Survey Estimates Net Gain of 9.3 Million American Adults with Health Insurance

[NRSKarenRN]

[h=3]Survey Estimates Net Gain of 9.3 Million American Adults with Health Insurance [/h] Apr 8, 2014 The Rand Blog

Using a survey fielded by the RAND American Life Panel, we estimate a net gain of 9.3 million in the number of American adults with health insurance coverage from September 2013 to mid-March 2014.

The survey, drawn from a small but nationally representative sample, indicates that this significant uptick in insurance coverage has come not only from enrollment in the new marketplaces established under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), but also from new enrollment in employer coverage and Medicaid.

Put another way, the survey estimates that the share of uninsured American adults has dropped over the measured period from 20.5 percent to 15.8 percent. Among those gaining coverage, most enrolled through employer-sponsored coverage or Medicaid....

[herring_RN, ASN, BSN]

Single payer. I think that brings us back to... what? Oh, yeah. The VA. That's what I can't wait for.

The VA is not single payer. it is socialized government run healthcare.

With single payer AKA "Medicare for All" the delivery of care would remain with the hospitals and providers as it is now.

What is Single Payer? | Physicians for a National Health Program

[MunoRN, RN]

That is good to hear and I know you're proud of your daughter. The exchanges will be a blessing for some. It's good to hear it's not all for nothing.

It's just not good for nearly as many folks as it's hurt. Many have lost their insurance and been put on policies they might afford with subsidized premiums (sometimes) but crazy high deductibles they know they can't afford.

For all this talk of all the people now paying more for less insurance, you'd think at least one verifiable example could be found, just one.

The average cost of comparable insurance prior to Obamacare was $14,000/year for a family plan, a comparable (similar deductible, out of pocket costs) plan now costs about $12,000/family without a subsidy. You'd think the "can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs" principle would apply and there would be examples of those who fared worse, but despite intense attempts to provide evidence of this there still isn't a single example.

There was the story of Diane Barrette who as it turns out didn't lose insurance so much as a very limited pre-payment plan for services that weren't actually likely to exceed the amount she was paying, making it sort of a rip-off (kudos to Fox news who were the ones that actually pointed out she was probably better off paying more for true insurance).

Then there was the story of Julie Boonstra, who's story was such a good example of how Obamacare can hurt people that AFP spent $30 million to publicize her story, which was supposedly that she would have to pay more and that she wouldn't be able to keep seeing her same doctor. As it turns out, her Obamacare plan will cost her less (without a subsidy) and her plan does actually cover her current doctor.

So if this is actually not only happening, but happening to a large number of people, why is it so hard to find actual evidence of it happening?

[MunoRN, RN]

And I gotta tell you... if you're a righty, you can be angry at the government. But if you're a lefty, you have got to be incensed at the role of insurance companies in this. They're getting paid very well for what is often very inappropriate coverage. And they made sure their bail out was in big bold print in the legislation.

I'm not sure how "righty's" can be angry at the government, the basic premise of Obamcare is what they had been (and actually still are) advocating as how we should reform health insurance: utilize for-profit insurance, use (less efficient/more costly) state based systems rather than a single federal system, etc.

This might explain why for as much as "righty's" like to complain about Obamacare, they have such a hard time answering the simple question of what they would prefer instead.

Usually when you claim something was done wrong, it's because you know of a better way of doing it, which doesn't seem to be the case. I get the impression it's not the actually components of Obamacare that "righty's" don't like, it's the "Obama" part of it that they don't like.

[Episteme]

You know how it is, right? You do a neuro check on a new admit and something isn't right and you think... uh, what is it with this otherwise totally normal person? Then you figure it out. He has a field cut. He can't see me on that side. He only eats the food on the right side of the plate, when I move to his right side, I drop off the face of the earth, I'm not there because "there" doesn't exist. Profound unilateral neglect is amazing to see happen to otherwise intact, reasonable, alert patients.

And that is exactly what a polarized society is like. In 2008, the Republicans had a reform plan. There is a physician's caucus in the Congress and they've come up with some outstanding ideas, packaged them and published them. But, that side of the universe doesn't exist when you have a field cut and unilateral neglect.

You know how to use the internet probably better than I and you could find lots of variations in and permutations between the various Republican/Conservative/Libertarian/Think-tank/State Parties and platforms... ideas for reforming health care. You could lay them side by side and see what common themes and features they share and which ones are the outliers.

But you have a field cut. You see what you see. You hear what you choose to hear. Those plans, those ideas... they never happened. Weren't on the news. Weren't on the blogs you prefer. And your leadership repeats that ("why can't they come up with some suggestions") trope and those ("party of NO") memes over and over and it fits your unilateral universe absolutely perfectly.

Lots of alternatives to the ACA are, were, will continue to be available. You haven't gone looking for them, because well... that side of the universe doesn't exist. Just like the latest data on enrollments doesn't exist.

Cancer Survivor's Obamacare Plan Doesn't Cover A Single Doctor In 400 Miles | The Daily Caller

You have to see the right side of the universe to find information contra ACA. This is just one. I chose it because our state is mostly open land with two major population centers. This is terribly common in the north. It's become a running joke.

[MunoRN, RN]

You seem to be under the impression that my statements on Republican reform principles both pre- and post-Obamacare, are based on a lack of seeing Republican proposals. What I'm referring to is the current alternative front-runner; the "Patients Choice Act", which is basically a redone version of the 2008 proposal you referred to which was McCain's reform platform, Paul Ryan's reform proposal, previous congressionally proposed alternatives to the Patient's choice act, the Heritage Foundation healthcare platform, the position statements of the Center for Healthcare Transformation (Gingrich's health reform think tank), and views conservatives often point to such as Ben Carson, what is it you think I'm missing?

There's probably more productive conversation in discussing what these proposals actually contain rather than just saying I'm not listening. The 2008 proposal you referred to would give a flat $2500 tax rebate to everyone, regardless of income, dependents, etc, which by definition would make that plan less "affordable" than one where the assistance varies based on need. Under this plan the cost of insurance in the private market would go up for a very large number of Americans compared to what they pay under the exchanges, which would seem to defeat the purpose of making insurance more affordable.

[MunoRN, RN]

Cancer Survivor's Obamacare Plan Doesn't Cover A Single Doctor In 400 Miles | The Daily Caller

You have to see the right side of the universe to find information contra ACA. This is just one. I chose it because our state is mostly open land with two major population centers. This is terribly common in the north. It's become a running joke.

Believe it or not, preferred provider limitations under private insurance are nothing new. Insurance plans have excluded providers that charge more than other providers for a very long time. With broader competition, something championed by all conservative alternatives, comes the product of more competition which is that only the providers willing to accept the lowest reimbursements will be included, this is how plans keep their costs low. The only thing conservative alternatives offer to change about this is to broaden the geographic area where these plans compete, making for potentially sporificer options.

The alternative options to preferred provider competition is legally limit competition, which means higher prices, or regulate (price fix) reimbursement rates, both options seem to be adamantly opposed by conservatives.

Competitive access sounds nice, but as you can see it has some major drawbacks, so what would you like to see done differently? What is it that you think conservatives would want to see done instead?

[Chisca, RN]

Doing nothing was not a sustainable option any longer.

Why not?

[toomuchbaloney]

Why not?

Because the cost of health care in the system pre ACA was rising too quickly and consuming too large a portion of our GDP. It was not sustainable on a financial level.

At the same time it was not keeping pace globally with health outcomes or access to the general population of the country. In fact while it was increasingly more expensive our system was resulting in poorer outcomes for fewer people.

We were (still are) paying top dollar for poor outcomes and bad access.

[pmabraham, BSN, RN]

Good day:

The Real Story on How Much Obamacare Increased Coverage -- interesting.

Thank you.

[emtb2rn, BSN, RN, EMT-B]

Good day:

The Real Story on How Much Obamacare Increased Coverage -- interesting.

Thank you.

So that report by the very biased far right leaning anti anything obama heritage foundation shows that more uninsured americans now have insurance coverage. Excellent.

[Not_A_Hat_Person, RN]

So the Heritage Foundation believes that increased access to health care is a bad thing. Got it.

[RobBSNRN]

So the Heritage Foundation believes that increased access to health care is a bad thing. Got it.

Is that what they said?

Interesting...