Who loses out under Obamacare?
July 25th, 2013
10:17 AM ET
9 months ago

Who loses out under Obamacare?

(CNN) – When the state-based insurance exchanges open next year under Obamacare, many Americans should finally have access to affordable insurance. But millions of others will most likely be left out in the cold and remain uninsured.

These folks - mainly low-income adults in the 21 states that aren't expanding Medicaid - will not be eligible for either the long-standing government health insurance program for the poor, or for premium subsidies in the new exchanges.

FULL STORY

Filed under: CNNMoney.com • Health care
soundoff (22 Responses)
  1. Data Driven

    Hm, let's just see, shall we?:

    Poor Red States, represented by conservative politicians who are restricting access to Medicare while opting out of Obamacare at the same time.

    The message is loud and clear: you're expensive, poor and sick people. Go away. Permanently.

    July 25, 2013 10:23 am at 10:23 am |
  2. Gurgyl

    When a person can not afford, subsidize them. Didn't we pump a whole lot of money to Iraq, Afganistan, 20 billion dollars a year aide to PAKISTAN? What is wrong to subsidizing our people? Make sure they work–then deduct some Manley from paycheck towards this cause. It works. GOP scare. That's all.

    July 25, 2013 10:25 am at 10:25 am |
  3. Lynda/Minnesota

    "These folks – mainly low-income adults in the 21 states that aren't expanding Medicaid – will not be eligible for either the long-standing government health insurance program for the poor, or for premium subsidies in the new exchanges."

    Well, then. What IS GOPervilles plans for these poverty ridden folks who won't be eligible for expanded medical care?

    July 25, 2013 10:28 am at 10:28 am |
  4. Rudy NYC

    The losers will be the people in the states run by conservative ideologues, hell bent on proven their misguided point that heath care reform, in any form, is a bad thing. And, of course, they want to make Pres. Obama's legacy a dark stain on history.

    What I want to know is this. What is going to happen when a state legislature flips from red to blue, and vice versa? Suppose that a new Democratic governer changes the state's policy from "no expansion" to "expansion". So far, so good. Suppose that a new Republican governer comes along and flips his state back to "no expansion". What happens to the poor people of that state? Their health care insurance is going to be the nightmare scenario, subject to the whim of politicians.

    July 25, 2013 10:30 am at 10:30 am |
  5. redford

    Hey Data Driven...Wth are you talking about? It's NOT medicare!
    Medicaid is welfare..who do you think is going to pay for expanded welfare. TAXPAYERS..those of us that work for a living

    Medicare is the health program that seniors qualify for when they turn 65

    July 25, 2013 10:35 am at 10:35 am |
  6. Data Driven

    @redford,

    Oh for goodness sake, my Autospell on the phone put in "Medicare" when I meant to write Medicaid.

    Correction made, my point stands. Restricting MEDICAID while opting out of Obamacare. As to "welfare" - so? I'll reiterate Lynda's query: what's your plan for these people, conservative?

    July 25, 2013 10:44 am at 10:44 am |
  7. Rudy NYC

    redford wrote:

    Medicare is the health program that seniors qualify for when they turn 65
    ------------------–
    Wrong. Medicare is the health insurance program that the government was forced to provide for seniors because some politicians thought that it was okay for health insurers to drop people when they reached a certain age. Even if that person had worked the same job for 40 years, paid 40 years worth of premiums, and never got seriously ill.

    Some politicians think that it is a good for business to allow health insurers to drop clients that they feel are high risk. Most liberals would call the practice age discrimmination, while most conservatives call it a good business practice.

    July 25, 2013 10:45 am at 10:45 am |
  8. Tom

    Anything look familiar about that map? Maybe if you changed the colors. Change the blue states to red. Change the green states to blue. Now what do you see? Traditionally Republican states aren't expanding Medicaid and leaving the poor out in the cold. Traditionally Democratic states are doing the opposite. This isn't about some people losing out under Obamacare, it's about people being deliberately harmed in states under Republican control so Republicans can continue their attempt to defeat Obamacare. Shameful!

    July 25, 2013 10:53 am at 10:53 am |
  9. Dean

    In other words, the entire country loses out under Obamacare. Please, Congress, defund this abortion.

    July 25, 2013 11:04 am at 11:04 am |
  10. Fair is Fair

    Rudy NYC

    redford wrote:

    Medicare is the health program that seniors qualify for when they turn 65
    ------–
    Wrong. Medicare is the health insurance program that the government was forced to provide for seniors because some politicians thought that it was okay for health insurers to drop people when they reached a certain age.
    -------
    Seriously? I thougth Medicare (part A anyway) was the insurance that the government took 1.45% of my lifetime salary (and my employers matched penny for penny) and I became eligible for when I turned 65. Where did you come up with this gem?

    July 25, 2013 11:06 am at 11:06 am |
  11. OK

    @redford
    Who do you think is paying now when these people go to the emergency room for a sore throat, a cut finger, a headache or any number of things that could be taken care of in a doctors office for a lot less money?

    July 25, 2013 11:09 am at 11:09 am |
  12. Gunderson

    Aw Humm,
    Many people behind door when brains passed out. Old Soviet Union was smashing sucess with socalisim. Now liberal's want to re-invent soviet union. Who lose? Just the workers that will have to go part time. Figure it out. Workers paying less in Taxes. National Debt go up. Monetary system collapse. Who lose? What question again?

    July 25, 2013 11:13 am at 11:13 am |
  13. Rudy NYC

    Fair is Fair wrote:

    Seriously? I thougth Medicare (part A anyway) was the insurance that the government took 1.45% of my lifetime salary (and my employers matched penny for penny) and I became eligible for when I turned 65. Where did you come up with this gem?
    ------------
    Don't patronize me. Go play stupid with someone who'd fall for it. You and I have had this discussion before. You know good and well why Medicare exists. I've had relatives work all of their lives, only to bankrupt themselves by spending their entire retirement savings on health care for a spouse or themselves. Prior to Medicare and Medicaid we millions of seniors living in poverty simply because the health insurer told that they wre too old, "See ya'."

    If you don't like Medicare and the taxes that it incurs, then get rid of Medicare by eradicting the reason for its" existence.

    July 25, 2013 11:19 am at 11:19 am |
  14. rs

    The Republican anti-Health care position is very illogical.
    The ACA saves money in the long haul, and vastly improves access. This is bad?
    The individual mandate is a Republican idea- it works in Mass..
    This is NOT socialism- the stae is not providing care, nor paying for care. Individuals get their policies from Insurance providers.

    This is just the "new GOP"- they have NO PLAN, and only want chaos, not leadership.

    July 25, 2013 11:26 am at 11:26 am |
  15. Fair is Fair

    "If you don't like Medicare and the taxes that it incurs, then get rid of Medicare by eradicting the reason for its" existence"
    -------
    The reason for it's existence is LBJ's "Great Society" programs, which have failed miserably at their STATED goal (but are smashing successes for their INTENDED goal). So yes... I'd love to eradicate the reason for their existence.

    July 25, 2013 11:33 am at 11:33 am |
  16. Ron L

    As I have written here many times before. The people AGAINST Americans having affordable healthcare already HAVE IT!! I am waiting for one of these Republicans to come up with an alternative way of increasing the number of Americans with healthcare insurance instead of just attempting to block a law that has already passed and help millions of Americans. It's pretty selfish, and very sad.

    July 25, 2013 11:35 am at 11:35 am |
  17. rs

    Gunderson

    Aw Humm,
    Many people behind door when brains passed out. Old Soviet Union was smashing sucess with socalisim. Now liberal's want to re-invent soviet union. Who lose? Just the workers that will have to go part time. Figure it out. Workers paying less in Taxes. National Debt go up. Monetary system collapse. Who lose? What question again?
    ________________________________________________
    First of all- how is it the United States is the last First-World nation not to have universal Health Care?
    It certainly isn't quality. Out Vital Stats are 38th in the world (yes, behind Costa Rica).
    It certainly isn't value- we have the most costly health care in the world.
    Socialized Medicine became the norm in Europe post WWII, and has vastly improved the health care and longevity of Europeans (and many others)- our stats are currently going in the wrong direction. The ACA isn't "socialism"- it can't be- it is a contract between you, and a private (often for-profit) health care insurance provider.

    July 25, 2013 11:36 am at 11:36 am |
  18. Fair is Fair

    rs

    The Republican anti-Health care position is very illogical.
    The ACA saves money in the long haul, and vastly improves access. This is bad?

    Since it's not been fully implemented, and won't be for a couple more years, how can you say it saves money in the long haul?

    The individual mandate is a Republican idea- it works in Mass..

    It works in Mass, eh? I live in Mass. Just last week it was reported that the wait time for new patients to see a primary care physician is 58 days. Hope it's nothing serious...

    This is NOT socialism- the stae is not providing care, nor paying for care. Individuals get their policies from Insurance providers.

    Not true. It's a massive expansion of Medicaid, paid for by the state. There's premium subsidies, paid for by the state.

    July 25, 2013 11:39 am at 11:39 am |
  19. Rudy NYC

    Fair is Fair wrote:

    The reason for it's existence is LBJ's "Great Society" programs, which have failed miserably at their STATED goal (but are smashing successes for their INTENDED goal). So yes... I'd love to eradicate the reason for their existence.
    --------------
    Stop being facetious, Fair. You know exactly why Medicare was created. You're also being willfully misleadind when you complain about the tax rate. The tax only applies to wages. It doesn't apply to capital gains. Someone like Mitt Romney whose income is strictly from capital gains, earns no wages, [remember, he claims to be unemployed]. Romney pays ZERO in Medicare and SSI taxes. But, I'm not the one complaining about taxes, you are. And, you're being dishonest about it.

    July 25, 2013 11:47 am at 11:47 am |
  20. Woman In California

    Well, then. What IS GOPervilles plans for these poverty ridden folks who won't be eligible for expanded medical care?

    -–
    The plan is simple: now be gone with you and death to you peasants.

    July 25, 2013 11:54 am at 11:54 am |
  21. Anthony

    Obamacare is a government requirement to buy private health insurance. People who can afford to buy insurance, but choose not to, pay a fine to the IRS, and still don't get insurance (paying the fine does not give you insurance). People who can't afford insurance get a subsidy to buy private insurance in the new exchanges or qualify for Medicaid. However, people in states that refuse Medicaid expansion do not get a subsidy.

    Once people in the red states find out that they have the worst possible deal–they still need to pay a fine to the IRS, but they don't get insurance for their trouble, and they don't get subsidies or expanded Medicaid–the Republican Party will be finished.

    July 25, 2013 12:06 pm at 12:06 pm |
  22. Fair is Fair

    "Stop being facetious, Fair. You know exactly why Medicare was created. You're also being willfully misleadind when you complain about the tax rate. The tax only applies to wages. It doesn't apply to capital gains. Someone like Mitt Romney whose income is strictly from capital gains, earns no wages, [remember, he claims to be unemployed]. Romney pays ZERO in Medicare and SSI taxes. But, I'm not the one complaining about taxes, you are. And, you're being dishonest about it"
    -------
    First, part of the largest tax increase ever imposed on the American public on 1-1-2013, Medicare taxes now apply to capital gains. So you're wrong there. Second – if Mitt Romney hasn't accumulated enough "quarters" to earn Medicare, he doesn't get it. So you're technically wrong there. Third, I'm not complaining about taxes. I simply said that I (and my employer) have meen taxed for my entire working career to pay for Medicare when I turn 65. That's all I said.

    July 25, 2013 12:07 pm at 12:07 pm |