The Affordable Care Act (ACA) was pushed primarily as a way to extend health insurance coverage. This was, and is, an important goal. However, another important aspect of the ACA is its impact on the labor market. The vast majority of people who are below Medicare age get their insurance through their job. This meant that tens of millions of people felt tied to a job because this was the only way they could get insurance for themselves and their families. A key feature of Obamacare is that by allowing people to get insurance through the exchanges, workers would no longer feel tied to their jobs in the same way. Workers that wanted to look for jobs that may be a better fit, or wanted to try to start their own business, or just hated their boss, could now take this step without worrying about losing insurance for themselves and their families. Access to insurance on the exchanges could also mean that many workers who would rather work part-time would have this option. Part-time work could now be an option if they would otherwise make enough money to make ends meet, since they could count on getting affordable insurance through the exchanges. It appears that many workers are in fact taking exactly this option. Helene Jorgensen and I analyzed the data from the first six months of 2014 and found a large increase in the number of young workers with children who were working part-time by choice. While voluntary part-time employment overall was up by only 2.1 percent compared with 2013, voluntary part-time employment for young parents was up by 11.3 percent. For parents with three or more children it was up by 15.4 percent. This certainly looks like Obamacare is making it possible for parents to spend more time with their kids. Before trashing Obamacare became a fundamental religious principle for Republicans, even most Republicans probably would have said that parents spending time with their kids is a good thing. To ensure that there is no confusion, it is important to realize that these numbers refer to voluntary part-time employment. The Bureau of Labor Statistics, which sponsors the survey from which the data come, first determines whether people work part-time, defined as less than 35 hours a week. They then ask whether they choose to work part-time or are working part-time because they can't find full time work. We are looking at an increase in people choosing to work part-time. The number of workers who are involuntarily working part-time has been falling for the last five years, although it is still well above the pre-recession level, reflecting the continuing weakness of the labor market. The fact that the labor market remains weak makes the increase in voluntary part-time employment even more important. If these people are leaving full-time jobs that they didn't want, they are creating openings for workers who need full-time employment to make ends meet. This reshuffling in the labor force is a win-win, as full-time workers opting for part-time work and part-time workers moving into full-time jobs are both improving their situations. This is the sort of thing that President Obama and the Democrats who pushed the bill through Congress should be touting. Tens of millions of people had been living with the fear that if they lost their jobs, they would also lose their health insurance. This would be a big deal for most families but especially those in which one or more family members had a serious health condition. Insurers do not like to insure sick people. The ACA changed that. Insurers have to treat everyone the same regardless of their health condition. This is a huge step forward. Of course there are many grounds for criticizing the ACA. We could have saved hundreds of billions of dollars annually if we got rid of the insurers altogether and instead had a universal Medicare system like Canada. Or we could have at least had the option to buy into a public Medicare-type system, as President Obama had originally proposed. And we pay drug companies, medical equipment suppliers, and doctors too much. Bringing our payments in line with the rest of the world would also save huge amounts of money. But these and other issues can be fixed through time. The bottom line is that the ACA has worked far better than we had reason to expect, making a big difference in the lives of tens of millions of people. If it had gone the other way, our television sets would have been taken over by Republican politicians trashing the ACA. So now that it's actually a big success the Democrats are naturally saying nothing. Dean Baker
"The bottom line is that the ACA has worked far better than we had reason to expect, making a big difference in the lives of tens of millions of people." Perhaps the funniest statement I've read in a long time. "Tens of millions of people had been living with the fear that if they lost their jobs, they would also lose their health insurance" And what about the millions of people who have in fact lost their health insurance due to Odumbo telling lies? Just the other day Virginia announced 250,000 would lose their insurance. http://watchdog.org/169905/virginia-health-insurance-cancellation/ And that's what is happening in every state. "Before trashing Obamacare became a fundamental religious principle for Republicans" The above is why this article is basically worthless. A liberal who feels the need to make nonsensical political statements rather than deal with facts. "Insurers have to treat everyone the same regardless of their health condition" And that's fair, right? A couch potato druggie who doesn't work out and eats all day pays the same as a health conscious person. Actually the slobs are likely paying less as I bet there is a higher probability they are getting more subsidies to pay for it. Funny that no other form of insurance works this way. Those who take excessive risks pay higher premiums elsewhere.
And Colorado ... Study: Obamacare reduces value of insurance plans They said our old insurance policies were junk. New policies, crafted by government, would help. It wasn't true, based on results of a study released Monday by the National Center for Public Research. Colorado's Democrats in Congress have done everything imaginable to help President Barack Obama impose an extreme agenda he promised would fundamentally change America. Most notably, they helped him cook up the Affordable Care and Patient Protection Act. They continue pretending the law has improved life for millions of Coloradans who count on elected representatives to protect their interests. President Obama and Sen. Mark Udall told us we could keep our health care plans and doctors, if we liked them. In doing so, they assured us consumers could remain in charge. By the end of August, almost 340,000 Colorado residents had received cancellations, sometimes forcing them onto a government exchange. Udall challenged Colorado's cancellation statistics in late 2013, when the number was only around 250,000. He became so argumentative the director of the Colorado's Division of Insurance, Jo Donlin, complained of intimidation. "Sen. Udall says our numbers were wrong," Donlin wrote in an email to co-workers obtained by Complete Colorado in January. "They are not wrong. Cancellation notices affected 249,199 people. They (Udall's staff) want to trash our numbers. I'm holding strong while we get more details. Many have already done early renewals. Regardless, they received cancellation notices." Exchange policies typically come at a greater cost than the private-sector plans they liked and were told they could keep. Often, the costly new plans mandate switching from physicians people liked. That's OK, we are told, because the old plans were terrible. MSNBC's Ed Shultz said cancellations were needed because private-sector plans are "crappy." President Obama called them "junk." U.S. Rep. Ed Perlmutter, D-Colo., described the canceled plans as "substandard." The notion that an Obamacare policy exceeds the value of a traditional plan has become the Democratic talking point to counter complaints of cancellations and diminished hopes of keeping one's doctor. The new study compared factors, such as the deductibles and out-of-pocket maximums of plans on the 2013 individual market and plans offered by exchanges. It studied policies for 27-year-olds and 57-year-old couples in 10 major markets. It found: - An average of 33 plans in each area for 27-year-olds on the individual market had lower premiums, deductibles and out-of-pocket maximums than the cheapest plans on ObamaCare exchanges. - Lower premiums and lower or equal cost-sharing in the 2013 individual market than the cheapest plans on ObamaCare exchanges for 57-year-old couples. - Exchanges had more restrictive HMO networks in relative to the individual market, an average of 16 more HMO plans for both 27-year-olds and 57-year-olds. - Less restrictive PPOs (choose your doctor) were more common in the individual markets, with an average of 32 more plans with PPOs for 27-year-olds and 25 more for 57-year-olds. House Democrats had an opportunity to improve the Affordable Care Act last week by voting for the Employee Health Care Protection Act. It would not help those who lost good plans on the individual market, but would declare group plans offered in 2013 "in compliance" with Obamacare through 2018. It would spare corporate employees a looming plight similar to that of Americans who bought policies on the open market. The bill passed with some bipartisan support. Colorado's House Democrats - Perlmutter, DeGette and Polis - voted against it. Once again, the customer is wrong. Politicians know best and shall decide what insurance we buy.
The Future of Health Care 4 million fewer uninsured as Obamacare kicks in By Tami Luhby @Luhby September 16, 2014: 12:04 AM ET NEW YORK (CNNMoney) The ranks of the uninsured plummeted in early 2014, as millions gained health insurance coverage through Obamacare, new government data released Tuesday found. There were 41 million Americans lacking coverage in early 2014, down from 44.8 million last year, according to the National Health Interview Survey, the first official government look at the uninsured after Obamacare policies kicked in on January 1. The uninsured ratefell to 13.1%, from 14.4%. The survey, conducted by the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, interviewed more than 27,600 people from January through March and asked them their coverage status. It also detailed whether they have private policies or participate in government programs. While the report does not attribute the decline to Obamacare, it does show the health reform is meeting its prime directive -- reducing the number of uninsured. Some 3.7 million respondents, or 1.4%, said they were covered by policies bought on the federal or state-based health insurance exchanges. Related: Thankful for Obamacare "This is probably one of the largest decreases we've seen," said Robin Cohen, a statistician at the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics. But even this survey doesn't give a complete picture into Obamacare's effect on the uninsured. Many people signed up for coverage late in the enrollment cycle, so their policies didn't kick in until May. The survey's second-quarter data, which will be released at year's end, will capture those enrollees. The report found young adults had the largest drop in uninsured levels. The share decreased from to 20.9%, from 26.5%. Many of them gained coverage through public programs, such as Medicaid. The uninsured rates of those in poverty and near poverty also declined sharply. These folks gained coverage both through private policies and public programs. Under Obamacare, just over half of states and the District of Columbia expanded Medicaid to cover everyone under age 65 up to 138% of the poverty level. More>> http://money.cnn.com/2014/09/16/new...red-ranks-fall/index.html?iid=HP_LN&hpt=hp_t4
The OP can be summarized to say that it's great to live off other people's earnings, you know, like John Kerry has done his entire life. Gives you time to hang around the house and smoke pot all day or just goof off. Oh yeah, let's throw in the kid angle to make it sound warm and fuzzy, but aren't these the same women demanding government daycare so they can leave their kids with strangers?
Like all politicians. One wonders, for example, why Scott Brown can't just go out and get a real job. And go get a job and get off welfare . . .