Obamacare Enrollment (part 2) Who Will Remain Opposed to Obamacare in 2015? “Zero-Sum Thinking”
In 2015, I predict that Obamacare enrollment will soar, matching 2014’s success.
This may seem counter-intuitive. After all, in recent months, the public’s perception of Obamacare seems to have soured. The Henry J. Kaiser Foundation’s health care tracking poll for July reveals that 53% of those surveyed last month said they view the Affordable Care Act unfavorably—a jump of 8 percentage points since June. July’s results mark the first time since January, that more than half of all Americans opposed the health reform law
Is this because people who have enrolled in the Exchanges are unhappy with the insurance they purchased?
No.
Most People Who Signed Up for Obamacare Are Happy
Just one month earlier a Kaiser Foundation poll showed that “71%” of those who have enrolled in insurance plans that comply with Obamacare’s rules “rate their coverage as excellent or good overall,” and “more than half (55%) say it is an excellent or good value for what they pay for it.”
This is in part because in the Exchanges, middle-income as well as low-income customers qualify for government assistance to help cover premiums. As a result, 87% of customers have received subsidies that come in the form of tax credits.
Nearly six out of ten of Obamacare’s new customers were previously uninsured, Kaiser reports, while the remainder are “plan-switchers” – people who previously had individual market coverage and switched to new coverage after Jan. 1. This group includes people who had their old policies cancelled as the ACA’s requirements kicked in, as well as people who switched for other reasons, including the availability of premium subsidies.
No surprise, customers who were forced to switch to a plan that meets Obamacare regulations are not as pleased as those who were previously uninsured. Yet nearly half of the “switchers” acknowledge that after using the tax credit, their new, more comprehensive Obamacare plan costs less than their old policy. This means that they are getting more for less. And I would predict that as they use their new policies ( and discover, for example, that preventive care is free) many will become more enthusiastic.
Here is the bottom line: “As a whole,” Kaiser observes, “enrollees are more likely than the public overall to have a favorable view of the ACA: they are roughly evenly split between positive and negative views (47% favorable vs. 43% unfavorable). By contrast, views among the general public are more negative than positive (38% favorable vs. 46% unfavorable.)
In other words, people who have had direct experience with Obamacare are more likely to support it. Those who have only read about reform are more likely to be opposed
What Determines Whether A Person Approves or Disapproves of Reform?
A close look at the polls reveals that how someone feels about Obamacare has far more to do with his or her politics than with any direct knowledge of the program. Sixty-nine percent to Democrats view the Affordable Care Act favorably, compared to only 14 percent of Republicans.
The majority of those Republicans have never shopped the Exchanges because they don’t need Obamacare. Many work for an employer who offers generous benefits. Indeed, of the 15 million 20-somethings who have stayed on a parent’s employer-based plan, 63% identify themselves as Republicans. This is because Republican parents are more likely to have health benefits at work. Other Republicans who own their own businesses often fund their own medical care with money that they have tucked way in tax-advantaged health savings accounts. Finally, some Republicans shun the ACA’s marketplaces because they want nothing to do with government social programs–even if they might qualify for subsidies.
What Many Republicans Don’t Know About Obamacare
Since many have never priced policies in the Exchanges, Republicans are inclined to believe the misinformation that reform’s opponents have planted in the media, including the myth that Obamacare is “unaffordable.”
In truth, last year, after using his tax credit, the average Exchange customer paid $82 a month for coverage. Many people shell out more for cable TV.
Here’s an overview of what various Exchange customers paid last year:
- Some paid nothing: their subsidy more than covered their premium.
- Mid-tier Silver plans (which are the most popular plans on the Exchanges) cost an average of just $69 a month.
- Gold and Platinum plan premiums are higher (averaging $208 to $220 a month) but out of pocket costs are much lower.
- Roughly 40% of platinum plans carry No deductible.
Somehow, the mainstream media rarely broadcasts these numbers. It’s easier to just quote a pundit’s claims about “sticker shock.” And sadly, as I have reported, these days, many journalists don’t have the time—or in some cases, the desire—to fact-check what their sources are saying. But as I suggested in part 1 of this post (URL) those who have enrolled in Obamacare are beginning to tell their friends. Word-of-mouth will play a major role in driving 2015 enrollments.
Zero-Sum Thinking
Meanwhile, it seems that the less someone knows about Obamcare, the more likely he is to disapprove.
Why?
Not long ago, Robert Blendon, a public opinion analyst at the Harvard School of Public Health, told ABC that “negative views about the law are driven by people who already had insurance”—in most cases, through their employer. “They worry that the coverage expansion will raise their premiums or compromise the quality of care they receive.”
‘Rightly or wrongly” he added, “people who are not directly aided by [Obamacare] are worried.”
When I asked Blendon to expand, he pointed to a recent advertising survey done by Kantar Media showing the large number of negative Obamacare ads running on commercial outlets. Kantar estimates that since the Affordable Care Act passed in 2010, $445 million has been spent on political TV ads mentioning the law, and spending on negative ads has outpaced positive ones by more than 15 to 1.
Those ads have reached wide audience, and in his e-mail, Blendon observed: “They all focused on what the risks are to middleclass individuals” who already have coverage. For example, some fret that if more people are insured, their doctors’ waiting room might be crowded.
In this way, Republicans have encouraged “zero-sum thinking” (the assumption that if someone else gains something, you may well lose something): “If more low-income families are insured, there won’t be enough doctors and nurses to take care of my me and my children.”
According to Blendon the advertising assault on the Affordable Care Act draws on lessons Republicans learned during the Clinton administration about harnessing “the ambivalence the middle class has about big reform” to win midterm elections. They assume that “big reforms” won’t help them—and might cost them something.
I agree, though in this case I would say we’re not talking about the middle-class (defined as households earning roughly median income, or $52,000) Half of all Americans earn more than median income, half earn less. Upper-middle households, earning more than, say, $70,000, are more likely to enjoy employer-based coverage, in large part because they are more apt to be able to afford their share of the premium. (In 2012, 86% of families with joint income over $75,000 enjoyed employer based coverage, vs. 31% of those bringing home $50,000 to 74,000 and just 12% of those earning $40,000 to $49,000.
As More People Experience the Reality of Obamcare, Attack Ads Become Less Potent
Nevertheless, even the GOP is beginning to realize that the number of Americans who feel so economically secure that they feel ambivalent about government assistance for the middle-class is shrinking. More and more families realize that they–or their adult children–might well need Obamacare. As Bloomberg News recently reported, the fact Republicans have cut way back on ads that attack Obamacare in North Carolina, Louisiana and Arkansas is “a sign that the party’s favorite attack against Democrats is losing its punch.”
What California Tells Us About the Future of Obamacare
Meanwhile, support is increasing in one state that has been particularly successful in enrolling the uninsured—California. Since the launch of the state’s health insurance exchange, Covered California, and the expansion of MediCal, the insurance program for low income people, California has extended coverage to more than 3 millions state residents, helping to cut the rate of the uninsured by half.
Meanwhile, state polls reflect growing awareness of the benefits of the ACA. The San Jose Mercury News reports; “The nation’s new health care law is surging in popularity in the Golden State, according to the Field Poll, which finds more Californians today — of all political stripes — support the Affordable Care Act than at any time since it was signed into law four years ago.
“The poll of 1,535 likely voters from June 26 to July 19 showed that 56 percent of registered voters say they support the law, while 35 percent are opposed.” Support is up six points from last year.”
Here, let me suggest that it’s worth remembering the old saw: ““Whatever is going to happen, will happen first in California?”
“The biggest increase in support (or the largest reduction in opposition) is coming from those groups that were previously opposed or evenly divided.” the San Jose paper reported. “GOP support is up 5 percentage points from last year. And fifty-six percent of voters with no party preference, favor the law—up two percent from a year earlier.”
–
Maggie, Obama care is an improvement in the sense that it seems to require a minimum level of care. Depending on whom you read there seems to be questions whether it has eliminated the insurer’s ability to drop coverage when someone develops a serious illness.
It has not fixed medical bankrupts’ for the majority. It fails entirely in correcting the most important problem with health care policies. This is which policy is going to work for the individual, or how the individual is to pay for a policy when a major health issue arises.
I see private health care insurance the same way I see how the private sector has dealt with cancer. That is people have spent and donated enough money over the past 50 years to end poverty in all countries. Still in many cases palliative care is the best treatment. The only thing positive in cancer research has been targeted treatment in recent years.
What we need is Medicare for all and simply pay for it the same way we pay for SS and Medicare.
Beene,
And a pony, too!
Let me know when you post proofs that show the validity of
“there seems to be questions whether it has eliminated the insurer’s ability to drop coverage when someone develops a serious illness.
It has not fixed medical bankrupts’ for the majority. It fails entirely in correcting the most important problem with health care policies. This is which policy is going to work for the individual, or how the individual is to pay for a policy when a major health issue arises.”
BTW, if you link to that schmuck Strehter whatever on NC, do not bother.
EMichael, for proof of either statement, research answers on Ma. Health, which is in the past was referred to Romney care. Or a simply google search.
“This is which policy is going to work for the individual, or how the individual is to pay for a policy when a major health issue arises.”
Any one who has ever bought private insurance of any kind and been required to use it, needs no proof of the above statement.
Beene—
Your are wrong about the Mass. exchange.
Emichael–
By referring to Strether as a “schmuck”, I think you are being kind.
He is a mendacious, pompous pseudo-intellectual who does great harming by spreading misinformation.
Beene–
Everything you say in your 1st comment is Not True.
The ACA does prevent insurers from dropping coverage when someone develops a serious illness.\
This is not something that “depends on who you read.”
It’s the law. Period.
Either you have been duped or you just don’t want to know what is in the law. (I find that some “medicare for all” advocates don’t want to know. They prefer to spread misinformation. )
The law also eliminates medical bankruptcy for most people by capping how much an individual can be asked to pay out of pocket at a little over
$6,000 ($12,000 for a family)
If Strether Lamber and his entire family
were in a horrible auto accident and all wound up spending two months in the hospital, the maximum the would owe is $12,000 plus. The insurer would have to pay all bills beyond that amount.
If you owe $12,000, the hospital will negotiate a payment schedule with you and let you pay it off over time. If you owe $200,000—or more–they know that you’ll never be able to pay it, and will come after you, take your house etc. That’s how you wind up in bankruptcy court.
If you owe $12,000, you just need to make a downpayment on the bill (by
borrowing from a credit card or from friends and relatives) and show the hospital that you are willing to pay. They may well give you a discount. If you are truly low-income, they’ll help you apply for Medicaid (or Schip) or help you apply for help from a charity.
As for Medicare-for-all : today, if you are on Medicare and are in the hospital; for more than a certain number of days, you have to begin paying all of the bills yourself. Once you have spent down all of your resources, you are eligible for Medicaid, which will then begin picking up the bills.
But you will not be able to keep your savings, and may lose your house (if you’re going into a nursing home and will never return to the house. )
In other words, Medicare is not nearly as good as Obamacare (in this and other ways.)
Couldn’t we improve Medicare so that it paid for long-term care no matter how long you were in a hospital or a nursing home?
Sure, if we double the Medicare payroll tax that is taken out of your paycheck. And that might not be enough to fund a greatly expanded Medicare for everyone. We also would probably have to greatly increase the inheritance tax, and introduce a VAT tax (a federal sales tax on everything you buy). This is how European countries finance universal
care. Europeans pay far higher taxes than we do, and their healthcare is not nearly as expensive (because they don’t overpay for medications, doctors, devices, hospitals, etc., and, by and large, they refuse to cover procedures unless medical evidence shows that they work.
Actually Obama, Your Health Care Law Will Not Stop Medical …
Apr 30, 2013 … The problem is the Obamacare will not even come close to eliminating medical
bankruptcy. Even under the law, people who buy insurance on …
http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2013/04/30/actually-obama-your-health-care-law-will-not-stop-medical-bankruptcy/ – 121k – Cached – Similar Pages
Will People No Longer Be at Risk of Medical Bankruptcy? – DEBATED
Oct 10, 2013 … 2012 white paper, “Issue Brief: Medical Debt, Medical Bankruptcy and … “When
the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) was …
http://healthcarereform.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001833 – 70k – Cached – Similar Pages
PNHP: Medical Debt: A Curable Affliction Health Reform Won’t Fix
Jun 3, 2013 … Unfortunately, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) will throw a lifeline to very few. … In
2001, we began studying medical bankruptcy along with our …
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2013/june/medical-debt-a-curable-affliction-health-reform-won%E2%80%99t-fix – 33k – Cached – Similar Pages
Is it really possible to avoid Medical Bankruptcy? | eHealth …
May 7, 2014 … Why do families with health insurance go bankrupt when a family … even under
the Affordable Care Act – families have the option to buy health …
https://www.ehealthinsurance.com/affordable-care-act/news/is-it-really-possible-to-avoid-medical-bankruptcy – 40k – Cached – Similar Pages
The Affordable Care Act Gives American … – The White House
The Affordable Care Act Gives American Families Greater. Control Over Their
Own … will help protect them from medical bankruptcy. This high risk pool is a …
http://www.whitehouse.gov/files/documents/health_reform_for_american_families.pdf – – Cached – Similar Pages
Fewer US Bankruptcies after the Affordable Care Act? Probably Not.
Speculation abounds that the Affordable Care Act – commonly referred to as …
The rest met criteria for medical bankruptcy because they had lost significant …
http://www.robletolaw.com/fewer-us-bankruptcies-after-the-affordable-care-act-probably-not/ – 32k – Cached – Similar Pages
beene:
You cite Medicare for all as being the solution which it could be in the long run. Do you think people do not run into issues with it? For example, who is footing the other 20% of Part B or the donut hole in Part D? You will spend $thousands if with Medicare of you do not take Supplemental, which I hope you have done so. AARP/United Healthcare at 65 is $94/Month. And what if they do not admit you at a hospital and only take you for observation for a few days? Who is paying that bill? You!
As I explained to you before ~$6,000 for an individual and ~$12,000 for a family under the PPACA. Furthermore, as I also explained there is nothing to stop a person from being considered for subsidies if they lose their job. “For people already enrolled in Marketplace coverage, having a change in income or household status that affects eligibility for tax credits or cost-sharing reductions.” Healthcare Insurance companies can not drop you, they can not put life time restrictions in cost, they have to provide certain benefits as determined by the PPACA, etc. http://obamacarefacts.com/obamacare-open-enrollment.php
And what did the conservatives have to say about medical bankruptcy?
“A study published in the journal Health Affairs reviewed Justice Department data and discovered that among Americans who cited medical debt as a contributing factor in their bankruptcy filing, only 12 to 13 percent of their total debts were medical.” http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-a-budget/263547-the-myth-of-medical-bankruptcy#ixzz3BjWgcNOV Seems like they do not view it as an issue.
“In a 2005 article in the Northwestern University Law Review, Prof. Todd J. Zywicki called the $1,000 threshold for contributing medical debt “indefensible.” That’s an understatement. By H & W criteria, a bankruptcy with $50,000 in student loans and $1,001 in unpaid medical bills would be classified as a “medical bankruptcy.” Moreover, the average U.S. household had out-of-pocket expenses of $2,182 in 2001! http://healthblog.ncpa.org/medical-bankruptcy-myths/#sthash.pzJrfBJz.dpuf”
“The data comes from 1,250 personal bankruptcy cases, assumed to be representative of the almost 1.5 million households that filed for bankruptcy in 2001. The data on each bankruptcy were abstracted from court records and supplemented with 931 telephone interviews. The paper’s conclusions about illnesses in households were based on medical interviews conducted with 391 people. The paper does not specify how those people were selected. It does say that Himmelstein and Woolhandler (H & W), both MDs, coded the diagnoses given by debtors into the categories used for the analysis. http://healthblog.ncpa.org/medical-bankruptcy-myths/#sthash.pzJrfBJz.dpuf
“The classifications used to determine a medical bankruptcy were odd. Only 28.3 percent of the sample cited self-reported illness or injury as a cause of bankruptcy. However, H & W managed to almost double that figure (to 54.5 percent) by counting the following as “illnesses”:
•1. A birth or addition of a new family member
•2. A death in a family
•3. A drug or alcohol addiction
•4. Uncontrolled gambling
•5. Loss of at least 2 weeks of work-related income due to illness or injury by anyone in the household
•6. Out-of-pocket medical bills of $1,000 in the two years before filing by anyone in the household
•7. Mortgaging a home to pay medical bills.
http://healthblog.ncpa.org/medical-bankruptcy-myths/#sthash.pzJrfBJz.dpuf
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterubel/2013/08/16/beware-of-cancer-metastasizing-to-your-wallet/
Setting aside your unwillingness to accept; that insurance companies are unable to deny you coverage due to pre-existing coverage, the ability to be reclassified under the PPACA if you lose your job, that the limit for an individual is $6,000 and $12,000 for a family, that high risk pools are eliminated, that nothing would stop a hospital from writing some debt off after hounding you like the smell of dog shit on your shoe, etc. Is the percentage of medical bankruptcies really as high as 50%+ of all bankruptcies? You and whoever else is feeding you this malarkey is beating a dead horse on bankruptcy. Kind of shoots the MA study in the butt doesn’t it? If one truly looks at the data, we are similar to Canada with bankruptcy.
Politics make strange arguments and the Republicans are probably the worst in lying with the Dems second.
So why have some type of insurance? Not so much to protect against bankruptcy as to eliminate the need for me to bear the burden of your bills if you chose not to cover yourself under a voluntary situation or a strictly ESI environment, or under the old scenario where insurance companies called the shots.
beene:
Just in case the opposite is true, you may want to explore what The Chicago Fed had to say about the MA reform. http://chicagofed.org/digital_assets/publications/working_papers/2014/wp2014_01.pdf
We exploit plausibly exogenous variation in the impact of the reform across counties and age groups using levels of pre-reform insurance coverage as a measure of the potential effect of the reform. We find that the reform that the reform reduced the total amount of debt that was past due, the fraction of all debt that was past due, improved credit scores and reduced personal bankruptcies. We also find suggestive evidence that the reform lowered the total amount of debt and decreased third party collections. The effects are most pronounced for individuals who had limited access to credit markets before the reform. These results show that health care reform has implications that extend well beyond the health and health care utilization of those who gain insurance coverage.
Maggie, I agree, that Medicare does not cover long term care at rest homes. But it does cover hospital care.
Maggie, Romney care has not decreased medical bankrupts in Ma. where it is practiced and is aside from the few improvements in Obama care is a copy.
“Sure, if we double the Medicare payroll tax that is taken out of your paycheck. And that might not be enough to fund a greatly expanded Medicare for everyone.”
Maggie, even if Medicare for all cost double (I find unlikely) it would beat almost any private insurance plan. The reason I find it unlikely is the majority of citizens stay healthy till end of life.
Cancer Research – A Super Fraud? – Rense
Have you ever wondered why, despite the billions of dollars spent on cancer
research … Our whole cancer research in the past 20 years has been a total
failure. … A large portion of money donated to cancer research by the public is
spent on …
http://rense.com/general9/cre.htm
Beene–
Responding to your August 28, 2014 6:35 pm comment
saying that Meciare pays for hospital care.
Here,you are simply lying.
Here is the rule under Medicare:
At this point, my guess is that you know that you are lying and just don’t
care. You simply want to try to undermine universal health care by
spreading mis-iinformation.
From now on I will not be responding to your comments.
I don’t respond to trolls
Angry Bear is a legitimate blog. You are trying to use it as a platform to
spread your ideology–by lying
Shame on you.
Maggie, be accused of a lot of things but being troll or lying have not been among them.
You say it’s law, and I say and quote those who claim perhaps its not law on medical bankrupts. We both know that aside from those who slip passages in ACA’s 17000 plus pages law will at some future date be settled in a court. Till that point in time we have opinion, of what is stated in the 17000 plus pages.
“Sure, if we double the Medicare payroll tax that is taken out of your paycheck. And that might not be enough to fund a greatly expanded Medicare for everyone.”
Maggie, even if Medicare for all cost double (I find unlikely) it would beat almost any private insurance plan. The reason I find it unlikely is the majority of citizens stay healthy till end of life.
I find tax rate doubling for Medicare for all also highly unlikely. A multiplier of 10-15x is much more plausible. How? Medical expenditures in the U.S. are about 18% of GDP, or about $3 trillion. There are about 130 million households with household income 50k (median) to 60k (guess at the average). 130 mill * $60,000 = 7.8 trillion. So the tax rate on 7.8 trillion to finance 3 trillion of expenditures is 38%. This is more than 13x the 2.9% (employer and employee) current Medicare tax rate.
Some would argue that the current employer contribution to private health insurance of around $12,000 would show up as household income instead, so household income would increase to $72,000. the tax rate on the higher household income would only be 32% or 11x higher.
jed:
What is the corporate deduction for healthcare? Still 50%? Come-on, you know better than this. You do not believe:
– Corps split the $12,000 amongst employees and themselves.
– Corps deduct a portion of the expenditure from Gross Profits.
– Employee Insurance is Overhead or the cost of operating in the US and not wages.
Run, thanks for all the URL’s will take the time to explore them.
I never said Medicare for all was perfect, and certainly not Part D which should be an embarrassment to anyone who signed off on that part of Medicare. But most can afford the 20% without losing what little they have worked all their lives.
Obama care we agree is an improvement in the area that insurers cannot denie coverage and make it harder for insurers to drop coverage when it is needed most. These two items are really great.
My problem with private insurance is the three levels of coverage and even in those levels, few if any know which of the policies in these different levels is best for the insured. Medicare does not have this problem.
Just saying why try to recreate a rounder wheel, when you already have a good wheel to start with.
beene:
So my $30,000 doctors bill for open heart will not cause anyone issues? That is the same as $6,000 (20%) or the max for the PPACA.
Try 5 levels of coverage
run,
not sure the point you’re trying to make, (and thanks for telling me what I don’t believe, though I think there’s a few double-negatives in there that have me somewhat confused) but I’ll attempt a response anyway:
* the marginal corporate tax rate in the U.S. is 35% at a Federal level and roughly 5% at a State level, (but I keep reading on liberal blogs how the effective corporate tax rate in the U.S. is so much lower than the marginal tax rate – so it’s interesting that I’m now faced by a left-of-center argument that it’s the marginal tax rate that matters)
* the 12k is only the employer contribution to health insurance premiums. Average family premiums run about 16k, of which the employee contributes 25%,
* wages count as overhead, as do non-wage benefits. if the system whereby employers pay half of Medicare taxes was maintained, then the employee share of the tax would only be 17.5% (of the presumed higher $66k average wage), which would be a factor of 12x higher than the current employee share of the tax at 1.45%. I assume the employer contribution in this case would still be a tax deductible expense.
* but beyond my previous bullet, corporations generally target profit margins or returns on capital, and in competitive markets, profit margins and returns revert to the industry mean. In non-competitive end-markets (e.g., Google/Apple/Amazon, professional sports), labor competition tends to be pretty intense (hence the Silicon Valley collusion, or need for luxury taxes/salary caps in prof sports). Either way, “overhead” whatever that means to you, is the difference between revenues and profits.
Beene–
Please see comments from run 75411 .
“Just in case the opposite is true, you may want to explore what The Chicago Fed had to say about the MA reform. http://chicagofed.org/digital_assets/publications/working_papers/2014/wp2014_01.pdf ”
Run, will have to say this paper says there are less medical bankrupts. Some of the economist on this site might even like it’s format.
Personally, I hate static
“Just in case the opposite is true, you may want to explore what The Chicago Fed had to say about the MA reform. http://chicagofed.org/digital_assets/publications/working_papers/2014/wp2014_01.pdf ”
Run, will have to say this paper says there are less medical bankrupts in Ma. after Romney care. Some of the economist on this site might even like it’s format.
Personally, I hate statics, would have been happier with Ma. residents in 02 filed 2 bankrupts and zero in 06, and been more inclined to accept.
“So my $30,000 doctors bill for open heart will not cause anyone issues? That is the same as $6,000 (20%) or the max for the PPACA.”
Run, actually the real pain will be interest charges on payment plan. 🙂
Jed/Beene:
I am going to say it once. You can not hijack a thread with topics that are not to the subject matter of the post.
“I am going to say it once. You can not hijack a thread with topics that are not to the subject matter of the post.”
Run, the only time I was off subject was in posting of a cancer URL, or maybe comment on interest payments.
Too my very limited understanding of law. The only statement in a law that’s almost inviolate is the statement when the phrased “You shall not” is used. So anywhere this phrase is used in ACA (Obama care) we can say it is settled law.
Run, thanks for letting me know that there are five levels instead of three.
Obamacare dramatically reduces the medicare D doughnut hole, over time.
One would have to assume that ‘medical bankruptcy’ is not entirely about medical bills. It’s also about the fact that the household very often also suffers a, frequently severe, decrease in income due to the illness.
However Obamacare will make it possible for many more people in stressful situations to maintain or obtain coverage, and for the cost to decrease as their income does… right to zero if necessary.
Jeff Fisher–
What you say is very true. Thank you.
If a family is hit with high medical bills and a loss of income, Obamacare
can bring their cost down to–or close to–zero
And for seniors, prescriptions can be unaffordable. Closing the donut
hole is essential.
(I am also hopeful that, under reform, Medicare will begin to negotiate
for discounts on drugs the way the VA does. This may not happen while Republicans control Congress, but, in time, they will lose control.
I think this is a wonderful excellent post.
That is all.