Discussion for article #243982
2 Likes
Raddatz seemed incredibly hostile in her questioning and on this issue was genuinely misleading. I was surprised, and disappointed.
13 Likes
Agree. I usually like Martha Raddatz, but she seemed especially pointed in that question. It was one of the times when I actually yelled “BS” at the TV.
And it’s not just the premium increases. Insurance companies have been ratcheting up co-pays and deductibles for a long time – much longer than Obama has been president, much less since the ACA was passed.
6 Likes
Reminds me of 2008 when an ABC debate “host” talked about a professor making $250,000 as “middle-class”. Just enough factoids in there to seem true. Truthiness! Charlie Gibson.
Not quite a lie, not really close to reality, either.
4 Likes
I am glad Tierney caught this. We were already discussing it on another debate thread.
Its kinda sad when we have to fact check the moderators.
13 Likes
Raddatz had to know that her question was loaded, off base and in need of further explanation, why would she phrase it like that?
I think the appropriate response might have been, well-look at what has happened to journalism in not only the last 5 years but couple of decades, you can’t even ask a question without sensationalizing.
Obamacare is a huge improvement but the insurance industry is ruthless, lets improve O-care for America and to hell with these premiums too, Single Payer NOW!!!
20 Likes
I’m about to start my 3rd year on essentially the same individual insurance plan (Dean Health Care in Madison WI), and my premiums for the three years have been $459 a month for 2014, $474 a month for 2015, and $460 a month for 2016.
No, no typos; decrease from last year to this year.
No increase at all 2014 to 2016. Same insurance, same insurer. No increase.
17 Likes
Thank you for specifically addressing this and putting it into context…something the MSM will undoubtably ignore or deliberately misrepresent without factual basis. I’m already expecting them to repeat this lie on the Sunday morning blabfests, even though I won’t tune in to watch them do so. I only hope the facts come out before the MSM does their usual thing, continuing to conflate the timeline Raddatz was trying to present. I believe she either doesn’t understand how the ACA works, or it was a deliberate attempt on her part to pander to the right. Unfortunately, the message will get even more corrupted by GOP opportunists. They still haven’t given up on their desire to make the ACA out to be some kind of bogeyman, and still profess that this is what’s wrong with the Obama administration’s attempt to address healthcare.
Raddatz is also a hawk on foreign policy. She has had nothing good to say about Obama’s FP over the years. Always the contrarian on Middle East policy under Obama, even while the President has taken a more thoughtful approach and often exercised restraint. She’s a complainer for sure, but that’s just another pet peeve of mine with her reporting.
10 Likes
Having not had a chance yet to watch the debate, and being concerned about my own rising premiums and deductibles under ACA, I’m more interested in how Hillary answered the question than whatever might have been misleading in the question itself.
So would anyone who caught the debate like to explain what Hillary said in response? Does she have any plan for getting costs down if elected?
4 Likes
Thank you! I, too, missed the debate. I want to know how the question was addressed … the answer(s) in its/their entirety. That would be most revealing.
Edited for spelling.
Hillary answered this part of the question by acknowledging that there are tweaks that must be made to the system and among them is a lack auditing/accountability of insurance company cost/price relationships. She took a mild jab at Republicans for not allowing an atmosphere where improvements could be made to the ACA because of the GOP’s resistance to all things Obamacare
6 Likes
Thanks for the analysis. ABC News is a disappointment. It is all about the visuals with very shallow reporting. They spend more time than the local stations on daily weather reports without ever mentioning climate change. Their idea of energy reporting is to send one of their news models to a local filling station with a camera man and a calculator to tell how much the price as risen or fallen. They calculate it to an annual basis without analysis on why the price is changing or whether the price changes are good or bad other than costing the consumer more or less. It seems to me that their reporting is done with an eye toward pleasing their sponsors and corporate masters. If you want to be better informed, listen to On Point on public radio.
2 Likes
How can these elitist media sonsofbitches with Cadillac tax-free employer-provided coverage get away with this shit?
My premiums were going up ten percent a year. That’s roughly 50% over five years. The first year of the ACA, they dropped by $4600 a year, a decrease of over 50%. That $4600 helped put a much-needed roof on my house – it went right back into the economy and supported two jobs. Since then, my rates have gone up by 6% annually, less than they had before the ACA.
I appreciate that not everyone had the same experience, but likewise I’m quite certain I’m not the only one in the entire US to experience a reset in my rates: dropping them substantially and increasing from there at a lower rate.
The ACA has many flaws and clearly we need Medicare for All. But if not for the ACA, I would have already been priced out of the health insurance market at the rates it was increasing. That would have put me one catastrophic illness away from bankruptcy, there, Martha Rat’sass.
15 Likes
I was curious as well about the tone she took in her questioning. I don’t mind an aggressive media, but don’t lead with questions or provide only a set number of answers as a “proper” response. I was also disappointed with the nonsensical “make a pledge/promise” questions. Yes, I’ll predict the future and no matter what happens, I’ll do what I said I’d do three years prior just so you can say I flip flopped. Nonsense.
4 Likes
This post is full of “facts” and “math” and little bit of “science”. As such it is unfit for political discussion. Please stick to platitudes, innuendo (false-scandal if you please!) and dog-whistles. As Adlai Stevenson said when informed that all “thinking people” were voting for him – “That’s not enough, I need a majority.” Less information and more fear-biscuits please.
7 Likes
I came here to post this.
Unfortunately, once a talking point gets tossed out there, it becomes irrefutable truth in the modern American world. The population at large simply can’t be bothered to put things into a larger context, and trying to frame it for them in a discussion gets you labeled a communist or something before they storm out of the room all red-faced and crank up the Limbaugh.
That’s always been one of my biggest fears about the ACA. Even before it passed, the whole concept was to bend the curve, and not halt premium increases altogether. There’s just no way that was going to make sense to a good chunk of the population, and it was always just going to be too easy of a talking point for the right to pick up later by saying “Look! Obamacare made your premiums go up!”.
We’re living in an era where Obamaphones are as real as death panels to some people. Healthcare is going to get way, way worse before it all blows up in all of our faces and wrecks the economy, and then we get single-payer. And then those of us asking for it now can feel somewhat vindicated if we’re not all living in the streets and/or dead by then.
2 Likes
Like the oil industry did when they had their man Cheney in the White House, the medical industry did just before Obamacare came to be… jack up the prices while they can and rake in the easy money for the short time left before the unquestionable necessity of single payer becomes absolute enough to overcome those profit addicts’ powergrip on politics.
They know it is coming, and between now and then they will hold a weak and fearful people hostage with $1000/month premiums that enlarge the wealth of the most selfish generation of privileged people in American history, and that is really saying something.
Until we figure out that amoral capitalism does best when moderated with compassionate socialism, we are stuck in a cycle of greedy futility.
History has proven, give the people their health and the most basic social security and a 2 week vacation every year, and they will make the billionaires into multi-billionaires with a smile.
But leave the working class to suffer in this insane, arcane and evil medical-care caste system and there will be pitchforks and torches somewhere in the future.
Take the profit out of pain and suffering and we really become what we imagine ourselves to be. Remove the profit motive from healthcare and health insurance and you give the rest of the economy a big booster shot, one that far outstrips any benefits that price gouging on pain might have accomplished…
But like military money, medical gouging money has become the foundation of so many shady derivatives and minor millionaire’s fortunes, letting it go to “socialist” managers takes away the easiest resources of some of our greediest power brokers.
They will not give up that free-flowing gravy so easily.
They celebrate our suffering as their tool for profit.
6 Likes
Raddatz seems knowledgeable about foreign policy and affairs but is dreadfully ignorant about healthcare.
Martin Shkreli raised the per-pill price of medicine from $13.50 to $750.00.
Duh.
It’s fun to single out Shkreli for his questionable ethics, but plenty of other pharmaceutical companies also jack up the the price of formerly cheap drugs to levels that will bankrupt people who need them.
- boingboing.net
4 Likes
“While it’s unclear exactly the role Obamacare played…”
The ACA did very litte to regulate the rise in premiums, coinsurances and deductibles. Even though more are insured now, the ACA was, in essence, a big giveaway to the insurance companies and the insurance companies have taken FULL advantage of it.
“…the growth of premiums has been lower in the last few years than it was in periods prior…”
For some, yes (but still 34% higher!), but coinsurances have increased (90/10% are getting rarer) and deductibles have totally skyrocketed - so patients who need care end up paying MUCH more out-of-pocket now then they did before the ACA. It’s not a good system.
1 Like