It’s hard to cherry pick when the cherry tree isn’t fruiting.
[Update a few minutes later]
Wrong link, fixed now, sorry.
45 thoughts on “The Media’s Problem With ObamaCare”
Comments are closed.
It’s hard to cherry pick when the cherry tree isn’t fruiting.
[Update a few minutes later]
Wrong link, fixed now, sorry.
Comments are closed.
That link is about climate change, not Obamacare.
Rand, I think you’ve got the wrong link assigned to this post. It takes me to a story about the phony 97% Climate Change “consensus.”
It seems that the national press reports Obamacare as a smashing success almost word for word from Obama press releases and local press pops up with stories about problems. You would think the press wouldn’t take the Obama administration at its word after being caught lying about, well pretty much everything.
Obama couldn’t even use healthcare.gov to sign up because it wasn’t working yet he has been claiming everything is working as perfectly as humans can make something. And from local press we get stories about bank accounts being double charged or every single person who went through a state exchange having to redo the entire process. Even states like California and Oregon which were held up as model examples by Obama and his friends in the media have had major problems. Territories like Guam may not even have health insurance a year from now.
The media are doing their best to help Obama by not reporting personal stories about the millions of people who lost their old plans and have to pay higher prices for less coverage. They are not reporting on people with serious long term illnesses losing coverage for their preferred treatment. Obamacare is more than a website and the media isn’t reporting on its other failures.
I predict we will see Obama and the media claim people who’s plans were cancelled buying a new plan is a “success”. They wont even have had to buy a new plan on an exchange for it to be claimed a success…
the national press reports Obamacare as a smashing success
Can you point to a single national story that calls Obamacare a smashing success?
healthcare.gov to sign up because it wasn’t working yet
Obama’s option was the D.C. exchange, not the federal one. The federal exchange has worked well enough to let a million people sign up (myself included).
Territories like Guam may not even have health insurance a year from now
Yes, that’s a major screw-up. I read about it in the national media (the Washington Post). Where did you read about it?
The media are doing their best to help Obama by not reporting personal stories about the millions of people who lost their old plans and have to pay higher prices for less coverage
And yet I’ve read lots of those stories, and so have you. “The media isn’t reporting on this thing that I read about in the media” isn’t a very persuasive argument.
“Can you point to a single national story that calls Obamacare a smashing success?’
There have been a lot since the self imposed deadline for fixing healthcare.gov. They read like they came straight from Obama’s propaganda office.
“The federal exchange has worked well enough”
Well enough to crash every time Sebelius tries to use it for a photo op. Working so well it was down the day Obama gave a speech saying it was up and working. Any speech just pick one, even the one he gave the day his staff had to sign him up.
“Obama’s option was the D.C. exchange, not the federal one.”
He could not sign up on a website his own law created. Obamacare is working so well the President of the United States of America, the most powerful man in the world, could not sign up for his own signature policy on the website created specifically to do so. The feds spent about $5 billion on websites and Obama couldn’t even sign up.
That says to me that the government is incapable of running the health care industry.
““The media isn’t reporting on this thing that I read about in the media””
I made the distinction between national and local press. Local press is where most of the real world coverage is taking place. The AP, Reuters, McClatchy are pushing a lot of administration sponsored propaganda.
I am glad to see you are finally getting around to admitting that this shitshow isn’t as super awesome as the administration claims it is. Now if only you would apply half the effort you put in to analyzing comments critical of Obamacare on the internet to the claims made by Obama and his media. Obamacare is more than a website. Their are a lot of unintended consequences (or are they?) from the law.
Like when the out of pocket cap on expenses was set, it became the floor for deductibles. This is the case for the Bronze and Silver plans in the WA market and it is probably the same around the country. Even on the Gold plan you pay 20-50% of everything after you hit the deductible until you hit the cap. We are only just beginning to see the negative side effects of government mandates on medicine and treatments.
There have been a lot
And yet you can’t point to any?
The feds spent about $5 billion on websites
That number gets bigger every time it’s mentioned. Do you have a source?
and Obama couldn’t even sign up
Obama wasn’t using the federal website, he bought a policy from the D.C. exchange.
Even on the Gold plan you pay 20-50% of everything after you hit the deductible until you hit the cap.
Are you under the impression that Obamacare invented co-insurance? I’ve had 20% co-insurance for years.
“And yet you can’t point to any?”
You have read them. You can’t possibly be claiming that there are no positive articles about Obamacare especially since you linked one a few posts down that is straight up propaganda.
“That number gets bigger every time it’s mentioned. Do you have a source?”
It is the money spent by the feds on the national and state websites. Did you know that the federal government helped pay for all the state websites? When discussing the failure of the federal and state exchanges why shouldn’t we look at the money spent by the Obama administration for both?
“Obama wasn’t using the federal website, he bought a policy from the D.C. exchange.”
Which he could not do. How is it any better that he couldn’t sign up on the DC exchange? Healthcare.gov was even down the morning he announced his staff bought him insurance.
“Are you under the impression that Obamacare invented co-insurance? I’ve had 20% co-insurance for years.”
Under the old system it was much more favorable to the customer. My old plan didn’t have co-insurance and had a deductible 222% lower than my new one. I was pointing out the unintended consequences of government intervention. The “cap” is also a floor. You will hit the cap before the insurance company picks up 100% of the cost and this represents a significant increase in potential cost over the old system.
Your defense seems to be, “It is the same now as it was under the old system so Obamacare is an improvement.” Except of course that the private market is worse now than it was before.
You can’t possibly be claiming that there are no positive articles about Obamacare especially since you linked one a few posts down that is straight up propaganda
Yes, there have been positive articles, but I have not seen any describing Obamacare as a “smashing success.” The article you describe as “straight up propaganda” mentions Obamacare’s “botched rollout” in its headline! You call this propaganda?
Or this?
Under the old system it was much more favorable to the customer. My old plan…
The old system was more favorable to lucky customers. Unlucky customers were shut out entirely.
Under Obamacare, all the customers are unlucky.
Jim, I most certainly was not lucky with my old plan. It didn’t cover prescriptions but the low deductible made the trade off worth it. But now I don’t get prescription coverage or a low deductible or low premiums. I am not alone. I didn’t have some special deal with the insurance company. Many other people in my state had the same plan.
Now, it is ruined. The problem is that real world experiences by the millions of people like myself show how f’d up Obamacare is. We were the test subjects, which is why the employer mandate was unilaterally delayed by presidential dictate. You claim people with insurance wont be affected, just wait.
From The Hill October 2nd: Dem strategist Rye: ObamaCare launch was a ‘smashing success’
So if a publication accurately quotes a political strategist saying X, that’s the same as the publication reporting X as fact?
Read the article at the link. It is clearly slanted and consists almost entirely of quotes defending Obamacare.
The strategy will continue into next year.
Certainly Krugman is onboard.
Matt Yglesias was ahead of the game.
Althouse should read more.
A million sign-ups, but no mention of what percent of that are actually signups to medicaid (or what percent of those are involuntary). Against the number of people whose insurance, which they liked and which worked for them, have had it ripped from them. A number that will grow exponentially as employer-provided plans begin to get cancelled as the year progresses. Keep up the good work though Jim. Though you might want to actually contribute something to the talking points instead of just leeching off them all the time.
The million refers to private insurance purchased through the Healthcare.gov exchange (so the percent “that are actually signups to medicaid” is zero). The state-run exchanges haven’t reported year-end numbers yet, but they are expected to come in at about a million as well. So that’s two million people covered by private policies purchased from an exchange, compared to the three million that had been forecast before the exchanges opened.
On top of that there have been millions of new enrollments in Medicaid.
Against the number of people whose insurance, which they liked and which worked for them, have had it ripped from them
The good news is that all of those people can buy insurance on the exchange (or directly, if they prefer and don’t live in Vermont). Obama shouldn’t have said “If you like your plan, you can keep it.” He should have said “If you lose your plan, you can definitely get another one.” Guaranteed access to coverage is the real innovation of Obamacare.
“The million refers to private insurance purchased through the Healthcare.gov exchange”
People replacing their cancelled plans with more expensive plans isn’t a success.
“Obama shouldn’t have said “If you like your plan, you can keep it.” ”
But he did long after he knew this to not be true. He also made a bunch of other claims about decreased cost and increased quality of care which are also outright lies. Why can’t Obama just be honest? If Obmacare is a good thing, he shouldn’t need to be so dishonest.
On top of that there have been millions of new enrollments in Medicaid.
There’s an ugly side to that. Having Medicaid coverage doesn’t mean that someone gets health care. I recently saw a situation that indicated to me that Medicaid is already failing to provide medical care. I wish I could talk explicitly about it, but I can’t.
Now, my experience might be isolated, but I suspect that there will be a lot of formerly insured people who will be very upset at getting their insurance replaced with a very shoddy coverage through Medicaid. At the least, I don’t see how the current price control system underlying Medicaid/Medicare benefits can survive in a environment with growing health care costs.
“Adam Peterson’s life is about to change. For the first time in years, he is planning to do things he could not have imagined…These plans are possible, says Peterson, who turned 50 this year and co-manages a financial services firm in Champaign, Ill., because of a piece of plastic the size of a credit card that arrived in the mail the other day: a health insurance card.”
He runs a financial services firm and didn’t have health insurance? Was this a choice he made or could he not afford it? The article makes is sound as if no one ever had surgery under the old system and that his surgery will be free. Neither is the case. If this guy didn’t have the money for insurance before, he will not have money for treatment now.
““I get these messages from acquaintances on Facebook saying, ‘Let me keep my doctor,’ ’’ Peterson said. “Well, what about those of us who didn’t have health insurance before? . . . I have been walking a tightrope and have had some twists and falls off of it. To not have to worry about this anymore is a tremendous relief.””
Why should the rest of us see increased insurance and care costs and the loss of providers because this guy didn’t have insurance? Everything looks great when you don’t have a before to compare it with. Those of us who lost our insurance and look at the increased costs with decreased coverage see the after but can also compare it with the before.
“For Adam Peterson, awaiting gallbladder surgery in Illinois, the dark tunnel without insurance began about six years ago, when he decided to forgo health coverage because he needed the cash to set up his financial services business. ”
Oh wait. He chose not to have insurance so he could start a business. Now people can’t make that choice. His insurance was so expensive he could not start a business and pay for it. Obamacare will stifle the entrepreneur spirit of America. He took a calculated risk and chose not to have insurance.
“The cost of that decision hit home in March, when the emergency surgery to remove a gallstone cost him $27,000.”
So for six years he was ok without insurance. At what point did he earn enough to pay for insurance but still decide it wasn’t worth the expense? With a bronze plan, he would still be on the hook for about $9-12k far more than the premiums he couldn’t afford.
“It took a few calls to a help line before anyone called back. But just before Thanksgiving, he managed to enroll in a top-tier plan with a monthly premium of $475.”
Oh wait. He could afford the premiums but decided not to get insurance. Obamacare did not enable this man to be able to buy insurance. He could have bought insurance whenever he wanted. That is a real Obamacare success story. The only thing Obamacare did was force him to buy insurance and increases his costs. The question is, would he ever have started his business if Obamacare was the law at the time?
Ugh, that was a massive wall of text.
It boils down to the article claiming Obamacare is a success because a guy who could afford insurance, but chose not to buy it, is now forced to buy insurance. Obamacare did literally nothing for this guy. He could have decided to buy insurance under the old system and it would have been cheaper then.
It says something when the success stories about Obamacare were regular occurrences under the old system.
With a bronze plan, he would still be on the hook for about $9-12k far more than the premiums he couldn’t afford.
No, the per-individual out-of-pocket limit is $6,350.
He could have bought insurance whenever he wanted.
What makes you so sure that insurance companies would sell an affordable policy to someone with a history of gall bladder problems?
The question is, would he ever have started his business if Obamacare was the law at the time?
Why not? If his income was so low that he couldn’t afford premiums, maybe he would have qualified for subsidies or Medicaid.
“No, the per-individual out-of-pocket limit is $6,350.”
You still have to pay your premiums. Premiums are a cost that don’t count toward the out of pocket cap.
“What makes you so sure that insurance companies would sell an affordable policy to someone with a history of gall bladder problems?”
The article said emergency surgery and nothing about a history of problems. Surely if he had a sob story about a long history of gall bladder problems, that would have been mentioned. It is more likely he thought he was healthy until one day he had to make a trip to the emergency room for severe pain. Then he kicked himself for not buying insurance while he could afford it.
“Why not? If his income was so low that he couldn’t afford premiums, maybe he would have qualified for subsidies or Medicaid.”
Or maybe he could afford them but chose not to get insurance so he could throw that extra money at starting a business or paying for other expenses like rent and food. When you apply for a subsidy there isn’t a line that deducts from your income in the amount you want to invest in a business. The man made the choice to forgo insurance to start a company and that is not a choice people can make any more.
Then he kicked himself for not buying insurance while he could afford it.
Exactly. With Obamacare he doesn’t have to kick himself, because he can afford it, and is guaranteed to not be turned away.
The man made the choice to forgo insurance to start a company and that is not a choice people can make any more.
Look where that choice got him. Wouldn’t it have been better if he’d been required to get insurance, and been given help to keep it affordable?
He doesn’t have to kick himself because he no longer has the freedom to choose.
Think if he had put his premiums in a HSA. In the six year period he would have saved enough to pay cash for his emergency surgery. If he had health insurance, he would be out the $34k in premiums and still have to pony up $12k the year of the surgery.
During those six years, he didn’t even go to a doctor because he had no health problems. The $34k in premiums just lines the pockets of insurance company executives and the politicians they give money to.
Under the new system, many people will be paying in but not receiving any pay out in benefits. It creates the perfect conditions for corruption. Insurance companies will want to protect their relationship with the government which means more money given to Democrat politicians.
Obamacare isn’t about health insurance or health care. It isn’t about the rights we have as Americans. It is about money, power, and corruption.
“The cost of that decision hit home in March, when the emergency surgery to remove a gallstone cost him $27,000.”
He took a calculated risk in not buying health insurance for six years. It may have actually worked out for him. He likely would’ve had to pay more than $27,000 to buy an individual health insurance policy for six years.
Net loss of 2 million insured Americans equals win for Jim! Nice going Jimmy boy, but it sucks if you were one of the people who liked their plan.
It’s early — check back in a couple years.
Don’t worry, those of us who had better plans under the old system wont forget. And we will put the blame where it belongs, on the politicians.
But soon it wont be about how terrible the new policies are. It will be about how terrible it is having politicians too dumb to make a website dictating how doctors treat patients.
Damn Jimmy boy, the administration predicted 3 million signups by now. But here you are telling us it will take a couple of years to reach that number? Move the goal posts much?
It’s early — check back in a couple years.
And a common theme about this whole mess is that it will get worse, often in ways we don’t even know about. What will your rationalizations be in a couple of years? “Wait a couple more years, maybe it’s still just a fluke.” “Republicans held us back.” “We didn’t do it hard enough.” “We haven’t sacrificed enough of our freedom, society, and economy to gain possibly slightly better health outcomes.”
Remember when delaying any part of Obamacare for a year or even a few months was political terrorism? How times have changed.
Remember when delaying any part of Obamacare for a year or even a few months was political terrorism?
There never was such a time. It was shutting down the government and threatening default over a one year delay of the individual mandate (not “any part”) and/or all of Obamacare that was given that label.
It was the Democrats who shut down the government, because the refused to negotiate or compromise. The Republicans voted to keep it open, with a defund or delay of ObamaCare. The Democrats were the “terrorists.”
“The Republicans voted to keep it open, with a defund or delay of ObamaCare”. In other words, the Republicans refused to keep it open unless the Democrats agreed to defund or delay Obamacare. That’s hostage-taking, plain and simple, and fortunately for all concerned it blew up in their faces.
No, the Democrats refused to keep it open unless they could impose this monstrosity on the American people. They took them all hostages, and refused to negotiate in any way. They even wasted Republicans’ time by calling them to the White House to tell them they wouldn’t negotiate. They were political terrorists.
The hilarious irony, of course, is that as a result, the Republicans can now run next fall telling the American people that they tried to prevent this disaster, while the Democrats shut down the government to ensure that it moves forward. It will be especially delicious when they (almost inevitable now) delay the mandate, which was the last request the Republicans made to compromise (IIRC).
unless they could impose this monstrosity on the American people
It was imposed in 2010. It had nothing to do with keeping the government open. It was just a ransom demand. At times the Republicans floated other demands, from approving Keystone XL to Medicare privatization.
The Dem position: I’ll fund the government at the level you chose
The GOP position: I’ll only fund the government at the level I chose if you give me something
One of these positions is hostage-taking.
the Republicans can now run next fall telling the American people that they tried to prevent this disaster
Of course, but they didn’t need to cause a shutdown to do that. Everyone already knew they had tried to stop Obamacare.
It will be especially delicious when they (almost inevitable now) delay the mandate,
If that comes to pass I’m sure it will elicit tremendous GOP schadenfreude. But there’s still a huge difference between delaying the mandate because the exchanges are so screwed up that people can’t buy insurance yet, and delaying it because the GOP is holding the government hostage. The latter would have made future shutdowns much more likely.
which was the last request the Republicans made to compromise (IIRC)
Compromise: an agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions.
The Republicans never offered a compromise, because they never offered any concessions. No, funding the normal operation of the government is not a concession.
No, funding the normal operation of the government is not a concession.
Humpty Dumpty.
Your word games won’t work very well next fall, when we remind the people who have lost/are losing their insurance that we tried to prevent this, but the Democrats thought it so important to force it forward that they shut down the government over it.
“we remind the people who have lost/are losing their insurance that we tried to prevent this”
For the sake of clarity, who are the two “we”s in the above? the Tea Party?
Uhh, did you really just say there wasn’t a time Republicans were called terrorists for offering to delay Obamacare a year? I am pretty sure you used that same rhetoric passed down from on high by the Obama.
The way you can tell that you are wrong is to look at Obama’s and the Democrats comments when there wasn’t a shutdown looming. The rhetoric is pretty much unchanged.
How incredibly stupid Obama is for not taking that gift. The very next day his credibility was reduced to zero. Not just on health care but domestic policy and foreign policy as well. Somehow Obama, who meets weekly about Obamacare with his staff so he knows what he is talking about, didn’t know his signature achievement was a total failure. Too bad Obama doesn’t have to deal with the effects of his policies. Instead he wraps himself in delusion and hopes enough lies can be told about the old system that twenty years from now people wont remember.
did you really just say there wasn’t a time Republicans were called terrorists for offering to delay Obamacare a year?
No, I said that there wasn’t a time when “delaying any part of Obamacare” was called political terrorism. Delaying the employer mandate, the small business exchange, the Spanish language website, etc. were never called political terrorism.
“No, I said that there wasn’t a time when “delaying any part of Obamacare” was called political terrorism.”
What? Delaying parts of Obamacare were most certainly called terrorism. Not just political terrorism, they meant actual Taliban style terrorists.
“Delaying the employer mandate, the small business exchange, the Spanish language website, etc. were never called political terrorism.”
Lol, so that is why you chose the word “any”? But you use it wrong because any can refer to something specific.
You are right though. Obama delaying the small business exchange, the employer mandate, and the Spanish language website by presidential dictate was not called terrorism by Democrats. (or Republicans) The only time terrorist attacks were used was by Democrats when Republicans offered them the gift of a one year delay.
Can’t get over how funny that is. “There was never a time when Democrats delaying part of Obamacare was called terrorism by Democrats. They only called Republican offers to delay Obamacare political terrorism. And because Obama turned them down only to issue a decree ordering insurance companies to continue offering illegal plans, we know the Republicans were terrorists.”