"I fact-checked Sean Hannity on Obamacare"

[smokeythecat]

I don't think the affordable care act will work because the government can't really print the money fast enough to pay for it. The country is already heading for a severe depression (aka bankruptcy) as spending is out of control, with no end in sight. Note Greece as an example. As for Hannity, I listen to him some. However, he was way out of line on Monday talking to those two customer service reps. I heard it live. They probably got fired. I worked for a call center and those ladies most likely don't work there anymore.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A History of Mining on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska - Grab it through Amazon!

[Chadeaux]

I don't think the affordable care act will work because the government can't really print the money fast enough to pay for it. The country is already heading for a severe depression (aka bankruptcy) as spending is out of control, with no end in sight. Note Greece as an example. As for Hannity, I listen to him some. However, he was way out of line on Monday talking to those two customer service reps. I heard it live. They probably got fired. I worked for a call center and those ladies most likely don't work there anymore.

Unfortunately, they probably will get fired. Didn't get to hear him Monday ... I listen one or two days each week. I don't really care too much for him, he is 100% republican rather than a true conservative.

If he or Rush were truly conservative, they would call out the republicans on their failures. But they go along to get along.

Rush is far too left for my tastes, Hanity is farther left, but I listen to both of them on occasion hoping one of them will get it "right".

Their dog and pony shows sound conservative but ...

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

A federal judge on Tuesday refused to dismiss a case that could fatally cripple the Obamacare health insurance law.

The Affordable Care Act forbids the federal government from enforcing the law in any state that opted out of setting up its own health care exchange, according to a group of small businesses whose lawsuit got a key hearing Monday in federal court.

The Obama administration, according to their lawsuit, has ignored that language in the law, enforcing all of its provisions even in states where the federal government is operating the insurance marketplaces on the error-plagued Healthcare.gov website.

Thirty-six states chose not to set up their exchanges, a move that effectively froze Washington, D.C. out of the authority to pay subsidies and other pot-sweeteners to convince citizens in those states to buy medical insurance. But the IRS overstepped its authority by paying subsidies in those states anyway, say the businesses and their lawyers.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...een-lights-lawsuit-stop-Obamacare-tracks.html




Sent from my new Galaxy Note3
now Free

 

[mr_rich]

I do not want the Federal Government involved in my personal health. I don't like being fined for not wanting to play. And I don't want to pay my tax dollars to another program set up by A Government that can't balance a budget.

 

[bsloan]

Idon't really know what to think about ACA. Both sides are misleading the public. From my experiences with a couple of health care providers, they will tell you rates are going up because of Obamacare. The only thing I know for sure, is last year, the total cost for 2 medications for my wife, was $350.00. This year it is 8500.00. So either way, it sucks.

Stay healthy,
Bill

 

[smokeythecat]

My job is in jeopardy, partly because the economy stinks (it's a lie about it recovering, too many people I know are out of work and I'll know it's better when the 5 vacant houses in my neighborhood have people in them), anyway if I lose it, I am certainly not going to a health exchange to buy insurance but will go to a real insurance company's website and get the equivalent of a catastrophic plan, and pay for the everyday stuff. As Noah said right when it started to rain --- Help!

 

[wingmaster]

You know when he first started all this he said it was to keep health care cost down(not insurance cost down) and he didn't even speak to the drug companies or medical device makers or hospitals. Lets get the facts straight anyway and that's most people are going to see an increase in insurance cost from all this and lets look at Indiana as one of the states with the fewest choices for coverage. Most people making very little above minimum wage is not going to be able to afford even the lowest tier coverage and even if they could the out of pocket and deductibles is still leaving them with basically no coverage because unless a tragic illness all of the cost will be out of their pocket, so these people are going to have to pay for a service they won't be able to use because they still won't be able to afford to go to a doctor when sick. This sound fair to anyone? all the while the illegals in this country will still be getting free health care without a SSN to tie the cost to them as they would me or you and put a lien on our home that will have to be paid if we sell or leave to our children. Does this sound any more fair now?

by: Eric Stern

"I happened to turn on the Hannity show on Fox News last Friday evening. “Average Americans are feeling the pain of Obamacare and the healthcare overhaul train wreck,” Hannity announced, “and six of them are here tonight to tell us their stories.” Three married couples were neatly arranged in his studio, the wives seated and the men standing behind them, like game show contestants.
As Hannity called on each of them, the guests recounted their “Obamacare” horror stories: canceled policies, premium hikes, restrictions on the freedom to see a doctor of their choice, financial burdens upon their small businesses and so on.
“These are the stories that the media refuses to cover,” Hannity interjected.
But none of it smelled right to me. Nothing these folks were saying jibed with the basic facts of the Affordable Care Act as I understand them. I understand them fairly well; I have worked as a senior adviser to a governor and helped him deal with the new federal rules.


I decided to hit the pavement. I tracked down Hannity’s guests, one by one, and did my own telephone interviews with them.
First I spoke with Paul Cox of Leicester, N.C. He and his wife Michelle had lamented to Hannity that because of Obamacare, they can’t grow their construction business and they have kept their employees below a certain number of hours, so that they are part-timers.
Obamacare has no effect on businesses with 49 employees or less. But in our brief conversation on the phone, Paul revealed that he has only four employees. Why the cutback on his workforce? “Well,” he said, “I haven’t been forced to do so, it’s just that I’ve chosen to do so. I have to deal with increased costs.” What costs? And how, I asked him, is any of it due to Obamacare? There was a long pause, after which he said he’d call me back. He never did.
There is only one Obamacare requirement that applies to a company of this size: workers must be notified of the existence of the “healthcare.gov” website, the insurance exchange. That’s all.


Next I called Allison Denijs. She’d told Hannity that she pays over $13,000 a year in premiums. Like the other guests, she said she had recently gotten a letter from Blue Cross saying that her policy was being terminated and a new, ACA-compliant policy would take its place. She says this shows that Obama lied when he promised Americans that we could keep our existing policies.
Allison’s husband left his job a few years ago, one with benefits at a big company, to start his own business. Since then they’ve been buying insurance on the open market, and are now paying around $1,100 a month for a policy with a $2,500 deductible per family member, with hefty annual premium hikes. One of their two children is not covered under the policy. She has a preexisting condition that would require purchasing additional coverage for $600 a month, which would bring the family’s grand total to around $20,000 a year.
I asked Allison if she’d shopped on the exchange, to see what a plan might cost under the new law. She said she hadn’t done so because she’d heard the website was not working. Would she try it out when it’s up and running? Perhaps, she said. She told me she has long opposed Obamacare, and that the president should have focused on tort reform as a solution to bringing down the price of healthcare.
I tried an experiment and shopped on the exchange for Allison and Kurt. Assuming they don’t smoke and have a household income too high to be eligible for subsidies, I found that they would be able to get a plan for around $7,600, which would include coverage for their uninsured daughter. This would be about a 60 percent reduction from what they would have to pay on the pre-Obamacare market.
Allison also told me that the letter she received from Blue Cross said that in addition to the policy change for ACA compliance, in the new policy her physician network size might be reduced. That’s something insurance companies do to save money, with or without Obamacare on the horizon, just as they raise premiums with or without Obamacare coming.
If Allison’s choice of doctor was denied her through Obamacare then, yes, she could have a claim that Obamacare has hurt her. But she’d also have thousands of dollars in her pocket that she didn’t have before.


Finally, I called Robbie and Tina Robison from Franklin, Tenn. Robbie is self-employed as a Christian youth motivational speaker. (You can see his work here.) On Hannity, the couple said that they, too, were recently notified that their Blue Cross policy would be expiring for lack of ACA compliance. They told Hannity that the replacement plans Blue Cross was offering would come with a rate increase of 50 percent or even 75 percent, and that the new offerings would contain all sorts of benefits they don’t need, like maternity care, pediatric care, prenatal care and so forth. Their kids are grown and moved out, so why should they be forced to pay extra for a health plan with superfluous features?
When I spoke to Robbie, he said he and Tina have been paying a little over $800 a month for their plan, about $10,000 a year. And the ACA-compliant policy that will cost 50-75 percent more? They said this information was related to them by their insurance agent.
Had they shopped on the exchange yet, I asked? No, Tina said, nor would they. They oppose Obamacare and want nothing to do with it. Fair enough, but they should know that I found a plan for them for, at most, $3,700 a year, 63 percent less than their current bill. It might cover things that they don’t need, but so does every insurance policy.
It’s true that we don’t know for sure whether certain ills conservatives have warned about will occur once Obamacare is fully enacted. For example, will we truly have the same freedom to choose a physician that we have now? Will a surplus of insured patients require a scaling back (or “rationing,” as some call it) of provided healthcare services? Will doctors be able to spend as much time with patients? These are all valid, unanswered questions. The problem is that people like Sean Hannity have decided to answer them now, without evidence. Or worse, with fake evidence.
I don’t doubt that these six individuals believe that Obamacare is a disaster; but none of them had even visited the insurance exchange. And some of them appear to have taken actions (Paul Cox, for example) based on a general pessimistic belief about Obamacare. He’s certainly entitled to do so, but Hannity is not entitled to point to Paul’s behavior as an “Obamacare train wreck story” and maintain any credibility that he might have as a journalist.
Strangely, the recent shutdown was based almost entirely on a small percentage of Congress’s belief that Obamacare, as Ted Cruz puts it, “is destroying America.” Cruz has rarely given us an example of what he’s talking about. That’s because the best he can do is what Hannity did—exploit people’s ignorance and falsely point to imaginary boogeymen.
Update: To check the plans I used this useful calculator from the Kaiser Family Foundation."

 

[BrisJoe]

Gezus, $13000 a year for a family of 3?
Come to Australia, for full hospital cover and basic extras package (optical, minor dental, major dental, physio, chiro, remedial massage, homeopathy, acquapuncture etc) the quote I got earlier in the year for me, my wife and 3yo son was only $180/mth !

 

[Chadeaux]

I do not want the Federal Government involved in my personal health. I don't like being fined for not wanting to play. And I don't want to pay my tax dollars to another program set up by A Government that can't balance a budget.

... run by a president that has broken the law every year he has been in office by NOT SUBMITTING a budget in February of each year as required by the constitution. If the opposition was really wanting to hang him out to dry, they have him by the short hairs there ... but they are instead complicit in his violating the law of the land.

Idon't really know what to think about ACA. Both sides are misleading the public. From my experiences with a couple of health care providers, they will tell you rates are going up because of Obamacare. The only thing I know for sure, is last year, the total cost for 2 medications for my wife, was $350.00. This year it is 8500.00. So either way, it sucks.

Stay healthy,
Bill

You know when he first started all this he said it was to keep health care cost down(not insurance cost down) and he didn't even speak to the drug companies or medical device makers or hospitals. Lets get the facts straight anyway and that's most people are going to see an increase in insurance cost from all this and lets look at Indiana as one of the states with the fewest choices for coverage. Most people making very little above minimum wage is not going to be able to afford even the lowest tier coverage and even if they could the out of pocket and deductibles is still leaving them with basically no coverage because unless a tragic illness all of the cost will be out of their pocket, so these people are going to have to pay for a service they won't be able to use because they still won't be able to afford to go to a doctor when sick. This sound fair to anyone? all the while the illegals in this country will still be getting free health care without a SSN to tie the cost to them as they would me or you and put a lien on our home that will have to be paid if we sell or leave to our children. Does this sound any more fair now?

Rates are going up because they have to make a profit to stay in business. They are being forced to accept people with pre-existing conditions without additional cost (except for age which is about as pre-existing a condition as there is) which raises their costs and exposure in the market. Let's remember, insurance is nothing more than a gamble. You are betting you will be sick, and the insurance company is betting you won't. Instead of a situation where they can to an extent control their exposure to risk, they are now having to take on people they know will be sick. How do you compensate for that? You have to raise your premiums to lower the overall cost as a percentage of income.

To the folks on welfare, foodstamps, and other government handouts - this was sold as if they were going to get free healthcare. They are expecting to be able to go to ANY DOCTOR and demand the same treatment that was previously provided to only the wealthy. They are expecting that the treatment will cost them NOTHING out of pocket. They are expecting that they will get their medications for free. They are in for a rude awakening.

When the people who need help the most go to the doctor, they will have to pay up front the entire copay. When they get sick, there will be a $6,000 deductible that has to be met FIRST before the insurance will pay a penny. When they don't pay the deductible, the insurance WON'T pay the rest --- leaving them on the hook for the FULL AMOUNT because if they don't pay the deductible within the specified period, the insurance company can say that the customer did not abide by the policy so they are not responsible for any of the bill.

If anyone here wants to challenge me, first consult with your health insurance agent ... or any health insurance agent ... they will confirm the above statement.

When this gets going, and people see how evil this man's plans are, and how he has created a permanent underclass far worse off than they are now ... there will be rioting in the streets by the same folks who think he has finally helped them become equal to the rich folks. I believe there will probably be calls for a public lynching and possibly some attempts on his life.

I don't want to see these folks lives ruined by the ACA, but it IS GOING TO HAPPEN.

 

[Ammonhotep]

1/2to2/3 of a Billion dollars and 3years to get the website ready? Seems like someone must be skimming money from Ocare early. "Ground floor "opportunity as it were.

How much is that in relation to the amount BURNED by the radical Right during the recent shutdown. Yep ... a mere fraction. And all they had to do was sign that dang bill a couple weeks earlier.

Sure it's an absurd amount for a website that doesn't work correctly, but it's better than burning billions of dollars in an unsuccessful attempt to completely waste the website AND deprive millions of a health insurance product they want.

 

[Dave44]

How much is that in relation to the amount BURNED by the radical Right during the recent shutdown. Yep ... a mere fraction. And all they had to do was sign that dang bill a couple weeks earlier.

Sure it's an absurd amount for a website that doesn't work correctly, but it's better than burning billions of dollars in an unsuccessful attempt to completely waste the website AND deprive millions of a health insurance product they want.

Billions? Get me the CBO report! Pulled that figure from where?

Right,, Try spinning that a little harder?
If a fella wasn't a narcissist and a complete political Marxist, a fella might have agreed to postponing Ocare so that the problems would have been fixed.
The problem appears to be that he could not bring himself to appearing that he was allowing an inch to the Republicans.

By the way,, what the people want ? lolol
Have you heard what is happening to the non profit insurance companies because of Ocare? Failing,, Going bust.. May default on millions of dollars in loans. Look it up.

 

[Ammonhotep]

Rates are going up because they have to make a profit to stay in business. They are being forced to accept people with pre-existing conditions without additional cost (except for age which is about as pre-existing a condition as there is) which raises their costs and exposure in the market. Let's remember, insurance is nothing more than a gamble. You are betting you will be sick, and the insurance company is betting you won't. Instead of a situation where they can to an extent control their exposure to risk, they are now having to take on people they know will be sick. How do you compensate for that? You have to raise your premiums to lower the overall cost as a percentage of income.

The segment of your post I quote above makes very clear the essential belief of the anti-ACA crowd: you would rather uninsured continue to suffer than that YOUR rates go up.

Then your argument (not quoted) appears to be that those who didn't have coverage before will have to pay through the nose for coverage. And ... ? So they pay ... or don't pay (just like before, but this time with options).

Nobody seems to grasp this simple fact: the ACA was never meant to make EVERYONE'S lives instantly better; it was intended to have a NET POSITIVE impact. And for all the arguments (read: anecdotes) from the LEFT and the RIGHT, nobody has any proof because it hasn't been fully implemented yet.

If it fails, it fails. Ok, we go back. If not ... great!

 

[Jason in Enid]

The democrats shut down the government because they reused to sign a budget on their own (as required by law), and then they refused to sign a budget that funded everything but their pet socialist project.

The shutdown in theory should have saved the government a large amount of $$$, but they only shut down a tiny percentage and then paid everyone back-pay so it didn't save OR COST anything more.

 

[Dave44]

The segment of your post I quote above makes very clear the essential belief of the anti-ACA crowd: you would rather uninsured continue to suffer than that YOUR rates go up.

Then your argument (not quoted) appears to be that those who didn't have coverage before will have to pay through the nose for coverage. And ... ? So they pay ... or don't pay (just like before, but this time with options).

Nobody seems to grasp this simple fact: the ACA was never meant to make EVERYONE'S lives instantly better; it was intended to have a NET POSITIVE impact. And for all the arguments (read: anecdotes) from the LEFT and the RIGHT, nobody has any proof because it hasn't been fully implemented yet.

If it fails, it fails. Ok, we go back. If not ... great!

"Nobody seems to grasp this simple fact: the ACA was never meant to make EVERYONE'S lives instantly better;"

You don't get it yet? We all know this! It was made to spread the misery across a very broad population we call the middle class( at this time anyway, soon we will call them the" hosts that are wasting away").

 

[Ammonhotep]

No loss?

800,000 workers were unproductive for two weeks. Assuming their average annual salary was $30,000 (ha! some estimate put it at 2.5x that figure), the government lost 1/26th of a year's productivity for each of those employees, or about $1150 each.

So 800,000 x $1150 = $920,000,000 in lost productivity.

Dave44, are you following, because I'm being conservative here. :-) Interesting how the more conservative I get, the lower that figure goes, huh?

Then there are the initial productivity costs of scaling back employees and getting everyone back up to speed, etc.

If that's not comprehensible, then I don't know what is.

 

[Jason in Enid]

Productivity? That's a BUSINESS term. The government and it's employees do not create or sell a product, so there is no "loss of productivity". Those workers were all deemed as non-essential so their jobs are really important anyway.

 

[Ammonhotep]

"Nobody seems to grasp this simple fact: the ACA was never meant to make EVERYONE'S lives instantly better;"

You don't get it yet? We all know this! It was made to spread the misery across a very broad population we call the middle class( at this time anyway, soon we will call them the" hosts that are wasting away").

As I said, for all the talk, nobody seems to be bringing any proof to the table. Every post you make, Dave44, makes it more and more evident that you have none.

 

[pat-tekker-cat]

One thing, that has drove healthcare up, is the abuse of the system.
I processed MANY hospital ER claims, where the diagnosis was; stomach ache, headache, or sore throat.
I always wondered, had these ppl never heard of Pebto Bismal, Aspirin, or Sucrets/Halls.

Many in this nation, do not keep a GP, and run to the ER for every little bump and scrape.
In some counties with socialized medicine, the clinics are social gathering places. Wives who are allowed to do nothing else, but procreate and cook, spend their days with the kids at the clinic, just because........
I have also SEEN, the apathy of socialized healthcare workers, in regards to how they treat patients. Deplorable!

Imho, I feel that by NOT teaching ppl about adequate and appropriate healthcare, we have left the gate open for ignorance and abuse of the system. And, most, that run to the ER for the sore throat, headache, and stomach ache, have no way or intention, of paying that ER bill anyway, THEY ALREADY GET FREE HEALTHCARE, why start paying for it now?
The folks that have been paying all along, have been overpaying for those that abuse the system.

 

[Ammonhotep]

Productivity? That's a BUSINESS term. The government and it's employees do not create or sell a product, so there is no "loss of productivity". Those workers were all deemed as non-essential so their jobs are really important anyway.

Weak argumentation. You're grasping at straws to avoid admitting the obviousness of my point: they were paid for what they didn't do. (And a right-winger complaining about business terms! Ha! I love that!)

And your argumentation about the Dems shutting down the gov't is equally weak. Reps employed HR 368 on Oct 1 to stop the House from bringing the senate bill to a vote when it would have passed. They delayed bringing the vote for two weeks using HR 368 and then passed the senate bill, reopening the government. Sure, the Dems could have signed the House bill, but why should they make deals with extremists?

 

[Jason in Enid]

Weak argumentation. You're grasping at straws to avoid admitting the obviousness of my point: they were paid for what they didn't do. (And a right-winger complaining about business terms! Ha! I love that!)

And your argumentation about the Dems shutting down the gov't is equally weak. Reps employed HR 368 on Oct 1 to stop the House from bringing the senate bill to a vote when it would have passed. They delayed bringing the vote for two weeks using HR 368 and then passed the senate bill, reopening the government. Sure, the Dems could have signed the House bill, but why should they make deals with extremists?

LOL you're too damn funny! You bring up a red-hearing point and then when confronted with it, you claim it's a "weak" argument. Keep trying buddy, ,but so far you are making yourself look pretty silly.