Obama, Romney, 'Obamacare' and the Facts
Obama, Romney, 'Obamacare'
and the Facts
Journal – 19 hrs ago
The Romney and Obama campaigns have gone
into spin overdrive since the Supreme Court decision upholding the
Affordable Care
Act. So what holds up to the facts and what doesn’t?
Three nonpartisan fact-checking
outfits—FactCheck.org, Politifact, and The Fact Checker (The Washington
Post’s Glenn Kessler)—have done extensive research on various health care claims that
have surfaced for the last two years. Here’s a guide to their findings on what
you have heard from the presidential candidates about the ruling, and are likely
to hear many times again before Election Day:
1. If you like your health insurance plan, you can keep it
under the Affordable
Care Act.
One of President Obama’s go-to points is
that the Affordable Care Act won’t change things for Americans who like their
current health insurance plan. On Thursday, in response to the Court’s decision,
Obama reiterated, “If you’re one of the more than 250 million Americans who
already have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance.”
That will be true for most people. But, as
Factcheck.org
points out, nothing in the Affordable Care Act prevents employers from switching
their coverage plans just as they could do before. Also, some of the 30 million
Americans who purchase their own insurance may have to change providers if their
plan does not meet minimum benefit standards.
In addition, while the law requires
employers to pay a penalty if they do not offer insurance, they might pay it
because they prefer that their employees purchase insurance through the
federally subsidized exchanges. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office
estimates the law may result in "a small reduction" in the number of people
who receive employer-provided insurance.
2. The Affordable Care Act will add trillions to
the deficit.
Numerous leading Republicans have said this
over and over again, presenting the health care law as another budget-busting
initiative by the Obama administration in the same vein as the
stimulus or the auto-industry bailout. “ 'Obamacare' adds trillions to our
deficits and to our national debt, and pushes those obligations on to coming
generations,” presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney said in a press conference
following the Supreme Court ruling.
In fact, when the health care bill was passed in March 2010, CBO found that
enacting the legislation
would lead to a net reduction in federal deficits of $143 billion over 10
years. Later, when congressional Republicans proposed legislation to repeal the
law, CBO
estimated that the GOP bill would add $230 billion to the deficit if
enacted, also over a period of 10 years.
CBO did recently say, however, that the Supreme Court’s ruling might change
the math. “CBO is in the process of reviewing the Supreme Court’s decision
related to the Affordable Care Act to assess the effect on CBO’s projections of
federal spending and revenue under current law,” the agency said in a statement.
“We expect that this assessment will probably take some time.”
3. The health care law puts the federal government
between you and your doctor.
One of the most passionate arguments made by conservatives against the health
care law, and made again by Romney on Thursday, this too has been debunked on
several occasions. The Affordable Care Act does not intervene at all between
doctors and patients, although it does set up minimum benefit requirements for
insurance companies, according to FactCheck.org.
Many raised the specter of government rationing of care during the health
care debate, but what people are referring to—the Independent Payment Advisory
Board—is forbidden from changing benefits or eligibility requirements. It was
created to recommend savings in other areas to Congress, and Congress can
override its suggestions.
4. The health care law cuts $500 billion from
Medicare.
The frequency with which the claim has been made prompted Columbia
Journalism Review to dub it the “$500
billion bogeyman.” That didn’t stop Romney from repeating it again in his
response to the Supreme Court ruling.
In fact, the law curbs future growth in Medicare over 10 years, but does not
cut any benefits for participating seniors or affect the current Medicare budget
at all, as Politifact
New Jersey reported when Congressman Jon Runyan, R-N.J.,
said it again in a press release.
5. The provision of the Affordable Care Act that
allows people to stay on their parents’ insurance plan until age 26 has helped 6.6 million young adults obtain coverage .
Both FactCheck.org
and The
Post's Fact Checker have concluded that the White House is fudging
the numbers on this one. The Obama team is using findings from a survey by the
nonprofit Commonwealth Fund, which estimated that 6.6 million young people were
able to join their parents’ health plan as a result of the Affordable Care Act.
However, not all those young adults were uninsured prior.
More accurately, the Health and Human
Services Department put the figure at 3.3 million young adults who would not
have health insurance without the provision.
6. Preventive care saves the government money
and, under the health care law, has already helped 54 million people in private
insurance plans.
Obama has often touted the fact that under
the health law, all insurance plans are required to cover preventive medicine at
no cost. In his remarks after the Supreme Court ruling, he went a step further,
saying that the provision had already helped 54 million people.
While it’s true that crunching numbers from
the Kaiser Family Foundation does yield that figure for the number of people who
are receiving expanded preventive care services as a result of the health care
law, there’s no saying if their plans before included some of the same or how
much they’re being “helped” by the new suite of services.
Moreover, Obama has said that preventive
care actually saves money by catching and managing illnesses before they become
critical. Politifact,
however, found evidence to the contrary. A
2009 CBO study found that preventive services lead to “higher, not lower,
medical spending overall,” because while mammograms, checkups, and the like are
cheap for the individual, the cost of all of them put together adds up. Because
they only catch disease and illness for a small sliver of people who are tested,
while they are good for people’s well-being, so far they haven’t brought costs
down.
Read More: http://news.yahoo.com/obama-romney-obamacare-facts...
Top Opinion
-
aneed2know 2012/07/01 07:57:32+12you are not going to reach the people who needs to know this, they don't care, most are just as happy to stick to their ignorance then allow new information to replace ignorant information






















... except that I largely agree with you. These two points do not enhance health care in the country. My absolute best guess is that they were included to offset costs for much of the rest -- a poor consolation to those who either have to pay for better benefits or, more likely, have them cut by employers down to the standard.
As far as the limiting of employee flex contributions, it seems to me to be a far more egregious sin -- so to speak. Flexible spending is one of the better aspects of American health care -- it combines capitalism with benefits in a very useful way. Certainly this limitation benefits the IRS so that might be why it is included... but it is a very poor way to offset costs in my opinion.
So... I hope you have not had a heart attack from the realization that I agree with you on these two points... but I did say my goal was to understand, not bicker.
If you have others, I cannot promise to agree with all your points. But I may well agree with several. The law is somewhere between "needs improvement" and "flawed" in my opinion... but I think without it nothing would ...
... except that I largely agree with you. These two points do not enhance health care in the country. My absolute best guess is that they were included to offset costs for much of the rest -- a poor consolation to those who either have to pay for better benefits or, more likely, have them cut by employers down to the standard.
As far as the limiting of employee flex contributions, it seems to me to be a far more egregious sin -- so to speak. Flexible spending is one of the better aspects of American health care -- it combines capitalism with benefits in a very useful way. Certainly this limitation benefits the IRS so that might be why it is included... but it is a very poor way to offset costs in my opinion.
So... I hope you have not had a heart attack from the realization that I agree with you on these two points... but I did say my goal was to understand, not bicker.
If you have others, I cannot promise to agree with all your points. But I may well agree with several. The law is somewhere between "needs improvement" and "flawed" in my opinion... but I think without it nothing would change. With it, *perhaps* the republicans in Congress will be forced to vote in alterations.
And if the alterations are not too terrible from the standpoint of the political left, they may become law and improve ACA. Of course, it is probably more likely that gridlock will prevail, but I think it is at least slightly less likely now than if ACA had gone away.
ACA will benefit many people, but it appears it will harm you more than it might benefit you. I'm sorry for that.
"ACA will benefit many people, but it appears it will harm you more than it might benefit you. I'm sorry for that."
It will inherently harm anyone who has health-care insurance they find satisfactory. Therefore, everyone else will be harmed so as to help 15,000,000 uninsured citizens. Hurting ~80% so as to help 5% is stupid. It's not wealth redistribution but misery distribution.
The PPACA will increase demand while the supply remains static. This will result in an increase in cost. After there is an increase in cost, which there already has been, there will be public outcry by the same people who supported the PPACA from the beginning. The government will then act as a "savior" to these people and implement price fixing to a more extreme degree than it already is in the PPACA by the stipulations I've already cited. This enhanced price fixing "tweak" will drive private insurance companies out of business...
"ACA will benefit many people, but it appears it will harm you more than it might benefit you. I'm sorry for that."
It will inherently harm anyone who has health-care insurance they find satisfactory. Therefore, everyone else will be harmed so as to help 15,000,000 uninsured citizens. Hurting ~80% so as to help 5% is stupid. It's not wealth redistribution but misery distribution.
The PPACA will increase demand while the supply remains static. This will result in an increase in cost. After there is an increase in cost, which there already has been, there will be public outcry by the same people who supported the PPACA from the beginning. The government will then act as a "savior" to these people and implement price fixing to a more extreme degree than it already is in the PPACA by the stipulations I've already cited. This enhanced price fixing "tweak" will drive private insurance companies out of business, which will result in single payer. Such a federal monopoly will eliminate competition form the market place. Then health-care providers will suffer an average shortfall of 40% on every claim submitted, just as they do with Medicare and Medicare. Such shortfalls are one of the primary reasons the cost of health-care services has increased consistently since 1965.
Personally, I advocate health care be unattached to work. Maybe employers can give incentive or discount programs, but instead of what we have, make health insurance more like auto insurance... no employers offer auto insurance policies, but everyone is required to buy one (if they drive).
The upcoming shortage of doctors and other health care providers is nothing new. PPACA may exacerbate the situation, but it was going to get bad no matter what. A solution would need to be found whether or not PPACA were in place.
[sarcasm]
The central government's involvement is precisely what has caused the cost of health-care to consistently increase since 1965. Medicare and Medicaid cover less than 60% of most claims and no more than 90% of all others. That's why many physicians will not accept federal insurance policies. Since the EMTALA was passed in 1986, hospitals are compensated for less than half of all emergency room service. Patient dumping was no more prevalent before 1986 than it is now.
The PPACA does nothing to resolve either issue.
Where health-care reform should start is with the repeal of McCarran-Ferguson (1945), which grants health-care insurance companies the ability to have protected unnatural monopolies within each state. If there were interstate health-care insurance trade, the providers would have to fight tooth and nail for every client... much like auto insurance providers.
While Obamacare seeks to make an imediate impact in a crisis, you and Repulicans make an economic arguement for mild 'reforms' that MIGHT make a small improvement YEARS down the road. You folks just do not care about individuals. FYI, the worst part of Obamacare is its big delay, allowing thousands to die under Mr.Obama's watch. At least they knew something better was coming. OTOH, Republicans want to kill the better thing coming and let people die. That's just disgusting and grossly anti-American.
With all due respect, which isn't very much in your case, for what reason do you think people don't have access to health-care?
I'll give you a hint... it's the cost ;)
See, if you folks didn't just want people dead (or, to be overly fair, to be cool with the idea that your ideas will kill thousands), you'd not want to kill Obamacare; rather you'd want to improve it. But, no, your first priority is to kill people by repealing it, THEN and only then, maybe just maybe you'll begin your feeble attempt to replace it with ineffective and long term "solutions". Actually, there is little sign of Republicans wanting to replace it at all--and that is being admitted more and more openly.
That's three times you've used that particular straw man, two of which followed my illustration of the fallacy. We're done.
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2009...
I'd disagree with you on the benefits of modern medical care, but I'll call your opposition to Obamacare through hiding your real agenda bogus. That's because it IS bogus.
That is what makes it a straw man. I shouldn't have to tell you this.
""See, if you folks didn't just want people dead (or, to be overly fair, to be cool with the idea that your ideas will kill thousands), you'd not want to kill Obamacare."
That's three times you've used that particular straw man, two of which followed my illustration of the fallacy. We're done."
As to how I consider you to have proved (yes, this is MY interpretation of what you said--as if I really need to make this clear), it is due to your link to:
http://commonhealth.wbur.org/...
Which is only useful if you are trying to show that using modern medicine harms people more than it helps people.
You also suggested that I "don't believe modern medicine helps people", which is a straw man because I do believe modern medicine helps people. This doesn't change the fact that 250,000 die annually as a result of being admitted to a hospital.
The Obamacare tax on investment income takes effect at the exact same time that the capital gains and dividends rates (upon which the investment surtax is added) ratchet upwards, effectively dog piling investors with simultaneous tax increases. With the surtax added, the top effective rates for dividends and capital gains will become 43.4% and 23.8%, respectively. According to one source, investors could see their tax liability increase over 200% between 2010 and 2013.
http://atr.org/full-list-obam...
I would rather see a system based on consumer drivin needs. Why should I have to pay for maternity coverage when my wife is way out of menopause, and both of my kids are grown and gone?
One thing I would like to see is a type of cafeteria coverage where you could pick what you want covered. The way it is now in most cases and Obamacare is "One Size Fits All".
The reasons health insurance costs are so high are many fold. Doctors and Hospitals charge outrageous prices sinc insurance pays for it, but the insurance paynets are less than what you'd be charged as an individual. Government regulations play a big part because the pay less than insurance companies, and are the party responsible for writing all the rule insurance companies, hospitals, and doctors, have to abide by. The biggest problem is the amount of paperwork and staff needed to comply with these same regulations.
There are no less than 8 people, including my wife, in our family, who are in the medical field that have to navighate this bureacratic minefield every day. I'm not entirely ignorant of the situation. Besides, I've been the state president of a national mental health advocacy organization which I have worked in to smooth help the road. Insurance was a big part of the problem we had to address.
So therefore you think everyone should be required to obtain a policy that covers everything? That's illogical. As a man I know I have a zero percent chance of suffering ovarian cancer, yet you think my policy should cover it?
"Why should the mother of newborn twins pay for your 6-month hospital stay when you get hit by a bus? Or cancer?"
The likelihood of anyone being hit by a bus or cancer is far greater than that of a post menopausal women getting pregnant.
These facts exist irrelevant of one's age, economic status, gender, or ethnic heritage.
Where we differ is in your thinking that more influence from the federal government will make our health-care system more compassionate, when influence from the central government is what has destroyed it.
The central government's involvement is precisely what has caused the cost of health-care to consistently increase since 1965. Medicare and Medicaid cover less than 60% of most claims and no more than 90% of all others. That's why many physicians will not accept federal insurance policies and the ones who do must continually increase the cost of services rendered in order to cover the shortfall. Since the EMTALA was passed in 1986, hospitals are compensated for less than half of all emergency room service. Again this requires the cost of services rendered to be increased in order to cover the shortfall. Patient dumping, the justification used for the EMTALA, was no more prevalent before 1986 than it is now.
The PPACA does nothing to resolve either issue.
The inflated cost of health-care is the primary obstacle for everyone in the United States.
Where health-care reform should start is with the repeal of McCarran-Ferguson (1945), which grants health-care insurance companies the ability to have protected unnatural monopolies within each state. If there were interstate heal...
Where we differ is in your thinking that more influence from the federal government will make our health-care system more compassionate, when influence from the central government is what has destroyed it.
The central government's involvement is precisely what has caused the cost of health-care to consistently increase since 1965. Medicare and Medicaid cover less than 60% of most claims and no more than 90% of all others. That's why many physicians will not accept federal insurance policies and the ones who do must continually increase the cost of services rendered in order to cover the shortfall. Since the EMTALA was passed in 1986, hospitals are compensated for less than half of all emergency room service. Again this requires the cost of services rendered to be increased in order to cover the shortfall. Patient dumping, the justification used for the EMTALA, was no more prevalent before 1986 than it is now.
The PPACA does nothing to resolve either issue.
The inflated cost of health-care is the primary obstacle for everyone in the United States.
Where health-care reform should start is with the repeal of McCarran-Ferguson (1945), which grants health-care insurance companies the ability to have protected unnatural monopolies within each state. If there were interstate health-care insurance trade, the providers would have to fight tooth and nail for every client... much like auto insurance providers.
However, you seem to be satisfied with the inherently ascending trajectory of health-care costs ad infinitum as a result of federally mandated shortfalls.
Just as our legislators and Presidents are incompetent, so is a court that sits to determine Constitutionality and members disagree on what the Constitution says. They can't agree on what it says because so many politicians over the years have tried to change the meaning of clearly written, easily understood words in order to benefit themselves or some law they wanted to force upon us.