Skip to main content

Sorry, FreedomWorks and the burn-your-fake-Obamacare-card crowd. You've got a loser of a message. A new Reuters/Ipsos poll of 1,053 uninsured Americans reaffirms a previous study from the Commonwealth Fund: If health insurance under Obamacare is affordable, young people will buy it.
While four in 10 of the uninsured of all ages support the 2010 law, according to the poll, the result indicated half of those 18 through 34 do so. Among the younger respondents, a little more than one-third have attempted to buy health insurance in the past, suggesting pent-up demand for the insurance plans to be sold through online exchanges in each state beginning October 1.

One-third of young adults in the poll said they are "very" or "somewhat" likely to buy insurance through their state's exchange.

If half of that proportion of the nation's young and healthy follow through, the White House would easily meet its goal of getting 2.7 million young adults—out of about 16 million uninsured 19-to-29-year-olds—to buy Obamacare insurance for 2014.

But affordability is going to be key, as the previous Commonwealth Fund survey found. Detailed interviews with 51 of the respondents Reuters conducted for their survey confirms it.
Ira Barth, 24, of Dover, New Jersey, a classical music singer and special needs caretaker, last had insurance in June 2012. He isn't sure if he will buy insurance on New Jersey's exchange: "I want to see how affordable it is. If it's going to be more expensive than paying for one or two doctor visits a year, I don't know if I'll sign on for it." [...]

Tanya McIntyre, 29, a mother of two in Asheville, North Carolina, and her truck-driver husband just got approved for food stamps; they can't afford a car, much less health insurance. McIntyre said she does "not agree with" the healthcare reform law's requirement that people buy insurance. "We can barely afford to survive. Being forced to have insurance, I do not agree with that. They're trying to force it on people who it's their last nickel and dime."

A family like hers will likely qualify for $8,400 in subsidies toward a $9,900 annual premium, and that might be enough to overcome her ideological objections to Obamacare. They will buy coverage on North Carolina's exchange, McIntyre said, "if we can find one cheap enough."

By the way, since they qualify for food stamps, it's possible McIntyre's family would have qualified for expanded Medicaid, if North Carolina hadn't refused to take the expansion money. As it stands, the premiums are still going to have to be affordable, and for a family on food stamps, affordable probably isn't what lawmakers and insurance companies think it is.

But there's definite good news in this survey for Obamacare's success: young people want to have health insurance, and the more they learn about Obamacare—according to Reuters' interviews—the more they like it: "many who had not heard of the exchanges or were disinclined to enroll did an about-face when presented with basic information about the new coverage." That makes the job of the administration in getting the word out about the new law even more critical.

Originally posted to Joan McCarter on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 10:51 AM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (21+ / 0-)

    "The NSA’s capability at any time could be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything. [...] There would be no place to hide."--Frank Church

    by Joan McCarter on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 10:51:42 AM PDT

  •  Affordable Care is a human right (0+ / 0-)
    But there's definite good news in this survey for Obamacare's success: young people want to have health insurance, and the more they learn about Obamacare—according to Reuter's interviews—the more they like it: "many who had not heard of the exchanges or were disinclined to enroll did an about-face when presented with basic information about the new coverage." That makes the job of the administration in getting the word out about the new law even more critical.

    Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "I’m not the strapping young Muslim socialist that I used to be" - Barack Obama 04/27/2013

    by annieli on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 11:00:09 AM PDT

  •  This sums up the ACA's biggest problem. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annieli, sow hat, JerryNA

    There's far more misinformation out there than facts.  That's thanks to the right-wing groups that have fought it like crazy.

    29, white male, TX-07 (current), TN-09 (born), TN-08 (where parents live now)

    by TDDVandy on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 11:24:33 AM PDT

    •  and, in no small measure, a failure by this (0+ / 0-)

      president to actually MARKET and SELL the program that his name is affixed to to the American public.  

      It's like he wants to divorce himself from it, and just live together.

      Through early morning fog I see visions of the things to be the pains that are withheld for me I realize and I can see...

      by Keith930 on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 07:01:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  There is a huge marketing campaign underway (0+ / 0-)

        to explain and push Obamacare.  He has been defending if quite energetically since the 2012 election campaign.  Obama is not the one at fault here.  It's the huge GOP misinformation campaign and the lazy media.  

        Right man, right job and right time

        by Ianb007 on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 12:52:15 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Only since then? The law passed in 2010; (0+ / 0-)

          he and the rest of the party should have been "defending it quite energetically" since the minute it passed.

          "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

          by bryduck on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 12:28:48 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  No the biggest problem is that it's seen as (0+ / 0-)

      optional

  •  The answer why (0+ / 0-)

    All of this is very easy to explain to anyone with an open mind on the subject.
    All those against ACA already have government regulated insurance.  Medicare or group insurance heavily regulated by ERISA and HIPPA and COBRA.  They got theirs and could care less whether or not the rest of us die.  Selfish, and hypocritical to the nth degree.
    So, when offered to finally get insurance on an even playing field for relatively reasonable cost, ordinary people sure know what to do.  Betcha and "card burner" will be on their parents' policy.  Of course the dont need to do anything themselves but may actually be benefitting from Obamacare.

    •  ERISA and HIPPA and COBRA? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Kentucky DeanDemocrat

      There's an interesting tangle of acronyms.
      COBRA, at least, is relevant to the discussion at hand, though I wonder how many people take advantage of it.  I remember sticker shock on the occasions when we considered using it.

      That said, you are on the right track.  Most people still get insurance through their employers and have no idea what it really costs.  When you've never had to worry about it, it's hard to grasp the magnituded of the problem for those who aren't able to get employer-paid benefits.

      It's also hard to grasp how much those same benefits distort the economy and serve to make American health care resemble a criminal conspiracy more than a vital service.

      LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

      by dinotrac on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 07:22:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Getting the word out (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annan, JerryNA

    Fortunately, on average, the people in this age group do a remarkably fine job of staying in touch with one another through social media. The ones who check it out and think that the insurance is affordable will talk about it.

    Of course, so will the ones who weren't happy with what was offered. Maybe the ones who lost out in the non-expansion states will discover that they should direct their ire at the state's Republicans.

  •  The gap group will large. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annan, JerryNA

    "A family like hers will likely qualify for $8,400 in subsidies toward a $9,900 annual premium... "

    No, they will not be able to afford it. That would still cost them $125 per month. Believe me, a family poor enough to get food stamps cannot pay that. They will be one of the many families and singles left in the gap created by the Supreme Court which allowed states to refuse Medicaid expansion. I believe this gap group is going to be far larger than most predict. The economies of the poor are not understood by most people who have never experienced them.

    The trouble ain't that there is too many fools, but that the lightning ain't distributed right. Mark Twain

    by BlueMississippi on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 05:24:09 PM PDT

    •  The Fox News/GOP/Tea Baggers will blame lack of (3+ / 0-)

      affordable subsidized insurance on Obamacare, between the other stories/lies about "death panels", blaming "takers" for being poor, blocking minimum wage increases, demanding firing more lazy government workers, and decrying unemployment.

    •  If that's a $9,900 benchmark policy ... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      True North, BlueMississippi

      ... which is the 2nd cheapest of the Silver (30% average out of pocket) policies, then if they are in range of $8,400 subsidy on a $9,900 Silver policy, the Bronze (40% average out of pocket) policy would likely be $0 out of pocket premium.

      So the odds would be high if they're budgets are stretched as badly as my students in that kind of situation are, they'd be picking a Bronze policy, which sucks, but not as bad as no coverage at all, no fully funded annual exam funding and the other cost cutting fully funded preventative care.

      Support Lesbian Creative Works with Yuri anime and manga from ALC Publishing

      by BruceMcF on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 06:46:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Preventive services (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BlueMississippi, BruceMcF

        From what I've read, all policies are supposed to cover the preventive health services. I assume the Bronze plans have them, too.

        The exceptions are those that are grandfathered in, and existed before ACA was signed into law.

        •  Yes, full, no deductible, no co-pay coverage ... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          True North

          ... for the preventative health services are universal across all four levels of coverage. That doesn't change the 40% expected out of pocket for the Bronze plans because the covered preventative health care save money on average save money.

          Its the rest ~ hospitalization, covered prescription drugs, mental health, etc. ~ where the Bronze plans cover an expected (acturial) 60% of costs.

          Support Lesbian Creative Works with Yuri anime and manga from ALC Publishing

          by BruceMcF on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 08:34:31 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Exactly. (0+ / 0-)

      It was odd that the article dismissed the family as having "ideological" objections. There's nothing ideological about being too damn poor to pay for insurance that you can't use anyway because it will have high deductibles and co-pays.

      This is why the for-profit insurance industry should have been taken out of the equation, which is what Obama supporters wanted in 2008 anyway.

      •  It may have been what they wanted but (0+ / 0-)

        that's not what Obama ran on.  Just saying.

        Right man, right job and right time

        by Ianb007 on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 12:57:31 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Neither is what we got. (0+ / 0-)

          The fact that it didn't include a mandate is one aspect of Obama's plan I liked over Hillary's. And, of course, the lack of a strong public option gives the insurance industry vampires way more power than they should have.

          •  With the exception of the mandate and (0+ / 0-)

            the Public option Obamacare is pretty much what was on Obama's website during the 2008 campaign.

            No person is going to be able to implement any major piece of legislation without input from the congress, so campaign proposals are almost always going to change.

            The public option can always be added down the road if it is needed and there are 60 senators willing to vote for it. Which was not the case in 2010.

            The mandate is a necessary part of any health care system that strives to cover everyone

            Right man, right job and right time

            by Ianb007 on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 11:46:44 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Yep, and you want to bet that they will decide (0+ / 0-)

      to simply take the fines for not having insurance out of their food stamp payments?

      You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

      by Throw The Bums Out on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 11:47:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  They're young, not stupid. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    myboo, blukat

    So many people know someone who was injured...sports, cars, bikes...who had to pay out of pocket for those expenses, or move back in with mom and dad because of it. They'll want to avoid that and now they can.

    There's a reason so many families are signing their kids up to stay on their insurance til age 26, Republicans, Democrats and indies alike. It makes sense.

    Support Small Business: Shop Kos Katalogue including Hero for Hire, an epic fantasy with a sense of humor by C.B. Pratt

    by wonderful world on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 06:37:07 PM PDT

    •  But It's the Elders Mostly Making That Decision (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dinotrac

      They have a very different perspective from their kids'.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 06:47:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  So what are you saying? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Willa Rogers, wonderful world

        Banking on the American people to be able to sort all this out and declare the adult in the room the winner is a very big bet. -Digby

        by Boogalord on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 07:04:22 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  If my kids did not have health insurance from (3+ / 0-)

        their jobs, this parent would be twisting their arms to buy it through the exchanges.  I was able to keep them on my plan until they found a job with coverage, thanks to ObamaCare.  In many cases it might be cheaper to help them buy a plan on the exchange vs keeping them on the parent's plan.

        “The future depends entirely on what each of us does every day.” Gloria Steinem

        by ahumbleopinion on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 07:05:36 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  What are the rules on parents'... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          wonderful world

          ...insuring adult children under PPACA, does anyone know?

          E.g., do parents have to purchase insurance for children aged 18-26 under family plans, or does it depend on whether the child is claimed as a dependent, or is it left up to each individual family to decide?

          •  Since the cost of (0+ / 0-)

            a "family" plan would undoubtedly be less than a "couple" + "adult" plan, I'm not sure why this would be an issue for those wanting to cover their child . . . The adult child has to be insured one way or another (or pay the fine), unless they are exempted by the law's statutes.

            "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

            by bryduck on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 12:36:07 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Young people back in 2009 expected... (4+ / 0-)

    a government issued health insurance card from Obama and Democrats.

    Instead they got hit or miss corporate exchanges and a system with political sabotage written into its very fabric.

    So long as liberals demand a minimum wage that's the best we'll get. Demand a living wage instead ~ The modern Democrat is one who promotes old GOP ideas and calls them progressive in comparison to new GOP ideas.

    by masswaster on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 06:43:17 PM PDT

  •  The rule of money in our society (0+ / 0-)

    is an entirely ideological construct.  It rules us in its concentrated, accumulated form, known as capital.  Its associated ideology is known as capitalism.

    Clap On, Clap Off, The Clapper!

    by ActivistGuy on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 06:46:34 PM PDT

  •  What Was Available to Me a Zillion Yrs Ago (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    on the cusp

    when young adult was catastrophic. They'll probably have to look at that kind of minimal coverage and then see how much more it costs them than the doctor visit every few years they're probably doing now.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 06:48:41 PM PDT

    •  Catastrophic coverage is not a bad choice for (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Kentucky DeanDemocrat

      young healthy single people.  It can be very cheap, yet provide a fallback if something awful happens.  My understanding, however, is that this choice is removed by ACA.

      Has me a bit concerned, but cautiously optimistic.
      We rely on catastrophic coverage now.   If ACA-blessed coverage costs more than we currently pay, I'm not sure what we will do.

      LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

      by dinotrac on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 07:27:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  People don't understand what insurance is for (5+ / 0-)
      "If it's going to be more expensive than paying for one or two doctor visits a year, I don't know if I'll sign on for it."
      That's exactly the wrong way to think about insurance.  It's not an investment that you expect to make money on.   The primary purpose of health insurance is protection from financial and medical ruin in case the worst happens, and the worst can happen to anybody at any age.  

      You DON"T want to make money on insurance.   You don't want your house to burn down so you can make money on your fire insurance.  You don't want your car to get stolen so you can make money on your car insurance.  You don't want to die to make money on your life insurance.  

      And you don't want to make money on health insurance.  The very best thing that can happen to you is that you pay for insurance your whole life and rarely use it because you never get sick or have an accident.  

  •  Thank you for not using the phrase (5+ / 0-)

    "young invincibles" anywhere in your article. Obviously young people know they need health insurance, it's just a matter of cost, like everyone else.

    Banking on the American people to be able to sort all this out and declare the adult in the room the winner is a very big bet. -Digby

    by Boogalord on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 06:49:35 PM PDT

  •  The truth will out (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    True North, myboo

    The Kochs may find suckers people gullible enough to believe what they're saying, but essentially everyone will know someone who really benefitted from the system and speaks well of it.  Which in the end will have a lot more credibility than an 30-second ad with scary music and soft female voices.

    They may delay adoption, but not enough to prevent either:

    • The continued adoption of the program, and
    • Lots of people in red states feeling that people in blue states are getting a much better deal on health care than they are.

    People of course do vote against their own interests.  But usually it's over things that are more abstract and harder to measure.  This is a case of items with very high price tags (namely, getting sick in America w/o good health coverage) that happen to people other people know and find credible.  Ultimately there's political advantage to be gained here, and not for the GOP either.

    Quote of the week: "They call themselves bipartisan because they're able to buy members of both parties," (R. Eskow, Campaign for America's Future.)

    by mbayrob on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 06:51:04 PM PDT

    •  PPACA's going to be a really mixed bag. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wsexson

      Whether people are happy or sad about it will depend on so many circumstances, from age to sex to income level to employment status to health status to whether they live in a state expanding Medicaid.

      A lot of people might oppose it out of self-interest, while others will support it for the same reasons.

  •  For some young people (and others) (3+ / 0-)

    who are paid by the hour, it's hard to know where they fit.  What happens if you get enough overtime to bump you above the permitted income for the subsidy level?  Do people have to watch their hours and try to keep them down for fear of being accused of fraud?  what if you bounce above, then below, the Medicaid eligibility income level?

    What if the income for last year is too high or too low to get you into the subsidy or Medicaid level you actually should be in in 2014?  they check last year's federal income taxes to determine your subsidy, right?

    •  Medicaid cutoff is a worry (3+ / 0-)

      Like you say, what about the people at the cutoff point, who flip-flop on eligibility for Medicare some years and ineligible for others.

      I still think Medicaid should be put on the exchange. Anyone could buy in. Then unify the subsidies so the Medicaid subsidy exactly pays for Medicaid on the exchange.

    •  I have some answers to those questions (0+ / 0-)

      I live in NY state and I am a certified IPA/Navigator. I am not sure whether these are all federal rules, some could be state regulations. Please keep in mind NY is participating in the Medicaid expansion.

      1) If you get enough income to bump you over the 400% poverty level you will not receive a subsidy. If you qualify for a subsidy at the time of application and then go over you will have to pay it back on your next years taxes. In this case where you are close to the edge it is recommended you do not apply any of your estimated subsidy towards premium. You would be better off waiting until tax time.

      2) Medicaid eligibility will be determined by your current income. You need to report any income changes to the (marketplace, exchange, whatever your state is calling it). However it does not change your eligibility for Medicaid. Medicaid now has what is called "12 mos of continuous coverage". You will no longer qualify for Medicaid at your annual renewal, but income changes during the year will not cause you to lose coverage or be accused of fraud.

      2) New York's marketplace will use last years tax data as reported by the IRS, but you can edit that information in the system if your income has gone up or down. They are looking for anticipated tax information for the following tax year. The previous years data is just a starting point.

  •  Really? I wonder... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Willinois

    They don't buy cars, and get around on bikes or skateboards.  So they are going to buy Health Insurance?  

    We'll see.

    Through early morning fog I see visions of the things to be the pains that are withheld for me I realize and I can see...

    by Keith930 on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 06:58:48 PM PDT

  •  One concern, for states that are not New York (0+ / 0-)

    and Vermont (or was that New Hampshire?) -

    In states where insurers are not required to do community pricing, healthy young adults already get the lowest available rates.  It's hard to imagine how ACA could make those rates lower.  

    LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

    by dinotrac on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 07:02:00 PM PDT

  •  Also (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    on the cusp, Willa Rogers, wsexson

    One of the biggest problems with the ACA is how wrong-headed this concept sounds to people:

    McIntyre said she does "not agree with" the healthcare reform law's requirement that people buy insurance. "We can barely afford to survive. Being forced to have insurance, I do not agree with that. They're trying to force it on people who it's their last nickel and dime."
    The problem is that people can't afford health insurance. Therefore, the solution to that problem is to make it law to have health insurance under threat of penalty. What?

    Throughout the pre-passage debate there was this constant implication that the people who went without insurance were doing so because they were selfish jerks who thought they were invincible and were making it more expensive for everyone else. In reality, people go without health insurance because it's too damn expensive, hence the need for healthcare reform. And so when the crux of the law centers around forcing everyone to buy health insurance or pay a penalty, that doesn't sound like it's actually going to help anyone but insurance companies.

    I personally understand the logic of feeding us all to the private insurance companies for the sake of spreading costs and essentially paying for the coverage of pre-existing conditions (not that I think it's a good idea, but I get it), but many people don't, which is a testament to the monumental failure of this administration in actually selling this law.

    There's a lazy assumption on the part of the administration that once the exchanges get up and running everything will be a roaring success and all the criticisms, lies, and hyperbole surrounding the law will be instantly washed away. Pretty big fucking gamble, considering how many people are still in the dark as to what this law actually means for them.

    Banking on the American people to be able to sort all this out and declare the adult in the room the winner is a very big bet. -Digby

    by Boogalord on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 07:03:06 PM PDT

    •  Who pays penalties (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dbug

      Boogalord, are you familiar with the exemptions?

      People are exempt if they don't earn enough to be required to file a tax return.

      They are exempt if essential minimum insurance (Bronze plan) is not available for less than 8% of income, taking the subsidies into account.

      Single people who earn up to $44,000 (approx) and families of four with income up to $92,000 (approx) are eligible for subsidies.

      People who don't want to buy insurance, even if affordable insurance is available, will only pay $95 or 1% of income as their penalty in the first year. That's a whole lot less than premiums.

      I'd be surprised if a lot of people who can easily afford health insurance would prefer to go bare.

      •  I'm aware of the exemptions. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Willa Rogers

        As I said, I myself am aware of how the law works, and how many people who cannot currently afford insurance will be assisted in getting it.

        My point was that many, many people (like the person I quoted) do not possess that same level of knowledge, and so they view this healthcare reform law as simply penalizing them for not being able to afford insurance. This is a massive failure on the part of the Obama administration in terms of actually selling the law. It's not as if the Republicans have ever let up on demonizing it for a single second.

        Banking on the American people to be able to sort all this out and declare the adult in the room the winner is a very big bet. -Digby

        by Boogalord on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 07:32:56 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  There was a program on MPR this morning (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Boogalord

          MPR is Minnesota Public Radio. It was a discussion about MNsure (pronounced liked "minsure," which is Minnesota's statewide insurance exchange.

          There are two things I remember from the show. I was getting ready for work, so I missed some parts. But here's what I got from it:

          1) Poor people (under $15K for a single person, or something like that) will automatically get free health insurance through Medicare. So they won't have to pay anything.

          2) A caller asked, "If I have a health plan that costs $1000 a month, but I'll get an income tax credit of $500 a month, do I have to wait until I file my taxes on April 15 in the following year to get the $6000 back? Or will I pay only $500/month?" One of the people on the panel said, "The $500 will be subtracted ahead of time, so you'll pay $500/month. You won't have to wait until you file your taxes. However if your income goes up a lot or goes down a lot, you may get a refund or a tax bill."

          Both of those things made me feel better.

          "Stupid just can't keep its mouth shut." -- SweetAuntFanny's grandmother.

          by Dbug on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 10:08:39 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Right, and that's great. Those are good things! (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Dbug

            I'm just hoping that each state does a good enough job in making sure everyone is aware of those benefits, especially considering the years-long disinformation campaign from the right.

            Healthcare is definitely my pet issue, and I have alot of issues with the ACA, how it was put together, and what was left out. But things like getting rid of pre-exisiting conditions and curtailing industry profits really is huge. It's a big deal. I think we could have made the case for more, but this law will help many people.

            Banking on the American people to be able to sort all this out and declare the adult in the room the winner is a very big bet. -Digby

            by Boogalord on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 10:20:16 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Are the exemptions automatic or do you have (0+ / 0-)

        to jump through god knows how many hoops for them which if you are poor enough you might not be able to afford to do?

        You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

        by Throw The Bums Out on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 11:50:47 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Where did the term "Young Invincibles" get started (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Boogalord, Willa Rogers

    The pundits make it sound like 20somethings choose to pocket some extra cash instead of having health insurance. I put myself through college and suffered through without insurance. Not a choice for me since none of the part time jobs I could find had any benefits. As soon as graduated and found a decent job I spent several hours at a dentist correcting the neglect I don't think root canals are standard on 24 year olds. No one makes a choice to go without insurance!

  •  Eligibility Question (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    True North

    I don't know if this will get lost in this thread, and I apologize if it's just a little off topic, but I wonder if someone can answer it.

    The govt's website says you're eligible if you don't have insurance through your employer.

    Is it possible for someone who does have coverage through an employer to drop said coverage with the intent of looking for coverage through the exchange?

    Or does that mean that the only way you can be eligible for the exchange is if you are employed and your employer does not actually offer you insurance?

    My wife's insurance is pretty damn expensive for what she makes, and I'd love it if she could cancel and we can look on the exchange for something better...

    And when I get my own job, I'd like to consider the exchange if possible.

    But I honestly am not sure if we would be eligible or not eligible under those circumstances.

    I've been on Healthcare.gov and didn't see a direct answer, so if anyone else can help, I'd appreciate it.

    •  Affordable and adequate (0+ / 0-)

      This is what I understand to be the situation--though I know we have experts here who will correct me if I'm wrong.

      Employers who provide health benefits only have to do so for the employee and children. They can decline to cover the spouse.

      Employers will provide employees with a letter that explains whether the health benefit they offer is affordable and adequate.

      The test for affordable: costs less that 9.5% of income, as I recall.

      I'm not sure what the test for adequate is. The employer will know and will put that in the notice.

      If the employee has coverage that is both adequate and affordable, he or she can go to the marketplace, I assume--but will not get a subsidy.

      If the coverage is either unaffordable or inadequate, then the employee can get coverage through the marketplace.

      If a least one employee gets subsidized insurance through the marketplace, then the employer will be looking at a penalty of $2,000 per employee, which is used to help cover the costs.

      •  Income? (0+ / 0-)

        By what metric does that get calculated?

        ...Does it matter? I guess a percentage is a percentage either way.

        However, my very quick and dirty math would suggest what she's paying now is more than 9.5% of her income.

        •  Income calculation (0+ / 0-)

          I'm not sure how income is calculated--gross? after tax?

          If she's probably paying more now, then at least odds are good that the employer plan will become more affordable.

          You probably have a pretty good idea already whether it is likely to be adequate.

          I don't know if employers are required to give this information to employees before Oct. 1. That would be helpful for people who are able to get insurance in the marketplace, with the subsidies.

          •  It's Modified Adjusted Gross Income... (0+ / 0-)

            ...which means adding back certain deductions like IRA contributions and student-loan interest you might take against your gross income. It's not "net" income, unless you're self-employed, in which case it's your net profit after business deductions.

            Also, any Social Security Income earnings are counted, in full, as MAGI income, even SSI that's exempted from federal taxes.

        •  It is 9.5% of household income (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          True North

          Individuals are required to maintain minimum essential coverage for themselves. For employers with more than 50 or more full-time (30 hours per week or 130 hours per month)/full-time equivalents, the employer must offer minimum essential coverage that is both affordable - i.e., costs less than 9.5% of household income for individual coverage - and provides minimum value - i.e., covers at least 60% of costs.

          So. . . if it does not cost more than 9.5% of household income, it passes the affordability test. If it passes the minimum value test, then if she declines the coverage she would be able to purchase insurance on the exchange but would not be eligible for a subsidy. Also, her employer would not be subject to a penalty in this case.

          Note, it is 9.5% of income for individual coverage. This means that if you have kids and want to cover them, if employee + dependent coverage is more than 9.5% of household income, a subsidy to purchase family coverage would not be available in the exchange to purchase the family coverage as long as the employee only coverage offered by the employer is affordable and provides minimum value.

          •  Maybe more info is needed (0+ / 0-)

            As of this moment right now, between her and I, she's the only one bringing in an income. That may change for me soon, but I don't know yet.

            She makes just over $20,000 a year now. Her company is the epitome of "small business" as I think there's maybe 10-12 total employees that work there, if even that, these days.

            We have no children. I had my own coverage through my last job which was reasonably affordable, and she has had her own insurance which...while better than "not" having any coverage at all, ends up costing her almost $100 every paycheck. At her salary, that's a real chunk of her check that we could really use...

            Ideally, honestly, I'd prefer it if her and I could both find coverage through the exchange that is cheaper than what her and my employer, once I have one again, would provide. I believe in supporting the shit out of the ACA. Until 5 years ago, she was used to the NHS in Britain and doesn't understand why this country doesn't have anything close to it.

            Neither do I.

            I guess I just want to know if we'll be able to forgo employer-offered insurance to find a plan on the exchange of our own free will...or what kinds of tests we have to meet or if we're just not poor enough, etc, etc, etc.

            The advice I've read here so far seems good but doesn't quite answer completely I suppose.

            Thanks if anyone else can continue their sharing of knowledge.

  •  One very odd line in the quoted section (3+ / 0-)
    and that might be enough to overcome her ideological objections to Obamacare.
    The family of the woman to whom they referred  barely scrapes by, even with food stamps.  When she objects to being forced to buy insurance, it is because she doesn't have the money to pay for it.   That's hardly ideological.

    LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

    by dinotrac on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 07:14:23 PM PDT

  •  Being penalized monetarily (6+ / 0-)

    for not being able to buy something to avoid the penalty for being broke is the ideoligical problem.

  •  This may be a little hyperbolic, but its true (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Willinois

    If the ACA had been law in 1987 it would have cost me say $50 a month. That means that I would not have bought my home in 1997. I would have lost my apartment in 2001. I would have died under a bridge. Instead I survived the 2000 - 2001 recession and have just retired at 56.
    It's not the ACA's fault. Compared to the present system the ACA is a great deal; but it is not good enough. It's a trap that takes ten or twenty years to spring.

  •  This should be neither debatable or optional (6+ / 0-)

    Universal healthcare works because everyone is in the risk pool.  Not maybe I will or maybe I won't.  Everyone.  I was about 15 when universal medicare was implemented in Canada.  I grew up in a town on the border with the US.  There was the normal complaining and whining but it was a no choice situation--we voted for a government that said it was going to do this and they did.  Everyone was in--that's how it works.
    One of the biggest whiners about universal heathcare was our next door neighbour Art.  Art was an American who had married a Canadian, lived in Canada and commuted across the border to work.  He had no health insurance; he was an independent contracter cleaning boilers and heating systems.  He complained to my father that what was happening was socialist and curtailed our freedom.  He talked about moving his familty to the US.  My father didn't say much in response.
    Our healthcare cards arrived in the mail.  Everyone got one.  Three weeks after they arrived, Art's oldest daughter, Judy got in a horrific accident on the Queen Elizabeth Highway.  A drunk driver had crossed the median and hit the car in which she was a passenger head on.  The driver was killed.  This was before airbags.  Judy was taken to the nearest hospital with multiple injuries.  She was stabilized and then transfered to a larger metro hospital where she stayed for almost 2 months.  She had two broken legs, broken pelvis, broken arm, facial injuries and a ruptured spleen.  She was released, convalesced at home and went to rehab.  She went back to school the next September.  Art's bill for the medical care?  $0.  My father said later, "I don't think Art's complaining about the healthcare law anymore"

  •  It's simple (0+ / 0-)

    I'm reminded of when I was that age. In college. Wishing there was health care beyond the college health office or whatever it was called. Insurance was super expensive at that time.

    People that age want to have medical coverage. They are starting out on their own. They want to take care of themselves. They need to get shots for jobs, TB exams for certain classes, dare I say birth control? They want to be independent.

    Others are out looking for jobs. They need to be healthy. Many don't have coverage through their parents. Many can't even afford to go to school.

    These people are not going to be giving this up because some one on tv or radio tells them to give it up because of whatever mythical reason they come up with.

    I do hope that most states hit the schools with information. That would be great. Start in high school and then the colleges.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site