• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Separating the day's myths and realities on Obamacare

Unitedwestand13

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
20,738
Reaction score
6,290
Location
Sunnyvale California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
time to show what real journalism looks like

Separating the day's myths and realities on Obamacare - latimes.com

Developments in the rollout of Obamacare are coming with dizzying speed, though not as fast as the pileup of fiction and misunderstanding created by politicians, pundits and the news media. So here's a list of the latest themes you're hearing on America's healthcare reform, and what they mean.

1. Obama "knew" that people would lose their health insurance. This story, chiefly promoted by NBC News, reflects the Washington media's eternal search for scandal, abetted by every politician's instinct to reduce even the most complicated ideas to a sound byte.

It was always clear that many insurance policies serving the individual market wouldn't conform to the coverage requirements set by the Affordable Care Act and would have to be changed. Some were "grandfathered" in, but the rules dictated that any that were changed by the insuring companies -- including changes in premiums or other terms -- would lose that status.

As a result, millions of policyholders are now being informed that their nonconforming policies are being canceled as of Dec. 31. The idea, of course, is for them to get new policies under Obamacare as of Jan. 1. NBC is breathing heavily over its investigative "discovery" that "because of normal turnover in the individual insurance market, 40 to 67% of customers will not be able to keep their policy" mostly because they changed plans.

But is this news? No: The exact same figure was put out by the Obama Adminsitration -- in 2010. Here's a release from the Department of Health and Human Services from June that year, explaining that "40% to two-thirds of people" in the individual market normally change plans in a year, and thus would no longer be in grandfathered plans. Did Obama "know"? Yes, but so did anyone else who was paying attention, including reporters covering healthcare.

2. Premium "sticker shock." As my colleague Chad Terhune vividly reported, some individuals whose old policies are being canceled because they don't meet Obamacare standards are facing higher premiums in the new exchange-based marketplace.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Real slanted journalism. Maybe they need to call NBS or CBS for some tips?
 
Real slanted journalism. Maybe they need to call NBS or CBS for some tips?

NBC and CBS are doing a disservice by not reporting acurate information on obamacare. this author was calling out their mistakes, but why is it slanted? because a story does not bash obamacare it means it is slanted?
 
Pretty much a litany of excuses and nonsense to defend Obamacare's woes. The individual points have been debated here ad infinitum.
 
NBC and CBS are doing a disservice by not reporting acurate information on obamacare. this author was calling out their mistakes, but why is it slanted? because a story does not bash obamacare it means it is slanted?

This author is just repeating the same old debunked horse**** that didn't pass for defense of Obamacare when it was first brought up in the MSM or here.
 
NBC and CBS are doing a disservice by not reporting acurate information on obamacare. this author was calling out their mistakes, but why is it slanted? because a story does not bash obamacare it means it is slanted?


The LATimes is a commie rag. Besides that, the article is outdated.
 
they are not excuses, why do you believe NBC and not this author?

Once again, each of these individual points has been debated here. It's not NBC that I rely upon for my thinking.
 
This author is just repeating the same old debunked horse**** that didn't pass for defense of Obamacare when it was first brought up in the MSM or here.

NBC is MSM, and CBS is MSM. why do you believe them over this story.

why is the information here debunked? because it does not sufficently bash obama or his policies?
 
NBC is MSM, and CBS is MSM. why do you believe them over this story.

why is the information here debunked? because it does not sufficently bash obama or his policies?

Good grief, try reading. Every point in that article has been discussed here already, multiple times.
 
Lots has come to light since then.

Wonder if the author of the article regrets what he wrote?

FWIW, this ship is sinking....save yourself.

FWIW the water is shallow.

the author did not regret writing this article and he did not regret writing this article from yesterday

Debunking those Obamacare horror stories - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Deborah Cavallaro is a hard-working real estate agent in the Westchester suburb of Los Angeles who has been featured prominently on a round of news shows lately, talking about how badly Obamacare is going to cost her when her existing plan gets canceled and she has to find a replacement.

She says she's angry at President Barack Obama for having promised that people who like their health plans could keep them, when hers is getting canceled for not meeting Obama-care's standards.

"Please explain to me," she told Maria Bartiromo on CNBC Wednesday, "how my plan is a 'substandard' plan when ... I'd be paying more for the exchange plans than I am currently paying by a wide margin."

Ms. Bartiromo didn't take her up on her request. So I will.

The bottom line is that Ms. Cavallaro's assertion that "there's nothing affordable about the Affordable Care Act," as she put it Tuesday on NBC Channel 4, is the product of her own misunderstandings, abetted by a passel of uninformed and incurious news reporters.

I talked with Ms. Cavallaro, 60, after her CNBC appearance. Let's walk through what she told me.

Her current plan, from Anthem Blue Cross, is a catastrophic coverage plan for which she pays $293 a month as an individual policyholder. It requires her to pay a deductible of $5,000 a year and limits her out-of-pocket costs to $8,500 a year. Her plan also limits her to two doctor visits a year, for which she shoulders a copay of $40 each. After that, she pays the whole cost of subsequent visits.

This fits the very definition of a nonconforming plan under Obamacare. The deductible and out-of-pocket maximums are too high, the provisions for doctor visits too skimpy.

As for a replacement plan, she says she was quoted $478 a month by her insurance broker, but that's a lot more than she'd really be paying. Ms. Cavallaro told me she hadn't checked the website of Covered California, the state's health plan exchange, so I did while we talked.


Here's what I found.

I won't divulge her current income, but this year it qualifies her for a hefty federal premium subsidy. At her age, she's eligible for a good "silver" plan for $333 a month after the subsidy -- $40 a month more than she's paying now. But the plan is much better than her current plan -- the deductible is $2,000, not $5,000. The maximum out-of-pocket expense is $6,350, not $8,500. Her co-pays would be $45 for a primary care visit and $65 for a specialty visit -- but all visits would be covered, not just two.


Is that better than her current plan? Yes, by a mile.

If she wanted to pay less, Ms. Cavallaro could opt for lesser coverage in a "bronze" plan. She could buy one from the California exchange for as little as $194 a month. From Anthem, it's $256, or $444 a year less than she's paying now. That buys her a $5,000 deductible (the same as she's paying today) but the out-of-pocket limit is lower, $6,350. Office visits would be $60 for primary care and $70 for specialties, but again with no limit on the number of visits. Factor in the premium savings, and it's hard to deny that she'd still be ahead.

Ms. Cavallaro told me a couple of things worth considering.

First, what she likes about her current plan is that she can go to any doctor of her choice and any hospital. That's not entirely true, because her current plan with Anthem does favor a network. Plainly, however, it's broad enough to serve her purposes. She's concerned that the new plans will offer smaller networks, which is probably true, though it's not necessarily true that the new networks will exclude her favorite doctors, hospitals or prescription formularies.

Ms. Cavallaro also mentioned that her annual income fluctuates. It can be substantially lower, or substantially higher, than it is this year. What if next year she earns too much to qualify for the subsidy? Also a fair point -- at her current income, the subsidy is worth more than $200 a month to her. But that's not the same as saying that "there's nothing affordable about the Affordable Care Act," because at her current income, the act is vastly more affordable to her than what she's paying now.

When she told Channel 4 that "for the first time in my whole life, I will be without insurance," it's hard to understand what she was talking about. (Channel 4 didn't ask.) Better plans than she has now are available for her to purchase today, some of them for less money.

The sad truth is that Ms. Cavallaro has been poorly served by the health insurance industry and the news media. It seems that Anthem didn't adequately explain her options for 2014 when it disclosed that her current plan is being canceled. If her insurance brokers told her what she says they did, they failed her.

And the reporters who interviewed her without getting all the facts produced inexcusably shoddy work -- from Maria Bartiromo on down. They not only did her a disservice, but failed the rest of us, too.
 
Good grief, try reading. Every point in that article has been discussed here already, multiple times.

i highly doubt every facet of this debate has been discussed. there is still plenty of room for debate.

now what things prove the point's presented in this article.

humor me.
 
Good for the author, though he's still got it worng on several counts, he helped ONE person navigate their way through the maze. Now he only has a few hundred million more to go.

Comes down to this - was she comfortable with her old plan (no matter how flawed you or this author believe it was)? The POTUS promised she'd be able to keep her plan if the answer to that last was yes (he did not qualify that promise as those in his defense do in hindsight).
 
Good for the author, though he's still got it worng on several counts, he helped ONE person navigate their way through the maze. Now he only has a few hundred million more to go.

Comes down to this - was she comfortable with her old plan (no matter how flawed you or this author believe it was)? The POTUS promised she'd be able to keep her plan if the answer to that last was yes (he did not qualify that promise as those in his defense do in hindsight).

where did you get that 100 million number?
 
i highly doubt every facet of this debate has been discussed. there is still plenty of room for debate.

now what things prove the point's presented in this article.

humor me.

Then you haven't been paying attention around here. EVERY single point brought up in that article is the subject of multiple threads here. And no, I'm not going to take you on a guided tour of the forum that you've obviously been ignoring somehow. Look through the recent threads and you'll have your answer.
 
Why do you believe this author and not NBC?



See what I did there?

yes.

but this author was pointing out the mistakes NBC made in its report.

As a result, millions of policyholders are now being informed that their nonconforming policies are being canceled as of Dec. 31. The idea, of course, is for them to get new policies under Obamacare as of Jan. 1. NBC is breathing heavily over its investigative "discovery" that "because of normal turnover in the individual insurance market, 40 to 67% of customers will not be able to keep their policy" mostly because they changed plans.

But is this news? No: The exact same figure was put out by the Obama Adminsitration -- in 2010. Here's a release from the Department of Health and Human Services from June that year, explaining that "40% to two-thirds of people" in the individual market normally change plans in a year, and thus would no longer be in grandfathered plans. Did Obama "know"? Yes, but so did anyone else who was paying attention, including reporters covering healthcare.

claiming something that was already reported in 2010 as breaking news in 2013 seems a bit of a stretch.
 
NBC and CBS are doing a disservice by not reporting acurate information on obamacare. this author was calling out their mistakes, but why is it slanted? because a story does not bash obamacare it means it is slanted?

Nobody knows what is "accurate information on Obamacare". Every time I have put the same information in on different visits, I get a different number. I am not going through the exchange because we are well above the subsidy levels for a family of 4, but it is something I have explored for other folks in the family, and there seems to be no straight answer for what it would cost them. If there is no day-to-day consistency, there is no point in getting them to go through the whole application process until the last week they can do so.
 
around 300 million people.

Nope. As of right this second, the U.S. population is estimated to be 316,988.940. It goes up regularly, of course. World population is currently at 7,121,549,557 and goes up much, much faster.

Look here.
 
Back
Top Bottom