CBS news story on ACA cost debunked by...Fox News? What?

Nocturnal

Ninja Wizard
Joined
Mar 3, 2003
Messages
1,525
Location
Tonight!
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/10/30/1251682/-Wow-Fox-Corrects-CBS-News-Obamacare-Insurance-Plan-Loss-Horror-Story?detail=email#

Head aspolode!

I keep seeing these types of stories. Some retard claiming that Obamacare is going to cost them evelenty billion dollars a month, then finally somebody fact checks and we all realize that sometimes people are dumb or dishonest.




You know how all these people are losing their beloved low-priced insurance plans because Obamacare took them away even though the President said "if you like your insurance plan you can keep it"? Sure you do, if you've listened to any media in the last week, and seen the CBS News segment that profiled Diane Barrette whose insurance premium is going from $54 a month to over $500.

A visibly distraught woman who recently lost her health insurance plan because of the new requirements within the Affordable Care Act recently expressed her frustrations to CBS News. In a report about the number of people losing their health plans, in spite of assurances by the president, one Florida woman choked up slightly while revealing that she will have to pay more than $500 monthly for the coverage she previously paid just $50 for.
She also noted that the fact that so many are losing their health care plans is “directly at odds with repeated assurances by the president.”
Many, including Dianne Barrette, a 56-year-old Florida resident, were recently informed that their current health care plans were not comprehensive enough to meet coverage requirements set by the ACA. Barrette was recently informed that her new plan will cost 10 times what she presently pays per month.

CBS' Jan Crawford took that information from Ms. Barrette and repeated it at face value with no investigation or followup. Poor, poor Ms, Barrette her insurance costs are skyrocketing by 10 times their original cost.

Well you will never believe who poked giant holes through this 'report': Fox News' Greta Van Sustern.

Greta teed up the interview using the same setup as Crawford’s piece, that Barrette is “finding out she will have to pay 10 times as much for health insurance” because “she is losing her current plan to Obamacare.”
“I have a copy of your Florida Blue insurance and it’s about $54 a month,” Greta continued, “and now I understand that under Obamacare, it’s going to go up, at least they said that the policy they would offer you under Florida Blue, would be $591; is that correct?”

Actually, the plan BCBSFL was only one of many plans Dianne has to choose from, 10 of which are cheaper than that $591, and based on her income, she’d only pay around $209 a month, but Greta did cut right to the chase about the quality of her old plan.

“Your $54 a month policy is a pretty, you know, bare bones policy, “Greta said. “Why do you want to keep that one, except for the price? Maybe you can get something better with a subsidy?”

Ms. Barrette goes on to say that this 'insurance' is perfect for what she needs: a doctor visit copay and prescription copay, and maybe some outpatient services. It turns out that she actually had that reversed and the insurance company paid a $50 'copay' towards a doctor visit, and $15 for prescriptions, and she herself was responsible for all the rest of the costs. The interviewee acknowledged no hospital stays were covered in response to Greta's question.
Now this is exactly the type of junk insurance Obamacare is meant to do away with, and it is not surprising that people don't know what their insurance covers. But a reporter with a major news outlet should have done some reporting and learned that. So it should be of great embarassment to CBS to be shown up that way by Fox filling in missing facts in their story.

What is funny though is that a subsequent interview that was to take place on Fox News with Ms. Barrette, was cancelled, after Greta poked holes in the story.

Following her chat with Van Susteren, Barrette got word from a network producer that her appointment to appear this morning on Fox News was cancelled, she tells the Erik Wemple Blog.
 

silberfuchs

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Feb 4, 2009
Messages
2,430
Well, I don't know if "debunked" is the right word here. It sounds like this woman was, in fact, going to have to pay more for insurance. Yes, her insurance policy was useless, but maybe she was just stupid instead of a liar.
 

FenderBender

Active member
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
100
It's not surprising that there are bad plans out there and people that don't understand them. But there is absolutely a gray area that lies between the $50/mo. plan and a $500/mo. plan. While it's easy to say that her current plan is wrong for her, it's a much harder issue to say which plan is right for her. As has already been mentioned the plans are forced to cover a range of services that people will probably not need. And the tax subsidies are just getting someone else to pay for her healthcare. Shitty media reporting aside, there is still an issue here, that will likely be coming up again.
 

chalupa

The gimp
Joined
Nov 30, 2006
Messages
13,108
Location
King
It's not surprising that there are bad plans out there and people that don't understand them. But there is absolutely a gray area that lies between the $50/mo. plan and a $500/mo. plan. While it's easy to say that her current plan is wrong for her, it's a much harder issue to say which plan is right for her. As has already been mentioned the plans are forced to cover a range of services that people will probably not need. And the tax subsidies are just getting someone else to pay for her healthcare. Shitty media reporting aside, there is still an issue here, that will likely be coming up again.
That is exactly the plan...eliminate the shit plans entirely, push people up the ladder. Offset the costs with subsidies as the industry sorts out the details, all the while regulating the outliers back to reality. The hope (I emphasize this part as hope) is that with a wider coverage base and preventative care, real costs of administering plans will come down with a little time, thereby slowly phasing out or reducing the subsidies.

The simple fact of the matter is that Americans delay preventative care and opt for emergency care/care once it is too late. Studies show this only leads to inflated costs, which leads to inflated premiums and copays. Reduce the actual costs of care, increase the pool of people paying, smooth the transition with subsidies...it isn't a bad plan in theory.

Execution, on the other hand, has so far been less than stellar, and by that I mean pretty close to as bad of a start as possible.
 

Nocturnal

Ninja Wizard
Joined
Mar 3, 2003
Messages
1,525
Location
Tonight!
It's not surprising that there are bad plans out there and people that don't understand them. But there is absolutely a gray area that lies between the $50/mo. plan and a $500/mo. plan. While it's easy to say that her current plan is wrong for her, it's a much harder issue to say which plan is right for her. As has already been mentioned the plans are forced to cover a range of services that people will probably not need. And the tax subsidies are just getting someone else to pay for her healthcare. Shitty media reporting aside, there is still an issue here, that will likely be coming up again.
We can only hope that the long term savings from people not abusing emergency rooms as their source of care. If not, then in the net we have an increased burden on taxpayers to some degree, and hopefully a healthier (and more productive?) population. Or people get sick of it and we go to single payer.
As far as the services people don't need, isn't that normal? Regular insurance has different levels of coverage, but it's not like I can pick and choose what types of care I want covered.
Well, I don't know if "debunked" is the right word here. It sounds like this woman was, in fact, going to have to pay more for insurance. Yes, her insurance policy was useless, but maybe she was just stupid instead of a liar.
Not debunked, but I guess "actually investigated with some real journalism".
 

FenderBender

Active member
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
100
That is exactly the plan...eliminate the shit plans entirely, push people up the ladder. Offset the costs with subsidies as the industry sorts out the details, all the while regulating the outliers back to reality. The hope (I emphasize this part as hope) is that with a wider coverage base and preventative care, real costs of administering plans will come down with a little time, thereby slowly phasing out or reducing the subsidies.

The simple fact of the matter is that Americans delay preventative care and opt for emergency care/care once it is too late. Studies show this only leads to inflated costs, which leads to inflated premiums and copays. Reduce the actual costs of care, increase the pool of people paying, smooth the transition with subsidies...it isn't a bad plan in theory.

Execution, on the other hand, has so far been less than stellar, and by that I mean pretty close to as bad of a start as possible.
The problem I have with this plan is the definition of "shit plan". If the only decent plan is one that this woman can't afford then her best option would probably be not to get one, but now she would still have to pay even if that was the case. And subsidizing it just forcing someone else to pick up the bill which I think is immoral.

As far as hoping that this will reduce costs, I would like to see a plan based on more than hope. It may be true that some people don't get enough preventative care, but in my opinion the problem is more complex than that, and reducing people's options is not going to lower healthcare costs, it will likely raise them.

We can only hope that the long term savings from people not abusing emergency rooms as their source of care. If not, then in the net we have an increased burden on taxpayers to some degree, and hopefully a healthier (and more productive?) population. Or people get sick of it and we go to single payer.
As far as the services people don't need, isn't that normal? Regular insurance has different levels of coverage, but it's not like I can pick and choose what types of care I want covered.


Not debunked, but I guess "actually investigated with some real journalism".
If these services were already covered then I don't think there would be a reason to pass laws making companies cover them. I've heard of insurance companies not covering certain procedures because the cost of being on the hook for them raises the premiums.
 

Nocturnal

Ninja Wizard
Joined
Mar 3, 2003
Messages
1,525
Location
Tonight!
If these services were already covered then I don't think there would be a reason to pass laws making companies cover them. I've heard of insurance companies not covering certain procedures because the cost of being on the hook for them raises the premiums.
Seems like the ones being cancelled mostly just had super low contribution amounts. I have seen a few things where certain areas are not covered but perhaps that's only an issue with privately purchased insurance.
 

chalupa

The gimp
Joined
Nov 30, 2006
Messages
13,108
Location
King
The problem I have with this plan is the definition of "shit plan". If the only decent plan is one that this woman can't afford then her best option would probably be not to get one, but now she would still have to pay even if that was the case. And subsidizing it just forcing someone else to pick up the bill which I think is immoral.

As far as hoping that this will reduce costs, I would like to see a plan based on more than hope. It may be true that some people don't get enough preventative care, but in my opinion the problem is more complex than that, and reducing people's options is not going to lower healthcare costs, it will likely raise them.
Do you think any and all subsidies are immoral?

Also, you write "will likely raise [costs]"...what are you basing that on? I don't see it being likely either way. i think the basis of the plan is sound because of the info I've read over time that shows Americans spend less on preventive care than other developed countries and have higher overall health care costs with on overall more unhealthy rating. Preventive care is very important, and when those costs come down, I think the thing has a chance of working.

I'm not defending anything, i'm simply pointing out that their intent does make sense. I haven't seen proof of this "likely" raising of costs.
 

FenderBender

Active member
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
100
Do you think any and all subsidies are immoral?
Yeah, I guess you could say that, but my issue is with the taking the money and less with what it is spent on.

Also, you write "will likely raise [costs]"...what are you basing that on? I don't see it being likely either way. i think the basis of the plan is sound because of the info I've read over time that shows Americans spend less on preventive care than other developed countries and have higher overall health care costs with on overall more unhealthy rating. Preventive care is very important, and when those costs come down, I think the thing has a chance of working.

I'm not defending anything, i'm simply pointing out that their intent does make sense. I haven't seen proof of this "likely" raising of costs.
I think it's fairly intuitive that an increase in the demand of health services will increase the cost of the service. And I agree that on paper preventative care is more expensive than emergency care, but that is only clear in the post mortem sense. But healthcare isn't the only thing that people are dealing with. A great majority of people will get through their 20's/30's without any need for emergency medical care. The cost of healthcare has to be balanced against all of the other things going on in people's lives. The people who decide they don't want health insurance may be taking a risk but that doesn't mean it's not calculated.

Saying more preventative care will reduce health care costs on average, might be true but it is only looking at one variable in a very complex system.
 

chalupa

The gimp
Joined
Nov 30, 2006
Messages
13,108
Location
King
I think it's fairly intuitive that an increase in the demand of health services will increase the cost of the service.
that is the opposite of the expected outcome. Add more people to the insurance "pool", supply those people with less expensive preventive care, and bring down the overall cost of the system. In doing so, the rate the individual pays (on average) comes down.

And I agree that on paper preventative care is more expensive than emergency care, but that is only clear in the post mortem sense.
What?

But healthcare isn't the only thing that people are dealing with. A great majority of people will get through their 20's/30's without any need for emergency medical care.
What?

The cost of healthcare has to be balanced against all of the other things going on in people's lives.
Why? Health care is the subject at hand. If we are looking at the "all of everything" let's cut defense spending to levels comparable with our next greatest potential threat: China.

The people who decide they don't want health insurance may be taking a risk but that doesn't mean it's not calculated.
Then do your best to repeal the law that says we HAVE to give care to those fucking morons, let them bleed out, right there on the mats in front of the automatic doors to the ER.

Saying more preventative care will reduce health care costs on average, might be true but it is only looking at one variable in a very complex system.
No, it is looking at a huge portion of the problem. Reduce emergency/necessary care through cheaper, preventive care. That isn't one variable, that is the crux of the thing based on all of the data available.
 

FenderBender

Active member
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
100
that is the opposite of the expected outcome. Add more people to the insurance "pool", supply those people with less expensive preventive care, and bring down the overall cost of the system. In doing so, the rate the individual pays (on average) comes down.
No, it's not. The expected outcome is that more preventative care will reduce the amount of emergency care. It says nothing about the cost of preventative care. If more people are going in for routine checkups then I expect the cost of routine checkups to increase.

Why? Health care is the subject at hand. If we are looking at the "all of everything" let's cut defense spending to levels comparable with our next greatest potential threat: China.
We don't do this because it's not reasonable. People don't put together a budget by saying buy everything I need. They have a limited amount of money and it will only go so far. I don't think it's for the government to say what our priorities are. It should be up to the individual. And I agree with defense spending as well. By all means lets reduce that too.

Then do your best to repeal the law that says we HAVE to give care to those fucking morons, let them bleed out, right there on the mats in front of the automatic doors to the ER.
My belief that people shouldn't be obligated to take care of other people's issues doesn't mean that I want bad things to happen to people. And compulsory obligation isn't the only way that things get done.

No, it is looking at a huge portion of the problem. Reduce emergency/necessary care through cheaper, preventive care. That isn't one variable, that is the crux of the thing based on all of the data available.
I've seen a lot differing ideas about why the cost is so high but all of the ideas are far from conclusive.
 

FenderBender

Active member
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
100
What is your alternative to ACA that would address personal responsibility among the uninsured?
I think it would be between hospitals, insurers, and their patients how best to mitigate their costs. But the first step would be repealing the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act.
 

Nocturnal

Ninja Wizard
Joined
Mar 3, 2003
Messages
1,525
Location
Tonight!
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-debunked-20131030,0,6010994.story#axzz2jPcI0f8w

Another "omg my insurance cancelled by Obama now more spensive" story falls apart.



I think it's fairly intuitive that an increase in the demand of health services will increase the cost of the service. And I agree that on paper preventative care is more expensive than emergency care, but that is only clear in the post mortem sense. But healthcare isn't the only thing that people are dealing with. A great majority of people will get through their 20's/30's without any need for emergency medical care. The cost of healthcare has to be balanced against all of the other things going on in people's lives. The people who decide they don't want health insurance may be taking a risk but that doesn't mean it's not calculated.

Saying more preventative care will reduce health care costs on average, might be true but it is only looking at one variable in a very complex system.
Those taking the risk are not calculating that risk. If they did, then they would buy insurance. That's the whole point of insurance. On average you pay a small premium over what your actual costs would have been because if you are in that 10% or whatever that does need something major you avoid financial catastrophe.

Then do your best to repeal the law that says we HAVE to give care to those fucking morons, let them bleed out, right there on the mats in front of the automatic doors to the ER.
That's not workable I think. Do we run credit checks before we stop the bleeding? Kick you to the curb if you left your ID card at home?

I know you probably agree there, but in the end that's the reality the healthcare debate has to accept. People are never going to be left on the floor dying in a hospital in the US. So we either suck it up as taxpayers and pay for it, force them to get insurance, or give everybody social medicine.
 
Last edited:

FenderBender

Active member
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
100
Those taking the risk are not calculating that risk. If they did, then they would buy insurance. That's the whole point of insurance. On average you pay a small premium over what your actual costs would have been because if you are in that 10% or whatever that does need something major you avoid financial catastrophe.
Again it's not done in a vacuum. Sure if I have enough money then insurance makes sense. If I have the cost of rent, utilities, children, etc. it's much harder to say that healthcare is priority number one, especially when the risk of catastrophic health problems are relatively low. But that is the one you now are forced to pay by law.
 

chalupa

The gimp
Joined
Nov 30, 2006
Messages
13,108
Location
King
Again it's not done in a vacuum. Sure if I have enough money then insurance makes sense. If I have the cost of rent, utilities, children, etc. it's much harder to say that healthcare is priority number one, especially when the risk of catastrophic health problems are relatively low. But that is the one you now are forced to pay by law.
I'm all for people dying on the sidewalk when the time comes.
 

Nocturnal

Ninja Wizard
Joined
Mar 3, 2003
Messages
1,525
Location
Tonight!
Again it's not done in a vacuum. Sure if I have enough money then insurance makes sense. If I have the cost of rent, utilities, children, etc. it's much harder to say that healthcare is priority number one, especially when the risk of catastrophic health problems are relatively low. But that is the one you now are forced to pay by law.
Technically you are correct, that if somebody simply can't afford it then it might be a calculated decision. However, most people have some ability to cut out discretionary spending in order to protect their finances and health. Now, if those folks know that they won't be left to bleed to death and that they don't care about collections because they are already in debt or are deadbeats.

Isn't this all just supportive evidence for single payer or at least highly subsidized ACA type plans? ;)


This argument is nearly identical to the one posed when talking about retirement savings. Social security is needed because a large number of people just won't save for retirement. The US will never let them just starve in the streets so the government forces you to pay into a big defined benefit retirement plan that subsidizes low earners.
 
Last edited:

FenderBender

Active member
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
100
I'm all for people dying on the sidewalk when the time comes.
I'm guessing you're being sarcastic but I can't really tell. I'll assume you are. I'm not in favor of people without insurance being left to die. I think there are a lot of alternatives that don't involve forcing every person to sign up for health insurance.

Technically you are correct, that if somebody simply can't afford it then it might be a calculated decision. However, most people have some ability to cut out discretionary spending in order to protect their finances and health. Now, if those folks know that they won't be left to bleed to death and that they don't care about collections because they are already in debt or are deadbeats.

Isn't this all just supportive evidence for single payer or at least highly subsidized ACA type plans? ;)
I think that single payer would probably be better than the hybrid, but I still think the best option is to let companies figure out the best way to provide their services to their customers.
 

Fero

Old World
Staff member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
9,114
Location
Civilization
You know, I get pissed off every time I see the government taking 35% of my income, but when I compare our healthcare to USA standards, I consider myself pretty lucky. I still have enough money left over at the end of each month, and I pay 200 euro yearly for additional hospital insurance. When I get sick or need an op, I'll need to pay about 5% of my bills. It's a pretty good deal.

I didn't really follow the whole Obamacare thing, but is this what Obama is working towards?
 
Top