The Uninsured Are Turning Against Obamacare. That's A Problem

[Nanjing to Seoul]

Source: Huff Post

The Obama administration is running into a somewhat surprising roadblock in its final push to get Americans enrolled in Obamacare ahead of the March 31 deadline: The nation's uninsured are increasingly suspicious of the law.

Fifty-six percent of those who identified as uninsured in a new poll conducted in February by the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, a research institution, had an unfavorable view of the health care reform law, compared to just 22 percent who said they view it favorably. The uninsured now see Obamacare less favorably than they did when the enrollment period began in October. As recently as September, more uninsured approved of the law than disapproved.

The survey results illustrate just how deep a hole the Obama administration is in when it comes to gaining the support of those the law is most intended to benefit. Indeed, the new findings show the uninsured feel worse about the law than the public at large. Thirty-five percent of Americans approve of Obamacare and 47 percent are against it, according to Kaiser.

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/26/uninsured-obamacare_n_4856105.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

---

Newest anti-Obama hit piece by the place started by Ariana Huffington, who used liberals to get rich.

HUff Post sucks. . .and not because AOL owns them.

[wyldwolf]

1. It's funny how most people don't think of the Huff Post as liberal-friendly anymore.

They really spun this poll negatively.

[lostincalifornia]

3. The truth is the Huffington Post has never been liberal-friendly.

[sendero]

10. How would you spin this poll?

The polling results ARE negative. Shooting the messenger isn't really going to accomplish much.

IMHO, the Obama administration has failed to promote, educate and counter the bullshit slung about the ACA - in a BIG WAY. they are FINALLY running some decent TV commercials here, but this should have been done months ago.

They sat on their thumbs and let the Repugs define the program and that big "you can keep your insurance" error was very costly to their reputation. When you make a statement like that, you need to know what you are talking about.

I'm still rooting for the ACA but as things are I realize I cannot depend on it, the people who are for it are amateurs at PR.

[JDPriestly]

14. The flaw is in the fact that too much time lapsed between the passage of the law and the

implementation of the program for the poor.

Also there is a big problem because many governors sabotaged the law by not increasing the funding and scope of their Medicaid program.s

But yes. The Obama administration's communication with the public is its weakest link. It has an abysmal record of telling its story to the people who need to hear it.

The Obama administration spends too much time and money on domestic surveillance and policing, collecting records of the minutiae of the lives of ordinary Americans -- on the NSA program and on equipping our local police with quasi-military or straightforward military equipment than on communicating with us as real people.

Also, the consolidation of the media which got a big boost during the Clinton administration means that the Republicans, the right-wing can control a lot of the information that we get. Remember, lots of people in our country do not have the internet. And it looks like Obama's appointment to the FCC, while giving lip service to net neutrality is unlikely to take the steps necessary to protect it.

I find this news extremely depressing and distress

The NSA program needs to go. There is no will so far in the Obama administration to put it under the control of the people, no will to allow it to be transparent enough to make it compatible with our Constitution and with our system of democratic and representative government. The very existence of this program places too much power in the military and executive branch. That it exists gives rise to the question whether we have already had a silent coup, a silent military, intelligence coup.

What do net neutrality and the NSA surveillance have to do with enrollment in the ACA? The end of net neutrality will make it even more difficult for the people to learn the truth about anything. And NSA surveillance gives our government so much power over us that our government thinks it already knows where we are an who we are and it does not need to spend so much time and effort on winning us over. If people are unhappy, just cut their unemployment checks and their food stamps and then, when they show their anger, meet them with tanks and armored police officers. That's the message here. Like it or not, that is where this could end.

The lack of enthusiasm about enrolling in Obamacare is rather understandable considering the perception of heavy-handed government that has been common since the Reagan era.

[wordpix]

16. O admin has "abysmal record of telling its story to the people who need to hear it"

This is true. The best way to tell this story is to let people who've been helped by ACA tell their stories and make ads based on them. Maybe we'll see this soon as the '14 elections near. There are such people featured on vids at whitehouse.gov but not that many people go to the WH website to watch.

BTW, I am one such person who has been helped tremendously by the ACA. I had perfect health until age 61, and when I got a diagnosis of a serious problem, my insurance co. said they would drop me "due to the ACA" once they started to get some bills. I got help from my Dem Congressman's office so was able to continue coverage for another month until I got ACA insurance. Otherwise, I would have been dropped with a gap in my coverage at a crucial time when I needed diagnostic tests and treatment. And I would not have been able to get other coverage due to my "preexisting condition." If I paid out of pocket for all my medical care, I would lose my house and retirement savings at a time when I could not work due to my health. Then what? What solutions do the repugs have to that? Nothing. The "O" in GOP stands for a big ZERO.

[JDPriestly]

59. I hope you will somehow make a video and post it online where people who may not have

insurance can see it. Thanks for telling that story.

[wordpix]

88. I need to get a videocam, good idea

[questionseverything]

54. so today we find out the nsa has helped britian

take pics of private video chats on yahoo including sexual encounters and then they run them threw some nsa program...which is all creepy...so how are we supposed to trust?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024573395

[truedelphi]

67. Totally agree that the expensive and illegal NSA programs have to go.

But there are myriad problems with the ACA, even here in ACA-friendly California.

The ACA website, "Covered California" states that specific doctors are willing to deal with the insurers you can sign up with. You might even see a photo of your doctor there.

So you sign up, and then find out that was bogus information. So now you either have to find a doctor who will take the ACA insurance providers, or else keep your doctor, and pay for not only insurance but your doctor visits. One of the SF area TV stations was covering this problem about a week ago.

[JDPriestly]

71. The doctors should be ashamed.

[truedelphi]

73. No, I don't feel the doctors did anything wrong.

They are not part of whatever Big Insurer that the ACA is offering.

So the ACA should not pretend they are.

For instance, my doctor can't wake up one morning and decide to be part of Kaiser. It is not his choice.

But Kaiser happens to be one of three Big Insurers I have available to me, even though there is not a single Kaiser clinic or hospital in my county!

[villager]

76. +1 Well put.

n/t

[wyldwolf]

20. Probably the way Political Wire did

A new Kaiser tracking poll finds that 48% of Americans want to keep and improve the Affordable Care Act while another 8% want to keep it as is -- for a total of 56% who want to keep the law. Meanwhile, 19% want to repeal the law and not replace it, while 12% want to repeal and replace with a GOP alternative -- totaling 31%.

"a total of 56%... want to keep the law."

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2014/02/26/majority_wants_to_keep_obamacare.html

[sendero]

22. That is a different poll..

.... that asked different questions of a different group of people.

56% isn't bad, but it will need to be 75% before death-by-Republicans is an impossibility. IMHO.

[wyldwolf]

23. No it isn't

Both Political Wire, by way of WaPo, and Huffington Post reference this poll:

http://kff.org/health-reform/poll-finding/kaiser-health-tracking-poll-february-2014/

[sendero]

24. Well it only goes to show..

... there are lies, damned lies and statistics. Did HuffPo make up results that weren't actually in the poll? Or merely cherry-pick the parts they liked?

[wyldwolf]

26. they hi-lighted the negative. Political Wire, the positive.

[1StrongBlackMan]

44. At the risk of repeating myself ...

Did you look at the actual poll? Or, did you just look at what Huff Post says it says? (And have you ever taken a Stats or Policy Analysis Course?)

Did you miss the very next sentence that serves as the meat of their conclusion (and gives lie to H/P spin)?

Here:

The uninsured continue to view the law unfavorably

Last month’s tracking poll found a negative shift in opinion of the ACA among those who are currently uninsured, and that trend continues in February, with 56 percent of the uninsured having an unfavorable opinion of the law and 22 percent a favorable one. As more Americans gain coverage under the law, we can expect the group who remain uninsured to change over time, and some changes in opinion may be attributable to changes in who remains uninsured, rather than a shift in opinion among individuals.


For those that don't read policy/stats-speak, that means: "It is predicted (and predictable) that as more and more of the uninsured gain insurance, the percentage of those with an unfavorable opinion of the ACA in the pool will increase."

IOWs, as you remove those willing to get insurance, you will be left with those refusing to get insured because they don't like the law. IOOWs, as you remove idiots from a pond, the overall percentage of idiots remaining in the pond increases.

[eggplant]

25. Spinning it is unnecessary.

Of course the uninsured are getting more suspicious. The *less* suspicious ones SIGNED UP. Who do you think is left?

[SansACause]

43. THIS!

Exactly! I have no idea how anyone could take that poll data and get a trend from it. At some point, there's going to be some number of folks who refused to get health insurance, and so if you poll them, 100% of respondents will be against Obamacare.

[1StrongBlackMan]

45. Actually ...

it's not that the uninsured are getting more suspicious ... it's the pool is getting more suspicious because (as you stated), The *less* suspicious ones SIGNED UP. Who do you think is left?

IOWs, in a universe of idiots and non-idiots, as one removes non-idiots the percentage of idiots compared to non-idiots increases.

[demwing]

39. For all the Tea Party's attempts to compare Obama to Hitler

Obama could better be compared to Chamberlain, with the role of the Nazis being filled collectively by the Tea Party.

I am so damned tired of trying to get along with the Right. They are dangerous and can't control themselves, and while the administration takes the high road, the TPers are fucking our country up, down, and sideways.

[1StrongBlackMan]

42. Did you look at the actual poll? ...

Or, did you just look at what Huff Post says it says? (And have you ever taken a Stats or Policy Analysis Course?)

Did you miss the very next sentence that serves as the meat of their conclusion (and gives lie to H/P spin)?

Here:

The uninsured continue to view the law unfavorably

Last month’s tracking poll found a negative shift in opinion of the ACA among those who are currently uninsured, and that trend continues in February, with 56 percent of the uninsured having an unfavorable opinion of the law and 22 percent a favorable one. As more Americans gain coverage under the law, we can expect the group who remain uninsured to change over time, and some changes in opinion may be attributable to changes in who remains uninsured, rather than a shift in opinion among individuals.

For those that don't read policy/stats-speak, that means: "It is predicted (and predictable) that as more and more of the uninsured gain insurance, the percentage of those with an unfavorable opinion of the ACA in the pool will increase."

IOWs, as you remove those willing to get insurance, you will be left with those refusing to get insured because they don't like the law. IOOWs, as you remove idiots from a pond, the overall percentage of idiots remaining in the pond increases.

[Scairp]

72. I have to agree

I've seen many, many more negative attacks on the ACA than positive press touting how great it is. They should also be having informational workshops for anyone who is confused about ACA. I realize these things cost money but they have got to put some money towards a positive message. There is no choice, they just have to do it.

[upaloopa]

56. It says a quarter of them know nothing about

the ACA yet 56% are apposed to it. If those 25% are part of the 56% then they don't know what they are against.
You should not conclude that people don't like the ACA because of the law's provisions.
I don't know what it is but I'm aginit.

[rpannier]

2. The first question that needs to be asked is

Are these the exact same people they polled in September?
If they're only asking uninsured than it's likely not the same people.

If I want people to do X and 66% of 1000 people think it's a good idea and 34% of the people think it's a bad idea then the numbers of people who don't like the idea that will do it is probably negligible; let's say 5%, so that means 17 of them 340 did it. That makes the anti-pool slightly smaller.
From the "It's a good idea pool" the numbers will likely be much higher, say 75%. So that's 495 people pulled from the pool, leaving about 155 people who like the idea left. So the numbers will now skew in the opposite direction.

Point is... those that like it have, for the most part, enrolled making the sampling more negative because they didn't sign up and likely won't until the last second

[truedelphi]

68. I am not sure about any specific poll.

I do know that people studying the information available have been saying for some time that the people making the most use of the ACA are those who are already insured. It does seem like people who were already insured are more enthused than those of us who have to rely on the exchanges.

[Roland99]

4. Reading just a bit further below in that original poll....

Lack of awareness continues among the uninsured

Among those who report being uninsured in February, confusion and lack of awareness continue. Half (50 percent) say they don’t have enough information to understand how the law will impact their own families. Nearly two-thirds say they know only a little (37 percent) or nothing at all (26 percent) about the ACA’s health care marketplaces, and just a quarter (24 percent) are aware that the deadline to sign up for coverage and avoid paying a penalty is at the end of March.

unspins the spin a bit.

[Bandit]

19. Republicans have made laws against informing the people about ACA

I am surprised the number is this low to tell you the truth. In most Republican controlled states, not only have Republicans made it illegal to inform people but have launched a non stop negative campaign against ACA. It is going to take a bit more time but people will find out the truth eventually.

[LuvNewcastle]

5. A lot of these people who have a negative view of it are the same

ones who don't know anything about it. However, some of the ones who do know about it have a few problems with it. I think the complaint I hear the most from people is that the deductibles are too high. I've read here at DU that the deductibles are actually lower for people who get subsidies, but people don't see that when they're signing up. All they see is the $6000 deductible, and it scares them.

[lostincalifornia]

6. The poll indicates that over 60% of those interviewed are ignorant. That along with fox, koch, and

even the MSM blasted everyday with misrepresentations and outright lies should be no surprise.

From the inception when the majority of the media outlets incorrectly reported that the supreme court ruled the ACA unaffordable, information regarding the program by these same outlets have been distorted, and outright incorrect in many cases.

As the deregulation and the elimination fairness doctrine became more invasive, the populous became more ignorant.

[Harriety]

7. I don't know when this poll was done but....

Recently my friend who is always very suspicious of new things, and had heard so many bad things about how hard it was to sign up for the ACA held back applying for it. She had been off of insurance for over 3 years as her employers raised her insurance rates so high she couldn't afford it any more. I am happy to say that this month she had no trouble signing up and she paying $100 a month for her coverage.

More people need to share their stories of success of what the ACA has already accomplished, sing it praises, and refute so called "news" sources who keep hammering away it with their negativity.

[groundloop]

8. "More people need to share their stories of success" - too bad good news isn't the most profitable

The media is ALWAYS looking for bad news, they don't give a crap about good news because it's not as dramatic. If all the stories like this were getting air time it would benefit the ACA tremendously in a couple of ways. First, of course, people would realize that the ACA might be able to benefit them as it has others. Secondly, and not so obviously, people would realize 'hey, if those other people managed to get signed up and found a decent plan then I probably can as well'.

[bemildred]

9. So the reluctant ones are all that is left? nt

[Enrique]

11. knee-jerk, ad hominem reaction to a good article

I don't actually like Huffington Post, nor Arianna Huffington, but what does that have to do with anything? This is a good article.

If anyone cares to get out of Defend Obama mode, and read the article, they will see it puts the poll into about as much context as you would expect a news article to do. Far from a hit piece imho.

[1000words]

48. +1

Must. Protect. President ...

[valerief]

12. Okay, so most of the people they asked in September who favored ACA are now insured, so

most of the ninnies who didn't like ACA in September still don't.

Is that what this poll is?

[zeemike]

18. And I would bet that those "ninnies" are also the ones who can't afford it

Even if it is only 100 bucks a month...something that many people can't understand because they have never lived paycheck to paycheck and have to worry about whether they have enough money to put gas in the car to get to work...and now they are going have to worry about where they will get the 100 bucks...maybe they can just work harder eh?

[valerief]

21. I thought if they couldn't afford it, they got Medicaid. nt

[zeemike]

27. Well I guess they do if the qualify

And they live in a state that expanded it.
And what amount of income does it take to qualify for it?
So you can be working two jobs and just scraping by and not qualify for Medicare...but are forced to come up with the money anyway.
For those people it is not hard to understand why they don't like it.

[hack89]

28. Not every state expanded Medicaid

the income limits for ACA and standard Medicaid don't align so there are people that can't afford ACA but are not eligible for Medicaid.

[valerief]

33. True. Medicare for All would have served all but at the cost of the very wealthy becoming

slightly less wealthy. That's a cost America isn't will to take apparently.

[Bill76]

74. Right. So many the people most desperately in need still can't get help.

Most doctors won't take medicaid in the states where the eligible fee for medicaid has not been raised to meet the level of medicare.

[1StrongBlackMan]

47. I'll take that bet ...

and offer that a large percentage of "those 'ninnies' are these 'ninnies'." ...

or these "ninnies" ... http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/02/25/morning-plum-obamacare-horror-stories-fall-apart-under-scrutiny/

[zeemike]

49. You mean a large percentage of the ninnies are poor people?

how egalitarian is that?
But those ninnies look pretty well dressed to me...but it is well known that the poor often shop on Hollywood Boulevard.

[1StrongBlackMan]

50. LOL ...

That was a joke, right?

[zeemike]

51. No not at all.

That is where the poor go to shop because that is where all the thrift stores are.

[1StrongBlackMan]

53. Then, you clearly did not click on any of the links ...

try it, and get back with me>

That is where the poor go to shop because that is where all the thrift stores are.

Maybe so ... but what does that have to do with my post?

[zeemike]

55. OK I am back.

And that link said nothing about poor people that could not afford the insurance.

And what it has to do with your post is that you claimed those people in the video were the same poor people I was talking about not being able to afford the insurance and claimed that the majority of them were the ninnies that did not know the difference between the ACA and Obama care.
When in fact they were people shopping on Hollywood Blv...so I would have to assume the poor shop there.

[1StrongBlackMan]

61. Come on ...

You are not dense ... You've read too many of your posts!

You asserted that the uninsured ACA unfavorables (i.e., "Ninnies&quot are the poor that could not afford to purchase insurance ... something that this survey does not support ...

I offered that a large percentage of those 'ninnies' are the folks that are down for the ACA BUT HATE OBAMACARE and/or are uninformed about they ACA options BECAUSE THEY HATE OBAMACARE, i.e., the "ninnies" at the links ... something that the survey explicitly supports.

[zeemike]

64. That survey does not even talk about them.

And no where in there is any facts about those who cannot afford it no matter how wonderful it is for those who can afford it...that question was never asked.
You just assume they are mostly Obama haters...and I doubt that...but they may hate the fact that they will be forced to buy it anyway.

Do you think by informing them about the ACA will change them to wanting it?...when they know it will make them cut back on other needs they have?
Hungry people don't give a shit about health care...that is not their top priority...going to a doctor will not feed their children or them.

[1StrongBlackMan]

65. That's my point ...

That survey does not even talk about them. And no where in there is any facts about those who cannot afford it no matter how wonderful it is for those who can afford it...that question was never asked.

But I'll just say: the generic favorable/unfavorable question would have picked up those that hate the ACA because they couldn't afford a plan (and those that loved it despite not being able to afford a plan).

However, the survey wasn't designed to query that question ... it didn't drill down into WHY people had an unfavorable view; but analysis can lead to likely reasons, such as uninformed about the ACA (the survey supports this) ... which is what the links show.

While we are both making assumptions as to reason, my assumption is supported by the survey; whereas, yours is not supported by the survey.

[zeemike]

66. In journalism schools they used to teach the 5 W's.

Who What When Where and WHY.
Now it is just 4 because they don't want to know why...why would lead to change and change is a scary thing to the ones entrenched in the system.

You may not be interested in why but I am...but as long as the question is never asked you can make assumptions as to the reason...and what ever bias you may have will be reflected in that assumption...and I know my bias is for the poor, and I should be allowed to make my assumption on that bias too...as long as we refuse to ask why.

Yes we need to drill down into why...it is important.

[1StrongBlackMan]

75. This isn't J-School ...

I would love to know why, but J-School should have taught you not to assume/guess at things not in the survey, especially when there is actual information in the survey that speaks to, indirectly, an alternate why, then you are promoting.

[zeemike]

77. Well then I guess you miss the whole point of the why.

Knowing why means you never have to guess or assume.
And information with no why is only useful to guess or assume a why.

Jon Doe bites a dog on the corner of Elm street at 5pm....I guess he was hungry.

[1StrongBlackMan]

80. And when ...

It is reported that

Jon Doe bites a dog on the corner of Elm street at 5pm....

AND the report indicates that the dog attacked Jon ... and Jon has no arms ... and Jon was on his back ... your guess that Jon was hungry, is less convincing.

Whereas, 1) the survey indicates that the uninsured unfavorables are largely uninformed as to what the ACA is/does; yet they disfavor it (indicating a biased against the ACA, unrelated to the characteristics of the ACA) ...

2) the survey indicates that as the uninsured obtain coverage, the percentage of uninsured unfavorables in the pool increases (indicating the remainders are biased against the ACA for reasons other than the characteristics of the ACA - because they are largely the uninformed)...

AND, evidence outside of the survey indicates that the uninformed favor the ACA; but hate ObamaCare (supporting evidence for point 1) ...

Evidence outside of the survey indicates a large pool of folks disfavor ObamaCare because it's ObamaCare, without looking into Obamacare (i.e., the ACA) has to offer (i.e., refuse to go to the state or federal exchanges because it's ObamaCare (evidence for point 2).

My assumption that those remaining in the pool of uninsured that disfavor the ACA (read: ObamaCare) are doing so for reasons other than the characteristics of the ACA (price being one of them), is reasonable as it is based on evidence, beyond the anecdotal).

J-School should have taught you that ... But I guess bias trumps education.

[zeemike]

81. Well see you just reported the why.

Because the dog attacked him.

But you don't want to know why people don't want the ACA.
There are 46 million people in this country living below the poverty level...do you think that knowing about the ACA will suddenly put enough money in their pocket so they can buy insurance?
It don't matter what a great deal it is, if it cost 50 bucks a month they cannot afford it
Nope they will have to take their chances and go to the ER if they get really sick...just as before, so it means nothing to them....why would they even bother to look at it?

But your figuering just makes those people dissapear, and you right them off as uninformed.

And BTW I have never been to journalsm shcool and I am sory if you got that impression because I knew about the 5 W's ...I just am well read.

[1StrongBlackMan]

82. Okay ...

this is going nowhere.

But you don't want to know why people don't want the ACA.

Yes I do ... But I'm not going to jump over the evidence to assume what is I wish to assume.

There are 46 million people in this country living below the poverty level...do you think that knowing about the ACA will suddenly put enough money in their pocket so they can buy insurance?

You neglect to mention that the vast majority of these 46 million folks would receive subsidies and their refusal to look into what the ACA offers, despite the information that is out there suggests that their reason is unrelated to the characteristics of the ACA ... especially when a significant segment of that cohort, also, says "I hate it because it's ObamaCare."

And BTW I have never been to journalsm shcool and I am sory if you got that impression because I knew about the 5 W's ...I just am well read.

I don't know where I got the idea you went to J-School ... Oh Wait, maybe it was here:

In journalism schools they used to teach the 5 W's.

despite being

[zeemike]

84. On that we can agree...this is going nowhere.

But you don't have to jump over anything if you just ask the question why...that is exactly my point...and I would bet if the poll had ask the question why don't you want the ACA the answer would be "I can't afford it no matter what it costs"
And sure there are subsidies from the government to the insurance companies but they will still have to come up with something...and from what I read it will be about 100 bucks a month...which sounds like a bargain if you make 50k or more a year, but if you are working two minimum wage jobs you don't have even that much to spend.

But I know where you got the idea I went to J-school...but your sure read a lot into that sentence...I am glad I did not mention medical school or you would have thought I was claiming to be a doctor.

[1StrongBlackMan]

85. But we have scores and scores of folks ...

on the record, saying that they hate ObamaCare because it's ObamaCare and talking about the huge cost of the ACA ... until the faintest of light shone on the claim, shows they refused to even look at the ACA exchanges because it's ObamaCare compared to a few anonymous here on DU, that have never had anything good to say about the ACA, insisting they can't afford it and being told to go to the exchange, only to disappear ... and this:

and from what I read

Puts you squarely in the uninformed unfavorable camp.

But I know where you got the idea I went to J-school...but your sure read a lot into that sentence...I am glad I did not mention medical school or you would have thought I was claiming to be a doctor.

Well ... when I talk about what is taught in law school, that's because I went to law school.

[zeemike]

86. Scores and scores,,,is that forty?

Are you counting the ones on Hollywood Blvd?,,,that would make it over forty.
So 40 out of 46 million, I guess that is enough of a sample to make a judgment eh?

because it's Obama Care

See you did not need to ask them why...you already knew from that 40 or 50...and the ones that said they could not afford it were just hear to plant the false notion that everyone who is poor CAN afford it if they would just go to the exchange and look at it....and the ones that did and said they can't are just plants by the RW.

Well I can tell you because I live in one of the poorest parts of the country...not as poor as Appellation perhaps but not that far behind...and I know the people I live around and they cannot afford it if it only cost 50 a month...there have been times when I had to put some gas in my neighbors truck so he could get to work...and I am not well off myself but he does things for me as well.
I think the problem is many of us are detached from that reallity...and out of sight out of mind...and poor people become the invisible ones to the left and the slugs to the right.

But i know more than just what I was taught in school...I also read and that teaches me what others have been taught in school...and I got the 5 W's from a journalist who talked about what he learned in school and made the point that journalist were no longer reporting on the Why.
Too bad that was so long ago I can't give you a link.

[mainer]

13. Hits nail on head. Unenrolled are suspicious.

I see it in my own extended family, among whom are uninsured libertarians. They told me that if you register with ACA, the federal government can confiscate your driver's license if you don't then enroll in a plan. They swear up and down it's true, even though I keep pointing out the federal government doesn't have anything to do with your driver's license.

There's no convincing them because they go on too many rightwing websites, where they keep getting the same fake information.

I send them to Snopes.com, but they tell me Snopes is a lying liberal site.

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/10/obamacare-conspiracy-theory-lien-house-debunked

http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/penalty.asp

[NorthCarolina]

32. ACA is still unaffordable to many....

"For those with very low wages trying to raise kids, after paying for housing, electricity, food, transportation, and child care, asking people to pay another $50 or $100 a month, that's just out of reach," said Sireesha Manne, a staff attorney at the New Mexico Center on Law and Poverty.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) is designed to make insurance affordable for Americans with low and moderate incomes—particularly since it requires all Americans to have health insurance starting this year, or face financial penalties. The law expands Medicaid eligibility (in the states that have agreed to do so) to the poorest Americans—those making up to 133% of the federal poverty line. But it also provides financial assistance for those making up to 400% of the poverty level to help them buy private insurance on the new state health exchanges.

Still, the financial help isn't enough for some. "Even with the subsidies, some people simply won't be able to manage to pay their health insurance premiums consistently with all the other costs facing them," said Janet Varon, executive director of the Northwest Health Law Advocates in Seattle which works on health access issues.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/01/14/stateline-obama-health-care/4471957/

I think this is especially true in those states that do not participate in the Medicaid expansion provision of ACA...which is substantial

[Redfairen]

46. Absolutely right, when I first saw the coverage options I was dismayed.

Regardless of whether you believe in the big picture concept of the ACA, the plans just aren't that good of a deal.

[mainer]

52. Depends on your income, I think.

I registered with ACA and checked out the options, but the offered plans were more expensive than my current plan. Still, it makes sense because our income is too high to qualify for a subsidy, and we're in our early sixties. We're sticking with our current insurance.

[truedelphi]

70. Very Good Point! My household makes $ 70 a month too much to get

MediCaid coverage (Which is there, thankfully, for some folks here in California.)

But we' re expected to come up with $ 200 a month to be covered under the ACA. I could see us being expected to come up with $ 70, but where is the other $ 130 supposed to come from?

Additionally we are only allowed to use the exchange, and the three insurers available to us all suck Big Time. My doctor will not accept insurance from any of those three providers, so I am out not only the $ 200 a month, but would have to pay for the doctor visits as well.

[RobinA]

15. Although I Think

the administration did a pisspoor job of marketing this program, I can't totally blame them for this. I mean, come on people, do you have to be spoonfed EVERYTHING? If you don't have health insurance you have a major problem. Along comes Obamacare, which might just get you some health insurance you can afford. Is taking some responsibility to find out about it THAT much to ask? How do people like this get through life???

And I'm not talking about people who ran into obstacles or still can't afford it. I'm talking people who say they don't know anything about it in such appalling numbers. This isn't some egghead situation that requires advanced degrees and close reading of a major newspaper, like, say, knowing that Iraq isn't responsible for 9/11, this is self-interest and they still can't be bothered to find out about it. My sympathy is strained.

[azurnoir]

17. Here is a link to the poll it self and more detail

http://kff.org/health-reform/poll-finding/kaiser-health-tracking-poll-february-2014/

?w=600&h=450&crop=1

?w=600&h=450&crop=1

[Myrina]

29. So because you're a fan of POTUS and the ACA, it's automatically a "hit-piece"?

:rolleyes: Oy.

[Nanjing to Seoul]

30. Actually, I hate the ACA because there is no public option or single payer.

And I have criticized Obama alot.

But thanks for playing.

[meanit]

31. The Right is doing everything possible

to mis-inform the public and derail Obamacare. Not to mention the conservative TV, radio and print media.
Perhaps a massive mailing campaign of information to the American public is needed. Remember the mass mailing of HIV / AIDS information that C. Everett Koop, the Surgeon General did in the 1980's because Reagan ignored the crisis?

Maybe something like that would help....

[JCMach1]

34. reason? Those states that didn't expand Medicaid

The Republicans are the ones causing the MESS...


Shocking, NO?

[cynzke]

35. Its The Reporter.....Jeffrey Young!

When Mr. Young contributes a story on ACA, it always has a negative tone or title lead is deceptive. Search all his stories re ACA and you will see a trend. Stories from other contributors are more positive.

[madrchsod]

83. yup..he ain`t got no cred...

[sinkingfeeling]

38. Maybe the 56% who have an unfavorable view live in the red states that are

denying them Medicaid expansion?

[1StrongBlackMan]

40. Amazingly, the Huff Post neglected to include this paragragh ...

from the actual survey ...

The uninsured continue to view the law unfavorably

Last month’s tracking poll found a negative shift in opinion of the ACA among those who are currently uninsured, and that trend continues in February, with 56 percent of the uninsured having an unfavorable opinion of the law and 22 percent a favorable one. As more Americans gain coverage under the law, we can expect the group who remain uninsured to change over time, and some changes in opinion may be attributable to changes in who remains uninsured, rather than a shift in opinion among individuals.

For those that don't read policy/survey analysis-speak, that means: "It is predicted (and predictable) that as more and more of the uninsured gain insure, the percentage of those with an unfavorable opinion of the ACA in the pool will increase."

IOWs, as you remove those willing to get insurance, you will be left with those refusing to get insured because they don't like the law. IOOWs, as you remove idiots from a pond, the overall percentage of idiots remaining in the pond increases.

[Jesus Malverde]

41. There seems to be an inclination to label all criticism of these republican healthcare plans as

anti-obama. Maybe one is pro working person and not pro corporate pig fest.

This law is not about providing health care it's about providing a new pool of customers (Suckers) into a broken system.

The insurance that is being charged at full rates is not full insurance with it's limited networks.

[quadrature]

57. everyone needs to cheer up!

the good news is here.
......................
everything from now on, is going to be bad,
as employers start to drop insurance
for their employees.

[stopbush]

58. Just like the uninsured had "turned against" the health insurance companies pre-ACA?

There's a difference between turning against something and not embracing something.

The fact is that there are fewer uninsured people now that the ACA is in effect. Those people were uninsured BEFORE the ACA took effect. So how do we get to language saying that the uninsured are turning against the ACA? Doesn't that mean that they had already "turned against" the way healthcare insurance was handled pre-ACA?

The fact is that the uninsured are embracing the ACA, just not as quickly as had been hoped.

[Sunlei]

60. They will get on board. Just got a mass mailer from BlueCross Blueshield insurance.

Think they got the name/address from IRS.

Anyway, the mailer explains how to get insurance on the marketplace and how the Gov will provide "Financial assistance"

"Get an affordable health plan"

[hedgehog]

62. "Fifty-six percent of those who identified as uninsured in a new poll conducted in February "

So wait - these are people who are still uninsured four months after the exchanges opened? I think there is some sample bias here!

[freshwest]

63. Huffington set the site up with Breitbart. Her running buddies hate Obama, too:

Last edited Thu Feb 27, 2014, 07:43 PM - Edit history (1)

Didn't work in 2012, but they're still at it!

[truedelphi]

69. She also loves to employ writers for free.

Even as she collects the big huge checks from AOL when they buy her blog.

Yet she considers herself a progressive, and others do too.

Rather frightening that that is the case.

[spin]

78. Considering the fact that the roll out was a total fiasco and promises were made that were false ...

this is hardly surprising.

I had great hopes for a single payer healthcare system or medicare for all. Many other developed nations have excellent healthcare systems that the citizens love. Surely we could have picked the best of the best and developed a similar plan.

It appears that our Congress may have sold out and we may end up with a healthcare system that might be more expensive and less effective than the one we had. Hopefully I am wrong and I do know several older people in their early sixties who love ObamaCare and say their insurance costs have dropped significantly.

Hopefully this will simply prove to be the first good step to developing a world class healthcare system in our nation.

[Warpy]

79. Labeled uninsurable for 26 years I know exactly how some of them feel

There is no way I want a dime of my money to go to those blood suckers. A public option might have a lot of them signed up by now. Medicare finally kicked in for me.

Then there are the poor who simply don't have the money to spare, especially in Republican states where heartless governors have refused to expand Medicaid.

There is also a lack of trust with private insurers, too many people have seen friends and family who paid into plans for years get screwed out of benefits when they got sick.

There are likely other problems I haven't touched on, but most of those problems are the insurance industry's fault, including the blockading of any public option thanks to their pet worm, Lieberman.

[area51]

87. +1 n/t

[wordpix]

89. People who know about the ACA need to speak with their friends, neighbors, etc about it

I've gotten one person to sign up so far. He said he didn't want to look into it b/c he "couldn't afford insurance" but after I gave him the lowdown on the ACA, he bought in and is now busily seeing docs for screenings and primary care.