The health care law in red and blue

[Justin5 20]

The health care law in red and blue

By: Larry Levitt and Drew Altman and Gary Claxton

February 14, 2012 09:35 PM EST

Opposition to the health reform law is almost an article of faith among Republicans. But if you look at this map, many GOP congressional districts have much to gain as the new heath care coverage rolls out.

The map charts the law’s coverage expansion by district. The legislation’s main provisions expand insurance coverage — increasing eligibility for Medicaid and providing federal tax credits to help people buy health insurance in new exchanges. You can see that Americans living in congressional districts represented by Republicans stand to benefit as much — if not more — than those in which a Democrat holds the seat.

The map looks at party control in the 233 congressional districts in which a greater-than-average share of people could benefit from the law — 142 are represented by Republicans compared with 91 by Democrats. The 15 districts expected to benefit the most are in California, Texas or Florida — states with a lot of votes but also a lot of uninsured people.

The law has become an election year target as well as a symbol of ideological differences between red and blue about the role of government.

Republicans cite many reasons to dislike the law that are unrelated to whether their constituents benefit from its coverage expansions and have been stating them forcefully. They argue strongly against its requirement that everyone obtain health insurance.

Democrats who favor the law do so on broader grounds, too, including support for the law’s consumer protections that would guarantee insurance access regardless of a pre-existing condition.

In the top two dozen districts — in Florida, California, Texas, Louisiana and North Carolina — a quarter or more of the nonelderly population could receive benefits from the expansion of Medicaid or new federal tax credits. This is largely the result of lack of access to employer-provided health insurance, which means large numbers of people are uninsured or trying to buy insurance on their own.

In these districts, only 42 percent of people younger than 65 had employer coverage in 2010 — far less than the nationwide average of 59 percent.

The Affordable Care Act expands the number of Americans insured in two ways. First, people with income below 138 percent of the poverty level, now about $32,000 for a family of four, will be eligible for Medicaid.

Second, those who buy insurance on their own and have income less than four times the poverty level, about $92,000 for a family of four, will be eligible for federal tax credits to subsidize their health insurance premiums.

This means that more than one in six Americans younger than 65 could have access to help with their health insurance costs as a result of the law. Red and blue congressional districts look remarkably similar here. Republican districts have, on average, an estimated 18 percent of the nonelderly people eligible for help with health insurance costs under the reform law. Democratic districts have about the same, 17 percent.

Ideological differences aside, this map shows that constituents in Republican and Democratic districts have an equal interest in the law’s insurance coverage expansions — its largest and most costly provision.

You might never know this from the debate we are likely to hear between now and the November election — whose results will be critical to whether or not this law, which has split the country, actually is implemented.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72861.html

[AURaptor 1,137]

Propaganda, and nothing more.

Still doesn't make it constitutional.

[RunInRed 16,992]

I'm convinced most Republicans haven't taken the time to understand the health care law that was passed. There's actually a ton of good stuff in there as the article above points out. Instead, they are knee-jerk stuck on 'government healthcare' buzz words.

[au2004ece 30]

I think the healthcare law will fail because its components increase demand for healthcare while reducing the supply.

Demand is already way higher than supply and that's why prices are so high.

Price was the problem. The new law doesn't address price and actually will make the problem worse.

However, the law will be able to claim that it expands coverage because people will be forced to buy it. On the other hand, the prices for the insurance will go higher and higher meaning that these same people will not be able to afford something else that they previously thought was more important than healthcare coverage.

[Grumps 3,706]

I'm convinced most Republicans haven't taken the time to understand the health care law that was passed. There's actually a ton of good stuff in there as the article above points out. Instead, they are knee-jerk stuck on 'government healthcare' buzz words.

I am just curious..do you think that most Democrats HAVE taken the time to understand the health care law that was passed? Do you suppose that there's actually a ton of bad stuff in there? Has the government done much to make the public think "government healthcare" is a good thing?

By the way, when you guys post polls that show what peole are in favor of, how come you never post the ones showing that the people were against Obamacare?

[AURaptor 1,137]

I'm convinced most Republicans haven't taken the time to understand the health care law that was passed. There's actually a ton of good stuff in there as the article above points out. Instead, they are knee-jerk stuck on 'government healthcare' buzz words.

There's nothing good about this. Like I said, this is nothing but pure propaganda. It's far worse than what's being presented, and remember... we had to pass it before we knew what was in it. We're still finding out what's in it, and none of it is " good " .

The DOJ is wrong when it claims the ObamaCare mandate is a tax, says … Obama’s OMB chief

Fun, fun, fun via Philip Klein as GOP Rep. Scott Garrett lays a trap and hapless Hopenchange budget director Jeffrey Zients walks right into it. Obama and his apparatchiks have been trying to have it both ways on this since long before O-Care was passed; watch the second clip below, from 2009, to see him battle Stephanopoulos for two minutes on the subject. For political reasons, O doesn’t want to be accused of having slapped a brand new tax on the middle class before the election, but he’s on much firmer ground constitutionally if he can argue that the mandate is an exercise of Congress’s taxing power. So we get this pitiful spectacle, in which he and his team insist to any reporter within earshot that the mandate’s not a tax while the DOJ turns around and tells the Supreme Court that it most assuredly is. (At least one federal appellate court agrees.) The logic is simple: You’re being compelled by the state to pay a sum towards a public purpose, i.e. defraying the cost of health care for the uninsured. But instead of collecting your money and giving you certain benefits in return (a.k.a. FICA and Medicare), the state lets you pay your “tax” to, and receive your coverage from, the private insurer of your choice. It’s a tax, but a tax over which you have a bit more control than you usually do. If Congress has the power to simply take your money and toss it in the Treasury, surely they also have the power to take it while giving you a little extra leeway over where it ends up — or so the argument goes. The counterargument is that if Congress can use its taxing power to steer your money directly to private insurers, then in theory it could force you to fork your money over to any number of congressionally-favored private-sector businesses for not-so-public purposes. Darn it, that’s not American. In America, when we want to let Congress shower cash on its cronies, we force them to collect the money themselves and then earmark the hell out of it.

I honestly don’t think it’ll hurt O all that much if the Supreme Court upholds O-Care on grounds that the mandate is a constitutionally valid tax. Winning that lawsuit is more important to him than having to defend the rationale; if it wasn’t, he wouldn’t have let the DOJ make the tax argument in the first place. If he wins, he’ll simply say that he disagrees with the Court’s interpretation of a “tax,” but in any event, it’s not a broad-based “tax” on the middle class but rather a targeted tax levied on people who don’t have insurance and who can afford to pay. In fact, if he wants to be really cagey, he could argue that it’s only because we now have the mandate that he doesn’t need to raise taxes on the general population in order to cover the uninsured. See? Our gigantic new health-care boondoggle is actually saving you money. Be grateful.

[Justin5 20]

I'm convinced most Republicans haven't taken the time to understand the health care law that was passed. There's actually a ton of good stuff in there as the article above points out. Instead, they are knee-jerk stuck on 'government healthcare' buzz words.

I am just curious..do you think that most Democrats HAVE taken the time to understand the health care law that was passed? Do you suppose that there's actually a ton of bad stuff in there? Has the government done much to make the public think "government healthcare" is a good thing?

By the way, when you guys post polls that show what peole are in favor of, how come you never post the ones showing that the people were against Obamacare?

I understand it. I think its a good thing.

Here is the most recent poll i can find on HCR: http://news.yahoo.com/health-reform-law-gaining-wider-acceptance-poll-140405876.html

So to answer your question - it appears to be mostly party-line support/opposition, unlike other polls I have posted recently, and party-line polling is not exactly interesting or worth sharing.

[Grumps 3,706]

I'm convinced most Republicans haven't taken the time to understand the health care law that was passed. There's actually a ton of good stuff in there as the article above points out. Instead, they are knee-jerk stuck on 'government healthcare' buzz words.

I am just curious..do you think that most Democrats HAVE taken the time to understand the health care law that was passed? Do you suppose that there's actually a ton of bad stuff in there? Has the government done much to make the public think "government healthcare" is a good thing?

By the way, when you guys post polls that show what peole are in favor of, how come you never post the ones showing that the people were against Obamacare?

I understand it. I think its a good thing.

Here is the most recent poll i can find on HCR: http://news.yahoo.com/health-reform-law-gaining-wider-acceptance-poll-140405876.html

So to answer your question - it appears to be mostly party-line support/opposition, unlike other polls I have posted recently, and party-line polling is not exactly interesting or worth sharing.

So only 61% don't like the law the way it is. Well then I guess it is clearly good policy, huh? (Don't get me wrong, I don't think it is bad policy because the polls show people are not in favor of it. I primarily think it is bad policy in many ways, including because I interpret it to be unconstitutional for the government to force a citizen to purchase a private good or service.)

Also, I applaud you for understanding it (my guess is that you only understand some of it, but that is irrelevant), and I respect your opinion of its merit.

[Justin5 20]

Of the 61% there are a decent amount that want the law to be more extensive. So yes, I think its good policy.

[Grumps 3,706]

Of the 61% there are a decent amount that want the law to be more extensive. So yes, I think its good policy.

Once again, it seems that you are implying that the polls help to determine whether a policy is good. That is mystifying and troubling to me, though, I readily admit that most polls would show that I am the crazy one here!

[Justin5 20]

Of the 61% there are a decent amount that want the law to be more extensive. So yes, I think its good policy.

Once again, it seems that you are implying that the polls help to determine whether a policy is good. That is mystifying and troubling to me, though, I readily admit that most polls would show that I am the crazy one here!

You seem to be dismissing polls, all while saying they prove the policy is bad. Pick a side please.

In general, I dont believe policy should be crafted with polls in mind, however, good policy is a compromise. Polls can measure how the public sees that compromise. Right now that is all we have, as most portions of the bill haven't been implemented.

Once implemented, again, polls will show the public's view of a compromise on the services they are receiving.

In regards to my earlier statement on opposition, this is something to support it:

In 2010, about a quarter of the health care bill's opponents disliked the bill because it was not liberal enough - the same as [March 2011]. That works out to 13 percent of all Americans who oppose the bill because it did not go far enough. Forty-three percent oppose it because it was too liberal."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/23/cnn-poll-time-doesnt-change-views-on-health-care-law/

Obviously that poll is old, but it gives you an idea of what I'm talking about. The bill was a compromise.

[Justin5 20]

Oh, and another thing. You can pick from these 2 options:

Either Obama listened to the people (polls) and crafted his health care bill based off of what people wanted

OR

Obama didnt bother with polls and did what he felt was right regardless of how it would impact his reelection chances.

Its one or the other, so I'll let you pick one.

[Grumps 3,706]

Oh, and another thing. You can pick from these 2 options:

Either Obama listened to the people (polls) and crafted his health care bill based off of what people wanted

OR

Obama didnt bother with polls and did what he felt was right regardless of how it would impact his reelection chances.

Its one or the other, so I'll let you pick one.

I can assure you that I don't mind answering questions honestly, enven if you make dishonest questions.

My answer is: Obama pushed through (ram-rodded, if Run prefers) Obamacare in spite of the public's being against it. It think he did what he thought was right for the country, AND he thought that doing this would help his re-election chances. I think he would push his agenda even if the people were against it. Is that an acceptable answer?

I don't think Obama is the anti-Christ, I just think that he puts his beliefs about what is best for this country ahead of the beliefs of our founding fathers who drafted the Constitution. He may be right that the Bill of Rights is outdated. I'm sure he thinks he is the man to fix it.

[Justin5 20]

So you feel passing an unpopular law would help his relection chances? How exactly?

[autigeremt 6,970]

Unconstitutional. END OF STORY!

This overgrown expansion of government tramples on the foundation of America and continues this forceful drag of our way of life into the realm of European Socialism, which has proven how pathetic it is. Federal Mandates to buy a product as a scheme to one day take your healthcare choices away from you is, in my mind, treason.

[autigeremt 6,970]

Oh, and another thing. You can pick from these 2 options:

Either Obama listened to the people (polls) and crafted his health care bill based off of what people wanted

OR

Obama didnt bother with polls and did what he felt was right regardless of how it would impact his reelection chances.

Its one or the other, so I'll let you pick one.

Obama, and the Democratic Party, care less about what the people want when they feel it's in THEIR best interest. POWER is the only thing they want....power over the electorate to insure viability.

[Grumps 3,706]

So you feel passing an unpopular law would help his relection chances? How exactly?

I think that Obama believes the same way that Pelosi does...once the people learn what is in the bill they will like it. Obama is so arrogant that he would ram-rod an unpopular law that he and his minions will brainwash the public to eventually support. And he is probably right...the masses probably ARE that stupid.

Does that answer your question?

[tgr4lfe 220]

those who buy insurance on their own and have income less than four times the poverty level, about $92,000 for a family of four, will be eligible for federal tax credits to subsidize their health insurance premiums.

Unless the tax credits are SUBSTANTIAL and completely off set the premiums, which you know they won't be that substantial, how exactly are these people, who are living below the poverty line and couldn't afford insurance to begin with going to start paying for it now, even if the tax credits were 50% of the premiums? Heck, my wife works at Vanderbilt University who has the best health insurance plan in Nashville. We pay $300/mo, but someone living in poverty can't afford $150/mo if they weren't paying it before!! These folks will not buy into it.

Like someone said, the demand will sky rocket if some, even a small bit, are able to figure out they can afford it, start going to the doctor or hospital. Now an already crowded and slow system will become unmanageable. Heck, if i try to get an appointment with my general practice doc it will be probably be 2 months out before he has an opening.