Article: "Obamacare: The Biggest Insurance Scam in History"

[truth2power]

Wednesday, 30 October 2013 10:21 By Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers , Truthout | Op-Ed

http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/19692-obamacare-the-biggest-insurance-scam-in-history



Co-author, Dr. Margaret Flowers was interviewed recently, along with Dr. Jill Stein, on Moyers & Co.

Zeese and Flowers compare the ACA, step by step, to the unfolding of a generic confidence game.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA), also called "Obamacare," may be the biggest insurance scam in history. The industries that profit from our current health care system wrote the legislation, heavily influenced the regulations and have received waivers exempting them from provisions in the law. This has all been done to protect and enhance their profits.

In the meantime, the health care crisis continues. Fewer people, even those with health insurance, can afford the health care they need because of out-of-pocket costs. The ACA continues that trend by pushing skimpy health plans with low coverage and restricted networks.

This is what happens in a market-based system of health care. People get only the amount of health care they can afford, rather than what they need. The ACA takes our failed market-based system to a whole new level by forcing the uninsured to purchase private health plans and using the government to sell and subsidize them.

Sadly, most Americans are being manipulated into supporting the ACA and do not even know they are being bamboozled. That is how scams work. Even after the con is completed, victims do not know they have been manipulated and ripped off. They may even feel good about being scammed, thinking they made a deal when they really had their bank accounts picked. But it is the insurance companies that are the realizing windfall profits from the Obamacare con even as it falters.

more...

This is the time to push even more strongly for Universal Single Payer or Medicare For All.

[Myrina]

1. So blatantly obvious, I don't know why the GOP is against it.

It's very clearly benefitting their sponsors moreso than the 'premium payer'.

[truth2power]

5. I think that falls under the category of "The Hurrah"...

It's a game they play. Being against it energizes Progressives to solidly support it. JMHO.

[MisterP]

8. they got a huge concession--why wouldn't they keep pushing?

[red dog 1]

52. I don't know why the GOP is against it either,

since it was first written and promoted years ago by the Herritage Foundation.

I wonder if Mitt Romney was attacked like this when he implemented it in Massachusetts?

[polichick]

2. This is the time to demand single payer...

to demand that people come before corporations and profits - to demand gov't of, by and for the people.

Even Dems assume we can only have crumbs.

[yurbud]

47. too many Democratic politicians take their checks from the financial sector

and see them as their true constituents.

We are just an irritant they have to pander to at election time to keep their job.

[polichick]

48. True. We have to stop accepting crumbs...

and make them work for our votes.

[geek tragedy]

3. Ah, the Republicans' useful idiots chime in again

Very cute of Team Jill Stein to hold hands with Ted Cruz et al while denouncing the ACA as a crime against humanity.

[truth2power]

4. Oh, Geek! How have ya' been? *sigh*...

First of all, why the hyperbole? "crime against humanity"? Please!

And are the authors not permitted to critique and oppose something if Ted Cruz & friends also oppose it? You can do better than that.

If I may digress...Our local school board is now in the control of "Baggers" as of this past election. Since they are so adept at breaking things, I can only imagine what will happen when they take office in January.

More to the point, they have already come out as being opposed to Common Core. Now, as it happens, I'm also opposed to Common Core, although for different reasons, I'm sure. So, should I start supporting that so-called "educational reform" just because those loons are against it? Your argument fails in that regard.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you probably didn't critically read that entire lengthy article before posting.

The authors make what I consider an indisputable case for the ACA being, at base, a scam against the American people.

If you can speak to the issue, please do so.

Thanks.

[Big Blue Marble]

6. Great response! N/T

[truth2power]

7. Thanks!

[geek tragedy]

12. This is the Bush=Gore crowd's attempt at policy analysis, and they wind up

with exactly the same recommendation re the ACA as the Teabaggers-complete repeal combined with Ted Cruz-style hyperbole.

Just like Ted Cruz is more useful to Obama due to his stupidity, people like Jill Stein might as well be getting a check from the Koch brothers for their efforts.

[truth2power]

14. Geek - You're saying the same thing as you said in your previous post...

Equating the authors of the article with Ted Cruz...Bush...Koch Bros. etc. etc.

Throwing out those names scares some people and they shut down their thinking process. It adds nothing to the discussion except fear. Why is that?

I still don't think you've read the article.

[geek tragedy]

16. I got as far as the part where they whined

about the disappearance of junk insurance policies.

[Doctor_J]

11. Yep, that's Moyers alright

[geek tragedy]

13. Moyers didn't author this piece of crap article, which includes

a defense of junk insurance policies. Why? Because the ACA gets rid of them.

Stein &co doesn't care about helping people get access to health care. They just want to posture as holier-than-thou.

[Luminous Animal]

17. Where oh where did they defend junk insurance?

[geek tragedy]

18. asdf

A major promise was that people could keep their insurance if they liked it, but many are finding that this isn't working out. Kaiser Health News reported last week: "Health plans are sending hundreds of thousands of cancellation letters to people who buy their own coverage, frustrating some consumers who want to keep what they have and forcing others to buy more costly policies." The Society of Actuaries released a report in March 2013 that showed insurance pools are set to see an average increase of 32 percent in underlying claims costs by 2017.

The Charlotte Observer reported: "Across North Carolina, thousands of people have been shocked in recent weeks to find out their health insurance plans will be canceled at the end of the year - and premiums for comparable coverage could increase sharply."

The increase in premiums will force more people to use the state health insurance exchanges, where prices are supposed to be more affordable, but even that is not a solution. Russell Mokhiber of Single Payer Action describes the dilemma he faces in West Virginia. Mokhiber received a notice that his current insurance expires January 1, 2014. If he wants to keep his plan, it will cost twice as much. In his state only one insurance company, Highmark, will be listed on the exchange. He called Highmark to find out what his choices were and got bad news: "The skimpiest plan is going to cost me more than I'm paying now and have a higher deductible and out-of-pocket costs."

They are whining about the demise of the predatory individual market and that people should be allowed to keep their junk policies.

And then they lie their asses off:

The ACA will increase the number of people who have inadequate insurance that requires high out-of-pocket costs and does not cover all necessary services. The ACA significantly lowers what is considered to be adequate insurance coverage through its system of tiers. The insurance exchanges offer four levels of coverage, with the least-expensive plans paying for 70 percent and 60 percent of covered services.

These plans include high co-pays and deductibles that are barriers to care - especially when 76 percent of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck. And insurers are restricting coverage further by limiting their networks so they do not include major medical centers or adequate numbers of health professionals.

It is important to highlight that insurers pay only for covered services because people don't usually understand that they will have to pay for uncovered and out-of-network services themselves. The use of out-of-network services is often involuntary and occurs without being known at the time of care, especially in emergency situations.

Liar, liar, Naderite pants on fire. Before the ACA, THERE WERE NO STANDARDS. Ergo, the cancellation of the junk policies these liars were just complaining about.

Here's another lie:

No cap on out-of-pocket spending: One of the selling points of the ACA con was that it would limit how much people pay out of pocket for health care. Of the thousands of waivers granted by HHS, one was the limit on out-of-pocket spending. The insurance companies claimed that their computers were not set up to handle this change. HHS took this absurd rationale seriously and gave them a waiver on this important provision

A discrete number of insurers were given a one-year limited grace period to get their computer systems aligned because they dispense benefits through multiple companies. MOST companies are bound by this cap, and even those not bound by it will be bound by it in 2015. Of course, none of this would be true but for the ACA.

And, as a parting gift, they cite DARRELL ISSA to support their argument while offering rightwing talking points against the dreaded ACA navigators:

Part of the federal spending will be on "navigators" and "assisters," people whose job it is to help people buy insurance. The Obama administration announced in 2013 that it would be directing $200 million to states, private groups and local health centers so that they can hire workers, called navigators, to sell insurance to Americans.

How are navigators paid? A House Committee on Oversight and Reform issued a report on September 13, 2013, that examined how navigators will be paid. One problem is that many are paid based on the number of people they enroll. Obviously this could lead navigators and assisters to not merely "facilitate" enrollment but to persuade people to enroll. And navigators are not required to disclose this incentive.

This payment structure is just one problem, the House report summarizes, warning of scammers:

"… the training to be Navigators and Assisters will last only five to 20 hours and there is no requirement for a background check of Navigators and Assisters who will have access to highly sensitive personal information, such as Social Security numbers, dates of birth, and income for everyone in an applicant's household. Given the stories about how scammers are gearing up to take advantage of the tremendous confusion caused by ObamaCare, Americans are at an increased risk of being the victim of fraud and identify theft because of the Administration's poor development of its outreach programs."

The official navigators and assisters are only one part of the continued conning of America

There you have it--these supposed progressive are pimps selling Darrel Issa's conspiracy theories and scare mongering.

The Jill Stein crowd has always been and will always be worse than useless. Functionally the same as Teabaggers, except dumber.

[Luminous Animal]

20. Actually, both my sister-in-law and I have excellent insurance policies and we've both received

cancellation letters. The replacement policies that are available for a comparable price have significantly increased out of pocket costs.

Some people, like me, would like to keep their old insurance policy rather than be forced to buy an inferior product at a higher price. It is those people that the article is addressing.

And yes, indeed it will increase the number of people who have inadequate insurance. That increase in number comes from the millions of people who do not have insurance. That is, they've gone from no insurance at all to being required to purchase the policies that they can afford; i.e., policies with huge out of pocket costs.

How can stating that the no-cap spending provision was granted a waiver be a lie, when in fact waivers have been granted? From Forbes:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/08/13/yet-another-white-house-obamacare-delay-out-of-pocket-caps-waived-until-2015/

Yet Another White House Obamacare Delay: Out-Of-Pocket Caps Waived Until 2015

According to the law, the limits on out-of-pocket costs for 2014 were $6,350 for individual policies and $12,700 for family ones. But in February, the Department of Labor published a little-noticed rule delaying the cap until 2015. The delay was described yesterday by Robert Pear in the New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/13/us/a-limit-on-consumer-costs-is-delayed-in-health-care-law.html?smid=tw-nytimeshealth&seid=auto&_r=1&pagewanted=all&

Personally, I'm not confident that it will the cap will withstand another year of insurance company lobbying and political donations.

You do realize, don't you, that the committee also contains Democratic Senators? And scammers have been reported.

I've read the report and much of it is bullshit but the part that she quoted seems to have highlighted legitimate concerns:

Still, some of the GOP's concerns may be legitimate. Navigators are not required to have a government ID or other documentation proving they are authorized to help enroll people for health coverage, and the government has not yet set up a list of all authorized navigators. Sixteen states have already imposed stricter rules on navigators on their own, including criminal background checks and requirements that these helpers obtain state licenses.

The White House is listening. On Wednesday, the Obama administration announced a new effort to assure Americans that the information they submit when applying for health care is private and secure; White House officials plan to unveil a toll-free telephone number where consumers can report fraud under the new law, and will soon launch an education campaign to warn consumers to be on the lookout for scams.

California, as consumer protection initiative, require finger prints and criminal background checks of its navigators.

[geek tragedy]

23. Thank you for proving my point.

I ding those dingbat authors for citing rightwingers in their attempts to smear the ACA.

You respond by citing rightwingers in order to bolster your smear on the ACA (you cited a Forbes article by Avik Roy, who works for the rightwing Manhattan Institute, writes for The National Review, is a booster of the Koch Brothers and ALEC, and was Mitt Romney's health care advisor in 2012.

And, of course, here you are endorsing the Republican scare efforts re: navigators being a bunch of criminals.

The fact is that these navigators are subject to criminal backgrounds in states just like Medicare counselors are. It is literally no story at all that they're subject to the same guidelines as Medicare counselors are.

But you and Darrell Issa have never made a stink about Medicare counselors committing insurance fraud. Why? Because it doesn't suit the agenda you share with Darrell Issa and the Republican/Tea Parties--sabotaging the ACA.

Given your propensity to pimp rightwing talking points and rely upon the work of rightwing think tanks and front groups, forgive me if I don't believe your tale of having this wonderful cheap insurance that covers all you need and is being ruined by mean ol Obamacare. Sounds like something you read on Drudge.

[VanillaRhapsody]

27. EXACTLY!

Always look and see who they cozy up to and you know....as some of the names that will post agreeing with this...

[geek tragedy]

34. They quoted the rightwing's #1 healthcare propagandist, Avik Roy, in another post.

How could you distrust someone who gets their info on Obamacare from Darrell Issa and Avik Roy?

[VanillaRhapsody]

38. BUAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA!

Serious? That's some stupid shit right there...

[SidDithers]

49. Holy shit...

Really? Avik Roy was a favourite of BBI, right up until he got banned.

Sid

[geek tragedy]

50. DKF was banned for posting an Avik Roy piece nt

[Lifelong Dem]

54. DU'ers using single payer to trash ACA is wrong

It's propaganda and for some reason some here on DU think they have a right to trash ACA, because they want single payer. If ACA fails kiss any HC reform goodbye.

[geek tragedy]

55. Note that the authors advocate "repeal and replace" with single payer

Where have we heard/seen that before?

[Lifelong Dem]

56. They would need a replacement after any repeal because ACA is not a failure

Yet they have no bill or anything to replace any repeal.

A repeal without replacement is generally done when a law is no longer effective, or it is shown that a law is having far more negative consequences than were originally envisioned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repeal

[yurbud]

58. this isn't just about whose "team" wins. Though in DC, I think winning simply means who

gains the trust and therefore dollars of various industries by carrying their water in legislation.

[geek tragedy]

59. If Republicans win, the American people lose.

But, the Jill Stein crowd wants to make that happen anyways.

[yurbud]

60. If DLC'ers really felt that way, they wouldn't agree with Republicans so often or even

push conservative policies.

You like to shake the GOP boogeyman when it suits you, but the rest of the time there's as little daylight between you and them as between them and their tidy whities.

[Corruption Inc]

9. The truth of this article won't stop the hoards of "I got mine" people from gloating

24/7 on internet sites. I imagine you'll be attacked as much as praised for posting this article.

This article is prescient for several reasons: it shows what a scam the AHA is and why it will hurt (D)s in the near and distant future, it shows how easily our propaganda networks con people and, it points out that as the only wealthy country with predatory for-profit health insurance that we will all continue to suffer greatly in the future.

Rec'd!

[truth2power]

15. You've said it. Thanks.

edit> typo. It's REALLY early.

[red dog 1]

51. So far, all the responses of this OP are supportive,

which surprises the hell out of me, since, like you, I figured there would be lots of attacks and name calling, like "You're a DINO because you don't support our President's health plan."

[Doctor_J]

10. Racists! Haters! Ponies! Lieberman! Libertarian! Greenwald!

[geek tragedy]

19. They're Darrell Issa fans, as you can see by reading to the end of the report.

They quote his propaganda and scaremongering re: navigators.

So, yeah, they are pretty much every bit the enemy--right down to collaborating with the Republicans in trying to derail the ACA.

This is why the Greenies and Jill Stein crowd get treated like the traitors they are.

[Luminous Animal]

21. Apparently, the DEMOCRATIC state legislators in CA are also Darrell Issa fans. They acted

on the criticism highlighted by Stein with robust consumer protections that the Feds don't have.

[geek tragedy]

22. Huh? They cracked down on Obamacare navigators?

They voted to nullify the ACA?

Note that the ACA explicitly allows states to provide such additional regulations. This is exactly the same situation as it has been with Medicare counselors.

It's only drawing attention in the case of the ACA due to sabotage efforts on the part of the Republicans and their accomplices on the Ted Cruz left.


Note also that California, contra these leftwing Cruz types, did not determine that keeping junk insurance around was a valid policy goal.

[Luminous Animal]

24. No. They took the concerns of consumer rights activists seriously

Concerns similar to those Stein referred to when quoting the report. (And who knows - you certainly don't - a Democrat may have written that part of the report.) California took the protection of their citizens seriously enough to enact stringent standards for navigators and assisters. Standards that the Federal legislation lacks.

And why do you keep blabbing about junk insurance? It is a fact that many people, like my sister in-law, like myself, and like the man cited in the article have very good insurance that is being cancelled and are being forced to purchase reduced coverage for more money. That is the situation being discussed in the article.

[geek tragedy]

25. LMAO.

(And who knows - you certainly don't - a Democrat may have written that part of the report.)

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

You claim to live in the US, and think that DARRELL fucking ISSA might have let a Democrat write part of his committee's report on Obamacare?

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[Luminous Animal]

26. I'd rather believe that than believe that Issa

cares about consumer protections and citizens's right to privacy. Which, by the way is the topic that Stein and I are addressing but that you seem determined to ignore and the topic cited on the report.

[geek tragedy]

30. Neitherr Stein nor Issa care about consumer protections. They're scaremongering re:

the ACA. Because they want it to fail. Because they don't give a fuck about people without insurance.

By the way, California doesn't require ACA navigators to get criminal background checks. Covered California, the state run exchange, does require Enrollment Counselors to get such background checks, but not Navigators.

And Navigators aren't a consumer protection issue, since they conduct educational and outreach activities. They don't enroll people.

You really need to stop believing everything you read that's written by Republicans and their allies.

[Luminous Animal]

40. Ahem. And assisters. I am so glad I live in

California and San Francisco, specifically.

[geek tragedy]

43. How have your contacts been with assisters/navigators? nt

[Luminous Animal]

45. Pleasant, knowledgable, and efficient.

My husband and I do not qualify but I've been helping a couple of friends who do qualify.

[VanillaRhapsody]

31. Do you mean HIPPA?

because I can guarantee you HIPPA is very much a concern and its being followed.

[VanillaRhapsody]

35. One word for you HIPPA!

[VanillaRhapsody]

29. Not.A.Fucking.Chance!

[geek tragedy]

32. I know, right? That's seriously some to the dumbest bullshit I've read here in some time.

Maybe the most partisan Republican in DC let a Democrat write his report on Obamacare.

Yeah, and he let Hillary write the Benghazi report.

[VanillaRhapsody]

33. And on the weekends he and Barack Obama are in a quilting circle together!

[geek tragedy]

37. When he's not letting Bernie Sanders write the IRS report. nt

[Luminous Animal]

36. I never claimed that and you know it

Very dishonest of you.

[geek tragedy]

39. your words re: Darrell Issa's report

(And who knows - you certainly don't - a Democrat may have written that part of the report.)

Actually, I do know that a Democrat didn't write that part of the report. As would anyone who knows more about Congress than an amoeba does.

[Luminous Animal]

42. There is a big difference between the entire report

And one paragraph.

[geek tragedy]

44. Your CYA is failing miserably. Minority on the committee writes its own report.

You've cited Darrell Issa and Mitt Romney's presidential campaign to support your arguments here.

That means you've lost the argument, badly, in humiliating fashion.

[Lifelong Dem]

57. Would the word substandard insurance be better to use for cancellations

Your so called very good insurance still doesn't reach the minimum standards of ACA. Doesn't sound very good to me.

[VanillaRhapsody]

28. Now lets watch and see who cozies up to this post....should be a quite interesting

cast of characters and the usual suspects.

[Drunken Irishman]

46. YOU ROCK!

Too bad the guy in your avatar is such a delusional fool that he not only voted for Obamacare - he still supports it!

What a moron!

[BlueStreak]

41. Gee, they doubled prices and got the govt to pay the difference. How could that be a scam?

[red dog 1]

53. K&R....Thanks for posting it

Also thanks to Bill Moyers for having Dr. Flowers on his show.

I agree 100% with truth2power's statement:
"This is the time to push even more strongly for Universal Single Payer or Medicare for all."

I hope the universal unpopularity of the ACA doesn't cause the Dems to lose the Senate next year