Map of life expectancy at birth from Global Education Project.

Thursday, December 22, 2016

They don't know why, they just know they're supposed to hate it . . .

That would be Republicans and the Affordable Care Act. This just hit my in-box.

The rate and number of insured Americans reached historic highs in the years following passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). In a new report, researchers from the Urban Institute — with funding from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation — provide a granular perspective on the 19 million people who gained coverage (2010-2015) and where they live.

Coverage rates increased broadly across age, gender, race/ethnicity, education, and state. The Urban researchers found that a large share of the nonelderly adult coverage gains occurred among those without a college degree – 87 percent. Fifty-seven percent of the children and adults gaining coverage were nonwhite or Hispanic.

"In recent years we have seen unprecedented gains in health insurance coverage,” said Kathy Hempstead of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. "What happens next is uncertain, and the ability to maintain these gains will undoubtedly be a central issue for policymakers to consider.”     

The report includes state-by-state breakdowns by key demographics to illustrate who gained coverage under the law. Highlights include: 

·         Among nonelderly adults gaining coverage, 14.1 million did not have a college degree; within this group, 44 percent were non-Hispanic white.

·         In California, 3.8 million people gained coverage and the uninsured rate dropped 53.4 percent after state policymakers expanded Medicaid eligibility.

·         In Florida and Texas, 3.2 million people gained coverage, even though these two Southern states chose not to expand Medicaid.

·         In Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin, more than 2.3 million people gained coverage – accounting for a 38 to 49 percent drop in the percentage of people without health insurance across these Midwestern states.
Notice anything about bullets 1, 3 and 4? They're about to get what they voted for. I hope they enjoy it.


JenBob said...

Yep, if increase in the amount of people who have insurance is your only measurement, then ObamaCare is a huge success.

Public approval right now is about 44%. It's not a popular law.

Cervantes said...

You're wrong JB, only 25% say they want it repealed. And in what way do you think the ACA is not a huge success?

JenBob said...

Mr. Cervantes,

If you measure the failure of ACA to lower costs (as was promised), that taxpayers could keep their plans and their physicians (that also was a bust), then it is not the huge success. And not only the premiums have skyrocketed, but the deductibles have gone up so much that even the gold and silver plans have morphed into catastrophic insurance.

As for popularity, I got my information from USNews

Bottom line is if you're on the dole, it's GREAT. If you're on the paying end...not so much.

Anonymous said...

Wrong, JB. I read similar things about Canadian health insurance--until I talk to Canadians, who by and large are very satisfied with it! Talking points are empty. Talk to people who actually have affordable care, like me. The media are ignorant and love to use terms like "skyrocketing."

I've had affordable care (I call it "Romneycare," for when he instituted something very like it in Massachusetts) for over two years. My monthly premiums went from over $300 before Affordable Care was passed to about $134/month. While deductibles are somewhat high, many things are covered--for instance, physicals, CPAP equipment, and many other things. My deductible of $1,400 applied to things like dermatological appointments.

Affordable Care is a success if, like me, you are on the "paying end."

JenBob said...

I know you like it. I might, too, if I were on the receiving end instead of subsidizing end.

I think a lot of this is in the eye of the "beer-holder".

You, apparently receive a healthy tax credit advance to have the premium you do and from your perspective, it probably looks pretty good.

For those who don't qualify, like most of the middle class, it looks pretty shitty. For instance, when my wife lost her job and could no longer stay on her company's group policy of which they paid about half, we were forced to go onto the government exchange. Our premiums were about $1,300 for the two of us and the deductible was over $12,000. We opted for a Christian medical sharing non-profit that exempted us from the ACA law mostly because of the cost.

But let's be honest, my story is anecdotal and so is yours. What I have shown you is a legitimate survey of many, many people and in general, the law is largely unpopular. So much so that there are many Democrats thinking that the announced increases for 2017 in the cost of health policies were one of the factors that tubed her.

Cervantes said...

If not for Obamacare, you would have had no option when you lost your group insurance. The ACA has slowed the rate of increase in medical costs. And your poll is from last April.

I am an expert on health policy, for what it's worth. The way insurance works is that it spreads risk. You don't buy homeowner's insurance after your house is on fire. You have to buy insurance when you're young and healthy to put money into the risk pool for people who are higher risk. Otherwise you don't have a viable insurance system.

Again, now that people are confronted with the possibility of repeal, the law is hugely popular. Health care costs increase constantly for many reasons which I won't go into here. The ACA is not one of them.

JenBob said...

If not for Obamacare, you would have had no option when you lost your group insurance.

Are you high?

Of course there were options. I can go outside the government marketplace right now and buy health insurance either directly from an insurance provider or through a private marketplace.

If you're not eligible for the tax credit handouts there's very little incentive for you to go to the government marketplace.

I agree with your assessment of the characteristics of insurance and that's precisely why what we have now is not insurance.

One of the issues that you completely miss (as most liberals do)is the complete absence of liberty when discussing healthcare views. There must be a balance of pragmatism and liberty.You don't seem to give liberty any weight at all as if it just doesn't matter.

Many voters disagree. It does matter.