64°Partly Cloudy

Home > General Discussion > Why did Terry McAuliffe Win Narrowly?

Why did Terry McAuliffe Win Narrowly?
  • CommentBot November 7, 2013 - 2:43 pm #93419 Reply

    @Newty, All valid gripes, and true the system is not perfect, but I feel that there is still a certain amount of economy gained by employing dull-eyed bureaucrats to oversee the system rather than profit seeking middlemen.

    AKB November 7, 2013 - 7:51 pm #93451 Reply

    Quoth the Raven –
    >If Cucccinelli was a vegan, he would have won easily.

    QTR: Just my point, just my point.

    If there was a GOP candidate who was vegan, anti-smoker, progressive but fiscal conservative, pro-women and minorities, then Terry McAuliffe – notwithstanding the support from Clintons – would have lost.

    <Edited by moderator>

    I wanted my vote for Sarvis (and Clement) to send a message. I did not believe that in the end it will hurt me.

    Hank November 7, 2013 - 9:46 pm #93452 Reply

    AKB, yes if only you and for some reason the figure of 2,000 friends voted Cuccinelli, he’d be in office.

    Where did you get that number?

    meowkitty November 8, 2013 - 2:32 pm #93508 Reply

    Aaaaaaand I’m out.

    redstang423 November 11, 2013 - 11:15 am #93584 Reply

    Newty, I think the way the poll was worded is making you draw false conclusions. Mainly, you’re assuming those who believe the law should be improved are supporters. This is not necessarily true. I think the ACA as written is terrible, and I do not support it as stands. It does, however, have some excellent parts, and I think with some improvements – mainly around the insurance mandate, but also to address affordability of health care itself instead of just affordability insurance – it could actually reap great benefits for everyone rather than a small minority. Had I been questioned in that poll, I would’ve selected the “improvement” option rather than “repeal” or “defund.” While I’m sure my scenario doesn’t cover all of the votes in that category, I’m also sure I’m not the only one who feels the same. Similarly, like you pointed out, there are people who do not support the law because they believe it doesn’t do enough. They likely answered “expand” when they might have said “do not support” had it been a more simple questionnaire. The response options for the poll make it impossible to conclusively determine whether or not Americans support the ACA.

    That being said, if your interpretation of that poll is correct, Virginia has a much lower than average level of support for the law. Exit polls showed 53% of Virginia voters oppose the ACA. Additionally, when voters around the country are posed with a binary support or oppose question, more recent polls (mid-October) from various surveys show a range of 41-46% support the law, while 49-56% do not support the law. Coincidentally, that falls right in line with Virginia’s level of support for the law.


    newty25 November 11, 2013 - 12:02 pm #93585 Reply

    “it could actually reap great benefits for everyone rather than a small minority”

    I don’t get this. Who are the small minority that benefit? Seems to me everyone benefits. My insurance went down 20% this year with same good ole coverage.

    redstang423 November 12, 2013 - 4:09 pm #93660 Reply

    Apparently my very long post from yesterday didn’t actually get posted (or was deleted for some reason, not sure which)…

    Your example is very anecdotal. By contrast, my contribution to my insurance premiums have gone up about 35%, and my employer’s contribution by about 50%. My plan is also less comprehensive – I now have a higher deductible, higher copays, and higher out of pocket maximums. My situation is also anecdotal, but real evidence supports my circumstance compared to your circumstance. See several links below that studied actual data and compared pre- and post-ACA premiums. The impact on average premiums varies wildly from state to state, ranging from a decrease of 40% in NY to an increase of 179% in NV. Overall, though, the average premium across the country will increase by 41%, with 41 states (plus DC) seeing an average increase.  All age groups see an increase, but young adults see a far greater increase than the elderly. Another study is showing an increase in 45 states. Remember, subsidized rates might mean less out of pocket for an individual, but the premium itself still increased and is simply being picked up by tax dollars.

    Some of the increase is due to an increase in benefits. However, keep in mind some of the premium increase covers “phantom” benefits. Specifically, men do not receive the ACA-required maternity care, but their premiums increase (along with women’s) to cover the expected costs of maternity care. This is unlike car insurance, which has males pay a higher premium to cover the greater expected benefit received (since actuarial data shows men are at higher risk of accidents).

    There are a few general groups of people that actually benefit from the law: 1. People previously precluded by the insurance companies due to pre-existing conditions, 2. very low income people that previously could not afford insurance that are now able to due to subsidies, and 3. lower income people who previously had mediocre insurance and can now afford better insurance due to subsidies. All of those groups combined are a very low percentage of the population. Of course, you’ll have your scattered people that fall into none of those groups – those who do not qualify for subsidies, but saw their premiums drop without a decrease in benefits.

    Honestly, nothing less should have been expected from this law as written. It simply increases increases access to health insurance, rather than doing anything to address the actual cost of health care, as the name suggests. In fact, the law actually increases the actual cost of health care. The medical device tax will add to cost of services. In general, doctors are still private for-profit entities. They will not simply absorb the cost of the tax to be nice. They will pass it on to the consumer. Similarly, no one should have expected insurance premiums to go down. Since again, the law failed to include any sort of cost controls, waste reduction, or any similar measures on the insurance companies, costs will not be decreased. Insurance companies are currently highly tuned to maximize profit. They are nearly all private, for profit companies, and make nearly every decision based on profit, rather than ethics, morals, or political alignment. I’m not saying that is right, it just is how it is. The current overall participant profile in the insurance industry match that profit level appropriate. By forcing coverage for those with pre-existing conditions (which I do believe was necessary and a good part of the law), you’re adding in payers that generally will receive more far benefits than dollars they will pay into the system. If that wasn’t the case in general, they would never have been precluded by the insurance companies. Similarly, when the pool expands to include low income customers, that group will likely have a higher cost profile than the existing base since low income families have generally less healthy diets (and are therefore less healthy in general) since it is generally more expensive to eat healthy than not. The group that will add money for less benefits are the people that opted out of coverage since they rarely got sick, but this group is a very small minority overall, and even a small minority compared to the two previous groups. As with doctors, the insurance companies will not take the hit to their profit margins simply to be nice. Premiums would have to increase on average to offset the increased cost of the newer insurance participant pool. This also directly translates to a majority of people being impacted with an increase in premiums.

    Looking at it less objectively and more subjectively, it comes down to whether on average, the increase in premiums is offset by the increase in benefits. For the individual average person, the answer will be no from a purely financial perspective. The average person – and the majority of people – will never receive the value of services they receive from the insurance companies, otherwise the insurance industry would fail. Premiums coming in must always exceed benefits paid out. Factoring in the societal benefits becomes the point of discussion, and something that really can’t be measured. While this law resulted in a significantly negative financial benefit for me personally and in my opinion has significant shortcomings, I do believe much of the law and subsequent premium increase is worth it (particularly since I can afford it) to provide those in tougher circumstances with access to insurance. Others may completely disagree.

    redstang423 November 12, 2013 - 4:14 pm #93662 Reply

    Of course, I left off the links…



    Others can be found very quickly and easily by simply doing a Google search. Be sure to use studies that are surveying actual data now that it is available rather than studies that were done to try to predict the impact.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.


Subscribe to our mailing list