Let’s Try to Keep Obamacare Anecdotes In Perspective

Examples of how the law impacts Americans are important to the conversation, but need to be observed through a wider lens.

Sen. Lamar Alexander speaks to members of the media at the Capitol October 11, 2013 on Capitol Hill.
National Journal
Sophie Novack
Add to Briefcase
Sophie Novack
Nov. 6, 2013, 9:21 a.m.

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 »
ANOTHER NUCLEAR OPTION?
Byrd Rule Could Trip Up Health Legislation
19 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"Even if House Republicans manage to get enough members of their party on board with the latest version of their health care bill, they will face another battle in the Senate: whether the bill complies with the chamber’s arcane ... Byrd rule, which stipulates all provisions in a reconciliation bill must affect federal spending and revenues in a way that is not merely incidental." Democrats should have the advantage in that fight, "unless the Senate pulls another 'nuclear option.'”

Source:
ONE WEEK
Senate Votes To Fund Government
21 hours ago
BREAKING
ON TO SENATE
House Passes Spending Bill
22 hours ago
BREAKING

The House has passed a one-week spending bill that will avert a government shutdown which was set to begin at midnight. Lawmakers now have an extra week to come to a longer agreement which is expected to fund the government through the end of the fiscal year in September. The legislation now goes to the Senate, where it is expected to pass before President Trump signs it.

PRESIDENT CALLS MEDICAID FUNDS A “BAILOUT”
Puerto Rico Another Sticking Point in Budget Talks
1 days ago
THE DETAILS

President Trump’s portrayal of an effort to funnel more Medicaid dollars to Puerto Rico as a "bailout" is complicating negotiations over a continuing resolution on the budget. "House Democrats are now requiring such assistance as a condition for supporting the continuing resolution," a position that the GOP leadership is amenable to. "But Mr. Trump’s apparent skepticism aligns him with conservative House Republicans inclined to view its request as a bailout, leaving the deal a narrow path to passage in Congress."

Source:
POTENTIAL GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN?
Democrats Threaten Spending Bill Over Obamacare
1 days ago
BREAKING

Democrats in the House are threatening to shut down the government if Republicans expedite a vote on a bill to repeal and replace Obamacare, said Democratic House Whip Steny Hoyer Thursday. Lawmakers have introduced a one-week spending bill to give themselves an extra week to reach a long-term funding deal, which seemed poised to pass easily. However, the White House is pressuring House Republicans to take a vote on their Obamacare replacement Friday to give Trump a legislative victory, though it is still not clear that they have the necessary votes to pass the health care bill. This could go down to the wire.

Source:
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login