Another Obama Claim Debunked

The full story is that health care costs continue to rise, but at a less alarming pace than they did prior to the healthcare reform legislation.

These Republicans seem to believe that the health care system was okay prior to reform. They are stupid.

And I believe someone posted that premiums are down overall by 3% ????

I'm just thinking: If person has to twist and mislead in order to defend their political position, they really don't have a very good position, huh?

"But many people elsewhere have experienced significant jumps in the premiums they pay. According to the federal analysis, 36 percent of the requests to raise rates by 10 percent or more were found to be reasonable. Insurers withdrew 12 percent of those requests, 26 percent were modified and another 26 percent were found to be unreasonable.

And, in some cases, consumer advocates say insurers have gone ahead and charged what regulators described as unreasonable rates because the state had no ability to deny the increases.

Two insurers cited by federal officials last year for raising rates excessively in nine states appear to have proceeded with their plans, said Carmen Balber, the Washington director for Consumer Watchdog, an advocacy group. While the publicity surrounding the rate requests may have drawn more attention to what the insurers were doing, regulators “weren’t getting any results by doing that,” she said.

Some consumer advocates and policy experts say the insurers may be increasing rates for fear of charging too little, and they may be less afraid of having to refund some of the money than risk losing money."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/06/b...premiums.html?pagewanted=2&_r=3&smid=pl-share

Overall premiums have decreased by 3%
yes or no.

showing where the rates of "some" have gone up doesn't change the fact that on average - across the board - premiums have decreased by 3%.

I can say cancer has been cured since no one I know has it - but that wouldn't be true either now would it?

You tried to pull some crap - or you just didn't understamnd what you were posting. Trying to weasle around it only makes you look worse.
 
Forgive me for doubting what "federal officials" say about the savings. They are the ones that said rates would go down in the first place. As someone who actually purchases insurance, I have personally seen the massive price increases. Go price an individual policy and get back to us on how much cheaper they've become.

Yeah I doubt you buy shit. At the bottom of his quote it states its dropped by 3% overall.
You are cherry picking because you are a partisan moron.

What's the matter? You don't like people pointing out that Obama LIED? Well, he did. Individual prices have skyrocketed in response to ObamaCare. Quit sucking off your employer and see what it would cost you to provide for your own family. Or at least, go do some price shopping.

Why would I price shop? I have a zero copay for my insurance which is rare to even get. I love my insurance and its worth every penny. Sucking off my employer? You are fucking retarded huh.


Obama didn't lie. He has zero control over what a state does in its regulations. Had you read the article you used you would have seen you are basically wrong.

It would seem then your stance would be that obama should back a federal regulation on insurance rates, therefore striping state rights.
 
Yeah I doubt you buy shit. At the bottom of his quote it states its dropped by 3% overall.
You are cherry picking because you are a partisan moron.

What's the matter? You don't like people pointing out that Obama LIED? Well, he did. Individual prices have skyrocketed in response to ObamaCare. Quit sucking off your employer and see what it would cost you to provide for your own family. Or at least, go do some price shopping.

Why would I price shop? I have a zero copay for my insurance which is rare to even get. I love my insurance and its worth every penny. Sucking off my employer? You are fucking retarded huh.


Obama didn't lie. He has zero control over what a state does in its regulations. Had you read the article you used you would have seen you are basically wrong.

It would seem then your stance would be that obama should back a federal regulation on insurance rates, therefore striping state rights.

Where's that $2500.00 decrease? He SAID he was going to make it happen. Didn't he know what he was doing?
 
What's the matter? You don't like people pointing out that Obama LIED? Well, he did. Individual prices have skyrocketed in response to ObamaCare. Quit sucking off your employer and see what it would cost you to provide for your own family. Or at least, go do some price shopping.

Why would I price shop? I have a zero copay for my insurance which is rare to even get. I love my insurance and its worth every penny. Sucking off my employer? You are fucking retarded huh.


Obama didn't lie. He has zero control over what a state does in its regulations. Had you read the article you used you would have seen you are basically wrong.

It would seem then your stance would be that obama should back a federal regulation on insurance rates, therefore striping state rights.

Where's that $2500.00 decrease? He SAID he was going to make it happen. Didn't he know what he was doing?

Don't punt vel...you are for a federal regulation then right?
 
And I believe someone posted that premiums are down overall by 3% ????

I'm just thinking: If person has to twist and mislead in order to defend their political position, they really don't have a very good position, huh?

"But many people elsewhere have experienced significant jumps in the premiums they pay. According to the federal analysis, 36 percent of the requests to raise rates by 10 percent or more were found to be reasonable. Insurers withdrew 12 percent of those requests, 26 percent were modified and another 26 percent were found to be unreasonable.

And, in some cases, consumer advocates say insurers have gone ahead and charged what regulators described as unreasonable rates because the state had no ability to deny the increases.

Two insurers cited by federal officials last year for raising rates excessively in nine states appear to have proceeded with their plans, said Carmen Balber, the Washington director for Consumer Watchdog, an advocacy group. While the publicity surrounding the rate requests may have drawn more attention to what the insurers were doing, regulators “weren’t getting any results by doing that,” she said.

Some consumer advocates and policy experts say the insurers may be increasing rates for fear of charging too little, and they may be less afraid of having to refund some of the money than risk losing money."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/06/b...premiums.html?pagewanted=2&_r=3&smid=pl-share

Overall premiums have decreased by 3%
yes or no.

showing where the rates of "some" have gone up doesn't change the fact that on average - across the board - premiums have decreased by 3%.

I can say cancer has been cured since no one I know has it - but that wouldn't be true either now would it?

You tried to pull some crap - or you just didn't understamnd what you were posting. Trying to weasle around it only makes you look worse.

No, Overall rates have not dropped 3%. The average rate increases were simply 3% less after review than insurers had asked for. Read the study before you jump into something you don't have a clue about.
 
Why would I price shop? I have a zero copay for my insurance which is rare to even get. I love my insurance and its worth every penny. Sucking off my employer? You are fucking retarded huh.


Obama didn't lie. He has zero control over what a state does in its regulations. Had you read the article you used you would have seen you are basically wrong.

It would seem then your stance would be that obama should back a federal regulation on insurance rates, therefore striping state rights.

Where's that $2500.00 decrease? He SAID he was going to make it happen. Didn't he know what he was doing?

Don't punt vel...you are for a federal regulation then right?

No, I'm not for federal regulation. I'm for holding politicians accountable when they become snake oil salesmen though. You are for allowing lying politicians to maintain their lies then?
 
Where's that $2500.00 decrease? He SAID he was going to make it happen. Didn't he know what he was doing?

Don't punt vel...you are for a federal regulation then right?

No, I'm not for federal regulation. I'm for holding politicians accountable when they become snake oil salesmen though. You are for allowing lying politicians to maintain their lies then?

so then explain how Obama is responsible for California not having a regulation that has a review process on raising rates?

How is Obama responsible for that one insurance raising rates by 39% in 2010 and now are looking to raise it another 20% just because they can?
Are you trying to claim that in 2010 there excuse was Obamacare? Which i don't think had even passed yet nor taken affect.


You don't want to hold anyone to anything outside of them being a liberal or democrat.
 
Don't punt vel...you are for a federal regulation then right?

No, I'm not for federal regulation. I'm for holding politicians accountable when they become snake oil salesmen though. You are for allowing lying politicians to maintain their lies then?

so then explain how Obama is responsible for California not having a regulation that has a review process on raising rates?

How is Obama responsible for that one insurance raising rates by 39% in 2010 and now are looking to raise it another 20% just because they can?
Are you trying to claim that in 2010 there excuse was Obamacare? Which i don't think had even passed yet nor taken affect.


You don't want to hold anyone to anything outside of them being a liberal or democrat.

You are once again, missing the point. My point is that Obama should not have made the claim that ObamaCare would reduce rates by $2500.00 per family unless he was certain that it would. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?
 
From the article Vel cited in the original post:

Although rates paid by employers are more closely tracked than rates for individuals and small businesses, policy experts say the law has probably kept at least some rates lower than they otherwise would have been.
“There’s no question that review of rates makes a difference, that it results in lower rates paid by consumers and small businesses,” said Larry Levitt, an executive at the Kaiser Family Foundation, which estimated in an October report that rate review was responsible for lowering premiums for one out of every five filings.

Federal officials say the law has resulted in significant savings. “The health care law includes new tools to hold insurers accountable for premium hikes and give rebates to consumers,” said Brian Cook, a spokesman for Medicare, which is helping to oversee the insurance reforms.

“Insurers have already paid $1.1 billion in rebates, and rate review programs have helped save consumers an additional $1 billion in lower premiums,” he said. If insurers collect premiums and do not spend at least 80 cents out of every dollar on care for their customers, the law requires them to refund the excess.

As a result of the review process, federal officials say, rates were reduced, on average, by nearly three percentage points, according to a report issued last September.

I noticed you didn't highlight the portion that I underlined...

Didn't fit your narrative, did it?
 
From the article Vel cited in the original post:

Forgive me for doubting what "federal officials" say about the savings. They are the ones that said rates would go down in the first place. As someone who actually purchases insurance, I have personally seen the massive price increases. Go price an individual policy and get back to us on how much cheaper they've become.

Yeah I doubt you buy shit. At the bottom of his quote it states its dropped by 3% overall.
You are cherry picking because you are a partisan moron.

3% overall on the 1 in 5 policies that saw an actual reduction.

Talk about cherry-picking!
 
And I believe someone posted that premiums are down overall by 3% ????

I'm just thinking: If person has to twist and mislead in order to defend their political position, they really don't have a very good position, huh?

"But many people elsewhere have experienced significant jumps in the premiums they pay. According to the federal analysis, 36 percent of the requests to raise rates by 10 percent or more were found to be reasonable. Insurers withdrew 12 percent of those requests, 26 percent were modified and another 26 percent were found to be unreasonable.

And, in some cases, consumer advocates say insurers have gone ahead and charged what regulators described as unreasonable rates because the state had no ability to deny the increases.

Two insurers cited by federal officials last year for raising rates excessively in nine states appear to have proceeded with their plans, said Carmen Balber, the Washington director for Consumer Watchdog, an advocacy group. While the publicity surrounding the rate requests may have drawn more attention to what the insurers were doing, regulators “weren’t getting any results by doing that,” she said.

Some consumer advocates and policy experts say the insurers may be increasing rates for fear of charging too little, and they may be less afraid of having to refund some of the money than risk losing money."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/06/b...premiums.html?pagewanted=2&_r=3&smid=pl-share

Overall premiums have decreased by 3%
yes or no.
No.

showing where the rates of "some" have gone up doesn't change the fact that on average - across the board - premiums have decreased by 3%.
Only on the 20% of policies that saw a reduction.

I can say cancer has been cured since no one I know has it - but that wouldn't be true either now would it?

You tried to pull some crap - or you just didn't understamnd what you were posting. Trying to weasle around it only makes you look worse.

You have no room to talk about understanding, nodog. The article CLEARLY states that the 3% reduction was ONLY for the 20% of policies that saw a reduction.
 
Forgive me for doubting what "federal officials" say about the savings. They are the ones that said rates would go down in the first place. As someone who actually purchases insurance, I have personally seen the massive price increases. Go price an individual policy and get back to us on how much cheaper they've become.

Yeah I doubt you buy shit. At the bottom of his quote it states its dropped by 3% overall.
You are cherry picking because you are a partisan moron.

3% overall on the 1 in 5 policies that saw an actual reduction.

Talk about cherry-picking!

As a result of the review process, federal officials say, rates were reduced, on average, by nearly three percentage points, according to a report issued last September.

Often, rates soar because insurers are operating plans that are closed to new customers, creating a pool of people with expensive medical conditions that become increasingly costly to insure.

and this is Obamas fault how?

The practice of medical underwriting — being able to consider the health of a prospective policy holder before deciding whether to offer coverage and what rate to charge — will no longer be permitted after 2014 under the health care law.

It would also seem we need to wait for the future in order to see what happens.
The OP not understanding the actual Article she quote. Is trying to connect the dots, by trying to go A to D and skipping B and C.

If i was to hazard a guess as to whats going on. Insurance Providers are raising costs due to rising costs ( not Obama's fault ) and to get ahead of the 2014 law which might bring down costs anyways.

regardless they do not state that the other 4 polices ended up going up in rates.
 
No, I'm not for federal regulation. I'm for holding politicians accountable when they become snake oil salesmen though. You are for allowing lying politicians to maintain their lies then?

so then explain how Obama is responsible for California not having a regulation that has a review process on raising rates?

How is Obama responsible for that one insurance raising rates by 39% in 2010 and now are looking to raise it another 20% just because they can?
Are you trying to claim that in 2010 there excuse was Obamacare? Which i don't think had even passed yet nor taken affect.


You don't want to hold anyone to anything outside of them being a liberal or democrat.

You are once again, missing the point. My point is that Obama should not have made the claim that ObamaCare would reduce rates by $2500.00 per family unless he was certain that it would. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

no i got your point, and i am ignoring it because i wanted you to answer my questions and not punt off onto this subject.

So feel free to answer my questions.

How is Obama responsible for that one insurance raising rates by 39% in 2010 and now are looking to raise it another 20% just because they can?
Are you trying to claim that in 2010 there excuse was Obamacare? Which i don't think had even passed yet nor taken affect.
 
OK Plasma, here is the article as quoted by freemason9.

Pay attention to the highlighting.

Although rates paid by employers are more closely tracked than rates for individuals and small businesses, policy experts say the law has probably kept at least some rates lower than they otherwise would have been.
“There’s no question that review of rates makes a difference, that it results in lower rates paid by consumers and small businesses,” said Larry Levitt, an executive at the Kaiser Family Foundation, which estimated in an October report that rate review was responsible for lowering premiums for one out of every five filings.

Federal officials say the law has resulted in significant savings. “The health care law includes new tools to hold insurers accountable for premium hikes and give rebates to consumers,” said Brian Cook, a spokesman for Medicare, which is helping to oversee the insurance reforms.

“Insurers have already paid $1.1 billion in rebates, and rate review programs have helped save consumers an additional $1 billion in lower premiums,” he said. If insurers collect premiums and do not spend at least 80 cents out of every dollar on care for their customers, the law requires them to refund the excess.

As a result of the review process, federal officials say, rates were reduced, on average, by nearly three percentage points, according to a report issued last September.

The subject is rate review.

Rate review has kept 'some rates' lower than they would have been.

Rate review has lowered rates for 1 in 5.

Rate review has lowered rates for that 1 in 5 by nearly 3%.

IOW, rates have INCREASED for EVERYONE, but rate review has lessened that increase by nearly 3% for 20% of policies.
 
so then explain how Obama is responsible for California not having a regulation that has a review process on raising rates?

How is Obama responsible for that one insurance raising rates by 39% in 2010 and now are looking to raise it another 20% just because they can?
Are you trying to claim that in 2010 there excuse was Obamacare? Which i don't think had even passed yet nor taken affect.


You don't want to hold anyone to anything outside of them being a liberal or democrat.

You are once again, missing the point. My point is that Obama should not have made the claim that ObamaCare would reduce rates by $2500.00 per family unless he was certain that it would. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

no i got your point, and i am ignoring it because i wanted you to answer my questions and not punt off onto this subject.

So feel free to answer my questions.

How is Obama responsible for that one insurance raising rates by 39% in 2010 and now are looking to raise it another 20% just because they can?
Are you trying to claim that in 2010 there excuse was Obamacare? Which i don't think had even passed yet nor taken affect.

Sorry but I don't care to be pulled off topic. Obama claimed that his program would reduce insurance rates by $2500.00 per year, per family. He apparently had no plan or method to make that happen and yet was not challenged on the claim. He lied to get elected and lied to sell his program. People like you accepted that lie and now you want to make excuses for why it's too hard for Obama to keep his word.
 
According to dumbo Obama logic, the cost of insuring the uninsurable would be offset by the number of healthy people brought into the pool..

Never mind they were told it wouldn't work.


So forcing insurance companies to take on risky people would drive up premiums.....nah.

Liberals avoid the business and economics courses on their way to becoming lawyers....knowing loopholes in laws and how to sue people was more important than basic economic principles for future politcians.
 
You are once again, missing the point. My point is that Obama should not have made the claim that ObamaCare would reduce rates by $2500.00 per family unless he was certain that it would. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

no i got your point, and i am ignoring it because i wanted you to answer my questions and not punt off onto this subject.

So feel free to answer my questions.

How is Obama responsible for that one insurance raising rates by 39% in 2010 and now are looking to raise it another 20% just because they can?
Are you trying to claim that in 2010 there excuse was Obamacare? Which i don't think had even passed yet nor taken affect.

Sorry but I don't care to be pulled off topic. Obama claimed that his program would reduce insurance rates by $2500.00 per year, per family. He apparently had no plan or method to make that happen and yet was not challenged on the claim. He lied to get elected and lied to sell his program. People like you accepted that lie and now you want to make excuses for why it's too hard for Obama to keep his word.

It was never about or for the people, it was a power grab for the government
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top