Fact-Checking Ted Cruz's Distortion on ACA

[Billy000]

From distortion to flat out lies, this article exposes Ted's bullshit on ACA during his 21 hour rant:

1. "Millions of people are hurting because of ObamaCare"

First, it is important to remember that less than three weeks of the six month enrollment period for the online marketplaces have elapsed, and while anecdotal information has trickled in about increasing premiums, a full scale assessment of how the health care reform has changed the individual market is months, if not years, away. In the absence of that full scale assessment, projections made by the Congressional Budget Office will have to suffice.

In May 2013, the nonpartisan federal agency calculated that by 2018, at which time the law will be fully implemented, about 7 million people will be dropped from their employer health plans, 5 million people will shift out of private plans, and 24 million people will join the insurance exchanges. In terms of percentages, those numbers work out to coverage changes for 4 percent of all individuals with employer-based insurance and 19 percent of all individuals with private insurance. Comparatively, the CBO estimates that the number of Americans without coverage will fall by 25 million, a decrease of more than 45 percent. For reference, the population of the United States stands at 315 million.

The fact that more Americans will be helped by the implementation of the Affordable Care Act is an important detail for any argument, even if it is ultimately found that the law was poorly designed and implemented, especially because a majority of those who receive insurance from their employers will likely see little change in their coverage. The specific example cited by Cruz — the “15,000 UPS employees got a notification in the mail that they were losing spousal coverage” — left out an important detail as well. According to the company memorandum, the policy change will only affect spouses who are eligible for insurance provided by their own employers.

2. Obamacare is “the biggest job killer in the country”

Again, there is not enough data to argue for or against that statement. Cruz’s argument is that the employer mandate, the Obamacare provision that requires businesses with 50 or more full-time employees to provide those workers with a minimum level of health insurance coverage or face tax penalties, will cause employers to shift employees’ schedules so that they will no longer be considered full time or layoff workers entirely. There is also the concern that employers will choose to hire more part-time workers rather than full-time workers.

While there is evidence to support the claim that the Affordable Care will modestly affect employment in the United States, the claim that the reform is a “job killer” is overblown. It is true that a few nonpartisan economic analyses have estimated that a small number of primarily low-wage positions will be cut as employers prepare for the additional labor costs added by Obamacare’s employer mandate to business’ balance sheets. But economists expect the impact will be minimal.

The original source of the concern for job loss was a 2010 report from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, which said the Affordable Care Act would have a small effect on employment, “primarily by reducing the amount of labor that workers choose to supply.” That fact, which the Republican party translated into a loss of actual jobs, was actually meant to imply that individuals may choose to work fewer hours if they receive subsidies to help buy insurance or retire early if close to retirement because insurance will be less of a financial burden. This decrease in the amount of labor in the economy would amount to one-half of 1 percent, according to the report.

CBO also said that the employer requirements “will probably cause some employers to respond by hiring fewer low-wage workers,” but companies may hire more part-time or seasonal workers instead. Hard evidence shows that employers are turning to part-time workers because of the economic situation, not necessarily Obamacare.

Duke University/CFO Magazine Global Business Outlook Survey polled 530 chief financial officers of United States-based companies last month, and found that 59 percent of the respondents said that they have increased the proportion of their workforce made up by temporary and part-time workers or shifted toward outside advisors and consultants. Of those, 38 percent attributed the shift to the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, while another 44 percent said it was because of extreme economic uncertainty.

But it is important to remember that companies that do not now provide insurance, but will soon be required to, probably employ around one percent of American workers. “You’ve got 5.7 million firms in the U.S.,” Mark Duggan, who served as the top health economist at White House’s Council of Economic Advisers from 2009 to 2010, told the Washington Post. “Only 210,000 have more than 50 employees. So 96 percent of firms aren’t affected. Then if you look among those firms with 50 or more employees, something on the order of 95 percent offer health insurance. So it’s basically 10,000 or so employers who have more than 50 employees and don’t offer coverage.”

3. “Health insurance premiums are skyrocketing”

Similarly, Republican Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky during his brief cameo in Cruz’s Senate Speech: “We went through this whole debacle of giving people Obamacare and it is going to be expensive. Everybody is going to pay more. Many people still will not have insurance. The ones who do have insurance are going to pay more.” How much an individual’s insurance costs will change because of Obamacare depends on a whole host of factors. It depends on age, current health status, state of residence, and of course, whether the individual (or family) was insured before purchasing a policy via the Obamacare-mandated insurance exchanges.

For example, those who are uninsured and have a preexisting condition will likely pay less for coverage than they would in the current private market. Without accounting for subsidies, those who are uninsured but young and healthy will likely pay more; those who are insured through their employers will likely experience few changes; and some 13 million Americans who are currently uninsured will pay little to nothing because they will become eligible for Medicaid. Plus, a vast majority of those buying plans on the individual exchange — 80 percent, according to the Congressional Budget Office, will receive subsidies of varying amounts to make insurance more affordable.

In general, exchange premiums also reflect insurers’ estimates of the cost of offering the new benefits to people: the plans offered on the exchanges must meet certain regulatory requirements, surcharges based on health status will be eliminated, premium variations based on age will be limited, and the three-year long, $10-billion reinsurance pool will theoretically insulate insurance costs from the shock of offering coverage to those previously uninsured customers or those who were enrolled in high risk plans.

As for states, premium increases can vary not only because each exchange has attracted a different number of insurers, but because states have regulated the insurance market for more than one hundred years and have developed different standards. For example, insurers operating in New York were not allowed to sell so-called bare bones plans, meaning that to adjust these plans to comply with Obamacare standards, which require insurance to cover a minimum set of benefits like maternity leave and mental health, insurers had fewer changes and fewer costs to add.

Plans are no longer able to charge more based on health status or gender, but they can vary based on geography, tobacco use, and age. Still, Obamacare regulations prohibit insurers from charging an adult 64 or older more than three times the premium charged a 21-year-old for the same coverage. Younger adults, who are less risky to insure, will likely see the greatest increases because their premiums are meant to balance out the medical costs of those older and sicker insurance consumers who are more likely to use their benefits.

An August 2013 RAND study, sponsored by the Department of Health and Human Services and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, calculated that there would be “no widespread trend toward sharply higher prices in the individual market.” Rather, rates would likely vary from state to state and based on individual circumstances.

This Is What Fact-Checking Ted Cruz Reveals | Wall St. Cheat Sheet

 

[RetiredGySgt]

In other words your own source states they don't know what will happen and that is your defense?

 

[Billy000]

In other words your own source states they don't know what will happen and that is your defense?

What makes you think I am making a defense? What are you talking about?

 

[TemplarKormac]

A liberal doing a fact check on anything is like giving a mammogram to a guy. It just isn't possible.

 

[Billy000]

A liberal doing a fact check on anything is like giving a mammogram to a guy. It just isn't possible.

And a teabagger can?

Even if the fact checker is a liberal (we have no idea), what difference would it make if they used non-partisan sources? It's a rather balanced article.

 

[TemplarKormac]

A liberal doing a fact check on anything is like giving a mammogram to a guy. It just isn't possible.

And a teabagger can?

Even if the fact checker is a liberal (we have no idea), what difference would it make if they used non-partisan sources? It's a rather balanced article.

I'm not the one dumb enough to do any fact checking period. Even if the guy used "non-partisan" sources, whats to stop him from spinning those sources to match his own points? I see any kind of partisan 'fact checking' to be disingenuous and not representative of any facts at all, just an agenda that needs some talking points.

 

[BDBoop]

From distortion to flat out lies, this article exposes Ted's bullshit on ACA during his 21 hour rant:

1. "Millions of people are hurting because of ObamaCare"

First, it is important to remember that less than three weeks of the six month enrollment period for the online marketplaces have elapsed, and while anecdotal information has trickled in about increasing premiums, a full scale assessment of how the health care reform has changed the individual market is months, if not years, away. In the absence of that full scale assessment, projections made by the Congressional Budget Office will have to suffice.

In May 2013, the nonpartisan federal agency calculated that by 2018, at which time the law will be fully implemented, about 7 million people will be dropped from their employer health plans, 5 million people will shift out of private plans, and 24 million people will join the insurance exchanges. In terms of percentages, those numbers work out to coverage changes for 4 percent of all individuals with employer-based insurance and 19 percent of all individuals with private insurance. Comparatively, the CBO estimates that the number of Americans without coverage will fall by 25 million, a decrease of more than 45 percent. For reference, the population of the United States stands at 315 million.

The fact that more Americans will be helped by the implementation of the Affordable Care Act is an important detail for any argument, even if it is ultimately found that the law was poorly designed and implemented, especially because a majority of those who receive insurance from their employers will likely see little change in their coverage. The specific example cited by Cruz — the “15,000 UPS employees got a notification in the mail that they were losing spousal coverage” — left out an important detail as well. According to the company memorandum, the policy change will only affect spouses who are eligible for insurance provided by their own employers.

2. Obamacare is “the biggest job killer in the country”

Again, there is not enough data to argue for or against that statement. Cruz’s argument is that the employer mandate, the Obamacare provision that requires businesses with 50 or more full-time employees to provide those workers with a minimum level of health insurance coverage or face tax penalties, will cause employers to shift employees’ schedules so that they will no longer be considered full time or layoff workers entirely. There is also the concern that employers will choose to hire more part-time workers rather than full-time workers.

While there is evidence to support the claim that the Affordable Care will modestly affect employment in the United States, the claim that the reform is a “job killer” is overblown. It is true that a few nonpartisan economic analyses have estimated that a small number of primarily low-wage positions will be cut as employers prepare for the additional labor costs added by Obamacare’s employer mandate to business’ balance sheets. But economists expect the impact will be minimal.

The original source of the concern for job loss was a 2010 report from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, which said the Affordable Care Act would have a small effect on employment, “primarily by reducing the amount of labor that workers choose to supply.” That fact, which the Republican party translated into a loss of actual jobs, was actually meant to imply that individuals may choose to work fewer hours if they receive subsidies to help buy insurance or retire early if close to retirement because insurance will be less of a financial burden. This decrease in the amount of labor in the economy would amount to one-half of 1 percent, according to the report.

CBO also said that the employer requirements “will probably cause some employers to respond by hiring fewer low-wage workers,” but companies may hire more part-time or seasonal workers instead. Hard evidence shows that employers are turning to part-time workers because of the economic situation, not necessarily Obamacare.

Duke University/CFO Magazine Global Business Outlook Survey polled 530 chief financial officers of United States-based companies last month, and found that 59 percent of the respondents said that they have increased the proportion of their workforce made up by temporary and part-time workers or shifted toward outside advisors and consultants. Of those, 38 percent attributed the shift to the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, while another 44 percent said it was because of extreme economic uncertainty.

But it is important to remember that companies that do not now provide insurance, but will soon be required to, probably employ around one percent of American workers. “You’ve got 5.7 million firms in the U.S.,” Mark Duggan, who served as the top health economist at White House’s Council of Economic Advisers from 2009 to 2010, told the Washington Post. “Only 210,000 have more than 50 employees. So 96 percent of firms aren’t affected. Then if you look among those firms with 50 or more employees, something on the order of 95 percent offer health insurance. So it’s basically 10,000 or so employers who have more than 50 employees and don’t offer coverage.”

3. “Health insurance premiums are skyrocketing”

Similarly, Republican Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky during his brief cameo in Cruz’s Senate Speech: “We went through this whole debacle of giving people Obamacare and it is going to be expensive. Everybody is going to pay more. Many people still will not have insurance. The ones who do have insurance are going to pay more.” How much an individual’s insurance costs will change because of Obamacare depends on a whole host of factors. It depends on age, current health status, state of residence, and of course, whether the individual (or family) was insured before purchasing a policy via the Obamacare-mandated insurance exchanges.

For example, those who are uninsured and have a preexisting condition will likely pay less for coverage than they would in the current private market. Without accounting for subsidies, those who are uninsured but young and healthy will likely pay more; those who are insured through their employers will likely experience few changes; and some 13 million Americans who are currently uninsured will pay little to nothing because they will become eligible for Medicaid. Plus, a vast majority of those buying plans on the individual exchange — 80 percent, according to the Congressional Budget Office, will receive subsidies of varying amounts to make insurance more affordable.

In general, exchange premiums also reflect insurers’ estimates of the cost of offering the new benefits to people: the plans offered on the exchanges must meet certain regulatory requirements, surcharges based on health status will be eliminated, premium variations based on age will be limited, and the three-year long, $10-billion reinsurance pool will theoretically insulate insurance costs from the shock of offering coverage to those previously uninsured customers or those who were enrolled in high risk plans.

As for states, premium increases can vary not only because each exchange has attracted a different number of insurers, but because states have regulated the insurance market for more than one hundred years and have developed different standards. For example, insurers operating in New York were not allowed to sell so-called bare bones plans, meaning that to adjust these plans to comply with Obamacare standards, which require insurance to cover a minimum set of benefits like maternity leave and mental health, insurers had fewer changes and fewer costs to add.

Plans are no longer able to charge more based on health status or gender, but they can vary based on geography, tobacco use, and age. Still, Obamacare regulations prohibit insurers from charging an adult 64 or older more than three times the premium charged a 21-year-old for the same coverage. Younger adults, who are less risky to insure, will likely see the greatest increases because their premiums are meant to balance out the medical costs of those older and sicker insurance consumers who are more likely to use their benefits.

An August 2013 RAND study, sponsored by the Department of Health and Human Services and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, calculated that there would be “no widespread trend toward sharply higher prices in the individual market.” Rather, rates would likely vary from state to state and based on individual circumstances.

This Is What Fact-Checking Ted Cruz Reveals | Wall St. Cheat Sheet

Many thanks.

 

[Billy000]

A liberal doing a fact check on anything is like giving a mammogram to a guy. It just isn't possible.

And a teabagger can?

Even if the fact checker is a liberal (we have no idea), what difference would it make if they used non-partisan sources? It's a rather balanced article.

I'm not the one dumb enough to do any fact checking period. Even if the guy used "non-partisan" sources, whats to stop him from spinning those sources to match his own points? I see any kind of partisan 'fact checking' to be disingenuous and not representative of any facts at all, just an agenda that needs some talking points.

You think its dumb to do fact checking? What sense does that make? You just believe what Cruz says? You just assume he is telling the truth?

If he is being disingenuous, why don't you read over the sources yourself?

 

[TemplarKormac]

 

[TemplarKormac]

And a teabagger can?

Even if the fact checker is a liberal (we have no idea), what difference would it make if they used non-partisan sources? It's a rather balanced article.

I'm not the one dumb enough to do any fact checking period. Even if the guy used "non-partisan" sources, whats to stop him from spinning those sources to match his own points? I see any kind of partisan 'fact checking' to be disingenuous and not representative of any facts at all, just an agenda that needs some talking points.

You think its dumb to do fact checking? What sense does that make? You just believe what Cruz says? You just assume he is telling the truth?

If he is being disingenuous, why don't you read over the sources yourself?

The problem is I don't think anyone in Washington tells the truth, and neither do you. I don't live life making assumptions, Billy. I've led you into a seething tirade and for what? Why so serious Billy?

I don't doubt the veracity of the sources, just the veracity of the person using them.

 

[Luissa]

A liberal doing a fact check on anything is like giving a mammogram to a guy. It just isn't possible.

Actually it is. Men can develop breast cancer, therefore one conclude some probably had mammograms. It's not common practice, but it is possible.

 

[TemplarKormac]

A liberal doing a fact check on anything is like giving a mammogram to a guy. It just isn't possible.

Actually it is. Men can develop breast cancer, therefore one conclude some probably had mammograms. It's not common practice, but it is possible.

Don't be a smartass, Luissa.

 

[Luissa]

And a teabagger can?

Even if the fact checker is a liberal (we have no idea), what difference would it make if they used non-partisan sources? It's a rather balanced article.

I'm not the one dumb enough to do any fact checking period. Even if the guy used "non-partisan" sources, whats to stop him from spinning those sources to match his own points? I see any kind of partisan 'fact checking' to be disingenuous and not representative of any facts at all, just an agenda that needs some talking points.

You think its dumb to do fact checking? What sense does that make? You just believe what Cruz says? You just assume he is telling the truth?

If he is being disingenuous, why don't you read over the sources yourself?

They just go on what they are told, if it isn't in The Blaze or Fox News it isn't true.

 

[Luissa]

A liberal doing a fact check on anything is like giving a mammogram to a guy. It just isn't possible.

Actually it is. Men can develop breast cancer, therefore one conclude some probably had mammograms. It's not common practice, but it is possible.

Don't be a smartass, Luissa.

Don't speak out your ass, Templar.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Sigh, the person who wrote this article (Meghan Foley) is a graduate of UC Berkeley... and you wanted to know why I had my doubts?

Thank you and good morning.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I'm not the one dumb enough to do any fact checking period. Even if the guy used "non-partisan" sources, whats to stop him from spinning those sources to match his own points? I see any kind of partisan 'fact checking' to be disingenuous and not representative of any facts at all, just an agenda that needs some talking points.

You think its dumb to do fact checking? What sense does that make? You just believe what Cruz says? You just assume he is telling the truth?

If he is being disingenuous, why don't you read over the sources yourself?

They just go on what they are told, if it isn't in The Blaze or Fox News it isn't true.

Did you have an argument of any kind or...?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Actually it is. Men can develop breast cancer, therefore one conclude some probably had mammograms. It's not common practice, but it is possible.

Don't be a smartass, Luissa.

Don't speak out your ass, Templar.

Too bad you beat me to the punch, Luissa.

 

[Billy000]

I'm not the one dumb enough to do any fact checking period. Even if the guy used "non-partisan" sources, whats to stop him from spinning those sources to match his own points? I see any kind of partisan 'fact checking' to be disingenuous and not representative of any facts at all, just an agenda that needs some talking points.

You think its dumb to do fact checking? What sense does that make? You just believe what Cruz says? You just assume he is telling the truth?

If he is being disingenuous, why don't you read over the sources yourself?

The problem is I don't think anyone in Washington tells the truth, and neither do you. I don't live life making assumptions, Billy. I've led you into a seething tirade and for what? Why so serious Billy?

I don't doubt the veracity of the sources, just the veracity of the person using them.

Does that include Ted Cruz?

A tirade? Are you kidding me? Lol

So what do you trust? I'm dying to know.

 

[Luissa]

You think its dumb to do fact checking? What sense does that make? You just believe what Cruz says? You just assume he is telling the truth?

If he is being disingenuous, why don't you read over the sources yourself?

They just go on what they are told, if it isn't in The Blaze or Fox News it isn't true.

Did you have an argument of any kind or...?

Do you? I haven't seen you present any form of an argument. You didn't bother to read what he posted, then you flamed liberals by using an untrue analogy.

 

[Billy000]

Sigh, the person who wrote this article (Meghan Foley) is a graduate of UC Berkeley... and you wanted to know why I had my doubts?

Thank you and good morning.

Well i would trust a university graduate over you any day. Again, what is stopping you from reading over these sources yourself?