Nevadans seem want it both ways with ObamaCare

Nevadans appear to be a bit schizoid when it comes to deciding what to do about ObamaCare, according to an American Medical Association survey released Tuesday.

When asked straightforward whether ObamaCare was a good or bad idea, fully 45 percent say it was a good idea, while 37 percent say it was a bad idea.

But when you get down to whether Congress should change the law as is being currently debated the opinions are more varied:

As you may be aware, in order for the health care legislation passed by the House to become law, the United States Senate must review and pass the legislation. Do you think the U.S. Senate should …

7% Pass the House legislation as is
23% Make minor changes to it and pass it
27% Make major changes to it and pass it
33% NOT pass any part of the House legislation which would mean keeping ObamaCare in place

2% Other.    7% Don’t Know    1% Refused

So, 33 percent say leave it as is, while 57 percent call for some changes.

But when asked about specific changes being proposed, the Nevadans surveyed largely opposed the changes.

They opposed dropping the mandate to buy health insurance but allowing insurers to charge 30 percent higher premiums if they have not had continuous coverage. I wonder how Nevadans would have responded if asked only about the mandate.

They also opposed dropping various federal subsidies and eliminating the ObamaCare requirement that all health plans sold must provide a standard set of government-established benefits, including mental health services, addiction treatment, maternity care and preventive health services with no out-of-pocket costs. No choice.

The exceptions included: providing federal funding for states to cover people with pre-existing conditions through separate high-risk insurance pools; allowing health insurance to be bought across state lines so there is more competition between health insurance companies to provide more options at a cheaper cost; and, change Medicaid from an entitlement program to a federal grant program so federal spending would be cut, and states could decide how to best use federal dollars to cover their low-income population.

Then there is the CBO report:

The Senate bill would increase the number of people who are uninsured by 22 million in 2026 relative to the number under current law, slightly fewer than the increase in the number of uninsured estimated for the House-passed legislation. By 2026, an estimated 49 million people would be uninsured, compared with 28 million who would lack insurance that year under current law.

So, millions might choose to not buy expensive health insurance, whose premiums and deductibles are skyrocketing every year, if they are not coerced into doing so.

The Roberts court said states may not be coerced in following the dictates of Congress, but individuals are not so fortunate.

Meanwhile, many senators, including Nevada’s Dean Heller, seem to be willing to let ObamaCare stand because replacement legislation is either too weak or too stringent. You can’t drive a stake through the heart of a government entitlement when the perfect is the enemy of any improvement.

13 comments on “Nevadans seem want it both ways with ObamaCare

  1. Rincon says:

    The whole idea of letting young, healthy people forego insurance only to fleece the rest of us when they get in an accident or get sick, by simply declaring bankruptcy, is a con by the younger generations over the older ones. It’s also a con by those with few assets who are healthy, regardless of age. Why would any sane person over say, 50 years of age or one with health issues vote for such stupidity? Answer: Because they’re Republicans! Gotta vote for your team even if they screw you.

  2. Barbara says:

    And haven’t Democrats voted for their team even when they have been screwed as well? “You can keep your doctor” “You can keep your insurance” “Premiums will go down by $2500”.

    The two national parties have existed only to enrich themselves with more and more power and wealth. Yet, we (voting population) continue to send the same lying candidate back to Congress expecting that this time, they will actually keep their campaign promises.

    The Republicans failing to fully repeal the ACA after repeatedly telling the American people they would do so if only they had the power is a monumental betrayal. Yet, where is the voice of the conservative media holding them accountable? Any mention on Fox news of this betrayal? Not that I’ve heard. Conservative talk radio? Rush, Hannity, Michael Savage? Not that I’ve heard. Only Mark Levin has remained true to the conservative doctrine.

    Most “conservatives” fall back on the tried mantra that the alternative would have been worse. And I am really, really tired of the phrase “the perfect is the enemy of the good”. The ACA is pure economic Marxists doctrine, and yet the vast majority of our Senators , Congressman, and apparently “conservative” media are not willing to speak out.

    Neither the ACA nor any of the “reform” plans proposed will return us to lower premiums or better health care. Instead, it will accelerate the centralized control of every American’s health care, limited access, skyrocketing ever higher premiums and deductibles, shortages, and less quality care.

    Marxist doctrine does not work, and pointing that out is not demanding perfection. It is standing up and saying Hell NO. Not in my America.

  3. Rincon says:

    Although I’m sure we don’t agree 100% on this, your words are well received with only one small exception. Obamacare isn’t a very good example of Marxism because it still allows privately owned clinics, hospitals and insurance companies set the prices and run things. True Marxism here would be socialized medicine which, (and here’s what we probably don’t agree upon) at least so far, yields better results in this arena than capitalism has. It’s possible that there is a way to run a capitalistic medical system well, but Obamacare and its predecessor are not capitalistic by any stretch.

  4. deleted says:

    Coming from someone who claimed that, based on the integrity of her principles, she couldn’t vote for orange man, who then turned into a Trump supporter, (or at least a voter) it’s amusing to hear that person speak of conservative principles.

  5. If government sets the prices and dictates coverage, calling it private is a sham.

  6. Steve says:

    “A conservative can fight for tax reform, celebrate military victories over ISIS in Mosul, and applaud Trump’s judicial appointments while also condemning Trump’s vile tweets and criticizing his impulsiveness and lack of discipline. A good conservative can even step back and take a longer view, resolving to fight for the cultural values that tribalism degrades. Presidents matter not just because of their policies but also because of their impact on the character of the people they govern.”
    David French
    He asks if conservative still know this. I say all of us still know it,while some have failed to live it.
    Conversely, today’s liberals have totally forgotten what liberalism is.

    Read more at:

  7. Rincon says:

    Apparently, I don’t understand Obamacare very well. When buying insurance, I was given a choice of 4 or 5 companies selling 10 or 12 policies each at various premiums, but you say the government determines the price. Is there some general rule or does some government commission set the premium amounts for each policy?

  8. Steve says:

    Well, Rincon, during my unemployed period I used ACA because it was the law and still is.
    I had a choice of 2 insurers and one of those was going bankrupt.
    And that was two years ago.
    There are still repercussions for my use of healthcare dot gov…
    My taxes have been impacted each year since, hopefully this is now over.
    The “account” I set up cannot be deleted now that I no longer need it. I and my wife will forever be a data set in some government database as a result. Gee, thanks for that, so nice.
    The Medicaid expansion tried to force me to take their “free” insurance. I found out that “free” coverage came with some nasty, hidden surprises. If I had “accepted” Medicaid, I would have a very difficult time ending my “participation” in the “program” once I gained employment and if any procedure was performed while under Medicaid, I would be on the hook for the full, retail, price and required to pay Medicaid back at that rate rather than what Medicaid actually paid to the providers.
    Nice scam, huh.
    But Medicaid is “freeeee” they said…..

    I have all of the paperwork to show my participation in these programs. I don’t have the links I found during my time dealing with them.
    Thank goodness I have a good job now.

  9. Rincon says:

    “I and my wife will forever be a data set in some government database as a result. ” Seems to me that you go into the credit card company’s database every time you use one so what’s the big difference? You had the choice of not setting up an account and being uninsured, same as millions of people before Obamacare.

    “I would be on the hook for the full, retail, price and required to pay Medicaid back at that rate rather than what Medicaid actually paid to the providers”. If so, I have to call that criminal. The people who set up that rule deserve incarceration. Actually, the schmucks that set those prices deserve jail too. Yes, it’s true. I’m a closet Nazi.

  10. Steve says:

    “you go into the credit card company’s database every time you use”
    I have allowed several card companies close the accounts, this is the way to do it because it doesn’t impact your credit score.
    Once closed, all the data is removed. Unfortunately, there is no way to get the account deleted from the government website. Very different issue.
    You are conflating again.

    It took some discussion with the state Medicaid representative on the phone. She was really pushing to get me to accept Medicaid and I had to ask, pointedly, what would happen when I took employment. She was rather cryptic in her response and insistent about Medicaid being “free”.
    I took this a loaded warning and had to read between the lines.
    There is no consistency between states on this. Medicaid varies widely from state to state and individual issues need to be discussed in person or on the phone.
    ACA is very pushy getting people on Medicaid. It was as if they got some kind of reward for adding to the Medicaid roles, like a hard sell from a traveling salesman.
    I speak from experience and I have all the paperwork to prove it

  11. Rincon says:

    So you’re concerned that the government has some personal information. You’re convinced that they will never erase it when you close your account, but have great faith that the credit card company will. I’m not sure how you obtained that information, but….OK, if you say so. I’m not sure how important all of that is though, since the IRS probably has most of it anyway.

  12. Steve says:

    “has some personal information”

    Medical information.

    I shouldn’t need to tell you this, I have looked for ways to delete the account. None exist. Once in, it is forever.

    Credit card accounts are verifiably gone. This makes the associated data much harder to locate, if it still exists.

    The IRS is locked down by long standing law. It’s one of those things the left has decried in getting Trump and Romney to “release” their returns. In light of that, I find the IRS a much better steward of our private lives than any other area of government.

  13. Rincon says:

    I hope the government never locks you in the gulag because of some prostate issue.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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