Difference between revisions of "Obamacare"

From Issuepedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(→‎to file: recovered stuff that got deleted due to munged characters)
 
(4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 4: Line 4:
 
</hide>
 
</hide>
 
==About==
 
==About==
[[Obamacare]] is the colloqual name for the [[Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act]] (aka ACA, [[PPACA]]) enacted in 2010 in response to reform initiatives in [[US/healthcare/reform/2009|2009]].
+
[[Obamacare]] is the colloquial name for the {{l/alias|Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act}} (aka ACA, {{l/alias|PPACA}}, {{l/alias|Affordable Care Act}}) enacted in 2010 in response to reform initiatives in [[US/healthcare/reform/2009|2009]]. It requires all health insurance plans to cover ten essential benefits:
 +
# Outpatient care
 +
# Emergency services
 +
# Hospitalization
 +
# Maternity and newborn care
 +
# Mental health and addiction treatment
 +
# Prescription drugs
 +
# Rehabilitative services and devices
 +
# Laboratory services
 +
# Preventative services, wellness services, and treatment for chronic diseases such as emphysema, MS, or cancer.
 +
# Pediatric services
  
It has been attacked by the [[political Right]], especially [[free market libertarian]]s, since it was first proposed -- typically with distortions and misrepresentations.
+
It also prevents insurers from refusing coverage on the basis of "pre-existing conditions", which insurers were free to define however they liked (and could equate to basically anything ever recorded on your medical chart, such as a hangnail).
 +
 
 +
It has been attacked by the political [[right wing|Right]], especially [[free market libertarian]]s, since it was first proposed &ndash; despite being heavily based on a plan created by the right-libertarian [[Heritage Foundation]] think-tank and supported by the political right as an alternative to [[Clinton-Gore administration|the Clintons']] universal healthcare proposal in the 1990s. Attacks included:
 +
* distortions and misrepresentations (many people now believe popular {{l/sub|myths}} about it)
 +
* fighting various provisions of the law so as to make it less effective:
 +
** the Medicaid expansion mandate (successful, see {{l/wp|NFIB v. Sebelius}}); result:
 +
*** states no longer have to accept it
 +
**** leaving millions (who would otherwise have been covered) without healthcare...
 +
***** ...because they fall into the gap between those who can benefit from tax subsidies and those poor enough to receive Medicaid
 +
** the individual mandate (unsuccessful, see {{l/wp|NFIB v. Sebelius}}); results would have been:
 +
*** eliminating a major revenue source for insurers
 +
**** ...forcing them to raise insurance prices even more
 +
** tax credits to insured individuals outside of states which accepted the Medicaid expansion (unsuccessful, see {{l/wp|King v. Burwell}}); results would have been:
 +
*** many more individuals in Republican-controlled states who could not afford health insurance, thus:
 +
**** deepening criticism against it (the law itself is blamed for the problems caused by damage to it)
 +
**** removing a source of funding for it, increasing insurance costs
 +
**** creating many more uninsured emergency room visits, increasing healthcare costs overall
 +
** screwed around with the "risk corridors" mechanism
 +
*** causing difficulties which resulted in further rises in the price of insurance<ref>'''2016-05-24''' [http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/republican-guerrilla-warfare-obamacare Republicans Are Breaking Obamacare So They Can Declare It Broken]</ref><ref>'''2014-12-12''' [http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/obamacare-cromnibus-risk-corridors Republicans Dealt A Quiet Blow To O-Care In The CRomnibus]</ref>
 +
** ''see also {{l/wp|Constitutional challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act}}
 +
** further attempts to screw around with how insurers are reimbursed for high-risk loads (House v. Burwell, currently unresolved)<ref>'''2016-12-29''' [http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2016/12/29/rapid-developments-in-house-v-burwell/ Rapid Developments ''In House v. Burwell'']</ref>
 +
*** ...which would similarly increase insurance prices
 +
 
 +
==Pages==
 +
* [[/myths]]
 
==Links==
 
==Links==
 
===Reference===
 
===Reference===
Line 13: Line 47:
 
* '''official''':
 
* '''official''':
 
** [http://www.healthcare.gov/law/timeline/full.html timeline]: when each provision takes effect
 
** [http://www.healthcare.gov/law/timeline/full.html timeline]: when each provision takes effect
====mythology====
+
* '''reports''':
* [http://obamacarefacts.com/ ObamaCare Facts]: "dispelling the myths"
+
** '''2014-02-21''' [http://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Research/ActuarialStudies/Downloads/ACA-Employer-Premium-Impact.pdf Report to Congress on the impact on premiums for individuals and families with employer-sponsored health insurance from the guaranteed issue, guaranteed renewal, and fair health insurance premiums provisions of the Affordable Care Act] (PDF)
** [http://obamacarefacts.com/obamacare-health-insurance-premiums.php ObamaCare Insurance Premiums]
+
*** [[John Boehner]] used the report as a basis for criticism of the ACA:
* '''Snopes''':
+
**** '''2014-02-25''' [http://www.speaker.gov/general/obamacare-bad-small-businesses-worse-their-employees ObamaCare: Bad for Small Businesses, Worse For Their Employees] ([http://www.speaker.gov/press-release/obama-administration-two-thirds-small-businesses-see-premiums-spike-under-obamacare press release])
** [http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/penalty.asp Penalty Shot]: about the opt-out penalty
+
***** [http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/on-small-business/obama-administration-health-laws-new-rules-will-increase-costs-for-most-small-businesses/2014/02/24/0623d01e-9d9c-11e3-9ba6-800d1192d08b_story.html Obama administration: Health law’s new rules will increase costs for most small businesses]
* '''2011-01-21''' [http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2011/01/judges_letter_on_health_care.html A judge's letter on health care and an email gone viral]
+
****** [https://plus.google.com/u/0/102282887764745350285/posts/cm5eEx1HBy6 discussion/analysis]
* '''2009-08-28''' [http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/twenty-six-lies-about-hr-3200/ Twenty-six Lies About H.R. 3200]
 
 
 
 
===News===
 
===News===
 
{{links/news}}
 
{{links/news}}
Line 70: Line 102:
 
* '''2013-12-06''' [http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2013/12/the-aca-v-the-heritage-plan-a-comparison-in-chart-form The ACA v. the Heritage Plan: A Comparison in Chart Form]: argues that Obamacare and the [[Heritage Foundation|Heritage]] healthcare plan have only one thing in common: an insurance requirement. This is clearly wrong in at least one regard: they both specify an ''individual mandate'', the very feature most objected to by the GOP and other opponents of Obamacare.
 
* '''2013-12-06''' [http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2013/12/the-aca-v-the-heritage-plan-a-comparison-in-chart-form The ACA v. the Heritage Plan: A Comparison in Chart Form]: argues that Obamacare and the [[Heritage Foundation|Heritage]] healthcare plan have only one thing in common: an insurance requirement. This is clearly wrong in at least one regard: they both specify an ''individual mandate'', the very feature most objected to by the GOP and other opponents of Obamacare.
 
* '''2014-02-14''' [http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/new-gop-health-care-plan-is-a-starting-point-for-a-conversation-not-a-replacement/2014/02/14/e145c5be-9377-11e3-84e1-27626c5ef5fb_story.html New GOP health-care plan is a starting point for a conversation, not a replacement]
 
* '''2014-02-14''' [http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/new-gop-health-care-plan-is-a-starting-point-for-a-conversation-not-a-replacement/2014/02/14/e145c5be-9377-11e3-84e1-27626c5ef5fb_story.html New GOP health-care plan is a starting point for a conversation, not a replacement]
 +
==Footnotes==
 +
<references />

Latest revision as of 00:33, 20 September 2021

About

Obamacare is the colloquial name for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care ActA (aka ACA, PPACAA, Affordable Care ActA) enacted in 2010 in response to reform initiatives in 2009. It requires all health insurance plans to cover ten essential benefits:

  1. Outpatient care
  2. Emergency services
  3. Hospitalization
  4. Maternity and newborn care
  5. Mental health and addiction treatment
  6. Prescription drugs
  7. Rehabilitative services and devices
  8. Laboratory services
  9. Preventative services, wellness services, and treatment for chronic diseases such as emphysema, MS, or cancer.
  10. Pediatric services

It also prevents insurers from refusing coverage on the basis of "pre-existing conditions", which insurers were free to define however they liked (and could equate to basically anything ever recorded on your medical chart, such as a hangnail).

It has been attacked by the political Right, especially free market libertarians, since it was first proposed – despite being heavily based on a plan created by the right-libertarian Heritage Foundation think-tank and supported by the political right as an alternative to the Clintons' universal healthcare proposal in the 1990s. Attacks included:

  • distortions and misrepresentations (many people now believe popular myths about it)
  • fighting various provisions of the law so as to make it less effective:
    • the Medicaid expansion mandate (successful, see NFIB v. Sebelius); result:
      • states no longer have to accept it
        • leaving millions (who would otherwise have been covered) without healthcare...
          • ...because they fall into the gap between those who can benefit from tax subsidies and those poor enough to receive Medicaid
    • the individual mandate (unsuccessful, see NFIB v. Sebelius); results would have been:
      • eliminating a major revenue source for insurers
        • ...forcing them to raise insurance prices even more
    • tax credits to insured individuals outside of states which accepted the Medicaid expansion (unsuccessful, see King v. Burwell); results would have been:
      • many more individuals in Republican-controlled states who could not afford health insurance, thus:
        • deepening criticism against it (the law itself is blamed for the problems caused by damage to it)
        • removing a source of funding for it, increasing insurance costs
        • creating many more uninsured emergency room visits, increasing healthcare costs overall
    • screwed around with the "risk corridors" mechanism
      • causing difficulties which resulted in further rises in the price of insurance[1][2]
    • see also Constitutional challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
    • further attempts to screw around with how insurers are reimbursed for high-risk loads (House v. Burwell, currently unresolved)[3]
      • ...which would similarly increase insurance prices

Pages

Links

Reference

News

Related

Video

Projects

to file

Footnotes