Difference between revisions of "Obamacare"

From Issuepedia
(moved "myths" material to subpage)
(Republican attacks)
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 [[Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act]] (aka ACA, [[PPACA]]) enacted in 2010 in response to reform initiatives in [[US/healthcare/reform/2009|2009]].
 +
 
 +
It has been attacked by the political [[right wing|Right]], especially [[free market libertarian]]s, since it was first proposed. 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
  
It has been attacked by the [[political Right]], especially [[free market libertarian]]s, since it was first proposed &ndash; typically with distortions and misrepresentations &ndash; with the result that many people believe popular {{l/sub|myths}} about it.
 
 
==Pages==
 
==Pages==
 
* [[/myths]]
 
* [[/myths]]
Line 70: Line 90:
 
* '''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 />

Revision as of 22:33, 11 February 2017

About

Obamacare is the colloquial name for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka ACA, PPACA) enacted in 2010 in response to reform initiatives in 2009.

It has been attacked by the political Right, especially free market libertarians, since it was first proposed. 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

version 3

version 2

    [refresh]

    Projects

    to file

    Footnotes