Obamacare Saves Consumers $2.1 Billion Since 2011
- Thread starter thoughtone
- Start date
You've been posting what a failure it is/will be.
I agree, I have been posting the obvious.
However, you're leaving out that, unlike you, Muck, Que, and Dave, I post the government's own assessment. I post articles reporting on professional studies. The bunch of you post MSNBC and the dailyKos to reaffirm that you're winning the politics of it.
But I'll concede that we actually don't disagree all that much about the effects of the law. We just disagree whether the effects are undesirable.
Because, like an autistic child, you have a laser-like focus. You always equate politics with economics.
Republicans adopt ObamaCare = It works
One day you'll understand how getting away with a program politically doesn't mean that the program works.
By the way, I'm just joking that one day you'll get it.
I see you're still in the mind reading business Greed; purporting to know what others are thinking and why they do what they do.
What are you using: tarot cards, crystal balls, or just plain ole ideological prejudice . . . .
What are the "effects of the law" - that you're referring to; (I'd like to what we agree and/or disagree over) and
What are the "undesirable effects" - that you see and believe that others don't ???
I just use what was posted to judge what people are trying to express. It's not rocket science.
I see you're still in the mind reading business Greed; purporting to know what others are thinking and why they do what they do.
What are you using: tarot cards, crystal balls, or just plain ole ideological prejudice . . . .
I think it's admirable that, after 288 post, you finally want to understand what's the substance of the disagreement, but I would urge you to just read the thread if you're mystified about why we've been going back and forth.
Typically you. Bullshit response to even a simple question. Thanks for nothing.
Really? I think I treated the question with too much seriousness.
In the future, I'll just ignore you if you ask, what have we been arguing about for two years?
source: TPM
GOP's Obamacare Nightmare Is Coming True: It's Working
For Republicans, the Obamacare reckoning has arrived sooner than expected.
The politics of the health care law have undergone a sea change since its disastrous rollout last fall, when many conservative operatives were salivating at the prospect of a GOP wave in the midterm elections due to an Obamacare "train wreck."
But the train never wrecked. The law rebounded, surpassing its signups goal and withstanding a flurry of attacks. The issue seems to have mostly lost its power as a weapon against Democrats, and a growing number of Republican governors — even in conservative states — are warming to a core component of Obamacare, the Medicaid expansion.
To get a sense of why this is worrying for Republicans in the long run, look no further than conservative strategist Bill Kristol's 1993 memo — "Defeating President Clinton's Health Care Proposal" — warning that reform would paint Democrats as "the generous protector of middle-class interests" and strike a "punishing blow" to the GOP's anti-government ideology.
"But the long-term political effects of a successful Clinton health care bill will be even worse — much worse. It will relegitimize middle-class dependence for 'security' on government spending and regulation. It will revive the reputation of the party that spends and regulates, the Democrats, as the generous protector of middle-class interests. And it will at the same time strike a punishing blow against Republican claims to defend the middle class by restraining government," Kristol wrote.
In other words, the real fear back then was that health care reform would succeed.
Two decades later, Kristol's prophecy is haunting Republicans. Obamacare has provided a lifeline by providing coverage to 8 million people on the exchanges, 7 million under Medicaid expansion and 5 million who bought insurance outside the exchanges but benefit from new regulations like the coverage guarantee for individuals with preexisting conditions. Even Republicans in deeply conservative states are suggesting that the popular new benefits cannot be taken away, even if the Obamacare brand still struggles.
The shift has been crystallized in contentious Senate races this fall. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) recently signaled that Kentuckians benefiting from the state's Obamacare exchange and Medicaid expansion should be able to keep their coverage. Senate GOP candidates Joni Ernst of Iowa, Tom Cotton of Arkansas, Scott Brown of New Hampshire and Terri Lynn Land of Michigan have all refused to call for rolling back Medicaid expansion in their states. The number of television ads attacking the law have plummeted in key battleground states since April, and now even vulnerable Democratic Sen. Mark Pryor of Arkansas is touting his vote for protecting Americans with preexisting conditions under Obamacare.
But even if the Obamacare attacks are fading, Republicans remain poised to make gains in the midterms due to a variety of structural advantages. They continue to oppose Obamacare as a whole, and point out that Americans still react negatively when asked about the law.
"Ensuring that people with preexisting conditions have access to coverage has long been a popular policy, and one where there is bipartisan agreement. It's the the entirety of ObamaCare that remains EXTREMELY unpopular," Brad Dayspring, a spokesman for the Senate GOP's campaign arm, told TPM in an email.
Conservative health-policy experts have argued that Obamacare cannot be repealed without a viable alternative to fix broken parts of the system, but Republicans have failed to come up with one that the party can unite behind.
These are signs that Obamacare is weaving into the fabric of American culture and that the dream of repealing or unwinding it is fading. The massive health care industry is adapting to the post-Obamacare world and fears of double-digit hikes in premiums are fading: early data suggest the prices for benchmark "silver" plans in 2015 are poised to decline slightly.
"We don’t yet have data for all states, but from these 15 states plus DC I think we can start to see a pattern emerging," Larry Levitt, senior vice president at the Kaiser Family Foundation, said in an email. "In general, changes in premiums for the low-cost plans in the marketplaces are quite modest, and actually decreasing in many places."
Stability in premiums means "government costs for premium subsidies ... are under control, which is good news for taxpayers," Levitt said.
In the courts, an ongoing conservative lawsuit to cripple Obamacare suffered a major setback last week when a federal appeals court vacated a ruling that would have blocked subsidies in 36 states. Legal experts say the full court is likely to uphold the subsidies when a panel with a majority of Democratic-appointed judges re-hears the case.
For Democrats, the dream scenario was that Obamacare would eventually join Social Security and Medicare as an unassailable feature of the American safety net. Like those other major programs, Obamacare won't be without its share of problems — cost uncertainties for automatically-renewed plans among them. But after more than 50 House votes to repeal or dismantle the law, few could have predicted that Republicans would start warming up to central pieces of the law within a year of its rollout.
GOP's Obamacare Nightmare Is Coming True: It's Working
For Republicans, the Obamacare reckoning has arrived sooner than expected.
The politics of the health care law have undergone a sea change since its disastrous rollout last fall, when many conservative operatives were salivating at the prospect of a GOP wave in the midterm elections due to an Obamacare "train wreck."
But the train never wrecked. The law rebounded, surpassing its signups goal and withstanding a flurry of attacks. The issue seems to have mostly lost its power as a weapon against Democrats, and a growing number of Republican governors — even in conservative states — are warming to a core component of Obamacare, the Medicaid expansion.
To get a sense of why this is worrying for Republicans in the long run, look no further than conservative strategist Bill Kristol's 1993 memo — "Defeating President Clinton's Health Care Proposal" — warning that reform would paint Democrats as "the generous protector of middle-class interests" and strike a "punishing blow" to the GOP's anti-government ideology.
"But the long-term political effects of a successful Clinton health care bill will be even worse — much worse. It will relegitimize middle-class dependence for 'security' on government spending and regulation. It will revive the reputation of the party that spends and regulates, the Democrats, as the generous protector of middle-class interests. And it will at the same time strike a punishing blow against Republican claims to defend the middle class by restraining government," Kristol wrote.
In other words, the real fear back then was that health care reform would succeed.
Two decades later, Kristol's prophecy is haunting Republicans. Obamacare has provided a lifeline by providing coverage to 8 million people on the exchanges, 7 million under Medicaid expansion and 5 million who bought insurance outside the exchanges but benefit from new regulations like the coverage guarantee for individuals with preexisting conditions. Even Republicans in deeply conservative states are suggesting that the popular new benefits cannot be taken away, even if the Obamacare brand still struggles.
The shift has been crystallized in contentious Senate races this fall. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) recently signaled that Kentuckians benefiting from the state's Obamacare exchange and Medicaid expansion should be able to keep their coverage. Senate GOP candidates Joni Ernst of Iowa, Tom Cotton of Arkansas, Scott Brown of New Hampshire and Terri Lynn Land of Michigan have all refused to call for rolling back Medicaid expansion in their states. The number of television ads attacking the law have plummeted in key battleground states since April, and now even vulnerable Democratic Sen. Mark Pryor of Arkansas is touting his vote for protecting Americans with preexisting conditions under Obamacare.
But even if the Obamacare attacks are fading, Republicans remain poised to make gains in the midterms due to a variety of structural advantages. They continue to oppose Obamacare as a whole, and point out that Americans still react negatively when asked about the law.
"Ensuring that people with preexisting conditions have access to coverage has long been a popular policy, and one where there is bipartisan agreement. It's the the entirety of ObamaCare that remains EXTREMELY unpopular," Brad Dayspring, a spokesman for the Senate GOP's campaign arm, told TPM in an email.
Conservative health-policy experts have argued that Obamacare cannot be repealed without a viable alternative to fix broken parts of the system, but Republicans have failed to come up with one that the party can unite behind.
These are signs that Obamacare is weaving into the fabric of American culture and that the dream of repealing or unwinding it is fading. The massive health care industry is adapting to the post-Obamacare world and fears of double-digit hikes in premiums are fading: early data suggest the prices for benchmark "silver" plans in 2015 are poised to decline slightly.
"We don’t yet have data for all states, but from these 15 states plus DC I think we can start to see a pattern emerging," Larry Levitt, senior vice president at the Kaiser Family Foundation, said in an email. "In general, changes in premiums for the low-cost plans in the marketplaces are quite modest, and actually decreasing in many places."
Stability in premiums means "government costs for premium subsidies ... are under control, which is good news for taxpayers," Levitt said.
In the courts, an ongoing conservative lawsuit to cripple Obamacare suffered a major setback last week when a federal appeals court vacated a ruling that would have blocked subsidies in 36 states. Legal experts say the full court is likely to uphold the subsidies when a panel with a majority of Democratic-appointed judges re-hears the case.
For Democrats, the dream scenario was that Obamacare would eventually join Social Security and Medicare as an unassailable feature of the American safety net. Like those other major programs, Obamacare won't be without its share of problems — cost uncertainties for automatically-renewed plans among them. But after more than 50 House votes to repeal or dismantle the law, few could have predicted that Republicans would start warming up to central pieces of the law within a year of its rollout.
Obama Adviser Jonathan Gruber In 2009: Obamacare Will NOT Be Affordable
Obama Adviser Jonathan Gruber In 2009: Obamacare Will NOT Be Affordable
Patrick Howley
9:25 AM 12/30/2014
President Obama’s health care adviser Jonathan Gruber said that the Affordable Care Act would definitely not be affordable while he was writing the bill with the White House.
As Gruber continues to withhold documents while he awaits a call-back for more testimony before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in the new year, more shocking information is coming to light detailing the deceptions that went into the writing of the health-care law.
Gruber said that Obamacare had no cost controls in it and would not be affordable in an October 2009 policy brief, presented here exclusively by TheDC. At the time, Gruber had already personally counseled Obama in the Oval Office and served on Obama’s presidential transition team. Obama, meanwhile, told the American people that their premiums would go down dramatically.
“The problem is it starts to go hand in hand with the mandate; you can’t mandate insurance that’s not affordable. This is going to be a major issue,” Gruber admitted in an October 2, 2009 lecture, the transcript of which comprised the policy brief.
“So what’s different this time? Why are we closer than we’ve ever been before? Because there are no cost controls in these proposals. Because this bill’s about coverage. Which is good! Why should we hold 48 million uninsured people hostage to the fact that we don’t yet know how to control costs in a politically acceptable way? Let’s get the people covered and then let’s do cost control.”
Gruber also said that the only way to control costs is to effectively deny treatment.
“The real substance of cost control is all about a single thing: telling patients they can’t have something they want. It’s about telling patients, ‘That surgery doesn’t do any good, so if you want it you have to pay the full cost.’”
“There’s no reason the American health care system can’t be, ‘You can have whatever you want, you just have to pay for it.’ That’s what we do in other walks of life. We don’t say everyone has to have a large screen TV. If you want a large screen TV, you have to pay for it. Basically the notion would be to move to a level where everyone has a solid basic insurance level of coverage. Above that people pay on their own, without tax-subsidized dollars, to buy a higher level of coverage.”
And despite the president’s pitches to the contrary, Obama also knew that his health care bill was unlikely to control costs, Gruber said.
“I wish that President Obama could have stood up and said, ‘You know, I don’t know if this bill is going to control costs. It might, it might not. We’re doing our best. But let me tell you what it’s going to do…” Gruber said on a San Francisco podcast in 2012.
“If he could make that speech? Instead, he says ‘I’m going to pass a bill that will lower your health care costs.’ That sells. Now, I wish the world was different. I wish people cared about the 50 million uninsured in America…But, you know, they don’t. And I think, once again, I’m amazed politically that we got this bill through.”
http://dailycaller.com/2014/12/30/o...ber-in-2009-obamacare-will-not-be-affordable/
Obama Adviser Jonathan Gruber In 2009: Obamacare Will NOT Be Affordable
Patrick Howley
9:25 AM 12/30/2014
President Obama’s health care adviser Jonathan Gruber said that the Affordable Care Act would definitely not be affordable while he was writing the bill with the White House.
As Gruber continues to withhold documents while he awaits a call-back for more testimony before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in the new year, more shocking information is coming to light detailing the deceptions that went into the writing of the health-care law.
Gruber said that Obamacare had no cost controls in it and would not be affordable in an October 2009 policy brief, presented here exclusively by TheDC. At the time, Gruber had already personally counseled Obama in the Oval Office and served on Obama’s presidential transition team. Obama, meanwhile, told the American people that their premiums would go down dramatically.
“The problem is it starts to go hand in hand with the mandate; you can’t mandate insurance that’s not affordable. This is going to be a major issue,” Gruber admitted in an October 2, 2009 lecture, the transcript of which comprised the policy brief.
“So what’s different this time? Why are we closer than we’ve ever been before? Because there are no cost controls in these proposals. Because this bill’s about coverage. Which is good! Why should we hold 48 million uninsured people hostage to the fact that we don’t yet know how to control costs in a politically acceptable way? Let’s get the people covered and then let’s do cost control.”
Gruber also said that the only way to control costs is to effectively deny treatment.
“The real substance of cost control is all about a single thing: telling patients they can’t have something they want. It’s about telling patients, ‘That surgery doesn’t do any good, so if you want it you have to pay the full cost.’”
“There’s no reason the American health care system can’t be, ‘You can have whatever you want, you just have to pay for it.’ That’s what we do in other walks of life. We don’t say everyone has to have a large screen TV. If you want a large screen TV, you have to pay for it. Basically the notion would be to move to a level where everyone has a solid basic insurance level of coverage. Above that people pay on their own, without tax-subsidized dollars, to buy a higher level of coverage.”
And despite the president’s pitches to the contrary, Obama also knew that his health care bill was unlikely to control costs, Gruber said.
“I wish that President Obama could have stood up and said, ‘You know, I don’t know if this bill is going to control costs. It might, it might not. We’re doing our best. But let me tell you what it’s going to do…” Gruber said on a San Francisco podcast in 2012.
“If he could make that speech? Instead, he says ‘I’m going to pass a bill that will lower your health care costs.’ That sells. Now, I wish the world was different. I wish people cared about the 50 million uninsured in America…But, you know, they don’t. And I think, once again, I’m amazed politically that we got this bill through.”
http://dailycaller.com/2014/12/30/o...ber-in-2009-obamacare-will-not-be-affordable/
<iframe src="http://www.gallup.com/poll/181664/arkansas-kentucky-improvement-uninsured-rates.aspx?utm_source=tagrss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=syndication" width=1000 height=1000></iframe>
Yep, Obamacare Costs a Fortune
Yep, Obamacare Costs a Fortune
By Christopher Flavelle
Feb 11, 2015 12:46 PM EST
Whenever I write about Obamacare's expansion of health insurance, most of the e-mails I get from readers include some version of: Sure, the premiums may be low, but who can afford to see a doctor?
A survey released today by the Kaiser Family Foundation, tracking 2015 deductibles and copayments across most exchange plans, says those complaints are at least half right. For all but the most generous Obamacare plans, out-of-pocket payments are usually higher than for employer-based insurance -- in some cases, drastically so.
Some background: The metal levels in the charts below refer to how consumers are charged. For a bronze plan, the insurer is meant to cover 60 percent of the cost of essential health care, on average, leaving beneficiaries to cover the rest. For silver plans, it's 70 percent; for gold, 80 percent; and for platinum plans, 90 percent. As a result, premiums are generally lowest for bronze plans and highest for platinum.
So it's not surprising that out-of-pocket payments, also called cost-sharing charges, are higher for lower-cost plans. It is surprising just how high those payments are, even for middle-tier exchange plans, and also how high they are compared with the average plans that workers get through their companies.
Start with annual deductibles. For bronze plans in 2015, they're enormous -- $5,372, or about five times what the average person with employer-based individual coverage faced last year. More important, and potentially worrisome for the law's defenders: Average deductibles for silver plans (the most popular type of exchange coverage) are about three times as high as on employer plans. Even gold plans have slightly higher average deductibles.
Another way to compare cost sharing is to look at the out-of-pocket maximum: the most you'll need to pay during the year (after your premium) for core, in-network health services. Here, not only are 2015 bronze and silver plans about twice as high as for employer-based coverage last year; the out-of-pocket maximums for gold plans are also 50 percent more, on average.
Where most people feel the bite of cost sharing is when they head to the family doctor. On average, it will cost $13 more for that visit on a bronze plan in 2015 than somebody with employer-based insurance had to pay last year.
Those differences jump if you need to see a specialist. Copayments on a bronze plan are almost twice as high as for employer-provided plans last year, and more than 50 percent higher for silver plans.
But the most important reason to have health insurance is to protect you from the really expensive stuff -- mainly, the risk that you'll need to be hospitalized. Here, even the highest-value exchange plans impose higher copayments than the average employer-based insurance last year. For silver plans, that cost is about twice as high.
As usual with health care, the information above comes with caveats. Obamacare protects the poorest beneficiaries from these costs by subsidizing, on a sliding scale, out-of-pocket payments for people whose income is between 100 percent and 250 percent of the federal poverty line and who enroll in a silver plan.
For everyone else, you could argue that the exchanges are called "marketplaces" for a reason -- people who choose to buy anything less than platinum-level plans can see beforehand the copayments and deductibles they'll face, and make their decision accordingly.
But that assumes that insurance shoppers will take the time to read the details and understand them. It also assumes that people can do a good job of predicting the health-care services they'll need.
Even if those things hold true, cost sharing on the exchanges is still typically far higher than for the employer-based coverage that about half of Americans still have. Maybe that's a necessary price to pay for extending government-subsidized health care. But it also means that when people complain about the high cost of care, they're not wrong.
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-02-11/yep-obamacare-costs-a-fortune
Yep, Obamacare Costs a Fortune
By Christopher Flavelle
Feb 11, 2015 12:46 PM EST
Whenever I write about Obamacare's expansion of health insurance, most of the e-mails I get from readers include some version of: Sure, the premiums may be low, but who can afford to see a doctor?
A survey released today by the Kaiser Family Foundation, tracking 2015 deductibles and copayments across most exchange plans, says those complaints are at least half right. For all but the most generous Obamacare plans, out-of-pocket payments are usually higher than for employer-based insurance -- in some cases, drastically so.
Some background: The metal levels in the charts below refer to how consumers are charged. For a bronze plan, the insurer is meant to cover 60 percent of the cost of essential health care, on average, leaving beneficiaries to cover the rest. For silver plans, it's 70 percent; for gold, 80 percent; and for platinum plans, 90 percent. As a result, premiums are generally lowest for bronze plans and highest for platinum.
So it's not surprising that out-of-pocket payments, also called cost-sharing charges, are higher for lower-cost plans. It is surprising just how high those payments are, even for middle-tier exchange plans, and also how high they are compared with the average plans that workers get through their companies.
Start with annual deductibles. For bronze plans in 2015, they're enormous -- $5,372, or about five times what the average person with employer-based individual coverage faced last year. More important, and potentially worrisome for the law's defenders: Average deductibles for silver plans (the most popular type of exchange coverage) are about three times as high as on employer plans. Even gold plans have slightly higher average deductibles.
Another way to compare cost sharing is to look at the out-of-pocket maximum: the most you'll need to pay during the year (after your premium) for core, in-network health services. Here, not only are 2015 bronze and silver plans about twice as high as for employer-based coverage last year; the out-of-pocket maximums for gold plans are also 50 percent more, on average.
Where most people feel the bite of cost sharing is when they head to the family doctor. On average, it will cost $13 more for that visit on a bronze plan in 2015 than somebody with employer-based insurance had to pay last year.
Those differences jump if you need to see a specialist. Copayments on a bronze plan are almost twice as high as for employer-provided plans last year, and more than 50 percent higher for silver plans.
But the most important reason to have health insurance is to protect you from the really expensive stuff -- mainly, the risk that you'll need to be hospitalized. Here, even the highest-value exchange plans impose higher copayments than the average employer-based insurance last year. For silver plans, that cost is about twice as high.
As usual with health care, the information above comes with caveats. Obamacare protects the poorest beneficiaries from these costs by subsidizing, on a sliding scale, out-of-pocket payments for people whose income is between 100 percent and 250 percent of the federal poverty line and who enroll in a silver plan.
For everyone else, you could argue that the exchanges are called "marketplaces" for a reason -- people who choose to buy anything less than platinum-level plans can see beforehand the copayments and deductibles they'll face, and make their decision accordingly.
But that assumes that insurance shoppers will take the time to read the details and understand them. It also assumes that people can do a good job of predicting the health-care services they'll need.
Even if those things hold true, cost sharing on the exchanges is still typically far higher than for the employer-based coverage that about half of Americans still have. Maybe that's a necessary price to pay for extending government-subsidized health care. But it also means that when people complain about the high cost of care, they're not wrong.
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-02-11/yep-obamacare-costs-a-fortune
source: msnbc
Republican Kansas Governor Sam Brownback speaks to supporters in Topeka, Kansas, on Nov. 4, 2014.
Faced with a crisis, Brownback reconsiders ‘Obamacare’
Plenty of Republican governors, including a few White House hopefuls, are facing alarming budget shortfalls right now, but no one’s in worse shape than Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback (R). The far-right former senator imposed an “experiment” on his state, and it’s failed spectacularly.
Massive tax breaks Kansas couldn’t afford have led to debt downgrades, weak growth, and state finances in shambles. Making matters worse, confronted with weak statewide job growth and a deepening budget shortfall, a judicial panel recently ruled that Kansas has been “inadequately funding K-12 education.” Brownback, not surprisingly, can’t afford the fix.
How dire have things gotten for the beleaguered Republican governor? The Lawrence Journal-World in Kansas reports that Brownback is starting to reconsider his contempt for the Affordable Care Act (via Daniel Strauss).
And as you’d probably guess, the Kansas Republican has never said anything close to this before.
In a way, this is an important test of Brownback’s fealty to his own ineffective ideology. He’s committed to his failed economic plan and he’s equally committed to opposing the Affordable Care Act. In this case, however, caving to reality on one front (the ACA) would directly help alleviate his principal problem (the massive budget shortfall the governor caused).
So, what’s it going to be, gov? “Obamacare” can help you out of a jam, help thousands of Kansas families, boost state hospitals, and close your budget gap. Do you really hate the president that much that you’d spite yourself on principle?
Postscript: A far-right group in neighboring Missouri welcomed Brownback for an event yesterday. The organization, called Grow Missouri, tweeted before the event, “Honored to have (Brownback) in Jefferson City today talking to (lawmakers) about his tax policies and how we can adopt them.”
Why anyone would want to duplicate Brownback’s failures on purpose remains something of a mystery.
Republican Kansas Governor Sam Brownback speaks to supporters in Topeka, Kansas, on Nov. 4, 2014.
Faced with a crisis, Brownback reconsiders ‘Obamacare’
Plenty of Republican governors, including a few White House hopefuls, are facing alarming budget shortfalls right now, but no one’s in worse shape than Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback (R). The far-right former senator imposed an “experiment” on his state, and it’s failed spectacularly.
Massive tax breaks Kansas couldn’t afford have led to debt downgrades, weak growth, and state finances in shambles. Making matters worse, confronted with weak statewide job growth and a deepening budget shortfall, a judicial panel recently ruled that Kansas has been “inadequately funding K-12 education.” Brownback, not surprisingly, can’t afford the fix.
How dire have things gotten for the beleaguered Republican governor? The Lawrence Journal-World in Kansas reports that Brownback is starting to reconsider his contempt for the Affordable Care Act (via Daniel Strauss).
Gov. Sam Brownback suggested Wednesday that he might consider proposals to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, provided the Legislature can identify a way to pay for it.
“I’ve been pushing that anything we do on Medicaid expansion has to be 100-percent paid for,” Brownback said during impromptu remarks to the Kansas Association of Insurance Agents, who met at the Statehouse on Wednesday…. Brownback’s comments, which came in response to a question from one of the insurance agents, stood in stark contrast to his remarks on the campaign trail last year when he said he strongly opposed the federal health care law, also known as Obamacare, and criticized his Democratic opponent Paul Davis for supporting it.
To be sure, the governor isn’t officially on board, at least not yet. But Brownback was willing to say yesterday, “I haven’t said we’ll take it. I haven’t said we wouldn’t.” In this case, “it” is Medicaid expansion through the ACA.“I’ve been pushing that anything we do on Medicaid expansion has to be 100-percent paid for,” Brownback said during impromptu remarks to the Kansas Association of Insurance Agents, who met at the Statehouse on Wednesday…. Brownback’s comments, which came in response to a question from one of the insurance agents, stood in stark contrast to his remarks on the campaign trail last year when he said he strongly opposed the federal health care law, also known as Obamacare, and criticized his Democratic opponent Paul Davis for supporting it.
And as you’d probably guess, the Kansas Republican has never said anything close to this before.
In a way, this is an important test of Brownback’s fealty to his own ineffective ideology. He’s committed to his failed economic plan and he’s equally committed to opposing the Affordable Care Act. In this case, however, caving to reality on one front (the ACA) would directly help alleviate his principal problem (the massive budget shortfall the governor caused).
So, what’s it going to be, gov? “Obamacare” can help you out of a jam, help thousands of Kansas families, boost state hospitals, and close your budget gap. Do you really hate the president that much that you’d spite yourself on principle?
Postscript: A far-right group in neighboring Missouri welcomed Brownback for an event yesterday. The organization, called Grow Missouri, tweeted before the event, “Honored to have (Brownback) in Jefferson City today talking to (lawmakers) about his tax policies and how we can adopt them.”
Why anyone would want to duplicate Brownback’s failures on purpose remains something of a mystery.
So is Obamacare failing or not?
And if so, Repubs should suffer for adopting a failed policy? No?
And if so, Repubs should suffer for adopting a failed policy? No?
source: Huffington Post
Montana Poised To Expand Medicaid Under Obamacare
WASHINGTON -- Montana is on track to join 28 states and the District of Columbia by expanding Medicaid to cover more low-income people.
Democrats in both chambers of the majority-GOP Montana state legislature have joined with enough Republicans to advance the legislation. The state Senate sent the measure to Gov. Steve Bullock (D), a Medicaid expansion supporter, on Saturday following a state House of Representatives vote a week before. Proponents of the legislation say it will expand health coverage to as many as 45,000 Montanans.
Montana is set to become the second state this year to adopt the Medicaid expansion, following Indiana's action in January. Debate continues on the issue in states including Alaska, Florida, Missouri, Tennessee and Utah, but the chances of more states signing on are steadily decreasing amid staunch opposition from Republican legislators, even in states with GOP governors who want to broaden Medicaid eligibility.
Federal officials must sign off on the Montana Medicaid expansion plan, because it includes new requirements for enrollees, such as monthly premiums. The Affordable Care Act calls for Medicaid eligibility to be broadened to anyone who earns up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level. (For a single person, 133 percent of the federal poverty level would be $15,654.) Under the law, the cost of newly eligible Medicaid enrollees is almost entirely paid by the federal government, and states will never pay more than 10 percent. The Supreme Court made the expansion optional for states in a 2012 ruling.
Montana's Medicaid expansion is coming later than it would have if not for a mishap two years ago. In 2013, Montana state Rep. Tom Jacobson (D) accidentally cast the deciding vote against a Medicaid expansion bill he supported, and state House Republicans declined to allow a re-vote on the measure.
This year, Medicaid expansion advocates in the Montana legislature proved more adept. The state Senate passed a bill last month, but a House committee appeared to bottle up the measure. Democratic and Republican supporters of the bill, however, employed parliamentary tactics to force the full House to consider the bill. That ultimately led to the passage of a slightly different version of the legislation, which the state Senate approved Saturday
Montana Poised To Expand Medicaid Under Obamacare
WASHINGTON -- Montana is on track to join 28 states and the District of Columbia by expanding Medicaid to cover more low-income people.
Democrats in both chambers of the majority-GOP Montana state legislature have joined with enough Republicans to advance the legislation. The state Senate sent the measure to Gov. Steve Bullock (D), a Medicaid expansion supporter, on Saturday following a state House of Representatives vote a week before. Proponents of the legislation say it will expand health coverage to as many as 45,000 Montanans.
Montana is set to become the second state this year to adopt the Medicaid expansion, following Indiana's action in January. Debate continues on the issue in states including Alaska, Florida, Missouri, Tennessee and Utah, but the chances of more states signing on are steadily decreasing amid staunch opposition from Republican legislators, even in states with GOP governors who want to broaden Medicaid eligibility.
Federal officials must sign off on the Montana Medicaid expansion plan, because it includes new requirements for enrollees, such as monthly premiums. The Affordable Care Act calls for Medicaid eligibility to be broadened to anyone who earns up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level. (For a single person, 133 percent of the federal poverty level would be $15,654.) Under the law, the cost of newly eligible Medicaid enrollees is almost entirely paid by the federal government, and states will never pay more than 10 percent. The Supreme Court made the expansion optional for states in a 2012 ruling.
Montana's Medicaid expansion is coming later than it would have if not for a mishap two years ago. In 2013, Montana state Rep. Tom Jacobson (D) accidentally cast the deciding vote against a Medicaid expansion bill he supported, and state House Republicans declined to allow a re-vote on the measure.
This year, Medicaid expansion advocates in the Montana legislature proved more adept. The state Senate passed a bill last month, but a House committee appeared to bottle up the measure. Democratic and Republican supporters of the bill, however, employed parliamentary tactics to force the full House to consider the bill. That ultimately led to the passage of a slightly different version of the legislation, which the state Senate approved Saturday
