Tweet
One thing that really bothers me is the number of people claiming that the Affordable Care Act will bring “universal health care” to the United States. Ryan Lizza’s makes this claim in his defense of President Obama at the end of his long story in the New Yorker, but he simply the most recent example of this far too common inaccurate statement. From Ryan Lizza:
Obama didn’t remake Washington. But his first two years stand as one of the most successful legislative periods in modern history. Among other achievements, he has saved the economy from depression, passed universal health care, and reformed Wall Street. Along the way, Obama may have changed his mind about his 2008 critique of Hillary Clinton. “Working the system, not changing it” and being “consumed with beating” Republicans “rather than unifying the country and building consensus to get things done” do not seem like such bad strategies for success after all.
Let’s leave aside the issue that health insurance doesn’t necessarily mean health care. Care can still be too unaffordable or unavailable even when one has something called health insurance.
The ACA will not result in universal health insurance in America. According to the CBO and CMS even after being fully implemented there will be 23 million people in the country without insurance. In 2019 if the law is implemented 93.1 percent of the people in country are projected to be insured. That is significantly higher that the 83 percent that would be insured without the ACA but 93.1 percent is by no definition universal. To achieve universal health insurance that would require another expansion of coverage almost as large as the one that is expected to be produced by the ACA.
It is very possible to achieve effectively universal health insurance, but this law isn’t projected to do that. The adoption of different health care policies, such as single payer, could push the percent dramatically closer to 100 percent.
You can call the ACA many things, health insurance reform, a large coverage expansion, even “near universal” health insurance; but it is simply not universal health care. That is factually inaccurate and more important hides the fact that as a country will still significantly policy issues regarding coverage and access in the future.
22 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL Action
The only thing universal about the ACA is the punishment for not participating:
From Kaiser white paper:
“Require U.S. citizens and legal residents to have qualifying health coverage. Those without coverage
pay a tax penalty of the greater of $695 per year up to a maximum of three times that amount ($2,085)
per family or 2.5% of household income. The penalty will be phased-in according to the following
schedule: $95 in 2014, $325 in 2015, and $695 in 2016 for the flat fee or 1.0% of taxable income in 2014,
2.0% of taxable income in 2015, and 2.5% of taxable income in 2016. Beginning after 2016, the penalty
will be increased annually by the cost-of-living adjustment. Exemptions will be granted for financial
hardship, religious objections, American Indians, those without coverage for less than three months,
undocumented immigrants, incarcerated individuals, those for whom the lowest cost plan option
exceeds 8% of an individual’s income, and those with incomes below the tax filing threshold (in 2009
the threshold for taxpayers under age 65 was $9,350 for singles and $18,700 for couples).”
http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/8061.pdf
Two comments.
One, the observation in the Kaiser white paper that Native Americans aren’t penalized. Why? Because they have truly universal coverage already.
Two, Obama and his band of Wall Street and Chamber of Commerce whores stalled around long enough that they never even had to try to make an effort toward universal coverage. When you are in bed with Big Pharma before the bill is even written, do you really think that universal coverage is going to emerge? If you do, I have a beautiful bridge in Charleston Harbor, hardly used, that I can sell you, very reasonably.
Obama is a total failure and the only thing that will save him is that he is the Not Gingrich, Not Santorum, Not Romney or whomever the Hell else emerges from the Repugnantcan sandbox.
That’s most people with an income of less than $100k and 2 children. Health insurance for myself, my wife, and my two kids through my employer would be $786 per month.
As I typed on dday’s post on Lizza’s article: I thought New Yorker was renowned for fact checking…
I think they’re slightly less credible than the NYT, but slightly above a Rupert Murdoch outlet.
That isn’t saying much.
Millions of Americans are going to be forced into buying low actuarial-value health insurance that is not going to cover shit when the medical bills arrive following an injury or illness.
Obamacare is nothing more than a giveaway to the health insurers.
When Obama refused to push for a single payer regime, he condemned untold number of Americans to the clutches of these sons of bitches.
New Yorker under Tina Brown became yet another media instrument for propaganda. Once upon a time, the “Old” New Yorker brought about such radical pieces of writing as Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring,” offered in installments. Too bad for the Big Chemical Corporation’s if Carson exposed their pesticides for what they really were.
But in these times, the “New” New Yorker” does nothing but emphasize the spin needed for most Americans to accept the fascist (Oops, didn’t I mean “modern?”) aspects of current day life. So to read the magazine now is to celebrate life here in the Corporate-Owned Land of GM Foods, Chem Trailed skies, and Big Insurance/Big Pharma Entitlement Programs, aka as the “Affordable Health Care Act of 2009.” The good news for me is that by the time I am forced to go on it, I can get MediCare. Except of course that the Powers that Be are about to destroy that program as well.
Now the Affordable HC Act might not have worked for most Americans, but it sure helped give Rahm Emanuel the money needed to become the latest Corporate Big Shot acting as mayor of a large city.
ACA will be the vehicle used to privatize Medicare. It’s only a matter of time. The elderly will be herded into the private insurance pen just like everyone else.
Yesterday the NYT carried an article that the drug companies and medical device companies must now disclose whenever they pay doctors for any reason, the disclosures go into a searchable database that will be available for patients. Patients will be able to look up any doctor and what payments that doctor has received from which companies for what.
This is a regulation put in place to comply with the ACA. I guess nobody here wanted to cover it though.
Ummn, isn’t universal, like, everyone?
The lowest cost plan option doesn’t actually cover any healthcare until a person pays a significant amount out-of-pocket. It’s basically just a gift to the insurance company. My husband and I currently pay 21% of our income for health insurance – I would welcome a limit to 8% of income, if it actually covered health care expenses. We both just turned 61. Health insurance gets very expensive the closer you get to 65.
Aaayy, look ova hia. Whatcha need, is a protekshun plan. We got da poifect plan. See, yous gives us da dough, and we provides da protekshun. Nobody gets hoit and ya don’t haf ta worry ’bout nobody comin in an bustin ya chops or a fia consumin all ya valuables or what not. Wia nice people, and wia gonna look out fa yous, providin ya takes us up on owa nice offa, hia. Capisce?
Obama wins when anyone wastes time arguing whether 93%, especially so far out, is universal coverage. Obama’s HCR did NOTHING to address the HC problems that desperately need fixing. And, here FDL is, almost 2 years after making the best argument on the WEB on the failings of Obama’s Plan, arguing in about the only way possible that allows Obama to win. SHAMEFUL, Jon.
I’m much younger, but you’re right about the actual coverages. The plan I note above, if I were to purchase it, only kicks in for any family member after I pay $2,000 in expenses during a calendar year (per person). So I’d pay $786 per month (about 17% of my pretax income) for insurance that I couldn’t use until I spent another 5(ish)% of my income for each family member. Then the coverages are 80% of routine service or preventative services and 60% of emergency services.
Garbage and worthless, in other words.
Goddamn extortionist mf’ers and their little piss-boy salesman Barack Obama.
Apologies to the “we need to have a more civil discourse” crowd.
I just had to get that off my chest.
Will FDL offically dump Oilbomber so liberals can make a five or ten percent impact on the 2012 elections by supporting en masse via the internet – a third party candidate like Rocky or Jill. Is Cenk supporting Rocky already?
How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time.
I got no dog in the race but it sure as hell ain’t Oilbomber or a creepy Neanderthal Rethug.
seconded.
Brain washer Mr Lizza:
what Obama did was:
1)Bailed out Wall Street,to Big to fail banks,car makers,big corporations
and insurers and make sure Wall Street can eat a bigger piece of pie.
2)Fabrication of Unaffordable Health care Act,everything for insurers,no single payer,no P.O.,no medicare for all no universal health care and a
DESPICABLE AND DISGUSTING MANDATE.
I don’t think that Obama could be unseated,but i would like that..
There are bon bons in ACA which could be standalone legislation, rather than excuses for ACA’s mandate. This would be one of them, I think.
Is that what they are? I was wondering. I have a close relative that is alive because of another one. Bon bons. check.
Bon bons, yes indeed. It’s simply about how they were sold. If and when ACA mandate is gelded by SCOTUS, most of them will remain.
The point is, the overarching ACA is not necessary for most, but it’s the ACA mandate which needs them in orbit for (phony) justification of the mandate.