ObamaCare support hits record low

@Ronald J. Ward:

You can spin the tale of Obamascare all you want, but the truth is that it is a major fail. More people have lost the health care insurance they liked, having to replace it with higher cost insurance, or no insurance at all, than have been covered by Obamascare. And the other shoe has not dropped yet.

What happens when Obama is finally forced to enforce the “Cadillac plan” tax on health care that all union members will have to pay? What happens when the employer mandate is finally enforced, the same mandate that Obama has tried to push past the next elections?

Obamascare is a disaster. And the Affordable Health Care Act (which is anything but affordable) has been usurped by Obama to get past the next elections. And how does it guarantee that people who sign up for Obamascare will even be able to get medical treatment? You see, you progressives are not as smart as you think you are; insurance doesn’t equate to treatment if doctors, hospitals, labs, et al, all refuse to accept those plans as payment.

I have also been wondering about something, Tom. What exactly is your political philosophy? How do you think this nation should be run? What are your opinions on taxes, regulations on business and industry, redistribution of wealth and all things political?

Here’s your opportunity to lay out your beliefs. Convince us that you have a better idea than conservatives do. Now’s your chance.

I suppose more Democrats/Liberals/Progressives…are (now) even more against this ACA…especially since they found out it is they who will be paying for it….

funny, how an about face and a complete thumbs down comes from liberals and progressives when they find out ‘someone else’ besides ‘them’ isn’t going to be paying for a liberal program and a corrupt one at that….

Obamacare (ACA) isn’t incompetence – it is just a small part of a larger plan…total government take over of your health care and more control over a populace….

Cuba (and every other third world nation) here we come….

That is, thanks to the less than pathetic support of lefties like R.J.W. who would rather be controlled by a Government rather than to be an individual…..nice going…brainstorm.

(R. (J) W. curious name… hmm..).

@Ronald J. Ward:

The reality in the political arena begs to differ as we’re seeing GOP politicians scramble for cover as the ACA enrollment increases. 3 million have now enrolled, another 6 million able to enroll in Medicaid, and then those under 26 yr old benefiting from their parent’s plans.

The reality, RJW, is that Obamacare is unsustainable. It is based on false numbers and figures. It can only work if the young adult segment is willing to sign up and support the older, more costly, segment. Medicaid is also unsustainable for states who have accepted the carrot that comes before the stick that will be felt across their backs. Cost is reality, not your pie-in-the-sky desire for nationalized health care. Contrary to what you think, there is a limit to which a state can bill its productive citizens for goodies for the non-productive.

And you do not address what the future holds, which I laid out quite clearly. What happens when the “Cadillac plan” tax goes into effect for those union members that supported the ACA? What happens when the youth group learns that their health insurance is not only unaffordable, but they can’t find a doctor to accept their plans? There was a reason that Aetna spoke of pulling out and the insurance industry’s rating was lowered.

Your big objection seems to be that the poll Dr. John referred to was taken by Fox.

“These results are from Gallup polling conducted Jan. 3-4, as the new year begins and as most provisions of the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, begin to take effect.

When asked more broadly if they approve or disapprove of the Affordable Care Act, Americans come down on the disapprove side by 54% to 38%. These results, too, are similar to attitudes in late November, although they are slightly more negative than attitudes in December. Americans have tended to disapprove rather than approve of the healthcare law throughout the past year. By contrast, in mid-November 2012, just after President Barack Obama was re-elected, Americans were more evenly divided, with 48% approving and 45% disapproving.”

I would warrant you will disagree also with Gallup. But then, I’m sure you will disagree with any poll that doesn’t support your agenda.

As to my mentioning Tom; it’s getting harder and harder to tell you progressives apart, hence the error on my part. But the questions remain; give us your political philosophy. What are you? Progressive? Marxist? Statist? Socialist?

And you’re wrong about the ACA; you are going to see, as it continues to be on life support only because Obama has granted so many [unconstitutional] exemptions, many, many Democrats run from it. Democrats like Mary Landreiu of Louisiana who face being defeated in the November, 2014 elections.

@Ronald J. Ward:

What’s missing in your Gallup poll numbers is that while a larger percent disprove than approve, around 16% disapprove because the law was watered down or that perhaps, it’s not liberal enough.

If that were the case with the Gallup poll, then why didn’t Gallup say that? And 16% thinking Obamacare doesn’t go far enough toward socialized medicine, while that may be true, it is only true because those Americans have never had to suffer under socialized medicine.

As to 26 year olds being allowed to stay on their parents health insurance plan as “children” takes absurdity to the enth degree. You Democrats need to make up your mind about when someone becomes an adult. 26 is still considered a kid for health insurance purposes but a 14 year old girl should be able to make the decision, without parental approval, to have a medical procedure called abortion. Pick an age and stick with it and stop vacillating for political expediency.

The reality of the GOP “repeal and start over” mantra is that people will lose what features they now enjoy and have no faith in a pretty much “do nothing” party to ever start over.

The reality of your argument is that it all becomes moot when there are no medical facilities or physicians who will accept the paltry amount they are going to be paid by the insurers under Obamacare. What good is health insurance if you can’t use it anywhere? Why do you think Medicaid patients are having such a hard time finding physicians, especially primary care physicians? Because it doesn’t pay the physician enough to make the time and trouble worth while.

It’s like being able to buy a house for $2 million when you only make $100,000.00 a year. You might be able to rationalize it, and tell yourself you can afford it, but when reality (something you love to refer to) sets in and the bills start piling up, you can’t do it. There are not enough dollars to go around.

There are not enough doctors to do what the ACA wants to do.

@Ronald J. Ward:

And I’m not interested in discussing my personal views or beliefs with you because that only distracts from the topic here.

Of course you’re not. “Coward” tops your resume.

Perhaps you can create your own blog or guest write here or such and then invite me over? But to my knowledge, you don’t carry any weight here to request and expect answers to such questions that are beyond the scope of this thread.

I, like you, am free to voice my opinion here until told otherwise by the owner of this blog. As long as that stands, there is no reason for me to do anything differently. And may I remind you, you do not own this blog, so you have no right to determine what weight I may carry here or what is beyond the scope of any thread. The only thing you seem to possess is a false sense of importance about your abilities to tell others what to do that are not warranted.

@Ronald J. Ward:

I do reserve the right not to respond to any or all points you or anyone else presents.

Ah, that you would exercise that right with more frequency.

@Ronald J. Ward:

You complain about Fox News using a poll – done by Gallup, btw, hardly a bastion of the right wing – then resort to using the extreme left website Foundation for a Healthy Kentucky showing a ridiculous poll claiming a majority of Kentucky republicans support obamacare. More 3 card monty leftist shuffle to try to deny another glaring leftist failure. Fine, we’ve all grown used to this leftist tactic. How about some non-political analysis of these obamacare enrollment numbers?

http://www.bakersfieldnow.com/news/health/Covered-California-enrollment-tops-600K-241386371.html (from Jan 21, 2014)

— About 85 percent of people signing up for coverage on the exchange are eligible for a government subsidy that lowers premium costs.

But Obama said his plan would LOWER insurance costs by $2500/year for a family of four. So why do 85% of California’s current Obamacare enrollees need subsidies to pay for their socialist healthcare plans if the plans are $2500/yr lower than the pre-Obamacare insurance? (Sarc off) And, as expected, people who want someone else to pay for their overpriced government-mandated insurance coverage are the overwhelming number of Obamacare enrollees in far left California. Isn’t it nice to know that we get to pay higher taxes for around 510,000 (so far) freeloaders in a state in which I would never live?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obamacares-dismal-california-numbers-900000-people-lost-plans-january-1-500000-signed-exchange_775360.html

The WonkBlog report was a bit off: 424,936 is only the number of people who signed up by December 31 and qualified for subsidies. The total number of sign-ups, for both subsidized and unsubsidized plans, was about 500,000. Furthermore, it’s inaccurate to call these people “enrollees” because Covered California has refused to say how many paid their first month’s premium, which is required to actually be enrolled in a plan. But even if all or most of the 500,000 people who signed up for Obamacare by December 31 end up paying their bills, is that really a success? Leaving aside important questions about the quality and cost of Obamacare plans, the enrollment numbers are not impressive. The California exchange is doing very little to achieve the goal of insuring the uninsured. Recall that California did not allow insurers the opportunity to re-offer plans canceled by Obamacare. Anne Gonzales of Covered California confirmed to THE WEEKLY STANDARD in a phone call that all 900,000 non-grandfathered plans in California “had to be discontinued by January 1.” So how many of the 500,000 people who signed up for Obamacare before January 1 previously had insurance? “I don’t think we have those [numbers],” Gonzales said. But it’s easy to infer that the majority of people who signed up for Obamacare already had insurance. “Of those 900,000 [who lost plans], 310,000 of those would have been subsidy eligible if they came to the exchange,” Gonzales said. Another 20,000 subsidy-eligible Californians lost plans because their insurance carriers were dropping out of the market. But we do know that it’s very likely that that fewer than 200,000 of California’s 5.5 million uninsured residents (3.3. million of whom are eligible to enter the exchange) signed up for Obamacare by January 1. After spending $1 billion on developing and advertising the exchange in a blue state where views about the law are more favorable than the nation as a whole, is that really a success? Does that justify a multi-trillion dollar program and the cancellation of the insurance policies of millions of Americans across the country? The good folks at Covered California and WonkBlog seem to think so. A strong majority of American voters continue to disagree.

And yesterday, from the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/01/23/trying-to-count-obamacares-medicaid-enrollment-good-luck/

We don’t know how many of those people gaining Medicaid because of the Affordable Care Act. There are lots of people who were eligible for Medicaid prior to the Affordable Care Act but didn’t take action to enroll in the program. Maybe they never got around to signing up or found the paperwork too difficult. Maybe they hadn’t heard about the Medicaid program–but did start hearing about it this past fall, when there was lots of focus on the health law’s insurance expansion. When states send the federal government information about the number of people signing up for coverage, they don’t specify whether it’s “Obamacare Medicaid” or “normal Medicaid.” They just tell the federal government that somebody signed up for Medicaid. This explains why you see over 1 million people gaining coverage this past December in states that did not expand Medicaid–states where literally nothing changed about the type of coverage they offer.

So in typical leftist deception – the obamanauts are trying to inflate the number of obamacare enrollees by including people who would have been signing up for Medicaid even if obamacare had never been forced upon the country.

The question on health wonks’ minds is: How many people got Medicaid under Obamacare? We don’t have that answer until the early spring. Each quarter, states submit reimbursement requests to the federal government. The end of the first quarter of the year is March 31. That’s when states will tell the federal government how much they should be paid for each person they cover on Medicaid. That’s where states will have to specify who gained coverage under the health-care law, because the federal government will pay 100 percent of those enrollees’ costs. Typically the federal government only splits the bill with the state.

….these numbers seem to suggest about one-third to half of the Medicaid sign-ups are among those newly-eligible under Obamacare. But again, we won’t know the actual number until April at the earliest.

Another way to think about the numbers is the impact that the Medicaid expansion is having. The Obama administration crunched the numbers and finds that states expanding Medicaid have had a 73 percent increase in enrollment as compared to a baseline period from July through September. States that did not expand, meanwhile, had a 3 percent increase.

Now remember, under obamacare, the first year of the program, the federal government borrows even more money from China to pay 100% of the enrollees’ costs for states stupid enough to have expanded Medicaid. Sounds great, until you realize that in following years the federal government decreases the cost and the states entering into the Faustian bargain are on the hook for minimum 10% of these added socialist government program costs. There is nothing in the law that prevents the federal government from decreasing the federal share even more in the future, which would place even greater financial burden on the states forced to pick up the tab. In states that have balanced budget amendments, this will almost certainly mean increased state taxes – income, sales and/or property – to pay for this “free” health care.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/01/24/obamacare-update-3-million-enrolled-but-still-no-word-on-whos-paid-up/

Although the new milestone is being touted as a success, CMS originally projected 4.4 million enrollments by the end of January. Federal officials will need to recruit another 2 million Americans to purchase plans per month before the open enrollment period closes in March — a drastic boost from current enrollment rates. But Americans are still in the dark about the number of people that have actually purchased those plans. The Obama administration’s definition of ‘enrolled’ remains as those who have selected a private insurance plan on an Obamacare exchange and HHS officials still have not released data on the number of Americans that have gone through the final enrollment step and paid for their plans. The number of young adults between the ages of 18 and 35 that selected private insurance plans via an exchange has been disproportionately low so far. HHS’s first demographic information on Obamacare participants, released several weeks ago, showed that only 24 percent of exchange enrollees were in the age range of “young invincibles,” whose low health care costs will implicitly subsidize the older and sicker customers of Obamacare exchanges. Reports have also indicated that most private insurance enrollees have been insured prior to purchasing exchange coverage. A McKinsey & Co. estimate puts the previously uninsured at a low of 11 percent of all enrollees — meaning Obamacare is primarily being used as a means of replacing canceled plans and for doling out taxpayer subsidies to those that already purchased coverage on their own.

So in other words, over 6 million previously insured people (so far – millions more will suffer this fate when the employer mandate kicks in – conveniently for leftists after the 2014 elections) lost their insurance plans because of obamacare mandates because the leftists claimed they wanted to give health insurance to people who didn’t have it – and the end result is higher insurance costs, decreased access to doctors and hospitals, higher deductibles and copays, hundreds of billions of dollars per year in increased federal spending that we cannot afford on top of the average $1.2 Trillion/yr federal deficits since Obama took office,…. all for a paltry estimated 11% of the previously uninsured to get roped into this socialist nightmare of “affordable health care”.

There is nothing good, worthy, honest nor affordable about this terrible leftist monstrosity. It needs to be completely repealed before the medical system in this country is turned into a bureaucratic nightmare.

In June, 22 percent of Democrats were opposed to ObamaCare, which blends expansive new health-insurance regulations with a new welfare program. In the latest survey, that number rose to 30 percent, helping push overall opposition to a new high of 59 percent.
The poll was of ”likely voters,” which only includes people who voted in the last two or three elections.
That makes it unlike (less liberal than) mere ”adults,” or even registered voters (who may not vote at all.)

No wonder only 12% of them think ”income inequality,” is the #1 economic issue facing America.
No wonder Obama will re-make that issue into one called, ”ladders of opportunity.”

The random likely voters polled this week were 40% Dems…. 39% Reps…. and 20% Others/Inds with ….2% refusing to give an answer. (See page 17)

Every category listed overwhelmingly believed ObamaCare would cost the gov’t more money as well as costing them more for their policies!

THOSE WHO ENROLED ARE NOT PAYING YET,
so enroll doesn’t mean anything,
give us the paid amount they recieved, if you want to be believed,
IN order to be working, it has to cover the close to one billion cost,
EDIT: IT ALSO HAVE TO INSURE ALL THE GOVERNMENT ELECTED OR EMPLOYED PUBLIC EMPLOYEES AND THEIR UNIONS, INCLUDING THE WHITE HOUSE EMPLOYEES
INCLUDING OBAMA AND HIS FAMILY, AND SERVANTS AND SECURITY GANG, ALL PAID FROM THE POCKETS OF THE CITIZENS
SO TO BRING CASH TO THE
OBAMACARE, FOR THE ONE WHO CANNOT PAY,
AND MAKE SURE OF THE HIGH QUALITY CARE CONSTANTLY AVAILABLE, AND THE SENIORS WELL TOOK CARE OF,
INSTEAD OF PUTTING THE BURDEN ON THE CITIZENS STRUGGLING TO MAKE END’S MEET,
IF NOT THIS OBAMACARE IS A SHAM, ON THE BACK OF CITIZENS,

@Bill Burris: Bill et al, you seem to continue to support Dr John’s cherry picked poll as evidence that the GOP will be exonerated for their destructive governance and that Dems will be promptly ousted because “Obamacare’s bad”. Your argument (well, actually, lack of) crumbles on several fronts.

All that “bad” is more construed by a smaller faction rather than the general electorate. I once again remind you that around 16% of those saying it’s “bad”, do so because they don’t think the law goes far enough. That seems to be ignored here because, well, Obamacare’s bad and that’s all.

I once again remind you that even a majority of Republicans support 7 of the 11 provisions of ACA as quoted below from Kaiser. Again , something ignored here because, well, Obamacare’s bad and that’s all.

While the public is divided on the law as a complete package, many of its component parts are quite popular, some on a bipartisan basis. Majorities of the public are favorable towards the law’s tax credits for small businesses who offer their employees insurance (88 percent, including 53 percent very favorable), closing the Medicare “doughnut hole” (81 percent, 52 percent very favorable), and the provision allowing young adults to stay on their parents’ health plans up to age 26 (76 percent, 54 percent very favorable). Three of the hallmark features of the law – the health insurance exchanges, subsidies to help individuals purchase insurance, and the Medicaid expansion – are also popular, with between seven and eight in ten Americans favoring each (80 percent, 76 percent, and 71 percent, respectively). But consistent with previous polls, the individual mandate falls at the bottom of this list, with six in ten feeling unfavorable about this provision of the law.

Even some of the law’s most fervent opponents like many of the things the ACA has done or will do. A majority of Republicans feel favorable towards seven of the 11 provisions asked about in the March poll, with seven in ten or more favoring tax credits to small businesses, closing the Medicare “doughnut hole”, and the exchanges. Less popular among the GOP: the highly politicized Medicaid expansion (42 percent favorable), increased Medicare payroll tax for those with higher incomes (37 percent), the employer and individual mandates (36 percent and 21 percent, respectively).

Also ignored in your arguments here of “Obamacare’s bad and that’s all” is the reality of the sign ups, that pushing 10 million are now benefiting from the law, and the CBO’s enrollment projections are now very realistic.

And yeah, as mentioned, you guys will accept or reject polls contingent on how they suit your agenda (which obviously the irony of my link flew over Pete’s head) but polls are an aside when you look at the real campaign scramble (snap snap Pete, pay attention here) we’re seeing with KY’s Sen McConnell, Utah’s Gov. Gary Herbert flip flop, Republicans in Michigan and Iowa now changing their tunes, and I can list more and suspect we’ll see more in the next 6 to 8 weeks. That again, is an argument you’re sticking your heads into the sand to while chanting “Obamacare’s bad”.

And here’s a final kicker to your stick-in-the-mud rhetoric and I suspect the main driver of your “Obamcare’s bad” drumbeat. As more come into the system, that “Obamacare’s a disaster” becomes a GOP self-fulfilled prophecy ONLY in states that have turned their backs on their citizens and their state’s best interest simply for political spite. I’ll remind you again of S.C.(R) Rep. Kris Crawford, an ER doctor who supported Medicare expansion in his state yet voted against it with an admission that “it is good politics to oppose the black guy in the White House”. The GOP has indeed bet the farm on their “Obamacae’s just bad so we have to repeal it all” sales pitch. After throwing every possible monkey wrench into the system they could, they still come up short on gaining electoral support. And this brings into question the reelection prospects for those state representatives in the next few election cycles.

And once again I’ll remind you while you’re all in sync chanting “Obamacare’s bad” that even if Dems lose seats in 2014, there’s still no stopping PPACA as Obama’s still President until 2016, Dems are not likely to change their minds, PPACA will be fully implemented with a projected coverage of 30 million, Obama isn’t running for reelection, and the demographics for the GOP looks horrible in 2016. And don’t forget that the Tea Party “wave” Senators of 2010 will be up for reelection then, forcing the GOP to protect more seats than Dems.

So you can howl at the moon and like trained seals give accolades to Dr John’s usual cherry picked bias polling by unitedly slapping you flippers together and chanting “ork ork ork” all you like but you’re sounding a lot like a tree falling in the woods with no one there to hear you.

@ilovebeeswarzone: And in the struggle to decipher that intentionally incoherent gibberish (as that is I suppose, the character you portray) let me respond with saying that, let’s put it this way, I know you by now as well.

@Ronald J. Ward: Well, Ronald, you can try to redirect attention away from the disaster of Obamacare however you may like, but, for sure and indeed, it is a disaster.

What’s more, had Obama not abrogated his oath of office and allowed the law to fully go into effect as scheduled rather than save himself the embarrassment and damage by shielding his buddies from the negative effects and delaying or waiving parts that would cost his party massive numbers of votes in elections, it would be a total disaster of Biblical proportions.

Ronald J. Ward
that will be included, with all the task to cut,when we take the seats very soon, there is a time and place for all things,
don’t think that your side is there as a plant,
we can extirpate it from the ground and trash it as a poison plant never to grow back again,
try to decipker this one, if you think you are so smart,

@Ronald J. Ward:

You can’t because you don’t have the electoral seats. You can’t get those seats running on that campaign.

You just can’t bring yourself to admit that a majority of Americans are still against Obamascare this many years after it was passed, can you.

As to not being able to win on repeal of Obamascare, ask Mary Landreiu why she is now running from it. She is trying to distance herself from Obamascare as fast as she can. And remember, there is an election in just 10 months. When Larry Sabato, a Democrat, says that the Republicans are probably going to take the Senate, you got problems, Bubba. At that point, Obama is a lame duck and will see his second term wind up being a “nothingburger”.