Skip to main content

A man fills out an information card during an Affordable Care Act outreach event hosted by Planned Parenthood for the Latino community in Los Angeles, California September 28, 2013. REUTERS/Jonathan Alcorn
This is a true Obamacare horror story:
Yesterday I posted about a Fort Worth Star Telegram article that leads with the tale of Whitney Johnson, a 26-year-old new mother who suffers from multiple sclerosis (MS). Her insurer just cancelled her policy, and according to Johnson, new insurance would cost her over $1,000 a month.
The good news is that the thing that makes it a horror story isn't that Whitney Johnson lost her insurance and can't afford new coverage, because it turns out Johnson actually was able to purchase coverage for $350 a month—not the $1,000 she initially had told the newspaper.

What makes it a horror story is that when the Star Telegram learned that Johnson actually was able to get coverage, they did nothing to change their original report, even though it was at best incomplete. As Maggie Mahar, who wrote the post linked above, puts it:

This major daily’s nearly 200,000 daily readers saw the story that would lead them to believe that Americans who received cancellation notices were “left in limbo.” Most, it concluded, would wind up uninsured – or paying more than they could afford.  As I’ve pointed out many times – and as more and more coverage is revealing – the opposite is true.
Mahar researched the stories of three other "Obamacare losers" included in the Star Telegram's report; it turns out Johnson's story was not alone in being incomplete. In fact, of the four people in the report, three were tea party members. That alone doesn't prove anything, but when you've got a bunch of teapartiers who just so happen to make the perfect Obamacare victims, it can't hurt to be skeptical.

But according to Mahar, the reporter assigned to the story didn't have a background in health policy and even if she had, she was operating under such a tight deadline, she didn't have much time to do adequate research. When that happens, we end up with stuff like this.

In the end, as frustrating as it is to see Obamacare horror stories that don't add up, it's actually good news that they usually aren't what they seem to be, not just for the "victims" but also for the success of Obamacare. As long as Obamacare works, that's not something sloppy reporting can undo.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
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

  •  Name of the reporter? I could email them (16+ / 0-)

    and let them know I'd appreciate a retraction.

    Once in a while you get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right.

    by darthstar on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 03:23:47 PM PST

  •  Eternal Narrative Of Lost White Tribal Paradise (17+ / 0-)

    ....which was used to such great effect in Germany.  It used to be great before things were ruined by them, the Other, the ethnic  parasite.

    The most common scenario is the local news website commenter who says he had coverage for his whole family on the open market for $380 a month, and now his bill is $1,000 a month which he can't afford on his $37 K salaray.

    Of course he did NOT have insurance for his whole family for $380 on the open market, and he does NOT have to pay $1000 because his salary qualifies him for a subsidy.

    Men are so necessarily mad, that not to be mad would amount to another form of madness. -Pascal

    by bernardpliers on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 03:27:42 PM PST

    •  I wish that were true... (0+ / 0-)

      ...but I make less than that and don't qualify for a subsidy.

      The funny part is that my ACA coverage actually is $381/month. But it's for me alone, not a family.

      Former libertarian...who grew up.

      by RevBobMIB on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 02:26:50 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The family part is what I expect would (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        portlandzoo, betson08, SilentBrook

        both make him eligible for a subsidy and make it extremely unlikely he had a $380/month policy unless it was a high deductible junk policy.

        Democracy is a contact sport...

        by jsmagid on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 04:00:31 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Does your state (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cipher14, Blight45

        have expanded Medicaid to pay for the supplement? Some states refused to accept expanded Medicaid even with the government paying for that Medicaid expansion.
        Frankly, I would like to see a Medicare, not Medicaid but a Medicare for All or some type of Single Payer system of health care. We COULD HAVE HAD a Public Option along with the ACA, but guess who would not go along with that plan that President Obama wanted to put into place? Our congress would not agree to the Public Option.  The same congress that has a 5% approval rating and is even less popular than cockroaches, root canal procedures or colonoscopies.
        Oh, on another point. The ACA was a Republican Plan, initially and endorsed by the Heritage Foundation, which is a Right Wing "???Think??? Tank."

  •  What I don't understand is how insurance (22+ / 0-)

    companies get away with sending out non-renewal notices to these people giving an alternative, higher-cost plan without informing the policyholder of their options for purchasing a plan on the exchange. Insurers are major beneficiaries of "Obamacare," they should be doing their part to make it work.

    "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." --I.F. Stone

    by Alice in Florida on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 03:28:09 PM PST

    •  My Guess (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Lujane, Vatexia, rhauenstein, rabrock

      Is that the bill has such language in it, that the Insurance Carriers' Mega Attorneys have determined, let's see how they word it... oh yeah it's, I would have no trouble representing the opinion you have full authority to cancel and try to scam more out of this...

      They weigh risk and law maneuvering strategy and know full well nothing but MAYBE a miniscule fine will possibly be assessed.

      That's how it looks from my viewpoint...

      •  The letter canceling our insurance from Regence (18+ / 0-)

        required us to inform them that we did NOT want to be shuffled into a new account. But finding the new policy, what it cost, and what it covered required a little work.

        We finally located the policy, compared it to policies on our states broken website, went to an insurance agent and got a Silver plan, not on the exchange, for less than our cancelled policy and for less money and better coverage than the new policy Regence cooked up for us.

        So our horror story is we have more coverage for less money and best of all, we can use it without fear of cancellation. But we had to navigate our old insurers website to get our better price and coverage, and go to an insurance agent to purchase our policy. Which was easier than buying an cell phone.

        The horror…the horror!

        ACA is a good start, but lets finish at Medicare for All.

        Oh, and my wife and I are both over 60 and we didn't have to take a physical, fill out pages of forms, or spend exhaustive hours with an insurance agent trying baffle and confuse us.

        •  NOT the NORM THEN (0+ / 0-)

          Grabber:
          YOu and your wife are NO WHERE the NORM then when it comes to ACA.

          IT IS SUPPOSED to lower costs for those over 60 DUH!!!!

          The ones seeing the skyrocketing costs are those under 30's!!

          And BTW how much is your "copay, deductible, annual costs" before they cover anything????

          That is what most people are forgetting also goes into their costs!!

          •  Fuck are you mad at me for? I don't remember (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            doinaheckuvanutjob

            asking anybody to screw over younglings so I could get robbed less on my healthcare costs.

            But since you asked so nice, our copays are on average 20% of the cost of the procedure or drug. Down from "Why not just charge us the whole amount" territory. We paid $1,400 a month and had a deductible of nearly $$6,000, now we have a deductible of $1,000 each. And our annual costs are $600 less a year. Lots more coverage and a policy we can read and understand. We picked a plan signed on the dotted line and went home. Also the plans offered were designed to be compatible with the healthcare networks in our region of the state. So no doctor or service hunting, or fear of denial of payment after a procedure or emergency.

            So we think we are still getting robbed. But we are not being robbed and then left to die.

            And most young people we know are either on their parents policies, or have group coverage thru work. Or if self employed and making not so much while raising a kid, are eligible for Medicaid. Or like my orphaned nephew in Ohio who is 19, works part time, goes to college part time, and just got a letter from the state  informing him he is eligible for Medicaid. We offered to pay for his healthcare to help him out, but now we'll probably pay for his car insurance, when he gets a car. This makes healthcare and a car possible and takes a whole bunch of stress out of his life and off his budget. Thanks ACA!

            A self employed buddy of mine and his wife were going to have to pay $300 more a year because their income just fell on the no subsidy side of the line. They have two college kids on their policy. The wife retired, she was thinking about it anyway, and now they all pay less for more coverage.

            In our circle of friends and family, from those with the lowest incomes to people who don't qualify for a subsidy, everybody has either gotten free coverage thru Medicaid or are now paying less or a little more for more coverage and none of them can be dropped for using their new insurance or getting sick.

            Healthcare security is really priceless to the older people, and our daughter who has a pre existing condition.

            ACA is a good start. It will get better if the repugs let us tweak out the bugs and problems. Then we can get a better deal for under the 30s you only care about.

             Medicare for all would be better.

    •  Because the contract said so. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JerryNA, PipeUp

      The insurers priced their pre-ACA policies based on the contract not having guaranteed renewability (read:  cheaper average premiums as insurers can weed out the big users of health insurance), which current law requires.  Insurers simply are fulfilling their contractual obligation to the insured -- none of which says that they have to inform their policyholders of the Exchange.

    •  The same way (7+ / 0-)

      credit card companies sent out notices telling people they (the cardholder) agreed to remain with the card at 29% interest right before the CCRA (Credit Card Reform Act) went into place).

      The last grab at low-hanging dollars from unscrupulous corporations, of course!

    •  They are still better robbing you if they can (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      chantedor, debocracy, Silina

      Sad, but if you can cancel a policy with a premium of $1,000 and tell the holder "Ooops, with the changes in the industry, we have this other option that won't leave you in limbo(but it costs $1,500)", 1- they are $500/month richer 2- they make the regulator look bad for subsequent regulations 3- they have upped your premium while blaming it on the "current changes".
      Heck, it is all profit from where they are sitting. All they need to do is get the person to sign on the dotted line. After that, it is an enforceable contract. They are the REAL death panels, my friend!

    •  Access to health care vs American insurance (9+ / 0-)

      Meanwhile we Canadians all have access to a doctor and whatever medical care those doctors say we need, with no out of pocket cost regardless of income, and regardless of past, present, or future medical condition, and without possibility of denial, paid by taxes for mere (20 or 30) dollars a month than Americans pay in taxes which do not cover health care at all.

      Some Americans have this fictitious idea that Canadians stream to the US for medical care, while American hospital dats shows that only 0.11% of Canadians have gone to the US for medical care by choice or (falsly) perceived need, while 99.89% of Canadians choose to get all our medical care in Canada, as do 2 million Americans each year.

      Also, objective polls show that 94% of Canadians say that the health care they get in Canada is better than the health care which most Americans can get in the US.

      According to the American National Institutes of Health website, of 38 studies comparing medical outcomes between the US and Canada, of the studies showing one nation to have superior outcomes to the other, 71% of those studies show Canada to have better medical outcomes for cancer, heart disease, all chronic illnesses, and all surgery than the US does.

      It is very clear, by all objective criteria, that Canadian government funded, physician run health care is better in all regards than the insurance funded, insurance run health care that Americans have.

      In Canada, doctors, and doctors alone, make medical decisions for Canadians, while in the US, insurance company bureaucrats, and insurance company bureaucrats alone, make medical decisions for Americans.

         

      •  How is this paid for? (0+ / 0-)

        Do you have a national tax collection  system??  In some European countries they give everything to retirees, but their tax rate is over 70%.  How does Canadasupport their hea;th care system?

        •  My Canadian friends (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Blight45

          do pay higher taxes, but they get something for those taxes. They love their health care, and have clinics that are for everyone, not just the poor, and those clinics are open 24/7.
          We have a friend who moved his business, along with his employees to Canada so his employees could get health care that would be cost prohibitive here in this country. He then expanded his business and hired Canadian employees. Now, that was twenty years ago, before the ACA, which is a START and the first improvement on our health care system since LBJ's Medicare.
          I would have moved to Canada in 2004 when GWB was put in office for a 2nd term, but I was over 70, was retired and had no first degree Canadian relatives. LOL I tried to get my Canadian friends to "adopt" me, but since they are somewhat younger than I, that would not work.

    •  Irked me, too ... (0+ / 0-)

      and seemed to be both "right hand doesn't know or care what left hand is doing" or "it's a conspiracy -- on someone's part!" Could not imagine how or why my previous (2013) company could even GET AWAY with sending out the "sorry, you're cancelled" notice without including in the same letter "Oh, but the ACA is opening so look there." Horrible marketing and PR all around. No, not illegal, but terrible marketing and PR.

    •  how they get away with it... (0+ / 0-)

      actually, they are being sued in a couple of states for doing this, and for failing to meet the new policy criteria that they themselves agreed to and demanded and got 3 years to comply with. But in the larger sense, how they get away with it is zero enforcement of laws that limit corporations's rights to screw consumers, and the gutting of the individual's ability to be successful agains them, should they somehow be able to bring them to court.

  •  People need to care enough to bombard the media, (12+ / 0-)

    right wing outlets, politicians, etc. and in general "put it out there" about the MANY successes of ACA.

    Also, just saw on Huffpost that healthcare costs are lower than ever quite suddenly, don't you know. Trumpet this far and near, guys!

    "The soil under the grass is dreaming of a young forest, and under the pavement the soil is dreaming of grass."--Wendell Berry

    by Wildthumb on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 03:38:34 PM PST

    •  Yes, yes and yes (0+ / 0-)

      Get the truth out to people. If those interested in the truth would turn on MSNBC instead of FOX a.k.a. FAUX Channel perhaps they would learn the truth. However, FOX/FAU does have those pretty, little blondes with empty heads, versus intelligent people of all ethnicities and genders and gender orientations, who have an education, not just a good figure and dye job.

  •  This is not unusual! (11+ / 0-)

    If it bleeds, it leads!  Corrections are dull and do not sell.  I've seen that several times in our local paper.  Often it is not politically motivated, but totally motivated by good old fashion capitalism.

    Thus when our state entomologist pointed out that the front page story about "vampire moths" attacking people in a nearby suburb was incorrect -the moths were actually mesquite looper adults in one of their periodic outbreaks and that the people who reported it were probably bitten by mosquitoes - the newspaper was not at all interested in a correction.

  •  Unfortunately for the rest of Texas (9+ / 0-)

    the Star Telegram is not what it used to be: honest or fact finding. It is not unusual to see an article filled with holes and not one at the Telegram to plug them up, once the REAL TRUTH is known to most people. It seems they like looking like fools.

    "We can have Democracy in this country or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis

    by 2BOrNot2B on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 03:42:50 PM PST

  •  Oh, u seem to forget what "sloppy" reporting CAN (14+ / 0-)

    do.

    hint 1: Iraq War run-up

    hint 2: coverage of Iraq during its worst years (2004-2007)

    hint 0: coverage of 2000 Presidential campaign.

    The problem is that 99 times of 100, the "sloppiness" tends to flow in one direction: bolstering the right-wing.

    So it is not "sloppiness". It is propaganda.

    And yes, we can go through an entire year of Obamacare becoming more and more successful, while the MSM line gets more and more entrenched in the "Obamacare is Doomed" story.

    So much so, that if we don't fight those "sloppy" lies tooth and nail and put the truth out, we might find ourselves with most Dems running away from Obamacare in the November campaign, while most Repugs run on its supposed "failure".

    ------------
    To take an even worse example: in my home country of Israel, most Jewish-Israeli citizens (the dominant group) don't know Israel still maintains a military Occupation regime on Palestinians, have no clue what this regime dictates to its subjects, and nearly no Israeli knows the geographical boundaries over which this regime is in effect.

    Despite the fact that most Israelis live 15 miles or less from those boundaries.

    Most Israelis also have a very fuzzy notion about the history of that regime, if at all.

    All the result of a rather thorough job of "sloppy" journalism and teaching by the Israeli media and education system.

    •  My eyes are cold (0+ / 0-)

      I read BLEACHING instead of teaching in you last sentence.  

      Reach out your hand if your cup be empty, If your cup is full may it be again

      by VPofKarma on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 02:21:52 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  sloppy (and dishonest) reporting (0+ / 0-)

      You make some very good points about the dangers inherent in sloppy reporting - and that's putting it charitably.  But it's odd that you go on to suggest that in your own country of Israel, "most Jewish-Israeli citizens (the dominant group) don't know Israel still maintains a military Occupation regime on Palestinians."  Perhaps your use of a freighted term - "military occupation regime" - is the problem (or problematic framing that skews the response) but in my experience in Israel with Israeli Jews, this is an utter, easily demonstrated falsehood.

  •  Those who want to see the ACA fail by lying... (4+ / 0-)

    Where will you be when the lights go out?  We really want to know.  

    Snark!

    Sarcasm on...It is so nice I live in a post racial America...Sarcasm off.

    by wbishop3 on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 03:47:26 PM PST

  •  About coverage for all of those young invincibles (5+ / 0-)

    Is it at least hypothetically true that through the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute, implemented by the ACA, those young invincibles, if they organized to do so, could create insurance exchange pressures FOR THEIR OWN MARKETS, by establishing "best practices" justification, through the PCORI, that protect their health by means of preventative practices that they would be willing to pay insurance coverage for?

    Couldn't preventative health care coverage include areas such as comprehensive Mental Health, diet and exercise, personal environment interventions for allergies and such, alternative therapies, etc. Some of these areas are included in some conventional coverage packages, but my point is that young invincibles have their own unique blend of demands on this kind of coverage and they could create insurance market pressures for themselves through research entities such as the PCORI.

  •  My Obamacare Horror story (23+ / 0-)

    Long story short, I'm going to pay ZERO for me, my new wife and two kids.  

    ZERO.

    Free dental, free eye exam and glasses.  

    Six days ago I was paying $589 just for myself and no dental or eye care.  

    A real horror story. The GOP is fucked because more and more people will believe their wallets over the bullshit being peddled by those assholes.  

    This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

    by DisNoir36 on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 04:05:28 PM PST

  •  There is a real horror story in there, and it's (12+ / 0-)

    the $1,000 a month insurance tab -- not to mention my family's $1,200 a month insurance tab --- prior to subsidies.

    It's good -- very good -- that  the ACA makes it possible for many of us to get health coverage who could not get it before, but there is still a lot of work to do.

    So long as American health care continues to cost at least twice as much as the world's best health care while delivering signigicantly inferiror results, it will be a drag on the economy and will inhibit our ability to provide truly good care to all Americans without regard for whether they are under this icare or that icaid.

    LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

    by dinotrac on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 04:19:34 PM PST

    •  You got spunk. (6+ / 0-)

      ...was my favorite TV exchange of all time until Jerry Seinfeld decided he wasn't going to date Jewish girls anymore.  He decided he'd go on a blind date with the Chinese girl, whose last name was Chang.  When she arrived, she looked and seemed Jewish to Jerry, surprising him and leading to the best two syllable punchline of all time:

      "I thought you were Chinese."
      "Why? Because of my name?"
      "Well, yes."
      "Oh, well I changed it."
      "What was it before," Jerry asked.
      "Changstein."

      Only Seinfeld could get away with it; and, maybe not these days.  

    •  yes...more work (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CookieThumper, Silina

      more real progressives like myself in Congress who don't get bought and paid for by the insurance industry like our President, Schumer, Gillibrand and the rest..we need more Bernie Sanders-like Congressional folks.
      Scott Noren DDS
      Ithaca, NY
      No Frack Zone

      www.norenforsenate.com Scott Noren DDS

      by DoctorNoren on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 02:39:30 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  True, but............. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        doinaheckuvanutjob

        The ACA is a start. Do I, as a retired RN, want to see a Medicare for All or Single Payer System, Yes, Yes, and Yes. The ACA is a beginning and nothing has been done, regarding our health care system since LBJ's Medicare, which, I might add, works very well at low administrative cost.
        Another issue, in the US, is our high cost of medical care, it is an obscenity. We, in the US, have higher costs than other developed nations and with less favorable outcomes, regarding our life expectancy. Our infant and maternal death rate is higher than in other developed nations. In this really wealthy nation those things are unacceptable.

    •  Single payer is next. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CookieThumper, debocracy, Silina

      The problem with the ACA is that everything still goes through private insurance companies. In France, they have single payer  get as good or better coverage than we do (at least more uniformly applied)and at half the price. (Source: The World health Organization) The WHO is not running for any office.They just tabulate the facts and report. Who gets care, at what price, are there some folks who die for lack of hospitals, that sort of stuff. That is all they do. France is #1 with an 87% positive rating ... we are #37 or 39, I can't remember which, before passage of the ACA. Incidentally, they still have private insurance.
      We need to expand Medicare / Medicaid and move to single payer.

      •  Single payer is a big bore to me. Don't care one (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        CookieThumper, debocracy

        way or the other.

        The whole year-long emphasis on insurance was a giant misdirection and benefit to the insurance companies.

         If it makes no difference, fine.  If we don't do a better job of practicing medicine, how we pay for it won't much matter.  If single payer makes that possible, fine.

        I grew up with a form of single payer because I was a military dependent and we used base hospitals and dispensaries.

        It was in many ways superior to anything I've had since.

        LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

        by dinotrac on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 02:55:43 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  So far, my family's saved about 600$ a month (20+ / 0-)

    Changing from our corporate "plan" to state sponsored Obamacare saved us around $600 a month.  It's not a huge amount.  But, hey, now my wife's driving around in a new car that she was in dire need of.  It's our Obamacar.  So, we redistributed that savings directly back into the economy.   I wonder how much money is going to be injected into the economy that would have been lost in a bottomless money pit of crazy insurance fees?

    What's the difference between the Federal government and organized crime? One's legally sanctioned.

    by FrankenPC on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 04:49:18 PM PST

  •  Fort Worth Star Telegram home of Molly Ivins (5+ / 0-)

    for all of those years.

    The Startlegram is best left writing about 3 headed chickens being born in Decatur than trying to write real news stories.

  •  Let's see ... (5+ / 0-)

    you're a reporter for a right wing rag, owned by a right-wing consortium, supported by right-wing advertisers, in a staunchly right-wing city, entrenched in a right-wing state - and you expect him/her to write positive things about a librul program, promulgated by a socialist, Marxist, Kenyan colored president? That reporter would be standing in the neighborhood unemployment line in a heartbeat - and then have his benefits yanked out from under him. Truth doesn't matter - selling papers and advertising space does.

    Your teachers' union - the first, and often, only line of defense for your children's education

    by FeldMP on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 05:50:00 PM PST

    •  So you think the reporter is afraid to lose her (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Tennessee Dave

      job? That is a rather sad comment on the state of our free press, but I hear you, fellow teacher: In Wisconsin, Scott walker stated that teachers only paid 5% toward their pension. The local press ran with it without checking it, and a couple of weeks later, we lost our union. What he carefully did not state is that the Educator's Trust Fund is only getting funds from a 5% withholding on our paychecks and that the Wisconsin Law prevents the State from adding one red cent to the pot. Some folks in Madison were ready to attack me on the street, thinking that my pension would be 95% state funded.
      The lesson is: We pay dearly from such sloppy reporting, and we need to confront it every time we see something that is not reported accurately

  •  "Startling!" (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Vatexia, OleHippieChick, SilentBrook

    Molly Ivins used to call this paper the "Startlegram."  And that wasn't really a total slam, because several decades ago, it was a somewhat more progressive rag than, say, The Dallas Morning News.  And Ft. Worth, the city, used to be more progressive and humanity-driven, almost a Portland or Austin.

    But of course these days, there really is no Ft. Worth.  Ft. Worth now consists of the white-flight, teabagger, megachurcher suburbs that surround it.  And that's where the Startlegram's readership, or what's left of it, lives.  The rest is the same ole song n' dance about the total lack of credibility and professionalism in journalism today, and on and on.  I give up.  Again.

    "One of the boss' hangers-on sometimes comes to call, at times you least expect. Tryin' to bully you, strongarm you, inspire you with fear--it has the opposite effect."--Bob Dylan, "Floater"

    by oldmaestro on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 05:51:20 PM PST

    •  Back in the 70's I think, (0+ / 0-)

      The star-telegram was bought by one owner who began presenting shocking stories above the fold. The headlines were printed in Red ink. The idea, apparently,  was to sell more papers through vending machines. This was when the name "Startlegram" was attached to the paper.

      The effort didn't last very long, but the name is still remembered by some of us. I didn't see it myself, but I was told this story by a guy who worked for one of the the Houston papers and who had previously worked for the star-telegram during its startlegram days.

      The US Supreme Court has by its actions and rhetoric has ceased to be legitimate. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot - over

      by Rick B on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 03:21:08 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Interesting. (0+ / 0-)

        Thanks for the background.  I didn't figure that Molly invented the name.  As a veteran newspaperwoman, she was very much steeped in newspaper lore and, as I recall, it was the source of a fair amount of her humor.

        "One of the boss' hangers-on sometimes comes to call, at times you least expect. Tryin' to bully you, strongarm you, inspire you with fear--it has the opposite effect."--Bob Dylan, "Floater"

        by oldmaestro on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 07:27:31 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  As for Obamacare, (3+ / 0-)

    when all else fails, there is always misinformation.

    Wanting to own a gun is an immediate indicator that you should be the last person to have one.

    by pollbuster on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 06:03:30 PM PST

  •  Story corrected (13+ / 0-)

    Just for the record: The story has been corrected by the Executive Editor, with an apology.

  •  Their story and they are sticking to it. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    old blue 2, skettelhut

    Once again trutthiness wins over the truth.  The GOP has a narrative which bears no relation to fact but that doesn't stop them from reporting what they think the news should be instead of what is!  If they repeat their version of the truth often enough, the public is sure to buy it/

  •  Don't any of these reporters (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ahianne

    Have editors?

    Living is easy with eyes closed...

    by skybluewater on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 06:45:07 PM PST

  •  The Obama administration should have set up (8+ / 0-)

    a rapid response PR team weeks ago specifically tasked to immediately combat the continuing stream of complete and utter bullshit purveyed by the teabagging wingnuts. Lord knows the media won't do it.

  •  There's another one I haven't yet seen be debunked (14+ / 0-)

    Ahttp://www.ijreview.com/2013/12/105176-alabama-mom-shares-devastating-experience-obamacare-open-letter-american-people/

    A conservative friend passed along the above link. The key quote:

    On October, 1, 2013 we received our letters like other Alabamians about our new premiums and plans for 2014 from Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) of Alabama. When I opened our letter to say I had sticker shock was an understatement. Our premiums for the Blue Saver Silver would now be $753.26.
    Karri Kinder and her family live in Auburn, AL. The article doesn't specifically state their income but it is low enough that the kids both qualify for Alabama's Kids First Program.  

    I used the Browse Plans feature on healthcare.gov to look up the cost of the Blue Saver Silver program for 2 adult enrollees. It is $502 a month before any subsidies. A family earning the median household income for Auburn ($43,160) wouldn't qualify for a subsidy but the kids would qualify for Kids First.  

    The Kinder family must earn less than the median income because I also found a Snopes.com article that says the Kinder family qualified for $255 in federal subsidies.

    So that brings the premium down to $247, not the $753.26 claimed.

  •  Never let mere facts stand in your way (4+ / 0-)

    When you're right, like the Tea Party crew, facts are simply inconvenient.

  •  Corrections Are Never Corrections (5+ / 0-)

    Even if the newspaper were to run a correction of the story you know it won't be in the same place or with the banner headline of the original.  The intended harm has been done and will remain.

  •  End of Media (6+ / 0-)

    Newspaper readership is dropping like a rock because they can no longer afford staff to actually research their stories or editors to check them

    Go back and read a newspaper from the 1930s or 1940s.  You will be shocked at the level of useful detail found in print at the time.

    It's all on microfilm.

    William Hamilton practices Law and is a writer and community activist in the Charleston, SC area. He can reached through www.wjhamilton.com

    by wjhamilton29464 on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 07:51:44 AM PST

    •  True (0+ / 0-)

      When I remember the quality of newspapers, it saddens me.  The Star-Ledger in Newark eviscerated its editorial staff; most of the Gannett newspapers are shells of their former selves (plenty of front-page features, little news (of any level) - and charges $1.00 ($1.50 on Saturdays) for about 20 broadsheet pages.

      Slash staffs, reduce the oversight, produce garbage newspapers.  That's what's occurred.

      The comeback began in Virginia ... it's time to make it grow in 2014!

      by JJ Zucal on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 02:10:52 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Letter to the Editor? (0+ / 0-)

    Has there been letters to the editor over this published?  If not, does someone have a template for writing them?  I would be very interested in shaming them for their yellow journalism.

    •  Try their website (0+ / 0-)

      Many newspapers have a link to write letters; in fact, they prefer them that way rather than having to type in a written letter.

      The comeback began in Virginia ... it's time to make it grow in 2014!

      by JJ Zucal on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 02:11:55 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Honestly employer provided healthcare (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SilentBrook

      SHOULD be lower than any other provided. It's a group plan which is supposed to allow for lower costs as opposed to individual plans. But you have to keep in mind that going by the costs they show in that article of $160 is a tough amount to pay when you are working for minimum wage. Not to mention most of their employees are part-time employees anyway...and no subsidies to help cover those costs of the Wal-mart health plan. This is why most Wal-mart employees qualify for medicaid as opposed to buying into the group insurance plan. Unless your management at Wal-mart you are going to qualify for subsidies anyway (as opposed to their statement "A Journal of the American Medical Association analysis from September showed that unsubsidized Obamacare enrollees will face monthly premiums that are five to nine times higher than Walmart premiums.") They are ignoring all those facts in this article.

    •  OK, let's look at the quality of munseym's (0+ / 0-)

      "evidence", shall we?

      munseym's link takes you to a Washington Examiner article.  

      The Washington Examiner, you say?

      Wikipedia:

      The Washington Examiner is a political journalism publication based in Washington, D.C., that distributes its content via daily online reports and a weekly magazine.[1] It is owned by MediaDC,[2] a subsidiary of Clarity Media Group,[3] which is owned by Denver billionaire Philip Anschutz[4] and which also owns the influential conservative opinion magazine The Weekly Standard.[5] From 2005 to mid-2013, the Examiner published a daily tabloid-sized newspaper, distributed free throughout the Washington, D.C., metro area, largely focused on local news and conservative commentary.[1]
      Later:
      When Anschutz started the Examiner in its daily newspaper format, he envisioned creating a conservative competitor to The Washington Post. According to Politico, "When it came to the editorial page, Anschutz’s instructions were explicit — he 'wanted nothing but conservative columns and conservative op-ed writers,' said one former employee." The Examiner's conservative writers include Byron York (National Review), Michael Barone (American Enterprise Institute, Fox News Channel), and David Freddoso (National Review, author of The Case Against Barack Obama).[4]
      SourceWatch:
      The Examiner's editorial page is heavily conservative; it is headed by Mark Tapscott, with American Spectator senior editor Quin Hillyer serving as its associate editor. The paper's national political coverage, which also appears in Examiner papers in Baltimore and San Francisco, was previously headed by Bill Sammon, a former Washington Times reporter who has written several books praising George W. Bush. (Sammon is now the deputy managing editor for Fox News Channel's Washington bureau.[1]) Chris Stirewalt, who has been described as "a true conservative voice"[2], is the Examiner's political editor. Mary Katherine Ham, former managing editor of the conservative Townhall.com, briefly served as the Examiner's online editor for a few months in 2008 [3] before joining the Weekly Standard.[4] Matthew Sheffield, executive editor of the Media Research Center blog NewsBusters, is in charge of the Examiner's website.[5] Byron York, formerly of National Review, joined the paper in February 2009.[6]
       
      Now that, of course, doesn't automatically make the Ex wrong.  The right-wing WSJ has had good, accurate reporting for decades.   It does, however, suggest, erm, that perhaps a teeny bit of bias just might creep into their stories from time to time.

      At the same time, their lying by half-truths and cherry-picked "facts" while ignoring other salient ones, is amply documented, including right here at DKos (h/t War on Error).

      So it's a paper (if I can dignify it with that term) whose reportage I'd be inclined to take with a few grains of salt and a healthy dose of fact-checking.

      Nonetheless, the story instantly reverberated around the right-wing echo chamber and thereby quickly attained the status of "fact".

      This, despite the fact pointed out right in this thread by truckingnana and elsewhere, that this is an apples-to-oranges comparison.  (They are still both health care plan related, so at least it's not apples to anvils, as is often the case).  ACA coverage is still individual coverage, which has not ever and will not ever compete with group plans offered by large employers.  The ACA, as written wasn't designed to address that.  Single payer would have addressed that, as would a public option, but something tells me munseym wouldn't be too enthusiastic about either of those ideas.

      Speaking of bias, what about the reporter, Richard Pollock?  Well, his twitter feed provides a clue.  In it you'll find such gems as:

      * accusing Harry Reid of trying to kill the UI benefit extension bill and then blame it on Republicans;
      * some tired debunked talking points in a back-and-forth with little Johnny Putzhoretz about the POTUS [my presumption] not signing up for the ACA (hint, dunderheads: He has employer-provided health insurance, which the ACA was not designed to alter;
      * wondering aloud if "27 Dems defecting on Obamacare" is "the beginning of the end for healthcare.gov";
      * claiming that social scientists are "a clueless lot",
      * musing about "when writers were tough, working-class guys, not elitists" [presumably that includes Mr. Pollock];
      * claiming the unemployed are "Obama's enduring victims",
      * and claims that "Bill de Blasio's 'march' to end inequality tramples little guy and raids charities for new revenue."

      That's just in the last day.

      Pollock an objective reporter?  Color me skeptical.

      So now to the article itself.

      Pollock's evidence?

      A Journal of the American Medical Association analysis from September showed that unsubsidized Obamacare enrollees will face monthly premiums that are five to nine times higher than Walmart premiums.
      There is no link in the WashTimes piece to this JAMA story.  The actual provenance of the story is provided only vaguely.  No authors cited.  No way really for a reader to check without doing quite a bit of investigation.  But after said bit of investigation, turns out it's probably this one from 25 September 2013.

      And that article is behind the JAMA paywall.  Which means that those without access have no way of evaluating whether Pollock is representing the JAMA story fairly, whether he's leaving out facts that don't fit his narrative, and so on.  And we've demonstrated that Pollock does have a particular narrative, and it is consistently hostile to Democrats and Democratic policy initiatives.  There is also no way (short of finding a library that carries JAMA or subscribing to the publication) of evaluating the quality of the research that went into the original story.

      So we are left with Richard Pollock's and the Washington Times's gloss on what the JAMA piece supposedly said, devoid of context that might clarify or explain the findings.  In other words, we are left with Pollock's and WashTimes's say-so on the matter.

      And, as demonstrated above, the credibility that gloss and say-so are, let's say, just a little bit in doubt.

      Accordingly, I call bullshit on munseym.

      "A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence agst. foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home." - James Madison

      by gharlane on Sun Jan 12, 2014 at 12:53:19 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Lies iies and more lies (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SilentBrook

    It is a sad commentary that so many people are reporting such stories that are lie talking points.  It seems that the Republican party has lost its way and their right wing followers are being used to spread lies.  Everyone listen up.  Every time you hear a story about bashing and telling tall tales call the reporter or write them and ask what scientific facts do they have for their story.  It seems that making up talking points is par for the course for some people who could not write a fact if it stared them in the face.

    One hope we have is that Daily Kos will expose the lies and point the way to the truth.

  •  Interesting tidbit from the Dallas Observer (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SilentBrook
    What the story didn't say was that Johnson, along with two of the other three Obamacare victims included in Berard's story, were affiliated with the Tea Party, a fact that only came to light when blogger Maggie Mahar did some due diligence.

    If Stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out? ~ Will Rogers Quote

    by lcdrrek on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 02:04:58 PM PST

  •  Here is the Star-Telegram's apology: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SilentBrook

    http://www.star-telegram.com/...

    In it, the executive editor of the paper blames their failure to vet the story on all the concurrent stories on the healthcare.com site-- a different matter entirely-- and basically admits that they fell for all the other hit pieces on Obamacare. He also mentions (rather accusingly) Mahar's "pro-Obamacare point-of-view, which is fine", without noting the difference between the responsibilities of an issue-related website and of a large newspaper.

    At least their original story was able to fester for six weeks before the apology appeared, which allowed the facts to catch up with it.

    Debating with a conservative is like cleaning up your dog's vomit: It is an inevitable consequence of your association, he isn't much help, and it makes very clear the fact that he will swallow anything.

    by David Franks on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 02:14:39 PM PST

    •  Here's my version (0+ / 0-)

      Debating with a 'progressive talk show host' and being a progressive former US Senate candidate myself who progressive media hosts don't like because it threatens corporately bought and paid for Dem incumbents, is like cleaning up your dog's vomit: It is an inevitable consequence of your association, he isn't much help, and it makes very clear the fact that he will swallow anything.

      www.norenforsenate.com Scott Noren DDS

      by DoctorNoren on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 02:37:14 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Policy Canceled (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JJ Zucal, Vermont Girl, SilentBrook

    My story is similar in the respect that I, too, was in the individual market (a pre-existing condition pool in CO) and was one among the millions that had my policy canceled.

    After going on HC.gov I will now be getting a new policy that is not only better but for $100 more my wife will now have health insurance for the first time in many years.

    I suspect my situation is not unique and that most of those who had policies canceled, over whom was made such a fuss, will end up with better insurance at a lower or comparable cost.

  •  What the Dems need (0+ / 0-)

    Show the people who not only benefited from getting insurance (first time or less expensive), but benefited from no lifetime caps and young adults who could stay on their parents' insurance while they get a start on their adult lives; farmers and the long-term unemployed who the Republicans are holding hostage; show Ted Cruz's "filibuster," etc.

    Commercials cannot only run now; they must run through the election season.  Americans are getting tired of the GOP's antics, little reminders might help Dems retake the House for 2015.

    Dems also must do more promotion (especially television) about the website.  The website has had a good run after working out the bugs, but more people need to know about it and the state exchanges.

    The comeback began in Virginia ... it's time to make it grow in 2014!

    by JJ Zucal on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 02:18:39 PM PST

  •  How I wish ... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JJ Zucal, SilentBrook

    ... I had a dime - or even a nickel - for every e-mail I've deleted in the past 3 weeks about the "impending Obamacare disaster".  I could use that to fund my wife's health insurance for the 3 years between when I turn medicare-eligible and when she does, and I could retire NOW!

    Regarding the lack rigorous reporting on the issue - What'd'ya expect - this paper IS from Texas, and ISN'T from Austin, so nobody in their market WANTS to hear any "good news" about Obamacare (altho, that there Affordable Care Act just might be the ticket ... ). * headslap *

    OF COURSE the New Right is wrong - but that doesn't make WRONG the new RIGHT!

    by mstaggerlee on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 02:19:18 PM PST

    •  I started (0+ / 0-)

      unsubscribing from conservative sites, including The Tea Party website, but they keep sending me stuff.  At least it goes into my spam file.

      The comeback began in Virginia ... it's time to make it grow in 2014!

      by JJ Zucal on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 02:21:39 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  The Star-Telegram used to be the liberal paper (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SilentBrook, debocracy

      They are almost not a newspaper now. The advertising revenue has dried up, apparently as stores moved out of downtown and into malls, and then as the malls dried up because of the Republican-caused Great Recession. I'm guessing here, but I don't think the big box stores buy advertising the way Sears and the older department stores did either.

      They even closed their Austin Bureau in 2012. The Monday and Tuesday newspapers have shrunk to four sections of four to six pages each. They no longer publish national editorials, and I seem to recall that they recently sold the building they operated from. Recently they have started having the Dallas Morning News print their paper in a joint operating agreement.

      Another point. Fort Worth is not a strong conservative city. It IS the largest city in Texas which voted for Romney or McCain, but Fort Worth pretty much matches the state of Texas overall. It's the fifth largest city in Texas and all the larger cities vote strongly Democratic. The Democrats are pushing hard to turn Fort Worth blue in November. The fact that Wendy Davis is a state Senator from Fort Worth and is expected to run for governor is a real advantage this year.

      The US Supreme Court has by its actions and rhetoric has ceased to be legitimate. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot - over

      by Rick B on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 03:53:23 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Just called the newspaper (0+ / 0-)

    The editor has allegedly posted a correction or edit to the paper today online addressing this as above..Good work Kos...
    I guess there is some hope for Democracy!!!
    Scott Noren DDS

    www.norenforsenate.com Scott Noren DDS

    by DoctorNoren on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 02:34:11 PM PST

  •  I DO have a horror story! (0+ / 0-)

    Thanks to the ACA, our nearly worthless insurance coverage is costing more and covering less. I earn just enough money not to qualify for a subsidy, and the insurance company is using the ACA as an excuse to increase our rate from $915 to $1084 per month for my wife and myself, despite being in good health, simply because I am 60 and my wife is 59.

    Right now that buys us a plan with a $6000 deductible and 80 percent coverage on the next $6000 or so.  That means unless we're near death, we really don't even have insurance.  We pay out of pocket for all of our health care, which makes us less likely to seek such care when we need it.

    I thought we couldn't have a crappier plan, but thanks to the ACA, our premium will increase $169 per month, our deductible will increase to $6350, and the "notch coverage" will decrease from 80 to 60 percent.

    I'm happy for this lady in Texas who got her plan for $350.00 per month thanks to the ACA, but doesn't anyone find it ironic that she will actually now have much better coverage than me?  Don't I deserve at least as much for all that I have to pay?

    Right now we pay nearly 20 percent of our take home income for this nearly worthless coverage.  We really can't afford to pay any more, and thanks to the ACA, we don't even have a choice of going without insurance.

    There is no other plan available to us, because we live in a state where one carrier (Highmark BCBS) is the only provider.  This is not what I have in mind when I think of "single payer".

    The ACA is a giveaway to the insurance companies - more of our tax dollars flowing into the private sector with far less in value coming back in return.

    If the insurance companies are so powerful that single payer just isn't possible in America, we should at least have a public option.  Let me buy into Medicare now at a fair rate.  I know that the government won't rip me off the way that BCBS is gouging me right now, and then finally, I will actually have real coverage like that lady in Texas!

  •  Obamacare Horror Story (0+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    Hidden by:
    debocracy

    1st it is the Affordable Care Act (ACA) written by and for the health insurance indusrty to increase profits by mandating 40-60 million new victims to purchase a defective product while having no real mechanisms to prevent the indusrty from denying coverage to those that paid for it. 2nd in what universe is $350 a month for health insurance even reasonable? What is the deductible? $1,000?? $2,000??? The co-pays? How much of the policy is $ub$idized by taxpayers? It amazes me how everyone defends this grand giveaway to the insurance industry that only increses their stranglehold on our nation's healthcare system while relegated millions to no hope at all for access except through ERs!
    WAKE UP!!!

  •  Journalism 101 (0+ / 0-)

    Aren't journalists supposed to report the whole story without attempting to shade the story so it comes out the way they or their editors wish?  As Jack Webb used to say, "Just the facts and nothing but the facts."  Leaving out part of the story isn't journalism, it's propaganda.

  •  Editor of Star-telegram apologized today (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SilentBrook

    Here is Jim Witt's report Star-Telegram report on Affordable Care Act left out key information. I don't think much of his weak apology.

    If you haven't seen Steve Benen's article today on this star-telegram story, here it is ACA ‘horror stories’ keep crumbling. The part that got to me was "And when that same reporter later suggested to her editors a follow-up piece on the area’s Obamacare “winners,” they weren’t interested."

    Compare that to Jim Witt's statement

    "Although Mahar styles herself as an unbiased reporter, it’s clear from reading her posts at healthinsurance.org that she’s got a pro-Obamacare point-of-view, which is fine.

    Although I believe she overemphasized some aspects to make it appear that we were part of a conspiracy to paint the Affordable Care Act in a negative light, her main point hit the mark — we did not do our job completely and therefore let our readers down."

    The underlining is mine.

    Witt is representative of the MSM view of the ACA, but he simply doesn't believe he is involved in a conspiracy. I guess he didn't report to some overlord before his paper wrote a typical MSM takedown of the ACA.

    The US Supreme Court has by its actions and rhetoric has ceased to be legitimate. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot - over

    by Rick B on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 03:01:20 PM PST

  •  Please update with editor's info (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    betson08

    If we bombard them with a demand to correct and don't let up until they do (and threaten to go to some big media outlets if they don't), the headache for not correcting will get big enough that they'll do it.

    If you can find money to kill people, you can find money to help people. --Tony Benn

    by rhetoricus on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 03:30:53 PM PST

  •  How awfully typical. I have an ObamaCare WIN! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    betson08, SilentBrook, debocracy

    I already have coverage but my sister of 50 works a crappy little job with no benefits. My mom bought her some coverage for $145 a month. But when I looked into it, it was just catastrophic and didn't cover any preventive routine health care. I went on the exchange--here in VA there is no Medicaid for anyone but a few exception like pregnant and displaced. I was able to use her tax credit to get her a policy for$15 a month. This was such a savings and such a bargain--she could go to doctors now for $25--that I got her dental for another $22. So from $145 for ridiculously little coverage, she now pays $37 a month, saving a hundred dollars, getting way more and dental. Thank you Mr. President.

    "Education Is Not the Filling of a Pail, But the Lighting of a Fire" W.B. Yeats

    by RareBird0 on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 03:35:53 PM PST

  •  "Medicare is better!" (0+ / 0-)

    A TPer friend of mine (who was a public school teacher, so a government employee AND a union member, and hates both, of course) declared that she had investigated the ACA options available to her, and it would cost her "$316 more a month!" Horror story! Before, she was paying $200 a month!

     I said, "But you get medicare!" (Which she does-- she's 65 and retired.)

    "So?"
    "So you don't NEED health insurance, but if you did, and went and shopped for it privately, trust me, it would be a lot more than that at your age."

    "Well," she declared, "It's more than I was paying for my insurance when I was employed."

    I pointed out that when she was employed by a public school system, her union and her employer were subsidizing her premiums, so her insurance wasn't really $200 a month at all.

    Huff, she said. Well, Medicare is better! It pays for everything no deductible!

    "Yes, because it's the single-payer government insurance that us liberals wanted and you TPers think is socialism!"

    Then she went off on how "I paid for this Medicare" and all that, like, you know, us liberals don't.

    But no matter what, she's going to tell her horror story about how she (though she has Medicare) would have to pay more for ACA insurance than she did when she had union-negotiated subsidized insurance. Sigh.

    •  The best answer to a fool is silence, although any (0+ / 0-)

      other would have the same effect.

      Never promote men who seek after a state-established religion; it is spiritual tyranny--the worst of despotism. It is turnpiking the way to heaven by human law, in order to establish ministerial gates to collect toll. John Leland

      by J Edward on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 07:14:33 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  If she has Medicare, she's not required to sign up (0+ / 0-)

      for the ACA. I'll bet you know that already. She sounds like a dolt about the ACA and politics in general, but that is true of any TPer.

  •  Well they did post a correction - of sorts (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    betson08, SilentBrook

    You can find it here:  star-telegram-report-on-affordable

    Of course, they are attacking Maggie while they do it, and they brought out information that the lady with MS who WASN'T a tea partier actually is affiliated.... That tells me that they are 4 for 4.  Hardly unbiased.

  •  Lies, Lies, Lies (0+ / 0-)

    A few years from now, when virtually everyone is voting Democrat/Progressive (except for a few dozen craggy old hateful white guys and a few dozen clueless and toothless tea-bag hillbillies who think they are god's gift to insane hatred, the repug-nican-tea-party will be forever known as the slimy little bunch of jerks who decided to lie about everything under the sun, so that they could "stick it to Obama".

    It's too late for them to have any impact. What they have failed to realize is that anyone with an IQ over 33 already knows they are lying, and that IQ number gets lower each day.

    You stupid little clowns had your chance to be part of the solution, but you chose to be THE PROBLEM.

  •  Whitney Johnson ... (0+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    Hidden by:
    cville townie

    where are the specifics?  

    what did old coverage cover... what will new?

     what is deductible and copay on both?

    Is their a subsidy paid for by taxpayers?

    and if there is what's the premium without the subjective subsidy?

    And most important ... when she has a low premium cost and can't get any health care because carte is to costly to keep her quality of life so she then get's the Obamapill ... then what is the cost for selling your freedom of choice to obama?

    It is not about the cost of insurance Skippy! It's about the eventual degregation of human life value by a comittee of eletists. And if she puts out the big mayonase jars to collect enough money to buy her treatment on the black market she gets caught and has broken the law!!  You bats.. you blind liberal moonbats. It is about power OVER YOU!! it's not about health ins or health care!!    WAKE UP!!!!  DO THE MATH!!!  IT CAN NOT WORK!!!! If it's not there when you need it, and it won't be ... what will you do?  Blame BUSH?!?!  FOOLS.

  •  govt retiree (0+ / 0-)

    Seems because my medical/prescription insurance is under  governmental employee, I am not eligble for any discount under  the ACA,  My current costs per mointh are @228,00plus $378.91 for prescriptions( $100.00 deductible plus 20% copay up to $500.00 per year) plus $109.00 for Medicare.  almost $8,000.00 ayear.  Anyone have the same situation?The Feds say the poverty level for a single person is $43.000.00, more than I get.

  •  Thank you, Obamacare! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a gilas girl

    I'm severely, chronically ill, a former emancipated ward of the state (no parents or family), and on welfare.  I received over $2000 worth of medication for $20 thanks to MediCal.

  •  Newspapers (0+ / 0-)

    And newspapers wonder why people are ignoring them. They're putting out nothing but disgustingly biased propaganda these days. Getting your news from the internet is much better. You can check several sources on each individual story and better find out the truth behind the news.

  •  real story is these states that are reporting (0+ / 0-)

    the issues are the same states that have the real problem. They did not expand medicaid and now the hospitals will not receive the same financing for care of uninsured. In Missouri you are not eligible for medicaid above 272$ income pr Mo. If you do not make 13,500 [approximate] you do not get affordable care [subsidized]. Mine would have cost 512$ for bronze [I smoke]. My man got silver for 189$ [he smokes] both same age he makes enough to receive subside.

  •  ACA (0+ / 0-)

      I make $790/month from a rental. After taxes & insurance that will be @ $600/month.That is the total sum of cash I have coming in. I signed up for ACA by the 16DEC deadline as required. $550/month. I was told that I don't qualify for any additional aid & was not contacted by Coventry Insurance until yesterday Jan7.That leaves me a little over $50 dollars for the month. How am I gonna survive that. At least under the Republican plan,(no insurance at all)I can eat &  have heat.

  •  Yes it the ACA CAN be much more expensive (0+ / 0-)

    Hey commentors, I think it is time to get serious about the real pros and cons of this act. I am in Washington State, which had already set up many of the minimum care and protection aspects of healthcare several years ago. As a 59 yearold one-person business buying an individual policy I had a plan that I loved: $275 a month premium, 6 K deductible, but ONLY A FLAT COPAY for doctor visits. I had wide out of network coverage outside of Group Health. I paid prescriptions out of pocket. My total costs each year with 6-8 doctor visits (yes, I am a health care "user") was between $4,500-$5,000.

    My plan was cancelled because it did not "comply" with the ACA. The new automatic plan they were going to put me on if I did not use the exchange was a silver or gold plan at $750 a month. I went on the exchange, because they have a slightly less expensive Group Health bronze plan there than the one directly thorugh GH, and the best I could do was $430 a month premium with $5k deductible and no coverage of prescriptions or doctor visits (aside from one wellness visit per year) until I have met my 5k deductible. I also pay a copay of $40-$60 for each doctor visit.

    Past experience with paying for each office visit in full is that they average $200-$300 no matter how many minutes the visit. So if I have the same number of visits I can expect $1,200 in visits, $1,200-$1,500 in prescriptions and $5,100 in premiums -- close to $8,000. I am not actually buying "health care" until I have spent my full deductible, or $10,100 per year, and only then does the "cost sharing" kick in for the last gap between the deductible and the maximum allowable out of pocket per individual of $6,300. My network is now restricted to the clinics within Group Health. All the other plans that cover (only slightly) more of the costs with a lower deductible are much higher in premium, wiping out the savings.

    I would call this catastrophic care -- but my premium is not what you would expect for this kind of plan, it is astronomical. I make just over the cutoff point for a subsidy, a whopping $48,000 per year. How is it affordable to spend $12,000 for health care on that wage? I have spoken with several brokers and they have confirmed that most of their clients are paying 30-60% more than they were paying before, with far less choice of doctors. The penalty for being married is massive: you can't sign up for individual coverage if you are married, you have to have a family plan--so now your deductible is $12,000. If only one person in the marriage is sick, they have to work through that entire amount before they get one dollar of actual health care.

    Instead of demonizing anyone who says the ACA has problems, let's look at the reality and try to fix it. 40-50% of the population makes over the threshold for ACA subsidies, and yet they are not by any stretch of the imagination "rich." They are subsidizing everybody else -- with no nuanced discussion of whether this is right, or if it is, how much they should be subsidizing. In a year when businesses have to comply, many of them will be shuttling their employees onto the exchange and the bronze plans, and millions of people will be seeing the reality of this situation. With these premiums and deductibles we are not buying care, we are tithing to the insurance companies.

  •  McCain (0+ / 0-)

    He must have forgot who started the war. He must have for got the cost. 5000+ of our soldiers  killed, $1,000,000,000,000+ cost of war, $600,000 per soldier, 40,000+ wounded. Tell Senator McCain, no the American people wanted out and fast. So go blame someone else.

  •  The Health care act. (0+ / 0-)

    You know this go's to show how greedy America has become. If it don't help me, I don't want it. I don't care about that single mother or her little child with a chronic condition. Or that poor person with gout and in pain every day because he can't afford to go to a Doctor. To all those devout Christens, you are fords.

  •  Reality v ideology (0+ / 0-)

    The thing many don't realize is that ideologues are cowards. Give them facts that don't fit their opinions and they lie, shout you down, etc.

    Facing facts takes courage. Sometimes facts change. New facts are discovered. Facing change takes courage.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site