Aa
Obamacare public information effort has Republicans in hissy fit
How much taxpayer money did President George W. Bush request to fund an advertising campaign to tout the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act (MMA), the big giveaway to drug makers and insurance companies? At least $154.3 million. How was that money spent?
[A]n investigation by the Government Accountability Office and HHS’s own inspector General concluded that the federally funded campaign was “misleading” and “may also have illegally used public money to make what in effect were fake news reports about the law that did amount to propaganda.” (emphasis mine)
Why does this matter now? Because the Obama administration has signed a $20 millon contract with a public relations firm to create materials informing and educating people about how to stay healthy and how the Affordable Care Act can help. As Think Progress's Igor Volsky writes, the dimwit Right is having a major hissy fit about it.
– SARAH PALIN: “This is one of the stupidest things I’ve heard coming out of the Obama administration. Not only is this, of course, pending in court, and I think it will be deemed unconstitutional, but this is a propaganda piece, which I think violates many of the procurement laws and other laws applicable to government contracts. This is propaganda. It’s just promoting ‘ObamaCare.’” [Fox News, 5/22/2012]
– SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R-AZ): “Outrageous waste of taxpayer $ to promote #Obamacare – ‘HHS signs $20M PR contract to promote healthcare law’ [Twitter, 5/22/2012]
– SEN. ROY BLUNT (R-MO): “It’s unacceptable that Pres Obama intends to waste $20M on the taxpayer’s dime to sell U.S. on unpopular #ObamaCare” [Twitter, 5/22/2012]
– SEN. RON JOHNSON (R-WI): “$20M for marketing #ObamaCare? This is a wasteful & inappropriate use of taxpayer dollars.” [Twitter, 5/22/2012] (emphasis in original)
For the record: fake news reports = propaganda; a "multimedia ad campaign" = advertising. That's a distinction Palin would be too dumb to understand and McCain too duplicitous to acknowledge. Nonetheless, let's just reiterate the facts. What Bush did was probably illegal use of taxpayer money. The GAO said so. What Obama is doing is simple advertising. .
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/05/23/1094157/-Obamacare-public-information-effort-has-Republicans-in-hissy-fit-
[A]n investigation by the Government Accountability Office and HHS’s own inspector General concluded that the federally funded campaign was “misleading” and “may also have illegally used public money to make what in effect were fake news reports about the law that did amount to propaganda.” (emphasis mine)
Why does this matter now? Because the Obama administration has signed a $20 millon contract with a public relations firm to create materials informing and educating people about how to stay healthy and how the Affordable Care Act can help. As Think Progress's Igor Volsky writes, the dimwit Right is having a major hissy fit about it.
– SARAH PALIN: “This is one of the stupidest things I’ve heard coming out of the Obama administration. Not only is this, of course, pending in court, and I think it will be deemed unconstitutional, but this is a propaganda piece, which I think violates many of the procurement laws and other laws applicable to government contracts. This is propaganda. It’s just promoting ‘ObamaCare.’” [Fox News, 5/22/2012]
– SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R-AZ): “Outrageous waste of taxpayer $ to promote #Obamacare – ‘HHS signs $20M PR contract to promote healthcare law’ [Twitter, 5/22/2012]
– SEN. ROY BLUNT (R-MO): “It’s unacceptable that Pres Obama intends to waste $20M on the taxpayer’s dime to sell U.S. on unpopular #ObamaCare” [Twitter, 5/22/2012]
– SEN. RON JOHNSON (R-WI): “$20M for marketing #ObamaCare? This is a wasteful & inappropriate use of taxpayer dollars.” [Twitter, 5/22/2012] (emphasis in original)
For the record: fake news reports = propaganda; a "multimedia ad campaign" = advertising. That's a distinction Palin would be too dumb to understand and McCain too duplicitous to acknowledge. Nonetheless, let's just reiterate the facts. What Bush did was probably illegal use of taxpayer money. The GAO said so. What Obama is doing is simple advertising. .
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/05/23/1094157/-Obamacare-public-information-effort-has-Republicans-in-hissy-fit-
Garbage
Boo hoo.......
Why is this garbage?
The big difference between what Bush DID and what Obama is DOING, is that 75% of American's weren't against the MMA back in 2003.
By an overwhelming percentage, Americans are against Obamacare.
So why waste money pushing something on us, that we OVERWHELMINGLY don't want?
And another thing... I look at the author of the article as credible when he's calling Palin names, and using words like "probably" and "tout" in his article that is supposedly all about facts.
By an overwhelming percentage, Americans are against Obamacare.
So why waste money pushing something on us, that we OVERWHELMINGLY don't want?
And another thing... I look at the author of the article as credible when he's calling Palin names, and using words like "probably" and "tout" in his article that is supposedly all about facts.
Thank you:).....Well I know plenty of people that are for Universal Healthcare...I think the American people need to be more educated on it. I know for a fact if My husband lost his job and we had no benefits, I would want Universal healthcare. At least if something healthwise happened, we'd be covered and we'd get treatment....JMO..(Don't massacare me for my opinion please..lol)
So I guess you're in the 25% of Americans that are FOR Obamacare.
Excellent.
I've never met one of you before, so it's a pleasure to make your acquaintance.
Excellent.
I've never met one of you before, so it's a pleasure to make your acquaintance.
Likewise:)
The use of the term ''ObamaCare' could actually be considered inflammatory and prejudicial. How is simply quoting Sarah Palin "calling names"?
"...Palin would be too dumb to understand..."
And I used the term "Obamacare", as it's referred to that way, in almost all media outlets that I've seen.
Are you implying that I used the term "Obamacare" in an effort to shed a negative light on said program?
EVERYONE calls it Obamacare... even the President himself makes reference to it.
Maybe I'm not understanding what you're saying... please, elaborate & clarify.
And I used the term "Obamacare", as it's referred to that way, in almost all media outlets that I've seen.
Are you implying that I used the term "Obamacare" in an effort to shed a negative light on said program?
EVERYONE calls it Obamacare... even the President himself makes reference to it.
Maybe I'm not understanding what you're saying... please, elaborate & clarify.
Are you implying that I used the term "Obamacare" in an effort to shed a negative light on said program?
Not you, the Republican party that started it...Then of course as a republican, you also call it that......That was the reasonit was dubbed "Obamacare" from the start....It's called Universal Health Care....
"EVERYONE calls it Obamacare... even the President himself makes reference to it."
Not me....
Not you, the Republican party that started it...Then of course as a republican, you also call it that......That was the reasonit was dubbed "Obamacare" from the start....It's called Universal Health Care....
"EVERYONE calls it Obamacare... even the President himself makes reference to it."
Not me....
The term "universal" bothers me. Why "universal"? Sounds like you're going to be giving health care to anyone that shows up here....(wait, we already do...) Call it whatever you want. I've had numerous people try to help me wrap my head around this, and I can't grasp it. All I know is, some how, some way.... its going to cost somebody something. (Some, more than others.)
"Universal" sounds like they are trying to get us ready for something.
"Universal" sounds like they are trying to get us ready for something.
Last I heard, it's called the Affordable Care Act.
"Universal" and "Affordable" paint quite different pictures, do they not?
Well, I personally blame the dems for not putting this out there long ago. Media sources like Fox have been spreading propaganda bout this program since before it was enacted with out very little push back from the dems. That is where I think the blame lies. People do not understand it for the most part and the education is lacking while the rhetoric is all that we hear. If people understood, I think they would agree it is a good thing. Not the best by any stretch but Obama ran on this, and he did it! It has many many good points to it and while like I said is not perfect. It sure is more than anyone else has managed to get done.
Healthcare cannot be sustained the way it has gone.
You can keep children on your own policy till they are 26. So if you have someone in college, especially in a time when they want to double the interest rates on an already expensive college education, I think this is a good thing.
Insurance companies can no longer cap your care or drop you because you may have something like cancer. I think this is a good thing.
Pre existing is now covered for children and will be covered for adults as well in the future under this plan. I think that is also a good thing.
Seniors save more on their drugs now than they could have before and the donut hole as they call it will close.
Preventive care now covers things like breast mammograms and cancer screenings and contraceptives. I like this as well
I could go on and on and on, but the skinny of it all is the people just are not informed as to how this all happens and what the timeline is. This all happens in phases and each year something else kicks in.
I just wish they had done this sooner rather than later.
Healthcare cannot be sustained the way it has gone.
You can keep children on your own policy till they are 26. So if you have someone in college, especially in a time when they want to double the interest rates on an already expensive college education, I think this is a good thing.
Insurance companies can no longer cap your care or drop you because you may have something like cancer. I think this is a good thing.
Pre existing is now covered for children and will be covered for adults as well in the future under this plan. I think that is also a good thing.
Seniors save more on their drugs now than they could have before and the donut hole as they call it will close.
Preventive care now covers things like breast mammograms and cancer screenings and contraceptives. I like this as well
I could go on and on and on, but the skinny of it all is the people just are not informed as to how this all happens and what the timeline is. This all happens in phases and each year something else kicks in.
I just wish they had done this sooner rather than later.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/26/affordable-care-act_n_1377013.html
Affordable Care Act: A Child's Garden Of Lies And Distortions
But, hey, some of those lies were pretty ambitious. Let's remember them all, shall we? Follow the link and we can go thru a walk down memory lane. And maybe find a little truth along the way.
Affordable Care Act: A Child's Garden Of Lies And Distortions
But, hey, some of those lies were pretty ambitious. Let's remember them all, shall we? Follow the link and we can go thru a walk down memory lane. And maybe find a little truth along the way.
Health Insurance
The United States is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not have a universal health care system. Source: Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences
In 2006, the percentage of Americans without health insurance was 15.8%, or approximately 47 million uninsured people. Source: US Census Bureau
Among the 84.2% with health insurance in 2006, coverage was provided through an employer 59.7%, purchased individually 9.1%, and 27.0% was government funded (Medicare, Medicaid, Military). (There is some overlap in coverage figures.) Source: US Census Bureau
The primary reason given for lack of health insurance coverage in 2005 was cost (more than 50%), lost job or a change in employment (24%), Medicaid benefits stopped (10%), ineligibility for family insurance coverage due to age or leaving school (8%). Source: National Center for Health Statistics
Health Care
More than 40 million adults stated that they needed but did not receive one or more of these health services (medical care, prescription medicines, mental health care, dental care, or eyeglasses) in 2005 because they could not afford it. Source: National Center for Health Statistics
Medicaid, which accounted for 12.9% of health care coverage in 2006, is a health insurance program jointly funded by the federal and state governments to provide health care for qualifying low-income individuals. Source: US Census Bureau
Medicare, a federally funded health insurance program that covers the health care of most individuals 65 years of age and over and disabled persons, accounted for 13.6% of health care coverage in 2006. Source: US Census Bureau
Medicare operates with 3% overhead, non-profit insurance 16% overhead, and private (for-profit) insurance 26% overhead. Source: Journal of American Medicine 2007
Health Care Expenditures
In 2005, personal health care expenditures were paid by private health insurance 36%, federal government 35%, state and local governments 11% , and out-of-pocket payments 15%. Source: National Center for Health Statistics
The United States spends twice as much on health care per capita ($7,129) than any other country . . . and spending continues to increase. In 2005, the national health care expenditures totaled $2 trillion. Source: National Center for Health Statistics
75% of all health care dollars are spent on patients with one or more chronic conditions, many of which can be prevented, including diabetes, obesity, heart disease, lung disease, high blood pressure, and cancer. Source: Health Affairs
From 2000 to 2006, overall inflation has increased 3.5%, wages have increased 3.8%, and health care premiums have increased 87%. Source: Kaiser Family Foundation
The average family health insurance premium, provided through an employer health benefit program, was $11,480 in 2006. Employees paid an average of $2,973 towards the premium amount. Source: Kaiser Family Foundation
Infant Mortality
The United States ranks 43rd in lowest infant mortality rate, down from 12th in 1960 and 21st in 1990. Singapore has the lowest rate with 2.3 deaths per 1000 live births, while the United States has a rate of 6.3 deaths per 1000 live births. Some of the other 42 nations that have a lower infant mortality rate than the US include Hong Kong, Slovenia, and Cuba. Source: CIA Factbook (2008)
Approximately 30,000 infants die in the United States each year. The infant mortality rate, which is the risk of death during the first year of life, is related to the underlying health of the mother, public health practices, socioeconomic conditions, and availability and use of appropriate health care for infants and pregnant women. Sources: CDC and National Center for Health Statistics
Life Expectancy
Life expectancy at birth in the US is an average of 78.14 years, which ranks 47th in highest total life expectancy compared to other countries. Source: CIA Factbook (2008)
Bankruptcy
About half of the bankruptcy filings in the United States are due to medical expenses. Source: Health Affairs Journal 2005
http://www.healthpaconline.net/health-care-statistics-in-the-united-states.htm
Sorry, here is the link for the info posted above. Nationalized health care is not socialism. They do not dictate who your Dr. will be (although many private Insurance companies do just that). It is a myth that the gov't dictates how your treatment will go. Honestly, believe me folks. I live it!
Sorry, here is the link for the info posted above. Nationalized health care is not socialism. They do not dictate who your Dr. will be (although many private Insurance companies do just that). It is a myth that the gov't dictates how your treatment will go. Honestly, believe me folks. I live it!
My apologies. In going back and re-reading it the second time, I missed the slur at the end of the article. Probably didn't really notice it the first time I read it, since I agree with author that she's not the brightest star in the skies. But then apparently neither am I :-). Frankly, I believe she played a huge part in McCain not being elected. I personally voted for McCain in the primary based on the belief he was his own person, but felt Palin being foisted off on him showed he was too much a tool of the RNC.
But back on topic. Those with college age kids, read the fine print in your supplemental insurance. My daughter was allowed to stay on my primary healthcare after 22 (Hey, how better to pay for Affordable Care than to keep a bunch of healthy 20 somethings who aren't going to use it on their parent's policies?) However, my dental and vision policies were allowed to drop her. Caveat Emptor.
But back on topic. Those with college age kids, read the fine print in your supplemental insurance. My daughter was allowed to stay on my primary healthcare after 22 (Hey, how better to pay for Affordable Care than to keep a bunch of healthy 20 somethings who aren't going to use it on their parent's policies?) However, my dental and vision policies were allowed to drop her. Caveat Emptor.
Just last month, the CBO found that the insurance coverage provisions of Obamacare will actually cost $50 billion less that it had originally projected.
But Blahous claims that the CBO is “double counting,” an argument that has been called a “straightforwardly wrong and dishonest” one. As the Center for Budget Policy and Priorities points out, “claims that the Medicare savings in the ACA have somehow been ‘double counted’ are without merit” because, “under longstanding federal budget and accounting rules,” changes in Medicare trust fund affect both the outlooks for the budget and the trust fund.
Fact-check organizations also note that the “double counting” argument is without merit. Noting that the CBO does in fact provide the truest estimate, fact-checkers have declared that “the simple fact remains that the savings will reduce the federal deficit over the next 10 years.”
The reality is that Blahous’s argument reflects more of partisan politics than the impartial facts. George Mason University’s Mercatus Center, where Blahous is a senior fellow, was launched in 1997 by Charles Koch, one of the Big Oil barons who is dedicating at least $40 million of his own money—and has helped collect $100 million in pledges—to defeat President Obama. Not only did the Koch family foundations contribute nearly $30 million to “set up” and sustain the Mercatus Center, Charles Koch is currently a member of its Board of Directors. The founder of the Mercatus Center, Richard Fink, actually headed the Koch Industries’ lobbying operation in Washington, D.C., and is currently the president of the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation.
Political partisanship cannot dictate the facts, and the facts are clear—Obamacare reduces the deficit, plain and simple.
he facts are clear. As the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has repeatedly noted, the Affordable Care Act effectively reduces the deficit by billions.
•
According to the CBO, Obamacare would reduce federal deficits by $127 billion over the 2012–2021 period.
•
When Republicans threatened to repeal health reform, the CBO determined that a repeal would increase the deficit by $147 billion.
But Blahous claims that the CBO is “double counting,” an argument that has been called a “straightforwardly wrong and dishonest” one. As the Center for Budget Policy and Priorities points out, “claims that the Medicare savings in the ACA have somehow been ‘double counted’ are without merit” because, “under longstanding federal budget and accounting rules,” changes in Medicare trust fund affect both the outlooks for the budget and the trust fund.
Fact-check organizations also note that the “double counting” argument is without merit. Noting that the CBO does in fact provide the truest estimate, fact-checkers have declared that “the simple fact remains that the savings will reduce the federal deficit over the next 10 years.”
The reality is that Blahous’s argument reflects more of partisan politics than the impartial facts. George Mason University’s Mercatus Center, where Blahous is a senior fellow, was launched in 1997 by Charles Koch, one of the Big Oil barons who is dedicating at least $40 million of his own money—and has helped collect $100 million in pledges—to defeat President Obama. Not only did the Koch family foundations contribute nearly $30 million to “set up” and sustain the Mercatus Center, Charles Koch is currently a member of its Board of Directors. The founder of the Mercatus Center, Richard Fink, actually headed the Koch Industries’ lobbying operation in Washington, D.C., and is currently the president of the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation.
Political partisanship cannot dictate the facts, and the facts are clear—Obamacare reduces the deficit, plain and simple.
he facts are clear. As the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has repeatedly noted, the Affordable Care Act effectively reduces the deficit by billions.
•
According to the CBO, Obamacare would reduce federal deficits by $127 billion over the 2012–2021 period.
•
When Republicans threatened to repeal health reform, the CBO determined that a repeal would increase the deficit by $147 billion.
I'd like to add this. I find it funny and perhaps ironic that the republicans are going to complain about $25 million spent on this when Bush spent, what, $154 million?
Typical government. These meat heads cannot get out of their own way.
A couple questions...
1. It was said above that the U.S. is the only industrialized nation without "universal" health care. What kind of financial shape are the industrialized nations that have "universal" health care in?
2. The second to last bullet point above said that "Obamacare" would reduce federal deficits by $127 billion over the next 18 years. Why is that acceptable? In the last few years, we've spent a couple trillion dollars? Over 18 years, $127 billion is nothing.... we'll be outspending that.
Reducing the deficit by "billions" is acceptable when we are blowing trillions?
I'm sorry... some of the things that look like they will be covered are wonderful and will be helpful to millions of people. I still don't see how anything mentioned above helps us as a NATION.
Typical government. These meat heads cannot get out of their own way.
A couple questions...
1. It was said above that the U.S. is the only industrialized nation without "universal" health care. What kind of financial shape are the industrialized nations that have "universal" health care in?
2. The second to last bullet point above said that "Obamacare" would reduce federal deficits by $127 billion over the next 18 years. Why is that acceptable? In the last few years, we've spent a couple trillion dollars? Over 18 years, $127 billion is nothing.... we'll be outspending that.
Reducing the deficit by "billions" is acceptable when we are blowing trillions?
I'm sorry... some of the things that look like they will be covered are wonderful and will be helpful to millions of people. I still don't see how anything mentioned above helps us as a NATION.
Let me ask you a question brice. Continued on the same path that we have been on, before obamacare as you all call it. How is that sustainable and how is that good for the nation? What is your answer?
I believe the truth is most people have no idea what Obama's healthcare plan really entails.
There has been a concerted effort from the Fox news in particular and the Republicans to stir up propoganda against the plan.
I include myself among those who don't really know what the plan entails.
As someone who suddenly found herself without insurance and considered high risk ( I thought I was healthy before my diagnosis), it was actually cheaper for me to go abroad for my liver transplant than to buy insurance.
If I hadn't had money in the bank, I wouldn't be here typing.
The for- profit health care system in this country is deplorable.
Something needs to change and at least Obama had the courage to try.
I'm not even going to get into the whole subject of lying with polls and statistics again.
There has been a concerted effort from the Fox news in particular and the Republicans to stir up propoganda against the plan.
I include myself among those who don't really know what the plan entails.
As someone who suddenly found herself without insurance and considered high risk ( I thought I was healthy before my diagnosis), it was actually cheaper for me to go abroad for my liver transplant than to buy insurance.
If I hadn't had money in the bank, I wouldn't be here typing.
The for- profit health care system in this country is deplorable.
Something needs to change and at least Obama had the courage to try.
I'm not even going to get into the whole subject of lying with polls and statistics again.
In 2011 CEOs running health-care companies made the most ($10.8 million).
"They do not dictate who your Dr. will be (although many private Insurance companies do just that). It is a myth that the gov't dictates how your treatment will go."
Sorry, but I have to differ with you on that. I'm a CL on a couple other forums and we routinely run across patients in UK who can't get certain tests or treatment due to NHS guidelines. We, also, recently had one from B.C. who was denied treatment, because lab results were "in range", even though they were totally inadequate and in spite of very severe symptoms.
Of the ones we see in UK, many of them have to go private; those that can't afford to, stay sick.
Sorry, but I have to differ with you on that. I'm a CL on a couple other forums and we routinely run across patients in UK who can't get certain tests or treatment due to NHS guidelines. We, also, recently had one from B.C. who was denied treatment, because lab results were "in range", even though they were totally inadequate and in spite of very severe symptoms.
Of the ones we see in UK, many of them have to go private; those that can't afford to, stay sick.
You must join this user group in order to participate in this discussion.
You are reading content posted in the Current Events . . . Group
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
