The Obamacare "it's only 5%" lunacy

[Ranger John]

In recent days, the administration's favorite talking point on the impact of Obamacare has been that only 5% of the population is going to lose a health care plan that it likes and will have to pay significantly more to replace it.

While these numbers ARE, in fact utterly fraudulent, let's accept them for a moment for the sake of this argument.

Here's what Wikipedia has to say about the uninsured in the US:

The Census Bureau reports that in 2007 nearly 37 million of the uninsured were employment-age adults (ages 18 to 64) and more than 27 million worked at least part-time. Approximately 61% of the roughly 45 million uninsured live in households with incomes under $50,000 (13.5 million below $25,000 and 14.5 million at $25,000 to $49,000).[5] And 38% live in households with incomes of $50,000 or more (8.5 million at $50,000 to $74,999 and 9.1 million at $75,000 or more). As stated by the Census Bureau, people of Hispanic origin were the most affected by being uninsured; nearly a third of Hispanics lack health insurance. In 2004, about 33% of Latinos were uninsured as opposed to 10% of white, non-Latinos [9] However, this rate decreased slightly from 2006 to 2007, from 15.3 to 14.8 million, a decrease of 2 percentage points (34.1% to 32.1%). The state with the highest percentage of uninsured was Texas (24.1% average for three years, 2004–2006). New Mexico has the second highest percentage of residents without health insurance at 22%.[10] It has been estimated that nearly one-fifth of the uninsured population is able to afford insurance, almost one quarter is eligible for public coverage, and the remaining 56% need financial assistance (8.9% of all Americans).[11] An estimated 5 million of those without health insurance are considered "uninsurable" because of pre-existing conditions.[12] A recent study concluded that 15% of people shopping online for health insurance are considered "uninsurable" because of a pre-existing condition, or for being overweight. This label does not necessarily mean they can never get health insurance, but that they will not qualify for standard individual coverage. People with similar health status can be covered via employer-provided health insurance, Medicare, or Medicaid.[13]

[emphasis mine]

So, before Obamacare, official estimates were there were 45 million uninsured in the US. 20% (about 9 million) of those had the financial resources to purchase insurance an declined to do so, and about 25% (about 11 million) qualified for medicaid and just never bothered to enroll. So nearly half of those 45 million uninsured were uninsured completely by choice. Only the remaining 25 million or so could actually benefit from Obamacare in the first place. The current population of the US is 317 Million people. 25 million out of 317 million is about 8% of the population that could actually use help in the first place.

Therefore, by the Administration's own accounting, what Obamacare really does is spend hundreds of billions of dollars, and utterly screws 5% of all Americans, to help 8% of all Americans. Hundreds of billions of dollars... to help a net 3% of Americans or about 10 million people.

It takes a special kind of person to make an argument that 'only 5% of the people are losing out on this deal' when only 8% actually needed help to begin with. And by 'special' I mean either hopelessly ignorant, hopelessly partisan, just plain stupid, or some combination of all three.

[com6063]

Fail!

[douger]

Let's talk about the numbers.

5% may seem an insignificant number, until it's put into perspective. The common number that I'm hearing is that the 5% number equates to 15 million people, which is not an insignificant number of people. It should be noted that nearly all of the 15 million fall rather solidly into the middle class.

[Ranger John]

Nov 6, 2013 21:43:28 GMT -5 douger said:

Let's talk about the numbers.

5% may seem an insignificant number, until it's put into perspective. The common number that I'm hearing is that the 5% number equates to 15 million people, which is not an insignificant number of people. It should be noted that nearly all of the 15 million fall rather solidly into the middle class.

My guess is that ALL of those 15 million are in the middle class. The poor already have Medicaid.

[Deleted]

The goal was to eliminate the amount of Americans that are uninsured, not flip around which groups are able to afford insurance. Total fail.

[Ranger John]

Nov 6, 2013 21:49:17 GMT -5 @sameoldhotdiggity said:

The goal was to eliminate the amount of Americans that are uninsured, not flip around which groups are able to afford insurance. Total fail.

Well, you know... redistribution and all that.

[Deleted]

Nov 6, 2013 21:51:13 GMT -5 Ranger John said:

Nov 6, 2013 21:49:17 GMT -5 @sameoldhotdiggity said:

The goal was to eliminate the amount of Americans that are uninsured, not flip around which groups are able to afford insurance. Total fail.

Well, you know... redistribution and all that.

Of the worst kind!! Folks making middle incomes-- 80grand for a family of 4 is not a lot, unless out in rural areas- even then.
And a few hundred dollar a month hit is going to hurt folks making that kind of money. Rich folks will absorb it easy, poor will get it free.
Then--- there are those that will get subsidy help. But I wonder....if it's a tax credit, does that mean you get it back at tax time? If so- how do you swing the monthly payments until then? I guess you could reduce your witholding- but you better be darn good at forecasting how this will affect your tax bill. It's amazing how people I work with have no idea you can even tweak your withholding!

[douger]

Nov 6, 2013 21:49:17 GMT -5 @sameoldhotdiggity said:

The goal was to eliminate the amount of Americans that are uninsured, not flip around which groups are able to afford insurance. Total fail.

Sort of, kind of.

If the goal was to decrease the number of uninsured, there are few ways to do so without sharply increasing either taxes or debt. Even among Democrats, that's a hard sell.

The people getting tossed to the street coverage wise are some of the saps that get to help pay for it through their newly jacked up premiums, as will the young and healthy.

Time will tell if this beats the actuaries of the scam. But it's not a "fail." It's a feature, not a bug.

[Deleted]

Nov 6, 2013 21:58:21 GMT -5 douger said:

Nov 6, 2013 21:49:17 GMT -5 @sameoldhotdiggity said:

The goal was to eliminate the amount of Americans that are uninsured, not flip around which groups are able to afford insurance. Total fail.

Sort of, kind of.

If the goal was to decrease the number of uninsured, there are few ways to do so without sharply increasing either taxes or debt. Even among Democrats, that's a hard sell.

The people getting tossed to the street coverage wise are some of the saps that get to help pay for it through their newly jacked up premiums, as will the young and healthy.

Time will tell if this beats the actuaries of the scam. But it's not a "fail." It's a feature, not a bug.

It's a failure of the claimed goal if people remain uninsured. But if the design was to cause so much pain people would clamor for single payer-- you are going right direction. 

[kemmer]

One hundred percent government-paid coverage has always been the goal.

It just had to be "sold" as affecting only the uninsured, not the 85% who had coverage.

Here's another tweak they're working on. Companies who self-insure routinely buy "stop loss" insurance against the risk of a single employee racking up huge bills. This is plain insurance for the company, not health insurance. The administration wants to apply the "85% of premiums must be spent on patient care" to this insurance, even though it doesn't pay for any patient care. It merely reimburses the employer for excess expenditures.

If that happens, many companies will no longer be able to self-insure.

[breakingbad]

Raise your hand if you are surprised by any of this, or any of the other revelations coming out about this botched attempt at socialism.

[toon face]

5% is 5% too much

[Ranger John]

Nov 7, 2013 2:47:16 GMT -5 breakingbad said:

Raise your hand if you are surprised by any of this, or any of the other revelations coming out about this botched attempt at socialism.

I doubt anyone on the right was the least bit surprised by this. Well... maybe the technical glitches to heathcare.gov. That was sort of hard to screw up... unless of course you picked your vendors based on them having been friends with the First Lady rather than on their competence as web designers.

[rocketwolf]

Nov 6, 2013 21:49:17 GMT -5 @sameoldhotdiggity said:

The goal was to eliminate the amount of Americans that are uninsured, not flip around which groups are able to afford insurance. Total fail.

 The goal is for the government to control health care from cradle to grave

[Deleted]

Nov 7, 2013 7:29:56 GMT -5 rocketwolf said:

Nov 6, 2013 21:49:17 GMT -5 @sameoldhotdiggity said:

The goal was to eliminate the amount of Americans that are uninsured, not flip around which groups are able to afford insurance. Total fail.

 The goal is for the government to control health care from cradle to grave

And therefore have total control of the people. 
They can control what we eat via food stamps, and control our behavior via health care. 
That IS what certain people want-- force a "healthy" lifestyle on all, whether they would like it or not.
Even though what is fully healthy keeps evolving....who'd a thought chocolate would be good for you in small doses??

[redleg]

Nov 6, 2013 21:49:17 GMT -5 @sameoldhotdiggity said:

The goal was to eliminate the amount of Americans that are uninsured, not flip around which groups are able to afford insurance. Total fail.

No, the goal was to destroy the private insurance market, and leave only the government to 'insure' you.

[douger]

And if you were sitting fat, dumb and happy because your plan is an employee sponsored plan, don't.

Yet in the years to come, some workers with employer-provided benefits will see their benefits scaled back because of an Obamacare tax. That portion of the law -- known as the "Cadillac tax" -- isn't set to take effect until 2018, but it's already influencing the benefits packages that employers offer...

...because...

..."The clear expectation was and is that the 'Cadillac tax' -- the tax on high-cost health plans -- will cause those [employers offering] highly generous plans to pare back benefits somewhat so that they won't be subject to the tax," Paul Van de Water, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, explained to CBSNews.com. "It's not going to affect a large number of people to begin with, but it is significant in the longer run in terms of its potential to hold down health care costs."

Not yet clear is what happens if your employee sponsored plan is "deficient," like many of the five percenters who are losing coverage they were quite happy with, from major companies with solid reputations.

[Ranger John]

Nov 7, 2013 10:44:02 GMT -5 douger said:

And if you were sitting fat, dumb and happy because your plan is an employee sponsored plan, don't.

Yet in the years to come, some workers with employer-provided benefits will see their benefits scaled back because of an Obamacare tax. That portion of the law -- known as the "Cadillac tax" -- isn't set to take effect until 2018, but it's already influencing the benefits packages that employers offer...

...because...

..."The clear expectation was and is that the 'Cadillac tax' -- the tax on high-cost health plans -- will cause those [employers offering] highly generous plans to pare back benefits somewhat so that they won't be subject to the tax," Paul Van de Water, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, explained to CBSNews.com. "It's not going to affect a large number of people to begin with, but it is significant in the longer run in terms of its potential to hold down health care costs."

Not yet clear is what happens if your employee sponsored plan is "deficient," like many of the five percenters who are losing coverage they were quite happy with, from major companies with solid reputations.

Anyone want to take some bets as to whether 'Bronze Plans' will have a sufficiently high cost by 2018 to trigger the "Cadillac Tax"? After all, the Cimmaron was a Cadillac too.

[zenwalk]

Nov 6, 2013 21:43:28 GMT -5 douger said:

Let's talk about the numbers.

5% may seem an insignificant number, until it's put into perspective. The common number that I'm hearing is that the 5% number equates to 15 million people, which is not an insignificant number of people. It should be noted that nearly all of the 15 million fall rather solidly into the middle class.

Not if 25% qualify for Medicaid they don't.

[Deleted]

Why are so many thinking a single payer government program is best? Certainly it will not reduce costs.

[Ranger John]

Nov 7, 2013 17:52:46 GMT -5 zenwalk said:

Nov 6, 2013 21:43:28 GMT -5 douger said:

Let's talk about the numbers.

5% may seem an insignificant number, until it's put into perspective. The common number that I'm hearing is that the 5% number equates to 15 million people, which is not an insignificant number of people. It should be noted that nearly all of the 15 million fall rather solidly into the middle class.

Not if 25% qualify for Medicaid they don't.

zen, the 5% in question are people who ALREADY had insurance, and are now losing it. If they could already afford insurance, they're not going to be eligible for Medicaid. And honestly, even if there is are a handful of people wealthy enough to buy private insurance and still qualify for Medicaid, this is NOT a good thing. Comparatively speaking, Medicaid is a lousy substitute for regular insurance.

[drjohnnyfever]

Nov 7, 2013 18:09:38 GMT -5 Ranger John said:

Nov 7, 2013 17:52:46 GMT -5 zenwalk said:

Not if 25% qualify for Medicaid they don't.

zen, the 5% in question are people who ALREADY had insurance, and are now losing it. If they could already afford insurance, they're not going to be eligible for Medicaid. And honestly, even if there is are a handful of people wealthy enough to buy private insurance and still qualify for Medicaid, this is NOT a good thing. Comparatively speaking, Medicaid is a lousy substitute for regular insurance.

Not if they can make this happen:

"Virginia Democrat Calls For Forcing Doctors To Accept Medicare And Medicaid Patients

You would think that when your party is burying a hole that is getting harder and harder to get out of, you wouldn't want to that hole get deeper faster. But here is Kathleen Murphy, Democrat running for the House of Delegates against Barbara Comstock, telling a forum in Great Falls that she believes it should law to force doctors to accept Medicare and Medicaid patients."

masonconservative.typepad.com/the_mason_conservative/2013/11/virginia-democrat-calls-for-forcing-doctors-to-accept-medicare-and-medicaid-patients.html

Thankfully, she lost.

[howarewegoingtopay]

Nov 7, 2013 18:56:48 GMT -5 drjohnnyfever said:

Nov 7, 2013 18:09:38 GMT -5 Ranger John said:

zen, the 5% in question are people who ALREADY had insurance, and are now losing it. If they could already afford insurance, they're not going to be eligible for Medicaid. And honestly, even if there is are a handful of people wealthy enough to buy private insurance and still qualify for Medicaid, this is NOT a good thing. Comparatively speaking, Medicaid is a lousy substitute for regular insurance.

Not if they can make this happen:

"Virginia Democrat Calls For Forcing Doctors To Accept Medicare And Medicaid Patients

You would think that when your party is burying a hole that is getting harder and harder to get out of, you wouldn't want to that hole get deeper faster. But here is Kathleen Murphy, Democrat running for the House of Delegates against Barbara Comstock, telling a forum in Great Falls that she believes it should law to force doctors to accept Medicare and Medicaid patients."

masonconservative.typepad.com/the_mason_conservative/2013/11/virginia-democrat-calls-for-forcing-doctors-to-accept-medicare-and-medicaid-patients.html

Thankfully, she lost.

That would be the next step from forcing us to buy something. Force us to work as they say as well. They are already setting prices and we know how well that works out in the long run. (for those who don't it isn't good).

[zenwalk]

Nov 7, 2013 18:09:38 GMT -5 Ranger John said:

Nov 7, 2013 17:52:46 GMT -5 zenwalk said:

Not if 25% qualify for Medicaid they don't.

zen, the 5% in question are people who ALREADY had insurance, and are now losing it. If they could already afford insurance, they're not going to be eligible for Medicaid. And honestly, even if there is are a handful of people wealthy enough to buy private insurance and still qualify for Medicaid, this is NOT a good thing. Comparatively speaking, Medicaid is a lousy substitute for regular insurance.

It's anecdotal of course but the two people I know that were dumped are both better off, frankly.  What gets offered is a new policy meeting minimum standards at double the existing premium. In the two cases I'm familiar with both were paying 3-400 a month to begin with. Yes, I get your point now.  Thought you were referring to the overall percentage of Americans being channeled to Medicaid.  BTW, You need to be rock solid poor to qualify for Medicaid.  I had to look into it earlier this year regarding a dying relative's estate and was told you had to be down to your last $2,000.  That's pretty rock bottom even by republican standards. The paperwork by the way is best described as punishing.  The free lunches are meager these days but the need has never been greater.

[Moses]

Seems like non republicans have an advantage in numbers on this forum! Lol