Inside the Fox News Lie Machine-Fact-checking Sean Hannity on Obamacare

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by rdowns, Oct 18, 2013.

  1. rdowns, Oct 18, 2013
    Last edited: Oct 18, 2013

    rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #1
    We already knew FOX makes **** up but this just amazes me. Talk about low information voters and acting against your own interests.




    http://www.salon.com/2013/10/18/ins...ine_i_fact_checked_sean_hannity_on_obamacare/
     
  2. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #2
    Can you link to the source of these quotes?

    Thanks.
     
  3. rdowns thread starter macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #3

    Done. Sorry.


    Odd, I can find all the clips from that show on FOX's site except that one.
     
  4. Aspasia macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2011
    Location:
    Halfway between the Equator and North Pole
    #4
    Do you think that the Chicago Tribune, Obama's home newspaper, is lying too?

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...-obamacare-edit-1016-20131016,0,7158293.story

    Could be that the OP is the low information voter.
     
  5. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #5
  6. Aspasia macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2011
    Location:
    Halfway between the Equator and North Pole
    #6
    And Salon is?
     
  7. Michael Goff macrumors G3

    Michael Goff

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2012
    #7
    Compared to a blatant op-ed piece? Yes. Salon does, in fact, report new stories.
     
  8. elistan macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    Location:
    Denver/Boulder, CO
    #8
    That's simply the opinion of Iliana Mora, COO of Erie Family Health Center. Not of the Chicago Tribune. You're trying to argue by appealing to authority, and you're not even attributing the authority correctly.

    If you want to discuss facts, feel free to contact Adam Weldzius and get some more detail on his situation, like how Eric Stern contacted Paul Cox, Allison Denijs and Robbie Robison.

    Even if Mr Weldzius's story on costs checks out, we'd be left with:
    One person whose costs will likely go up, and
    Three people whose costs could likely go down, but like to claim otherwise, generally misrepresent the ACA, and profess to not investigating the ACA.

    Besides, I don't think rdowns's point in this thread is to advocate for or against the ACA, rather he's illustrating how some of the reporting on it on Fox is misleading.
     
  9. thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #9
    He didn't really comment on the law itself there.

    The Salon piece in this case would be as valid as its reporting. It doesn't extrapolate things beyond the reviewed anecdotes. If the statements are accurately reported, the piece is valid as it doesn't attempt to extrapolate further. You seem to be concerned over the validity of articles that may be attributed to Salon.

    Editorials are classified as opinion pieces by definition. They can cite facts, but they do not have to be based on anything beyond the author's opinion.
     
  10. rdowns thread starter macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #10
  11. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #11
    There are two important aspect to the Salon story.

    The first is, all of the people on Sean Hannity's show were so ideologically opposed to the health care law that they are, for all intents, operating against their own interests by advocating against the law despite its economic advantages.

    Secondly, the cowboys at Fox News are so ideologically driven, they didn't run a basic fact check to ensure that the people on the show claiming they were screwed by the law were actually screwed by the law.

    It's important to consider how the Republicans have wasted three years in their failed attempt to repeal the ACA rather than attempting to refine and update the law to better serve the American people.

    The refusal by state governors to set up exchanges, the attempt to defund the law, etc. have all taken their toll on the law and health care consumers, including the four mentioned here are poorer for it.
     
  12. freeny macrumors 68020

    freeny

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2005
    Location:
    Location: Location:
    #12
    This is pretty much the case with just about everyone I know who says their badly affected by the ACA. It ends up to be a lie...
     
  13. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #13
    A year from now it will all be water under the bridge, especially when people start receiving refund checks from their insurance companies because the charged more than they should have...
     
  14. tunerX Suspended

    tunerX

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2009
    #14
    I wish it were true.

    In NY 2014. The ACA will cost me 1369.94 a month for the silver plan with a 9K deductible. My current plan is 13.9K (Provides coverage equivalent to gold) with a 5k deductible but since it is a high deductible plan I can use an HSA and deposit 6K tax exempt to cover the deductible.

    My employer told me that our current policy is affected by the ACA and premiums will increase 25% for 2014. In 2014 I can pay the 25 percent out of pocket to keep the old plan or they can pay me the 13.9K (before taxes) so I can move to the exchange which now leaves me with a bronze plan which is 1063.00 per month with a 9K deductible and no possibility for HSA.

    The ACA for 2014 does not allow this. If ACA allowed for an HSA equivalent it would lessen the burden. I have negative benefit from the ACA.

    If I want to stick to gold level coverage, I guess I have to eat 3K out of pocket per year. The company I work for is only 58 people. And most of the profit is negligible. They pass most profit to the employees.
     
  15. elistan macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    Location:
    Denver/Boulder, CO
    #15
    Did they give any indication what it is about the ACA that requires the higher premiums? I'm genuinely curious - if the ACA is increasing some premiums, WHY is it increasing premiums?
     
  16. tunerX Suspended

    tunerX

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2009
    #16
    They sent my company a pre-canned letter and link.

    http://www.uhc.com/live/uhc_com/Assets/Documents/RoadToReform.pdf

    With the link they received an organization specific letter from UHC that said 2014 premiums will increase for all members of our plan by 25%, and referenced the link. My company didn't modify the letter, all they did was scan it and email it to us as an attachment; they also included their plan that included our options of out of pocket or semi-coverage (not tax exempt) if we choose to move to the exchange. I can give you the UHC link but cannot give you the correspondence between my company, UHC, or I.

    It can be a greedy insurance company or it can because UHC is now required to provide insurance for high risk groups with pre-existing conditions. Either way it is bad, but I get stuck with the cost. If you read through the pdf you will see that UHC makes mention of taxes/fees that are because of the health reform law.
     
  17. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #17
    That is interesting, because while I am in California, my company, who also uses UHC as one of their healthcare options, hasn't received any such letter. In fact, the only plan that we had that went up in price was with Kaiser Permanente, and that was only by $5 per month. The cheapest plan we have (covering employee only) is free to the employee; they pay nothing out of pocket except for co-pay. All of our rates have stayed exactly the same.

    I don't know what type of plan your company offers, but your HR department may want to look further into plans that UHC offers, because something doesn't seem right if yours went up, and mine, who uses the same company (albeit from another state) saw no change at all.

    BL.
     
  18. elistan macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    Location:
    Denver/Boulder, CO
    #18
    Thanks for the additional details.

    I don't get it though. The UHC doc you linked to talks about those ACA-specific fees and such (page 7) to the tune of, per year, $62 plus 2.5%... I don't understand how that equates to a 25% increase?

    I wish I had something personal to go on, but our insurance changed from Aetna to UHC to Cigna over the past five years due to employer changes, so it's difficult to establish tends.

    There's something going on that's not readily being explained fully. I've yet to see anything that ascribes premium increases to the ACA, beyond the level of "they said so."
     
  19. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #19
    Those are good questions. Increasingly, I think the health insurance companies are using ACA as cover to increase profits, or they're using future anticipated costs to justify costs now.
     
  20. tunerX Suspended

    tunerX

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2009
    #20
    I wish it was 2.5 percent. I wish that maybe the person typing the letter missed a decimal place. My reality is I have to pay 25% more on my premiums. Or I have to move to the exchange and pay tax on my company subsidy and also have a higher deductible with no ability to do an HSA.

    ----------

    My HR department is 1 person. We are a 58 person company. When I worked for General Dynamics My premiums was 6K a year with no co-pay and 1000 deductible. GD employs over 80K people and premium is reduced for a larger base.

    You are in california and I am in new york. Sign up for the NY site,

    http://www.nystateofhealth.ny.gov/
     
  21. elistan macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    Location:
    Denver/Boulder, CO
    #21
    I'm not denying your reality :) and I sympathize with your increased costs. :( I just haven't seen much evidence that those cost increases can be attributed to the ACA.

    By the way, from what I can tell, whether you can get an HSA or not depends only on the kind of plan you get, and has nothing to do with where (whether an employer plan or an exchange) you get that plan.

    http://insurance.about.com/od/healthgloss/a/Hsas-And-The-Affordable-Care-Act.htm

    ----------

    That's an interesting point... In a sense, the ACA is intended to make us ALL members of the same giant base, and therefore we all should get the benefits of the lower premiums enjoyed by employees of large corporations.

    Hopefully it actually works out that way...
     
  22. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #22
    On page 11 of your UHC booklet, they offer you contact information for any questions or concerns. A 25% increase would seem to be a good reason for getting some answers.

    Have you contacted them?

    Will you?
     
  23. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #23
    You handed the whole flock to a pack of wolves and act surprised when you come back to find bones.
     
  24. rdowns thread starter macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #24
    The ACA addresses this by requiring insurance companies to spend at least 80% of your premiums of care or refund the difference at the end of the policy term. Of course, most of us get our heath insurance through our employer who should share those rebates in proportion to employee contributions to insurance but don't.
     
  25. jnpy!$4g3cwk macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #25
    Unusually (I have to explain why I was watching Fox News), I happened to see that show at the gym. Luckily I could burn off my annoyance.

    Of course some folks cost will go up, especially the young healthy looking blonde in the front row. Now, without ACA, suppose she gets breast cancer somewhere down the line. She can't work. She loses her employer-based health insurance. She can't get private insurance. Sound like anybody you know? (I do.)

    Sure, some people will pay more. What they are paying more for is the fact that the insurance will actually cover them when they actually need it.

    Would I have preferred a different system? Sure. I will take Australia's system. But, that wasn't an option.
     

Share This Page