Obamacare popularity highest in nearly seven years as repeal

>While Democrats and Republicans' opinions of the law haven't changed much, independents seem to have grown more positive about the ACA, says Liz Hamel, Kaiser Family Foundation's director of public opinion and survey research.

>"They're most likely reacting to what they’re hearing in the news and the fact that more of the public discussion of late is about what people stand to lose if it is repealed," says Hamel.

>The new findings come as insurers and consumers are trying to figure out what to make of Internal Revenue Service guidance on how it would treat tax returns that that appeared to suggest taxpayers without health insurance won’t face penalties at tax time.

>In recent years, returns that didn't indicate whether the taxpayer had insurance or an exemption were processed, but that was set to change this year. Based on one of President Trump's executive orders, the IRS now plans to continue processing these returns and may follow up at a future date.

>"Legislative provisions of the ACA law are still in force until changed by the Congress, and taxpayers remain required to follow the law and pay what they may owe," the IRS said.

>The insurance industry trade group, America's Health Insurance Plans, is urging Congress to approve other incentives to keep people enrolled in insurance if the tax penalties are eliminated. If people aren't required to buy insurance, healthy people are more likely to wait to buy it when they are sick or injured and their premiums couldn't offset the costs of insuring those who need more health care.
...

>Other findings:

>• Nearly half of the public worry someone in their family will lose coverage if the ACA is repealed and replaced.

>• Substantial majorities say it is important that any ACA replacement plan continue to provide federal funds to states that expanded Medicaid under the law. This was true no matter where people lived or what political party they belong to.

>• About two thirds of people prefers status quo over such changes that would limit federal spending while giving states more flexibility to decide who and what to cover.

>Obamacare popularity highest in nearly seven years

Better end that shit quick.

>skyrocketing premiums
>massive deductibles
>forced under penalty of fine which is still cheaper
It's popular like AIDS was in the 80's

derka derka derka...

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/313411-poll-public-supports-major-obamacare-overhaul

>>114763
In case anyone cares to get an absolutely neutral source on this, here is the poll they are citing with methodology at the bottom.
http://kff.org/health-reform/poll-finding/kaiser-health-tracking-poll-future-directions-for-the-aca-and-medicaid/

>>114768
Premiums are debateable. I've seen sources saying they rose and some saying they fell.

In addition there was a bunch of things associated with it that are looked at almost completely positively like staying on insurance until 26 and preexisting conditions.

That said the sample seems to small to say it's unilaterally more popular.

People forgot they had insurance before the government forced them to buy it.

>>114797

Premium changes were regional, with some states having falling premiums with others have huge spikes. The nation overall saw a rise in prices, though it is estimated to still be lower than what would have been the price under the pre-ACA system. Obamacare effectively slowed the cost increase, but obviously did not halt it.

Now I'm not sure what caused such huge regional fluctuations, but I've heard that part of it is tied to how much the individual states helped support ACA measures, making their own subset of laws and policy changes to either aid Obamacare's success or hinder it. Of course there's also state by state demographics, with some states having a worse spread of young-to-elder and healthy-to-sick, which no doubt played some part as well.

>>114768
Insurance premiums had been increasing at an even greater rate before the ACA
>>114783
The article fails to clarify WHY people want an overhaul of the ACA. Many people want it changed to include a single-payer option, or to get rid of it and move to a single-payer system entirely, not to go back to the shitty state of healthcare we had before.
>>114830
>Now I'm not sure what caused such huge regional fluctuations, but I've heard that part of it is tied to how much the individual states helped support ACA measures, making their own subset of laws and policy changes to either aid Obamacare's success or hinder it.
IIRC, the regions where premiums went up were the ones that refused federal funding from the ACA- their local politicians deliberately sabotaged it in order to lower people's opinion of Obama.

>>114884

>IIRC, the regions where premiums went up were the ones that refused federal funding from the ACA- their local politicians deliberately sabotaged it in order to lower people's opinion of Obama.

That's actually what I heard, I just wanted to try and put it more neutrally to avoid shitflinging contests.

>>114767
It's too late. Despite the flaws it's done more good and many republicans also rely on it now. The only way you repeal the ACA is with something better.

>>114808
No I had 0 insurance I just went into the emergency rooms and never played the bills.

>>114950
>A single-payer system
Diaf

>>114884
A single-payer system would make the most sense, which is why it is what the rest of the world has for predictable, recurring costs. Over in the US, our market system means for-profit insurance companies take as large a share of the payments made by patients as they can get away with, and that money doesn't improve the quality of care or go towards R&D. Yet they still won't provide coverage for everyone if left to their own devices.

Failing a single-payer system or public option, the only option the last administration had for reform that guaranteed access to healthcare was to pay insurance companies to cover everyone and regulate them so that they were required to deliver that coverage.

>>114808

Now that the Republicans that decry Obamacare are in power, in coming up with a replacement they have to contend with the reality that it will never ever be in an insurance company's interest to cover someone that has predictable, regular costs that exceed the premiums they charge. The entire business model of insurance is engineered to provide peace-of-mind against unforseen emergencies.

There's no free-market solution to that. It's like conservation of energy. Unless you have the power to control the behavior of physics, you're not ever getting around that.

>>114953
>A single-payer system
Diaf

>>114954

I know the idea of redistributing a share of peoples' wealth is a cardinal sin in some circles, regardless of how much evidence there may be of the redistribution constituting a sound investment toward some collective, long-term interest.

But we do not earn our money in a vacuum. Our income is not purely a product of our own efforts. Society has enabled the opportunities we have today to earn our living. It's too complicated to parse all the various human influences across the history of human civilization that have lead to us working in the jobs we do today. So to say it's my work, my income isn't convincing to me. I think it's fair to ask that people that live in a society necessarily contribute a share of their income toward some collective, social interests.

To suggest otherwise is hypocrisy. We do not "deserve" to control all of our income if it is not entirely a product of our own efforts in the first place.

>>114965
Hey shut the fuck up okay, you pay for my roads, my resources, my salary, and I earned all of it because I got here before you, no handouts, no sore losers. Fair? Tough luck

>>114965
>redistributing
See>>114954
>>114951