Who Opposes Obamacare?

HHS said the 10 states with the highest rate of consumers who received tax credits were: Mississippi (95.4%), Wyoming (92.2%), North Carolina (91.6%), Florida (91.3%), Alabama (90.9%), Louisiana (90.7%), Georgia (90.0%), Arkansas (90.0%), Wisconsin (89.6%) and Alaska (88.8%).

Republicans might want to reassess their position on repealing Obamacare (which of course will never happen)

The states with the lowest rate of consumers who received credits are: District of Columbia (10.2%), Minnesota (54.8%), Colorado (55.3%), Hawaii (61.4%), New Hampshire (62.8%), Vermont (64.2%), Utah (65.6%), Kentucky (69.8%), Maryland (70.7%) and New York (71.4%). (O’Donnell, 9/8) USA Today


Categories: Government, Healthcare

7 replies »

  1. Mr. Quinn – not long ago you said no one would run for president with a promise to repeal the ACA? – now you say it will never be repealed? – I’m confused?


    • I think I said something like no one running for President would repeal ACA and anyone who voted for someone based on that promise was a fool. I have consistently said the law will never be repealed. I also said several times that the Republican replacement ideas so far were nonsense.


  2. Certainly, those may be the facts. However, you suggest in your post that, on a state by state basis (given your use of blue and red and purple), the states that opposed PPACA in the courts should rethink their position because many of their citizens are taking advantage of the taxpayer subsidies.

    The net, net percentage is likely to be somewhat misleading because it is affected by so many factors, including but not limited to:
    – Who qualifies for Medicaid – which becomes the default, not taxpayer subsidized public exchange coverage,
    – The state of the individual market, and whether the state insurance commissioner elected to defer action when the federales allowed for delays in compliance for individual insurance policies,
    – The percentage of the population with individual coverage with household income > 400% of the federal poverty level, who do not qualify for a credit,
    – The percentage of the population has access to employer-sponsored health coverage,
    – The percentage of the otherwise eligible population that is actually enrolled in individual coverage,
    – The coverage options actually offered in that location,
    – The percentage of the population with very low incomes who are not subject to the individual mandate penalty tax, or who qualified for a waiver of the tax in 2014,
    – The age of the population, .

    Bottom line, the numbers are interesting, but they shed no light on a state’s decision to oppose or to embrace PPACA, and whether that state’s position is consistent with or in conflict with a substantial portion of the population. For example, the highest state, Mississippi, has 95+% of participants with taxpayer financial support – but what if that represents only 9,500 people?

    But, regardless of the percentage, the raw numbers, the other factors, you should have focused on the fact that 84% of those with public exchange coverage across the United States, 84% of ~10MM, 8.4MM, DID qualify for taxpayer financial support, the new middle class entitlement. The point should be, try avoiding the blame should you take it away! Of course, like Social Security and Medicare, it gets down to … once you make this commitment, people have expectations, so better to tax others, take what ever is needed so as to buy votes in the next election by meeting people’s expectations.

    I will never qualify for public exchange coverage. But, I will be on the hook to fund the entitlement for others for the rest of my life. So, while I personally don’t care if Republicans continue to try to “repeal and replace” – I worry that whatever they come up with will probably end up costing this taxpayer even more than PPACA.


    • “so better to tax others, take what ever is needed so as to buy votes in the next election by meeting people’s expectations”
      The problem with the ACA, is it is not paid for with taxes, it is paid for with debt. Until we get the insurances companies out of healthcare and come up with a single payer system that covers everyone with co-pays based on income: we will continue to have the mess we have today.


      • The fact is single payer systems do not control costs, use massive administration systems and must restrict access to care one way or the other. Insurance companies are not the problem we should be worried about.


      • No, PPACA is funded with taxes and cuts in Medicare spending. If all is implemented as written, it is fully funded according to the CBO.


What's your opinion on this post? Readers would like your point of view.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s