Skip to main content

One of my two major complaints about President Obama during his first term was his administration's failure to engage in a sustained, ongoing public relations campaign to fight all the lies about Obamacare AFTER it was enacted. It's what enabled the Republicans and their Tea Party jihadists to completely misrepresent Obamacare and enabled them to lie their way into the majority in the House of Mis-representatives and untold governors' mansions in 2010.

Even while Obamacare was being debated, many people, myself included, kept trying to tell the Obama administration that such a contentious and controversial program would require a sustained, ongoing public relations campaign to prevent the other side from getting away with lying and engaging in demagoguery over it. The Obama administration did little in terms of defending Obamacare after its enactment, allowing Republicans and their shamelessly dishonest minions in the Tea Party to lie to the American public about virtually every aspect of it.

And now, we have a report that shows that Obamacare's already saved consumers $1.5 billion in medical costs:

The Obama administration needs to ensure that every single American is aware of this fact, with a continued, ongoing public relations campaign to refute the ongoing lies, distortions and blatant demagoguery that continues until this very day.

The administration and all of their allies need to be taking this type of information and "singing it from the mountaintops," so to speak.

And this is BEFORE all of the major provisions of Obamacare have even been implemented.

Take that, you lying thugs in the Republican Party.

(P.S. For anyone who's interested, the second major complaint about the Obama administration's first term: all-too-willingly watering down the stimulus program (after announcing a $1.7 trillion stimulus program, the administration immediately signaled its willingness to “compromise” which resulted in Republicans taking advantage of an already weakened  negotiating position, resulting in a stimulus program which was about half of what it should have been, which resulted in a sluggish economic recovery that allowed one of the weakest Republican party nominees in history to actually con their way into contention in the 2012 Presidential election.)

Originally posted to wdrath on Thu Dec 06, 2012 at 12:37 PM PST.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  two points of interest (to me): (5+ / 0-)

    1. Most insureds in this country are insured through a group plan and are not going to see a direct benefit from the MLR rebates. So telling them that consumers saved 1.5B is going to leave them asking, "where's my money?"

    2. From the linked article:

    "...consumers in Texas, New Mexico, Missouri, West Virginia and South Carolina saw the biggest benefits, where MLRs improved 10 percentage points or more."

    Red states, mostly. IOW - these red states are places where pre-Obamacare regs were weak and allowed insurers to get away with very lopsided MLR's for way too long. I wonder how many of these recipients sent their Obamacare-checks back to their insurers, what with it being socialist and all...

  •  Doesn't matter. Since the money didn't (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    go into Republican pockets as specific payments (money saved doesn't seem like money grifted) this is just smoke and mirrors money and it was money wasted.

  •  The Insurers Are Leaving A Couple Items Out (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    The study cited includes insurers
    saying 80% MLR (medical loss ratio/)
    20% operational profit.

    Actually, for low coverage and "bronze tier"
    plans, it's as low/high as 60% loss ratio,
    40% operational profit.

    ObamaCare replaces this

    and frankly, most my colleagues think ObamaCare
    is much better.   And, strictly compared with that
    shell game it is.

    But I think the reason why
    this happened:
    Insurers Nervous Over
    Prospect Of Romney Victory
    Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, AP,

    (the story/link has disappeared--the insurers,
    whether or not there's a connection, in fact
    almost desparately actually WANT ObamaCare.)

    Medicare is national health insurance for
    patients (customers if prepared to see the
    standard parallel to the standard equivalent
    situation) the carriers don't want.

    They get paid, then, to take some (now many)

    They also get paid to manage head-counts of
    patients, in which case they actually then become
    for the moment "accountable care organizations"
    and where they actually HAVE done some real good.
    I know people in their part of the sector and virtually
    all are good people simply living in a wanting structure.

    The high risk exchanges are thus to be understood as
    "outskirts of Medicare."   It's essentially cost-plus with
    high profits up to that point, but at which point
    patients are simply less profitable and halfway passed
    off to the taxpayer.

    High risk being high cost is like second base to
    Maury Wills.

    So oligopoly/monopoly is defined by the ability to
    charge different prices to different abilities to pay,
    at will, and to control risk, including shafting the
    general population.

    ObamaCare is static as defined by Nassim Taleb
    (he happens to have been recorded by CNBC:)

    and also the exquisite, precise institutionalization
    of oligopoly.

    I've a lot of ideas addressing this and similar
    items in other sectors at my own site.

    I care being a really good DailyKos camper, so the
    link to myself in the third paragraph suffices.

    Have a nice day.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site