Professional Obamacare-Hater Stephen Moore Can't Find A Single Fact To Support His Case

[healthmyths]

Why were 14 million people (9 million children) all qualifying for Medicaid not covered yet they were counted as "uninsured"?

Many states, like Texas, did not extend Medicaid after the ACA law was passed. So these people will end up going to the ER for every single health care issue from a rash to a heart attack, and who do you think pays that bill? You do. We all do through increased costs passed on by the hospitals who by law have to treat them.

NO that was NOT true!
FACTS here are the FACTS BEFORE ACA was passed!
14 million Medicaid eligible Americans were counted erroneously as "uninsured"!

The Actuarial Research Corporation (ARC) estimates that about 9 million of these individuals actually were enrolled in Medicaid during the year, but were categorized as uninsured in the Census survey. In the latest Census health insurance report, the Census Bureau acknowledgesthat the survey “…underreports Medicare and Medicaid coverage compared with enrollment and participation data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).”
Among uninsured individuals eligible for public programs, but not enrolled during the year: 89 percent were in working families, 41 percent were children under the age of 18 who could be enrolled in Medicaid and/or SCHIP, and 44 percent were Hispanic."
Proof?:http://coverageforall.org/pdf/BC-BS_Uninsured-America.pdf

AGAIN all before ACA! So tell me how efficient Obamacare will be when they couldn't even tell 14 million people they were eligible for
Medicaid! AGAIN ALL BEFORE ACA WAS SIGNED!!!!

One look at the BCBS logo and I know that's bullshit.

That 's because you are grossly totally uninformed IGNORANT idiot!
The CENSUS bureau SAID:the Census Bureau acknowledges that the survey “…underreports Medicare and Medicaid coverage compared with enrollment and participation data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).”

But you are so dumb you can't understand that the CENSUS said they were wrong to include 14 million people in the phony number of
46 million uninsured! THE CENSUS said it NOT Blue Cross!
BUT of course idiots you can't read anything that takes more the 30 seconds and your ADD kicks in!

 

[healthmyths]

Obamacare Is Barely Denting Corporate Profits - Bloomberg Business

Obamacare is good. It could have been much better if Republicans had helped instead of obstructing. We need single payer.

How in the hell can anyone believe Obama when this idiot first said there were 46 million "uninsured"... BEFORE ACA WAS PASSED...
NOW he uses 36 million! Because he KNEW the Census bureau that provided the phony" 46 million COUNTED 10 million illegal citizens!
Now after aCA passed HE ADMITS to the 36 million!
BUT even then the 36 million is bogus AS THE CENSUS bureau admits that 14 million people were eligible BEfORE ACA for Medicaid but the Census failed to consider that and included them then in with the uninsured.
Finally EVERY ONE including idiots like you I imagine think it is ONLY fair to count 18 million people under 34 that make over $50,000 that spend LESS then the cost for their employers' health plan as "uninsured'! But that is a fact and when subtracting these 42 million you come up with less then 4 million!
And this same gross exaggeration applied frequently by Obama...case in point when was the last time you KNEW of a family physician making $50,000 cutting off a diabetic patient's leg?
Totally fraudulent statement made by idiot Obama to get people agitated when all of the above elements WERE FALSE!!
NO family physician does surgery! Especially on a diabetic patient that because the physician didn't take his Hippocratic oath serious
prescribed amputation so the physician would make $50,000!
OBAMA: "Partly because it’s not treated as effectively as it could be. Right now if we paid a family if a family care physician works with his or her patient to help them lose weight, modify diet, monitors whether they are taking their medications in a timely fashion, they might get reimbursed a pittance.
But if that same doctor Ends up getting their foot amputated, that’s $30,000, $40,000, $50,000. Immediately the surgeon is reimbursed."

 

[blackhawk]

If Obamacare is such a huge success why does it have a 39 percent approval rating?

 

[Staidhup]

Liberals are open to what ever arguments you may have but will be shocked, indigent, offended, and verbal abusive toward you. Expect to be labeled a Racist, Nazi, Fascist, nut case, tea bagger, cracker, bible thumper, or what ever else they may drum up to call you.
The simple fact remains, if it was not a tax it would have never passed muster in the eyes of the Supreme Court. If Obama had been honest, which came out he was not, we wouldn't be still ranting about it. Very poor program, poorly written, eventually will become the 21st century nightmare that was foretasted.

 

[healthmyths]

AND IT WAS NEVER NEVER NEEDED!
A manufactured crisis built on false numbers.
When Obama AFTER ACA passed agrees there never were 46 million uninsured as 10 million were NOT CITIZENS as the Census agreed, he now says 36 million uninsured.
But not one person seems to care that 14 million of the 36 million were NOT ineligible for Medicaid/SCHIP... they just didn't know they could be enrolled and therefore that leaves 22 million not 36 million that are "uninsured".
Finally why should 18 million people who are under 34 and have very little health service requirements and who can afford as they make over $50,000 but don't participate with their employers' health plans be counted as the inflated 22 million uninsured?
That leaves truly 4 million that really want and need health insurance.
But ACA was built on blowing way out of proportion by nearly 1,000% the true number of "uninsured".

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Obamacare has increased enrollment in its health care exchanges to more than 11 million, and the conservative response to the law’s demonstrable success at carrying out its goals has been fascinating to behold. Measured by volume, the right-wing backlash has diminished severely, as great roaring waves of furious anger have given way to irregular ripples of discontent. But measured by its content, very little has changed. Conservatives are talking much less than they used to about Obamacare, but they are saying more or less the same things, treating the law as a costly and obvious failure. What’s most striking is how oblivious most of them remain not only to measures of the law’s success, but even to the broad parameters of its objectives.

To take a typical example, here is Stephen Moore, chief economist at the Heritage Foundation, making his case, such as it is, that Obamacare has failed to meet its cost targets. Perhaps the most revealing aspect of Moore’s column is the fact that, five years after its passage, the chief economist of the most influential conservative think tank in the United States lacks even a passing familiarity with its fiscal objectives.

Obamacare has two fiscal goals. The first is to pay for its expanded coverage with a combination of spending cuts and higher taxes, so that the net effect is to reduce the deficit. The second, and more ambitious, goal is to change the incentives of the health-care system to gradually bring down health-care inflation (a goal health-care wonks have called “bending the curve”). Moore’s column, which I am excerpting in its entirety, makes clear he does not understand either target. Moore begins by defining Obamacare’s goal as reducing the deficit:

If there were a contest for the biggest lie in Washington over the past 30 years, it would be hard to compete with President Obama's boast that he would put 30 million more Americans on Medicaid and Obamacare subsidies, and this would reduce the budget deficit. That's got to be right up there with President Clinton declaring, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman."​

A new Congressional Budget Office report has blown the lid off the Obama whopper fib.

Keep in mind what Moore is claiming here. Obama promised that the ACA would reduce the deficit, and according to Moore, the Congressional Budget Office has a new report showing this promise was false. If true, this would be enormous news. In fact, no such finding exists. CBO originally estimated that Obamacare would reduce the deficit. It correspondingly estimated for the next several years that repealing the law would increase the deficit. CBO stopped issuing cost estimates of the overall law. It did, however,report that its estimate of the law’s gross costs — the spending on coverage — has been falling, rather than rising. Indeed, the federal government is now projected to spend less on health care than it was projected to spend before Obamacare was passed:

Much More: Obamacare-Hater Can't Find Single True Fact -- NYMag

Stephen Moore has always struck me as someone who fudges facts. This seems to be another example.

what we know is that if we switch to capitalism the prices for health care would be 80% less and life expectancy would be increased 5-20 years.

 

[Lakhota]

Obamacare has increased enrollment in its health care exchanges to more than 11 million, and the conservative response to the law’s demonstrable success at carrying out its goals has been fascinating to behold. Measured by volume, the right-wing backlash has diminished severely, as great roaring waves of furious anger have given way to irregular ripples of discontent. But measured by its content, very little has changed. Conservatives are talking much less than they used to about Obamacare, but they are saying more or less the same things, treating the law as a costly and obvious failure. What’s most striking is how oblivious most of them remain not only to measures of the law’s success, but even to the broad parameters of its objectives.

To take a typical example, here is Stephen Moore, chief economist at the Heritage Foundation, making his case, such as it is, that Obamacare has failed to meet its cost targets. Perhaps the most revealing aspect of Moore’s column is the fact that, five years after its passage, the chief economist of the most influential conservative think tank in the United States lacks even a passing familiarity with its fiscal objectives.

Obamacare has two fiscal goals. The first is to pay for its expanded coverage with a combination of spending cuts and higher taxes, so that the net effect is to reduce the deficit. The second, and more ambitious, goal is to change the incentives of the health-care system to gradually bring down health-care inflation (a goal health-care wonks have called “bending the curve”). Moore’s column, which I am excerpting in its entirety, makes clear he does not understand either target. Moore begins by defining Obamacare’s goal as reducing the deficit:

If there were a contest for the biggest lie in Washington over the past 30 years, it would be hard to compete with President Obama's boast that he would put 30 million more Americans on Medicaid and Obamacare subsidies, and this would reduce the budget deficit. That's got to be right up there with President Clinton declaring, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman."​

A new Congressional Budget Office report has blown the lid off the Obama whopper fib.

Keep in mind what Moore is claiming here. Obama promised that the ACA would reduce the deficit, and according to Moore, the Congressional Budget Office has a new report showing this promise was false. If true, this would be enormous news. In fact, no such finding exists. CBO originally estimated that Obamacare would reduce the deficit. It correspondingly estimated for the next several years that repealing the law would increase the deficit. CBO stopped issuing cost estimates of the overall law. It did, however,report that its estimate of the law’s gross costs — the spending on coverage — has been falling, rather than rising. Indeed, the federal government is now projected to spend less on health care than it was projected to spend before Obamacare was passed:

Much More: Obamacare-Hater Can't Find Single True Fact -- NYMag

Stephen Moore has always struck me as someone who fudges facts. This seems to be another example.

what we know is that if we switch to capitalism the prices for health care would be 80% less and life expectancy would be increased 5-20 years.

Who are the "we" you're referring to? Give us some "credible" sources to back up your claim.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Who are the "we" you're referring to? Give us some "credible" sources to back up your claim.[how capitalism would reduce prices 80%]

dear, have you ever heard of East/West Germany????

 

[BlueGin]

The people treated but not insured go into a bucket called the hospitals "charity" account. The hospitals try to get them covered with Medicaid/Medicare but if they can't they eat those bills.

 

[BlueGin]

Not very. Their website is still only 40% finished and not even linked to all the healthcare providers.

 

[koshergrl]

ObamaCare will be a colossal failure, and this will lead to the People crying out for single payer healthcare.

Obamacare Exchange Cover Oregon Collapses in Failure - Breitbart

Oregon s governor seeks to sue contractor over state s failed ObamaCare exchange Fox News

Oregon governor announces resignation amid ethics scandal

Subpoenas arrive as Oregon governor announces departure Fox News

 

[healthmyths]

Obamacare has increased enrollment in its health care exchanges to more than 11 million, and the conservative response to the law’s demonstrable success at carrying out its goals has been fascinating to behold. Measured by volume, the right-wing backlash has diminished severely, as great roaring waves of furious anger have given way to irregular ripples of discontent. But measured by its content, very little has changed. Conservatives are talking much less than they used to about Obamacare, but they are saying more or less the same things, treating the law as a costly and obvious failure. What’s most striking is how oblivious most of them remain not only to measures of the law’s success, but even to the broad parameters of its objectives.

To take a typical example, here is Stephen Moore, chief economist at the Heritage Foundation, making his case, such as it is, that Obamacare has failed to meet its cost targets. Perhaps the most revealing aspect of Moore’s column is the fact that, five years after its passage, the chief economist of the most influential conservative think tank in the United States lacks even a passing familiarity with its fiscal objectives.

Obamacare has two fiscal goals. The first is to pay for its expanded coverage with a combination of spending cuts and higher taxes, so that the net effect is to reduce the deficit. The second, and more ambitious, goal is to change the incentives of the health-care system to gradually bring down health-care inflation (a goal health-care wonks have called “bending the curve”). Moore’s column, which I am excerpting in its entirety, makes clear he does not understand either target. Moore begins by defining Obamacare’s goal as reducing the deficit:

If there were a contest for the biggest lie in Washington over the past 30 years, it would be hard to compete with President Obama's boast that he would put 30 million more Americans on Medicaid and Obamacare subsidies, and this would reduce the budget deficit. That's got to be right up there with President Clinton declaring, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman."​

A new Congressional Budget Office report has blown the lid off the Obama whopper fib.

Keep in mind what Moore is claiming here. Obama promised that the ACA would reduce the deficit, and according to Moore, the Congressional Budget Office has a new report showing this promise was false. If true, this would be enormous news. In fact, no such finding exists. CBO originally estimated that Obamacare would reduce the deficit. It correspondingly estimated for the next several years that repealing the law would increase the deficit. CBO stopped issuing cost estimates of the overall law. It did, however,report that its estimate of the law’s gross costs — the spending on coverage — has been falling, rather than rising. Indeed, the federal government is now projected to spend less on health care than it was projected to spend before Obamacare was passed:

Much More: Obamacare-Hater Can't Find Single True Fact -- NYMag

Stephen Moore has always struck me as someone who fudges facts. This seems to be another example.

what we know is that if we switch to capitalism the prices for health care would be 80% less and life expectancy would be increased 5-20 years.

Who are the "we" you're referring to? Give us some "credible" sources to back up your claim.

A) here is a study believe it or not! http://www.jacksonhealthcare.com/media/8968/defensivemedicine_ebook_final.pdf

Proof is 90% of physicians surveyed say they order $850 billion a year in wasted duplicate tests, referrals all out of FEAR of being SUED!
Physicians estimate the cost of defensive medicine in US at $650 to $850 billion per year.
--- Emergency medicine, primary care, and OB/GYN physicians are most likely to practice defensive medicine.
--- 79 to 83% of surgeons and OB/GYNs have been named in lawsuits.
"Physicians contracted by the federal government practice significantly less defensive medicine as they are protected against lawsuits by the Federal Tort Claims Act. "
-- Only 48% practice defensive medicine compared to 92% of non-government physicians.
-- 89% of physicians support a patient’s right to be compensated fairly for true negligence.

So if only 48% of government contracted physicians practice "defensive medicine" yet 90% non-govt. physicians do practice shouldn't that
be proof that tort reform like what happened in 1946 would reduce the $850 billion a year insurance companies PAY OUT IN WASTED CLAIMS?

Now under states' laws insurance regulators determine premiums and premiums are determined by thing called medical liability ratio!
So when the $850 billion a year in "defensive medicine" claims drop SO to must the premiums under the state regulators!
Please ... I ask you to really understand what this means!
Defensive medicine is practiced because 94% of lawsuits are settled out of court by the insurance companies on the less then 5% of claims that are rejected by the insurance companies. They prefer simple cover expenses by raising the premiums!

If defensive medicine costs drop $100 billion a year Premiums MUST drop!

B) Those uninsured at hospitals services are paid by hospitals padding sometimes by 6,000% their services paid by insurance companies.
Again.. tax the lawyers 10% use that to pay the premiums for the truly 4 million uninsured and then audit hospitals to make sure padding doesn't
occur!
Between these two very simple solutions health insurance costs drop dramatically! Easily $300 billion a year in reduction... all by
1) Tort reform and 2)$27 billion a year tax revenue from lawyers used to buy insurance for the 4 million uninsured.

 

[healthmyths]

Obamacare has increased enrollment in its health care exchanges to more than 11 million, and the conservative response to the law’s demonstrable success at carrying out its goals has been fascinating to behold. Measured by volume, the right-wing backlash has diminished severely, as great roaring waves of furious anger have given way to irregular ripples of discontent. But measured by its content, very little has changed. Conservatives are talking much less than they used to about Obamacare, but they are saying more or less the same things, treating the law as a costly and obvious failure. What’s most striking is how oblivious most of them remain not only to measures of the law’s success, but even to the broad parameters of its objectives.

To take a typical example, here is Stephen Moore, chief economist at the Heritage Foundation, making his case, such as it is, that Obamacare has failed to meet its cost targets. Perhaps the most revealing aspect of Moore’s column is the fact that, five years after its passage, the chief economist of the most influential conservative think tank in the United States lacks even a passing familiarity with its fiscal objectives.

Obamacare has two fiscal goals. The first is to pay for its expanded coverage with a combination of spending cuts and higher taxes, so that the net effect is to reduce the deficit. The second, and more ambitious, goal is to change the incentives of the health-care system to gradually bring down health-care inflation (a goal health-care wonks have called “bending the curve”). Moore’s column, which I am excerpting in its entirety, makes clear he does not understand either target. Moore begins by defining Obamacare’s goal as reducing the deficit:

If there were a contest for the biggest lie in Washington over the past 30 years, it would be hard to compete with President Obama's boast that he would put 30 million more Americans on Medicaid and Obamacare subsidies, and this would reduce the budget deficit. That's got to be right up there with President Clinton declaring, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman."​

A new Congressional Budget Office report has blown the lid off the Obama whopper fib.

Keep in mind what Moore is claiming here. Obama promised that the ACA would reduce the deficit, and according to Moore, the Congressional Budget Office has a new report showing this promise was false. If true, this would be enormous news. In fact, no such finding exists. CBO originally estimated that Obamacare would reduce the deficit. It correspondingly estimated for the next several years that repealing the law would increase the deficit. CBO stopped issuing cost estimates of the overall law. It did, however,report that its estimate of the law’s gross costs — the spending on coverage — has been falling, rather than rising. Indeed, the federal government is now projected to spend less on health care than it was projected to spend before Obamacare was passed:

Much More: Obamacare-Hater Can't Find Single True Fact -- NYMag

Stephen Moore has always struck me as someone who fudges facts. This seems to be another example.

what we know is that if we switch to capitalism the prices for health care would be 80% less and life expectancy would be increased 5-20 years.

Who are the "we" you're referring to? Give us some "credible" sources to back up your claim.

A) here is a study believe it or not! http://www.jacksonhealthcare.com/media/8968/defensivemedicine_ebook_final.pdf

Proof is 90% of physicians surveyed say they order $850 billion a year in wasted duplicate tests, referrals all out of FEAR of being SUED!
Physicians estimate the cost of defensive medicine in US at $650 to $850 billion per year.
--- Emergency medicine, primary care, and OB/GYN physicians are most likely to practice defensive medicine.
--- 79 to 83% of surgeons and OB/GYNs have been named in lawsuits.
"Physicians contracted by the federal government practice significantly less defensive medicine as they are protected against lawsuits by the Federal Tort Claims Act. "
-- Only 48% practice defensive medicine compared to 92% of non-government physicians.
-- 89% of physicians support a patient’s right to be compensated fairly for true negligence.

So if only 48% of government contracted physicians practice "defensive medicine" yet 90% non-govt. physicians do practice shouldn't that
be proof that tort reform like what happened in 1946 would reduce the $850 billion a year insurance companies PAY OUT IN WASTED CLAIMS?

Now under states' laws insurance regulators determine premiums and premiums are determined by thing called medical liability ratio!
So when the $850 billion a year in "defensive medicine" claims drop SO to must the premiums under the state regulators!
Please ... I ask you to really understand what this means!
Defensive medicine is practiced because 94% of lawsuits are settled out of court by the insurance companies on the less then 5% of claims that are rejected by the insurance companies. They prefer simple cover expenses by raising the premiums!

If defensive medicine costs drop $100 billion a year Premiums MUST drop!

B) Those uninsured at hospitals services are paid by hospitals padding sometimes by 6,000% their services paid by insurance companies.
Again.. tax the lawyers 10% use that to pay the premiums for the truly 4 million uninsured and then audit hospitals to make sure padding doesn't
occur!
Between these two very simple solutions health insurance costs drop dramatically! Easily $300 billion a year in reduction... all by
1) Tort reform and 2)$27 billion a year tax revenue from lawyers used to buy insurance for the 4 million uninsured.

 

[Lakhota]

I don't read your stupid shit.

 

[OKTexas]

I don't read your stupid shit.

When you chose to remain ignorant, that makes you worse than ignorant, that makes you stupid.

But tell us, what will happen to the ACA when the federal subsidies are ruled illegal?

 

[Wyatt earp]

Why were 14 million people (9 million children) all qualifying for Medicaid not covered yet they were counted as "uninsured"?

Many states, like Texas, did not extend Medicaid after the ACA law was passed. So these people will end up going to the ER for every single health care issue from a rash to a heart attack, and who do you think pays that bill? You do. We all do through increased costs passed on by the hospitals who by law have to treat them.

If they do it in South Carolina they will pay, the state garnish wages for hospital bills.

 

[Claudette]

The only winners in the ACA are those the rest of us will be forced to pay for.

We who will be paying big deductables and our own healthcare and then turn around and have to pay for all those morons who can't take care of themselves. What a deal for we the taxpayer.

The ACA is a failure and anyone who wants sinigle payer is an idiot.

Who the hell wants the Govt in charge of Healthcare?

The Govt that has never done anything cheaply or well in ints entire history. The Govt programs that all turn into mountains of red tape, rules, regulations and a big load of bullshit.

To bad those Dem idiots didn't read the ACA before they passed it.

 

[healthmyths]

I don't read your stupid shit.

So you are calling doctors stupid shits then as I'm not making the survey up.
But idiots like you are the ones that seem to be so stupid you say oh let my insurance pay for it and then moan and groan my insurance rates go up!!!

 

[Seawytch]

ObamaCare will be a colossal failure, and this will lead to the People crying out for single payer healthcare.

Well, I hope it's not a colossal failure, people need health care coverage...and it is helping millions of Americans right now. But...I do hope you're right about it leading to Single Payer.

I think the biggest driver towards Single Payer will be the business community.

Bernie Sanders Got Republicans to Make His Argument for Single Payer

 

[healthmyths]

ObamaCare will be a colossal failure, and this will lead to the People crying out for single payer healthcare.

Well, I hope it's not a colossal failure, people need health care coverage...and it is helping millions of Americans right now. But...I do hope you're right about it leading to Single Payer.

I think the biggest driver towards Single Payer will be the business community.

Bernie Sanders Got Republicans to Make His Argument for Single Payer

Your "thinking" is based on your lack of knowledge of insurance!

FACTS let's deal with FACTS OK???

According to the United States Census Bureau,
55% obtain insurance through an employer, [170,000,000 covered by Employer]
10% purchase it directly. [31,000,000]
31% of Americans were enrolled in a public health insurance program: [94,240,000] on Medicare/Medicaid
- 14.5% (45 million – although that number has since risen to 48 million) had Medicare,
- 15.9% (49 million) had Medicaid, and
4.2% (13 million) had military health insurance [13,020,000]
Add all those up and it means: 308,760,000 of 310,000,000 covered by some form of insurance..
Health insurance in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Isn't that strange then why does the Census say there were 46 million "uninusred'???
BECAUSE they counted 10 million illegal aliens!
Because they admit they included 14 million people that were eligible for by Medicaid/SCHIP!

AGAIN these 14 million were eligible BEFORE ACA...so what kind of idiocy would give an administration that can't get 14 million covered to be a "single payer"??