Debates
24 Oct 13
25 Oct 13
Originally posted by utherpendragonDefinitely split. Per Gallup, Americans' approval of the Affordable Care Act rose to 45% in October from 41% in August.
the latest gullup poll you cite shows that aca is still un-"popular" (to use your word) with the majority of americans. and that shows a "slow steady increase" , as well.
"Approval of Affordable Care Act Inches Up"
http://www.gallup.com/poll/165548/approval-affordable-care-act-inches.aspx?utm_source=google&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=syndication
25 Oct 13
Originally posted by moon1969the slight tick up is mostly among democrats your poll cites.
Definitely split. Per Gallup, Americans' approval of the Affordable Care Act rose to 45% in October from 41% in August.
"Approval of Affordable Care Act Inches Up"
http://www.gallup.com/poll/165548/approval-affordable-care-act-inches.aspx?utm_source=google&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=syndication
disapproval rose to 50% however
25 Oct 13
3 edits
Originally posted by utherpendragonTrue. The disapproval rose from 49% to 50%, while approval rose from 41% to 45%. And as Gallup notes, the approval/disapproval split is primarily along party lines.
the slight tick up is mostly among democrats your poll cites.
disapproval rose to 50% however
Interesting that there was a slight increase in approval from August to October, after the government shutdown and the problems with the federal exchange website.
Hopefully, the House Republicans in their current oversight hearings will help to improve the ACA and thus increase its popularity.
25 Oct 13
Originally posted by moon1969From the same poll you cite :
True. The disapproval rose from 49% to 50%, while approval rose from 41% to 45%. And as Gallup notes, the approval/disapproval split is primarily along party lines.
Interesting that there was a slight increase in approval from August to October, after the government shutdown and the problems with the federal exchange website.
Hopefully, the House Re ...[text shortened]... their current oversight hearings will help to improve the ACA and thus increase its popularity.
Implications
Americans' attitudes about the Affordable Care Act remain more negative than positive, although slightly less so than in August, prior to the government shutdown.
Gallup measured these most recent views as the technical problems with the health insurance exchange website garnered increased media attention. This suggests that the poor performance of the health exchange sites may not at this point be negatively affecting Americans' views of the ACA overall.
The law remains one of the most polarizing issues Gallup has measured, with more than eight in 10 Democrats approving, while more than eight in 10 Republicans disapprove.
25 Oct 13
Originally posted by utherpendragon[/b]Yep. That is exactly my perception. The approval/disapproval is fairly equally split and more about party lines than anything.
From the same poll you cite :
[b]Implications
Americans' attitudes about the Affordable Care Act remain more negative than positive, although slightly less so than in August, prior to the government shutdown.
Gallup measured these most recent views as the technical problems with the health insurance exchange website garnered incr ...[text shortened]... han eight in 10 Democrats approving, while more than eight in 10 Republicans disapprove.
I still think it interesting, that the approval did not drop after the website problems and after the GOP recent push to defund/delay the ACA.
25 Oct 13
From my understanding the computer "glitch" is not just technical. Whey you get on there they have in the small print that the cost for health care they provide are "estimates". Then those at say age 50 and older are given an "estimate". The problem is that the estimate is based upon a 50 year old and anyone above 50 will be given a false low price. Then if you do read the fine print and realize the prices are estimates they try to convince people that the majority of prices they provide will actually be lower than they will pay.
This is what you call fraud, not a glitch. And lets face it, the majority of people trying to access this site are low income and low education types. They are ripe for the picking.
25 Oct 13
Originally posted by whodeyThey tried to recruit McAfee to save their butts and figure out the programming for Obamacare. He told them to get rid of it. He does not believe they will be able to fix the codes. This was about the same time Obama said the roll out of the program " exceeded expectations".
From my understanding the computer "glitch" is not just technical. Whey you get on there they have in the small print that the cost for health care they provide are "estimates". Then those at say age 50 and older are given an "estimate". The problem is that the estimate is based upon a 50 year old and anyone above 50 will be given a false low price. Then ...[text shortened]... ying to access this site are low income and low education types. They are ripe for the picking.
25 Oct 13
Originally posted by joe beyserIt was the House Republicans who ask to talk to Mcafee. That guy is a nutcase. A paranoid drug addict. Makes the House Republicans look stupid.
They tried to recruit McAfee to save their butts and figure out the programming for Obamacare. He told them to get rid of it. He does not believe they will be able to fix the codes. This was about the same time Obama said the roll out of the program " exceeded expectations".
25 Oct 13
Originally posted by whodeyTo be sure, by the March 31, 2014 deadline when millions of Americans are enrolled and paying premiums, it will be clear what the premiums are.
From my understanding the computer "glitch" is not just technical. Whey you get on there they have in the small print that the cost for health care they provide are "estimates". Then those at say age 50 and older are given an "estimate". The problem is that the estimate is based upon a 50 year old and anyone above 50 will be given a false low price. Then ...[text shortened]... ying to access this site are low income and low education types. They are ripe for the picking.
25 Oct 13
Originally posted by moon1969You are aware that everyone agrees that the basic premise of Obamacareis that young, healthy people will sign up for care they don't need, subsidizing the costs for older, sick people?
To be sure, by the March 31, 2014 deadline when millions of Americans are enrolled and paying premiums, it will be clear what the premiums are.
25 Oct 13
5 edits
Originally posted by sasquatch672It just like with current employer group plans where all employees pay the same premium, with young healthy employees subsidizing old sick employees.
You are aware that everyone agrees that the basic premise of Obamacareis that young, healthy people will sign up for care they don't need, subsidizing the costs for older, sick people?
As for preexisting conditions, because the employee signs up at their hire date or during the enrollment period, preexisting conditions are not used against the employee.
That sick employee with the preexisting condition in current employer group plans pays the same premium as the young healthy employee. Again, the young healthy employee subsidizes the sick employee with the preexisting condition.
25 Oct 13
Originally posted by sasquatch672To be sure, currently, the insurance companies increase the premiums for all (including young and healthy) in the employer group plans having older and/or sick employees.
You are aware that everyone agrees that the basic premise of Obamacareis that young, healthy people will sign up for care they don't need, subsidizing the costs for older, sick people?
If you have been involved in owning or managing a small business, you know this. A couple of really sick employees with massive medical costs can really drive up medical insurance costs for the small business employer group plan.
This subsidization is the basic premise of employer group insurance plans which is the vast majority of private insurance in the US.
The ACA more efficiently and better spreads the risk. Further, the ACA continues to use private insurance and extends the group plan approach to all.
25 Oct 13
Originally posted by moon1969Big difference...Obama wants young people to buy something they don't need. Especially with the guarantee of coverage with preexisting conditions, why would young, healthy people with not a whole lot of income buy something they don't need? They can just buy it when they get sick. Or when they break a leg. Why buy it before they have to? To do their patriotic duty?
It just like with current employer group plans where all employees pay the same premium, with young healthy employees subsidizing old sick employees.
As for preexisting conditions, because the employee signs up at their hire date or during the enrollment period, preexisting conditions are not used against the employee. That sick employee with the preex ...[text shortened]... Again, the young healthy employee subsidizes the sick employee with the preexisting condition.
25 Oct 13
1 edit
Originally posted by sasquatch672In current employer plans, the employee now often has to pay for at least a portion of their premium and commonly all of the premium for their spouse or kids.
You are aware that everyone agrees that the basic premise of Obamacareis that young, healthy people will sign up for care they don't need, subsidizing the costs for older, sick people?
In the case of young healthy employees, they pay for insurance they don't use. They subsidize the older sick employees.
The purpose of medical insurance for younger healthy employees is generally more about getting free preventative care and help with catastrophic care.
Yet to be sure, currently millions of young healthy employees pay a higher premium rate to subsidize older sick employees.
25 Oct 13
Originally posted by sasquatch672Why do young healthy employees pay premiums for insurance in their employer group insurance plans? Insurance is rarely fully subsidized any more by the employer.
Big difference...Obama wants young people to buy something they don't need. Especially with the guarantee of coverage with preexisting conditions, why would young, healthy people with not a whole lot of income buy something they don't need? They can just buy it when they get sick. Or when they break a leg. Why buy it before they have to? To do their patriotic duty?