Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Sunday, October 23, 2016

Kaiser Poll Obamacare Implementation

This weekend, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) talked about a “grassroots tsunami” that could rise up and stop the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. A new poll from Kaiser Family Foundation the shows that if there is a tsunami, it’s one in support of going forward with the law.

Only 36 percent approve of Cruz’s plan to cut off funding while 57 percent oppose the plot. Of that 57 percent, 69 percent agreed with the statement “using the budget process to stop a law is not the way our government should work.”

The support for continuing to implement Obamacare is far greater than the 37 percent of Americans who approve of the law.

Kaiser poll Obamacare approval

Misinformation continues to be the biggest obstacle, with 44 percent of respondents still unsure if the Affordable Care Act is law.

Kaiser unsure ACA is law

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2013 The National Memo
  • docb

    The 36% need some explanations and a reckoning as to why they reject the truth. Put slick willie on the road and get the congress dems off their thumbs and start educating.

    The low information have lied and been lied to long enough by the likes of joMac cruz, randi paul and the other bagger fools!

    • TheSkalawag929

      You wouldn’t need former President Clinton or Congressional Democrats on the road if the press did its job. After all isn’t it the presses job to ferret out the truth and not just print some eyeball catching BS?

      • highpckts

        If the press “explained” the ACA, they would be accused of taking sides and have big money advertisers pull their ads! That simple! Again, it’s all about money!

        • TheSkalawag929

          Pointing out when one side or the other isn’t telling the truth isn’t explaining. It’s holding people accountable for what they say.

          • highpckts

            Not if there are add dollars involved! I hate that I am so jaded but from past experience, that is what it looks like!

          • TheSkalawag929

            Are you saying that today’s press doesn’t or won’t point out when one side or the other is not telling the truth based on add dollars? That’s not jaded. That’s cynical.

          • highpckts

            You honestly believe that they go after the “truth” in politics? , Whatever! I know our local paper is Republican. If it is that obvious, then this is a game not journalism!

          • metrognome3830

            There is a saying that has been around for a few decades: “The freedom of the press belongs to the one who owns one.”

        • docb

          Facts are not siding with the definition of ‘journalist’ they are charged with pointing out fact from fiction!

      • docb

        True but our USA ‘press’ is 95% corporate owned shills..not journalists. Print and media!

        • TheSkalawag929

          If what you say is true, then the claim that the “main stream media” has a liberal bias, goes up the chimney with all the other smoke. Or corporate america has a liberal bias.

          • highpckts

            Well we know that corporate America doesn’t have a “liberal” bias!

          • TheSkalawag929

            True that.

          • metrognome3830

            Of course it goes up the chimney. What the right-wing conservatives consider a “liberal bias” means that the news media sometimes issues news that is almost true as opposed to only reporting what the right-wing tells them to report.

          • Dominick Vila

            The claim about the mainstream media having a liberal bias is made by those who don’t want to hear the opinion of others. For them it is their way or the highway, and any journalist who dares cover an opposing view to their preconceived ideas is, by default, a liberal. The line between dictatorship and Tea Party dogma is only visible in the mind of the blind.

    • latebloomingrandma

      Actually, President Clinton has been “hired” as the person in charge of explaining stuff, specifically the ACA. He is scheduled to make a big explaining speech in Alabama next week.

  • Dominick Vila

    Opposition to ACA is influenced by a successful GOP demonization campaign, and the failure of the Obama administration to explain its benefits in a way that everyone can understand and accept.
    An example of GOP demonization was published in a Tampa newspaper this weekend claiming that there is a provision in ACA that allows Federal agents from breaking into our homes. When challenged, the authors of the article admitted that their claim refers to the fact that ACA affords at home nursing care for people with special needs after they are released from a hospital!
    This is the kind of garbage that is influencing the negative perception that millions of Americans have of the Affordable Care Act. Unfortunately, what they remember in situations like this is the article that made headlines, not the disclaimer.

    • TheSkalawag929

      While it is true that the GOP has had success in demonizing The Affordable Care Law it is not legitimate to say that the Obama administration has failed to explain the benefits of the law.
      I think that it is the press that has failed to do its job. An example is the Tampa newspaper printing an article that is false in the first place.
      Why aren’t these “news publications” being held accountable for the stories that they publish? Don’t they have an obligation to the truth?

      • highpckts

        They have an obligation to sell papers! Nothing else! If they are a “party” paper then all the worse for the people! Neither side gets the truth out!

        • TheSkalawag929

          You set a very low bar for the Fourth Estate. I expect much more from those who are alleged to be society’s watch dog.

          • highpckts

            Expect all you want but Alleged is true. They are not what they used to be. There is too much money being thrown around to have an honest paper!

          • TheSkalawag929

            The press may not be what it used to be, who is? But I don’t think that they are as bad you seem to think they are in spite of all the money being thrown around.

      • exdemo55

        Harvard (and later Columbia) sociologist Robert K. Merton wrote in 1936 about the “unanticipated consequences of purposive social action.” Pity that Barack Obama, an alumnus of both universities, either never read or took to heart Merton’s warnings. It would have saved Americans a lot of misery.

        The president certainly did not promote the Affordable Care Act by promising it would mean more part-time and fewer full-time jobs. Yet that is one of its unanticipated consequences.

        A major provision of ObamaCare requires companies to provide health insurance to any employee who works more than 30 hours a week or pay a $2,000 per-person fine. Not surprisingly, the number of hourly employees working 30-34 hours a week dropped by an average of 146,500 a month over the past year, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The number working 25-29 hours rose by 119,000 a month.

        Consider individual workers such as single working mothers who need at least 35 hours waiting tables plus tips to make ends meet. If they are cut to under 30 hours, they will have to look for second jobs. If these moms can find a second job, they’ll still have to juggle schedules, child care and transportation. Overall, even if 1% of the workforce is thus affected by this squeeze, that’s nearly 1.4 million Americans.

        Then there are younger workers, many of whom will start their careers by stringing together several part-time jobs, perhaps for years. Their predicament may delay when they start families, buy homes, pay off student loans and become independent.

        The president’s health law also unintentionally operates to prevent the smallest companies from growing. Owners have a strong incentive to stay below the law’s 50-employee threshold at which they are required to provide health insurance.

        Here the U.S. is following in the footsteps of France and other countries with sclerotic economies. Earlier this year, the National Bureau of Economic Research published a study of the French regulatory burden on businesses with more than 50 employees.

        The authors found that “firms will optimally choose to remain small to avoid the regulation, so the size distribution becomes distorted with ‘too many’ firms just below the size threshold and ‘too few’ firms just above it.” The report also noted that “some of those firms just below the cutoff” have, thanks to the regulation, “been prevented from growing to their optimal size.”

        ObamaCare will have other consequences. Today, employers with so-called self-funded health plans act as their own insurer, collecting premiums and paying claims filed by employees. In 1999, 44% of workers receiving employer-provided health coverage were in such plans, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation’s Employer Health Benefits Survey. Today, 61% are.

        More companies have an incentive to choose self-funding because the 1974 Employee Retirement Income Security Act (Erisa) governs self-funded plans, not the Affordable Care Act. Erisa allows self-funded plans to charge premiums based on risk (unlike under ObamaCare), allows these plans to offer a wider menu of options, and lets them avoid such expensive provisions as ObamaCare’s new tax on insurance policies.

        The success of self-funded plans in restraining premium increases and managing costs concerns ObamaCare supporters. Some are trying to make this kind of employer coverage less attractive by undermining stop-loss insurance. This is the reimbursement contract a self-funded plan makes with a reinsurer that helps manage risk by paying large claims above a per-employee deductible.

        The California legislature, for example, wants to make self-funded plans less appealing by establishing a $40,000 minimum deductible. Minnesota and Rhode Island are considering bills to require a $60,000 deductible. None of the states has a minimum deductible today.

        Delaware, New York and Oregon already ban self-insurance by small- or midsize companies. Administrators of self-funded plans also worry that new Labor Secretary Thomas E. Perez will ignore Erisa and issue regulations that erode the attractiveness of self-funded plans and push more companies’ health policies into ObamaCare’s morass.

        The Affordable Care Act has yet to take full effect, but it is already beginning to exact a toll on workers and businesses. On top of all this, the Congressional Budget Office estimated in May that the number of uninsured Americans won’t fall below 30 million in the next decade. So much for ObamaCare’s promise of “universal” coverage.

        • TheSkalawag929

          All that your cut and paste does is underscore the hard heartedness and mean spiritedness on the republican side of the aisle and those who support them.

    • Ford Truck

      Ya I know you write a lot and respond to nearly everything, but if you are not aware of what the ACA is all about and its great benefits, then you haven’t been listening! Those who oppose the ACA are either stupid, or rich enough to afford their own health care, but too heartless to care about others.

  • bcarreiro

    why don’t we defund teds bank acct to minimum wage. this is why the 1% stay 1%.

    • InsideEye

      The negatives are still higher than the positives according to many. The rule of engagement are not clearly defined for premium payers. New rules are being written every day to appease me side or another. It will not be a free ride as expected by many of the uninsured.

      • TheSkalawag929

        “…according to many.” Would that be the same “many” who despite ALL the efforts of this administration to get truthful information out to them they continue to gorge themselves on lying right-wing BS because they believe that government and this president can’t do anything right. Even when facing overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

        • InsideEye

          No. Some of the many are students and younger people who are not sure of the amount of penalties and premiums they have to pay on top of their meager earnings and tuition obligations after graduation, Among many others. …..personal conversations of regular folks. Many young people are totally clueless about their liabilities on this, as wellas many others.

          There should be case studies outlining the costs to each economic sector/ individual to compare it to what we have today. Today , 85% of people are covered. Yet I believe the remaining 15% may think that they will be getting a free ride. We all have to continue paying for “others” one way or another. The ANGST of the the system is that the burden mostly falls on the WORKIN TAX PAYING middle class, as well as the supposedly meager One Percent “rich”. Unfairness is not tolerated by anyone it appears.

          • TheSkalawag929

            “…students and younger people who are not sure of the amount of penalties and premiums they have to pay…” This may be true but it is not the administrations responsibility to spoon feed them the information that. It is readily available and easily accessible to them if make the effort to research it.

            Until the Affordable Care Law goes into full effect I don’t see how any costs analysis can be made to each “economic sector/ individual”.

            Anything put forth before there is empirical data would simply be speculation. And if any of the information given turns out to be wrong then it would just become more fodder to be used by the misinforming fright-wing.

          • InsideEye

            At this time these cost analysis should have been done. Insurance companies have actuarial tables for every contingency as well as Medicare. To say that the ACA is affordable may be a misnomer, as you say speculation…is this any way to run a rail road, Business? The Kaiser foundation Calculator implied an obligation for a 30k salary could be ~ 3k in premiums and up to 6k in out of pocket. Which is about typical to what we have today. You can do better by going on welfare……and that is why we are here. Back in 1975 30k was a great salary, and there was money left over…..where did the disposable ? Income disappear to.

            Speculation” of costs is a problem and people are confused as to what they are signing on for.

          • TheSkalawag929

            Here is a good place to begin ones information search on health care:

            If 1975 30k dollars had kept pace with inflation you would be making $132,717.34 today.

            But because of outsourcing, wage suppression and tax cuts that benefited corporations and the rich our disposable income went into the coffers and pockets of corporations and the upper echelons of society. This is not sour grapes. Hell I would have done the same thing to protect my wealth if I had what they had. No this just my view of reality.

          • InsideEye

            Protecting the wealth is a congressional approved contrivance by appeasing to PACS of any kind, congress votes on bills for them selves, but no one represents the people’s interests.. Somehow PACS must be banned. The government has the power now and promulgates at the expense of the working tax payers, and even the “poor” upper One Percenters. We need a benevolent dictator to clean house,….dissolve the congress and start over.

            How do we do this. With your help … , SKALAWAG, should start a petition, and I will support you…but I have to work still. soon I will get pissed off and have to go to Washington, myself. Do not make me go down there, SkalAWag.

          • TheSkalawag929

            Let me know when you’re ready to go and I will meet you there.

    • rkief

      If only we could – for all legislators! Unfortunately, their bank accounts, in too many cases, are controlled more by special interests than by the national interest.

  • Mark Forsyth

    What Cruz and others like him who are calling for this”Tidal Wave” don’t realize is that they will be the ones to get caught in the flood of opposition to destructive,anti-social ideas.

  • FT66

    I was wondering why Rafael Cruz will stand for all people and oppose the ACA (Obamacare). If people don’t like something, you will see them on streets protesting. I haven’t seen such a move since Cruz started to inject his toxic thinking to some.
    There are people who think that Obama administration didn’t sell the benefits of the plan. For god’s sake, it is the work of the media. As we all know, the media are always interested in negative reporting, when it turns to positive reporting, they tend to have a blind eye. It is the media which is failing everybody. They have to do their work as it is required to be.

  • highpckts

    What blows my mind is the percentage of people that believe that it was repealed and is no longer the law! Where do these people live??

    • johninPCFL

      Red states.

      • InsideEye

        Universities, they are into their texting and are oblivious to surroundings, often they walk into open manholes and cars in NYC.

  • Allan Richardson

    An example from the Bible, Acts of the Apostles:

    When the Sanhedrin debated what to do about the new Christian movement, Rabbi Gamaliel said that IF the movement was wrong in God’s eyes it would fail by itself; but IF it was truly FROM God, the Sanhedrin would destroy itself by trying to oppose it.

    Obamacare is not the Gospel, certainly, but the same logic applies here. If it is REALLY as bad for America as the GOP claims, they should stop trying to stop it, and just let if fail, and be there to “pick up the pieces.” I suspect they REALLY know that it will be GOOD for America, just as Social Security and Medicare, which their predecessors and ideological ancestors OPPOSED, turned out to be, and if the “let” it get started, they will destroy themselves by opposing it. Some future Tea Party opposing changes will carry signs saying “Keep the government out of my Obamacare,” just as many seniors were deceived into saying “Keep the government out of my Medicare.”

    Where is the Gamaliel who can straighten out the Republicans?

    • disqus_LcxpBv2uzz

      Your point is well-taken, and the analogy is apt. I believe that conservatives are VERY afraid that once implemented and de-bugged, the ACA is going to prove to be so popular with almost everyone (right, middle and left), that people will wonder why the hard right was so against it. Certainly, a number of folks will realize that the opposition was due to the racial animus against a black president by a small but overbearingly loud group of bigots. Hopefully the racists will be thoroughly discredited once the majority sees the benefits of the ACA (until the next issue comes along). Oh, well, the ACA is the law of the land, and October 1 is fast approaching!

  • anamericancynic

    The majority of this law hasn’t even been put in place and people “know” it will fail… Where were all these people and their magic 8 balls when I was trying to figure out my major in college?

  • howa4x

    Let’s not forget that FOX has been waging a disinformation campaign against the ACA since it’s inception, and add to that Limbaugh, Drudge, Beck and a hundred more right wing talking heads. The real problem for the republicans is that they offer no real alternatives to the ACA. In their repeal and replace slogan mongering there is a vacuum of ideas when they get to the replacement part. The hardest part for them is that this is a bed rock republican plan that relies on personal responsibility for health care, written by a republican think tank, the Heritage Foundation, introduced by republican senators Bob Dole, and Orrin Hatch, and implemented by a republican governor Mitt Romney, who urged Obama in a video to bring it nationwide. Here in the fantasy land of the republicans is the only place where they can go out and publically denounce and demonize their own plan. When you ask them what would they do differently there is not much they would change. They would keep kids staying on their parents policy till 26 and would keep the pre existing prohibitions. The only change I’ve heard of is to not insure every one and instead sent them to the ER for care. That portal of entry to the illness intervention system is the most costliest with charges just for the use ranging from $500-2500. just to walk in. When people can’t pay the bill they go bankrupt, which was the single biggest cause of bankruptcies prior to the ACA. What the average person doesn’t realize is that the hospitals don’t eat the loss themselves, but go to their states and bill them under the charity care funds that they have. This will shift the burden of paying for illness care back to state taxpayers, and in states with poor health outcomes like Mississippi that will eventually bankrupt the state. So I wish Ted Cruz the best but I don’t think he thought this all the way through.

    • InsideEye

      You described the merry go round of payments well. The GOP s plan is to keep existing 85% of policy holders happy, since they are satisfied. If they can add a catastrophic illness, bankruptcy rider to avoid patients from losing their estates and other fine tuning for students , or existing conditions etc. alternately a one payer system that covers everyone from birth to death is the best option. Does ACA address all of these ? NO. . There is no final cost analysis of what a Universal coverage may cost. The Insurance industry is shooting themselves in the foot by not getting ahead of this issue…they essentially will be no longer in existence. What is truly outrageous is the fact that noone can give a true cost per person for universal coverage….with all of the actuarial tables from insurance industry and Medicare available. We have data for how many sheets of toilet paper, we use, and how many calls we make to our bookie, but no cost analysis for our premiums…….One way or another the working tax payer will pay the bill for all….not fair? A flat DEDICATED HEALTH SALES tax, To some it may appear regressive ? How? This way everyone CONTRIBUTES/pays, no free rides. PAC monies alone can pay the freight.

      • Allan Richardson

        The “final cost analysis” of what a universal coverage would cost has BEEN DONE by the history of a dozen other advanced democracies, and the result is, on average, HALF the cost as percentage of GDP, and MUCH better results. Even citizens of those countries who have moved here for career and tax reasons (such as John Oliver of the UK, filling in for Jon Stewart on the Daily Show recently, in a dialog with Rand Paul) admit that, since changing residence does not remove them from the rolls, they would GO BACK FOR MEDICAL TREATMENT if necessary.

        • InsideEye

          Trying to learn here. The cost is based on different variables, even in Costs Rica, they are ahead of US by one rating point for access. It is funded by a variety of taxes and subsidies. They are also in trouble . I mentioned once before the government there is also is running out of monies…due to similarlities as here. …Nicaraguans are coming across the border to CostaRica for care, care which was not appropriated for.

          If there was one dedicated taxing/funding mechanism, as in SSN, MEDICARE, the premiums are contributed by the workers in these cases. But since not everyone works, there is a gap. If there were a National Flat Sales ” health tax ” it could be used for ACA, SSN, all residents contribute, even the dastardly illegals, students, rich , poor… no more animus, politics. all the money we have in PACs , bribing congress to act in a conglomerates favor, could be used as well. Let us see if congress is willing to put their wallets ahead of mouth….both sides of the aisle.

      • howa4x

        Your plan of a flat tax dedicated to universal coverage sounds great except it will never fly with republicans as long as they take advise from Norquist who opposes any kind of tax and the tea party who also oppose any new taxes for anything. The problem is not with the people who have insurance but the 32 million who don’t. These people are not the poorest but are the working poor who work in fast food and at Wal-Mart. Also we can’t just let business off the hook. Any new taxes to pay for universal coverage has to be directed at them also. The cost of benefits is already built into their profit picture, and they already provide 60% with benefit coverage.
        The other obstacle is the lobbying power of the insurance industry. Right now this plan still has them as a major player and with the billions in profit at stake they will not go without the fight of their lives. Republicans have already painted themselves in a corner by calling the public option socialism, so they can’t now come out and say sorry just kidding. We will have market driven healthcare for a while to come.

        • InsideEye

          By a National Sales Tax, dedicated for the social health services, I meant every item , services is taxed at the source, including corporations…no write off s for this. The insurance industry is going to be history in a one payer system….they had their chance to provide a good product but they did not do so. They have all of the actuarial data to make a good faith bid, Since the administrative mechanism is already in place , they should be able to compete. The government also has YET to create a bureaucracy / exchanges, rejection criteria etc…non of this is in the costs as yet and …IRS of all things….who needs that. The true costs of Affordable ? Care Act is not finalized, so I say.
          Show me, Ms Sibelius . give me one representative case study.
          Salary 30k for example, single person. What is entire cost to us.

          • howa4x

            I agree with your payment scheme and am in support of a single payer system. My question is what steps would you take to get the GOP on board? How would you overcome the barrier issues I addressed in my last post?

  • Bill

    The war on the middle class and the poor by the GOP continues !!!!!