Are all facts given by Obamacare opponents accurate?

[Mr Spinkles]

We all know that the bulk of what is uttered by critics of "Obamacare" is accurate. The purpose of this thread is to point out the few minor, slightly inaccurate statements made by critics of Obamacare.

(1) Here's Rick Santorum speaking about the public health system in the Netherlands and comparing it to Obamacare:

“In the Netherlands, people wear different bracelets if they are elderly. And the bracelet is: ‘Do not euthanize me.’ Because they have voluntary euthanasia in the Netherlands but half of the people who are euthanized — ten percent of all deaths in the Netherlands — half of those people are enthanized involuntarily at hospitals because they are older and sick. And so elderly people in the Netherlands don’t go to the hospital. They go to another country, because they are afraid, because of budget purposes, they will not come out of that hospital if they go in there with sickness.”

While the facts underlying this statement are completely made up, the gist is still correct: Obamacare is scary.

(2) Here's Sen. Ted Cruz: "Virtually every person across this country has seen premiums going up and up and up" due to Obamacare.

(3) Sean Hannity said insurance premiums are "skrocketing ... skyrocketing" because of Obamacare. That's two "skyrocketings"!

(4) Sen. Marco Rubio said in Florida, "300,000 people are going to lose their individual coverage because of Obamacare. Now those people next year, they don't have health insurance." His comments were amplified by the O'Reilly Factor and echoed by Newt Gingrich.

Please discuss. This probably exhausts all the lies uttered by critics of Obamacare, but if you happen to discover another one please add it to this thread.

 

[metis]

You forgot the "death panels".

 

[Revoltingest]

You forgot the "death panels".

Is this really so inaccurate? I recall a panel discussion on NPR which debunked the existence of death panels, but introduced the concept of "end of life panels". (I know...big difference, eh?) The 400 pound gorilla in the room is that services must be rationed somehow, & if it's not to be done by price, then there will be other criteria. If we're to have sort-of-socialized health care, there must be a systematic approach to end-of-life resource allocation. Sure, sure, it'll make politicians nervous, but it should be a transparent process to set up methods.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

The death panels thing is inaccurate. What was in the original ACA legislation was coverage for Medicare patients to consult with their doctors on end-of-life care. I repeat: coverage. For the elderly to talk to their doctor, if they choose. About a health issue that is crucially important for the elderly to talk to their doctor about. Not a death panel. More info: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/26/us/politics/26death.html?pagewanted=all

Yes care must be rationed somehow. But let's keep things in perspective here. Care has always been rationed somehow. That's why your insurer covers X, and if your medical bill is beyond X, you must pay the remainder out of pocket. That's rationing and it's been around forever, long before the ACA. Another way of saying "rationing" health insurance is "limited coverage". No one has unlimited coverage, for everything, forever. All the ACA really changes here is that in addition to X, insurers must also cover A, B, and C, if they weren't already covering those things.

So yes this is an important issue, but it is really a separate issue from the whole euthanasia death panel thing.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

More info on how an unremarkable provision for a sensible, optional discussion with your doctor turned into "death panels": http://newoldage.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/28/death-panels-this-time-maybe-not-so-scary/

 

[metis]

We already have decisions being made by insurance companies in terms of what they will not pay for, such as what my 92 year old neighbor found out when he was denied coverage to fix an aneurysm that ultimately killed him. However, even this doesn't fit into the "death panels" accusation that was being thrown around by the ACA's opponents.

 

[esmith]

Those of you that live in NY state may be interested in the below article and it is unknown at this time if the same situation or sentiment will or has occurred in other states.

Survey: N.Y. Doctors Adamantly Oppose ObamaCare

Elderly patients sick over losing doctors under ObamaCare | New York Post

 

[Mr Spinkles]

It's also interesting to note that, when we decide not to cherry-pick, we find that the American Medical Association, the largest association of physicians in the U.S., supports Obamacare.

The American Medical Association and | Medicare News Group

Furthermore the facts contained in the NY Post article do not support its exaggerated title:

Federal funding to Medicare Advantage is being pared back by billions of dollars in coming years under the national Affordable Care Act. Obama said spending on the program was higher than regular Medicare and unsustainable.

UnitedHealthcare, in a statement, defended the doctor-roster cuts.

“The changes we are making will encourage higher-quality health-care coverage and help keep that coverage affordable for [patients],” said UHC spokeswoman Maria Gordon-Shydlo.

A spokesman for Emblem said the less than 1 percent of its physicians were being cut from Medicare Advantage.

An Empire Blue Cross-Blue Shield rep also said it booted “only 1 percent of doctors.”
“Those physicians were in certain specialties, including cardiology, ophthalmology and podiatry. This was done to ensure a more balanced network that would better contain cost for members,” said Empire spokeswoman Sally Kweskin.

An official with the state chapter of AARP said it’s monitoring the “horrible situation.”

AARP Associate Director Shaun Flynn said Medicare Advantage is a popular program but cautioned it’s privately run, and insurers — not patients — decide which doctors participate.

‘It’s a case of buyer beware,” he said.

Guess what? Before Obamacare, my private insurer changed its coverage and I had to start paying out of pocket to see the specialist I had been seeing. If the people who are seeing the 1% of doctors dropped from these private insurance plans want to continue to see those doctors, they'll have to pay out of pocket too, just as I had to. It's a private insurance plan they are allowed to determine which doctors they will cover each year. Like the article says, buyer beware.

 

[Awoon]

When people get together and quit paying ridiculous premiums will the Ins providers bend?

 

[tytlyf]

Those of you that live in NY state may be interested in the below article and it is unknown at this time if the same situation or sentiment will or has occurred in other states.

Survey: N.Y. Doctors Adamantly Oppose ObamaCare

Elderly patients sick over losing doctors under ObamaCare | New York Post

Stop posting lame sources. NYpost? Murdoch gotcha.

 

[Revoltingest]

When people get together and quit paying ridiculous premiums will the Ins providers bend?

They don't have that kind of market elasticity.
(Are you impressed that I used such a fancy pants term?)
I'm hoping for a taxpayer revolt instead.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

When people get together and quit paying ridiculous premiums will the Ins providers bend?

The simple answer is yes, if you
(1) increase the number of insured,
(2) provide coverage for "preventive" care that reduces health costs in the long run,
(3) provide a mechanism for consumers to easily compare prices,
(4) provide coverage for end-of-life counseling so people can make their end-of-life wishes known (about 50% of all health care costs occur in the last 6 months of life, often through using technology to keep unconscious grandma alive, against her wishes),
(5) allow the govt. to leverage the purchasing power of many consumers to negotiate lower prices with drug companies,
(6) get creative in providing incentives for people to get healthy, e.g. you get $200 towards your next out-of-pocket health cost if you enroll in a program to lower your blood pressure.

The Affordable Care Act does 1-4, but not 5, and insurers and employers are coming up with 6 on their own.

On my previous health insurance plan, for example, the insurer threw in certain benefit expansions (such as no lifetime maximums) at no additional charge.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

It would be interesting to compare how far off the mark Obamacare supporters have been in their factual inaccuracies, compared to Obamacare critics.

For example, in another thread about the inaccuracies of Obamacare supporters, the first false statement listed was Pelosi's claim that "everyone" will see their costs go down while access to health care goes up. That claim was false, as PolitiFact pointed out, because Americans would "only" see costs go down and access to care go up on AVERAGE.

How far off the mark, would you say, was Pelosi's false comment, compared to any of the false comments made by Obamacare critics in the OP?

 

[esmith]

It would be interesting to compare how far off the mark Obamacare supporters have been in their factual inaccuracies, compared to Obamacare critics.

For example, in another thread about the inaccuracies of Obamacare supporters, the first false statement listed was Pelosi's claim that "everyone" will see their costs go down while access to health care goes up. That claim was false, as PolitiFact pointed out, because Americans would "only" see costs go down and access to care go up on AVERAGE.

How far off the mark, would you say, was Pelosi's false comment, compared to any of the false comments made by Obamacare critics in the OP?

So, now you are making excuses for what Nancy said? A falsehood is a falsehood, no matter how you attempt to spin it. Look, just admit that numerous misleading and false information was promulgated for two different reasons at different times. Do you think that the ACA would have passed if the real facts of the ACA were known? What do you think would have happened in the 2010, and 2012 elections if people knew the real facts and what the consequences of their vote was. Those that supported the ACA were not about to release the actual consequences of the ACA. Look at the current polls. Now, you can rightfully say that the increase in negativity can be partially attributed to the dismal failure of the website. However, with all of the adverse affect that people have been reporting this also is a contributing factor. There are still unknown effects of the ACA that will eventually come to pass. The jury is still out, the results of the law will not be known for some time. The American public could accept it or reject it.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

So, now you are making excuses for what Nancy said? A falsehood is a falsehood, no matter how you attempt to spin it. Look, just admit that numerous misleading and false information was promulgated for two different reasons at different times.

You are absolutely right, esmith. What Nancy Pelosi said was a falsehood. I'm not making excuses for that. All I'm saying is that now that we have reached agreement there, we can move on to the next logical topics of discussion: if what Nancy Pelosi said was FALSE, then what is the TRUTH? And how far off were Pelosi's remarks compared to this truth?

I just think it's interesting that Pelosi was wrong because the ACA does great things, but only on AVERAGE. Whereas Rick Santorum is wrong because he essentially makes up stuff which has no connection to the ACA or reality (e.g. the "don't euthanize me" bracelets in the Netherlands).

Do you think that the ACA would have passed if the real facts of the ACA were known?

Are you joking? It's because the GOP did such a great job of obscuring the real facts of the ACA that it has been able to turn so many Americans against it. Case in point: when Sarah Palin and her ilk planted the false idea of "death panels" many Americans freaked out, which forced Democrats to strike the provision of the ACA which inspired the criticism (even though it had nothing to do with "death panels"). Furthermore, while Americans are evenly-divided but tending to oppose "Obamacare", polls show most Americans favor the provisions of the ACA when those provisions are explained to them. Ergo, the ACA would have had an even BETTER chance of passing if more Americans understood the facts of the ACA:

Fifty-six percent of people are against the healthcare overhaul and 44 percent favor it, according to the online poll conducted from Tuesday through Saturday.

The survey results suggest that Republicans are convincing voters to reject Obama's reform even when they like much of what is in it, such as allowing children to stay on their parents' insurance until age 26.

Strong majorities favor most of what is in the law.
...
Support for the provisions of the healthcare law was strong, with a full 82 percent of survey respondents, for example, favoring banning insurance companies from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions.

Sixty-one percent are in favor of allowing children to stay on their parents' insurance until age 26 and 72 percent back requiring companies with more than 50 employees to provide insurance for their employees.

Most Americans oppose health law but like provisions | Reuters

What do you think would have happened in the 2010, and 2012 elections if people knew the real facts and what the consequences of their vote was.

Bigger victories for Democrats, no question. See above.

Those that supported the ACA were not about to release the actual consequences of the ACA. Look at the current polls.

Yes the polls show Americans tend to oppose "Obamacare" because the GOP has succeeded in obscuring the facts about what the actual provisions of Obamacare are. That's why when polls explain the provisions of the ACA and ask people if they support those provisions, they overwhelmingly switch to supporting the provisions. See above.

Now, you can rightfully say that the increase in negativity can be partially attributed to the dismal failure of the website. However, with all of the adverse affect that people have been reporting this also is a contributing factor.

"All the adverse effects that people have been reporting" = the media echo chamber amplifying the same story about the same group of 0.1% of Americans whose cut-rate insurance changed this year (arguably for the better), and you and other conservative posters creating multiple threads about this same story. "All the adverse effects people have been reporting" = Ted Cruz blatantly lying on the Senate floor as demonstrated in the OP.

There are still unknown effects of the ACA that will eventually come to pass. The jury is still out, the results of the law will not be known for some time. The American public could accept it or reject it.

Okay the jury is still out overall, but what about Pelosi's comment, specifically? Is the jury still out about whether her comment was accurate, or inaccurate? If the jury is in on the accuracy of her comment then what is the truth? You pick: either (a) the jury's still out on Pelosi's "falsehood", or (b) what Pelosi said is false and the truth is the ACA lowers costs and increases coverage for Americans ON AVERAGE. Which is it? You can't have it both ways esmith.

 

[esmith]

Okay the jury is still out overall, but what about Pelosi's comment, specifically? Is the jury still out about whether her comment was accurate, or inaccurate? If the jury is in on the accuracy of her comment then what is the truth? You pick: either (a) the jury's still out on Pelosi's "falsehood", or (b) what Pelosi said is false and the truth is the ACA lowers costs and increases coverage for Americans ON AVERAGE. Which is it? You can't have it both ways esmith.

I am not attempting to have it both ways. I said that the jury is still out on the entire ACA not on what Pelosi's comments were. The jury is not out on Pelosi's comment, it is a total falsehood/lie. Pelosi did not say "ON AVERAGE". Stop attempting to justify your beliefs by changing what was said.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I am not attempting to have it both ways. I said that the jury is still out on the entire ACA not on what Pelosi's comments were. The jury is not out on Pelosi's comment, it is a total falsehood/lie. Pelosi did not say "ON AVERAGE". Stop attempting to justify your beliefs by changing what was said.

Right. The truth is, according to your PolitiFact article, that the ACA reduces costs while expanding coverage ON AVERAGE. Pelosi didn't say ON AVERAGE, therefore what she said was a falsehood. Correct?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Are all facts given by Obamacare opponents accurate?

Well, I just signed up online. I didn't have any problems. I got through the whole process with no hiccups.

There were at least 10 Bronze plans for me that average about $240 per month. My deducable range between $1300-$6000 depending on the plan I choose.

What impressed me the most was there were five Gold plans I could choose from which is comparable to the insurance I get through my job. The range was $330-$400 per month, $650 deductible and $4,640 out of pocket.....WOW!!!