PolitiFact Spanked on ObamaCare

[Trajan]

I have to buy car insurance. That hardly means that the government has taken over the insurance industry.

the 2 are completely and absolutely incompatible.

Well that's nonsense because both of them are a government requirement to buy an insurance product from a private company,

so they are definitely not completely and absolutely incompatible.

you know, i really don't know what to say, this car sin. analogy has been discredited every way to sunday, I don't even think GB would agree with you, but hey have at it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

the 2 are completely and absolutely incompatible.

Well that's nonsense because both of them are a government requirement to buy an insurance product from a private company,

so they are definitely not completely and absolutely incompatible.

you know, i really don't know what to say, this car sin. analogy has been discredited every way to sunday, I don't even think GB would agree with you, but hey have at it.

Is that your way of admitting you were wrong?

 

[NYcarbineer]

In a fairness, I think politifact missed it -

their second place finisher should have been Lie of the Year. That was the rightwing lie that Obama's India trip was going to cost 200 million dollars a day.

 

[007]

Political Chick's campaign to cut-and-paste the entire internet on USMB continues.

If you don't care to read.....don't.

Lol oh don't you worry, I didn't!

FLAME ZONE!

Then shut the fuck up too moron.

 

[Trajan]

is the gov. a) diminishing b) leveling or c) expanding its authority to influence or mandate the delivery and financing of health care?

You have to understand, I deal in specifics, nuts-and-bolts policy. Broad pronouncements designed for rhetorical effect instead of conveying meaning mean very little to me. Government has been “influencing the delivery of health care” for the better part of a century. You understand that they build hospitals right? Remember Hill-Burton? I suppose that means we’ve now pegged 1946 as the date of the “takeover.” Where does the majority of the financing come from in the ACA? It comes from placing limits on the existing limitless federal subsidy enjoyed by health plans in the group market and redirecting it to plans in the individual market. In the short run, a significant chunk comes from redirecting dollars that under the baseline scenario would have already gone to federal health programs.

You hint in the rest of your post at things like rate review and medical loss ratios (though you continue to avoid explicitly saying what’s bothering you, yet imply I’m being evasive). More than half of all states already have the authority to reject premium increases if necessary and nearly all have at least some form of oversight and review authority. What most of them are undertaking now under ACA is improving their internal processes, involving the public, incorporating better technology. Some are widening their scope to additional segments of the state health insurance market. The rate review provisions are effectively a greater standardization of oversight authority across states. Does having a state insurance commissioner constitute a takeover of the insurance industry? Again, if so, that ship has long sailed.

But since "influencing the delivery of care" is apparently the calling card of an evil government takeover, I'm curious about something. Over the past twenty years, several states have reorganized their state health policy apparatus as a Health Authority. In doing so, they collect all of the state health purchasers under a single roof with the explicit aim of maximizing the state's purchasing power to influence the state delivery system. Oregon is the latest state to do this but Kansas did it a few years back and Oklahoma did it well over a decade ago. Is that a "government takeover"? If so, it sounds like a great many states were taken over by the government well before the ACA was passed; and I don't just mean states with Health Authorities, as I'm sure states like Massachusetts and Maine also meet whatever your vague definition of "government takeover" is.

I suppose the obvious question is: if ACA was a government takeover, what part of the health care system hadn't aready been taken over (using a consistent application of your definition) by either the state or federal government and was thus subject to the ACA's takeover? What are you suggesting tangibly changed with the passage of the ACA?

Q- when Nor. Carolina BC/BS returned 155 million dollars to its policy holders, was this; a) done this through their own good graces because they felt it was 'the right thing to do', b) because the state insurance commissioners "have new leverage" c) because they had overcharged their policy holders, d) because the health care act mandated they did so, e)none of the above?

I realize you don’t do nuance but the answer is a mix of “all of the above” and “none of the above.” The reason for the refund is fairly simple:

The refunds come from reserves set aside for these [individual market] policyholders. Some premiums in certain policies build up reserves to even out the cost of premiums over the life of the policy. The health reform law will provide new versions of these plans starting in 2014, so the current policies will end sooner than originally expected. That frees up some of the reserves to be refunded. Refunds do not apply to employer-sponsored policies.​

So yes, they overcharged, but that was a practice that made sense in a disorganized individual market. Given that the state will have an exchange in a few years and a robust risk-adjustment mechanism, the reserves they were stockpiling for their individual market clients are no longer necessary (so yes, refunding the money this year is, as their CEO says, the right thing to do). State regulators don’t have new leverage over the individual market, since North Carolina already requires prior approval for premium increases in the individual market. However, while their data is publicly available, they’re exploring the possibility of posting what they call “consumer friendly” summaries so that there’s a bit more sunlight on filings--if public comment is incorporated as a component of premium oversight (see below), public knowledge of the existence of large reserves amid premium increases would potentially be damning. I’m sure BCBS also had it on their minds that eventually (though not this year) useless reserves would count against their medical loss ratio and ultimately would likely have to be partially refunded anyway.

The public comment period on the proposed rule is now open if you wish to weigh in.

Have you ever heard the phrase- “no plan survives contact with the enemy”?

Old military saying. You can plot plan and scheme, put everything in neat bundled reams of paper, all set forth; each battalion, regt. and division assigned its place, food, ammo, signals, transportation set in motion to meet them at their appointed place and time.

Guess what? The minute they move out and cross the lines, or the fleet is engaged all of it goes out the window, they are flying by the seat of their pants. Due to unforeseen circumstances and the law of unintended consequence as every action they take is met by a reaction by the other side creates a whirlpool of complex dance that loses all but facile relation to “the plan”. The opposition if you will does not respond the way you want them to or as the plan envisioned.

I asked you a question; did you think that the gov. the fed. gov was via influence upon delv. And financing of healthcare extending its influence etc. staying roughly the same or diminishing its role. You then expounded on how the states by and large are already heavily involved in regulatory engagement etc etc...the gov. buidlls hospitals and by virtue of their onw regulatory commissions licenses doctors nurses hospitals schools etc....yes, I am aware of that, I don’t even care for their central planning, the issue is the federal gov’s all encompassing top down central planning, are we suppose to that a machine by order of magnitudes larger by comparison is going to be anymore efficient, why? Because they have all the reigns in their hands, or that’s let me re-phrase are ‘influencing’ the subordinate markets etc?

Your answer summed up is, and this is not new; ‘ you already have some of that, whats wrong with more’, and then detail why it will ‘work’ ni short MORE. Do you understand the problems many have with this thinking? Its a conceptual and philosophical influence I am not sure you quite grasp.


I asked you about rationing, your answer, in a nutshell was, well, rationing is already taking place and then went off on a nuts and bolts scheme as everything will be better this time and this is an improvement. You are a nuts and bolts guy, you may be very good at it, but a virtue may also be a handicap and yes that works both ways, you will dive into minutiae to describe how things are either half way there already and how things will be set right if we only trust a larger mechanism to take control or “influence” the device.

Maybe a little distance might do you some good. Medicare and Medicaid had the virtue of starting form a much cleaner slate, with much bi-partisan sppt as well in a much younger market.

I am sure the nuts and bolts guys told us all hey when this is enacted and actually takes effect and this is done and we have adjusted this, all will be well. Hows that working out? The budgets they forecast in 25 years blew right by their original forecasting by 3 orders of magnitude, think on that a moment. And they are a mess...yes yes the reps may have done this the dems that each has tinkered with the system and that’s exactly the point. BUT now, we are going to allow the feds, an even larger less flexible org. influence it all across the board and the present day cousins of those nuts and bolts guys in 65 are telling us; all is well, don’t worry....how many hiccups has Obama care hit already? If the mandate is off the table, even the truncated sniveling one they enacted, its over, oh yes slot A goes in groove b and we can work around it or we have a plan for that etc etc etc etc ...

The financing was a ghost you know it, I know it, and it has not gotten any better, with the mandate looking shaky? What then? Nope, no retreat, like a general screaming at his corp commanders who cannot take their objective ground by the day assigned- I told you follow the plan!!!!!!!

And lets remember, the plan meanwhile wasn’t even fully complete, the senate due to Scott Browns election forced the House to vote on it as it was delivered, as they could not force cloture again with Scott on board, so they could not change a thing, god knows how much worse or if the changes they envisioned would have been an improvement but here we are.

Organizations, most especially organizations in the gov. are especially territorial an hierarchal, the fed and state orgs are not are not blocks of wood ( as we have seen, you may not like what they are doing but it’s the law of unintended consequence and changes the paradigm) and neither are the other depts. grps sects either in existence now or son to be created to fill the basket of fed. control or influence that will influence the del. and financing.

Put dowel A in slot B, slide B into groove C and come up with D. To the degree you introduce MORE complexity via orgs, depts. influences, concomitantly efficiency degrades.

I will be specific as to the North Carolina issue if I may there wasa reason aside form the ‘nuts and bolts’ I asked you about this; now as I understand it, BC/BS liquidated its active life reserves, by returning them to the policy holders. Okay, now these active life reserves are funds built up over time to help pave over possible spikes if say costs rise faster than forecast...yes? They draw on the funds to even out premiums...yes?

The ind. Policy holder market will pretty much vaporize in 2014 ....yes? Anyone who modifies or changes their policy won’t be grandfathered in...yes? BC/BS’s ind. market will virtually disappear.....yes? There-fore it doesn’t need the reserves....yes? Ipso- the 2014 roll over has created a regulatory imperative, that’s why they sent the money back....did I sum this up correctly?


One last Q if you will- how would you describe the HHR’s and Sebelius's explanations of, detail, general output and honesty as it applies the Obama care?

Lets consider 10 being primo?

Conceptual explanation-
Detail-
Gernral output-
Honesty-

 

[Trajan]

Well that's nonsense because both of them are a government requirement to buy an insurance product from a private company,

so they are definitely not completely and absolutely incompatible.

you know, i really don't know what to say, this car sin. analogy has been discredited every way to sunday, I don't even think GB would agree with you, but hey have at it.

Is that your way of admitting you were wrong?

we are either talking past each other or one of us has hit the spiked eggnog early...lets clarify, I may have misunderstood you, are you inferring that car ins. is alike to medical ins. in that policies etc. work the same way, responsibility as to purchase and coverage etc.?

Oh and of I am wrong, I am wrong, you'll never have to worry about Bureaucratese double speak, I say it straight out....

 

[MaggieMae]

"So the watchdog news outfit called PolitiFact has decided that its "lie of the year" is the phrase "a government takeover of health care." Ordinarily, lies need verbs and we'd leave the media criticism to others, but the White House has decided that PolitiFact's writ should be heard across the land and those words forever banished to describe ObamaCare.

"We have concluded it is inaccurate to call the plan a government takeover," the editors of PolitiFact announce portentously. "'Government takeover' conjures a European approach where the government owns the hospitals and the doctors are public employees," whereas ObamaCare "is, at its heart, a system that relies on private companies and the free market." PolitiFact makes it sound as if ObamaCare were drawn up by President Friedrich Hayek, with amendments from House Speaker Ayn Rand.

PolitiFact's decree is part of a larger journalistic trend that seeks to recast all political debates as matters of lies, misinformation and "facts," rather than differences of world view or principles. PolitiFact wants to define for everyone else what qualifies as a "fact," though in political debates the facts are often legitimately in dispute.

Evidently, it doesn't count as a government takeover unless the means of production are confiscated. "The government will not seize control of hospitals or nationalize doctors," the editors write, and while "it's true that the law does significantly increase government regulation of health insurers," they'll still be nominally private too.

In fact—if we may use that term without PolitiFact's seal of approval—at the heart of ObamaCare is a vast expansion of federal control over how U.S. health care is financed, and thus delivered. The regulations that PolitiFact waves off are designed to convert insurers into government contractors in the business of fulfilling political demands, with enormous implications for the future of U.S. medicine. All citizens will be required to pay into this system, regardless of their individual needs or preferences. Sounds like a government takeover to us.

PolitiFact is run by the St. Petersburg Times and has marketed itself to other news organizations on the pretense of impartiality. Like other "fact checking" enterprises, its animating conceit is that opinions are what ideologues have, when in reality PolitiFact's curators also have political views and values that influence their judgments about facts and who is right in any debate. "

Review & Outlook: PolitiFiction - WSJ.com
(emphasis mine)

I wonder if friend Greenie saw this....

The problem was that all during the national debate which went on for a year, the lies and innuendos were so rampant that barely anyone fully grasped the intent. There were millions who became so confused that they really did believe the government intended to seize control of hospitals or nationalize doctors, and ration out health care. How could you not have noticed? And why is that condemnation by Politifact not, well, a fact? It happened.

 

[NYcarbineer]

you know, i really don't know what to say, this car sin. analogy has been discredited every way to sunday, I don't even think GB would agree with you, but hey have at it.

Is that your way of admitting you were wrong?

we are either talking past each other or one of us has hit the spiked eggnog early...lets clarify, I may have misunderstood you, are you inferring that car ins. is alike to medical ins. in that policies etc. work the same way, responsibility as to purchase and coverage etc.?

Oh and of I am wrong, I am wrong, you'll never have to worry about Bureaucratese double speak, I say it straight out....

I merely pointed out, with a simple straightforward and direct refutation, that you were WRONG to say that the comparison of mandatory auto insurance and mandatory car insurance were completely and absolutely incompatible, by giving you two indisputable examples of how they were 'compatible' or maybe as you meant 'comparable'.

I'm still waiting for anyone to show me how the government took over MY healthcare, as I outlined it in a post below. I suspect I shouldn't bet too much on getting that shown to me.

 

[Trajan]

Is that your way of admitting you were wrong?

we are either talking past each other or one of us has hit the spiked eggnog early...lets clarify, I may have misunderstood you, are you inferring that car ins. is alike to medical ins. in that policies etc. work the same way, responsibility as to purchase and coverage etc.?

Oh and of I am wrong, I am wrong, you'll never have to worry about Bureaucratese double speak, I say it straight out....

I merely pointed out, with a simple straightforward and direct refutation, that you were WRONG to say that the comparison of mandatory auto insurance and mandatory car insurance were completely and absolutely incompatible, by giving you two indisputable examples of how they were 'compatible' or maybe as you meant 'comparable'.

I'm still waiting for anyone to show me how the government took over MY healthcare, as I outlined it in a post below. I suspect I shouldn't bet too much on getting that shown to me.

okay then I made a mistake, compatible in that they are forms of insurance yes thats right, comparable in execution ? no.

as far as takeover? no not yet, and as GB has posited the states by and large and when it comes to fed. gov. provided largess in terms of medicare have, uhm provided a measure of control for years.

I think one of the breakwaters for me is when the gov. begins to tell my doctor what he can and cannot do, yes ins. co's to an extent do that now, BUT there is a huge difference in that equation, you understand.(?)

is that acceptable?

 

[Greenbeard]

Due to unforeseen circumstances and the law of unintended consequence as every action they take is met by a reaction by the other side creates a whirlpool of complex dance that loses all but facile relation to “the plan”.

Policy implementation is of special interest to me. Not in need of any pointers from you on how it works.

I asked you a question; did you think that the gov. the fed. gov was via influence upon delv. And financing of healthcare extending its influence etc. staying roughly the same or diminishing its role.

That's not what you asked.

the issue is the federal gov’s all encompassing top down central planning

That's not what's happening here.

Your answer summed up is, and this is not new; ‘ you already have some of that, whats wrong with more’,

Refer to topic of discussion.

Scott Browns election forced the House to vote on it as it was delivered... so they could not change a thing

Yes, they could and did.

.did I sum this up correctly?

No.

One last Q if you will- how would you describe the HHR’s and Sebelius's explanations of, detail, general output and honesty as it applies the Obama care?

Uninteresting.

 

[NYcarbineer]

we are either talking past each other or one of us has hit the spiked eggnog early...lets clarify, I may have misunderstood you, are you inferring that car ins. is alike to medical ins. in that policies etc. work the same way, responsibility as to purchase and coverage etc.?

Oh and of I am wrong, I am wrong, you'll never have to worry about Bureaucratese double speak, I say it straight out....

I merely pointed out, with a simple straightforward and direct refutation, that you were WRONG to say that the comparison of mandatory auto insurance and mandatory car insurance were completely and absolutely incompatible, by giving you two indisputable examples of how they were 'compatible' or maybe as you meant 'comparable'.

I'm still waiting for anyone to show me how the government took over MY healthcare, as I outlined it in a post below. I suspect I shouldn't bet too much on getting that shown to me.

okay then I made a mistake, compatible in that they are forms of insurance yes thats right, comparable in execution ? no.

as far as takeover? no not yet, and as GB has posited the states by and large and when it comes to fed. gov. provided largess in terms of medicare have, uhm provided a measure of control for years.

I think one of the breakwaters for me is when the gov. begins to tell my doctor what he can and cannot do, yes ins. co's to an extent do that now, BUT there is a huge difference in that equation, you understand.(?)

is that acceptable?

In NYS it is a criminal offense to drive without the minimum required insurance.

Unless one obtains, either from the government or privately, insurance that provides UNLIMITED coverage (can pay for it oneself) then, of course, there will be chances that someone will come between you and your doctor...

...that was another lie of sorts that was trumped up by the opposition to Obamacare, the evil bureaucrat coming between you and your doctor as a CONSEQUENCE of this bill.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It's already been discredited in this thread, your pretending it hasn't doesn't change that.

of course you say it has but you are wrong. Let the discussion begin

I just did. My own healthcare has not been taken over by the government, therefore there has been no government takeover.

2014 is the take over date. So it has been taken over.

 

[Trajan]

I merely pointed out, with a simple straightforward and direct refutation, that you were WRONG to say that the comparison of mandatory auto insurance and mandatory car insurance were completely and absolutely incompatible, by giving you two indisputable examples of how they were 'compatible' or maybe as you meant 'comparable'.

I'm still waiting for anyone to show me how the government took over MY healthcare, as I outlined it in a post below. I suspect I shouldn't bet too much on getting that shown to me.

okay then I made a mistake, compatible in that they are forms of insurance yes thats right, comparable in execution ? no.

as far as takeover? no not yet, and as GB has posited the states by and large and when it comes to fed. gov. provided largess in terms of medicare have, uhm provided a measure of control for years.

I think one of the breakwaters for me is when the gov. begins to tell my doctor what he can and cannot do, yes ins. co's to an extent do that now, BUT there is a huge difference in that equation, you understand.(?)

is that acceptable?

In NYS it is a criminal offense to drive without the minimum required insurance.

come on dude you have to be kidding. IF you drive....IF....IF you live drive on private property you don't need insurance.........what is the purpose of car insurance? to cover you or the other driver/property? Some pay more for the same policy do they not? why? because they have become bigger risks....I really am flummoxed that you have hung on this.

Unless one obtains, either from the government or privately, insurance that provides UNLIMITED coverage (can pay for it oneself) then, of course, there will be chances that someone will come between you and your doctor...

I am not even sure what that means in the end...

...that was another lie of sorts that was trumped up by the opposition to Obamacare, the evil bureaucrat coming between you and your doctor as a CONSEQUENCE of this bill.

really? okay, so the evil inc. exec. can and does, BUT but the gov. won't? I see. your faith is waaaaaaaaaaay stronger than ine in fact I have zero that they won't they will and has said so.

 

[NYcarbineer]

okay then I made a mistake, compatible in that they are forms of insurance yes thats right, comparable in execution ? no.

as far as takeover? no not yet, and as GB has posited the states by and large and when it comes to fed. gov. provided largess in terms of medicare have, uhm provided a measure of control for years.

I think one of the breakwaters for me is when the gov. begins to tell my doctor what he can and cannot do, yes ins. co's to an extent do that now, BUT there is a huge difference in that equation, you understand.(?)

is that acceptable?

come on dude you have to be kidding. IF you drive....IF....IF you live drive on private property you don't need insurance.........what is the purpose of car insurance? to cover you or the other driver/property? Some pay more for the same policy do they not? why? because they have become bigger risks....I really am flummoxed that you have hung on this.



I am not even sure what that means in the end...

...that was another lie of sorts that was trumped up by the opposition to Obamacare, the evil bureaucrat coming between you and your doctor as a CONSEQUENCE of this bill.

really? okay, so the evil inc. exec. can and does, BUT but the gov. won't? I see. your faith is waaaaaaaaaaay stronger than ine in fact I have zero that they won't they will and has said so.

My original use of mandatory car insurance was to point out that just because you have to buy car insurance to legally drive doesn't mean that the government has taken over motoring in America.

 

[NYcarbineer]

of course you say it has but you are wrong. Let the discussion begin

I just did. My own healthcare has not been taken over by the government, therefore there has been no government takeover.

2014 is the take over date. So it has been taken over.

Then tell me what will happen in 2014, specifically, to my health care plan.

 

[NYcarbineer]

OK, let's settle this this way:

If the mandate is removed from Obamacare, will all of you who are using that as the straw you're clinging to to claim that the government has taken over healthcare THEN agree that Obamacare is NOT a government takeover?

(I'm guessing 'no')

 

[Trajan]

OK, let's settle this this way:

If the mandate is removed from Obamacare, will all of you who are using that as the straw you're clinging to to claim that the government has taken over healthcare THEN agree that Obamacare is NOT a government takeover?

(I'm guessing 'no')

who says the gov is taking over health care?

I have not seen anyone make that case fir qa wihle..(?)

now, the mandate going south means that Obama care or tha is US are going to take a huge financial hit...huge. what does the mandate disappearing mean to you?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

OK, let's settle this this way:

If the mandate is removed from Obamacare, will all of you who are using that as the straw you're clinging to to claim that the government has taken over healthcare THEN agree that Obamacare is NOT a government takeover?

(I'm guessing 'no')

Whats to settle? It's already been settled. Wait for 2014 It's not a strawman Plain and simple the government has taken over your life. To call it anything else does not change the facts that it's made of shit.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I just did. My own healthcare has not been taken over by the government, therefore there has been no government takeover.

2014 is the take over date. So it has been taken over.

Then tell me what will happen in 2014, specifically, to my health care plan.

Did you miss the vote for obama care? Even obama said people would lose their private Insurence. If that isn't governemnt control what do you call government control?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

OK, let's settle this this way:

If the mandate is removed from Obamacare, will all of you who are using that as the straw you're clinging to to claim that the government has taken over healthcare THEN agree that Obamacare is NOT a government takeover?

(I'm guessing 'no')

Come talk to me when your employer tells you that he is cancelling your insurance because the new insurance rules have made it impossible for him to provide it anymore and tell the government has not taken over the insurance industry. I self insure myself, and my insurance company is dropping the type of policy because they will have to eventually anyway, especially since I refuse to pay for services I do not need, like mammograms and pap smears.