Obama healthcare law not yet resonating with public - Polidicks

Obama healthcare law not yet resonating with public March 20, 2012 LA Times [quote=LA Times Article Subtitle][I]Because key provisions of the law have yet to kick in, relatively few people have benefited from it thus far, making Democrats' defense of it a tough sell.[/I][/quote] [release] Reporting from Washington — As President Obama and his allies gear up to defend the landmark healthcare law he signed two years ago, they confront an unforgiving math problem: Just a tiny fraction of Americans has experienced a major benefit from the law. At the same time, tens of millions have continued to see insurance premiums and medical bills rise as they did before the legislation was signed. That reflects the design of the complex law, in which many of the key provisions were delayed in a bid to hold down costs and minimize disruptions while new systems are put in place to expand coverage. The law will not guarantee insurance to all Americans until 2014, and may take many more years to rein in healthcare costs. But the president and congressional Democrats had nonetheless hoped that a handful of early benefits — such as allowing adult children to remain on their parents' health plans until age 26 — would rally the public behind the law by now. That hasn't happened, surveys indicate. "The law is still not real for the vast majority of Americans," said Mollyann Brodie, polling director for the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation. Two-thirds of Americans say they haven't been personally affected by the law, according to the latest Kaiser tracking poll. By contrast, just 1 in 7 say they have experienced something positive from the law. Even more ominously for the president and supporters of the law, few people have much confidence the law will ever help them. Sixty-seven percent say they believe the law will leave them worse off or won't make much of a difference, the Kaiser survey indicates. Just a quarter believe it will improve their lives. In the 2010 midterm election, Republicans exploited this skepticism to win control of the House. This year, GOP presidential candidates have once again made repealing the law a centerpiece of their campaigns. But Republicans could have a harder time winning the healthcare debate in 2012. Most Americans prefer to leave the law alone or modify it rather than throw it out entirely, surveys show. At the same time, the GOP — including former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, the front-runner for the party's presidential nomination — has embraced controversial proposals to largely privatize Medicare by giving seniors vouchers to shop for commercial insurance. That has buoyed Democrats, who are already campaigning in defense of Medicare, a government health program that remains highly popular with seniors. Meanwhile, the White House and its allies also are trying to find ways to convince Americans that the healthcare law will deliver important benefits. That strategy will highlight personal stories from people who have already been helped. Among them is Sonji Wilkes of Colorado, whose family twice lost its health insurance because the cost of medication for her son with hemophilia hit lifetime coverage caps. Such caps were common before they were banned by the law. "We were so relieved when the Affordable Care Act passed because it meant we could care for our child," said Wilkes, who is participating in a "Thanks Obamacare" project organized by liberal activists in Colorado. But supporters of the law acknowledge that winning over the rest of the country is a long-term project. "I'm confident the Affordable Care Act will be an extraordinarily popular piece of legislation such that the term 'Obamacare' will be a badge of distinction," said Families USA Executive Director Ron Pollack, a leading consumer advocate. "But that will take time.… It will not all happen by November." For example, although more than 100 million Americans are now in health plans that no longer have lifetime caps, only about 20,000 people a year typically hit those limits, according to administration estimates. Fewer than 50,000 people now benefit from new high-risk insurance plans designed to help Americans who had been denied coverage for preexisting medical conditions. Just 228,000 small businesses took advantage of new tax credits designed to help provide health coverage to their employees, far less than the 4.4 million that had been hoped. Other benefits have had a slightly greater impact. About 2.5 million young Americans have been able to stay on their parents' health plans. And last year, 3.6 million seniors and people with disabilities saved $2.1 billion on prescription drugs thanks to a provision that gradually closes the gap in Medicare drug coverage. But many protections, including bans on co-pays for preventive services such as cancer screenings and physicals, have a relatively small effect on most Americans' checkbooks. Others, such as new regulations requiring insurers to spend more of their customers' premiums on medical care rather than administrative expenses, are little understood by consumers. And some of the law's most important provisions, including initiatives to improve the quality of medical care and control costs, will probably take years to bear fruit. Many healthcare experts believe these efforts are crucially important. They could not be put in place quickly, however. Nor could a huge expansion of insurance coverage that requires sweeping changes on the state and federal levels. "Implementing additional benefits before they could be cost-effectively administered would have backfired," said Chris Jennings, a healthcare consultant who was a top Clinton administration healthcare aide. For now, costs continue to rise. The average annual premium for an employer-provided family health plan jumped 9% last year, to $15,073, according to a survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research & Educational Trust. Approximately 150 million people get insurance through their employer. Although new benefits in the law probably account for some of that, most experts agree the increase reflects other factors, such as rising medical costs and profit-taking by insurers. Nevertheless, many Americans simply aren't convinced the law will do much to help them. "I suppose there may be trickle-down effects someday," said Melissa Gay, a Louisiana mother of four who said her grandfather still has trouble affording his prescriptions. "I just don't see them."[/release] Source: [url]http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar/20/nation/la-na-obama-healthcare-20120321[/url] (Page 1 of 2) (Did somebody break the release tag?)

[B]Breaking News: A law hasn't legally come into effect yet! Everyone blames Obama.[/B] And now back to Tom with the weather.

[QUOTE=Glaber;35282429] (Did somebody break the release tag?)[/QUOTE] GODDAMNIT OBAMA

[quote]making Democrats' defense of it a tough sell[/quote] Isn't it up to the Supreme Court now? It doesn't matter or not if it "sells to the people or not". They have to sell it to the Supreme Court, and they're not stupid enough to overlook the fact that it's yet to me majorly implemented.

Yes, that's what happens when you lie to people 24/7 for three years, eventually the stupid ones will believe you.

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;35282753]Yes, that's what happens when you lie to people 24/7 for three years, eventually the stupid ones will believe you.[/QUOTE] 24/7? Maybe 18/7. Conservatives gotta sleep sometime.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;35282678]Isn't it up to the Supreme Court now? It doesn't matter or not if it "sells to the people or not". They have to sell it to the Supreme Court, and they're not stupid enough to overlook the fact that it's yet to be majorly implemented.[/QUOTE] don't they factor in public opinion?

[QUOTE=Glaber;35282919]don't they factor in public opinion?[/QUOTE] They factor in constitutionality. Otherwise we'd not have cigarettes, but would have weed. You need to be educated on the supreme court system. Not only that, though, They wouldn't have any taxes. a lot of public opinion can be stupid.

true, I didn't mean to make it sound like the only factor.

glaber defaming obama, whats new.

[QUOTE=MightyMax;35283125]glaber defaming obama, whats new.[/QUOTE] The war of 1812

[QUOTE=MightyMax;35283125]glaber defaming obama, whats new.[/QUOTE] The crusades

I still don't see what the problem is with 'Obamacare'. Insurance companies are raising premiums because they have to pay more to actual medical expenses THAT THEIR CUSTOMERS PAY THEM TO DO instead of idiotic administrative costs? Sounds like the insurance companies need to grow the fuck up. Or we need to find a way to get rid of all the wasteful spending that goes into the administrative costs of private medical treatment centers. Or am I missing something here? I'm totally open to a rational explanation.

[QUOTE=MightyMax;35283125]glaber defaming obama, whats new.[/QUOTE] Very recently, to the misfortune of fans all around the world, we all heard the breaking news that Elvis died his hair His hair is naturally dark blonde / brown.

[QUOTE=Glaber;35283088]true, I didn't mean to make it sound like the only factor.[/QUOTE] I'd like to say before you comment on the way a system works to actually research it, Otherwise you do sound like you don't know much about it, And no offense but it sounds like you got your head up your ass. That's just me though. I don't know how European systems work in Britain, Germany and other places, so i don't make a comment on them. A great man once said "It is better to be thought a fool, Than open your mouth and remove all doubt." I don't mean to try to flame or anything, It's better when your only argument isn't what you thought up. And if you don't notice, It'd stop people from trying to defame your argument like the people posting now.

[QUOTE=Combine_dumb;35283190]Or am I missing something here? I'm totally open to a rational explanation.[/QUOTE] [I][B]COMMUNISM![/B][/I] The Reds will take over the world!

[QUOTE=Combine_dumb;35283190]I still don't see what the problem is with 'Obamacare'. Insurance companies are raising premiums because they have to pay more to actual medical expenses THAT THEIR CUSTOMERS PAY THEM TO DO instead of idiotic administrative costs? Sounds like the insurance companies need to grow the fuck up. Or we need to find a way to get rid of all the wasteful spending that goes into the administrative costs of private medical treatment centers. Or am I missing something here? I'm totally open to a rational explanation.[/QUOTE] People really don't like the mandate.

[QUOTE=Last or First;35282463][B]Breaking News: A law hasn't legally come into effect yet! Everyone blames Obama.[/B] And now back to Tom with the weather.[/QUOTE] It isn't that it hasn't come into effect yet, it's that small parts come into effect seemingly sporadically. Unless you fully read and comprehend the bill, the new provisions that come into effect each year may seem surprising. This definitely makes it hard to defend. Couple this with the rising cost of insurance and the bill seems less and less useful to the average American. That has nothing to do with whether the bill is bad or good in the long run, only the perception of it. Is "Obamacare" responsible for rising insurance costs? Probably not, and definitely not completely. However, when a bill was signed a few years ago to [I]lower[/I] the cost of healthcare, and when healthcare costs go up, it's easily to blame to most apparent factor.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;35283443]It isn't that it hasn't come into effect yet, it's that small parts come into effect seemingly sporadically. Unless you fully read and comprehend the bill, the new provisions that come into effect each year may seem surprising. This definitely makes it hard to defend. Couple this with the rising cost of insurance and the bill seems less and less useful to the average American. That has nothing to do with whether the bill is bad or good in the long run, only the perception of it. Is "Obamacare" responsible for rising insurance costs? Probably not, and definitely not completely. However, when a bill was signed a few years ago to [I]lower[/I] the cost of healthcare, and when healthcare costs go up, it's easily to blame to most apparent factor.[/QUOTE] And yet, if it [I]did[/I] come into effect all at once, or at least with the changes happening at a much faster pace and in larger bundles, people would be crying about it being too big of a change all at once. Especially the insurance companies and Republicans. The bill changing things over a long period of time helps companies and people adjust to the changes much better than slapping them with a ton of changes all at once. Yes, this article isn't directly about the bill, but about people's opinions. [I]Their opinions are [B]wrong[/B][/I].

[QUOTE=Last or First;35283565]And yet, if it [I]did[/I] come into effect all at once, or at least with the changes happening at a much faster pace and in larger bundles, people would be crying about it being too big of a change all at once. Especially the insurance companies and Republicans. The bill changing things over a long period of time helps companies and people adjust to the changes much better than slapping them with a ton of changes all at once. Yes, this article isn't directly about the bill, but about people's opinions. [I]Their opinions are [B]wrong[/B][/I].[/QUOTE] That's the sad paradox to big legislation. If it comes into effect all at once, it's damaging, but people have such short attention spans that if it comes into effect over a longer period of time it seems useless. People want to see results now, but those results might be harmful.

You DO realize that the majority of the important parts of the act are going into effect in 2014? I know that my brother and I have been affected by its passing already. I have a pre-existing condition (my insurance would have been incredibly high, and therefore un-affordable), if it weren't for the fact that I'm allowed to be on my parent's insurance until I'm 26, not only would I have had to pay for my own health insurance, which I can't, it would have been ridiculously high due to my pre-existing condition. That's ANOTHER piece that's saved my ass, you can't judge people based on pre-existing conditions, as well as the fact that if someone needs cancer treatments paid for, an insurance company MUST pay the promised amount for EVERY SINGLE treatment, not just the first few and then peter out, like they did before this law.

By the way, is that a paradox? I'm pretty sure it's not, but I couldn't think of a better word. Maybe duality? Catch 22? Those words don't seem to fit either.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;35283702]By the way, is that a paradox? I'm pretty sure it's not, but I couldn't think of a better word. Maybe duality? Catch 22? Those words don't seem to fit either.[/QUOTE] "Damned if you do, damned if you don't"? "Between a rock and a hard place"? Or, in other words, dilemma?

[QUOTE=Last or First;35283758]"Damned if you do, damned if you don't"? "Between a rock and a hard place"? Or, in other words, dilemma?[/QUOTE] Thank you.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;35283443]It isn't that it hasn't come into effect yet, it's that small parts come into effect seemingly sporadically. Unless you fully read and comprehend the bill, the new provisions that come into effect each year may seem surprising. This definitely makes it hard to defend. [/QUOTE] wikipedia is your friend brah

Has Glaber made a thread in the past year that isn't an over dramatised criticism to Obamacare? [editline]25th March 2012[/editline] I think the bill must have killed his grandmother or something because he REALLY hates it, so much so that he's fucking behind on everything else.

[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;35291830]Has Glaber [u][b]made a thread in the past year that isn't an over dramatised criticism[/b][/u] to Obamacare? [editline]25th March 2012[/editline] I think the bill must have killed his grandmother or something because he REALLY hates it, so much so that he's fucking behind on everything else.[/QUOTE] [url]http://facepunch.com/threads/1172049[/url]

[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;35291906][url]http://facepunch.com/threads/1172049[/url][/QUOTE] I do not see how that is in anyway shape or form relating to what I said. Or are you really grasping at the straws to insult me for something unrelated.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;35282464]GODDAMNIT OBAMA[/QUOTE] Facepunch seems to be running slow too. [B]DAMMIT OBAMA.[/B] [editline]25th March 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=MightyMax;35283125]glaber defaming obama, whats new.[/QUOTE] The Sun coalescing from a cloud of hydrogen into a flaming ball of gas, the Earth forming, dinosaurs getting wiped out by an asteroid...

Well it is socialist and therefore unamerican and we can't have that.