Health Care- Roy Blunts Admendment can really affect it! (Springfield: unemployment, buy)

[aragx6]

Please read the articles you post and not just the headlines.

The figure represents the worst-case scenario, CBO says, and the law could just as well increase the number of people with employer-based coverage by 3 million in 2019.

"One piece of evidence that may be relevant is the experience in Massachusetts, where employment-based health insurance coverage appears to have increased since that state’s reforms, which are similar but not identical to those in the [federal health law], were implemented," the agency said.

"Today's report also does not project major changes in the number of workers who will get coverage through their job," Jeanne Lambrew, the deputy assistant to the president for health policy, wrote on the White House blog. "At the time of passage CBO projected a change of 3 million people; last year CBO projected 1 million; this year 4 million – out of the roughly 150 million people get insurance through their job today. Other respected independent analysts have concluded that the number of Americans who get their health insurance at work will not change in a significant way."

Under CBO's best estimate, 11 million mostly low-wage workers would lose their employer coverage. About 3 million would choose to drop their coverage to go into the new subsidized health exchanges or on Medicaid, while another 9 million would gain employer-sponsored coverage, for a net total of 5 million people losing employer coverage in 2019.

[MUTGR]

Originally Posted by aragx6

Please read the articles you post and not just the headlines.

I did, thanks. Even the CBO's "best estimate" shows millions losing employer based coverage each year:

"The best estimate, subject to a "tremendous amount of uncertainty," is that about 3 million to 5 million fewer people will obtain coverage through their employer each year from 2019 through 2022."

Again, even you would have to agree that this is inconsistent with one of the reform's selling points: If you like your plan, you can keep it. Or maybe that was part of the hopey changey stuff?

[aragx6]

A couple of things to note. The number of people who have employer-sponsored medical coverage has been dropping for more than a decade. Much of it has little to do with the Affordable Healthcare Act.

The percentage of people who had health insurance through their employers fell to 55.3% in 2010 from 56.1% the year before, continuing a long, downward trend. In 2000, 64.1% of the population received health insurance through their employers.

Number of people without health insurance in U.S. climbs - Sep. 13, 2011

Additionally, although fewer people are on employer-provided coverage, it should also be noted how many people now have access to healthcare that didn't before.

Allowing parents to keep their children on their health insurance policy until they are 26 years old, caused the percentage of young adults ages 18 to 24 who were insured to increase to 72.8% in 2010 from 70.7% in 2009.

Texas, who in 2010 had the highest percentage of uninsured, at 24.6%, improved from the 26.1% who were uninsured in 2009. 1.5% might not seem like much until you remember that more than 25 million people live there. That means 375,000 more people were insured in 2010 than in 2009.

In Massachusetts with Romney's legislation, only 5.6% of the population lacks coverage, the lowest rate of uninsured of any state.

[MUTGR]

Originally Posted by aragx6

A couple of things to note. The number of people who have employer-sponsored medical coverage has been dropping for more than a decade. Much of it has little to do with the Affordable Healthcare Act. .

The CBO's report specifically estimates changes caused by the Affordable Healthcare Act.

[Versatile]

Anyone have any numbers for Mo?

[aragx6]

There's some interesting MO-specific information in both of the following links:

http://covermissouri.org/docs/Signif...FS%20Final.pdf

http://www.mffh.org/mm/files/issue_b..._uninsured.pdf

[Versatile]

Originally Posted by aragx6

There's some interesting MO-specific information in both of the following links:

http://covermissouri.org/docs/Signif...FS%20Final.pdf

http://www.mffh.org/mm/files/issue_b..._uninsured.pdf

Sobering at the least.How can anyone defy the logic that we all need the health care; otherwise we will all pay more because of the uninsured?
Thanks for posting.

[aragx6]

That's exactly right. There is a very real cost of "doing nothing" that goes far beyond any perceived social responsibility (which I believe in strongly, but recognize it's not the easiest case to argue to those who disagree). We spend more than any other first world country on health costs and get less out of it in terms of life expectancy and child mortality rates. It doesn't make any sense.

[Versatile]

Originally Posted by aragx6

That's exactly right. There is a very real cost of "doing nothing" that goes far beyond any perceived social responsibility (which I believe in strongly, but recognize it's not the easiest case to argue to those who disagree). We spend more than any other first world country on health costs and get less out of it in terms of life expectancy and child mortality rates. It doesn't make any sense.

Ever heard of the: OSTRICH PARTY? lol

[MUTGR]

Originally Posted by aragx6

There's some interesting MO-specific information in both of the following links:

http://covermissouri.org/docs/Signif...FS%20Final.pdf

http://www.mffh.org/mm/files/issue_b..._uninsured.pdf

I would have liked to have seen a simpler approach to covering the uninsured, such as automatically enrolling them in medicare/medicaid.

Your figures (assuming they are accurate) show just under 13% of Missourians without health insurance

So we are talking about drastically changing the way coverage is provided to all over a problem effecting roughly 13% of Missourians.

Of course, it was always about power and money and legacy, rather than simply covering the uninsured.

I suspect we are on a path to socialized medicine, aka single payor. Obama has said he wants us much, as do most liberals. The british system sounds like an absolute nightmare to me. Why we think we will get better results more cheaply with more government involvement is beyond me. When has that ever happened?