In New York, one of only 16 states that has its own exchange, not one person had succeeded in using the site to enroll in a plan as of Friday.
Heritage's study doesn't factor in the reduced cost after subsidies. Its data omit 94% of Americans, using only the 6% who already buy private insurance because they can't get employer-based coverage. It doesn't include the subsidies. It cites the cheapest possible plan for each state and pretends that number represents the average premium ($87.40 per month in Kansas!)...but then compares that number to the average of all exchange premium plans combined, including the most expansive and pricey. Also, it ignores the subsidies.
And yet, it's still fundamentally accurate. Who'd a guessed?
Fundamentally accurate, off by 100%, 200%, or more, heck, what's the diff? http://healthcareforamericanow.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/27-YO-Sourced.jpghttp://healthcareforamericanow.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Family-of-Four-Sourced.jpg
What's the standard deviation on Obama's claim that premiums would drop by $2500?Drop, rise, whatever.
Heritage's analysis includes 48 states and D.C. Massachusetts and Hawaii are missing. It also notes that there is very limited data for Minnesota, Maryland and Kentucky. For this reason, Kentucky is also missing... but Minnesota and Maryland make the cut. Coincidentally, the limited data shows those two states going up in price, unlike Kentucky. Meanwhile, Heritage notes that "Virginia’s data likely has data entry errors," which, unlike Kentucky, didn't dissuade Heritage from including Virginia. And with by far the largest speculative jumps of any state (+252%). Another kooky coincidence.At least Heritage's crap report provides another eternal talking point (45 of 50!) for the losing side. So there aren't 50 states listed, who's counting? Have fun at the death panels... er, I mean, the 2014 primaries!
Translation...look over here, a RABBIT!!
Misinformation is a kind of information.
OK, you don't like this analysis, the third I've seen indicating that either premiums or deductibles are going way up, despite what Nancy Pelosi said.Where is a similar analysis from the HHS or the Obama Administration? Why not trumpet all the savings that Shamwow-spokesman Obama assured us is a "really good deal." Call now!This is obfuscation and denial and even the MSM is catching on. Even them.
The Heritage Foundation got it right because of Obama's obfuscation? Look, RABBIT!You really don't see the irony with invoking "where's our $2,500?" like it's a bloody banner, while simultaneously giving Heritage's defective numbers a pass? You don't see the humor in your confidence that last year's election polls were skewed against Mitt Romney, followed by this year's trust that Heritage's ACA data is "fundamentally accurate"?Hey, Democrats aren't about to complain. Keep making the same factual case with the same levelheaded sincerity that's convinced America. Comedy is timing; the government shutdown distracted from the pathetically botched rollout. That's an opportunity you'll never get again. Republican control of the House is now, absurdly, at risk. The GOP's even losing the "repeal Obamacare" fundraising race they created. But it's all bound to turn around, probably the day after Virginia starts seeing those 250% rate increases. (Source: The Heritage Foundation)
You really don't see the difference between a conservative think tank's analysis and a President's outright lying about a program's benefit?How many Americans lost their health insurance today due to Heritage's report?I assume that's a "no" on the HHS estimates. CBS News is reporting that the new quotes on Healthcare.gov are hilariously underpriced. But, hey, "kinks."
Post a Comment