The one constant in the politics surrounding "Obamacare" is the division in the polls: the Affordable Care Act is not at all popular, but the provisions within the Affordable Care Act are very popular. Folks hate "Obamacare" because they've been told to, but these same folks want and expect the benefits the law provides.
One of the more popular provisions is clearly the one extending coverage to young adults. A new report quantifies just how important this protection has become.
About 6.6 million young adults signed up for health coverage through their parents' insurance plans in the first year after a new provision in the federal health law took effect, according to estimates in a study released Friday.
As part of the law, most insurance plans offered by employers to their workers had to allow parents to enroll dependents on their plans up to the age of 26, starting in September 2010. Previously, parents had been able to include children only up to their 19th birthdays, or until the age of 22 if the children were full-time college students.
The estimate was published in this Commonwealth Fund study, released this morning.
Of course, this provision in the law will disappear if Republicans on the Supreme Court strike down the entirety of the law -- the ruling may be handed down as early as Monday -- or if Republican policymakers repeal the law in 2013.
But as it turns out, the same GOP officials who've insisted that Obamacare is the single worst proposal in the history of Western Civilization, and who've sworn up and down that a stake must be driven through every letter of the law, have started to give some of these popular measures a second look.
Sahil Kapur reported this morning on the "wiggle room" Republicans have created for themselves, after years of rhetoric about destroying everything in the law.
Rep. Allen West: "You've got to replace it with something. If people want to keep their kid on insurance at 26, fine." [...]
Senate Republican Conference Vice Chair Roy Blunt: "[The under-26 provision is] one of the things I think should continue." [...]
House GOP Policy Committee Chairman Tom Price: "[T]here are some things that have been instituted that a lot of folks have begun to rely upon and plan -- make their family plans -- based upon. Twenty-six-year-olds being on their parents' insurance is one of them."
Senate GOP Leadership Member John Barrasso: "Well, [the under-26 policy is] something that I and other Republicans have supported from the beginning."
It should bring some solace to 6.6 million American young people and their families that when Republicans vow to kill the entirety of Obamacare, they don't mean the entirety of Obamacare.
Leave a Comment:
Rachel pointed out it doesn't matter as long as Citizen United stands we all lose.
Many retired Americans do'nt realize that under so called Obamacare that their prescription costs, when they reach the gap will double if the law is struck down or repealed.Another thing is the gap will disappear in 2019. If the supreme court strikes down or republicans repeal the law,grandma will surely die. To keep any part of the law intact would be considered by republicans a victory for the President,so they must get the whole law repealed by themselves or the court.
@adminz - We only lose all if we let it.
It is easy to be in favor of the benefits of the Affordable Care Act.
It's much harder to be in favor of how to pay for it - like the individual mandates and whatever the tax they were debating yesterday.
The individual mandate was a Republican idea and it made sense that they would be for it because it stresses individual responsibility - not government.
Really?
How did that just work out in Cali?
You want to be "liberal" then try embracing the facts.
OK - fine! Let's just roll over and give up!
Or not!!
The fact is that it will be hard to battle Big Money. Does not mean it is impossible.
Imagine if the Republicans actually acted as public servants and did what's best for the American populace from the very beginning instead of bending over for Citizens United blood-money.
I am against the mandate as a liberal, but I do not believe my stances are 'far' or 'extreme'. With that said, I'd rather see the Public Option added on if the mandate were to stay or the whole thing scrapped for Universal healthcare and an audit of Big Medicine.
There's no reason why I shouldn't be able to walk into a hospital and expect to be able to afford the care through pocket-change. There's no moral excuse that the cost of living should bankrupt someone.
Just feeding your children (never mind correcting that clubfoot) has been enough to bankrupt most people throughout human history.
Republicans are, after all, big on restoring traditional society. Don't be surprised.
Only if we give more tax cuts to the rich will we be able to afford ponies for everyone.
It's all just talk before the election. Sort of like "Jobs, jobs, jobs" though, after January it'll be "repeal
and replace" all over again. The next election will be two years away, and enough media coverage will make all of that stuff about insurance reform for thetakersvoters will be ancient history that can be blamed on Democrats.I have received several e-mails from (WIND)baggers that claim that the healthcare law contains provisions that make the sale of a home much more difficult. This is an outlandish claim on its face, but (WIND)baggers insist that there are such provisions in the law. Never the less, this garbage is circulating on the (WIND)bagger internet posts. If you ask them to quote the passage in the law that would back up their claim, you are met with silence and the statement, “It’s in there.” Rachael had a nice segment on last night’s program dealing with false statements that the GOP refuses to retract. The falsehood about real estate sales would make a good addendum to her report.
I have also suggested to two different groups of (WIND)baggers that they check it out themselves. No response. No retraction. No apology. This seems to be following a pattern. They seem to be content in the smug thought that since the document is large, no one will read it to disprove their false claim.
For large documents, using “find” on the Microsoft Word application can save a lot of reading time. You can go to the Government Printing Office, which maintains copies of all federal laws on their site, gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ148/content-detail.html, download the entire contents of the healthcare law, and then do a word-search (Find on the home toolbar) using such search-terms as “home”, “real estate”, “house”, “sale”, etc. [Note to searchers: I’ve left off the http:www from the above link since Rachael doesn’t like links in comments. Just add it to the above address to get to the site]. What you will find is that “house” appears because it finds “House of Representatives”, not your dwelling. The word “home” appears in the context of home care or nursing home. “Sale” refers to the sale of medicine, not your house. The term, “real estate” does not appear at all. When I suggest to (WIND)baggers that they do such a search, they pretend that they don’t know how to use Microsoft Word.
So how about it, (WIND)baggers…you up to the challenge??
So how about it, Rachael…you want to use it as a segment on a future show?? Do the search in real time on the show…Come on…you’ve got the graphics.
Why don't you send your right wing friends this link?
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/04/realtors-the-3-8-sales-tax-and-247-medicare-premiums/
Excellent reply. Thank you.
The 23 year old grandson of a very dear friend of mine has a rare type of brain tumor. if it weren't for the provision of the ACA allowing people under the age of 26 to stay on their parents' insurance, his family would have been forced into bankruptcy and he probably would have died by now. Before the more rabid republicans and tea baggers root for the demise of universal health care, they should remember that, "There, but for the grace of God, go I", because this kind of thing could happen to any of us.
Michigan House Republicans rushing through a package of bills to limit women’s access to safe and affordable abortions services before hearing testimony from opponents of the odious legislation. The legislation is being described as “the most extreme legislation … anywhere in the country”. It's unbelievable to think that in 2012 our State Government can and will pass PA bills without hearing testimony/debate from the women it effects. This is so wrong on so many levels. The right to choose should be in the hands of the women that are conceiving, not some politicians in Lansing. These critical life decisions should be privately discussed with the conceiving parents and their Doctor. Politicians should not be able to dictate the personal health care issues of individuals. Only in Michigan, do we have a republican Governor/Senate who are reinventing this state's democracy and and removing the citizen's voice one bill at a time. We didn't elect these officials to reinvent MI in their own image, they are public officers elected by the people to serve the citizens of MI through due process. Recently, WI tried to oust their republican governor/dictator, because the citizens were being stripped of their rights and now MI's recall efforts have been abandoned. I guess there is no hope for democracy here either. Welcome to the new republican world order, where money can buy anything, and the citizen's voice is unheard.
Was it Sinclair Lewis who said, "When Fascism comes to America, it will come wrapped in the flag and carrying a Bible" ?
" Of course, this provision in the law will disappear if Republicans on the Supreme Court strike down the entirety of the law ... "
This is standard liberal blinders on mentality.
It never occured to Steve Benen that the SUpreme Court would even take this seriously.
And just like that blindness it never occurs to him ... it is JUST as possible the decision can come down 6-3, 7-2, or worse striking down the WHOLE law.
And this bluster about credibility is meant to scare Roberts and/or Kennedy -- but you KNOW it just might make Souter switch to the "Republican" side ( I use that in quotes because Souter WAS appointed by a Republican so the "Republican" side of the bench IS actually 6-3 ).
Sotomeyer could be convinced to switch by being allowed to write the majority decision establishing the test for when "necessary and proper" has been exceeded -- a really juicy career-capping century long decision.
If the decision is coming down 6-3 or even 7-2, it would not be abnormal for the holdouts to decide to join the majority and throw extra weight in there.
Seriously -- Benen ( and all liberals ) are putting their blinders on again. Because they are ALL working themselves into a fit over a 5-4 decision -- not once considering that it is just as possible for Souter and Sotomeyer to switch sides too.
And that they will look like fools screaming about judicial over-reach if it does come out 6-3/7-2 or worse ( remember so far Obama has had FOUR 9-0 decisions agaiunst him -- more than any President in over 100 years ).
Again -- remember -- SOuter IS a Republican appointee. And a 6-3 vote is very possible.
And the more you scream about legitimacy of the court, the more likely Souter will decide to make you look like idiots.