• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Carly Fiorina and a GOP tradition of distorting the Truth

BonzaiDuck

BonzaiDuck

Lifer
In the longstanding tradition, Carly Fiorina was interviewed today ("Meet the Press"?), arguing that the next president would need to do away with Obamacare -- more accurately known as the Affordable CAre Act.

Fiorina asserted -- adamantly-- two things about the ACA's affect to date:

"More people are visiting ER rooms for treatment now than before the Act, which was designed to reduce the burden there."

[Translation:] The ACA was supposed to reduce the cost to the nation's hospitals for pro-bono treatment of indigents or the uninsured. But according to Fiorina, this increase in Emergency Room patients supposedly shows the ACA is costing society more.

http://obamacarefacts.com/2015/05/05/study-shows-er-visits-up-under-aca/

Yes, ER visits have increased slightly: People who now have insurance because of the ACA are returning to the ERs for treatment by force of habit. They are not saddling the hospitals and clinics with unpaid bills.

"Health care premiums have increased because of the ACA."

This dead horse has been beaten over and over in the local papers, when this or that aspiring propagandist blames the ACA for increasing their premium. In other words, they offer no statistical proof of many observations. It may be that their pre-ACA policies were inadequate prior to new regulations, but we can revisit that issue as well. It is equally a possibility that the letter-writers are simply lying to add a little propaganda jab to public opinion of the readership. But one observation doth not a statistic make.

I had done my own small-sample survey, albeit -- for people I know. I may know them, but I have no advance idea about their carriers, deductibles or premiums. The "sample" showed me that premiums have gone up annually since passage of the ACA -- at the same rate per annum that premiums increased before the ACA.

Here's a large-scale, serious statistical result touting good news for the ACA, or bad news for Obama-haters:

http://obamacarefacts.com/2015/05/05/study-shows-er-visits-up-under-aca/

Note of course that data for some states is missing. Note that states like Kansas and Louisiana show larger increases, but there are only three such states evident so far in the data collection and analysis. And we could speculate (feel free) as to why those states show this phenomenon, when a majority of states show the usual modest increases.

Now some may argue a view based on cherry-picking issues and facts within these two, slightly dated articles, but such arguments don't fly well with attention to objective statistical results and method.

Here's a woman who got an MBA from U of Maryland and another MS in Management from MIT. I know a lot of folks who have multiple post-grad degrees in different fields, so her achievement there is not particularly noteworthy. I only wish I or someone close could get a $300 million lump-sum to make us leave a company after the ire of its original founders.

She had hosted TLC programs hyping the great accomplishments of Carnegie, Morgan and other 19th century ["robber baron"] 2-percenter wealth creators. It may be that she does this starstruck at her own good fortune, or perhaps she read "Atlas Shrugged" in her earlier life and thinks she's living the railroad heiress dream anew.

If so, her favorite author didn't get a $300 million golden handshake. Nor was she able to save much of the royalties from her prolix books. Whether she spent the money on her amphetamine habit is open to question, but as she developed cancer from a smoking addiction, she was so ashamed for needing to draw money from her deceased husband's social security while she would be among the first to receive medical care under the new Medicare program.

So much for both of them. Of course, the GOP needs a woman candidate, especially after those remarks by Trump before, during and after this week's debate.
 
Last edited:
So basically you chose to headline your rant about hating rich Republicans as the "GOP tradition of distorting the truth" and then featured two things she said which you admit are true.

Surely some part of your brain gave you at least an inkling that this might not be a smart move.
 
Fiorina asserted -- adamantly-- two things about the ACA's affect to date:

"More people are visiting ER rooms for treatment now than before the Act, which was designed to reduce the burden there."

You stated: " Yes, ER visits have increased slightly: People who now have insurance because of the ACA are returning to the ERs for treatment by force of habit. They are not saddling the hospitals and clinics with unpaid bills."

Strike one.

"Health care premiums have increased because of the ACA."

You stated: " I had done my own small-sample survey, albeit -- for people I know. I may know them, but I have no advance idea about their carriers, deductibles or premiums. The "sample" showed me that premiums have gone up annually since passage of the ACA -- at the same rate per annum that premiums increased before the ACA."


Strike two


So what you are really saying is that Carly Fiorina is telling the truth on both counts.
 
Either two things need to happen.

1. Universal single payer healthcare, which I support.

2. Get out of health care completely.


The system we have is the worst of both worlds. The government is a price taker with limited ability to negotiate whIle the healthcare companies and everybody in the food chain take nibbles everywhere. It has done nothing but raise premiums and costs sky high.
 
Demon sheep ad goes here. This was an actual web ad she ran against her primary opponent when she ran for California Senate and lost the general by 10. She has no shot at the Presidency and her disastrous record at Hp only goes to show how desperate the media is to build up a fledgling campaign.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wo_Ejfc5hW8
 
pcgeek11 said:
Fiorina asserted -- adamantly-- two things about the ACA's affect to date:

"More people are visiting ER rooms for treatment now than before the Act, which was designed to reduce the burden there."

You stated: " Yes, ER visits have increased slightly: People who now have insurance because of the ACA are returning to the ERs for treatment by force of habit. They are not saddling the hospitals and clinics with unpaid bills."

Strike one.

"Health care premiums have increased because of the ACA."

You stated: " I had done my own small-sample survey, albeit -- for people I know. I may know them, but I have no advance idea about their carriers, deductibles or premiums. The "sample" showed me that premiums have gone up annually since passage of the ACA -- at the same rate per annum that premiums increased before the ACA."


Strike two


So what you are really saying is that Carly Fiorina is telling the truth on both counts.
Click to expand...

Telling the truth? She cites facts as reasons for eliminating the ACA, but the facts aren't indicative of particular problems with the ACA for which people attached their mythical speculations since passage in 2010. Any increases are in line with the health-care regime prior to the ACA, so it's a deceptive use of "fact" to support an argument. Ditto with the ER visits.

The exchanges -- a market mechanism -- apparently increased competition among health insurers in states that had them. ERs are now being compensated -- no longer burdened as much by write-offs for unpaid bills. And people who used ERs for lack of any insurance are being turned toward individual clinics and health professionals.

I might agree with LegendKiller on option #1. Not so much on #2.

One can ask whether or not the opposition has an equal or better solution. I haven't heard one. I'm not Rip Van Winkle, but show me where a prescription that replaces the ACA has ever been put forward.
 
BonzaiDuck said:
Telling the truth? She cites facts as reasons for eliminating the ACA, but the facts aren't indicative of particular problems with the ACA for which people attached their mythical speculations since passage in 2010. Any increases are in line with the health-care regime prior to the ACA, so it's a deceptive use of "fact" to support an argument. Ditto with the ER visits.

The exchanges -- a market mechanism -- apparently increased competition among health insurers in states that had them. ERs are now being compensated -- no longer burdened as much by write-offs for unpaid bills. And people who used ERs for lack of any insurance are being turned toward individual clinics and health professionals.

I might agree with LegendKiller on option #1. Not so much on #2.

One can ask whether or not the opposition has an equal or better solution. I haven't heard one. I'm not Rip Van Winkle, but show me where a prescription that replaces the ACA has ever been put forward.
Click to expand...

The problem with #1 is that there are certainly compromises, everybody has to submit to the will of the government as far as timing and priority. Electives are pushed back. Personally, I have no problrm with that. I think that healthcare is probably one of the only areas where I would support complete coverage. It might make me a socialist in some eyes but that's OK.
 
pcgeek11 said:
Fiorina asserted

"Health care premiums have increased because of the ACA."

You stated: " I had done my own small-sample survey, albeit -- for people I know. I may know them, but I have no advance idea about their carriers, deductibles or premiums. The "sample" showed me that premiums have gone up annually since passage of the ACA -- at the same rate per annum that premiums increased before the ACA."


Strike two


So what you are really saying is that Carly Fiorina is telling the truth.
Click to expand...
How do you get from "premiums have gone up since passage of the ACA at the same rate per annum that premiums increased before the ACA" to "premiums have increased because of the ACA?"
 
LegendKiller said:
The problem with #1 is that there are certainly compromises, everybody has to submit to the will of the government as far as timing and priority. Electives are pushed back. Personally, I have no problrm with that. I think that healthcare is probably one of the only areas where I would support complete coverage. It might make me a socialist in some eyes but that's OK.
Click to expand...

If you want me to lecture on market economics, micro-economic theory, etc. I could be your guy. How about my lecture on the "kinked oligopoly demand curve?" I'd have to reach way down to refresh that one, and the field is no longer my exclusive keen interest.

The conservative view of things always rests its case on the efficiency and innovation factors of market competition. But the problem they seem to acknowledge least: large parts of the economy aren't close to being as competitive as the old Walrasian models suggest.

With their unrealistic presuppositions serving the private interests of key industries in one hand, they then assume that more steaks on the table and beer in the ice-box are all that matter. That depends on whether the steaks and beer really trickle down, or arise in a wider distribution of prosperity.

There are other myths: Fiorina tried to field one the other day (or was it this morning?) with assertions she made prompting my thread of criticism about it. It concerns the relative efficiency of government institutions and employees: She cited "being paid while looking at pornography on a government work computer." So the implication is that all government employees are slackers and perverts.

The proliferation of myth can usually be discovered with an agenda behind it to create a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Neither Margaret Thatcher in the '80s nor the British public today much complained about their health-care system. I don't hear much in desperation from New Zealand. Or Canada. Instead, we have created industries -- some through government midwifery -- to support certain needs, and when the interests are threatened with uncertainty, they raise a stink.

"Keep the government's hands off my Medicare!" That's funny.
 
Last edited:
LegendKiller said:
Either two things need to happen.

1. Universal single payer healthcare, which I support.

2. Get out of health care completely.


The system we have is the worst of both worlds. The government is a price taker with limited ability to negotiate whIle the healthcare companies and everybody in the food chain take nibbles everywhere. It has done nothing but raise premiums and costs sky high.
Click to expand...
I have been of the opinion from before the ACA was even in the planning stages that:

1. Universal single payer healthcare is that smart way to go.

2. Any attempt to implement universal single payer healthcare in the USA would be sabotaged by the incredibly powerful insurance companies and their lobbies.

3. We'd get something else that would be complicated and doomed to failure by and by.

4. There would be adjustments, changes, challenges, dust would settle, be kicked up again, more changes, who knows what, and...

5. By and by, eventually, somewhere down the road single payer healthcare would finally emerge. By then the public would have a much different perspective on a lot of things, in particular on societal institutions such as the health care system.
 
The ACA has also not made health care affordable. I don't know anyone that the premiums have gone down or the coverage has gotten better. It just puts a bigger burden on the taxes that we pay.
 
BonzaiDuck said:
In the longstanding tradition, Carly Fiorina was interviewed today ("Meet the Press"?), arguing that the next president would need to do away with Obamacare -- more accurately known as the Affordable CAre Act.

Fiorina asserted -- adamantly-- two things about the ACA's affect to date:

"More people are visiting ER rooms for treatment now than before the Act, which was designed to reduce the burden there."

[Translation:] The ACA was supposed to reduce the cost to the nation's hospitals for pro-bono treatment of indigents or the uninsured. But according to Fiorina, this increase in Emergency Room patients supposedly shows the ACA is costing society more.

http://obamacarefacts.com/2015/05/05/study-shows-er-visits-up-under-aca/

Yes, ER visits have increased slightly: People who now have insurance because of the ACA are returning to the ERs for treatment by force of habit. They are not saddling the hospitals and clinics with unpaid bills.

"Health care premiums have increased because of the ACA."

This dead horse has been beaten over and over in the local papers, when this or that aspiring propagandist blames the ACA for increasing their premium. In other words, they offer no statistical proof of many observations. It may be that their pre-ACA policies were inadequate prior to new regulations, but we can revisit that issue as well. It is equally a possibility that the letter-writers are simply lying to add a little propaganda jab to public opinion of the readership. But one observation doth not a statistic make.

I had done my own small-sample survey, albeit -- for people I know. I may know them, but I have no advance idea about their carriers, deductibles or premiums. The "sample" showed me that premiums have gone up annually since passage of the ACA -- at the same rate per annum that premiums increased before the ACA.

Here's a large-scale, serious statistical result touting good news for the ACA, or bad news for Obama-haters:

http://obamacarefacts.com/2015/05/05/study-shows-er-visits-up-under-aca/

Note of course that data for some states is missing. Note that states like Kansas and Louisiana show larger increases, but there are only three such states evident so far in the data collection and analysis. And we could speculate (feel free) as to why those states show this phenomenon, when a majority of states show the usual modest increases.

Now some may argue a view based on cherry-picking issues and facts within these two, slightly dated articles, but such arguments don't fly well with attention to objective statistical results and method.

Here's a woman who got an MBA from U of Maryland and another MS in Management from MIT. I know a lot of folks who have multiple post-grad degrees in different fields, so her achievement there is not particularly noteworthy. I only wish I or someone close could get a $300 million lump-sum to make us leave a company after the ire of its original founders.

She had hosted TLC programs hyping the great accomplishments of Carnegie, Morgan and other 19th century ["robber baron"] 2-percenter wealth creators. It may be that she does this starstruck at her own good fortune, or perhaps she read "Atlas Shrugged" in her earlier life and thinks she's living the railroad heiress dream anew.

If so, her favorite author didn't get a $300 million golden handshake. Nor was she able to save much of the royalties from her prolix books. Whether she spent the money on her amphetamine habit is open to question, but as she developed cancer from a smoking addiction, she was so ashamed for needing to draw money from her deceased husband's social security while she would be among the first to receive medical care under the new Medicare program.

So much for both of them. Of course, the GOP needs a woman candidate, especially after those remarks by Trump before, during and after this week's debate.
Click to expand...


I dont know about the whole country or even the state of Virginia, but my local hospital has become quite a bit more expensive for the ER and scheduled appointments. So have all the little clinics in my area.

I dont know why. Speculating is probably a bad idea.

By a fantastic coincidence: The insurance my college offers went up in price drastically at the same time the ACA went into effect. And it covers far less.

Again, I dont know why, nor will I speculate. I just enjoy finding these coincidences when I can.
 
pcgeek11 said:
The ACA has also not made health care affordable. I don't know anyone that the premiums have gone down or the coverage has gotten better. It just puts a bigger burden on the taxes that we pay.
Click to expand...

It was never supposed to reduce premiums or improve current coverage. It was supposed to give basic insurance to people who previously would have been turned down completely. And it did that.
But it didnt create any more doctors or hospitals. The rules of supply and demand still function. We now have greater demand for health care but the same supply. For the vast majority of Americans, things didnt improve.

If Obama or anybody had truly been serious about fixing the health care problem, they would have broken up the monopoly the AMA has. But no one will ever do such a thing so I cannot prove my hypothesis.
 
Fiorina had her 15 minutes of debate fame, and that will be it.
If Fiorina goes anywhere or should ever stand on stage in any debate up against Hillary Clinton, Hillary would dismantle Fiorina.
Fiorina ran HP into the ground as its CEO and passed out more pink slips than any other HP CEO in history.
But what the hey Carly. Go for it. 🙂
 
BonzaiDuck said:
This dead horse has been beaten over and over in the local papers, when this or that aspiring propagandist blames the ACA for increasing their premium.
Click to expand...

I hope that dead horse rises up and beats you with a 30% spike in healthcare premiums. They dont rise all at once for everyone. It is a series of large spikes in costs affecting relatively few people at a time, but it is going to hit everyone.
 
Now that everyone is required to have health care insurance, corporate insurance can raise rates as they please, screw competition, price fixing puts money in their pocket right out of yours.
 
BonzaiDuck said:
~ snipped the herpa derp ~

Neither Margaret Thatcher in the '80s nor the British public today much complained about their health-care system. I don't hear much in desperation from New Zealand. Or Canada. Instead, we have created industries -- some through government midwifery -- to support certain needs, and when the interests are threatened with uncertainty, they raise a stink,
Click to expand...
oh, really?

maybe you should actually do some non-partisan research on Canada's universal health care before making uninformed opinions about it.

our ERs are clogged with people constantly and with an average wait time to see a doctor being 8 to 24 hrs. Some people have actually died while waiting.

And we only have 1/10th the population of the US.

don't even ask what the costs are. Our health care takes a majority cut out of our Federal budget.

We are forbidden to have private health care that could actually benefit some of those waiting in the ER.
 
Guess you haven't been paying attention to the news.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/04/u...mpanies-seek-big-rate-increases-for-2016.html

Health insurance companies around the country are seeking rate increases of 20 percent to 40 percent or more, saying their new customers under the Affordable Care Act turned out to be sicker than expected. Federal officials say they are determined to see that the requests are scaled back.

Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans — market leaders in many states — are seeking rate increases that average 23 percent in Illinois, 25 percent in North Carolina, 31 percent in Oklahoma, 36 percent in Tennessee and 54 percent in Minnesota, according to documents posted online by the federal government and state insurance commissioners and interviews with insurance executives.

The Oregon insurance commissioner, Laura N. Cali, has just approved 2016 rate increases for companies that cover more than 220,000 people. Moda Health Plan, which has the largest enrollment in the state, received a 25 percent increase, and the second-largest plan, LifeWise, received a 33 percent increase.

Jesse Ellis O’Brien, a health advocate at the Oregon State Public Interest Research Group, said: “Rate increases will be bigger in 2016 than they have been for years and years and will have a profound effect on consumers here. Some may start wondering if insurance is affordable or if it’s worth the money.
Click to expand...
 
eskimospy said:
You should look at actual rate increases vs. requested rate increases. They are nothing alike.
Click to expand...
Did you even read the article? There are serious ACA cost issues throughout the US. It's becoming quite apparent that the Affordable Care Act is a misnomer.

The Oregon insurance commissioner, Laura N. Cali, has just approved 2016 rate increases for companies that cover more than 220,000 people. Moda Health Plan, which has the largest enrollment in the state, received a 25 percent increase, and the second-largest plan, LifeWise, received a 33 percent increase.

Jesse Ellis O’Brien, a health advocate at the Oregon State Public Interest Research Group, said: “Rate increases will be bigger in 2016 than they have been for years and years and will have a profound effect on consumers here. Some may start wondering if insurance is affordable or if it’s worth the money.”
Click to expand...

The rate requests, from some of the more popular health plans, suggest that insurance markets are still adjusting to shock waves set off by the Affordable Care Act.

It is far from certain how many of the rate increases will hold up on review, or how much they might change. But already the proposals, buttressed with reams of actuarial data, are fueling fierce debate about the effectiveness of the health law.

A study of 11 cities in different states by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that consumers would see relatively modest increases in premiums if they were willing to switch plans. But if they switch plans, consumers would have no guarantee that they can keep their doctors. And to get low premiums, they sometimes need to accept a more limited choice of doctors and hospitals.
Click to expand...

“Our enrollees generated 24 percent more claims than we thought they would when we set our 2014 rates,” said Nathan T. Johns, the chief financial officer of Arches Health Plan, which covers about one-fourth of the people who bought insurance through the federal exchange in Utah. As a result, the company said, it collected premiums of $39.7 million and had claims of $56.3 million in 2014. It has requested rate increases averaging 45 percent for 2016.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top