Obamacare Fearmongering In One Screen Shot

I went to Snopes today, you know, the place that debunks internet rumors? I was looking for something else but while I was there I did a search for “Obamacare.”

Here’s what I got:

Obamacare

Microchips? Forced home inspections? I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry.

21 Comments

Filed under conspiracies, conspiracy theory, health insurance, healthcare

21 responses to “Obamacare Fearmongering In One Screen Shot

  1. onyxpnina

    Fascinating, in the “Gee, those worms sure are wriggly!” sense.

    I don’t have the energy to go through all 31 of those items, but the four I’ve checked so far have all been false. Fabrications. Lies.

  2. Yep, I heard about the microchips and death panels. * facepalm* Seriously, the US is f*cked up.

  3. “I don’t have the energy to go through all 31 of those items, but the four I’ve checked so far have all been false. Fabrications. Lies.”

    You’re so cute when you’re being NIEEVIL!

    You liebruls just don’t get it!!

    You’re being played.

    Snopes has two “S”‘s and an “O”. Do you know who else’s name has two “S”s and an “O”? No, NOT Hitler–SOROS! You are all being co-opted; wake up and smell the TEA, people!!!

  4. Anniemouse

    Re: death panels. Last year (that would be August of 2012), a neighbor with stage-four lung cancer took a gun and blew his brains out. It was shocking and tragic, but even moreso was one of the neighbor’s contention that he was *forced* to do it…because of the Obamacare Death Panels ™. I asked how something that wasn’t even going to take effect until 2014 caused anything to happen in 2012. Crickets. However, the story still persists, more than a year later.

    • … one of the neighbor’s contention that he was *forced* to do it…because of the Obamacare Death Panels ™ ….

      I’m sure that was a tremendous comfort to the man’s family.

      /sarcasm

  5. SoBe,
    There was an incident last week at my girlfriend’s school last week (which affords me an opportunity for investigative journalism). A BC/BS account representative visited her school to renew/review/modify health insurance plans for all teacher-employees. Teachers left these meetings angry as hell at ObamaCare. Why? Rates were up substantially over last year, and the BC/BS rep attributed these increases to ObamaCare.

    Bullshit, my instincts told me. In years past, the insurance industry has been gouging subscribers, and I believe these new rate increases have no bearing whatsoever on ObamaCare.

    How does a new un-insured population group impact upon the overall cost health insurance – assuming separate risk pools, separate actuarial tables, new money entering the sytem, and a separate set of books?

    This is a political hit job by insurance industry insiders hell bent on protecting their filthy cartels. Exploiting these private insurance review meetings as an opportunity for industry-inspired sabotage strikes me as grossly unethical.

    Look for a post in about a week.

    • greennotGreen

      Thanks, Octopus. I wondered why Vanderbilt had dropped BCBS as an insurance provider.

    • Wow. You’d think the insurance cartels would be grateful that Obama is delivering 40 million new customers to them on a silver platter. They should be fucking grateful we let them live. See how they like the single payer we all really wanted — that will be the death of their industry.

    • Jim in Memphis

      How does a new un-insured population group impact upon the overall cost health insurance – assuming separate risk pools, separate actuarial tables, new money entering the sytem, and a separate set of books?

      Well the insurance companies do not get to have separate risk pools. actuarial tables (except for age and smokers) or a separate set of books. The premiums for all people of the same age have to be the same for the plans to meet ACA requirements. Insurance companies are not allowed to charge sicker people with higher premiums. So that means a general increase in premiums for most currently insured people because the policies will now have to cover the expenses of these higher risk individuals. It is by design that the healthy are paying higher premiums to cover the costs of those that were uninsurable in the past.

      • So that means a general increase in premiums for most currently insured people because the policies will now have to cover the expenses of these higher risk individuals.

        In that case, maybe conservatives shouldn’t be doing everything they can to deter young (and by definition, healthy) people from signing up then.

        You’ve just hit on why conservatives “sabotage” tactics of a U.S. law they’ve failed to overturn at every step goes against conservative principles. Now that RWers have admitted defeat on Obamacare they’ll climb aboard the bandwagon and do everything they can to make it a success.

        Aww who am I kidding!

      • Jim in Memphis

        I don’t understand how any of that has to do with the increase in insurance premiums cited by Octopus above. The insurance companies will have to show that at least 80% of premiums are being used to provide healhcare services right? So if the premium increase is not due to additional healthcare expenses required to be covered by the ACA then those premiums will be rebated to the affected parties right? Octopus seems to imply that the rate increases are not warranted. We will know in a year from now whether or not that is true when the insurance companies have to rebate all of the excess premiums right?

      • I don’t understand how any of that has to do with the increase in insurance premiums…

        That’s because you’re an idiot, Jim.

        Not all of the uninsured are sick. A lot of them are young people who don’t have insurance because they are starting out in life and can’t afford it and also think they don’t need it. Others simply can’t afford it and are taking that crap shoot roll of the dice, hoping against hope that they won’t need it. Those people are now in the pool either by being allowed to stay on their parents’ policy until the age of 26 (an Obamacare provision) or able to access more affordable insurance through the exchanges.

      • Jim in Memphis

        But the insurance is not more affordable for the young healthy people. That is my point. The premiums for these people are rising – a lot. The ACA is a good deal for those with pre-existing conditions that could not get insurance before. It will still be expensive for them too, but I agree that it is better than nothing for them assuming they can afford the premiums and deductibles.

      • But the insurance is not more affordable for the young healthy people. That is my point.

        A point which you have failed to make, except by quoting a Manhattan Institute/Libertarian/Koch-sucking study.

  6. Octopus:

    I don’t know how it works in your state but BC/BS gets to base their rate increases on actual data, here. It doesn’t mean that they don’t cook the books but they have NO data on Obamacare, afaia.

  7. My wife got a kick out of the forced home inspections lie. She asked me if those morons had ever heard of CPS who’ve been entering houses and taking kids for decades.
    v

  8. “So that means a general increase in premiums for most currently insured people because the policies will now have to cover the expenses of these higher risk individuals. It is by design that the healthy are paying higher premiums to cover the costs of those that were uninsurable in the past.”

    You have that DATA, right? So, give us a link to that DATA, Jimbo.

      • From your link:

        Based on a Manhattan Institute analysis of the HHS numbers, Obamacare will increase underlying insurance rates for younger men by an average of 97 to 99 percent, and for younger women by an average of 55 to 62 percent. Worst off is North Carolina, which will see individual-market rates triple for women, and quadruple for men.

        Manhattan Institute. A Libertarian think tank. Funded by the Kochs, Scaifes, Olin Foundation and the other usual suspects. Color me shocked.

        From CNN:

        State disclosures of Obamacare premium rates are being closely watched nationwide as the state exchanges prepare to open enrollment on Oct. 1. Several blue states, including New York and California, have said they expect consumers to pay less for insurance, while red-leaning states that have opposed Obamacare are signaling that premiums will soar.

        The three insurers who will be on the North Carolina exchange, one of 33 to be run by the federal government, say that their rates are not final until the feds sign off on the plans. Until then, they consider it a competitive secret.

        It’s really hard to take any of this seriously.

    • The “data” is at the conservative Manhattan Institute. And I’m sure we’re all shocked — SHOCKED! — to learn that this “think tank” came up with a conclusion that matched a treasured conservative talking point.

      These are the same idiots who don’t think the federal government should be allowed to negotiate for drug prices in Medicare. Because when the largest purchaser of a product negotiates for lower prices, guess what happens — everyone benefits! Except the greedy drug companies.

      Another bedrock conservative principle: stick it to the people so the corporations prosper.

  9. Um, Jim:

    I hate that I have to keep telling you this, especially when I consider that you OWN a fucking business.

    The “data” that you link to is NOT FUCKING DATA. It’s an analysis of who the hell knows what but, DATA, it’s not.