Search This Blog

Showing posts with label Obamacare. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obamacare. Show all posts

Friday, November 22, 2013

Yes, this is a criminal justice story

Today I was forced to watch or at least listen to (well, to hear) the beginning of a Fox News show as I sat in the lobby of my doctor's office while I tried desparately to read over the loud volume of the three talking heads on the show.

The show was "Fox & Friends" and featured three shrill hosts babbling over and over about the action of the Senate yesterday to use the "nuclear option" thereby only requiring 51 votes to move forward on voting on judicial nominees of the president rather than the standard 60 votes.

The three hosts spent about 30 minutes talking about how this vote had nothing to do with judicial nominees or democracy but instead was just an effort to divert the attention of the nation away from what has been and should be the lead story in the news--the many problems of Obamacare.

That's right, they suggested that the reason the Senate took this action was only to change the lead story in the news!

They did not even mention the stated rationale by those who forced the change: Frustration over the inability to even get a vote on three nominees; the record level of obfuscation by the Senate to block Obama's judicial nominees.

I was stunned. I mean, this is the network whose slogans include "Fair and Balanced" and "We Report: You Decide."

So, instead of even saying something like, "one side says this and the other says that" (fair and balanced) so that you can decide on their reporting, they instead made the ridiculous argument that this had to do only with diverting the attention of the public away from Obamacare.

And you wonder why people who watch this network are the least informed people in the country according to studies?

Here is what remains on the Fox News website about the story:

FILIBUSTER FALLOUT
Legislative agenda may be victim of Reid, Obama win

 

Tuesday, November 5, 2013

How do SEE bias in the news?

Open your eyes.

Here is one example, from Fox News:

ObamaCare's red state rate squeeze


  • STUDY FINDS OBAMACARE premiums will be highest in states that did not vote for President Obama, prompting some lawmakers to say it proves 'law picks winners and losers' across the country.
"Study finds Obamacare premiums will be highest in states that did not vote for President Obama ..." ???

So this "proves" that the "law picks winners and losers"???

What?

First, a law cannot pick anything.

Second, premiums go up or down based on a lot of factors, one of which is NOT the candidate for President voted for by citizens.

In fact, one factor that determines rates is whether state governments decided to expand Medicaid. When they did, rates did not increase (or not as much). Then they didn't, rates increased (and increased more).

Turns out, red states generally did not do this, whereas blue states did.

So, the law did not pick winners and losers. The voters in states pick winners and losers.

And for some reason, some voters pick to lose. And keep losing.

Which costs them more money.

Google it.

But at least those same people have an entire news network to tell them it is not their fault.


Thursday, October 24, 2013

What can you do when your news is FAKE?

So, if you are the typical American, you get whatever news you watch from TV.

And the most watched network is, incredibly, Fox News.

The network features "newsy" talk shows--opinion shows really--the purport to show serious analyses of social policies such as the Affordable Care Act (or "Obamacare").

People watch these shows. And they take them as gospel truth.

But what if they are, literally, fake? Not Jon Stewart of the Daily Show fake (a show that offers facts but does so in a comedic way), but fake, as in wrong. Intentionally distorted. Lies. 

???

Take this example from Salon.com

I happened to turn on the Hannity show on Fox News last Friday evening. “Average Americans are feeling the pain of Obamacare and the healthcare overhaul train wreck,” Hannity announced, “and six of them are here tonight to tell us their stories.”  Three married couples were neatly arranged in his studio, the wives seated and the men standing behind them, like game show contestants.

As Hannity called on each of them, the guests recounted their “Obamacare” horror stories: canceled policies, premium hikes, restrictions on the freedom to see a doctor of their choice, financial burdens upon their small businesses and so on.

“These are the stories that the media refuses to cover,” Hannity interjected.

But none of it smelled right to me. Nothing these folks were saying jibed with the basic facts of the Affordable Care Act as I understand them. I understand them fairly well; I have worked as a senior adviser to a governor and helped him deal with the new federal rules.

I decided to hit the pavement. I tracked down Hannity’s guests, one by one, and did my own telephone interviews with them.

First I spoke with Paul Cox of Leicester, N.C.  He and his wife Michelle had lamented to Hannity that because of Obamacare, they can’t grow their construction business and they have kept their employees below a certain number of hours, so that they are part-timers.

Obamacare has no effect on businesses with 49 employees or less. But in our brief conversation on the phone, Paul revealed that he has only four employees. Why the cutback on his workforce?

“Well,” he said, “I haven’t been forced to do so, it’s just that I’ve chosen to do so. I have to deal with increased costs.” What costs? And how, I asked him, is any of it due to Obamacare? There was a long pause, after which he said he’d call me back. He never did.

There is only one Obamacare requirement that applies to a company of this size: workers must be notified of the existence of the “healthcare.gov” website, the insurance exchange. That’s all.

Next I called Allison Denijs.  She’d told Hannity that she pays over $13,000 a year in premiums. Like the other guests, she said she had recently gotten a letter from Blue Cross saying that her policy was being terminated and a new, ACA-compliant policy would take its place. She says this shows that Obama lied when he promised Americans that we could keep our existing policies.

Allison’s husband left his job a few years ago, one with benefits at a big company, to start his own business. Since then they’ve been buying insurance on the open market, and are now paying around $1,100 a month for a policy with a $2,500 deductible per family member, with hefty annual premium hikes.  One of their two children is not covered under the policy. She has a preexisting condition that would require purchasing additional coverage for $600 a month, which would bring the family’s grand total to around $20,000 a year.

I asked Allison if she’d shopped on the exchange, to see what a plan might cost under the new law. She said she hadn’t done so because she’d heard the website was not working. Would she try it out when it’s up and running? Perhaps, she said. She told me she has long opposed Obamacare, and that the president should have focused on tort reform as a solution to bringing down the price of healthcare.

I tried an experiment and shopped on the exchange for Allison and Kurt. Assuming they don’t smoke and have a household income too high to be eligible for subsidies, I found that they would be able to get a plan for around $7,600, which would include coverage for their uninsured daughter. This would be about a 60 percent reduction from what they would have to pay on the pre-Obamacare market.
Allison also told me that the letter she received from Blue Cross said that in addition to the policy change for ACA compliance, in the new policy her physician network size might be reduced.  That’s something insurance companies do to save money, with or without Obamacare on the horizon, just as they raise premiums with or without Obamacare coming.

If Allison’s choice of doctor was denied her through Obamacare then, yes, she could have a claim that Obamacare has hurt her. But she’d also have thousands of dollars in her pocket that she didn’t have before.

Finally, I called Robbie and Tina Robison from Franklin, Tenn.  Robbie is self-employed as a Christian youth motivational speaker. (You can see his work here.) On Hannity, the couple said that they, too, were recently notified that their Blue Cross policy would be expiring for lack of ACA compliance. They told Hannity that the replacement plans Blue Cross was offering would come with a rate increase of 50 percent or even 75 percent, and that the new offerings would contain all sorts of benefits they don’t need, like maternity care, pediatric care, prenatal care and so forth.  Their kids are grown and moved out, so why should they be forced to pay extra for a health plan with superfluous features?

When I spoke to Robbie, he said he and Tina have been paying a little over $800 a month for their plan, about $10,000 a year. And the ACA-compliant policy that will cost 50-75 percent more? They said this information was related to them by their insurance agent.

Had they shopped on the exchange yet, I asked? No, Tina said, nor would they. They oppose Obamacare and want nothing to do with it. Fair enough, but they should know that I found a plan for them for, at most, $3,700 a year, 63 percent less than their current bill.  It might cover things that they don’t need, but so does every insurance policy.

It’s true that we don’t know for sure whether certain ills conservatives have warned about will occur once Obamacare is fully enacted. For example, will we truly have the same freedom to choose a physician that we have now? Will a surplus of insured patients require a scaling back (or “rationing,” as some call it) of provided healthcare services?  Will doctors be able to spend as much time with patients? These are all valid, unanswered questions. The problem is that people like Sean Hannity have decided to answer them now, without evidence. Or worse, with fake evidence.

I don’t doubt that these six individuals believe that Obamacare is a disaster; but none of them had even visited the insurance exchange. And some of them appear to have taken actions (Paul Cox, for example) based on a general pessimistic belief about Obamacare. He’s certainly entitled to do so, but Hannity is not entitled to point to Paul’s behavior as an “Obamacare train wreck story” and maintain any credibility that he might have as a journalist.

Strangely, the recent shutdown was based almost entirely on a small percentage of Congress’s belief that Obamacare, as Ted Cruz puts it, “is destroying America.”  Cruz has rarely given us an example of what he’s talking about.  That’s because the best he can do is what Hannity did—exploit people’s ignorance and falsely point to imaginary boogeymen.

_________________________________________________

When does the FCC shut this network down? It is, after all, not real news. Instead, it is propaganda, defined as "information, esp. of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view."

_________________________________________________

Tuesday, October 1, 2013

House of Reps forces shut down of US government

Let's review what happened here. Just the objective facts with no opinion. An honest observation of what happened and nothing else ...

Barack Obama was elected president in 2008.

One of his top priorities was health care reform, and specifically to extend health insurance to as many of the tens of millions of people without it as possible.

In a long and pretty awful process that exemplifies the sausage-making process that is US lawmaking, Obama got a bill passed through both houses of Congress and signed it into law. We got the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or "Obamacare."

For various reasons--some legitimate and some not--Republicans largely did not go along with the bill.

But the bill became law.

In the words of Vice President, this was a "big F'n deal."

Consider how many times presidents had tried to do this but failed.

Immediately, special interests around the country spring into action, initiating various means to defeat the law, including by challenging it in the courts.

One direct result of this was the birth of the "Tea Party"--not a political party at all or really even a grass roots movement but instead an effort by very wealthy and very powerful individuals to protect their financial interests. Google the Koch brothers and Tea Party if you don't believe me.

This Tea Party phenomenon resulted in a complete turnover of government in some states and the US House went Republican as well. And they started right away working to repeal Obamacare.

But, ultimately, the US Supreme Court upheld the law, finding it to be constitutional. I actually predicted it right on this blog, by the way, but I thought it would be 6-3 (I called ROBERTS!!!! but missed on Kennedy).

So to summarize, the bill is law. And it is constitutional.

And it goes into effect TODAY. 

But, even with all that, the House of Representatives voted to overturn or repeal Obamacare a total of 42 times, most recently voting to continue running the government but only if Obamacare were defunded. They spent tens of millions of dollars to do this.

Each and very time, the US Senate did not pass a similar bill. And of course, President Obama would never have signed it anyway.

Keep in mind also that we had another election since then. In 2012, the Republican party ran candidates for President and Vice President who promised they would repeal Obamacare if elected. But, they lost. And they lost badly.

On top of that, Democrats had gains in the Senate and House, although Republicans held control of the House even as Democrats received a higher number of cast ballots. Yet, because of safe districts, the far-right Tea Party faction of the House remained in place, and was empowered to continue to keep up their fight against Obamacare, even though it is the law of the land and is constitutional.

Which brings us to last night. 

Last night, at midnight, the US government shut down after the US House of Representatives refused to pass a bill funding the government without stipulations. Instead, they voted to fund the government but not Obamacare, then they voted to fund the government but delay Obamacare by a year (along with many other stipulations). Then ... on and on ...

So, this is what happened, with no opinions, just observations:

One faction of one branch of government--a faction funded by multimillionaire and billionaire special interests whose opinions are actually not in line with a majority of Americans, and in spite of having failed dozens of times to overturn Obamacare and in spite of losing a major election centering on the issue--let the government shut down simply because they refuse to go along with a law that is constitutional.

It is that simple.

But who is getting the blame?

Depends on who you ask....

BREAKING NEWS

Watch this video

Senate rejects House for 4th time

A House plan to undermine Obamacare but keep the government running is voted down again by the Senate, as is a call for a conference committee. FULL STORY






Wednesday, September 25, 2013

Op-ed on Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

To appear in the news soon?
____________________________________

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act—aka “Obamacare”—is now the law of the land. It was held to be Constitutional by the US Supreme Court, and it is set to be fully implemented this coming month.

Yet, some state legislatures have refused to develop insurance exchanges, a key part of Obamacare meant to drive down costs, forcing the federal government to do it for them. And House Republicans—led by the so-called “Tea Party”—have now voted to repeal the law a stunning 42 times. Most recently, they passed a bill funding the government but not funding Obamacare.

Incredibly, House Speaker John Boehner claimed the vote was motivated by a democratic sense of serving public sentiment: “The American people don't want the government shut down, and they don't want Obamacare. The House has listened to the American people. Now it's time for the United States Senate to listen to them as well.”

Sure enough, polls show that a majority of Americans say they oppose Obamacare. Some oppose it because they think it goes too far, but others oppose it because they think it does not go far enough. So, in reality, about two-thirds of the public want the government to either mandate that people pay for their own medical insurance (as required by Obamacare) or to actually do more (like implementing a single-payer system). That is, Americans are not actually opposed to government involvement in health care. Further, we overwhelmingly favor key provisions of the law.

My argument is that public opinion on matters of human rights is actually irrelevant anyway. We don’t put our rights up for a vote; that is why they are called rights. Whether you like it or not, health care is a human right, recognized not only in international law but also in our own founding documents.

For example, the Declaration of Independence states that humans are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” We know that about 45,000 Americans die every year simply because they do not have access to affordable health care. This is a restriction of their right to life and clearly interferes with their (and our) happiness.

And the US Constitution was written to “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” Welfare means well-being, and we know from careful studies that not having medical insurance promotes illness and death and thus runs counter to well-being. Further, peace at home—domestic tranquility—is not realized when Americans get sick and die simply because they are too poor to afford to see a doctor.

Of course, there is at least one fair criticism of Obamacare that is also rooted in a strong American value—liberty. People ask, “How can the government force you to purchase medical insurance? Isn’t that a restriction of your freedom?” Of course it is, but so too is not being able to yell fire in a movie theater when there is no fire; not being able to own a tank or missile launcher in the interests of public safety; not having complete and total privacy from the government as it tries to protect us from terrorists who are using email and phone systems to organize their attacks; or even having to buy car insurance in order to drive!

And so too is having to pay taxes to provide education and roads, as well as police, firefighter, and military protection.

The point being lost by libertarians generally and Tea Party Republicans especially is that liberty is also not an absolute right. I am free to extend my arm as far as I like when in my own personal space, but this right ends at your nose; the minute my behavior harms you, my right to behave that way ends.

People who can afford to carry medical insurance but don’t buy it actually harm others in the form of increased medical costs for all. This does not promote happiness. Or well-being. It even interferes with your liberty to spend your money on other things.

This is what motivated the conservative Heritage Foundation to call for the “individual mandate” that is now part of Obamacare. This is also how conservative Mitt Romney justified implementing the individual mandate at the state level as governor of Massachusetts. And this is what gives the government the right to implement a law forcing people to buy insurance if they can afford it (the law also gives people who cannot afford it financial assistance to pay for it).

Who pays for this? We do. Because it is in the public interest, for the public good. It will, when implemented, help assure life, happiness, and domestic tranquility, as well as provide for the common defence and the general Welfare.

Given these realities, it is time for state legislatures and House Republicans to end their childish behavior and fully implement the law.
 
 
 

Friday, September 20, 2013

Wow ...

See realtime coverage

House passes bill funding government, defunding Obamacare

CBS News - ‎9 minutes ago‎
Updated at 3:01 p.m. ET. House Republicans advanced a bill on Friday that would continue funding the government at current spending levels for nearly three months but would strip money appropriated to fund Obamacare, following through on months of ...

Anyone who reads this blog is likely to have a vastly different opinion on the issue of Obamacare or American health care more generally than another person who reads this blog.

But there ARE facts on which we can agree.

First, it is a fact that household income started to fall in the US in 2000. Before Obamacare.
Second, it is a fact that household income fell even farther starting in the years 2007-2009 as the US dealt with a major economic recession caused by fraud on Wall Street and in the big banks. Before Obamacare.
Third, health care costs for the average American have been rising for more than a decade. Before Obamacare.

So why are members of Congress--supposedly educated lawmakers--blaming one law (Obamacare) on our economic problems and rising health care costs?

Thursday, June 28, 2012

"Obamacare" and the Supreme Court: Today is the day!

Today, a bit after 10am EST, the US Supreme Court decides the fate of all or parts of the Affordable Care Act, referred to by many as "Obamacare."

The Court will either set the case aside and rule that it cannot decide a tax issue until the tax imposed on non-payers is actually paid (and this does not happen in 2012!) or the Court will simply rule on the individual mandate part of the law (can Congress require you to buy anything?).

Most observers expect the Court to rule on that issue alone, and leave the rest of the law intact (the Court may also rule on the Medicaid expanasion component). And most think the Court will strike down the mandate by a vote of 5-4 (I have predicted the Court will uphold it by a vote of 6-3, with Chief Justice John Roberts writing the majority opinion).

But the Court could also strike down the whole law, including parts that even a majority of Republicans agree with (like not being able to denied insurance due to having a pre-existing condition or being charged more because you are sick).

So today is an important day. Check back later to see how the media are covering the decision. The talking heads on the news this morning are already talking about how this case will "change the Presidential race" (like that is what matters here). Stay tuned for more ...



UPDATE: Supreme Court upholds the mandate 5-4!

But as I watched CNN and Fox News., each said the individual mandate was struck down! Then on MSNBC they were saying nothing, so I waited. Eventually they said it was upheld and a victory for Obama.

So I turned back to Fox and CNN and they had to correct themselves live!

Here is one example from CNN when they got it wrong:


And here is what Fox News had on their web site prior to the ruling and even a bit after (so much for Fair and Balanced, right?):



Monday, April 2, 2012

Obama versus the US Supreme Court

As you know, the US Supreme Court has heard challenges to the Obama health care law, often called by its more cuddly name, "Obamacare."



The Court set aside six hours of hearings over three days, as opposed to the normal one hour normally reserved by the Court. That should give you a sense of the complexity of the case, if not the importance.

You listen to the entire argument as well as read analysis here (New York Times).

The issues:

1) Does the Court have authority to decide the fate of the law in the first place
2) Can Congress require you to buy health insurance (the individual mandate)?
3) If the Court invalidates the individual mandate, can that be severed from the rest of the law or does the whole law become invalid?
4) What about the Medicaid expansion?

The Justices are now deciding these issues in private. The process is unknown to most, but insiders to the Court have written about the process of bargaining between Justices, a process that sounds pretty disgusting to me. Imagine, for example, agreeing to conclude something to please another Justice or to get his or her vote on another case.

Yes, it is entirely up to us.


Thomas Goldstein, a Washington lawyer and publisher of SCOTUSblog.com, recently said: "This case is on a rocket ship. Because there may be as many as four decisions, the justices work collaboratively. The majority opinion writer circulates it for other people to comment, dissenters will circulate their opinions and that process will go back and forth, back and forth until about mid-June, when they will just get down to finalize it."
 
So we will know the fate of this law in June. Predictions are all over the web. I already made the outlandish prediction that the Court will uphold the law, 7-2. But if I were a betting man, I'd go with 5-4 to overturn it.

Clearly, some people love the law. Others, not so much.


Personally, I wonder how many of these people have read the law (virtually none of them) or even know what it does (probably a tiny fraction of them).

Things like:

* Insurance companies cannot hike my rate without approval from an independent panel
* They cannot put a cap of lifetime coverage for a serious condtion
* They cannot refuse me coverage based on preexisting conditions
* They cannot charge women more than men for the same insurance
* They will start offering free preventive health screenings
* Checkups and immunizations are offered for my children for free
* An insurance exchange is created to allow me to buy coverage across state lines to find the best deal for my family

Not to mention, millions of people who do not have insurance will finally get it. The only way to make sure this happens is to require people to buy insurance for those who can afford to buy it. That is, the law requires people who can afford to buy insurance to buy insurance from a private for-profit company based on the premise that it is your responsibility as a citizen to take care of yourself rather than to not buy insurance but continue to use the health care system (e.g., emergency room visits) and force everyone else to pay for your illness or injury.

This is a conservative principle based on conservative ideas going back at least to 1989!

So what is so controversial about this law anyway?