WaPo: "Suddenly, Obamacare Is More Unpopular Than Ever"

[Never]

Citing polling from the Kaiser Family Foundation, the Washington Post points out that Obamacare has reached a record level of unpopularity.



Commentary from Kaiser indicates that there is no conclusive reason why Obamacare's negatives spiked this month. Based on that, should we chalk this poll up as a blip, or take its findings seriously?

[IceSpear]

It looks like from the trendlines that Kaiser always showed Obamacare as more popular than the other pollsters did, and this recent one is more in line with the others.

[7,052,770]

You have to give credit where credit's due to the Republican Lie Machine. The Democrats could never pull a con like this off.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

You have to give credit where credit's due to the Republican Lie Machine. The Democrats could never pull a con like this off.

Democrats have no idea how to oppose. They bent over backwards to help fix Medicare Part D.

[memphis]

You have to give credit where credit's due to the Republican Lie Machine. The Democrats could never pull a con like this off.

It would be nice if the Democrats would make the effort to defend it. The Dems never want to play the silly political games. Sometimes, it's needed.

[angus]

I'm a little surprised.  It made sense to oppose it while it was being written, and even up through 2012 when we had a chance of electing a president and congress who would reverse it, but we're stuck with it now.  Maybe folks are still hoping to undo it in the next congress with a new president.  I just don't think it's possible because it has become too entrenched and too lobby-worthy over the past two years.  Big Pharma CEOs love the benefit to their industry and medical insurers have a captive new audience.  We might be able to tweak it, I really think we're stuck with it.  Might as well learn, if not to like it, at least be "neutral/don't know/don't care" about it. 

[Mechaman]

You have to give credit where credit's due to the Republican Lie Machine. The Democrats could never pull a con like this off.

We also have to give credit where credit is due to the Wall Street branch of the Democratic Party.  Joe Liebermann caused more harm to the possibility of a public option than John McCain or John Boehner did.

[Brittain33]

I'm a little surprised.  It made sense to oppose it while it was being written, and even up through 2012 when we had a chance of electing a president and congress who would reverse it, but we're stuck with it now.  Maybe folks are still hoping to undo it in the next congress with a new president.  I just don't think it's possible because it has become too entrenched and too lobby-worthy over the past two years.  Big Pharma CEOs love the benefit to their industry and medical insurers have a captive new audience.  We might be able to tweak it, I really think we're stuck with it.  Might as well learn, if not to like it, at least be "neutral/don't know/don't care" about it.  

Also, it's provided meaningful health insurance and coverage to upwards of 10 million Americans, and more in the future.

Most people benefiting directly from it are part of a minority with little political power--the poor, the underemployed, those under 26--and the striking benefits to them will not reach enough people to make up a majority in an opinion poll.

[7,052,770]

The problem is that people are seeing their rate increases/benefit reductions, which have been demonstrated to be lower on average this year than in pre-ACA years, and blaming it entirely on Obamacare.

Secondly, people don't grasp that, at least in individual health insurance, each age has a different rate. Therefore, if there's a rate hold, each individual gets a higher rate the next year because they're a year older. The only way an individual will see their rate stay the say is if the overall rates go down. This makes rate increases look worse to the individual. I wish insurance companies would do a better job of publicizing this fact.

[AggregateDemand]

It's a bad bill. It's primary focus is shifting money around between the demographics, not providing world-class affordable care. People are starting to take notice.

The only people who support ACA are those who believe it's something other than what it actually is.

[memphis]

It's a bad bill. It's primary focus is shifting money around between the demographics, not providing world-class affordable care. People are starting to take notice.

The only people who support ACA are those who believe it's something other than what it actually is.

Whatever your opinions, the ACA is a law, not a bill. The right has so much trouble adapting to reality.

[angus]

The only people who support ACA are those who believe it's something other than what it actually is.

I can't escape that conclusion either. 

Still, I think we're stuck with it for the foreseeable future, so I've gone from negative to neutral as a practical matter.  Serenity to accept the things I cannot change, and all that.

[7,052,770]

You could just as accurately argue "The only people who oppose ACA are those who believe it's something other than what it actually is."

It's not a government takeover of health care, it's not death panels, it's not causing millions of people to lose their insurance, it's not responsible for the all of the rate increases people are seeing, it's not remotely Socialist or Communist, it's not "literally killing people," it's not forcing Catholics to take buy control, etc., etc., etc.

[Joe Republic]

Of course, poll people on the individual elements of it rather than the whole thing (or worse, with its boogeyman moniker), and it remains generally very popular indeed.

[AggregateDemand]

You could just as accurately argue "The only people who oppose ACA are those who believe it's something other than what it actually is."

It's not a government takeover of health care, it's not death panels, it's not causing millions of people to lose their insurance, it's not responsible for the all of the rate increases people are seeing, it's not remotely Socialist or Communist, it's not "literally killing people," it's not forcing Catholics to take buy control, etc., etc., etc.

It doesn't have "death panels"......anymore. It did cause millions to lose their health insurance when private insurers dumped people into the government system. Covering people with pre-existing conditions, expanding coverage to non-insurable services, and forcing various demographics to subsidize care for other demographics is the cause of rate increases. ACA is obviously socialistic in nature, though it doesn't impose single-payer or nationalized healthcare. ACA is forcing employers to buy birth control services, regardless of the owner's religious convictions; however, the Hobby Lobby ruling allows religious exemptions for certain kinds of birth control procedures and medication.

You like ACA because you don't know what it is.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

The premiums on my parents' insurance went up this year, like they do ever year. They blame it squarely on ObamaCare. My father's getting a procedure done in a week, and has no idea what it will cost him yet. But, of course, he is already complaining about how ObamaCare has made it "too expensive."

U.S. insurance plans are too complex for the average American to understand.

[angus]

it's not remotely Socialist or Communist

Agreed.  It's rather the opposite, in fact:  it will funnel trillions of dollars over the coming decade from the people to a few large corporations.  In large part, this is because it focuses on medical insurance, rather than on the underlying causes of medical costs.  Our premium has increased over the past few years, but only slightly and I'm not certain of the relation of the PPACA to those increases.  Still, it is clear that medical costs are not decreasing.  Nor are they projected to decrease.  Estimates are all over the place but it is clear that the percent of GDP in "health care" costs will continue to increase for the foreseeable future.  Some of this is due to an aging population.  Some is due to factors already in place before the PPACA.  Some of it is do to the PPACA itself.

[7,052,770]

It doesn't have "death panels"......anymore.

It never had death panels and there has not been a change that could be spun as "removing them."

It did cause millions to lose their health insurance when private insurers dumped people into the government system.

People who had "insurance" that covered a couple doctor visits a year with 5-digit deductibles and no drugs didn't have health insurance at all. For whatever reason, people are extremely short-sighted and go for whatever they can find with the lowest premiums, not the lowest expected combined costs out of pocket. Thankfully, the ACA has stepped in and made sure that people's insurance caps out-of-pocket spending at $6350 (will rise yearly with inflation).

Oh, and stupidly, Obama allowed such "insurance" to be renewed through 2016 anyway, so the "cancellations" aren't really an issue yet except for people who live in a few Democratic states that overruled Obama on this.

Covering people with pre-existing conditions, expanding coverage to non-insurable services, and forcing various demographics to subsidize care for other demographics is the cause of rate increases.

Everyone's rate didn't increase. The younger and healthier you are, or if you're male, the more likely it is that your premium rate went up, but even then it most likely included more robust benefits.

People who are female, older, or most importantly, have pre-existing conditions, may have seen their rate go down, or they may have been finally allowed to purchase insurance.

Yes, the overall average rate had to go up because 10s of millions of the most "expensive" people were immorally locked out of the system. There's really no way around this other than to say shame on our society for locking those people out for so long. However, by mandating full coverage on screenings and preventive services and putting in programs like Risk Adjustment that encourage insurers to get all of their members in for preventive checkups, the ACA over the years will cut down on the preventible costs.

ACA is obviously socialistic in nature, though it doesn't impose single-payer or nationalized healthcare.

What? You're just going to say a capitalistic program is "obviously socialistic" because even you know that's indefensible? Regulation is not the same thing as socialism.

ACA is forcing employers to buy birth control services, regardless of the owner's religious convictions; however, the Hobby Lobby ruling allows religious exemptions for certain kinds of birth control procedures and medication.

Yet again, paying part of someone's insurance bill is not the same thing as paying for what that insurance covers. Funny how no one cares about Jehovah's Witnesses being "forced" to pay for blood transfusions or Christian Scientists being "forced" to pay for any kind of medical treatment. No, the only reason the Right gets fired up about birth control is because they don't think women should be having sex unless it's specifically to get pregnant.

You like ACA because you don't know what it is.

Oh right...

[Beet]

The Kaiser poll has always been a bit strange. They showed it was popular when other polls showed it in the pits, whereas now they're showing it plumbing new depths while other polls show no change (that I know of).

[Brittain33]

it's not remotely Socialist or Communist

Agreed.  It's rather the opposite, in fact:  it will funnel trillions of dollars over the coming decade from the people to a few large corporations.  In large part, this is because it focuses on medical insurance, rather than on the underlying causes of medical costs.  Our premium has increased over the past few years, but only slightly and I'm not certain of the relation of the PPACA to those increases.  Still, it is clear that medical costs are not decreasing.  Nor are they projected to decrease.  Estimates are all over the place but it is clear that the percent of GDP in "health care" costs will continue to increase for the foreseeable future.  Some of this is due to an aging population.  Some is due to factors already in place before the PPACA.  Some of it is do to the PPACA itself.

Cost projections for Medicare have been repeatedly lowered since the PPACA became law and as the growth in Medicare spending has dropped. It's been remarkable good news from an area of federal spending which has previously only provided bad news.

[angus]

it's not remotely Socialist or Communist

Agreed.  It's rather the opposite, in fact:  it will funnel trillions of dollars over the coming decade from the people to a few large corporations.  In large part, this is because it focuses on medical insurance, rather than on the underlying causes of medical costs.  Our premium has increased over the past few years, but only slightly and I'm not certain of the relation of the PPACA to those increases.  Still, it is clear that medical costs are not decreasing.  Nor are they projected to decrease.  Estimates are all over the place but it is clear that the percent of GDP in "health care" costs will continue to increase for the foreseeable future.  Some of this is due to an aging population.  Some is due to factors already in place before the PPACA.  Some of it is do to the PPACA itself.

Cost projections for Medicare have been repeatedly lowered since the PPACA became law and as the growth in Medicare spending has dropped. It's been remarkable good news from an area of federal spending which has previously only provided bad news.

That's because the burden has shifted to the states.  First, there are the administrative costs associated with the mandated expansion of Medicaid eligibility.  Of course, the law promises three years of federal assistance to fully cover the benefit costs, but it does not increase the federal match rates paid to states for associated administrative costs.  So states must pay these added administrative costs beginning on day one of the Medicaid expansion and, even sooner, must shoulder much of the financial burden generated by any work they perform in preparation for the added caseload anticipated in 2014.

The real burden won't show up immediately, because the PPACA promises three years of full federal funding to cover the benefit costs of expansion. Beginning in 2017, however, states are expected to shoulder a progressively larger burden of the benefit costs of new Medicaid beneficiaries.  Something like 10% initially.  By 2020, and for every year after, state taxpayers will have to fund 10% of the benefits for new enrollees.

what's not to like? 

[AggregateDemand]

Oh right...

I don't pretend to know everything about the law, but your understanding of ACA and the economics of insurance is not substantial enough for us to have meaningful conversation. ACA does nothing except use an extraordinarily convoluted system to stiff certain healthy individuals to cover benefit expansion (much of which is not insurable expense) and health services for the uninsured. Included in the original proposals were mechanisms like Medicare oversight committees (death panels), which were designed to achieve part of a $500B reduction in Medicare spending to free up funds for subsidies and Medicaid expansion.

The original bill, though more socialistic than the current iteration, showed signs of intelligent life. The bill that became law shows how desperate Democrats were to push something through--a bill so bad Obama won't even execute the law.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I don't really see the problem with death panels.  I mean, as long as they're being held accountable and managed properly -- nothing angers me more than when some flunky can't figure out whether they're pulling my grandmother's plug on 7/8 or 8/7.  It made the funeral so much harder to plan.

[muon2]

The premiums on my parents' insurance went up this year, like they do ever year. They blame it squarely on ObamaCare. My father's getting a procedure done in a week, and has no idea what it will cost him yet. But, of course, he is already complaining about how ObamaCare has made it "too expensive."

U.S. insurance plans are too complex for the average American to understand.

That's why I think one of the biggest blunders in implementation was to ignore successful online insurance models. Imagine if they set up the federal site like Geico designed to get you through the questionnaire in 15 minutes. How about running a state exchange like Progressive that gets you to enter your insurance needs then shows you a list of competing providers without a lot of extraneous noise? My experience was that the federal contractors wanted to reinvent the wheel when private insurers in other sectors had a good handle on how to make a clear online presentation to the public.

[AggregateDemand]

I don't really see the problem with death panels.  I mean, as long as they're being held accountable and managed properly -- nothing angers me more than when some flunky can't figure out whether they're pulling my grandmother's plug on 7/8 or 8/7.  It made the funeral so much harder to plan.

I don't have a problem with "death panels". My grandfather was a victim of our Medicare system. Doctors knew he had about 2-3 years left in the tank. They convinced him to spend it in the hospital at extraordinary expense to the taxpayers, including a hip replacement, much like President Obama claims about his own grandmother. Medicare is the maximization of public bad in many instances.

However, panels were definitely part of the original bill in Section 1233. Republicans could make many strong arguments against death panels, but most of the people who are afraid of "death panels" are probably those who've yet to have a loved-one drawn and quartered by Medicare actuaries in the name of social justice.