Fact Checker: Three Pinocchio’s For Factually True Statements On Obamacare

Facts are apparently false. Here’s the Washington Post’s fact checker, Glenn Kessler, giving it the old college try to protect the “Affordable” Care Act, something many, many liberals, and ultra squishy “Republicans” who spend more time bashing Republicans than Democrats, have tried before

“The president has exempted over 1,200 groups, including members of Congress, from the health care law.” – Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.), in an interview on CNN, Oct. 15, 2013

That’s the fact checked statement, and here’s what Kessler writes

The first part of Scalise’s statement refers to one-year waivers that the Department of Health and Human Services granted to 1,231 companies regarding the law’s restrictions of annual benefit caps.

Yep, you read that correctly. He is referring to a one-year waiver regarding one, relatively small aspect of the law.

Apparently, that’s supposed to be incorrect, despite “over 1,200” companies being given waivers. For the companies, that’s a short term proposition, but, they were, in fact, given an waiver. A bit of a stretch in the language, welcome to Politics 101.

Now we get to the typical spin

As for Congress being exempted, this is also incorrect.

As a result of an amendment offered by Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), the Affordable Care Act includes a provision that would require members of Congress (and their personal staffs) to get their insurance on the Obamacare exchanges.

OK, so, The Law, or, as Liberals and squishy Republicans put it “It’s The Law”, requires that Congress and their personal staffs go through the Exchanges. Is that so hard to understand? Apparently so

But there was an unexpected wrinkle: the exchanges are intended for people who currently do not get employer-provided insurance, whereas lawmakers and their staffs previously had about 70 percent of their insurance premiums underwritten by the federal government through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program.

For lawmakers and their staffs, the loss of employer contributions would have amounted to an unintended pay cut of between $5,000 to $10,000. Under pressure from Congress, the Office of Personnel Management proposed a rule in August, which was finalized in September, saying the federal government could still contribute to health-care premiums.

The final rule would keep the subsidy in place only for members of Congress and affected staff who enroll in a Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP) plan available in the District of Columbia. Such plans most commonly will be aimed at employees of businesses with fewer than 50 workers, but perhaps the theory is that each lawmaker and his or her staff constitute a small business. In any case, lawmakers and their staffs are not eligible for the tax credits that other Americans using the exchanges might qualify for.

They also tend to make quite a bit more than the Average American, so wouldn’t be eligible in most cases.

Bell argued that “under the OPM rule, approximately 16,000 congressional employees will obtain their health insurance through the SHOP exchanges, 320 times more than the amount supposedly allowed under the law.” He said this “is clearly an exemption from the ACA for Congress by the Obama Administration.” He cited a dictionary definition of exemption: “freedom from being required to do something that others are required to do.”

But as we noted, the exchanges were not intended for people already with employer-provided insurance. So it’s already a rather unusual situation. Costs have been imposed on lawmakers and their staffs that did not previously exist, and OPM’s rule appears intended to solve that problem — instead of “exempting” them from the health care law.

Regardless, It’s The Law mandated they purchase through the Exchanges, just like so many millions of Americans must do. Especially those who are losing their health insurance plans because of Obamacare. Lawmakers are supposed to feel the pain. The OPM rule makes sure they don’t. They’re exempted from the pain. It matters zero that they already have “employer provided insurance”. The law says “hit the exchanges”. Period

Furthermore, the law itself included a waiver from the law for leadership staffs, which include some of the same people who wrote this mule fritters bill. This payment is also illegal. OPM has zero authority to provide payment.

Break it down: Are Congress members and their staffs getting insurance on the individual exchange, and are they having to pay for it themselves just as the law intended? No. Kessler gives Scalise 3 Pinocchio’s out of 4, for what is technically correct. I’ll give his spin 3 Donkeys

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: Fact Checker: Three Pinocchio’s For Factually True Statements On Obamacare »

Even The AP Notices That Government Might Be Too Big

A random act of journalism…I hope the writer, Nancy Benac, is prepared for the typical despicable discourse liberals will throw her way

(WRAL) The lingering federal shutdown is transforming a musty debate over the role of government in America into a coast-to-coast, prime-time reality show.

With landmarks closed, paychecks delayed and workers furloughed, Americans are drawing dueling lessons from the rippling effects of the partial shutdown: The disruptions show that the feds are way too involved in people’s lives or that the government does a lot of vital things that people take for granted.

There’s a messaging war underway to see which viewpoint will prevail. But any shift in public opinion also may well hinge on how much, or how little, people are personally affected as the shutdown drags on.

And that last part is the crux of the matter: so many people say the federal government is too big, does too much (something I mentioned Monday), but only as it effects Other People. The trillion-armed octopus known as the federal government has its tentacles in so many things that any cutbacks or changes effects quite a few Americans. We see state programs that are funded by Los Federales. Home mortgages. Student loans. Inspections of this and that. This program, that program. Things that should be done at the state, county, or local level receive federal backing. A federal shutdown should have a minimal impact on the lives of Americans. Yet, we see these sob stories left and right.

Republican analyst Rich Galen said people who started out disliking the federal government are likely to look at the shutdown’s effects and say, “See, the world is still spinning on its axis, even with these shutdowns and those 800,000 people furloughed. Apparently we don’t need them. They’re not critical.”

But Galen added that every type of government spending “has a champion, and these are services that we are demanding.”

“When it’s your house that’s underwater or your house that got blown over by a tornado, boy, do you want FEMA there,” referring to the federal disaster relief agency.

Bingo. Why is FEMA providing money to rebuild? If yours or my home burned down because of a lightning strike, would the feds give us money? No. We’d have to use our insurance. This goes to so many things. Where does it end?

 

Read: Even The AP Notices That Government Might Be Too Big »

If All You See…

…is warmth created snow, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Sunshine Hours, with a post on northern hemisphere winter doom.

Read: If All You See… »

Bummer: “Climate Change” Silencing The Sounds Of Nature

All because you purchased a plastic bottle of water, you Gaia hater you

(Accuweather, which should probably deal with simply the weather, rather than activism) Climate change has brought once lively and loud habitats to utter silence as their inhabitants of birds, frogs and insects have either vanished or drastically changed their migration patterns.

A relatively new study known as biophony, or the signature of collective sounds that occur in any given habitat at any given time, has provided scientific evidence to show that the sounds of nature have been altered by both global warming and human endeavors.

Warmists are the ultra-flat earthers, not wanting to see anything ever change.

While soundscape research has not been fully developed, hypotheses for the causes of these changes have been formed.

“My hunch from my work is that it has a lot to do with global warming,” Krause said. “Springtime is occurring almost two weeks earlier than it was even 20 years ago.”

Nature changes. And Mankind will change things through deforestation, habitat destruction, and real pollutants. But, not “climate change”. It was warmer during many of the previous warm periods during the Holocene. It may get warmer during this period, it may not. If Warmists really believed what they are saying, they’d modify their own behavior. Since most won’t make more than token changes, we have all the statistical evidence we need to call the issue mule fritters.

Read: Bummer: “Climate Change” Silencing The Sounds Of Nature »

Shutdown Theater: Squirrels Simply Love Michelle Obama’s Garden

Can we really call it Michelle Obama’s garden, when she isn’t the one who actually does any work?

(Daily Mail) While neither Republicans or Democrats are winning in the government shutdown, there is one group that’s having a field day: the White House squirrels.

The government shutdown coincided with the White House garden’s harvest season, and since much of the staff that tends to the garden has been furloughed the crop has gotten out of control.

The staff that were allowed to stay are only allowed to water the plants. Triming, fetrilizing, transplanting, mowing and harvesting are all off limits.

Gotta love that. Perfect encapsulation of Government. They can only water. So, the squirrels gorge.

Which begs the question: why the heck doesn’t Michelle O get out and do it herself? Actual work instead of a photo op. She could drag the kids out for some exercise. And Barack, since he doesn’t seem to be doing any actual work that helps the country. Seriously, we have to pay people to deal with Michelle’s garden? The very definition of government waste.

Read: Shutdown Theater: Squirrels Simply Love Michelle Obama’s Garden »

Why’s Obamacare Website So Glitchy? For One Thing, They Don’t Want You To Know The Costs

Essentially, those running healthcare.gov mandated planned incompetence

(Forbes) A growing consensus of IT experts, outside and inside the government, have figured out a principal reason why the website for Obamacare’s federally-sponsored insurance exchange is crashing. Healthcare.gov forces you to create an account and enter detailed personal information before you can start shopping. This, in turn, creates a massive traffic bottleneck, as the government verifies your information and decides whether or not you’re eligible for subsidies. HHS bureaucrats knew this would make the website run more slowly. But they were more afraid that letting people see the underlying cost of Obamacare’s insurance plans would scare people away.

“Healthcare.gov was initially going to include an option to browse before registering,” report Christopher Weaver and Louise Radnofsky in the Wall Street Journal. “But that tool was delayed, people familiar with the situation said.” Why was it delayed? “An HHS spokeswoman said the agency wanted to ensure that users were aware of their eligibility for subsidies that could help pay for coverage, before they started seeing the prices of policies.” (Emphasis added.)

As you know if you’ve been following this space, Obamacare’s bevy of mandates, regulations, taxes, and fees drives up the cost of the insurance plans that are offered under the law’s public exchanges. A Manhattan Institute analysis I helped conduct found that, on average, the cheapest plan offered in a given state, under Obamacare, will be 99 percent more expensive for men, and 62 percent more expensive for women, than the cheapest plan offered under the old system. And those disparities are even wider for healthy people.

That raises an obvious question. If 50 million people are uninsured today, mainly because insurance is too expensive, why is it better to make coverage even costlier?

Why indeed? Well, there’s that pesky individual mandate. Of course, it’s less than actually obtaining insurance through the “Affordable” Care Act. But we shouldn’t be surprised that Team Obama looked to obfuscate the true costs of the insurance. This is what “the most transparent administration ever” looks like.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: Why’s Obamacare Website So Glitchy? For One Thing, They Don’t Want You To Know The Costs »

Surprise: Obamacare #Failsite Used Just One Non-Competitive Bid

I’m sure you’re really, really shocked to learn this info about healthcare.gov (via Ace)

(Washington Examiner) Federal officials considered only one firm to design the Obamacare health insurance exchange website that has performed abysmally since its Oct. 1 debut.

Rather than open the contracting process to a competitive public solicitation with multiple bidders, officials in the Department of Health and Human Services’ Centers for Medicare and Medicaid accepted a sole bidder, CGI Federal, the U.S. subsidiary of a Canadian company with an uneven record of IT pricing and contract performance.

CMS officials are tight-lipped about why CGI was chosen or how it happened. They also refuse to say if other firms competed with CGI, or if there was ever a public solicitation for building Healthcare.gov, the backbone of Obamacare’s problem-plagued web portal.

Remember when Liberals whine about Halliburton? Which was (and still is) one of the only companies in the world that can do what they do? And was at least an American company?

(Washington Times) “I will finally end the abuse of no-bid contracts once and for all,” he thundered to a Grand Rapids, Mich., audience on Oct. 2, 2008. “The days of sweetheart deals for Halliburton will be over when I’m in the White House.” After becoming president, Mr. Obama continued the attack and promised on March 4 to “end unnecessary no-bid and cost-plus contracts. … In some cases, contracts are awarded without competition. … And that’s completely unacceptable.”

Weird, eh?

Read: Surprise: Obamacare #Failsite Used Just One Non-Competitive Bid »

If All You See…

…is an evil bad weather creating plastic bottle of water, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Victory Girls, with a post on how CNN treated the Million Vets March.

Read: If All You See… »

Schoolkids Won’t Know What On-Time Snow Looks Like

Won’t someone please think of the children?

It was temporary chaos in southern Germany on Friday after as much as 40 centimeters (15.7 inches) of snow fell in some areas. The early winter weather has toppled trees and downed power lines in Bavaria, leaving about 12,000 people without electricity, and authorities told school children and drivers to stay home. In the Austrian province of Tyrol alone, nearly 30,000 people were lacking power.

It’s also some sort of record. All because you had sausage with your breakfast this morning.

 (The Local) According to the latest forecast from the Swedish weather agency (SMHI) snow will hit Umeå in the north of the country along with Mora and Östersund in central Sweden on Thursday.

Residents living in the capital can expect sleet and possible wet snow on Friday as a result of chilly winds blowing down from the north of the country.

The snow is arriving about a month earlier than normal but weather experts said there is no correlation between an early snowfall and a particularly harsh winter.

Well, there’s obviously a correlation between snow and GHGs, so Warmists tell us. Sadly, it isn’t even hard to find these nuts

Whether it is a freak, sudden blizzard that kills off tens of thousands of cows, or heat waves that seem to never end or storms and floods that drown a community or wildfires that consume miles of trees and countryside in large ravenous bites, our climate is changing.

Sigh.

Read: Schoolkids Won’t Know What On-Time Snow Looks Like »

Keller: Republicans Should Be Cheering The “Affordable” Care Act

Here’s the NY Times’ Bill Keller with The Rest Of The Story

Unless you’ve been bamboozled by the frantic fictions of the right wing, you know that the Affordable Care Act, familiarly known as Obamacare, has begun to accomplish its first goal: enrolling millions of uninsured Americans, many of whom have been living one medical emergency away from the poorhouse. You realize those computer failures that have hampered sign-ups in the early days — to the smug delight of the critics — confirm that there is enormous popular demand. You have probably figured out that the real mission of the Republican extortionists and their big-money backers was to scuttle the law before most Americans recognized it as a godsend and rendered it politically untouchable.

Just because people access a website doesn’t mean they’re going to purchase the product. And, they aren’t really purchasing the product. The Miami Herald has upgrade enrollees to “urban legand“. Yes, eventually people will sign up. They really do not have a choice. They’ll pay a fine/tax, otherwise. We do want people with health insurance, so that the rest of us aren’t paying for them. What they’re finding out is that it’s not particularly affordable.

What you may not know is that the Affordable Care Act is also beginning, with little fanfare, to accomplish its second great goal: to promote reforms to our overpriced, underperforming health care system. Irony of ironies, the people who ought to be most vigorously applauding this success story are Republicans, because it is being done not by government decree but almost entirely with market incentives.

Did Bill miss the point that these “market incentives” derive from government mandates and requirements? Sure looks like it. That’s not free market in the least.

Using mainly the marketplace clout of Medicare and some seed money, the new law has spurred innovation and efficiency. And while those new insurance exchanges that are now lurching into business will touch roughly 1 in 10 Americans (the rest of us are already covered by private employer plans or by government programs like Medicare), these systemic reforms potentially touch every patient, every taxpayer.

After telling us that we should be applauding these “market incentives”, which derive from government, he tells us that these “market incentive” actually derive from government and will touch virtually every single American. Why wouldn’t Conservatives love that?

Since the Affordable Care Act was signed three years ago, more than 370 innovative medical practices, called accountable care organizations, have sprung up across the country, with 150 more in the works. At these centers, Medicare or private insurers reward doctors financially when their patients require fewer hospital stays, emergency room visits and surgeries — exactly the opposite of what doctors have traditionally been paid to do. The more money the organization saves, the more money its participating providers share. And the best way to save costs (which is, happily, also the best way to keep patients alive) is to catch problems before they explode into emergencies.

There’s a lot of discourse regarding these ACOs, and whether they will work or not. Some say yes, some say no. Some say they will lead to substandard care, and cause people who should be referred to be left without the care they need. Time will tell. What this does do is insinuate The Government into more of our personal health care choices, meaning the decision is between the doctor and the government, not the doctor and the patient.

There’s no doubt that reducing ER visits can reduce health insurance costs. But people who should be heading to the hospitals may not be sent. That is dangerous. And based on Government interference. Anyhow, sure, there are some good parts to Obamacare. They’re the tasty pretzel bun covering the guano-patty. Said guano-patty is the Governmental interference in our lives, the increased control of our health care by Government, the increased costs, etc, you know the hit list. Just obtaining health insurance through the Exchanges involves a huge smattering of governmental agencies. Hugely complicated just to sign up.

One reason you may not have heard much about this part of the Obamacare story is that it is numbingly complicated.

The hell you say!

But I suspect another reason is partisan spite. The Democrats were passionately in favor of enrolling the uninsured, but many would have preferred a government-run program, or at least a public option. What Obamacare has wrought is the kind of market-driven reformation that Republicans pretend to believe in. Which makes you wonder how much of their opposition rests on the merits, and how much is just a loathing for anything associated with Barack Obama.

Got that? Liberal Bill Keller thinks a government driven program that’s incredibly complicated and involves a huge amount of government agencies enforcing a huge amount of government mandates is “free market.” But, we don’t like it cause of Obama. Right. Here’s free market principles in action

In order to fully appreciate that chart, you have to see it in full. Check at Rep. Kevin Brady’s website, where that is enlarged to 9000 x 7000. Yes, that big in order to understand all the connections. Which looked like this before passage of the ACA.

BTW, if Keller thinks the way the ACOs operate is great, having incentives to reduce costs, why don’t we try and do that for Government itself?

Read: Keller: Republicans Should Be Cheering The “Affordable” Care Act »

Pirate's Cove