You wonder how the poll might differ if given to those who don’t need it, and many of which would politically benefit if it fails?
Really?
What do we now know that’s significantly different?
I am now against it due to the provisions to allow people to keep their old plans not working properly, and my experience that the online plans are always way more expensive. Considering this, I’ll throw in there not being any provisions for subsidies for those whose insurance coverage changes drastically.
Everyone I know in real life is either paying more for or getting less from their insurance. This is was something I was assured would not happen, especially on the low end. My sister’s got the worst deal: she went from no deductible to a $3000 one for doctor’s visits. And, like I said, the ones on the exchange are all higher for less coverage. The first one that gives her even close to her old coverage costs over 300% more. And, because she can get insurance, isn’t pregnant, and makes over minimum wage, she can’t get a subsidy. (Those subsidies being what I think allows the exchange to have its artificially inflated prices.)
I was actually surprised that it was working out for so many of you.
If given to those who are supposed to judge a bill based on its merits, to look at the pros and cons and see if it would serve the overall country well.
As opposed to pointing to a guy who says “Hey, it saved me some money, so I’m all for it, by golly!!”
Tell me, do you think we should change the constitution and people vote on bills directly vie popular vote? :roll eyes: How about I move to Washington state and have the congress there craft a bill stating that Bill Gates and any other person with over $10,000,000 must forfeit 90% of his wealth for distribution among the rest of Washingtonians. What do you think that vote might look like?
You are correct in describing the excluded middle fallacy present in my post you cited. But I’m not suggesting the ACA is as bad as ANY plan moving in the same direction. It’s just that some of the answers imply that sort of justification.
So, so far, we have:
People who liked it originally: 118
People who did not like it originally: 15
People who like it now: 118
People who do not like it now: 15
Though neither the two 118 numbers nor the two 15 numbers represent identical individuals. Still, the results are much more skewed that I thought they be, even given the liberal bias of the board as a whole.
Do you have any explanation for why your prediction varied so far from the data point? Could it be that your sources of information about support for the ACA have been misleading you?
What exactly happened that should have changed our minds? The closest thing I could think of was Obama incorrectly promising that no plans would change, where the law said that inadequate plans would have to change. Besides that I don’t see much. The federal government can’t, and shouldn’t, force insurance companies to use any particular set of doctors. That changing plans might cause a change in doctors is not the fault of ACA. It can happen when a company changes plans also.
I think people were talking about what we got.
The same would be true if you asked about evolution.
And this set of people has what to do with Congress?
What about the people who have healthcare now who could not get it before. That seems far more important to me than people saving some or spending some more.
No Republican plans seems to care about these people - and many Republican governors are keeping people from getting healthcare insurance by stonewalling on Medicaid expansion.
A cynical person might conclude that red states sacrificing their voter base for a principle is not altogether bad for Democrats.
The ACA hasn’t affected me personally one iota (yet). I have the same plan (employer-based), with the same coverage, for the same premium. My basic preventive care was no extra charge before - same now (except for contraceptives - I still pay a copay for those, because my current plan is grandfathered, but that will end in August).
However, I just checked what’s available on the exchanges out of curiosity, and it’s a relief to know that if I ever lost my employer-based coverage, there are equivalent or better plans available for less money than I’d have to pay either for COBRA or to be covered on my husband’s plan.
The exchange plan that’s the closest match for my current plan has a $0 annual deductible for generic prescriptions, whereas my current plan includes meds under the umbrella $2500 annual deductible, and my biggest nonpreventive medical expense in most years is prescriptions. Advair? Almost $300/month! I don’t need it the vast majority of the time, but an asthma flare-up last fall left me with a recommended $500-some a month in meds, at least temporarily. And given my medical history, I’d be pretty damn uninsurable on the individual market, even though I haven’t been hospitalized or had anything but minor outpatient surgery, or been in the ER for any reason, in going on 20 years.
It’s nice to know that I have options.
I’m in much the same position as Eva Luna, my employer-provided insurance hasn’t changed except for a minor bump in rates.
BUT, I work for a company that is currently debating whether my department should exist or not next year, and it looks like the answer might be “not”. After looking at the plans available through the ACA in my state, I am exceedingly reassured that I could still afford to insure my family and put food on the table, should I lose my job.
I did support the ACA on it’s own merits, although I think single-payer is worth considering as a country. I do still support the ACA, mostly because of the early parts of the law - getting rid of pre-existing conditions restrictions, removal of lifetime caps, etc.
We’ve replaced a horrible system that costs Americans, even those of us with good insurance, way too much for medical care that is often useless or worse, with a bad system that costs Americans way too much for medical care that is often useless or worse. So it’s a step in the right direction.
Nothing was replaced. They just added more cost to it and at the same time hurt the economy.
Don’t they vote to repeal it every month or so? Just check the Congressional record.
So my 2013 junk plan was revived to appease the tea partiers, yet it was a 640 month plan with 24k deductible no vision no dental and 3 years to wait for preexisting to be covered. Thanks but really, i don’t know any employed person who gets that kind of deal
Dropped that plan for 2014 and signed up to a marketplace exchange plan , pay 433 a month, 600 deductible with vision and dental. Much like the plan we used to have when employed full time.
let them try to take down healthcare exchanges it’s will get nasty!
No.
Self employed, paid through the nose for catastrophic plan for well more than 20 years. 5K deductible, never a single claim in all those years.
In January, with Obamacare (love that name) my monthly premium dropped from 430.00 month to less than 70.00! for a bronze plan that is actual health insurance.
If that we’re true, I would reexamine my support. Actual people I talk to, however, are either unaffected or happy.