Tag Archives: obamacare

Gutting Obamacare Would Leave 3 Million Americans Without Drug Treatment

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

There’s no denying that America is experiencing the largest drug epidemic in its history: Around 2.5 million Americans are addicted to opioids like heroin and prescription painkillers. Last week, Alaska became the latest state to declare the opioid epidemic a public health disaster.

President Donald Trump has particularly strong support in areas that have been hit hard by the crisis. Yet if Obamacare is repealed, as Trump has repeatedly promised, thousands of Americans would lose access to their daily or weekly treatment for opioid addiction.

Here’s what gutting Obamacare would mean for the people who depend on it to fight America’s opioid epidemic:

What’s the connection between the opioid epidemic and Trump?

Shannon Monnat, Penn State

Kathleen Frydl, a historian and the author of The Drug Wars in America, recently found that in nearly every Ohio and Pennsylvania county with high drug overdose rates, Trump’s share of the 2016 vote was 10 points higher than Romney’s in 2012, Clinton’s share was 10 points lower than Obama’s in 2012, or both. While the link between the drug epidemic and Trump’s popularity is circumstantial, “When you’re dealing with counties that have overflowing hospital parking lots, the message that America is already great doesn’t resonate with people,” Frydl says.

It’s not just overdoses: Trump overperformed in counties with high rates of “deaths of despair,” or deaths from alcohol, drugs, and suicide, according to research by Penn State sociologist Shannon Monnat. Counties with high despair death rates and high Trump turnout weren’t necessarily the poorest, but they were, generally speaking, financially worse off than they were a generation ago. “They’re places that have been experiencing economic downturn for at least the last three decades,” Monnat says. “There’s been a heavy loss in manufacturing jobs, natural resource extraction jobs—there’s a sense in these places that there’s been a dismantling of the American dream.”

Where are people most reliant on Obamacare for addiction treatment?

What has health advocates particularly worried is that the states with the highest overdose rates also rely the most on Obamacare. West Virginia, New Hampshire, Kentucky, and Massachusetts, have the first, second, third, and seventh highest overdose rates in the country, respectively, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The rate of uninsured residents in those four states would roughly triple if the ACA were repealed.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

These maps from the Department of Health and Human Services show this overlap. In the first map, red states have the highest overdose rates; in the second, red states have the most residents per capita who would lose their insurance if Obamacare is repealed.

What would repealing Obamacare mean for addiction treatment?

If Obamacare disappears, nearly 3 million Americans with addiction disorders would lose some or all of their health insurance coverage, according to recent research by Richard Frank and Sherry Glied, professors of health economics at Harvard and public service at New York University, respectively. Of those, about 222,000 would lose opioid addiction treatment.

Last December, in a rare moment of bipartisanship, Congress enacted the 21st Century Cures Act, which will allocate $1 billion over the next two years to expand access to opioid addiction treatment. But Frank and Glied estimate that repealing the ACA provisions that address substance abuse and mental disorders would take away at least $5.5 billion annually from the treatment of low-income Americans with mental health and addiction disorders. A one-time $1-billion increase in spending would “not even serve as much of a bandage,” they write.

Why is Obamacare a big deal for opioid treatment?

The ACA has been particularly important for those seeking addiction treatment, says Keith Humphreys, a Stanford University psychiatry professor who advised the Obama administration on drug policy. “It was designed to be very broad, but at the same time we knew that if there was anything that this would help a lot for, it’s addiction,” he says.

Before the ACA went into effect, a third of individual market insurance policies didn’t cover substance abuse treatment, including medications like buprenorphine that have proven critical to keeping former opioid users off of drugs. The ACA deemed substance abuse and mental health treatment to be essential health benefits, and now insurance plans are required to cover them. In states that expanded Medicaid, 20 percent of hospital admissions for substance abuse and mental health disorders were uninsured in 2013, before the bulk of the expansion provisions kicked in. By the middle of 2015, the uninsured rate had fallen to five percent.

In addition, Obamacare covers Americans who are are most at risk of becoming addicted to opioids: People with incomes below 200 percent of the poverty line have a 50 percent higher risk of having an opioid problem than people with higher incomes. Humphreys adds that most users start using heroin or pain-killers when they’re young. Since the ACA lets children stay on their parents’ health insurance until they’re 26, it’s easier for young users to access treatment.

Without the ACA, says Humphreys, “We’re back where we were before: bad access, low quality of care, and a lot of patients being turned away.”

What could Obamacare do better?

The ACA hasn’t fixed everything. While it’s increased the number of people with coverage, there’s still not nearly enough treatment capacity, leading to big gap between the number of people who have treatment and those who need it. About 420,000 people who suffer from opioid addiction don’t have access treatment. Frank and Glied estimate that repealing the ACA would widen this treatment gap by 50 percent, bringing the number Americans who can’t get opioid treatment to 640,000.

Apart from the ACA, there’s the more general issue that federal funding for addiction treatment and services has flatlined over the past decade, says Andrew Kessler, founder of health policy consulting firm Slingshot Solutions. Overall, states get about two thirds of their funding for addiction prevention from Department of Health and Human Services block grants—and given the rate of inflation, those grants have lost about a quarter of their purchasing power. Under Mick Mulvaney, the former representative from South Carolina who was confirmed as Trump’s budget director last week, “we’re bracing for a very austere budget,” says Kessler.

What will come after Obamacare?

Congressional Republicans have long promised to repeal Obamacare. Many proposals that Republicans have put forward, including Speaker of the House Paul Ryan’s “A Better Way,” would eliminate the requirement for insurance policies to cover essential benefits, including substance abuse and mental health treatment.

This has some GOP leaders worried. Ohio Gov. John Kasich, whose state has been hit particularly hard by the opioid epidemic, warned fellow Republicans in January about the implications of Obamacare repeal. “What happens to drug treatment, what happens to mental health counseling?” he asked. As Humphreys puts it, Republicans “ought to realize that they will really harm their own constituents pretty substantially if they took this away.”

View original post here:

Gutting Obamacare Would Leave 3 Million Americans Without Drug Treatment

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, oven, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Gutting Obamacare Would Leave 3 Million Americans Without Drug Treatment

Uninsured Population Holding Steady at About 10%

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

The latest CDC numbers on the uninsured population are out, and as of September 2016 the number of uninsured in the US had dropped from about 17 percent before Obamacare to 10.3 percent. That continues to be below the original CBO estimate of 11 percent for the full year.

For all of Obamacare’s faults, this is a tremendous achievement at a surprisingly modest cost. It’s beyond belief that Republicans want to destroy it instead of making it better.

NOTE: As always, I’m using the CDC’s figures for the nonelderly population. This is because (a) this is what CBO used for its estimates, so I need to use comparable numbers, and (b) it’s the number we actually care about. The overall figure for all ages is currently 8.8 percent.

Source: 

Uninsured Population Holding Steady at About 10%

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Uninsured Population Holding Steady at About 10%

Slavitt: Obamacare Should Be Profitable This Year if Republicans Don’t Blow It Up

Mother Jones

Andy Slavitt ran the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services under President Obama, which included responsibility for Obamacare. Here’s a tweetstorm he posted today:

I talked today/last night to 5 health plan CEOs. Won’t use names but: 1 Blues, 1 integrated w hospital, 2 non-profit, 1 VC backed. All 5 health plan CEOs believe they priced 2017 #ACA business & should at least breakeven. Several of the plans beat their ACA membership projections.

Of the 5 plans, w/ current uncertainty none can yet commit 2 participate in 2018. All seemed aware that new #ACA stability reg is coming. One plan said with all the work to be profitable in the #ACA (they hadn’t been), ironic to question participation now.

….They didn’t say, but I will: if there is ambiguity, they will raise prices if they participate. One CEO who has an actuarial background said he would be at single digit rate increases but for all the uncertainty. It sounds like the plans will submit #ACA rates for 2018 high to hold place in line. Big increases all from repeal & mandate uncertainty.

It is a shame. Not sure if representative, but single digit if we would wipe uncertainty off table. Still can. But needs to be fast….I think people are so weary of the unpredictability of politics. It zaps energy from their real jobs.

We don’t yet have final enrollment figures for 2017, but it appears that even with double-digit rate increases, uncertainty over Republican repeal plans, and deliberate sabotage from the new Trump administration, signups will be only 2-3 percent lower than last year. That’s a pretty stable market, and probably a profitable—or at least breakeven—one. Fairly modest changes could fix a lot of Obamacare’s existing problems, and higher funding could fix the rest of them.

Instead, we have massive uncertainty in an industry that felt like things had finally settled down after years of work. Slavitt is right: it’s a shame. We can only hope that Republicans will wake up and decide that repairing Obamacare and then taking credit for its success is a better path than blowing up the entire individual health insurance market.

Source: 

Slavitt: Obamacare Should Be Profitable This Year if Republicans Don’t Blow It Up

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Slavitt: Obamacare Should Be Profitable This Year if Republicans Don’t Blow It Up

Trump Sabotage of Obamacare a Big Success: Enrollment Down By a Half Million or More

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

The signup period for Obamacare is over, and total enrollment fell short of last year. The Washington Post reports the details:

The lower total…marks a striking turnabout from the trend as the Obama administration neared its end — when sign-ups for coverage under the law were running steadily ahead of a year ago.

The volume plummeted, in particular, during the final week of the three-month enrollment season — falling from nearly 700,000 in 2016 to just over 375,000. That last week traditionally is a peak time when eligible customers race to get ACA health plans, most of them with federal subsidies. This time, however, the Trump White House directed federal health officials to halt all advertising and other enrollment-outreach activities for the last six days of the sign-up period.

Based on data from Charles Gaba, here’s what enrollment looked like throughout the entire signup period:

Signups were running a bit ahead of 2016 during the entire open enrollment period, but then Trump took office. Republicans began talking about repealing Obamacare, Trump signed an executive order telling agencies to do whatever they could to throw sand in the gears, and outreach efforts were halted. The result was a substantial downturn in the second half of January. My estimate is that all these antics lowered enrollment by about 600,000. That’s 600,000 people who now have no medical coverage and run the risk of bankruptcy if anything serious goes wrong. Nice work, folks.

For additional evidence on this score, Charles Gaba has more. He notes that state exchanges have their own marketing and outreach programs, so they were less affected by Trump’s sabotage efforts. Sure enough, he finds that state exchanges ended up higher than last year by 2 percent or more, while the federal exchange ended up 4.7 percent lower than last year. He’s got all the details here.

See the original post: 

Trump Sabotage of Obamacare a Big Success: Enrollment Down By a Half Million or More

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Trump Sabotage of Obamacare a Big Success: Enrollment Down By a Half Million or More

Obamacare Is Slightly More Popular Than It Used To Be

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

We’ve seen a bunch of recent polling that shows an uptick in support for Obamacare now that the prospect of gutting it has become more real. However, as with any polling, you can get a better picture of what things really look like if you aggregate all the polls. Here is Pollster’s aggregate for Obamacare approval:

There has been an upward trend over the past six months of about five points or so. The rise since Donald Trump’s election has been a little less than two points. Technically, then, Obamacare is “more popular than ever,” but not by a lot.

Hopefully this trend will continue, but for now it’s not something to hang our hats on. We’re far better off hammering Republicans on specific features of Obamacare that truly have very high support: the pre-existing conditions ban, the cap on out-of-pocket payments, the tax credits, the Medicaid expansion, etc. That’s most likely where the battle will be won or lost.

View post: 

Obamacare Is Slightly More Popular Than It Used To Be

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Obamacare Is Slightly More Popular Than It Used To Be

Trump’s Pick to Oversee Obamacare’s Destruction Faces a Senate Grilling

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

When Donald Trump’s nominee to oversee the country’s health care system appears before the Senate on Wednesday morning, he can expect to face a barrage of questions not only about Republican plans to replace Obamacare, but also about whether he broke the law by profiting off health stocks.

Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), Trump’s nominee for secretary of health and human services, is scheduled to testify Wednesday before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, before he later visits the Senate Finance Committee, which will vote on his confirmation. An orthopedic surgeon who has made it his political mission to reduce regulation of the medical industry, Price has led Republican attacks on President Barack Obama’s health care law, the Affordable Care Act. He’s one of the few members of Congress to lay out a detailed alternative, although his proposal has not been adopted by the president he hopes to work for. But Price’s ability to get confirmed in the Senate might depend less on policy than on a string of alleged ethical lapses that have come to light since his nomination was announced in November.

All of this portends a confrontational hearing and a less-than-warm reception from Senate Democrats. Here are the controversies that are most likely to emerge in the hearing.

Obamacare replacement

Republicans have stumbled toward a repeal of the Affordable Care Act since the new Congress convened at the beginning of the month. Both chambers have passed resolutions to preclude a Democratic filibuster of a repeal, but Republicans are still struggling to figure out what will take Obamacare’s place if they eradicate the law.

Price has introduced the same Affordable Care Act replacement bill in each session of Congress since the law was enacted in 2009. But Price’s plan would likely strip many poor people of insurance by ending the Affordable Care Act’s expansion of Medicaid coverage to millions of low-income Americans. Price would also change the formula for determining who gets government subsidies for private insurance so that it doesn’t take income into account—meaning far more of the tax benefits would go to the wealthy than under the current system.

Is Price’s plan Trump’s plan? No one knows. Over the weekend, Trump said his plan to replace Obamacare would offer “insurance for everybody”—something Price’s plan does not seem to offer. CNN reported that Price has been excluded from the Trump team’s deliberations on health care reform so that he can avoid answering questions about those plans in his Senate hearing.

Still, Price will have to offer some sort of vision for how the Trump White House will address the health system—and just promising to repeal Obamacare won’t be enough. On Tuesday, the Congressional Budget Office released a report finding that number of people without insurance would increase by 18 million under the first year of a repeal, with that number expanding to 32 million by 2026. Premiums for individually purchased insurance would also double beyond current projections over the next decade.

Conflicts of interest

Price has been the subject of ethics concerns since Trump announced his nomination. The Wall Street Journal reported in December that Price has made more than $300,000 in trades in health care stocks over the past four years, while he continued to introduce health care legislation. Democrats called foul, with one House member writing a letter to federal financial regulators requesting an investigation into whether Price’s trading broke the law. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has pushed the Office of Congressional Ethics to examine whether Price’s stock trades violated laws prohibiting members of Congress from profiting off non-public knowledge.

Over the weekend, CNN reported that Price had bought between $1,001 and $15,000 in stock in a medical device company right before he introduced a bill that would have directly helped the company. On Tuesday, Schumer said that stock purchase “could very well be a violation of the law.”

Reproductive rights

Price is a staunch opponent of abortion rights. He has voted several times for a federal 20-week abortion ban, which stands in contrast to Trump’s pledge to send the abortion debate “back to the states” when his Supreme Court picks try to overturn Roe v. Wade. But abortion isn’t the only area where Price has fought against reproductive rights. Mother Jones reported in December on the myriad ways Price has tried to restrict contraception, including defunding Planned Parenthood, gutting Obamacare’s mandate that employer-sponsored insurance plans cover contraception without a copay, and passing “personhood” bills that would make certain IUDs and the morning-after pill illegal.

Payments to doctors

In addition to expanding insurance coverage, the Affordable Care Act changed the way doctors and hospitals are compensated in order to slow the growth rate of health spending. Throughout his career, Price has complained that the government burdens doctors with too many regulations and attacked proposals that would pay doctors for results rather than for each test ordered or procedure performed. Although he can’t repeal Obamacare’s insurance expansion without congressional action, he can reverse many of the law’s medical payment reforms, since these policies are largely at the discretion of the secretary of health and human services. Even as the American Medical Association has lavished praise on Price’s nomination, a faction of doctors has rejected the AMA’s endorsement and called for more scrutiny into Price’s attacks on the Obamacare reforms.

More – 

Trump’s Pick to Oversee Obamacare’s Destruction Faces a Senate Grilling

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, Mop, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Trump’s Pick to Oversee Obamacare’s Destruction Faces a Senate Grilling

Show Us the Replacement!

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Hmmm. Congressional Republicans might have a problem on their hands. Here’s one of the findings of the latest Kaiser Family poll on health care:

That little orange pie slice at the bottom—the one that says 20 percent—represents the number of people who support the idea of repeal and delay. About half the respondents don’t want to repeal Obamacare at all, and another 28 percent, showing the common sense that heartland Americans are famous for, don’t want to buy a pig in a poke. They may not be thrilled with Obamacare, but they sure want to see what’s going to replace it before it’s ripped apart.

This is the mantra Democrats should be hawking every second of every day. We don’t want a white paper, we want to see the real replacement. Does it really protect people with pre-existing conditions? Does it really keep premium costs down? Does it really reduce deductibles? Is it really a better deal for most working-class folks than Obamacare? Does it really keep the Medicaid expansion in place? Does it really guarantee that no one will be worse off than they are under Obamacare? And will it really cost less than Obamacare?

Every single person in America deserves an opportunity to look at the Republican plan, compare it to Obamacare, and figure out which one is a better deal for them personally. No one should support any kind of repeal plan until they’re allowed to see this.

View original post here: 

Show Us the Replacement!

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Show Us the Replacement!

Obamacare Was Not Passed Via Reconciliation

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

David French:

Remember when the Democrats passed ObamaCare through reconciliation, using procedural gimmickry to pass major social legislation over the unanimous objection of the majority party? So do congressional Republicans, and it looks like payback might be imminent.

I know this is an easy mistake to make, but I’m pretty sure Obamacare was passed over the unanimous objection of the minority party, the Democrats having won a massive, landslide victory in 2008. They figured this gave them a mandate to carry out the promises made during the campaign—silly, I know, since only Republicans have mandates—and they proceeded to do just that.

Less excusable is French’s contention that Obamacare was passed via reconciliation. It wasn’t. It was passed in the Senate under regular order, by a vote of 60-39 on December 24, 2009. Later, after Democrats lost their supermajority in the Senate, the House passed the Senate bill and then passed a second bill that implemented a few modest increases to subsidy levels and taxes. None of them were critical to the overall bill, but the Senate agreed to support these changes. These small, nonessential adjustments are the only part of Obamacare that was passed via reconciliation.

Everything else—the individual mandate, the pre-existing conditions ban, the subsidies, the Medicaid expansion, the medical loss ratios, the donut hole, the cost improvements, the taxes to pay for it all—in other words, everything that mattered, was passed via regular order.

As for the unanimous opposition of Republicans, that’s perfectly true. Democrats in the Senate tried mightily to put together a plan that might attract some GOP votes, but Republicans were adamantine. They pretended to negotiate, but by October it was clear they were just playing delaying games and had no intention of ever supporting anything that would expand access to health care. This strategy of blind obstruction, which applied to every part of Obama’s agenda, not just Obamacare, is a huge blot not on Democrats, but on the congressional Republicans who decided on it before Obama ever set foot in the Oval Office. It was only in the face of this unconditional obstruction that Democrats went ahead and passed something on their own.

Visit site – 

Obamacare Was Not Passed Via Reconciliation

Posted in ATTRA, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Obamacare Was Not Passed Via Reconciliation

Quote of the Day: Obamacare Replacement Will Leave No One Worse Off

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

From House Speaker Paul Ryan, on Republican plans to repeal and replace Obamacare:

There will be a transition and a bridge so that no one is left out in the cold, so that no one is worse off.

This quote is a month old, but I only noticed it today when Nancy LeTourneau brought it to my attention. Democrats need to hold Ryan to this.

That means no change in Medicaid expansion. It means no change in access to health coverage. It means no reduction in federal subsidies. It means making sure that insurers stay in the exchanges. It means no lifetime limits on covered medical care. It means kids can stay on their parents’ plan through age 26.

This is also a good yardstick for Ryan’s eventual replacement for Obamacare. Technically, he didn’t say that the eventual Republican replacement would leave no one worse off, only the transition. But someone should pin him down on that too.

Visit link – 

Quote of the Day: Obamacare Replacement Will Leave No One Worse Off

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Quote of the Day: Obamacare Replacement Will Leave No One Worse Off

S&P Says Obamacare Isn’t Failing

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

S&P says that Obamacare isn’t failing at all:

With better data supported by actual individual market experience, most insurers put in for increased premium pricing for 2016. Also, several insurers introduced narrower network products to control medical costs. Regulatory changes such as tightening the SEP rules also helped this year-over-year improvement. We expect the full-year 2016 underwriting losses to be lower than in 2015 and 2014.

….Insurers have put in meaningful premium rate increases for 2017…but we view 2017 as a one-time pricing correction….For 2017, we believe the continued pricing correction and network design changes, along with regulatory fine-tuning of ACA rules, will result in closer to break-even results, in aggregate, for the individual market, and more insurers reporting profits in this segment.

Hey, how about that! Now that insurers are pricing their coverage about where the CBO expected it to be, they’re starting to move toward profitability. Who could have guessed that?

This reminds me of something. A lot of lefties were unhappy with Obamacare because, in the end, it didn’t include a public option. Thanks, Joe Lieberman! But the truth is that although a public option would have been nice, it’s not really what Obamacare needed. What Obamacare needed was two things:

About twice as much funding.
A higher tax penalty for not buying insurance.

That’s it. But Democrats were fixated on Obamacare costing under $1 trillion (over ten years), and that prevented them from creating a program that people truly would have loved. If, instead, they had supported funding of, say, $2 trillion, generous subsidies would have continued into the working and middle classes; maximum deductibles could have been set much lower; and more insurers would have entered each local market. Combine that with stiffer penalties to back up the individual mandate and a lot more young people would have joined the insurance pools—and would have done so without resentment since the cost would truly be affordable. All of this together would have made Obamacare far more popular with the public and much easier to manage for insurers.

But where would that extra trillion dollars have come from? This is where the hack gap comes into play once again. If this were a Republican plan, and it were something they really wanted, they wouldn’t have bothered with funding. They would have just made up a story about medical inflation coming down (which it is) and broader health coverage leading to improved economic growth blah blah blah. Democrats weren’t willing to do that. Alternatively, they could have just funded a $2 trillion program. That would have meant even higher taxes on the rich and maybe some higher taxes all the way down into the upper middle class. Or maybe a small increase in the payroll tax. Who knows? There are plenty of possibilities.

But Democrats weren’t willing to be hacks and they weren’t willing to raise taxes more than they did. This is despite the fact that the public plainly doesn’t care much about deficits no matter how much they may say so, and the public is positively delighted with higher taxes on the rich. Multiple polls repeatedly show this by a wide margin.

This would have solved virtually every problem Obamacare has had. Higher taxes on the rich would have been a populist winner. Higher funding would have made the program genuinely affordable and far more popular. And the increase in both funding and the mandate penalty would have made the eventual insurance pool closer to what insurers expected, which would have kept them nearer to profitability and truly duking it out to gain market share against their competitors. It was a missed opportunity.

Excerpt from:  

S&P Says Obamacare Isn’t Failing

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on S&P Says Obamacare Isn’t Failing