There have been thousands of reports on this issue, I am actually a little shocked that you have…
Louis Weeks

You said the number of uninsured young people was about the same as before the ACA took effect. That is not what the article you linked said. As reported in that article, the number of young people who have signed up for insurance have signed up for lower-cost plans rather than the higher-cost plans. They have insurance, just not enough to subsidize the older folks in the same pools. There are tweaks which have been suggested to fix this, but those tweaks require a Congress willing to pass laws to fix the system rather than just voting to burn it all down again for the 63rd time.

The only actual figures I could find indicated that the ACA uninsurance effects have been very effective amongst the young adults. From the HHS itself, “Between 2010 and the first quarter of 2014, the rate of uninsured individuals between the ages of 19 and 25 fell by 13.2 percentage points, a nearly 40 percent decline.” Which is, of course, the exact opposite of what you claimed.

I replied to the other claims in a separate post, but (1) did anyone have to change doctors strictly because of the ACA, and (2) did health care costs go down by $2500 per year per family.

On the first, I think that has already been acknowledged by the President as having been too bold of a claim about the law. There was nothing at all in the law which would require an existing plan to have been changed, but also nothing forcing insurance companies to continue offering pre-ACA plans, which to the consumer of the plan means they might not be able to keep their plan. It is important to note, however, that that has always been a reality of private health insurance: plans change, and the one you love might not be available next year. And, of course, if you get a plan with a different company maybe your doctor is not in-network with that other company. What I’d like to see is any statistics showing this happened more frequently after ACA went into effect than before. I haven’t been able to find any.

On the second, you are talking about a campaign promise long before there was even draft language of the ACA, and of course long before all the Republicans who had been behind the original framework dealt in bad faith with the President. Congratulations, you have found a broken campaign promise! That happens.

So, yes, early promises will be broken, and early quantitative claims can not be kept. However, something like covering birth control has never been a financial question. It is all a Religious Right Appeasement question. There is no reason to lump that question in with early claims about keeping ones doctor (which was honestly attempted) or how much people would save (which was an overly optimistic financial scenario). It is like asking a prospective employer if they offer corporate discounts and they reply that they can’t know if you can take Christmas off until it is closer and they know the schedule. This is not something that should be variable based on the vagaries of negotiations, but something you are either planning to put in there or not.

Given that his answer was an obvious hedge, though, I think it is safe to assume Ryan plans on cutting all birth control funding from his “replacement”. We’ll see how that ends up in the final bill, but it is clear where Ryan stands at least.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.