Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe Irony and Limits of the Affordable Care Act
from Dissent magazine:
The Irony and Limits of the Affordable Care Act
By Colin Gordon - October 15, 2013
The federal government shutdown that started on October 1 resulted in a telling virtual irony. Thanks to the standoff in Congress, the governments web presencefrom the Census Bureau data portal to the National Zoos pandacamwas replaced by Sorry, back soon screenshots. Meanwhile, the website associated with the Affordable Care Act (the original object of the standoff) ran out of bandwidth due to overwhelming interest in the new health insurance exchanges. It was as if Congress closed the pool because they thought they saw a turd floating in the shallow end, and everyone jumped in anyway because they knew it was really a chocolate bar.
A larger irony is that the ACA is about as far from a government takeover of health care or the final leap to socialism (as Michele Bachmann sees it) as one can imagine. Such hyperbole is now about a century old. In 1917 insurance executives raised the fear of Prussian or Bolshevik medicine. In the 1940s the American Medical Association fabricated a quote from Leninsocialized medicine is the keystone in the arch of the socialist stateto punctuate its Cold War campaign against public health insurance. During the early debate over Medicare in 1961, Ronald Reagan warned that you and I may well spend our sunset years telling our children and our childrens children what it once was like in America when men were free. These scare tactics usually worked. The power of southern segregationists in Congress doomed much of the New Deals timid universalism. Deference to the AMA virtually immobilized health reform in the 1940s and 1950s. Job-based coverage emerged as the next-best bet, while public policy retreated to occasional efforts to mitigate its failuresmost notably with the passage of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965. Since then efforts to appease health care industry interests and avoid the socialized medicine label have routinely turned good intentions into bad policy or legislative shipwrecks. Republican pollster Frank Luntzs now-infamous 2009 memo The Language of Healthcare set out the basic talking points that would later pepper Ted Cruzs filibuster: any public program or option is a slippery slope to government takeover and national health systems (insert Canadian or British horror story here) that stifle innovation, encourage malingering, and ration careeither by forcing patients to wait or by pulling the plug.
This political history dramatically lowered the sights of policymakers. Since the 1970s, the notion of universalizing job-based coverage or displacing private insurers has been slowly replaced by a mantra of competitionmarked by the rise of the HMO in the 1980s and the reign of managed care ever since. Recasting health care as a marketplace of individual coverage was the pet project of the right in the years before and after the Clinton health care debacle. The Heritage Foundations 2006 publication, The Rationale for a Statewide Health Insurance Exchange, enthusiastically compared state insurance exchanges to farmers markets or the used car clearinghouse CarMax. This was essentially the blueprint for Obamacare. The irony runs in the other direction as well. As Republicans insist on tarring an idea they came up with as the resurrection of Lenin, Democrats find themselves defending a policy they would have scoffed at a decade ago. Their defense depends on two, somewhat contradictory, strategies. One is to celebrate the transformation in health care by reminding Americans (especially the uninsured) that the ACA has made coverage easier to get and harder to lose. The other is to downplay that transformation by reassuring Americans (especially employers and the securely-insured) that the ACA will not affect them or their coverage. The truth lies somewhere in the middle.
The Promise of the Affordable Care Act
In terms of coverage, efficiency, and equity, the ACA is a far cry from a single-payer system. Some hope that it might push us along that path (either through its sheer failure or by incremental tinkering with its provisions), and some fear that it might block the way (by marginalizing the remaining uninsured or simply poisoning the well for future reformers). In either case, the ACA is better than nothing and it has already had a real impact. Health care costs are falling. While slower spending is largely attributable to a slow recovery from a long recession, it also reflects the rollout of some of the ACAs cost-containment provisions and the response of private insurers to the threat (and now the reality) of modest health reform. And the uninsured are finding coverage. Thanks to the ACAs requirement that insurers allow children to stay on their parents plan until they are twenty-six, the uninsured rate among young adults has fallen for two consecutive years. None of the economic calamity predicted (or pined for) by congressional Republicans has come to pass. The law actually imposes little obligation, cost, or uncertainty on employers. Ninety four percent of firms affected by the ACAs employer mandate already provide coverage voluntarily. There is no empirical evidence that the ACA is a job killer or that employers are gaming the mandate (now pushed off to 2014 anyway) by ducking under the fifty-worker threshold or cutting workers back to part-time status. The promise for the future is substantial. The combination of insurance regulations and state exchanges provides coverage options for millions of uninsured Americans. Most of those finding insurance via the ACA will qualify for subsidies that reduce the costs of that coverage. And the ACA will enhance the health security of those who are already covered by checking the capriciousness of private insurers and providing a softer landing for those who lose a job or job-based coverage. .......................(more)
The complete piece is at: http://www.dissentmagazine.org/online_articles/the-irony-and-limits-of-the-affordable-care-act
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
1 replies, 613 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (3)
ReplyReply to this post
1 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The Irony and Limits of the Affordable Care Act (Original Post)
marmar
Oct 2013
OP
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)1. "Health care costs are falling."
I've seen no data to reflect this. Per capita costs in 2013 are projected to climb to ~$8920. This study here suggests that growth will remain positive:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/18/health-care-spending_n_3948568.html
From what I understand, ACA will slow the rate of growth of the batshit insane costs, but it will not in itself do anything to fix the batshit insanity