'Obamacare' sign-ups surge to 20 million, days before open enrollment closes

MicroWave@lemmy.world to politics @lemmy.world – 316 points – 'Obamacare' sign-ups surge to 20 million, days before open enrollment closes
abcnews.go.com

The Biden administration says 20 million people have enrolled for health insurance through the Affordable Care Act marketplaces, with still a few days left for signing up

Some 20 million people have signed up for health insurance this year through the Affordable Care Act marketplaces, a record-breaking figure.

President Joe Biden will likely proclaim those results regularly on the campaign trail for months to come as former President Donald Trump, the Republican front-runner, vows to dismantle the Obama-era program.

The Biden administration announced Wednesday morning that 20 million have enrolled for coverage on the marketplace, days before the open enrollment period is set to close on Jan. 16.

The latest enrollment projections mean a quarter more Americans have signed up for coverage this year compared to last — another record-breaking year when 16.3 million enrolled in the program. Signs-ups spiked after Biden took office, with Democrats rolling out a series of tax breaks that give millions of Americans access to low cost plans, some with zero-dollar premiums.

46

More people using this isnt a good thing. It's because they can't get full time employment for insurance thru their job

It wouldn't have been enough if Obama got all he asked for. But Dems have held the House and Senate multiple times and show no desire to improve it.

Party leadership should at least be holding votes so that voters in different states can see if their representatives will actually support the party platform.

Health care should never have been dependent on employment in the first place.

It leads to people kowtowing to shitty employers because they can't afford a lapse in health insurance coverage.

As for holding the House and Senate, a mere majority isn't enough when the GOP is determined to filibuster any attempts to do anything to Obamacare except destroy it.

Health care should never have been dependent on employment in the first place

You know what's really depressing?

How that came to happen in America:

Then, in World War II, companies’ grip on employee’s health care got firmer. The federal government established wage controls, limiting how much employers could pay workers. This left businesses competing on other forms of compensation — including health insurance. The government tacitly endorsed this tactic: It did not tax health benefits as income, while also allowing companies to deduct the cost from their taxable revenue. Enrollment in some kind of health insurance grew from some 20 million people in 1940 to more than 142 million in 1950.

https://www.vox.com/23890764/healthcare-insurance-marketplace-open-enrollment-employer-sponsored-united-blue-cross-shield-aetna

We fucking capped salaries.

People want to act like someone saying 100% after a certain threshold is some millennial pipe dream, meanwhile the unironically named "Greatest Generation" flat out said that was too much hassle and there's an upper limit anyone can be paid.

We get rid of it, and wealth equality went crazy and everything else went to shit.

They capped worker salaries to keep costs down during WW2. Strikes were illegal too. Rich people still made a million dollars per year.

If you're right, I've been wrong for 20 years, so I'd appreciate a link showing was literally "workers" and executives were excluded

To my knowledge it limited everyone's salary

I'm not remotely knowledgeable on labor practices of the time period, but at least in the modern era, you can easily pay an executive basically nothing and just give him stock instead, which will wind up being far more valuable than any salary. Mark Zuckerberg, for instance, takes a salary of $1. I wouldn't be shocked if something to that effect existed back then as well.

It wasn't actually an "upper limit" in WW2. It was a 15% limit on wage increases on any union contracts. If you didn't have a union contract, you could be paid whatever.

One of the board's mandates was to ensure that any wage increases granted during a dispute case would not disrupt the wage structure of the nation as a whole and not contribute to ongoing inflationary pressures.[20] These pressures were due to shortages, both in goods and in the labor supply.[10] A key development in this regard came with the "Little Steel" hearing and decision of July 1942.

After hearing arguments for and against, the War Labor Board decided that wage increases should be bounded by the national cost of living increase between January 1941, when prices were stable, and May 1942, when the United States had introduced various anti-inflation measures.[20] Using the cost-of-living index provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, this worked out to a fifteen per cent wage increase formula, or forty-four cents per day for the Little Steel employees.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_War_Labor_Board_(1942%E2%80%931945)

That's different, executive order 9250 came after:

In order to correct gross inequities and to provide for greater equality in contributing to the war effort, the Director is authorized to take the necessary action, and to issue the appropriate regulations, so that, insofar as practicable no salary shall be authorized under Title III, Section 4, to the extent that it exceeds $25,000 after the payment of taxes allocable to the sum in excess of $25,000. Provided, however, that such regulations shall make due allowance for the payment of life insurance premiums on policies heretofore issued, and required payments on fixed obligations heretofore incurred, and shall make provision to prevent undue hardship.

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/executive-order-9250-providing-for-the-stabilizing-the-national-economy

Weird how FDR could do so much by executive order back then, and now Dems say nothing substantial can be an executive order now btw...

But Dems have held the House and Senate multiple times and show no desire to improve it.

By "multiple times" you really mean "kinda of one other time since and even then by a razor thin margin".

"In the Senate, Republicans briefly held the majority at the start; however, on January 20, 2021, three new Democratic senators – Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock of Georgia and Alex Padilla of California – were sworn in, resulting in 50 seats held by Republicans, 48 seats held by Democrats, and two held by independents who caucus with the Democrats"

...and...

"With Harris serving as the tie breaker in her constitutional role as President of the Senate, Democrats gained control of the Senate, and thereby full control of Congress for the first time since the 111th Congress ended in 2011. "

source

You missed this:

Party leadership should at least be holding votes so that voters in different states can see if their representatives will actually support the party platform.

Instead, we get told there is coincidentally just enough to block it, so it would be pointless to have a vote on it.

And votes don't just hold "moderate" Dems accountable, it holds Republicans accountable too.

Shows every non voter in a red state who the one is that's stopping them from having affordable healthcare.

They should have been having monthly votes for over a decade, loudly announcing who voted against it ever vote.

You can argue that wouldn't have changed much, but I don't know how the party thinks pretending everything is fine has helped anyone.

And at least then it would be very clear who needs to be voted out

You missed this:

Party leadership should at least be holding votes so that voters in different states can see if their representatives will actually support the party platform.

So you're moving the goal posts? Fine I'll ignore your prior inaccuracy.

Instead, we get told there is coincidentally just enough to block it, so it would be pointless to have a vote on it.

Vote on what? What bill are you saying they should spend time voting on even knowing it won't pass?

The Democratically controlled Senate, unlike the House, has actually be moderately productive for the past few months in spite of a GOP Senator blocking important military promotions.

Here's the voting schedule where there are multiple votes per day in session doing the business of the nation: Data Which of those votes actually accomplishing something do you want them to have skipped for your theoretical lip service vote?

Shows every non voter in a red state who the one is that’s stopping them from having affordable healthcare.

And at least then it would be very clear who needs to be voted out

If their rep isn't introducing legislation for supporting affordable healthcare (which they aren't) they non-voters already know who is not working on it.

You can argue that wouldn’t have changed much, but I don’t know how the party thinks pretending everything is fine has helped anyone.

I don't think you have a very good grasp on the realities of the situation if this is what you believe is the mindset everyone in the Legislature holds.

Intelligent, but major caveat. The legislature only cares about getting in and then about tenure. There hasnt been a house, senate, or executive and cabinet that isn't far right for about 45 years. Buying house members is stupidly easy.

There hasn't been much productive in legislation in that entire time except the ACA. That had to happen in the first Obama term, and I'm grateful it managed to limp through in its shitty form. Obama might be the best republican president, but it doesn't really help anyone.

There hasnt been a house, senate, or executive and cabinet that isn’t far right for about 45 years.

Its difficult to consider your position further when you're suggesting that everyone in the last 45 years has been far right in the Executive and Legislative branches. Far right is full blown fascist or authoritarian. You're painting Barack Obama, Bernie Sanders, Daniel Inouye, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez all with that same brush as far right. Irrespective of their fine grain policy positions none of these folks even come close to "far right".

And those are the only ones you can name. Barack has the ACA, but also renewed patriot act, seemed fine with drone strikes, etc. 3 people, or even the fab 6 (the 5 plus Bernie) doesn't mean anything in a sea of corporate ownership.

And those are the only ones you can name.

They aren't the only ones I can name. They were very easy to name as examples. You're already moving the goalposts on what you said before. I can't take anything you say as credible.

I hope you have a nice day.

Every wonder why so many accounts stop responding to you?

Because he doesn’t relent and people like you get tired of being called on their bullshit over and over?

Weird.

Most people would have guessed it was all the insults first...

Most people would have guessed it was all the insults first…

Feel free to quote each insult I've written in this thread.

It has gotten worse year over year for as long as I can remember too. Neither side will ever get us a functional single payer.

It's like if Bowser kidnapped Princess Peach and Mario just got fed up and stayed at home all day hanging out with Luigi.

Sure, it's Bowser's fault that Bowser kidnapped Princess Peach, but decades later the mushroom people would probably start thinking they need to not just settle for the first Italian Plumber that just shows up

But half the mushrooms keep insisting that since Mario hasn't kidnapped anyone yet, replacing him isn't an option they can even discuss because he's a hero.

"Good" isn't just the absence of "evil".

Has nothing to do with can't get full time employment. Barely half offer anything at all.

In 2023, 53% of all firms offered some health benefits, similar to the percentage last year (51%). Most firms are very small, leading to fluctuations in the overall offer rate, as the offer rates of small firms can vary widely from year to year.Oct 18, 2023

https://www.kff.org/report-section/ehbs-2023-summary-of-findings/

That's not really a good sign for the economy. It means the marketplace is a valid option today. It was a pretty awful option in the past. But it means our broken system of relying on companies to provide health insurance is still broken. Companies aren't taking care of people. Medicare for all! (why couldn't Obama Dems have just done that instead?)

Companies provide healthcare in the vast majority of countries with universal healthcare, including in Europe. Government provision of healthcare is really only a thing in the UK, and the NHS's current struggles show that such a model isn't necessarily faultless in practice.

Because they would have had just as little chance of passing it as the Clintons did in the early 90s. Worse, because of the racists in the GOP.

That's completely bullshit. The ACA was passed with zero R votes. They didn't do better because they didn't have the votes from fucking Democrats.

Lieberman, an independent from Connecticut who caucused with Dems, was the 60th vote for the ACA. He killed the single payer portion of the bill, because his state has several insurance companies HQ there and he wanted the payola.

During debate on the Affordable Care Act (ACA), as the crucial 60th vote needed to pass the legislation, his opposition to the public health insurance option was critical to its removal from the resulting bill signed by President Barack Obama.[7]

In order to get passed with zero Republican votes, it first had to get to a vote. Republicans never let universal healthcare get out of committee and to the floor.

Even then there was talk that they didn't have the D votes to pass it. Nowhere near. I guess the world is changing though, healthcare is such a shit show currently that a bunch of my Republican friends and family support Medicare for all now.

I was paying $160 a month on Obamacare for the worst insurance. My employer offered insurance but it was more expensive than that. Luckily I have a job now that pays for my health insurance.

What are the distinctions between Obamacare and universal healthcare?

It's a government hosted marketplace where traditional insurance companies offer subsidized plans

Versus a true government funded insurance plan where all taxpayers pay into a plan with minimum coverage, which can be supplemented by private or company funded traditional insurers

Obama copied a plan that had been created in Massachusetts by Republican Governor Mitt Romney. Obama figured that the GOP wouldn't have a problem voting for a plan designed by one of their own. Instead, they went all out against the plan, because they knew that if it became a success Obama would be reelected. Obama called it a 'starter house,' meaning that once it was set up, it could be improved on.

There is nothing more permanent than a temporary solution.

True on software development. Even truer in politics.

Universal healthcare simply describes the situation where essentially all people have access to affordable care.

The simplest model is to have basically all healthcare done and paid for by the government and funded by taxes. This is called single payer, with the National Health Service is Britain being the most famous example, but it's not the only way to get universal coverage, though people who support single payer often conflate the terms. Other European counties have mixes of public and private coverage.

NHS is single-provider, where the government supplies the healthcare directly (e.g., doctors and nurses are NHS employees). Single payer usually refers to systems where the government pays for healthcare, but the healthcare can be supplied by a mix of providers including private sector providers, like in Canada.

But you're right, single payer isn't the same thing as universal healthcare. In practice, the US system with Obamacare can be regarded as a universal healthcare system. Switzerland, which has a similar public-private model, is generally regarded as having universal healthcare. The only subtlety is that the US system makes it pretty easy to opt out entirely, so some fraction of the population ends up not having healthcare access through some combination of bad luck and bad decision-making.

Ah you're definitely right, my bad for over-simplifying a bit. Thanks for clarifying!

Obamacare is still private health insurance, but with a discount coupon applied.

Universal Healthcare is healthcare for everyone.