamacare is really a stealthy effort to create a single-payer health-care system, and it’ll arouse criticism on the left that the administration should have expanded Medicaid to all.
As for Republicans, they can’t admit the Medicaid expansion is going well because doing so is dangerously close to advocating a single-payer health-care system. The exchanges, marred by their troubled introduction, are also a problem as they are a Republican idea, enshrined in Rep. Paul Ryan’s health-care bill.

I

t’s a perverse truth of the U.S. health-care debate that the solutions that have worked both here and around the world are the only solutions the political system refuses to consider seriously.

Perhaps, but stealth has gotten millions more under a single payer. That would be millions more than any toads have ever accomplished. And it was right under their noses as well -



croaaakk!

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I'm all for advocating and supporting single payer, and I do; but playwrite is right; the ACA is progress, and moves the ball forward. It helps a lot of people, perhaps including me (I'm still waiting for an answer). People on the left can do both. It is not the people on the left that are the problem, and you need to stop attacking your allies, I think. The people on the right are the problem; and they are too strong. Otherwise we clearly would not even have to compromise, and we could easily pass single payer/medicare for all. The right is whom need to be attacked and defeated politically.

But I don't like high deductibles either. It defeats the purpose of insurance.

It's up to the American people to get Awakened, and that basically means dumping the predominantly-Republican trickle-down free-market ideology, and realize that government is needed. If it doesn't work, it's because we didn't make it work. I don't know how or when that will happen. This decade is going to continue to be frustrating, I'm afraid. Perhaps you are used to that anyway, always being on the far left edge. But it doesn't seem too hard to me for Americans to dump an ideology that is clearly extreme and wrong. On that depends the chance of improving the ACA so it really IS affordable for more people than it is now.

I'm not sure that the ACA will move the ball forward. IMHO, the ACA has strengthened the grip that the insurance giants have on our health care system. Many on the left are now seeing, mainly, because either they, or someone they know, is getting royally screwed, that this wasn't such a great move forward. So instead of cheer leading this dysfunctional system, they're putting their energy into getting a system that actually benefits every American. But even with this turn about, the ACA has made it even harder to loosen the grip of the giant insurance corporation. Much harder.

"“The simple single-payer, Medicare-for-all approach would save more than $400 billion annually on bureaucracy, enough to give every American first-dollar coverage. But to get those savings you have to break private insurers’ stranglehold on health care and on Washington,” he said, adding, “The glitches in Obamacare’s rollout don’t come from government incompetence, but from political cowardice.” ..... Dr. David Himmelstein, a primary care physician, professor of public health at the City University of New York and lecturer in medicine at Harvard Medical School

Originally Posted by Deb C

I'm not sure that the ACA will move the ball forward. IMHO, the ACA has strengthened the grip that the insurance giants have on our health care system. Many on the left are now seeing, mainly, because either they, or someone they know, is getting royally screwed, that this wasn't such a great move forward. So instead of cheer leading this dysfunctional system, they're putting their energy into getting a system that actually benefits every American. But even with this turn about, the ACA has made it even harder to loosen the grip of the giant insurance corporation. Much harder.

"“The simple single-payer, Medicare-for-all approach would save more than $400 billion annually on bureaucracy, enough to give every American first-dollar coverage. But to get those savings you have to break private insurers’ stranglehold on health care and on Washington,” he said, adding, “The glitches in Obamacare’s rollout don’t come from government incompetence, but from political cowardice.” ..... Dr. David Himmelstein, a primary care physician, professor of public health at the City University of New York and lecturer in medicine at Harvard Medical School

It's both incompetence and cowardice. No reasonably competent person would write a 2000 page law.

Originally Posted by Deb C

I'm not sure that the ACA will move the ball forward. IMHO,...

'Crooaakkk!!!'

Spoken like a toad that has done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to bring health coverage to ANYONE and just spends her time degrading those that have brought it to millions.

Originally Posted by Kepi

It's both incompetence and cowardice. No reasonably competent person would write a 2000 page law.

If that's the complain you toadies are left with, it's game over.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

I see that Playwrite still has not abandoned the sinking Obamacare ship.

Yea, this sure looks like a sinking ship -





You're obviously destined to join Karl Rove and JPT in history's dustbin of unskewering polling and echo chamber nitwits.

I'd suggest you put down the Faux News crack, but I would be just wasting my time.

Talk about timing! In my response to one of our own nitwits, I suggested this -

Originally Posted by playwrite

...

You're obviously destined to join Karl Rove and JPT in history's dustbin of unskewering polling and echo chamber nitwits.

I'd suggest you put down the Faux News crack, but I would be just wasting my time.

This just got posted over at TPM -

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/...skewing-crisis

Replay?

Right Facing New Unskewing Crisis?

As you'll remember, in the last couple months of the 2012 presidential election, a growing body of opinion on right decided that if you took the available public polls (which pointed to an Obama victory) and shifted them several points in Romney's direction, suddenly they started saying Romney was the likely victor. Thus was born the great unskewing movement of 2012. Of course, it didn't turn out well.

It wasn't just ranters on Twitter who were fooled. The candidate himself, Mitt Romney, was shocked on news of his defeat because the unskewing movement had permeated into his own polling operation.

Of course, the greater problem was the conservative misinformation bubble, something that constitutes a powerful weapon is sustaining focus and esprit de corps but causes persistent problems maintaining touch with reality.

We now see something similar emerging with Obamacare, which is showing early signs of being on its way to become a relative success in policy. It is difficult to capture the full depth of paranoia, conspiracy-thinking and derp that has been pervasive on the right in recent years. Just one minor example: Here's Politifact, little over a month ago, feeling compelled to evaluate conservative claims that Obamacare would mandate beheadings in the US. Politifact rated it "pants on fire."

Now without a dead in the water website to cry crocodile tears over, many anti-Obamacare dead-enders are stuck in the echo-chamber of their own misinformation bubble. And thus the reaction when I put together a post noting the publicly available information confirming that roughly 10 million Americans now have coverage because of Obamacare. Hearing news that is deeply unpleasant, frightening or unexpected news often causes feelings of anger and rage. And that accounted for most of the responses.

First the toads get really really angry -



and then they explode -



It's all good.

Originally Posted by Deb C

I'm not sure that the ACA will move the ball forward. IMHO, the ACA has strengthened the grip that the insurance giants have on our health care system. Many on the left are now seeing, mainly, because either they, or someone they know, is getting royally screwed, that this wasn't such a great move forward. So instead of cheer leading this dysfunctional system, they're putting their energy into getting a system that actually benefits every American. But even with this turn about, the ACA has made it even harder to loosen the grip of the giant insurance corporation. Much harder.

But also much more regulated. So I don't think much harder. If Obamacare fails, the powerful right wing will trumpet that as the failure of socialism and government and the failure of health care reform, and that will throw single payer right out the window.

"“The simple single-payer, Medicare-for-all approach would save more than $400 billion annually on bureaucracy, enough to give every American first-dollar coverage. But to get those savings you have to break private insurers’ stranglehold on health care and on Washington,” he said, adding, “The glitches in Obamacare’s rollout don’t come from government incompetence, but from political cowardice.” .....

Dr. David Himmelstein, a primary care physician, professor of public health at the City University of New York and lecturer in medicine at Harvard Medical School

We need single payer, but we need Obamacare as the step toward it. It is certainly a fact that there was incompetence on the part of the Obama team in this rollout, as well as on the part of the lawmakers who wrote the law. Political cowardice did not cause the failures on the website, for example. We don't need to close our eyes to the facts in order to support the idea that, with all its flaws, our government can work for us, if we work to make it ours.

Here is one of the saddest graphs one can look at -



If all continues to go as it has been, then those 2.7 million kids in states expanding Medicaid are going to get single payer coverage under the ACA

However, the 2.7 million kids in the states choosing not to expand coverage will be shit out of luck.

Those GOP governors and state legislators are turning down free money to cover their poorest people and 75% of those people are children.

This is very instructive to understanding the Right's view on abortion. Their opposition has nothing to do with caring for children; it has everything to do with enslaving women.

It is also very instructive in differentiating true Progressives from the self-centered toads that profess progressive values while denigrating those that, while not perfect, are moving the ball down the field. Take a suspected toad and look at the ratio of her number of posts denigrating Obama and Dems for an imperfect but still-accomplishing-much ACA to her posts even recognizing let alone denouncing the abhorrent situation in many Red states set up by GOP assholes with real health consequences to 2.7 million children . Do I really need to post more of this -



- to help you figure this out?