FACT CHECK: Obama Spins Health Insurance Rebates.....

[MMC]

Another year, another round of exaggeration from President Barack Obama and his administration about health insurance rebates.

In his speech defending his health care law Thursday, Obama said rebates averaging $100 are coming from insurance companies to 8.5 million Americans. In fact, most of the money is going straight to employers who provide health insurance, not to their workers, who benefit indirectly.

Obama danced around that reality in remarks that also blamed problems in establishing affordable insurance markets on political opponents, glossing over complex obstacles also faced in states that support the law.

A look at some of his claims and how they compare with the facts:

THE FACTS: Even in that unlikely event, most people could not send it back to insurance companies because the money doesn't go "in their pockets" and they have no control over what their employers do with it.

—"In states that are working hard to make sure this law delivers for their people, what we're seeing is that consumers are getting a hint of how much money they're potentially going to save because of this law. In states like California, Oregon, Washington, new competition, new choices, market forces are pushing costs down."

THE FACTS: It is simply not known whether health insurance will become less expensive in those states — or nationally — than it is now, or than it would have been absent the law. And hitches in setting up the new insurance marketplaces called exchanges are not limited to Republican-led states where leaders object to the law, although that political pushback is certainly part of what's going on.

In California, for example, where there is plenty of competition by health insurers wanting to get into the exchange, an actuarial report commissioned by Covered California, the state agency running the insurance marketplace, found that middle-income residents could see individual health premiums increase by an average of 30 percent while costs go down for lower income people.....snip~

FACT CHECK: Obama spins health insurance rebates - Yahoo! Finance

There you have.....once again Obama spins the truth. Knocked again by the Fact Checkers. That's Despite 35 Democrats calling for Obama to hold off on his Obamacare. All due to those problems with states that want to set things up and support Obamacare. 35 House Reps. Then the Demos in the Senate that want to have that Medical Device tax repealed.

Can't just blame the Republicans on their pushback. State and municipal laws are affected. Most being different than anothers. So even team Obama has to recognize. It is not just a problem that one or two are having and it being over the same thing. Even there it isn't a majority.

 

[GottaGo]

The company I work for shares that rebate with the employees... the company pays 50% of the premium, so we keep 50% of the rebate. The rest goes to the employees.

I really dislike how some will paint all employers with the same brush.....

THE FACTS: Even in that unlikely event, most people could not send it back to insurance companies because the money doesn't go "in their pockets" and they have no control over what their employers do with it.

Employees receive letters stating the rebates have been paid. Perhaps they need to speak with their employer regarding those rebates, instead of just waiting for it to be handed to them.

 

[MMC]

The company I work for shares that rebate with the employees... the company pays 50% of the premium, so we keep 50% of the rebate. The rest goes to the employees.

I really dislike how some will paint all employers with the same brush.....



Employees receive letters stating the rebates have been paid. Perhaps they need to speak with their employer regarding those rebates, instead of just waiting for it to be handed to them.

Heya GG.....your Right. I had a buddy of mine show me that he got a letter. Even he said.....it's not like I had any decision where the money went.

 

[imagep]

I pay for my own health insurance (Blue Cross), and I got a right nice rebate check in the mail a while back. first time in my life that the cost of my health insurance actually went DOWN.

 

[Boo Radley]

Frankly, this was the lowest increase in insurance we've had in the entire 13 years I've worked here. I can't complain.

 

[MMC]

That's all great with those who it has helped personally. So whats your excuses for those Blue States that want to support Obamacare but have problem thru interchange with their Own state laws.

What will be the excuses for the difference between the Poor and Middle end middle class and differences of 30% or Higher with what they will pay. Did the Poor and greedy think that was fair too? Do they think it will be fair the difference for Low end middle class and the difference they will pay?

 

[Vern]

Yet another con posts another lying editorial.

In California, for example, where there is plenty of competition by health insurers wanting to get into the exchange, an actuarial report commissioned by Covered California, the state agency running the insurance marketplace, found that middle-income residents could see individual health premiums increase by an average of 30 percent while costs go down for lower income people.....snip~

Its official, the editorial is lying. Yes, there was an actuarial report commissioned by Covered California. Yes it ‘estimated’ rates could go up 30 % for middle income families. And that is why everybody was shocked when California announced rates went down. See the problem, the writer tries to dispute the actual numbers announced in May with the estimates from March. geez and this guy accuses the President of dancing? yea, he's a hypocrite and a liar.

THE FACTS: It is simply not known whether health insurance will become less expensive in those states — or nationally — than it is now, or than it would have been absent the law. And hitches in setting up the new insurance marketplaces called exchanges are not limited to Republican-led states where leaders object to the law, although that political pushback is certainly part of what's going on.

More lies based on his cherished actuarial report. The report estimated a 9% increase in rates absent the law and 14 % increase with the law. So he also lied when he said “It is simply not known whether health insurance will become less expensive in those states — or nationally — than it is now, or than it would have been absent the law.” Understand the problem, he uses March estimates to dispute May actuals and then ignores that March estimates predicted a 9% increase in premiums absent the law. Well rates went down and now magically he tells us we will never know ‘absent the law’. But remember he knows he only has to convince cons.

You can read the actuarial report commissioned by Covered California yourself.

http://www.healthexchange.ca.gov/Documents/Factors Affecting Individual Premiums FINAL 3-28-2013.pdf

Here’s a pundit that admits he was wrong because the rates announced by California
Unexpected Health Insurance Rate Shock-California Obamacare Insurance Exchange Announces Premium Rates - Forbes

“For quite some time, I have been predicting that Obamacare would likely mean higher insurance rates in the individual market for the “young immortals” and others under the age of 40. At the same time, my expectation was that those who fall into the older age ranges would benefit greatly as their premium charges would be lowered thanks to the Affordable Care Act.
It is increasingly clear that I had it wrong.”

 

[Vern]

And here's the rub. republicans 'claim' they are for more competition and letting the free market decide. Well the Obamacare exchanges do exactly that. it fosters competition to drive down prices yet there is no joy in 'con'ville. And cons aren't against spending money because their 'healthcare' alternative would have cost more money (and covered fewer people). and until Obama supported the mandates, cons supported the mandates. Which kinda proves it was just another 'alternative' they didn't really care about but were just trying to stop healthcare reform.

when are cons going to realize that pubs pander and lie to them. I bet just as cons are about sentient beings they read another 'conservative entertainment complex' editorial screaming SOCIALISM SOCIALISM SOCIALISM and they go back into their hypnotic trance.

 

[Woodman909]

Tommy Dorsey - The Music Goes Round and Round - YouTube

 

[CalGun]

I live in CA and our health insurance has increased 24% in the last two years, we don't know next years numbers yet. The article is accurate so only one biased lie going on here

Yet another con posts another lying editorial.



Its official, the editorial is lying. Yes, there was an actuarial report commissioned by Covered California. Yes it ‘estimated’ rates could go up 30 % for middle income families. And that is why everybody was shocked when California announced rates went down. See the problem, the writer tries to dispute the actual numbers announced in May with the estimates from March. geez and this guy accuses the President of dancing? yea, he's a hypocrite and a liar.



More lies based on his cherished actuarial report. The report estimated a 9% increase in rates absent the law and 14 % increase with the law. So he also lied when he said “It is simply not known whether health insurance will become less expensive in those states — or nationally — than it is now, or than it would have been absent the law.” Understand the problem, he uses March estimates to dispute May actuals and then ignores that March estimates predicted a 9% increase in premiums absent the law. Well rates went down and now magically he tells us we will never know ‘absent the law’. But remember he knows he only has to convince cons.

You can read the actuarial report commissioned by Covered California yourself.

http://www.healthexchange.ca.gov/Documents/Factors Affecting Individual Premiums FINAL 3-28-2013.pdf

Here’s a pundit that admits he was wrong because the rates announced by California
Unexpected Health Insurance Rate Shock-California Obamacare Insurance Exchange Announces Premium Rates - Forbes

“For quite some time, I have been predicting that Obamacare would likely mean higher insurance rates in the individual market for the “young immortals” and others under the age of 40. At the same time, my expectation was that those who fall into the older age ranges would benefit greatly as their premium charges would be lowered thanks to the Affordable Care Act.
It is increasingly clear that I had it wrong.”

 

[Vern]

I live in CA and our health insurance has increased 24% in the last two years, we don't know next years numbers yet. The article is accurate so only one biased lie going on here

That may be true but that's not Obamacare and double digit price increases are not new. And that doesn't change the fact that the prices Ins companies quoted were way below expected. Do you think your linkless post changes that?

 

[Vern]

and Cal, it doesn't change the fact I proved the editorial was lying.

 

[MMC]

Seems Some just cant accept those fact checkers.....highly doubt all of them are wrong and coming up with the same thing. :roll:

FACT CHECK: Obama spins health insurance rebates - SFGate

FACT CHECK: Obama talks about health insurance rebates

What he said: "Last year, millions of Americans opened letters from their insurance companies. But instead of the usual dread that comes from getting a bill, they were pleasantly surprised with a check. In 2012, 13 million rebates went out, in all 50 states."


The facts: The health-care law requires insurance companies that spend too much on administrative expenses to issue rebates to customers. But those customers are often employers that in turn offer insurance to workers and bear the bulk of the costs. In workplace plans, the rebate goes to the employer, which must use it for the company health plan but does not have to pass all or part of it on to the worker. People who buy their own insurance and qualify for a rebate get it directly.

What he said: "In states that are working hard to make sure this law delivers for their people, what we're seeing is that consumers are getting a hint of how much money they're potentially going to save because of this law. In states like California, Oregon, Washington, new competition, new choices, market forces are pushing costs down."


The facts: It is not clear whether health insurance will become less expensive in those states than it is now, or than it would have been absent the law. Hitches in setting up the new insurance exchanges are not limited to Republican-led states where leaders have objected to the law, although political pushback is obviously taking place.

FACT CHECK: Obama talks about health insurance rebates | GoErie.com/Erie Times-News

FACT CHECK: Obama spins health insurance rebates - The Gillette News Record

FACT CHECK: Obama spins health insurance rebates

FACT CHECK: Obama injects misleading advertising in claims about health insurance rebates - 7/19/2013 2:59:58 AM | Newser

FACT CHECK: Obama injects misleading advertising in claims about health insurance rebates

 

[Vern]

er uh MMC, how do you ignore that you editorial lied about the actual values as reported to the California Ins regulators and then pretended to not know what the results would have been absent the law. I posted the actuarial report it referenced so you cant even deny it. So if Obamacare is so bad, why do con editorials have to lie. Maybe its time to dredge up the "trying to kill old people" lie.

 

[MMC]

Heya Vern..... To bad the SF Gate isn't a Con Editorial. Nor are all the others. Hence the set up.Trying look up Politico, Politi-fact and Fact Check.Org. Looks like that editorial says the same thing as all these Fact checkers do.

Pretty much puts your so called talking point where it belongs.....outside the truth.

 

[Vern]

MMC, when I click on your first new link after the lying editorial you started with I read

What he said: "In states that are working hard to make sure this law delivers for their people, what we're seeing is that consumers are getting a hint of how much money they're potentially going to save because of this law. In states like California, Oregon, Washington, new competition, new choices, market forces are pushing costs down."


The facts: It is not clear whether health insurance will become less expensive in those states than it is now, or than it would have been absent the law. Hitches in setting up the new insurance exchanges are not limited to Republican-led states where leaders have objected to the law, although political pushback is obviously taking place.

The facts are that states that are setting up the exchanges are seeing lower prices. Your first editorial tried to refute that fact with an estimate that came out 3 months before the actuals were released. And that study expected rates to go up 9 % absent the law. How is that not clear? Seems pretty clear to me. Lets pretend no states have reported lower rates, if President Obama is lying because its "not clear" how is is a lie?

and I dare you to apply your newfound standard of "not clear" to anything you really really really want to believe.

 

[MMC]

Vern.....they stated what Obama said last time. Then what he said this year July 2013. They also point out what the those facts are. That's all there is to it. Now you can try and tell the whole world of Media how they got it wrong.

 

[Vern]

Vern.....they stated what Obama said last time. Then what he said this year July 2013. They also point out what the those facts are. That's all there is to it. Now you can try and tell the whole world of Media how they got it wrong.

again, you seem to be ignoring that your first editorial was lying and the fact that I proved it. Can you at least admit that? anyhoo, your other links were just reprises of the first link.

Now first off, "not clear" is not lying. And second its pretty clear, rates are lower. I'm not stating an opinion, the rates reported by California and NY are lower. How is that not clear? And again, apply your new found standard of "not clear" to anything you believe.

Lets review. the actuarial report that your first 'editorial' relied on to dispute actual facts, said 'absent the law' rates would go up 9%. they went down "not absent the law". the only thing we learned is newspapers don't fact check the AP stories they print.

 

[MMC]

again, you seem to be ignoring that your first editorial was lying and the fact that I proved it. Can you at least admit that? anyhoo, your other links were just reprises of the first link.

Now first off, "not clear" is not lying. And second its pretty clear, rates are lower. I'm not stating an opinion, the rates reported by California and NY are lower. How is that not clear? And again, apply your new found standard of "not clear" to anything you believe.

Lets review. the actuarial report that your first 'editorial' relied on to dispute actual facts, said 'absent the law' rates would go up 9%. they went down "not absent the law". the only thing we learned is newspapers don't fact check the AP stories they print.

Nah, that's yourspin that thinks the Fact Checkers are lying. Not that you can get round both sides saying the same thing. Which you just cant get past that someone on the Right Got the same news from the Associated Press. Then Put it out there before any clean up could be made. Which Right afterwards SF Gate and Huffington jumped out there.

Which is more than likely why you avoided the Indiana thread on the those rates that went up in that State.

Maybe you should have some employers explain it out to you about those Rebates.

 

[Vern]

Your lying editorial:
“an actuarial report commissioned by Covered California, the state agency running the insurance marketplace, found that middle-income residents could see individual health premiums increase by an average of 30 percent while costs go down for lower income people.”

Date of actuarial report:
“Factors Affecting Individual Premium Rates in 2014 Covered California Study Page 2 of 29 March 28, 2013

Date of ‘editorial’ after release of rates accepted for California’s exchange:
“By CALVIN WOODWARD | Associated Press – Fri, Jul 19, 2013 3:28 PM EDT”


From actuarial report:
“Trend from 2013 to 2014: 9.0% average increase to premium”

From lying ‘editorial:
“It is simply not known whether health insurance will become less expensive in those states — or nationally — than it is now, or than it would have been absent the law”

No, we learned from the report that rates were expected to go up “absent the law”. Rates went down.

 

[MMC]

Your lying editorial:
“an actuarial report commissioned by Covered California, the state agency running the insurance marketplace, found that middle-income residents could see individual health premiums increase by an average of 30 percent while costs go down for lower income people.”

Date of actuarial report:
“Factors Affecting Individual Premium Rates in 2014 Covered California Study Page 2 of 29 March 28, 2013

Date of ‘editorial’ after release of rates accepted for California’s exchange:
“By CALVIN WOODWARD | Associated Press – Fri, Jul 19, 2013 3:28 PM EDT”


From actuarial report:
“Trend from 2013 to 2014: 9.0% average increase to premium”

From lying ‘editorial:
“It is simply not known whether health insurance will become less expensive in those states — or nationally — than it is now, or than it would have been absent the law”

No, we learned from the report that rates were expected to go up “absent the law”. Rates went down.

Your so called lying Editorial.....is from the Associated Press. So much for your Right Leaning Source huh. :lol: Got anything on when the Associated Press turned into a Right leaning source? To be aware is to be alive. From the very first Post.

FACT CHECK: Obama spins health insurance rebates

In his speech defending his health care law Thursday, Obama said rebates averaging $100 are coming from insurance companies to 8.5 million Americans. In fact, most of the money is going straight to employers who provide health insurance, not to their workers, who benefit indirectly.

Obama danced around that reality in remarks that also blamed problems in establishing affordable insurance markets on political opponents, glossing over complex obstacles also faced in states that support the law.

A look at some of his claims and how they compare with the facts:

THE FACTS: Just as he did a year ago, Obama made a splashy announcement about rebates that incorporates misleading advertising.

The health care law requires insurance companies that spend too much on administrative expenses to issue rebates to customers. But those customers are often employers that in turn offer insurance to workers and bear the bulk of the costs. In workplace plans, the rebate goes to the employer, which must use it for the company health plan but does not have to pass all or part of it on to the worker. People who buy their own insurance and qualify for a rebate get it directly.

Obama was on solid ground in saying "millions of Americans" got rebate checks last year, but the number was not close to 13 million as he implied.

Of the 12.8 million rebates announced last year, health policy experts estimated 3 million would go directly to the insured. The government didn't know how many.

Nearly two-thirds of the 12.8 million were only entitled to pro-rated and decidedly modest rebates, because they were covered by employers that pay most of their premiums. Workers typically pay about 20 percent of the premium for single coverage, 30 percent for a family plan. Employers pay the rest.

And employers can use all the rebate money, including the workers' share, to benefit the company health plan, perhaps restraining premiums a bit or otherwise improving the bottom line.

The law requires insurers to spend at least 80 percent of premiums they collect on medical care and quality improvement, or return the difference to consumers and employers.

Altogether, this year's rebates are worth $500 million, down from $1.1 billion returned last year. The government says the lower rebates mean insurance companies are becoming more efficient.

—"I'm curious, what do opponents of this law think the folks here today should do with the money they were reimbursed? Should they send it back to the insurance companies?" <<<<< Obama Speaking.

THE FACTS: Even in that unlikely event, most people could not send it back to insurance companies because the money doesn't go "in their pockets" and they have no control over what their employers do with it.

FACT CHECK: Obama spins health insurance rebates - Yahoo! Finance
Associated Press – Fri, Jul 19, 2013 3:28 PM EDT<<<<< More Here and that includes the other facts that the Associated press included. :lol:

The very same facts all the others are citing too. Looks like the Associated Press and all the others got it Right. Despite what you thought was their talking points. Seems you missed the mark, with trying to blame the Associated Press for lying.

 

[Vern]

Your so called lying Editorial.....is from the Associated Press. So much for your Right Leaning Source huh. Got anything on when the Associated Press turned into a Right leaning source? To be aware is to be alive. From the very first Post.
.

er uh MMC, you're confusing the rest of the media with Fox news where they are told what to say. Real media sources allow columnists to write 'editorials'. But your attempt to paint the source as AP as a left wing source doesn't change the facts that I proved Calvin was lying. See how you cant address that directly

 

[MMC]

er uh MMC, you're confusing the rest of the media with Fox news where they are told what to say. Real media sources allow columnists to write 'editorials'. But your attempt to paint the source as AP as a left wing source doesn't change the facts that I proved Calvin was lying. See how you cant address that directly

Not at All Vern. He wouldn't put down he was writing for the Associated press if that's who he wasn't working for. Moreover you didn't prove he was lying Vern. Plus he has all those other fact checkers to validate what Obama mislead about. Which pretty much leaves you hanging out in that far left field of yours.

Despite your California actuaries. Which has nothing to do with what Obama was saying and what he has said in the past. Although one day it will come to you.

 

[Vern]

And this is why its hard to have an intelligent conversation with a conservative poster.

He wouldn't put down he was writing for the Associated press if that's who he wasn't working for.

1 I didn’t say he didn’t work for AP. I disputed your attempt to label AP as a “left wing source hence it’s a left wing editorial.” Read what I post more slowly.

Moreover you didn't prove he was lying Vern.

2 I did prove he was lying. He was using a 3 month old estimate to dispute actuals. m He then ignored the estimated increase in actuals to claim we will never know “absent the law”. “absent the law” it was going up just like every year.

. Plus he has all those other fact checkers to validate what Obama mislead about..

3. All those “other fact checkers” were the same AP editorial from Calvin. Its hysterical that you think you’ve posted 5 different ‘fact checkers’. Honestly, it just confirms my original statement.

Despite your California actuaries. Which has nothing to do with what Obama was saying and what he has said in the past..

4 well the California actuaries were important to Calvin when he lying about the effects of Obamacare in california. So much so he used it to dispute the actual rates California reported. I really don’t understand how you don’t understand that calvin is lying. I posted the actuarial report he referenced. why didnt he?