The Pardu

The Pardu
Watchful eyes and ears feed the brain, thus nourishing the brain cells.

Tuesday, March 11, 2014

6 Obama Care Criticisms ( Myths)!

the act of expressing disapproval and of noting the problems or faults of a person or thing : the act of criticizing someone or something

  a traditional but unfounded story that gives the reason for a current custom, belief, or fact of nature


to make a statement one knows to be untrue


 to deceive, win over, or induce to do something by artful coaxing and wheedling or shrewd trickery

The Koch brothers have spent one half a billion dollars working to repeal ObamaCare. The US House of Representatives has wasted $80 million dollars on frivolous and subservient (to money backers) repeal votes. House leadership has indicated a 51st vote in the coming weeks. Do you think the silliness will stop when the gauge hits $100 million?  Did I hear someone say, the tea party is against big government and is for cost cutting?  

In addition to phony "I cannot accept the ACA" panels on Fox News and internet and actor developed television commercials against the ACA. The Fox broadcast and expensive Koch brothers ads center around a few (bundled) ACA lies. We will defer to Connect The Dots USA use of the word "criticism" as we present what follows.

Later tonight plan to post a video segment related to the Koch ad campaign. You already know the site has many postings related to the Koch paradigm for the nation. We ask, why do such wealthy people literally hate the middle and lower income Americans? It is impossible to avoid use of the word "hate", as we can find no other reason for spending over $500 million dollars to kill law that benefits so many people.

The ACA is good for people and good for the nation! 

Connect The Dots USA

Let’s debunk the Top 6 ObamaCare Criticisms.


First, we have all those purported ObamaCare horror stories offered up by the right-wing propaganda machine and even elected officials. Once an investigative reporter actually scratches beneath the surface, however, every one of these stories has turned on to be phony. You’d think if ObamaCare was so awful, the right-wing would be tripping all over legitimate tales of woe.

On the contrary, reporters like Michael Hiltzik and Kevin Drum “wonder whether there’s a single genuine Obamacare horror story out there, given that virtually every yarn promoted by Republicans or conservatives about people hurt by the Affordable Care Act has deflated like a pricked balloon on the merest examination.

Economist Paul Krugman offers a handy framework to debunk ObamaCare horror stories:

Basically, people that have a serious illness or preexisting condition are most likely big winners under the ACA. Folks that are older, lower to middle-income, or aspiring entrepreneurs are also likely winners. Be suspicious of any story that claims otherwise — those examples would be very rare indeed. Now you can debunk such hogwash yourself by jumping on the anonymous window-shopping feature. All you need is the family size, age of the adults, zip code and approximate 2014 income to get the facts.

Someone like Mitt Romney who now pays an additional 3.8% Medicare tax on his investment income over $250,000 would be a legitimate “loser” under the ACA, but his story doesn’t pull at the heartstrings or make for a good anti-ObamaCare ad campaign. Oh Boohoo, “Pity the Billionaire!” (to quote the latest title by author Thomas Frank).

And don’t trust insurance companies to tell you about the new Health Insurance Exchange where you will likely find subsidies and better, cheaper plans by their competitors. As Los Angeles Times reporter Michael Hiltzik warns, “Expecting insurance companies to play fair with their customers is as pointless as expecting dogs not to drink from the toilet, but what's the excuse of the reporters who retail these yarns without fully checking them out?”
Connect The Dots USA
March 11

Now let’s debunk 3 more ObamaCare criticisms:
#2 “I Lost My Plan!”

“Grandfathered plan” means the exact plan you had when the ACA became law in March 2010. If you purchased a plan between March 2010 and Jan 1st, 2014, then that plan was not grandfathered under the law. In addition, reputable insurance companies barred you from raising the deductible on those plans or you would lose the grandfathered status.

I must be one of the few people in America who understands what “grandfathered” meant, so I was not in the least surprised when I got a letter from Blue Cross of Arizona in Sept 2013 that my interim Blue Optimum PPO was being cancelled. I anticipated this back when I transitioned from my grandfathered Blue Cross Preferred PPO to the Blue Optimum PPO back in 2010 because it was pretty much the same plan, except no lifetime cap and the monthly premium was 20% cheaper. That was to comply with the ACA’s requirement that individual plans spend at least 80% of premium dollars on actual medical services. My grandfathered plan did not have to comply with that requirement.

Back in 2010, when I asked Blue Cross customer service how many folks were moving to the new plan instead of keeping their grandfathered plan, she told me just about everyone was moving to the new non-grandfathered plan. When I asked why, she replied because it was basically the same plan, but significantly cheaper. I guess folks didn’t care so much then about grandfathered status and preferred the lower premium.

I’m no fan of insurance companies (bless their cold black hearts), but why would they want to keep plans that they cannot sell to new customers? Why would they want to keep non-grandfathered interim plans that were only compliant with the ACA regulations effective Jan 1st 2011 to Dec 31, 2013? And why would any rational consumer want to keep a plan that has lifetime caps, health exclusion riders, discriminates for pre-existing conditions, and can spend more than 20% of premium dollars on overhead like advertising, lobbying and CEO pay?

If you can’t find a new plan for a comparable price (even less if you qualify for ACA subsidies), chances are you had junk insurance and didn’t know it. Did you really read the 70-page benefit (exclusion) contract and the fine print? I suspect not if you don’t understand the meaning of “grandfathered” and believe a simplified stump speech is a binding contract. Good thing the ACA kept it from exploding on you, as this consumer realized when Consumer Reports explained just how junky her insurance really was:

"She’s paying $650 a year to be uninsured," Karen Pollitz, an insurance expert at the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation, said. "I have to assume that she never really had to make much of a claim under this policy. She would have lost the house she’s sitting in if something serious had happened. I don’t know if she knows that."

The appreciative consumer replied in reference to ObamaCare, “Maybe, it’s a blessing in disguise.” 

#3: “I Lost My Doctor!” 

Perhaps President Obama should have worded his stump speech thusly: 

“There is nothing in the Affordable Care Act that prevents you from keeping the doctor you like.” Of course, your doctor might move out-of-state, out of network, retire or die. But that’s not because of the ACA.

Back in 2000, long before anyone even knew Obama’s name, my own doctor-parents and all their University colleagues became out-of-network on my Blue Cross plan (my entire motivation for choosing Blue Cross in the first place!). Those contract negotiations happen all the time. Now, thanks to the ACA, you have the option to follow your doc to his/her new network every year during open enrollment. In short, if you hate networks, then you hate private insurance generally, not simply the ACA. Doctors have been going in and out of network, moving and retiring long before ObamaCare.

#4: “My Premiums Went Up!”

What’s new about that? They’ve been skyrocketing for more than a decade. Since the ACA, premiums have increased by a smaller %. See these charts:

We will follow with another post when Connect The Dots USA completes the 6 Criticisms.

Don't forget to comeback!

No comments :

Post a Comment