3516 replies to this topic

[LFC]

It appears that one of the most cited articles from the Ft. Worth Star Tribune about Obamacare losers never actually fact checked the people and their stories that they profiled, and didn't know that three of them were Tea Party members who just might have a political axe to grind. These two posts tear the outright untrue story apart:

http://www.healthins...e-horror-story/
http://www.healthins...acares-victims/

They linked to some other bogus "I'm paying more for less" stories:
http://prospect.org/...re-victim-story
http://www.newshound...ort_of_10302013


Under the ACA you really might not be able to keep your insurance so Obama was absolutely wrong. Looking at some of these so-called "policies" that left people vastly underinsured (potentially sticking everybody else with their bills if they need large amounts of care), I'm very happy that he was.

[Traveler]

Welcome to MSM! Where not only do they fall down on the job regularly, now they actively misinform. Those folks should get the Maddow treatment.

[Practical Girl]

Good god...The worst of this, by far, was the behavior of the editor at the Ft. Worth Star Telegram. He accused Maggie Mahar of being an Obamacare advocate when she dared question him about why none of the facts had been checked. EVEN after Mahar got him to admit that they were wrong, the paper still refused to print retractions/corrections or even the real story- that the 26 year old who yammered on about having to pay $1,000 a month for a policy actually ended up buying a gold policy for $350 a month- just a few more dollars a month than the crappy policy she had before.

Second "worst" was the reporter, who admitted to not really knowing anything about Obamacare when she wrote this piece and to having culled her sources from third parties, but never looking into who her sources were, let alone checking anything in their stories. She even admitted that she finished this piece (assignment to finished, submitted copy) in a day and half. I bet Mahar- a seasoned writer and trained journalist- wanted to jump across the phone line and throttle the twit.

[golden_valley]

Ah the newspaper world is so starved for money that it can't/won't pay enough reporters to do a proper job. Time pressure like that described by the Star Telegram is similar to that described by a good friend of mine who is a seasoned business reporter with my local paper. He has survived the multiple firings (not layoffs because there is no hope of returning) and is pressured to put out work quickly. He is senior enough to convince his editors to give him more time and/or to submit a very short article rather than use tertiary sources, but it takes some arguing. He doesn't agree with editing choices or headlines either, but he loses those battles.

My statements are not designed to excuse the shoddy work, but to explain some of the circumstances that can lead to it.

[AnBr]

Traveler, on 06 January 2014 - 04:58 PM, said:

Welcome to MSM! Where not only do they fall down on the job regularly, now they actively misinform. Those folks should get the Maddow treatment.

Or, as in the case a few times with CNN, just use Faux news as a wire service.

[Practical Girl]

golden_valley, on 06 January 2014 - 05:46 PM, said:

Ah the newspaper world is so starved for money that it can't/won't pay enough reporters to do a proper job. Time pressure like that described by the Star Telegram is similar to that described by a good friend of mine who is a seasoned business reporter with my local paper. He has survived the multiple firings (not layoffs because there is no hope of returning) and is pressured to put out work quickly. He is senior enough to convince his editors to give him more time and/or to submit a very short article rather than use tertiary sources, but it takes some arguing. He doesn't agree with editing choices or headlines either, but he loses those battles.

My statements are not designed to excuse the shoddy work, but to explain some of the circumstances that can lead to it.

I had a several paragraph rant on this subject at the bottom of my last post, but deleted it as too rambling. While it's easy to bang on the MSM for all the faults, you point out the reason for much of it. And while people cry about the death of the 4th estate, it's a good idea for them to look in the mirror. Chances are, the reflection is of one of millions who helped stab it in the heart when they decided that "fast, free and cheap" infotainment was better and more exciting than sound journalism.

[Traveler]

PG, give us the rant. Yours are about as good as any journalism. I admit that I only pay for my local paper, and freeload on the rest. It has been painful watching it wither. Still does a pretty good job on the local side, and the sports section is quite good. But important news is left to Reuters and AP. Thank god they still exist. Wonder why they havent dug into this. As for the freebies, Bloomberg is among the best, although the commenters are a disappointing window into the Cro-Magnon era. Talk about ACA deniers!

[Sinan]

LFC, on 06 January 2014 - 04:13 PM, said:

It appears that one of the most cited articles from the Ft. Worth Star Tribune about Obamacare losers never actually fact checked the people and their stories that they profiled, and didn't know that three of them were Tea Party members who just might have a political axe to grind. These two posts tear the outright untrue story apart:

http://www.healthins...e-horror-story/
http://www.healthins...acares-victims/

They linked to some other bogus "I'm paying more for less" stories:
http://prospect.org/...re-victim-story
http://www.newshound...ort_of_10302013


Under the ACA you really might not be able to keep your insurance so Obama was absolutely wrong. Looking at some of these so-called "policies" that left people vastly underinsured (potentially sticking everybody else with their bills if they need large amounts of care), I'm very happy that he was.

This is one of the benefits of the Internet. People on their own can get to the truth. Well done.

[LFC]

Now it appears that Rand Paul may have lied about his son being forced to join Medicaid in Kentucky, adding yet another to the pile of falsified Obamacare horror stories. (Bold mine)

http://www.motherjon...rolled-medicaid

Quote

Sunday, during an interview with George Stephanopoulos on ABC's This Week, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) told a wild tale about his son's trouble with Obamacare. Paul claimed that one of his sons (the Pauls have three—William, Duncan, and Robert) was enrolled in Medicaid in Kentucky against his will. The senator briefly flashed a blue-and-white insurance card before launching into a diatribe about his son's travails: "We didn't try to get him Medicaid…They automatically enrolled him in Medicaid," Paul said. "For a month they wouldn't talk to us because they said they weren't sure he existed. He had to go down to the welfare office, prove his existence, then, next thing we know, we get a Medicaid card."

Paul then extrapolated from his son's experience to make a general point about Kentucky's health exchange: "Most of the people in Kentucky are getting automatically enrolled in Medicaid."

Conservative websites latched onto Paul's claim as the latest example of Obamacare's failures. There's one problem, though: Paul's story doesn't make sense. No one is being automatically enrolled for Medicaid in Kentucky, says Jill Midkiff, communications director for the state's health department. "We're not automatically enrolling people," Midkiff explains. "People have to actually go and apply."

It seems that Rand keeps getting caught in one lie after another. I thought this guy wanted to be President. Does he really think he can run a campaign of outright fabrications like Mitt Romney but be successful? Well, it is politics so maybe he can but it doesn't seem to be a very smart approach.

[Banty]

LFC, on 06 January 2014 - 04:13 PM, said:

It appears that one of the most cited articles from the Ft. Worth Star Tribune about Obamacare losers never actually fact checked the people and their stories that they profiled, and didn't know that three of them were Tea Party members who just might have a political axe to grind. These two posts tear the outright untrue story apart:

http://www.healthins...e-horror-story/
http://www.healthins...acares-victims/

They linked to some other bogus "I'm paying more for less" stories:
http://prospect.org/...re-victim-story
http://www.newshound...ort_of_10302013


Under the ACA you really might not be able to keep your insurance so Obama was absolutely wrong. Looking at some of these so-called "policies" that left people vastly underinsured (potentially sticking everybody else with their bills if they need large amounts of care), I'm very happy that he was.

I think in a lot of these stories they mush together policy costs and deductibles. And may or may not account for available subsidies.

There *are* cases of well-off people with individual policies with in favorable risk pools, now paying more because of community rating.

[golden_valley]

Those who like Rand Paul's rhetoric will just say that all politicians lie. What he says, lies or not, has the sound of "truthiness" that confirms their already held opinions. So they will overlook the facts in favor of the truthiness and will point to the few cases in which some people pay more due to community rating.

[Banty]

golden_valley, on 07 January 2014 - 01:54 PM, said:

Those who like Rand Paul's rhetoric will just say that all politicians lie. What he says, lies or not, has the sound of "truthiness" that confirms their already held opinions. So they will overlook the facts in favor of the truthiness and will point to the few cases in which some people pay more due to community rating.

I haven't heard it said straight on, that that group that *is* paying more due to community rating, are exactly those whose former good fortune was build on the bankruptcies and graves of others.

[Practical Girl]

The problem, of course, is that the spread happened when people were paying attention to a degree that it affected their perspective. I have enormous respect for those who have obviously been busy researching and debunking, but not enough media will pick this stuff up to make a difference with those who have already been infected. And honestly? Who's listening anymore?

I'd really like to see a Senator haul Rand's ass on the carpet on the Senate floor for this outlandish lie. The best way to police this stuff properly, imo, is for the body to shine a light when one of their own misleads/lies to the American people. Can't spend all their time combatting all of each other's BS, but the historic nature of the ACA seems to warrant an all-out "outing" of Paul's lies.

[Traveler]

It would be really interesting to see a dispassionate discussion of the *winners and *losers. After you factor in the subsidies. How many cancelled policies covered what? etc.etc. Banty, it has been accepted that wealthy with no preexisting conditions would end up paying more. It was always supposed to have some transfer effect to it, predominantly by denying the subsidies. Question is how much more as percent of income, vs. how much less for those being subsidized? And how do you quantify my take on the savings of 20% max. overhead, consistency and free screening? Hard to quantify, but can be done.

But far be it from MSM taking on such a task.

[J-CA]

Traveler, on 07 January 2014 - 02:12 PM, said:

But far be it from MSM taking on such a task.

Far be it from consumers to appreciate it enough to make doing so profitable.

[Traveler]

PG, this gets to LFC's ongoing rant about dems eventually going on the offensive. I think we need to wait a little for the bad news to subside, while the good news comes out, and then go after the RWNJ journalists like FWST.

[Traveler]

J-CA, on 07 January 2014 - 02:15 PM, said:

Far be it from consumers to appreciate it enough to make doing so profitable.

True dat.

[golden_valley]

Ohhh....FWST...Fort Worth Star Telegram! Got it, finally.

[Banty]

LFC, on 07 January 2014 - 01:42 PM, said:

Now it appears that Rand Paul may have lied about his son being forced to join Medicaid in Kentucky, adding yet another to the pile of falsified Obamacare horror stories. (Bold mine)

http://www.motherjon...rolled-medicaid



It seems that Rand keeps getting caught in one lie after another. I thought this guy wanted to be President. Does he really think he can run a campaign of outright fabrications like Mitt Romney but be successful? Well, it is politics so maybe he can but it doesn't seem to be a very smart approach.

It is possible what he means is that he found that his son did not qualify for any policies in the state exchanges because he qualified for Medicaid?

ed) or, effectively so, as they would not in that case qualify for subsidies:

""In general, individuals with income below 138 [percent] of the federal poverty level [about $15,000 for an individual] may qualify for Medicaid coverage," Midkiff says. "However, individuals at any income level…can still purchase coverage directly from insurers. They can also still purchase through the exchange—they just have to pay full price. They are not required to enroll in a plan through Kynect unless they are enrolling in Medicaid or seeking subsidies."

It kinda depends on what exactly he means.

Edited by Banty, 07 January 2014 - 03:00 PM.

[Traveler]

Interesting. When I talked to the IBX rep, he pointed out that the subsidies are estimated up front, and when you pay your taxes, the fed will make the adjustments for the proper amount. So if you underestimated your income, you will pay back the subsidy overage. Likewise, if you find yourself eligible for more than you estimated, then you get a tax rebate for the overpayment made to the provider. This seems at odds with Midkiff says.

This also raises another good point which was discussed on Maddow last night. This the "churning" that goes on with folks who earn enough with a summer job to disqualify for medicaid, then fall back onto the rolls, sometimes several times a year. This is considered perhaps the worst potential problem of ACA, as there is a real discontinuity at the cutoff point. This is something that should be fixed, but not likely while POGers are listening to the likes of Paul and FWST etc. Perhaps can be resolved administratively, but not sure about that. This is something folks should be paying attention to.