The NYT article makes no such claim. Do you have actual supporting cites?
Excellent! Got a cite?
On no!!! Of course it also states that there may very well be LESS uninsured than there were before the law passed. The point of the article, which you don’t appear to have even read, is that we will not have any way to know for sure what the actual numbers are, positive or negative, likely for quite some time.
Fewer than 7% of individuals with an income make more than $100K. Fewer than %20 of households make between $100 and $250K. I’m not sure how you determine that either of those fall into a bucket called “middle class.”
Cite? 
I am starting to understand why you are a big fan, though. As Ezra Klein noted about a McCardle posting: “In 1,600 words, she doesn’t muster a single link to a study or argument, nor a single number that she didn’t make up (what numbers do exist come in the form of thought experiments and assumptions).”
An analysis by The New York Times shows the cost of premiums for people who just miss qualifying for subsidies varies widely across the country and rises rapidly for people in their 50s and 60s. In some places, prices can quickly approach 20 percent of a person’s income.
Experts consider health insurance unaffordable once it exceeds 10 percent of annual income. By that measure, a 50-year-old making $50,000 a year, or just above the qualifying limit for assistance, would find the cheapest available plan to be unaffordable in more than 170 counties around the country, ranging from Anchorage to Jackson, Miss.
A 60-year-old living in Polk County, in northwestern Wisconsin, and earning $50,000 a year, for example, would have to spend more than 19 percent of his income, or $9,801 annually, to buy one of the cheapest plans available there. A person earning $45,000 would qualify for subsidies and would pay about 5 percent of his income, or $2,228, for an inexpensive plan.
In Oklahoma City, a 60-year-old earning $50,000 could buy one of the cheapest plans for about 6.6 percent of his income, or about $3,279 a year with no subsidy. If he earned $45,000, with the benefit of a subsidy, he would spend about $2,425.
Notice what I said: “for much of the middle class”. The NY Times data shows that indeed, for much of the middle class, depending on where they live, insurance is not affordable under the Affordable Care Act.
To the other thing I said which you demanded a cite for, the tax increase on the middle class allegation, that much should be indisputable by now given what we know about premium increases. Premiums have gone up, people pay more, unless they get big subsidies, which doesn’t happen unless you are lower middle class or poor. Otherwise, you probably are paying a lot more than you used to.
Given the universality of media stories reporting higher premiums, and the fact that the administration tried to hide the premiums from those shopping on the website at first, I think the claim that premiums are not higher demands a cite.
Ah, so the ACA takes affect and there MAY be fewer uninsured people afterwards? I wonder what chance the bill would have had of passing if people were told it might reduce the number of uninsured, or maybe not?
Not to mention it should be impossible for there to be fewer people insured. The possibility shouldn’t even exist. It certainly never crossed the minds of even the harshest critics.
Now supporters are acting like it’s no big deal. Gotta break a few eggs to make an omelet, eh?
Given all that supporters of ACA have said about us conservatives, it’s time to turn their moralizing back on them. Supposedly, people just “lay down and die” when they don’t have health insurance. Every person who was insured last year who isn’t insured now and dies due to lack of health insurance.is on the heads of the Democratic Party.
Nonsense, bad health plans usually ended with rescission or denial of service. Worse results as in practical terms people just wasted their money on top of facing death many times.
Your sick rhetoric here also assumes all people that lost the insurance thanks to dick moves by some companies are not ever going to get it in the exchanges.
You forget that the law requires insurance companies to allow people to renew. These plans were cancelled because they didn’t meet ACA requirements.
There’s no way to talk yourself out of this one. A law that purported to give insurance to 45 million people who didn’t have it is an abject failure if it only covers 20 million. The fact that they can’t even be sure we’ll be better off than we were before the law passed in that regard is one of the biggest domestic policy failures in history.
False premise.
Besides your iffinitis aguda that creates time altering fields that make what you declare a failure in the future, 20 million insured is better than what was before and I do not think the Republicans will be able to remain so low as to not also try to fix the problems so as to insure many more and finally all Americans.
20 million insured would be an improvement, although it would fall far short of what was promised. But I guess the broken promises are routine now, so we can discount them.
What can’t be discounted is that the administration has no idea whether we’ll have more insured on Jan. 1 of this year than we did last year. And frankly, I bet they don’t want to find out. These people find advantage in ignorance.
What I asked for a cite for was your claim that…
[QUOTE=adaher]
For much of the middle class, the ACA is the opposite of affordable.
[/QUOTE]
In what way does your response satisfy that request?
Out of over 3000 counties, 170 exceed some arbitrary line. What was that number prior to ACA?
I noticed. I still haven’t seen your evidence.
No, it doesn’t.
If it’s indisputable, then provide the evidence. Your very own cite notes that the family in question would be paying less under ACA if they only made $94.2K. That’s lower-middle class?
The key words are “I think”, and I’ll leave it up to the reader to take from that as they wish.
“MAY” is a pretty broad spectrum. Is there a .001% chance? 99.9%? I don’t know and you don’t either. The difference is that one of us is making bullshit claims. Hint: It’s not me.
Be serious now. You know the chance of their being fewer insured as a result of this law is much greater than .01%. sure, it’s a big range, but it’s more like 20-70%, in other words, maybe, maybe not, and the fact that we’re even asking this question is proof of failure. It would be like saying, “Well, it’s possible the Iraqi army will defeat the US invasion at the border.”
No idea if your perspective is correct, though I suspect it’s mostly your wishful thinking.
That a large portion of U.S. politicians and opinion-makers are rooting for (and even striving to achieve) failure, and chortling and bragging about it … is truly a sad sad commentary on the U.S.A., and on the shameful hijacking of its conservative movement.
Even if true, it doesn’t excuse the harm done by the Democrats’ ideological ambitions.
The vast majority of the harm is in right-wing fantasyland. And you say “ideological ambitions” as if trying to cover the uninsured is a bad thing.
Well, I’m sure the voters will be kind because the Democrats’ hearts were in the right place.
I’m just jumping in here …
Don’t we want a system that works? Anyone can say what’s wrong with the ACA, but who on the Right has solutions?
Anyway, has the mistake in the OP already been corrected? On January 1st, 2018, everybody’s insurance premiums go up 15% to cover reinsurance costs.
Jesus, with every post you’re changing your point. I’m not sure if it’s constant snark or you really just have no idea what you’re trying to say, and are unwilling to make an effort to defend any of your claims.
The ACA rollout sucked – mostly due to the website – but that’s largely fixed now, and people are signing up in droves. The electoral consequences of the bill taking effect will be known in the next couple of elections. I still think there’s a great chance that in 5 or 10 years the bill will be fondly thought of, especially as it’s improved by future congresses.
The New York Times just had an article on this, With Health Law Cemented, G.O.P. Debates Next Move.
A few GOP reps are floating alternative plans, but they realize that for any political success they need the party to unite on one positive plans for the 2014 mid-terms.
Will they succeed? One said they were “cautiously optimistic” they could reach an agreement, which is political speak for “not a chance.”
There’s no way at this point that they can separate themselves from their policy of endless repeal (but not replace) votes. Their incumbents have to run on that record. They can’t plausibly claim they’d do a better job when their approach is to not do it at all, and not when they’ve so inextricably put Obama’s name on the whole thing.
I agree that repeal without a full replacement at hand is pretty much politically impossible.
With all the stink raised here and in the press about the 4 million cancellations, it will be very difficult to get support for ending ACA coverage. As of 12/24, the ACA appears to have resulted in insurance coverage for at least 8.9M who could lose coverage. 3.1M under 26 who can remain on parents plans, 4.0M on Medicaid expansion and 1.8M private plans (without counting the last minute rush).
By March, these numbers will be even higher and I still stand behind my up thread estimate of 10s of millions by 2016.
Up to date figures can be filled here, I’m sure there are many ways to spin those numbers but the trend is obvious.