It's really getting pathetic out there. Y'know, out in Obamacare-is-the-Plague land? Ok, so first we've got Rep McMorris-Rodgers sad little ObamaCare Horror!tm SOTU response story about poor "Bette from Spokane" which gets called a LIE by the DCCC, cuz it's a turd bomb of half-truths and misdirection. Then AFP puts a set of ads, only apparently they couldn't find legitimate Obamacare "victims" so they used a bunch of Actors to mouth the lines of woe.
And now Harry Reid has jumped all over the latest ad by Americans for (Koch) Prosperity (Not Yours!) by pointing out that it's full derp and b.s. too.
http://www.rawstory.com/...
“Those tales turned out to be just that: tales, stories made up from whole cloth, lies distorted by the Republicans to grab headlines forming political advertisements,” Reid said.
Man, that's some pretty tough talk. And frankly, it's about time that Democrats stopped slumping their shoulders and down-casting their eyes in embarrassment when ever someone jumps up and screams
ObamaCare Ate My Cat!.
Because, I'm pretty certain, it really didn't.
Just like the "Bette" story this latest AFP whopper hinges on the fact that the teller is completely and deliberately ignorant of what ObamaCare actually does and what it doesn't do - and they don't even want to know the truth.
As always the story starts out sounding really terrible and sad, I mean who couldn't possibly empathize with someone in this situation?
“I was diagnosed with leukemia. I found out I only have a 20 percent chance of surviving. I found this wonderful doctor and a great health care plan. I was doing fairly well fighting the cancer, fighting the leukemia, and then I received a letter. My insurance was canceled because of Obamacare. Now, the out-of-pocket costs are so high, it’s unaffordable. If I do not receive my medication, I will die. I believed the president. I believed I could keep my health insurance plan. I feel lied to. It’s heartbreaking for me. Congressman Peters, your decision to vote Obamacare jeopardized my health.”
And wouldn't you know just when you're about to reach for the crying hankey - some media egghead with a slide-rule, abacus and a spread sheet has to dump ice-water all over you.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
The claim that the costs are now “unaffordable” appeared odd because, under Obamacare, there is an out-of-pocket maximum of $6,350 for covered expenses under an individual plan, after which the insurance plan pays 100 percent of covered benefits. The Blue Cross Blue Shield plans in Michigan that appear to match Boonstra’s plan, as described in local news reports, all have that limit.
Meanwhile, Boonstra told the Detroit News that her monthly premiums were cut in half, from $1,100 a month to $571. That’s a savings of $529 a month. Over the course of a year, the premium savings amounts to $6,348—just two dollars shy of the out-of-pocket maximum.
So her claims that Obamacare "made her healthcare unaffordable"? Eh, Not so much. And what about that wonderful doctor and his ever-so-necessary meds?
First of all, many viewers might think Boonstra lost her doctor, as she mentions her “wonderful doctor” and then says her plan was canceled. But AFP confirms that she was able to find a plan, via Blue Cross Blue Shield, that had her doctor in its network.
So she didn't lose her doctor. And her costs didn't
go through the roof, they're about the same as they were before, just distributed differently. The argument that AFP made in response to the WaPo article as that her costs were now "unpredictable".
“Julie’s concerns about her new plan are ongoing and very personal. Since her out of pocket costs are so much higher now, her costs have quickly become unpredictable,” he added. “Rather than knowing exactly what she would have to pay every month, she now is facing a roller coaster of expenses that vary with her health. She said she feels like a surprise is around every corner, since she keeps being hit with new out-of-pocket costs every time she needs treatment, or a test, or even an office visit.”
Yes, her out of pocket costs will vary based on the treatment she is receiving at that particular time. This happens to be something that is at the core of both the Ryan Healthcare Plan and the most recent Senate Republican Plan as a means to make the health purchaser more "selective" about how they spend their own money - particularly if they're older and coincidentally, may be in greater need of care.
http://www.npr.org/...
The tax credits also would be available to those earning up to three times , or $34,470 in 2013. That's less than in the ACA, which provides help for those earning up to four times the poverty level, or $45,960.
The GOP plan also would let insurers charge older people more than the ACA does, which could lower premiums for younger people. The ACA limits premium differences for older people to three times more than those for young people; the GOP proposal would allow premiums for older people to be as much as five times higher, although states could opt for different "age rating," staffers said.
But as was stated,
her premiums are HALF of what they were, which means that if she doesn't need any severe invasive treatment she will
save considerably [something that is very similar to another favorite Republican idea - the Health Savings Account] and even if the worse case scenario happens and she perhaps needs a $350,000 bone marrow transplant - she would only be responsible for the first $6,350 of it and the rest would be
entirely covered.
She also would no longer be subject to a lifetime cap that would effect her if a second expensive procedure might be needed down the line. And also again, no pre-existing condition limits, so if she decides she wants to change to a different carrier with a different plan she likes better she can't be denied simply because she was once diagnosed with cancer.
All in all, if she were to go with the GOP plan, which wouldn't bar lifetime caps, and wouldn't require essential coverage minimums - she'd be worse off than she now claims to be with Obamacare.
But then again, all those are just pesky annoying facts and figures. And the real test of 2014 is not going to be the facts of the case, it's going to be the emotion of how people feel about Democrats and how they feel about Republicans. In fact, Republicans are betting heavily that the Facts. Don't. Matter. As Amanda Marcotte points out at Raw Story's Pandagon.
But here's the thing: it really doesn't matter that no one is actually harmed by enrolling in an insurance plan at healthcare.gov. The point of these ads is not to make the argument that people lost money, since that argument will get fact-checked pretty quickly. The point is to send the message that, if you go onto the website, bears will eat your face and dragons will set fire to your ass and you will be a sad person who is never the same again. A sad person with a little more money in your pocket, but so what? THERE BE DRAGONS AT HEALTHCARE.GOV. It’ a purely emotional pitch, and the facts are just noise to fill up airtime to convey the actual message, which is this poor person went to that dangerous website and now look how sad they are.
Facts, be damned - it's how people
feel about it that's going to drive the 2014 Elections. Will Democrats be able to slowly turn the
Healthcare.com Sucks stories into a
Republicans Are LYING TO YOU refrain?
Perhaps. Lord knows it hasn't seemed to have worked all the other times that they habitually lied.
Vyan