Kaiser Foundation Tracking Poll: ACA

[NobleSavage]

http://kff.org/interactive/health-t...publics-views-on-the-affordable-care-act-aca/

Maybe someone can post the chart I'm on an iPad and don't know how to do it yet.

The unfavorable is consistently a little higher than the favorable. For me personally it is favorable because I have a preexisting condition and I work for a small company that doesn't provide health care.

 

[arkirk]

http://kff.org/interactive/health-t...publics-views-on-the-affordable-care-act-aca/

Maybe someone can post the chart I'm on an iPad and don't know how to do it yet.

The unfavorable is consistently a little higher than the favorable. For me personally it is favorable because I have a preexisting condition and I work for a small company that doesn't provide health care.

The republican party has a regular set of talking points that are being broadcast 24 hrs. a day on clear channel doing anything and everything to get itself back into the white house. Obama care really is not a product of Obama so much as it was a product of Democrats in congress, many of which sold themselves out to big pharma, the health insurance "industry," hospitals, medical equipment manufacturers, etc. etc...all of which have huge lobbies and campaign funding apparatuses. Despite this leaning toward special interests, our health system was so bad that even with the lobbying, Congress managed to come up with a slight improvement over what we had before, resulting in somewhat increased enrollment in health plans nationwide. Not bad considering how alien a territory Washington has become for working people.

Additionally, it is something that is amenable to improvement...or at least so says Robert Reich. The charts from the Kaiser survey just seem to reflect what people are hearing on Radio and TV, adjusted for whatever comentators people are listening to. The Republicans are attacking Obama because they rely of racist voters for most of their votes. It is hard to be consistent and moral in one's own commentary on these issues when you see such racism and such lack of care for the people of this country in both of the parties. Obama does not receive enough criticism for his international drone delivered assassination program and far too much criticism for the ACA which is a long way from being all his idea.

 

[dismal]

http://kff.org/interactive/health-t...publics-views-on-the-affordable-care-act-aca/

Maybe someone can post the chart I'm on an iPad and don't know how to do it yet.

The unfavorable is consistently a little higher than the favorable. For me personally it is favorable because I have a preexisting condition and I work for a small company that doesn't provide health care.

I'm curious, would you view a law favorably that required all your neighbors to chip $100 into a hat and give it to you?

 

[ksen]

Maybe someone can post the chart I'm on an iPad and don't know how to do it yet.

The chart isn't in pic format it's an iframe and I don't know if we can post iframes.

eta: it'd be interesting to see if Kaiser followed up with "If you disapprove of the 2010 ACA law that was passed why do you disapprove?"

Just asking if someone approves or disapproves doesn't give enough information. For example, I disapprove of the law because I think it didn't go far enough even though I think it's better than what we had before.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

http://kff.org/interactive/health-t...publics-views-on-the-affordable-care-act-aca/

Maybe someone can post the chart I'm on an iPad and don't know how to do it yet.

The unfavorable is consistently a little higher than the favorable. For me personally it is favorable because I have a preexisting condition and I work for a small company that doesn't provide health care.

I'm curious, would you view a law favorably that required all your neighbors to chip $100 into a hat and give it to you?

I would view a law very favorably if every time someone made a ridiculous analogy, they'd get a kick to the shins.

 

[ksen]

http://kff.org/interactive/health-t...publics-views-on-the-affordable-care-act-aca/

Maybe someone can post the chart I'm on an iPad and don't know how to do it yet.

The unfavorable is consistently a little higher than the favorable. For me personally it is favorable because I have a preexisting condition and I work for a small company that doesn't provide health care.

I'm curious, would you view a law favorably that required all your neighbors to chip $100 into a hat and give it to you?

You mean like when you take your tax writeoffs and tax credits? Or when oil companies cash their subsidy checks?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

http://kff.org/interactive/health-t...publics-views-on-the-affordable-care-act-aca/

Maybe someone can post the chart I'm on an iPad and don't know how to do it yet.

The unfavorable is consistently a little higher than the favorable. For me personally it is favorable because I have a preexisting condition and I work for a small company that doesn't provide health care.

I'm curious, would you view a law favorably that required all your neighbors to chip $100 into a hat and give it to you?

1) Having a pre-existing condition doesn't mean you're going to run up high medical bills. I've got a medical mystery that rendered me uninsurable in the pre-ACA days. Since I got ACA coverage I have only met the deductible once and I've definitely spent more on premiums than I've gotten in benefits.

2) You're assuming we have been irresponsible. I paid into the system for 20 years and lost that coverage when my employer collapsed.

 

[dismal]

The question is what it is. It is not intended to provoke outrage about whether it is a high quality analogy or not.

It is not intended to be unanswerable. Someone with intellectual honesty could actually try to answer it, but those who are emotionally incapable of doing so can feel free to ignore it.

 

[Bomb#20]

I'm curious, would you view a law favorably that required all your neighbors to chip $100 into a hat and give it to you?

I would view a law very favorably if every time someone made a ridiculous analogy, they'd get a kick to the shins.

No doubt you can explain why dismal's analogy is ridiculous. But considering that the ACA financed its coverage of NobleSavage's preexisting condition by the expedient of imposing large tax increases on many taxpayers, the explanation is far from obvious.

 

[dismal]

I would view a law very favorably if every time someone made a ridiculous analogy, they'd get a kick to the shins.

No doubt you can explain why dismal's analogy is ridiculous. But considering that the ACA financed its coverage of NobleSavage's preexisting condition by the expedient of imposing large tax increases on many taxpayers, the explanation is far from obvious.

What struck me is that he couched his support for the program on the fact it benefitted him personally, not that it was good social policy. Now perhaps that's not how he intended it to come out, but he can clarify.

The funny thing is people here often seem to question why people don't support programs that allegedly benefit them personally. What's the Matter with Kansas? etc.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I would view a law very favorably if every time someone made a ridiculous analogy, they'd get a kick to the shins.

No doubt you can explain why dismal's analogy is ridiculous.

The ACA offers a subsidy to pay the insurance premiums, not the bills. Additionally, just handing over cash isn't quite the same as making affordable health care available, especially to those the insurance industry rather not cover.

But considering that the ACA financed its coverage of NobleSavage's preexisting condition by the expedient of imposing large tax increases on many taxpayers, the explanation is far from obvious.

• Quantify the "large" tax increase
• Quantify the "many" taxpayers

 

[dismal]

No doubt you can explain why dismal's analogy is ridiculous.

The ACA offers a subsidy to pay the insurance premiums, not the bills. Additionally, just handing over cash isn't quite the same as making affordable health care available, especially to those the insurance industry rather not cover.

But considering that the ACA financed its coverage of NobleSavage's preexisting condition by the expedient of imposing large tax increases on many taxpayers, the explanation is far from obvious.

• Quantify the "large" tax increase
• Quantify the "many" taxpayers

Or, we could let him answer the question if he wants to. I understand you feel compelled to quash this discussion, but I think we can survive it.

 

[NobleSavage]

http://kff.org/interactive/health-t...publics-views-on-the-affordable-care-act-aca/

Maybe someone can post the chart I'm on an iPad and don't know how to do it yet.

The unfavorable is consistently a little higher than the favorable. For me personally it is favorable because I have a preexisting condition and I work for a small company that doesn't provide health care.

I'm curious, would you view a law favorably that required all your neighbors to chip $100 into a hat and give it to you?

My preexisting doesn't cost much. I'm more than paying for it with my premiums, but If I have a medical emergency, I won't have to declare bankruptcy. Dems should talk about how the ACA is a great boon to entrepreneurs and small businesses. The only way a pure libertarian approach would work is to deny people at the ER and do a credit check before preforming any non-insured work. Even if I thought that was a good idea, it would never fly. It's just politically impossible. We might as well have universal coverage.

 

[dismal]

I'm curious, would you view a law favorably that required all your neighbors to chip $100 into a hat and give it to you?

My preexisting doesn't cost much. I'm more than paying for it with my premiums, but If I have a medical emergency, I won't have to declare bankruptcy. Dems should talk about how the ACA is a great boon to entrepreneurs and small businesses. The only way a pure libertarian approach would work is to deny people at the ER and do a credit check before preforming any non-insured work. Even if I thought that was a good idea, it would never fly. It's just politically impossible. We might as well have universal coverage.

I'm not sure I understand your argument. The reason insurance for pre-existing conditions costs more is in large part the potential future costs. Do you feel as if the premiums you are paying reflect your fairly valued actuarial risk? I don't think this is generally the case for people with preexisting conditions under Obamacare or even for most people without preexisting conditions considering all the subsidies.

 

[TV and credit cards]

I'm curious, would you view a law favorably that required all your neighbors to chip $100 into a hat and give it to you?

Wouldn't we all come out even?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The ACA offers a subsidy to pay the insurance premiums, not the bills. Additionally, just handing over cash isn't quite the same as making affordable health care available, especially to those the insurance industry rather not cover.

But considering that the ACA financed its coverage of NobleSavage's preexisting condition by the expedient of imposing large tax increases on many taxpayers, the explanation is far from obvious.

• Quantify the "large" tax increase
• Quantify the "many" taxpayers

Or, we could let him answer the question if he wants to. I understand you feel compelled to quash this discussion, but I think we can survive it.

Odd, you are the one who assumed he receives subsidies.

 

[ksen]

My preexisting doesn't cost much. I'm more than paying for it with my premiums, but If I have a medical emergency, I won't have to declare bankruptcy. Dems should talk about how the ACA is a great boon to entrepreneurs and small businesses. The only way a pure libertarian approach would work is to deny people at the ER and do a credit check before preforming any non-insured work. Even if I thought that was a good idea, it would never fly. It's just politically impossible. We might as well have universal coverage.

I'm not sure I understand your argument. The reason insurance for pre-existing conditions costs more is in large part the potential future costs. Do you feel as if the premiums you are paying reflect your fairly valued actuarial risk? I don't think this is generally the case for people with preexisting conditions under Obamacare or even for most people without preexisting conditions considering all the subsidies.

Before the ACA insurace for pre-existing conditions was nonexistent.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm curious, would you view a law favorably that required all your neighbors to chip $100 into a hat and give it to you?

My preexisting doesn't cost much. I'm more than paying for it with my premiums, but If I have a medical emergency, I won't have to declare bankruptcy.

Yup--it's not that they expect to pay out a lot for me (although they did try an expensive medicine for a few years--but it's now useless for me), it's that they don't know what to expect.

Dems should talk about how the ACA is a great boon to entrepreneurs and small businesses. The only way a pure libertarian approach would work is to deny people at the ER and do a credit check before preforming any non-insured work. Even if I thought that was a good idea, it would never fly. It's just politically impossible. We might as well have universal coverage.

Yup, this is a case where a pure libertarian approach does not work. No pure system works, there are always some cases that break it.

 

[Bomb#20]

No doubt you can explain why dismal's analogy is ridiculous.

The ACA offers a subsidy to pay the insurance premiums, not the bills.

Why would the difference between a premium and a bill make a difference as to the ridiculousness of the analogy? An insurance premium is a bet on an uncertain future event. Are you suggesting that if dismal had asked "Would you view a law favorably that required all your neighbors to chip $100 into a hat and gamble it and give you any resulting winnings?" then you'd have been okay with the analogy?

Additionally, just handing over cash isn't quite the same as making affordable health care available, especially to those the insurance industry rather not cover.

So if dismal had asked "Would you view a law favorably that required all your neighbors to chip $100 into a hat and buy you something you want but can't afford and that Jimmy Higgins wishes you had?" then you'd have been okay with the analogy?

The thing is, dismal didn't specify what the money would be spent on. If the analogy may be non-ridiculous when that information is provided, how does failing to provide that information make it ridiculous? The most it could do is make the analogy insufficiently specific.

But considering that the ACA financed its coverage of NobleSavage's preexisting condition by the expedient of imposing large tax increases on many taxpayers, the explanation is far from obvious.

• Quantify the "large" tax increase
• Quantify the "many" taxpayers

According to Investopedia, the ACA raises taxes by $500 billion. Not sure how that's divided out among the American population, but I'm pretty sure you can't get that much either from 300 million small tax increases or from any feasible tax increases on a small number of people. Be that as it may, it has certainly already increased my own taxes by an amount in excess of $500 billion divided by 300 million, which makes it equivalent to me chipping $100 into each of my neighbors' hats, out to several houses away. So I'm having difficulty seeing what's ridiculous about dismal's analogy.

Now, if you want to argue that it's a good thing for a person's neighbors to have to chip $100 into a hat on his behalf, that's a moral claim you're perfectly entitled to propound; but a moral judgment doesn't make an analogy ridiculous.

 

[dismal]

The ACA offers a subsidy to pay the insurance premiums, not the bills. Additionally, just handing over cash isn't quite the same as making affordable health care available, especially to those the insurance industry rather not cover.

But considering that the ACA financed its coverage of NobleSavage's preexisting condition by the expedient of imposing large tax increases on many taxpayers, the explanation is far from obvious.

• Quantify the "large" tax increase
• Quantify the "many" taxpayers

Or, we could let him answer the question if he wants to. I understand you feel compelled to quash this discussion, but I think we can survive it.

Odd, you are the one who assumed he receives subsidies.

I did not assume anything. I asked a hypothetical question that may or may not have anything to do with his personal healthcare situation.

Moreover, why aren't you proudly trumpeting the fact that Obamacare pays out subsidies and puts people who would be high cost risks to insurance companies into pools as if they aren't.

There's little question Obamacare does these things by intent, so if you wish to be the loyal and dutiful Obamacare fanboy you should be defending them as being awesome not acting like they are dirty and there is something wrong with taking them.