The experience of “millions of Americans” has been thrown back and forth recently by both parties as evidence of Obamacare’s success or failure, depending on who’s talking.
In Senate hearings this week, lawmakers piled on specific stories from their constituents as emblematic of larger impacts of the health care law. For Republicans and Democrats, there are two different “millions of Americans.”
“My late friend Alex Haley used to say: Lamar, if instead of making a speech you just tell a story, somebody might listen to you,” Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., said Tuesday at a hearing of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions with Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Marilyn Tavenner.
Republicans like Alexander cited the millions of Americans who are receiving plan cancellations from their insurance companies as a shot at President Obama’s repeated statement that “if you like your plan, you can keep it.”
“I recently heard from one of those Tennesseans whose policy will be canceled on January 1,” Alexander continued. “Her name is Emily. She’s 39. She has lupus. She told me: ‘I cannot keep my current plan because it doesn’t meet the standards of coverage. This alone is a travesty,’ she said.”
Democrats, on the other hand, are emphasizing the millions of Americans who will be newly eligible for affordable health coverage for the first time, as a result of Medicaid expansion, premium subsidies available on the exchanges, and protections against discrimination based on preexisting conditions or gender.
“Let me first share with you a story from Michigan that was highlighted in an article in the L.A. Times that talked about a woman named Judith,” Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., said Wednesday at a Senate Finance Committee hearing with Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.
“She’s 48 years old, works in a department store, had an insurance plan that cost her $65 a month. It was affordable. She thought she had insurance. Then she was diagnosed with cancer and found out that her plan had a $2,000 annual limit for hospital services, which would give her about one day in the hospital. So she delayed her care. Her cancer got worse, and she was in a very difficult, difficult situation.” Stabenow noted that under the Affordable Care Act, Judith would not face caps on coverage, higher rates as a woman, or rejection from insurance companies because of her illness.
Both types of stories are happening across the country, and both are important. However, the health care law is far more complicated than any of these anecdotes indicate at face value, on their own. Some people will face premium increases. Others will see their premiums decrease. Many will be eligible or able to afford coverage for the first time.
Insurance works by balancing these changes. To increase coverage for millions of people, something’s got to give — some people will pay less, but some people will pay more. In any private marketplace, some healthier people end up effectively subsidizing coverage for others if they themselves don’t end up needing medical care.
However, it’s important to remember that the number of people who purchase insurance on the individual market is relatively small. The law will not affect the majority of Americans, and the number of the newly insured is actually much larger than those losing their existing policies.
So yes, some will face higher premiums, while others will be newly or more comprehensively insured. These are both key sides of the story to highlight as debate over the law’s implementation continues. But to get an accurate picture, the stories must be reconciled and told together.
What We're Following See More »
"A lawyer representing Chris Gard and Connie Yates told the High Court 'time had run out' for the baby. Mr. Gard said it meant his 'sweet, gorgeous, innocent little boy' will not reach his first birthday on 4 August. 'To let our beautiful little Charlie go' is 'the hardest thing we'll ever have to do,' his mother said. Charlie's parents said they made the decision because a US doctor had told them it was now too late to give Charlie nucleoside therapy.
"Eleven states have sued the Environmental Protection Agency over its June decision to delay implementation of a chemical safety rule" until 2019. "The state attorneys general, led by New York’s Eric Schneiderman (D), argue the rule is important for 'protecting our workers, first-responders and communities from chemical accidents' and should be allowed to take affect as planned by the Obama administration’s EPA.
"House Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) on Monday said that funding for President Trump's controversial border wall is unlikely to cause a government shutdown. 'The odds of a government shutdown are very minimal when it comes to that,' the conservative lawmaker said at an event in Washington, D.C. 'I do think the funding of the border wall will happen,' he added. Appropriators have set aside $1.6 billion to fund new wall and fencing sections on parts of the U.S.-Mexico border covering a few dozen miles."