Obamacare is going to sting a lot

[renbutler]

I'm sure you're aware that the EIC, like the individual mandate, was a conservative idea that liberals embraced and adopted, only to find conservatives suddenly opposing it.

First proposed by Barry Goldwater, enacted under Gerald Ford, and expanded by every Republican administration since.  Look it up.

Your tone makes it sound like you think I'm some uber-partisan hack, but that would make you incorrect.

Bad ideas are bad ideas, no matter which "side" comes up with it. If only more people approached these issues with the same attitude.

[renbutler]

I tend to agree, but with the current lack of transparency in the pricing model this seems impossible. I have had a HDHP since it was first offered, but despite trying to price shop no one can really give you a straight price. Plus you lose the bargaining power of large plans.

That's precisely the type of smaller reform that we should focus on after ACA is scrapped down the road.

[Huffy2k]

I tend to agree, but with the current lack of transparency in the pricing model this seems impossible. I have had a HDHP since it was first offered, but despite trying to price shop no one can really give you a straight price. Plus you lose the bargaining power of large plans.

That's precisely the type of smaller reform that we should focus on after ACA is scrapped down the road.

I wish this blog had a "Like" button!!!

+1,000,000

[infogoon]

First proposed by Barry Goldwater, enacted under Gerald Ford, and expanded by every Republican administration since.  Look it up.

Goldwater endorsed the idea of a guaranteed wage, as well. Offtopic, I know, but this sort of thing is a reminder of how far to the right politics have moved in this country in the last few decades. President Obama would have been a solid, perhaps right-leaning, Republican candidate in the mid-90s.

[rtrnow]

I tend to agree, but with the current lack of transparency in the pricing model this seems impossible. I have had a HDHP since it was first offered, but despite trying to price shop no one can really give you a straight price. Plus you lose the bargaining power of large plans.

That's precisely the type of smaller reform that we should focus on after ACA is scrapped down the road.

I guess it depends on the meaning of scrapped. My hope is that the things most everyone is in favor of (no pre-existing, no caps, kids to 26, etc) will be implemented during this presidency and that people will come to like/rely on them making them beyond repeal. I have no problem with fixing the act but don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater either.

[renbutler]

I guess it depends on the meaning of scrapped. My hope is that the things most everyone is in favor of (no pre-existing, no caps, kids to 26, etc) will be implemented during this presidency and that people will come to like/rely on them making them beyond repeal. I have no problem with fixing the act but don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater either.

If there's a way to dismantle it without scrapping the whole thing, I agree. However, it's probably not that simple, especially with such a massive implementation like this.

If we have to go back to the drawing board and start over, so be it. In that case, we can't be afraid to start over just because it's a daunting task, or because politicians will have bruised egos.

[rtrnow]

I guess it depends on the meaning of scrapped. My hope is that the things most everyone is in favor of (no pre-existing, no caps, kids to 26, etc) will be implemented during this presidency and that people will come to like/rely on them making them beyond repeal. I have no problem with fixing the act but don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater either.

If there's a way to dismantle it without scrapping the whole thing, I agree. However, it's probably not that simple, especially with such a massive implementation like this.

If we have to go back to the drawing board and start over, so be it. In that case, we can't be afraid to start over just because it's a daunting task, or because politicians will have bruised egos.

I could care less about politicians. I'm thinking of the millions who will have been able to newly acquire insurance. There must be a way to avoid resending that coverage. If that means passing another more simple bill first(not that congress ever passes a simple bill) then so be it. Otherwise scrapping the whole thing seems like an awful idea.

[Malloy]

PPACA is not going to be "scrapped down the road," any more than Medicare or Medicaid or Social Security will be.  The law has stood up against 40 failed votes for repeal, a mandate election, and a supreme court case.  The evidence is very much on the side of this thing sticking around. 

I also think that the thesis of this thread has an exclusivity problem.   Health care in general has been a sting over the last 20 years.  In fact, if you look at cost curves from before and after the bill, it looks like insurance costs are going down relative to before the passage of the bill.  Rate shock?  That happened before Obamacare as well and, again, it looks like the rates are starting to come down.  All problems with insurance and healthcare delivery cannot be laid at Obama's feet.  It was a deeply flawed system before PPACA, and it will continue to be flawed because PPACA was not designed to solve every problem in the healthcare economy.  It was designed to help the uninsured get insurance. It was also designed to keep expensive patients with chronic conditions from getting kicked off of insurance they already had.  Further, many of those that were financially punished under the old system were not irresponsible freeloaders, but people who were not able to purchase insurance for any price.  PPACA solves that problem, and for that I am grateful. 

Many people don't know that PPACA means that a 10 week premature baby who has 4 million dollars in medical expenses before leaving the hospital doesn't use up their entire lifetime medical coverage before celebrating a first Christmas.  It means that you can't get kicked off your private insurance when you actually need it because you forgot every detail of a doctor's appointment a decade ago and didn't list it on your application.  It means that hospitals are going to start getting paid for outcomes, rather than the perverse system in which they get paid more the more secondary infections you get while in their care.

It's not perfect, but it's a start.  And it's a hell of a lot better than what the other side was and is offering.  I'd be a lot more willing to listen to people who want to offer concrete fixes to what can be improved in this bill than those who want to scrap it and throw us back on the mercy of insurance companies and the way things were.

[sol]

Your tone makes it sound like you think I'm some uber-partisan hack, but that would make you incorrect.

I didn't mean to suggest you were a partisan hack.  I meant to suggest that there are solid conservative principles underlying the Earned Income Tax Credit.  So it surprises me when professed conservatives oppose it.

In the context of the 1960s cold war, America was trying to figure out how to increase our national standard of living to compete with a prospering communist Soviet Union.  Liberals supported helping the poor by giving them benefits like subsidized health care, housing vouchers, and government cheese.  Conservatives thought this kind of in-kind transfer of services was an infringement of personal freedoms, and that poor people should instead receive straight up cash to spend however they saw fit, but only if they were productive (aka employed and working) members of of society.  So Goldwater pitched the idea of the EIC as a way to incentivize the poor and unemployed to take crappy jobs and (partially) support themselves.  It was a pro-business form of welfare.

And it worked great.  Tons of poor people took crappy part time jobs with no benefits in order to get the EIC government handout.  Businesses saved big money on health care and pensions they didn't have to offer, and they could offer a lower wage to American workers who were suddenly being paid by Uncle Sam for being poor.  Conservatives rejoiced at having implemented a successful social policy.

With that history in mind, I'd be interested to hear why a modern conservative would oppose the EIC so vehemently.  It's a win for your philosophy!  Take it and celebrate!

In the interests of threat continuity, I should point out that the ACA individual mandate  was ALSO a conservative idea, pitched by an iconic conservative brain in response to a recognized problem.  Like the EIC, liberals had to admit it kind of made sense, so they went along with it.  Why aren't conservatives celebrating?

[footenote]

Your tone makes it sound like you think I'm some uber-partisan hack, but that would make you incorrect.

I didn't mean to suggest you were a partisan hack.  I meant to suggest that there are solid conservative principles underlying the Earned Income Tax Credit.  So it surprises me when professed conservatives oppose it.

In the context of the 1960s cold war, America was trying to figure out how to increase our national standard of living to compete with a prospering communist Soviet Union.  Liberals supported helping the poor by giving them benefits like subsidized health care, housing vouchers, and government cheese.  Conservatives thought this kind of in-kind transfer of services was an infringement of personal freedoms, and that poor people should instead receive straight up cash to spend however they saw fit, but only if they were productive (aka employed and working) members of of society.  So Goldwater pitched the idea of the EIC as a way to incentivize the poor and unemployed to take crappy jobs and (partially) support themselves.  It was a pro-business form of welfare.

And it worked great.  Tons of poor people took crappy part time jobs with no benefits in order to get the EIC government handout.  Businesses saved big money on health care and pensions they didn't have to offer, and they could offer a lower wage to American workers who were suddenly being paid by Uncle Sam for being poor.  Conservatives rejoiced at having implemented a successful social policy.

With that history in mind, I'd be interested to hear why a modern conservative would oppose the EIC so vehemently.  It's a win for your philosophy!  Take it and celebrate!

In the interests of threat continuity, I should point out that the ACA individual mandate  was ALSO a conservative idea, pitched by an iconic conservative brain in response to a recognized problem.  Like the EIC, liberals had to admit it kind of made sense, so they went along with it.  Why aren't conservatives celebrating?

+1 I cannot figure out why conservatives aren't happy about EIC and ACA, both of which strongly encourage individuals taking more responsibility for their lives.

[renbutler]

+1 I cannot figure out why conservatives aren't happy about EIC and ACA, both of which strongly encourage individuals taking more responsibility for their lives.

I just don't see it that way.

As soon as the government starts redistributing money, it's difficult to equate that to personal responsibility.

Of course, sometimes my libertarian streak trumps my conservative streak...

[Malloy]

Also, I'm amazed that even while simultaneously acknowledging many good things in the PPACA, there are people in this thread who conclude that it is terrible.

Isn't the fact that it has cap fixes, the pre-existing condition fixes, the 26 year olds on parents insurance fixes evidence that bill was actually a pretty good start and had good ideas?  I don't remember the republicans offering any bills that fixed those things.  Further, I feel pretty confident about speculating that a McCain/Palin administration wouldn't have made healthcare legislation a priority and, in that alternate universe, all of these problems would still be in place.

So, I don't see the politicians who are opponents of PPACA as hardworking legislators who also really wanted to fix the system but had different ideas. I see them as people who had no interest in changing the status quo, but who gain a lot of political steam by opposing anything that this president is in favor of.  My evidence for this is a feverish and splittling REPEAL movement that only proposes getting rid of PPACA without anywhere near the same energy for crafting a bill to replace it.

[MoneyCat]

Also, I'm amazed that even while simultaneously acknowledging many good things in the PPACA, there are people in this thread who conclude that it is terrible.

Isn't the fact that it has cap fixes, the pre-existing condition fixes, the 26 year olds on parents insurance fixes evidence that bill was actually a pretty good start and had good ideas?  I don't remember the republicans offering any bills that fixed those things.  Further, I feel pretty confident about speculating that a McCain/Palin administration wouldn't have made healthcare legislation a priority and, in that alternate universe, all of these problems would still be in place.

So, I don't see the politicians who are opponents of PPACA as hardworking legislators who also really wanted to fix the system but had different ideas. I see them as people who had no interest in changing the status quo, but who gain a lot of political steam by opposing anything that this president is in favor of.  My evidence for this is a feverish and splittling REPEAL movement that only proposes getting rid of PPACA without anywhere near the same energy for crafting a bill to replace it.

+1.  The left has never suggested that Obamacare is the cure-all the country needs, but the right has no ideas for something better and they are unwilling to negotiate anything.  They just want to destroy anything Obama does because they don't like him.  That's a very selfish attitude, especially when you have hundreds of millions of people counting on you to do your job.

Because of the stubborn attitudes on the right, no negotiation can take place, so we have to live with the flaws of this healthcare program.  That's just the way it's going to be.

[renbutler]

Also, I'm amazed that even while simultaneously acknowledging many good things in the PPACA, there are people in this thread who conclude that it is terrible.

Some of us think the negatives outweigh the positives, and that there's no reason the bill had to be enacted as it is currently written, just to include a few good things. We can still go back and enact the positives without all the negatives.

I don't remember the republicans offering any bills that fixed those things.  Further, I feel pretty confident about speculating that a McCain/Palin administration wouldn't have made healthcare legislation a priority and, in that alternate universe, all of these problems would still be in place.

So, I don't see the politicians who are opponents of PPACA as hardworking legislators who also really wanted to fix the system but had different ideas. I see them as people who had no interest in changing the status quo, but who gain a lot of political steam by opposing anything that this president is in favor of.  My evidence for this is a feverish and splittling REPEAL movement that only proposes getting rid of PPACA without anywhere near the same energy for crafting a bill to replace it.

Well now we're just playing politics. I say, leave that nonsense to Washington. Let's be people of ideas, not partisan bickering and blame.

[renbutler]

+1.  The left has never suggested that Obamacare is the cure-all the country needs, but the right has no ideas for something better and they are unwilling to negotiate anything.  They just want to destroy anything Obama does because they don't like him.  That's a very selfish attitude, especially when you have hundreds of millions of people counting on you to do your job.

Because of the stubborn attitudes on the right, no negotiation can take place, so we have to live with the flaws of this healthcare program.  That's just the way it's going to be.

And there are the political games again. This is why political discourse is so disgusting this day: too often it devolves into pointless shouting matches. "My side might suck, but your side sucks worse!"

Note that my criticisms have been of the bill itself, not the politicians and the games that created it. Let's be people of ideas, not cable-news-style shouting heads.

[footenote]

+1 I cannot figure out why conservatives aren't happy about EIC and ACA, both of which strongly encourage individuals taking more responsibility for their lives.

I just don't see it that way.

As soon as the government starts redistributing money, it's difficult to equate that to personal responsibility.

Of course, sometimes my libertarian streak trumps my conservative streak...

Do you see insurance as redistributing money?

[Undecided]

+1 I cannot figure out why conservatives aren't happy about EIC and ACA, both of which strongly encourage individuals taking more responsibility for their lives.

I just don't see it that way.

As soon as the government starts redistributing money, it's difficult to equate that to personal responsibility.

Of course, sometimes my libertarian streak trumps my conservative streak...

If it's about responsibility, while acting responsibly in response to an artificial incentive may not be the ideal, isn't it still better than not acting responsibly?

[renbutler]

Do you see insurance as redistributing money?

No, the subsidies for the insurance are the redistribution.

Speaking of the subsidies, this shouldn't have EVER been allowed to happen:

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/affordable-care-1-pay-hike-costs-middle-class-family-9355-hike-premiums (Don't shoot the messenger. You can try the calculator yourself if you don't believe it.)

When the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (AKA Obamacare) is fully enforced on individuals and families next year, a middle-aged, middle-class couple with three children could be hit with a $9,355 hike in their annual health-insurance premiums if their annual household income happens to increase by just $1. - See more at: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/affordable-care-1-pay-hike-costs-middle-class-family-9355-hike-premiums#sthash.VArT0Tck.dpuf

The details are in the article. So, yeah, Obamacare is going to sting A LOT for some people. And the raise doesn't have to be just $1 to achieve that undesired result. Any raise of less than $9355 for that hypothetical family will be confiscated immediately.

Even federal income tax is designed so that making a little more money won't actually end up costing you more than your gain. Unfortunately, the ACA was not an exercise in forethought...

[sol]

Speaking of the subsidies, this shouldn't have EVER been allowed to happen:

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/affordable-care-1-pay-hike-costs-middle-class-family-9355-hike-premiums (Don't shoot the messenger. You can try the calculator yourself if you don't believe it.)

If you're getting all of your information from a website called "The Conservative News Source" then I'm going to have to take back what I said earlier about not suggesting you're a partisan hack.

That article is bogus in so many ways I can't list them all.  The ACA subsidies have an income cutoff just like the Roth IRA has an income cutoff.  Do you also think the Roth IRA is costing American families $5500 in increased taxes if their income goes up $1 to be exactly over the income cutoff limit?

[Malloy]

Call me confused.  The subsidies/tax caps are redistribution and, thus, are bad and socialist.  However, for the above family who gets the subsidy taken away with a $1 raise, that's confiscation?  Can the government actually confiscate a socialist transfer in your world? I don't think you can have it both ways.

Now, speaking of this hypothetical family:


CNSNews.com put a hypothetical family of five through the Kaiser Family Foundation subsidy calculator. In this family, there were three children and a mom and a dad who were both 56 years old--and who did not smoke.


So, they make 110k a year and they lose their government subsidy/cap?  Eh.  I think that's OK.  They are still better off under PPACA.  Chances are a 56 year old couple with three kids all under 26 has someone in the family who would make them uninsurable at any price under the old system.  Mostly likely one or both of mom and dad have high blood pressure, heart disease, etc.  56 year olds are very expensive to insure, pre or post PPACA.  I suspect that's exactly why CNS chose this example instead of, say, 35 year olds with twin newborns who make 80k a year (spoiler alert: they save a lot of money under PPACA).  Indeed, those 35 year olds will someday be those 56 year olds, and they will save money while they have a lower income and pay more in as their income rises.  That's how it's supposed to work. 

Now, if your argument is that the cap should be phased out rather than dropping off to create incentives to increase income, I am on board.  However, I fail to see how that flaw in PPACA is a justification for scrapping the whole thing.

[randymarsh]

That article is bogus in so many ways I can't list them all.  The ACA subsidies have an income cutoff just like the Roth IRA has an income cutoff.  Do you also think the Roth IRA is costing American families $5500 in increased taxes if their income goes up $1 to be exactly over the income cutoff limit?

Isn't it possible for someone to make more money and while they won't lose money because of income taxes, couldn't losing the earned income tax credit "cost" them money?

It makes sense that someone could lose the subsidy because of an income increase....but aren't these the same subsidies you don't think people should be getting in the first place, renbutler? Then they'd be in basically the same position they were in before Obamacare. You don't like Obamacare and don't want subsidies. Then when people don't get subsidies, Obamacare is bad? What?

[renbutler]

If you're getting all of your information from a website called "The Conservative News Source" then I'm going to have to take back what I said earlier about not suggesting you're a partisan hack.

Getting all my information? Seriously? I found the link to it. I've never been to that web site before today. No, I don't expect you to believe me.

I guess you missed this part though: (Don't shoot the messenger. You can try the calculator yourself if you don't believe it.)

You're looking for a fight. Not my style.

That article is bogus in so many ways I can't list them all.  The ACA subsidies have an income cutoff just like the Roth IRA has an income cutoff.  Do you also think the Roth IRA is costing American families $5500 in increased taxes if their income goes up $1 to be exactly over the income cutoff limit?

Note the difference: Roths are voluntary; purchasing health insurance is no longer voluntary. The saver isn't losing his own money by not being able to participate in the Roth. However, he would be losing his own money by being forced into the health-care system.

[TrulyStashin]

Keep in mind that the only way supporters of health insurance reform could get the health insurance companies to the agree to all the "good" changes (no more caps or pre-existing conditions, no more higher rates for sick people, kids on insurance until 26, etc) was to promise them a new group of customers, delivered on a silver platter known as the individual mandate.

So, we couldn't have gotten all the good stuff without the part that everyone's bitching about.  Without cutting that deal, the insurers would have come out hard against the bill and it would have been DOA (see for example, the Clinton effort at reform in in mid-90's.  Love it or hate it, Clinton's plan failed b/c insurers killed it).

[randymarsh]

Can the government actually confiscate a socialist transfer in your world? I don't think you can have it both ways.

I suspect that's exactly why CNS chose this example instead of, say, 35 year olds with twin newborns who make 80k a year (spoiler alert: they save a lot of money under PPACA).  Indeed, those 35 year olds will someday be those 56 year olds, and they will save money while they have a lower income and pay more in as their income rises.  That's how it's supposed to work. 

+1

It's almost like that website was...cherry picking and engineering a situation to make the PPACA look bad for middle class families.

Also, they conveniently ignored the fact that this only affects those using the exchanges. People using the exchanges are expected to be somewhat lower income. A family of 5 earning 110K almost certainly has employer coverage available!

Oh and this gem:

It could be worse.

If the stress of paying an additional $8,966 for health insurance as a result of their $1 increase in income caused the mom and dad in this family to start smoking, insurance companies would be allowed to increase their premium as a penalty for their tobacco use.

But I keep hearing how conservatives love personal responsibility! Tobacco use causes higher health costs. Why does a non-smoker have to pay for your decision? Shouldn't you be penalized because you represent a greater risk?

And guys, that site is NOT funded by the government like NPR or PBS, so you KNOW it's a good source of information! Donate now please.

[renbutler]

Call me confused.  The subsidies/tax caps are redistribution and, thus, are bad and socialist.  However, for the above family who gets the subsidy taken away with a $1 raise, that's confiscation?  Can the government actually confiscate a socialist transfer in your world? I don't think you can have it both ways.

Yes, you are confused. I never said anything about socialism.

So, they make 110k a year and they lose their government subsidy/cap?  Eh.  I think that's OK. 

You're still confused. Not giving subsidies to people making that much isn't the issue. The problem is how making a higher gross income actually reduces in a net loss of money. That should never happen.

They are still better off under PPACA.  Chances are a 56 year old couple with three kids all under 26 has someone in the family who would make them uninsurable at any price under the old system.  Mostly likely one or both of mom and dad have high blood pressure, heart disease, etc.  56 year olds are very expensive to insure, pre or post PPACA. 

You state definitively that "they are still better," but your evidence is "chances are" and "most likely." Not convincing.

I suspect that's exactly why CNS chose this example instead of, say, 35 year olds with twin newborns who make 80k a year (spoiler alert: they save a lot of money under PPACA).   

They chose the example because there will be actual people who end up with a large net loss of money just for making a slightly higher gross income. It doesn't matter that some others will come out ahead. We know it. That doesn't make it fair to the first guy.

Now, if your argument is that the cap should be phased out rather than dropping off to create incentives to increase income, I am on board.  However, I fail to see how that flaw in PPACA is a justification for scrapping the whole thing.

The first sentence was indeed the argument. The last sentence was not.

[renbutler]

+1

It's almost like that website was...cherry picking and engineering a situation to make the PPACA look bad for middle class families.

It was a real-world example. Does the example bother you, or not?

Also, they conveniently ignored the fact that this only affects those using the exchanges. People using the exchanges are expected to be somewhat lower income. A family of 5 earning 110K almost certainly has employer coverage available!

Really? What if that person is self-employed?

But I keep hearing how conservatives love personal responsibility! Tobacco use causes higher health costs. Why does a non-smoker have to pay for your decision? Shouldn't you be penalized because you represent a greater risk?

And guys, that site is NOT funded by the government like NPR or PBS, so you KNOW it's a good source of information! Donate now please.

Sarcastic partisanship. You were doing better than that for a while.

So, does the problem discovered with the calculator bother you or not? You can say yes without anybody doing a touchdown dance over you, and without saying that you now hate Obamacare.

If the response is more sarcastic partisanship, I'm not interested.

[randymarsh]

It's an example that is possible on paper. But in the real world, practically all people at the income level have employer coverage so yes it's something that should be corrected (maybe a phase out?) but I'm not sure if a problem that will rarely affect anyone is a huge negative of the law.

The self employed as you mentioned may have issues. But I'm not sure they were better off before. Before they didn't get subsidies. Now they don't get subsidies. Before they couldn't get coverage if they had a condition. There's no difference other than now they have to buy insurance. I don't think "the freedom to be uninsured" is a great selling point or something I really want to fight for. Which I think they can if they make 110k. MMM is able to insure his family for $240 a month.

The steep drop off should be corrected but I don't know if it really bothers me. I think way more people will be helped by the subsidies than hurt. Some self employed individuals may have some higher expenses and I don't agree with that, but I don't think it outweighs the good. It's logical and moral. More people will be helped than hurt or penalized.

[renbutler]

It's an example that is possible on paper. But in the real world, practically all people at the income level have employer coverage so yes it's something that should be corrected (maybe a phase out?) but I'm not sure if a problem that will rarely affect anyone is a huge negative of the law.

Practically all? I don't really buy that. But even if it's just one person who is hurt, that's too many, IMO. Either way, this kind of thing could have been avoided easily with a little forethought.

The self employed as you mentioned may have issues. But I'm not sure they were better off before. Before they didn't get subsidies. Now they don't get subsidies. Before they couldn't get coverage if they had a condition. There's no difference other than now they have to buy insurance. I don't think "the freedom to be uninsured" is a great selling point or something I really want to fight for. Which I think they can if they make 110k. MMM is able to insure his family for $240 a month.

1.) "The freedom to be uninsured" is less of a selling point than "The freedom from being forced to buy anything you don't want." Particularly if it's this expensive.

2.) Again, I'm not worried about helping that $110k earner buy insurance. I agree that affordability isn't the issue. I'm worried about putting somebody in a situation where they won't take on work at the end of the year because it would actually cost them money to do it.

And theoretically, that might be true of lower earners, who bump up against the 100%, 200%, and 300% thresholds. I haven't run the calculator on that though.

The steep drop off should be corrected...

Thank you.

I think way more people will be helped by the subsidies than hurt. Some self employed individuals may have some higher expenses and I don't agree with that, but I don't think it outweighs the good. It's logical and moral. More people will be helped than hurt or penalized.

This goes back to my point about how government shouldn't be picking winners and losers. Helping people is great, but you simply can't dismiss the collateral damage to innocent people when you're doing it.

[Daleth]

Do you see insurance as redistributing money?

No, the subsidies for the insurance are the redistribution.

Speaking of the subsidies, this shouldn't have EVER been allowed to happen:

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/affordable-care-1-pay-hike-costs-middle-class-family-9355-hike-premiums (Don't shoot the messenger. You can try the calculator yourself if you don't believe it.)

When the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (AKA Obamacare) is fully enforced on individuals and families next year, a middle-aged, middle-class couple with three children could be hit with a $9,355 hike in their annual health-insurance premiums if their annual household income happens to increase by just $1. - See more at: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/affordable-care-1-pay-hike-costs-middle-class-family-9355-hike-premiums#sthash.VArT0Tck.dpuf

The details are in the article. So, yeah, Obamacare is going to sting A LOT for some people. And the raise doesn't have to be just $1 to achieve that undesired result. Any raise of less than $9355 for that hypothetical family will be confiscated immediately.

Even federal income tax is designed so that making a little more money won't actually end up costing you more than your gain. Unfortunately, the ACA was not an exercise in forethought...

Let's think about this for a second. That article you posted says that families earning more than 400% of the federal poverty limits will not get subsidies and thus will have to buy their post-Obamacare health insurance themselves, out of pocket, which is estimated to cost them $9355. Right? Let's think this through...

First, the average cost for health insurance for a family of four right now, pre-Obamacare mandate, is just over $22,000 a year, of which $9144 is paid by the employee.
Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/danmunro/2013/05/22/annual-healthcare-costs-surpasses-22000/

So geez, that $9355 is not looking too bad at all: for only $211 more per year, they get much better insurance than they had pre-Obamacare (no lifetime caps, no excluding preexisting conditions, free preventative care that wasn't free before, etc.)! And actually, it's probably not even $211 more per year, since the average cost Forbes Magazine was talking about was for a family of four, whereas your article was talking about a family of five.

But let's go through the whole supposed "problem" as laid out in your article:
For 2013 (it'll go up a bit for 2014, the year most the Obamacare mandate comes into effect), 400% of the federal poverty levels is:
- $110,280 for a family of 5 in the lower 48. I'm using "family of 5" because that's what the story you linked to was saying: families of 2 parents and 3 kids.
- $137,880 in Alaska; $126,840 in Hawaii.
Source: http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/13poverty.cfm

Now, only about 10% of American households make that much money (you can find that info all over the web but here's a quick source: http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States). So for 90% of the country, that "OMG $9355" scaremongering that you posted is not even POSSIBLE, because 90% of households will qualify for subsidies.

So, looking at families with incomes over $110,280, what does YOUR ARTICLE say could happen to them under Obamacare? It says... they will likely have to pay $9355 out of their own pockets, instead of paying $9144! And in exchange, they'll get much better insurance!

Oh, the horror!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[renbutler]

You're still missing the point. The example in the article is not a comparison to the way things used to be. It's a comparison between two families on the new system -- one that makes $x, and one that makes $x + 1.

The former comes out way ahead of the latter, and there's no reason anybody can come up with to excuse that.

So, thanks for spending so much time devising and writing the analysis, but it doesn't actually address the issue brought up in the article. It was a completely separate (and, at the end, needlessly dramatic and sarcastic) attempt to try to sell Obamacare.

[Daleth]

You're still missing the point. The example in the article is not a comparison to the way things used to be. It's a comparison between two families on the new system -- one that makes $x, and one that makes $x + 1.

The former comes out way ahead of the latter, and there's no reason anybody can come up with to excuse that.

So, thanks for spending so much time devising and writing the analysis, but it doesn't actually address the issue brought up in the article. It was a completely separate (and, at the end, needlessly dramatic and sarcastic) attempt to try to sell Obamacare.

So you're saying you're against Obamacare because it isn't perfect, even though it IS objectively BETTER than what we have now? We would never make any progress in this world if we insisted that the next step be not merely better, but perfect.

[Freedom2016]

I like Obamacare for the fact that it generates some competition in the marketplace. I admit I have a unique situation, in that I'm effectively self-employed (partner in a small firm; K-1 income), but we do have HC available through work. It's expensive, though. I like the fact that I can shop/buy HC through an exchange and not be forced to participate in my work-based one. I live in MA so this is exactly what I did 4 years ago, and I saved hundreds in monthly premium costs for a comparable policy.

[Daleth]

I like Obamacare for the fact that it generates some competition in the marketplace. I admit I have a unique situation, in that I'm effectively self-employed (partner in a small firm; K-1 income), but we do have HC available through work. It's expensive, though. I like the fact that I can shop/buy HC through an exchange and not be forced to participate in my work-based one. I live in MA so this is exactly what I did 4 years ago, and I saved hundreds in monthly premium costs for a comparable policy.

Glad to hear it from someone with experience in this. I agree, with Obamacare it's a whole new day for self-employed people. It will make it so much easier to be self-employed, because you won't have the insurance problem hanging over your head--instead of just one or two pretty unsatisfactory options (or even zero options, as happened to my mom when she started her business), there will be insurers competing for you.

[Malloy]

You're still missing the point. The example in the article is not a comparison to the way things used to be. It's a comparison between two families on the new system -- one that makes $x, and one that makes $x + 1.

The former comes out way ahead of the latter, and there's no reason anybody can come up with to excuse that.

So, thanks for spending so much time devising and writing the analysis, but it doesn't actually address the issue brought up in the article. It was a completely separate (and, at the end, needlessly dramatic and sarcastic) attempt to try to sell Obamacare.

A hypothetical family of five pays more when their income goes up by a dollar? If that is actually your argument, you win and the hypothetical family loses.  But it's not some big victory to get me to admit that, because, like many people, I agree that some parts of the law can be improved. 

But it seems like your line of arguments in this thread is that bill needs to be scrapped over such imperfections even though it has many positives.  You yourself stated such upthread that it should be scrapped.  And, as evidence, you've been picking at the margins over income incentives and their relationship to subsidies.  For me, the many positives in the bill outweigh the negatives.  Further, even for your hypothetical family, I'd argue that they still win rather than lose because of the added security of having insurance available regardless of pre-existing conditions, the ability to keep their three kids on their insurance longer, etc.

Some people win and lose under government incentives.  Here, we define loss as a monetary tax subsidy loss.  I, for example, lose tax incentives every year that I don't purchase energy efficient windows.  By not making this tax subsidy available to me when I don't purchase such a product, you could say that the government is "forcing" me to buy such products as much as the government is "forcing" people to buy insurance.  If you don't want to buy it, pay the fine, just like I pay a higher tax bill for not buying those windows. PPACA provides a release valve for those whose freedom is unacceptably curtailed by having to be insured.  Heck, if I could pay $700 yearly to opt out of email and internet surveillance or to have my tax dollars not go to wars I don't support but instead go to the national park service, that would seem like a libertarian bargain. 

[MoneyCat]

+1.  The left has never suggested that Obamacare is the cure-all the country needs, but the right has no ideas for something better and they are unwilling to negotiate anything.  They just want to destroy anything Obama does because they don't like him.  That's a very selfish attitude, especially when you have hundreds of millions of people counting on you to do your job.

Because of the stubborn attitudes on the right, no negotiation can take place, so we have to live with the flaws of this healthcare program.  That's just the way it's going to be.

And there are the political games again. This is why political discourse is so disgusting this day: too often it devolves into pointless shouting matches. "My side might suck, but your side sucks worse!"

Note that my criticisms have been of the bill itself, not the politicians and the games that created it. Let's be people of ideas, not cable-news-style shouting heads.

Well, what alternatives have the right offered?  I haven't heard any suggestions from them.  This isn't a pointless political shouting match.  I'm just reflecting on political reality.  The GOP is bringing absolutely nothing to the table when it comes to healthcare.  And reverting to our old system isn't going to cut it because we had tens of millions of Americans who were priced out of insurance and everybody else had to pay for their emergency room visits.

[ny.er]

You're still missing the point. The example in the article is not a comparison to the way things used to be. It's a comparison between two families on the new system -- one that makes $x, and one that makes $x + 1.

The former comes out way ahead of the latter, and there's no reason anybody can come up with to excuse that.

So, thanks for spending so much time devising and writing the analysis, but it doesn't actually address the issue brought up in the article. It was a completely separate (and, at the end, needlessly dramatic and sarcastic) attempt to try to sell Obamacare.

So you're saying you're against Obamacare because it isn't perfect, even though it IS objectively BETTER than what we have now? We would never make any progress in this world if we insisted that the next step be not merely better, but perfect.

+1.

[randymarsh]

Any policy the government pursues is going to have winners and losers. There's a public interest in having a healthy society that I believe outweighs any possible problem of government picking winners and losers. In this case, they're not even really picking. Things are just getting shifted. Self-employed people who right now take the risk of not having health insurance even when they can afford it (and drive my costs up when they need emergency care...) could possibly become losers. But millions of other Americans will become winners and that's a trade off I'm willing to accept.

[ny.er]

+1.  The left has never suggested that Obamacare is the cure-all the country needs, but the right has no ideas for something better and they are unwilling to negotiate anything.  They just want to destroy anything Obama does because they don't like him.  That's a very selfish attitude, especially when you have hundreds of millions of people counting on you to do your job.

Because of the stubborn attitudes on the right, no negotiation can take place, so we have to live with the flaws of this healthcare program.  That's just the way it's going to be.

And there are the political games again. This is why political discourse is so disgusting this day: too often it devolves into pointless shouting matches. "My side might suck, but your side sucks worse!"

Note that my criticisms have been of the bill itself, not the politicians and the games that created it. Let's be people of ideas, not cable-news-style shouting heads.

Well, what alternatives have the right offered?  I haven't heard any suggestions from them.  This isn't a pointless political shouting match.  I'm just reflecting on political reality.  The GOP is bringing absolutely nothing to the table when it comes to healthcare.  And reverting to our old system isn't going to cut it because we had tens of millions of Americans who were priced out of insurance and everybody else had to pay for their emergency room visits.

+1. There was a time when I voted Republican, if I liked the candidate. I'm not really on any "side." Recently the Republican party seems to be dominated by naysayers, without anything useful to offer. Therefore, on this issue, I'm rooting for the side that is giving healthcare reform a go.

[Daleth]

Any policy the government pursues is going to have winners and losers. There's a public interest in having a healthy society that I believe outweighs any possible problem of government picking winners and losers. In this case, they're not even really picking. Things are just getting shifted. Self-employed people who right now take the risk of not having health insurance even when they can afford it (and drive my costs up when they need emergency care...) could possibly become losers. But millions of other Americans will become winners and that's a trade off I'm willing to accept.

I think self-employed people are actually going to have a much better time of it, because they'll have a bunch of plans from competing companies to pick from on their state's exchange--plans that weren't available at all before, and that are cheaper than they might otherwise be because of the mandate.

But yeah, there are always some who come out better and some who come out worse with any government policy (or work policy, or school policy, or bank policy... any POLICY at all, let's just say). You've just got to weigh the pros and cons, and with Obamacare the pros vastly outweigh the cons.

I can't believe the GOP keeps wasting our tax dollars by spending time "repealing" Obamacare. They've held, what, 40 votes on repealing Obamacare?!?! It's insane.

[renbutler]

So you're saying you're against Obamacare because it isn't perfect, even though it IS objectively BETTER than what we have now? We would never make any progress in this world if we insisted that the next step be not merely better, but perfect.

I reject the "it IS objectively BETTER than what we have now" portion.

Or, perhaps more accurately, I believe that even if a few things are better than what we have now, there were ways to craft MUCH better legislation than what we ended up with.

And, no, I don't exonerate any party in the failure to do so.

[renbutler]

Well, what alternatives have the right offered?  I haven't heard any suggestions from them.  This isn't a pointless political shouting match.  I'm just reflecting on political reality.  The GOP is bringing absolutely nothing to the table when it comes to healthcare.  And reverting to our old system isn't going to cut it because we had tens of millions of Americans who were priced out of insurance and everybody else had to pay for their emergency room visits.

There HAVE been suggestions, and some of them are good. If you are watching national network or cable news, you're not going to hear them.

But it's not my goal to defend any party. They both botched the entire process.

I just don't see the point in going back and blaming people for the failure. It's been done. We have what we have, and we're going to have to deal with the many negatives along with the few positives.

[renbutler]

Any policy the government pursues is going to have winners and losers.

Well, not all of them, really. For example, borders are defended for all citizens, not just some of them. (No, I'm not saying that all defense spending or legislation has been exactly what's needed. I'm just saying that it doesn't pick winners and losers among Americans.)

There's a public interest in having a healthy society...

Okay. But I've already shared some ways in which they could have done that without picking winners and losers.

In this case, they're not even really picking. Things are just getting shifted.

I don't see the difference.

But millions of other Americans will become winners and that's a trade off I'm willing to accept.

Okay, you're free to accept that. It's not a necessity that you see it my way. But I'm going to continue to disagree, and I feel like I have good reasons to do so.

[renbutler]

I can't believe the GOP keeps wasting our tax dollars by spending time "repealing" Obamacare. They've held, what, 40 votes on repealing Obamacare?!?! It's insane.

Although I'm not a Republican, nor am I here to defend them, if you look at just about any poll, they're just doing what the people want in terms of the ACA. You guys need to understand that you are actually in the minority in your approval of the act. And it's not just because people are uneducated about it; in fact, the more that comes out, the worse the polls seem to get.

And there are some Democrats who are terrified of what the legislation is going to do for their chances (much as it did back in 2010). So there's no telling whether the next attempt won't be successful.

[randymarsh]

You guys need to understand that you are actually in the minority in your approval of the act. And it's not just because people are uneducated about it; in fact, the more that comes out, the worse the polls seem to get.

I wonder if those polls have anything to do with an intense smear campaign the right has been running. From the start, they've been telling Americans how Obamacare is scary socialism and is practically going to ruin their lives and everyone is going to be unemployed because of this law.

According to a June Gallup poll:

Whether people were insured or not was also key.

While 54 percent of those who already have health coverage rejected the overhaul, just as many of those without insurance said they supported it, according to the telephone poll, which has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

People don't like change in general. People who already have health insurance from employers are comfortable with the situation and any change makes them somewhat concerned.

Numerous polls have also shown that how the question is phrased plays a huge role in approval. If you ask people if they approve of Obamacare, they don't like it. When you start listing each part of it, suddenly approval shifts. People overall like what the law does.

[footenote]

You guys need to understand that you are actually in the minority in your approval of the act. And it's not just because people are uneducated about it; in fact, the more that comes out, the worse the polls seem to get.

I wonder if those polls have anything to do with an intense smear campaign the right has been running. From the start, they've been telling Americans how Obamacare is scary socialism and is practically going to ruin their lives and everyone is going to be unemployed because of this law.

According to a June Gallup poll:

Whether people were insured or not was also key.

While 54 percent of those who already have health coverage rejected the overhaul, just as many of those without insurance said they supported it, according to the telephone poll, which has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

People don't like change in general. People who already have health insurance from employers are comfortable with the situation and any change makes them somewhat concerned.

Numerous polls have also shown that how the question is phrased plays a huge role in approval. If you ask people if they approve of Obamacare, they don't like it. When you start listing each part of it, suddenly approval shifts. People overall like what the law does.

+1

[wepner]

I can't believe the GOP keeps wasting our tax dollars by spending time "repealing" Obamacare. They've held, what, 40 votes on repealing Obamacare?!?! It's insane.

Although I'm not a Republican, nor am I here to defend them, if you look at just about any poll, they're just doing what the people want in terms of the ACA. You guys need to understand that you are actually in the minority in your approval of the act. And it's not just because people are uneducated about it; in fact, the more that comes out, the worse the polls seem to get.

And there are some Democrats who are terrified of what the legislation is going to do for their chances (much as it did back in 2010). So there's no telling whether the next attempt won't be successful.

So if one of the parties brought up 40 pointless votes on legalizing marijuana or making same sex marriage legal in all 50 states you wouldn't complain because they are doing "what the people want?" I doubt this quite a bit...

Also Obamacare was at its least popular right after it passed. Show me any recent poll that shows Obamacare is less liked now than it was in early 2010.

[beltim]

Also Obamacare was at its least popular right after it passed. Show me any recent poll that shows Obamacare is less liked now than it was in early 2010.

This is objectively false.  Here's the second link from a Google search, showing that only 37% of Americans have a favorable opinion of it, compared to 46% in April 2010.
http://kff.org/health-reform/poll-finding/march-2013-tracking-poll/

[beltim]

Also Obamacare was at its least popular right after it passed. Show me any recent poll that shows Obamacare is less liked now than it was in early 2010.

This is objectively false.  Here's the second link from a Google search, showing that only 37% of Americans have a favorable opinion of it, compared to 46% in April 2010.

Here's another one, showing that 35% of Americans have a favorable opinion of the Affordable Care Act, compared to 41% in May 2010.  The peak popularity was 50% in July 2010.

edit: Here's the link: http://www.pollingreport.com/health.htm

[beltim]

Also Obamacare was at its least popular right after it passed. Show me any recent poll that shows Obamacare is less liked now than it was in early 2010.

This is objectively false.  Here's the second link from a Google search, showing that only 37% of Americans have a favorable opinion of it, compared to 46% in April 2010.

Here's a third: CBS polls showed 42% approval just after passage of the Affordable Care Act in March 2010.  http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/03/24/politics/main6328286.shtml
The last CBS poll shows 36% approval.  http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505267_162-57595225/cbs-news-poll-finds-more-americans-than-ever-want-obamacare-repealed/

Here's another one, showing that 35% of Americans have a favorable opinion of the Affordable Care Act, compared to 41% in May 2010.  The peak popularity was 50% in July 2010.

edit: Here's the link: http://www.pollingreport.com/health.htm

[renbutler]

So if one of the parties brought up 40 pointless votes on legalizing marijuana or making same sex marriage legal in all 50 states you wouldn't complain because they are doing "what the people want?" I doubt this quite a bit...

Why don't you just let me answer without expressing your doubt?

I think they should bring up whatever legislation they want, within the bounds of the rules of Congress. I'm not into restricting legal behaviors of others.