Friday, November 1, 2013
A.C.A. Scare Tactics and Misinformation
Brought to the American people by CBS, and spread around the blogsphere by gullible bloggers:
"Another wowza from CBS News: Florida Woman Sees Health Care Premium Jump From $54 a Month to $591 Under Obamacare."
But when the hyperbole, misinformation, and lies are cleared away, the truth emerges, and we understand that those who are the most opposed to the A.C.A. apparently have the least information about it.
"A visibly distraught woman who recently lost her health insurance plan because of the new requirements within the Affordable Care Act recently expressed her frustrations to CBS News. In a report about the number of people losing their health plans, in spite of assurances by the president, one Florida woman choked up slightly while revealing that she will have to pay more than $500 monthly for the coverage she previously paid just $50 for."
CBS' Jan Crawford took that information from Ms. Barrette and repeated it at face value with no investigation or followup. Poor, poor Ms, Barrette her insurance costs are skyrocketing by 10 times their original cost.
Obama Basher Extraordinaire, FOX News, Pokes Holes in Barrette's claims and shows what a shabby, half-assed job CBS did in reporting them. How soon do you suppose the right wing blog-o-sphere will go back and correct their reported hysteria? How about NEVER?!
Report the misinformation FIRST and never check facts. That's how you grease the engine that's driving the TeaPublicans to make bogus claims about the A.C.A.
"Greta teed up the interview using the same setup as Crawford’s piece, that Barrette is “finding out she will have to pay 10 times as much for health insurance” because “she is losing her current plan to Obamacare.” “I have a copy of your Florida Blue insurance and it’s about $54 a month,” Greta continued, “and now I understand that under Obamacare, it’s going to go up, at least they said that the policy they would offer you under Florida Blue, would be $591; is that correct?”
Actually, the plan BCBSFL was only one of many plans Dianne has to choose from, 10 of which are cheaper than that $591, and based on her income, she’d only pay around $209 a month, but Greta did cut right to the chase about the quality of her old plan. “Your $54 a month policy is a pretty, you know, bare bones policy, “Greta said. “Why do you want to keep that one, except for the price? Maybe you can get something better with a subsidy?”
Ms. Barrette goes on to say that this 'insurance' is perfect for what she needs: a doctor visit copay and prescription copay, and maybe some outpatient services. It turns out that she actually had that reversed and the insurance company paid a $50 'copay' towards a doctor visit, and $15 for prescriptions, and she herself was responsible for all the rest of the costs.
The interviewee acknowledged no hospital stays were covered in response to Greta's question.
Now this is exactly the type of junk insurance Obamacare is meant to do away with, and it is not surprising that people don't know what their insurance covers. But a reporter with a major news outlet should have done some reporting and learned that.
So it should be of great embarassment to CBS to be shown up that way by Fox filling in missing facts in their story.
What is funny though is that a subsequent interview that was to take place on Fox News with Ms. Barrette, was cancelled, after Greta poked holes in the story."
How To Spot A Fake Obamacare Horror Story
Andrew Sullivan on the A.C.A.:
"The ACA also offers a real chance to bend the cost curve in healthcare. At its worst, it’s a start – and something that can be worked on as time goes by.
Every law can be amended. But what the ACA does at its core is bring everyone into the same boat – and a bigger pool is always better for insurance purposes.
That’s both a moral and a fiscal gain. I can see how it could be amended. At some point, we might be able to get rid of the employer subsidies and expand the individual market considerably. Or we could move to a single payer. But it will force all of us to grapple with this question more directly and more practically.
If you don’t see it as a panacea but as a baseline for the future, it looks better. What I’m saying, I guess, is that we should not miss the forest for a few rotten trees. If they get the website working, if more people get to sign up, if premiums remain below what was expected … then we will have a very different debate than we are having right now.
And look: this is the law. It’s not a project we can simply ignore. But it is a project we should see in perspective – which our current partisan brouhaha is obscuring."