NORTON META TAG

Showing posts with label 2014 Congressional elections. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2014 Congressional elections. Show all posts

10 April 2014

MoveOn releases seven news polls, all bearing good news for Democrats & Daily Kos Elections Senate Power Rankings: Inaugural April edition 8&6APR14

HERE are some 2014 midterm election polls showing tight races, but not the gop / teabagger sweep some have predicting. It is vital we do not become complacent, we must support Bold Progressive candidates through the primaries and the election in November. We can not allow the koch brothers, corporate America, the bank-financial cabal, wall street and the military-industrial complex to buy off our candidates with campaign contributions. We must not allow Supreme Court decisions silence us. We are the people in "We the people" and we have a responsibility to our Republic to show the government and the monied special interest now controlling it that we are what democracy looks like!
David Nir for Daily Kos Elections
Kansas Democrat Paul Davis, with his wife and daughter
State House Minority Leader Paul Davis (D-KS), a serious upset threat
The progressive activist group MoveOn just released seven new polls, all conducted by Public Policy Polling, of competitive Senate and gubernatorial races. The main thrust of the surveys is a trio of questions about Medicaid expansion (it's popular across the board), but all of them lead off with horse race questions. Here's how they break down, with trendlines where available in parentheses:
KY-Sen: Alison Grimes (D): 45, Mitch McConnell (R-inc): 44 (Jan.: 45-44 McConnell) • VA-Sen: Mark Warner (D-inc): 49, Ed Gillespie (R): 35
FL-Gov: Charlie Crist (D): 49, Rick Scott (R-inc): 42 (Jan.: 43-41 Crist) • GA-Gov: Jason Carter (D): 43, Nathan Deal (R-inc): 42 (Feb.: 45-42 Deal)
KS-Gov: Paul Davis (D): 45, Sam Brownback (R-inc): 41 (Feb.: 42-40 Davis)
ME-Gov: Mike Michaud (D): 44, Paul LePage (R-inc): 37, Eliot Cutler (I): 14 (Nov.: 38-36-15 Michaud-LePage-Cutler)
PA-Gov: "Democratic candidate": 56, Tom Corbett (R-inc): 34
Obviously all of these results are positive for Democrats, though it's not too hard to pick states ahead of time where you can reasonably expect to find good polling numbers. Put another way, there are no real surprises here, as the earlier polls all illustrate. The most optimistic bit of news comes out of Florida, where Crist has rebounded after what seemed like an outlier-ish January survey that had some strangeness in its sample composition. And the Kansas numbers show that PPP's earlier poll was no fluke. Like we've been saying all cycle, keep watching that one.

Originally posted to Daily Kos Elections on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 08:39 AM PDT.

Also republished by My Old Kentucky Kos, Virginia Kos, North & Central Florida Kossacks, Kos Georgia, Pittsburgh Area Kossacks, Philly Kos, DKos Pennsylvania, and Daily Kos

Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 05:45 PM EDT

Daily Kos Elections Senate Power Rankings: Inaugural April edition

Kay Hagan meeting with constituents
Sen. Kay Hagan (D-NC) is in one of the major races making waves.
As the election cycle continues to heat up as we head into Spring, it is time here at Daily Kos Elections to add a new feature. What you are about to peruse is our take on the Power Rankings concept. But let's start off by being clear on what this is not. It is not a simple "here are the 10 races that are most likely to flip" list. Because, with all due respect to the fine efforts of Natalie Tennant and Rick Weiland, even loyal DKE readers are going to get pretty bored seeing West Virginia and South Dakota grace the top of the list month-after-month.
It is also not a "who won the week/month" pundit-fest. Those kinds of subjective festivals of "instant analysis" are often driven by some pretty inane crap. Sure, Bruce Braley did himself no favors over the past two weeks, but does it merit the breathless "ZOMG! GAME CHANGER!" stuff we have seen? Doubtful. If you're skeptical of that dismissal, I'd ask you this: remember how Barack Obama was supposed to be doooooooomed by the "clinging to guns and religion" comment?
There is actually an objective rubric for our list, by the way. But, if you want the specifics, and the inaugural power rankings in the battle for the Senate majority, you'll have to head past the jump.
THE RUBRIC: Three criteria were used to generate our top 10 list. One is competitiveness. This was done rather easily, utilizing our DKE Senate race ratings. If a race had been designated by the Daily Kos Elections crew as a "toss-up," that netted that race 15 points. If the race was designated as a "lean" D/R race, it was worth 10 points. If the race was designated as a "likely" D/R contest, it was worth five points. Finally, the small handful of "races to watch" netted a mere two points.
The second criteria is newsworthiness. Some races, for lack of a more elegant way of putting it, have more going on than others. The criteria here was also objective: a Senate race received a single point for every day in which it was mentioned in a Daily Kos Elections Daily Digest. There was some pretty wide discrepancies here. Amazingly, some races had newsworthy stories in nearly half of the digests for the month of March!
The final criteria is "pollworthiness". Media outlets, campaigns, and polling firms are not going to poll a race for nothing. The more intriguing races are going to get more data points, typically. So, four points were awarded for each poll conducted (primary or general) in a given state's Senate race.
Here was a genuine surprise (at least to me): by utilizing this criteria, fully 27 of the 36 Senate contests on the 2014 docket scored at least one point.
Which, now that I think about it, lends itself well to a fun trivia contest for the true DKE junkies: try to name the nine snoozers that had nary a breath of interest for March!
(The answer will be at the end...no peeking!)
With the criteria now explained, let's move on to the inaugural list.
First, let's give a quick recognition to the also-rans. Here were the seventeen races that received at least one point for the month of March. They were (in order): Montana (John Walsh—17 points), Minnesota (Al Franken—15 points), Virginia (Mark Warner—15 points), Oklahoma "B" (Open seat—13 points), Nebraska (Open seat—9 points), Mississippi (Thad Cochran—8 points), South Dakota (Open seat—7 points), New Mexico (Tom Udall—5 points), Oregon (Jeff Merkley—5 points), South Carolina "A" (Lindsey Graham—5 points), West Virginia (Open seat—5 points), New Jersey (Cory Booker—4 points), Hawaii (Brian Schatz—3 points), Texas (John Cornyn—3 points), Kansas (Pat Roberts—2 points), Maine (Susan Collins—2 points), South Carolina "B" (Tim Scott—1 point)
With the "also receiving votes" crew now dispensed with, here are the "Ten That Matter" in the U.S. Senate:
#10—KENTUCKY (19 points)—DKE Rating: Leans Republican
For a lot of people, this race is the clubhouse leader in media attention, if for no other reason than because it is Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's political future at risk (plus, to her credit, Democrat Alison Lundergan Grimes has the resources to make this race really interesting). But while McConnell did mess the bed in spectacular fashion by outing himself as a Dukie in the middle of the NCAA tournament, the race has been a little quiet this month. The main reason? The expected primary challenge that might've captivated a bit more attention just hasn't panned out. And I doubt that Matt Bevin taking a brave stand in favor of cockfighting will make it more likely for the challenger to close that gap.
#9—ARKANSAS (21 points)—DKE Rating: Leans Republican
Surprised this one isn't higher? One of the reasons is simple: there is a real logjam between #4 and #9 (only six points separate them). The other reason is a little more complex, and a little problematic for the Democrats. There is something of a growing sense that the terrain in the rapidly reddening state, plus the available data from the state, are painting a picture of a race that might be getting away from incumbent Mark Pryor a bit. Ironically, only one poll in the state came out this month, and it had Pryor ahead. But there have been six polls since December—four of them have had Republican Tom Cotton ahead.
#8—IOWA (23 points)—DKE Rating: Leans Democratic
Sure, much of the news here in the last half of the month was Braley's foibles, and associated hilarity (Joni Ernst offering a campaign statement by a pig was a true high water mark in political rhetoric). But the bottom line is that multiple polls taken thus far in 2014 tell us two things: (a) the primary on the GOP side may get very, very interesting and (b) Bruce Braley has what could only be described as a very modest edge. Expect this race to still be on this list, long after nobody remembers that Braley slandered a farmer by calling him ... a farmer.
#6 (tied)—MICHIGAN (24 points)—DKE Rating: Leans Democratic
Michigan is a rare bird, really, on this list. It has two characteristics that we really don't see much elsewhere. For one thing, there is virtually no prospect of a dicey primary for either frontrunner. It is nearly universally assumed that GOP former Sec. of State Terri Lynn Land will see Democratic Rep. Gary Peters in November. For another, it is not a tough slog for the Democrats because of traditionally perilous terrain. While Michigan will occasionally break character, it is a state that Barack Obama has carried twice, and fairly comfortably in both cases. That said, the race looks to be awfully competitive. Until this month, Lynn had played the kind of error-free ball needed for a Republican to win the state. That changed for the worse after a GOP surrogate group made an awful accusation that Peters supported abortion rights so his daughters could have "cheap and accessible" access to abortions. Ugh.
#6 (tied)—GEORGIA (24 points)—DKE Rating: Likely Republican
Georgia is everything Michigan is not. It is a red-tinted state that Mitt Romney carried by roughly the same percentage that Obama carried Michigan. And unlike the Wolverine State, Georgia has a Republican primary that could very well become must-see TV. Paul Broun? Phil Gingrey? Jack Kingston? Karen Handel? David Perdue? Now is the time to invest in popcorn futures. The likely Democratic nominee, Michelle Nunn, lies in wait. And if that GOP primary gets ugly enough, this race could fly up the charts. If it is a tame affair, the natural terrain of the state might make it harder to get to 50 percent. One ace in the hole for Nunn: GOP Governor Nathan Deal is unloved, and fighting for his own political life.
#5—ALASKA (26 points)—DKE Rating: Tossup
Let's face it: from now until November, this one just isn't going anywhere. This will be the last Senate race to be counted on Election Night, and it seems quite plausible that control of the Senate may hinge on this one. The terrain sucks badly for the Democrats here. But, lest we forget, Democrats were credible here in statewide races in years other than 2008 (when Obama actually got thumped here worse than he did in 2012). For his part, Democratic Sen. Mark Begich is making a pretty effective case thus far, mixing issue ads that will play well, even if they might not please national Democrats (read: oil) with softer bio ads like this one. A competitive GOP primary could also help Begich out, though polls have this race damned close.
#4—NEW HAMPSHIRE (27 points)DKE Rating: Likely Democratic
Yeah, yeah, the Granite State being this high on the charts this month is entirely about you know ... whatever. The media got their dude in the pickup truck. And three different pollsters took a look in March. What did they find? Meh. Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen is not destroying Mr. Massachusetts, but her average lead was around 11 points. That's reasonably decisive, which is why we here at Daily Kos Elections still have this race at Likely Democratic. Candidly, I'll be a little surprised if this race is still in the top five next month.
#3—LOUISIANA (30 points)—DKE Rating: Tossup
With all due respect to Alaska, astute elections junkies already know that the balance of power in the Senate, thanks to a quirk in the electoral calendar, could be decided on the bayou. That's because the all-candidate "primary" in Louisiana is on Election Night (November 4). If no candidate hits a majority of the vote, then the runoff will happen in early December. With a handful of Republicans in the field, it is at least slightly possible that Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu may battle the near-certain GOP nominee, Congressman Bill Cassidy, in December.
#2—COLORADO (35 points)—DKE Rating: Leans Democratic
Had there been a previous edition of the power rankings here at Daily Kos Elections, this probably would've been the biggest mover in the field. The late February entrance of Republican Rep. Cory Gardner into the race has immediately moved the re-election bid for Democratic Sen. Mark Udall into "must watch" territory. Udall will have to work considerably harder here, though Gardner did manage to fire a shot into his own foot late in the month by going all over the road on his own views on "personhood" legislation. Plus, he does still face a primary challenge, albeit a much more diminished one after he largely cleared the field with his entrance into the race.
#1—NORTH CAROLINA (41 points)—DKE Rating: Tossup
It is one of three races that Daily Kos Elections rates as a pure coin flip. It has a vulnerable incumbent in a state that was among the three closest states in the country in the last two presidential elections. It has a Republican primary looming next month that all polling hints is gonna be pretty close, featuring a ginormous field. It is the primary target of the well-heeled outside spending groups (a particularly nefarious example can be found here). And it is the home state of our prolific pals over at PPP, which guarantees regular deliveries of data (like this). Yup ... I'd expect this one to be around for the duration of the campaign, if not in the top spot, then pretty darned close.
Congrats on reading this far, you degenerate fan of all things electoral. You have earned your reward: the trivia answer!
The nine races to notch absolutely ZERO points in this first round of the power rankings were as follows: Alabama (Jeff Sessions—R), Delaware (Tom Carper—D), Idaho (Jim Risch—R), Illinois (Dick Durbin—D), Massachusetts (Ed Markey—D), Oklahoma "A" (Jim Inhofe—R), Rhode Island (Jack Reed—D), Tennessee (Lamar Alexander—R), Wyoming (Mike Enzi—R). If you guessed all nine ... the key to recovery is admitting you have a problem!

Originally posted to Daily Kos Elections on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 05:45 PM EDT.

Also republished by Kos Georgia, Motor City Kossacks, and Daily Kos.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/04/08/1290510/-MoveOn-releases-seven-news-polls-all-bearing-good-news-for-Democrats?detail=email 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/04/06/1289299/-Daily-Kos-Elections-Senate-Power-Rankings-Inaugural-April-edition 

21 March 2014

John Boehner says more people are uninsured since Obamacare took effect 18MAR14

HOUSE majority leader +john boehner r OH (yes, he signed up for and is covered under +Obamacare, see AMAZING: Speaker Boehner just signed up for Obamacare & Whoops! Obamacare turns out to be great deal personally for Boehner 22NOV13 http://bucknacktssordidtawdryblog.blogspot.com/2013/11/amazing-speaker-boehner-just-signed-up.html  ) he has joined the propaganda campaign against +Obamacare to boost the chances of a gop/tea-bagger controlled congress. This from +PolitiFact dispelling his lies about the number if people who now have health insurance.....
The Truth-O-Meter Says:
Boehner

The United States has seen "a net loss of people with health insurance" because of Obamacare.

John Boehner on Thursday, March 13th, 2014 in a press conference

John Boehner says more people are uninsured since Obamacare took effect

For a law that will be judged, in part, by how many uninsured Americans gain coverage, it’s a pretty bold statement when the most powerful Republican in Washington claims the Affordable Care Act is leading to more people without coverage.
In a press conference on March 13, 2014, House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, claimed "there are less people today with health insurance than there were before this law went into effect."
A reporter later asked him if he really meant that. Boehner doubled down.
"I believe that to be the case," Boehner said. "When you look at the 6 million Americans who've lost their policies, and (government officials) claim 4.2 million who've signed up — I don't know how many have actually paid for it — that would indicate to me a net loss of people with health insurance. And I actually do believe that to be the case."
There are a lot of holes in the administration’s data for new signups. Further clouding the stats are fluctuations in the existing insurance market caused when insurance companies canceled plans that didn’t meet Obamacare’s coverage standards.
But to say that has resulted in a net loss is a stretch.
The Washington Post Fact Checker beat us to the punch on this. He gave Boehner’s comment Four Pinocchios, his worst rating.
We have looked at similar claims before. We mostly heard it late last year, when several million Americans received notices from their insurance provider that their current policies would no longer be offered.
Since it came from Boehner, though, we decided it was worth looking into again.
Polls and projections
We took the issue first to Boehner spokesman Brendan Buck. He offered this explanation: "The speaker explained the statement at the presser: More people have had plans canceled than signed up, especially when considering how inflated the enrollment numbers appear to be."
But that's not what Boehner said. He twice claimed that the number of people with insurance overall is down since the health care law went into effect, a considerably more audacious statement.
While there isn't a final tally that looks at those numbers yet, Boehner's assertion goes against a recent Gallup poll, which said the number of uninsured Americans declined from 17.1 percent at the end of last year to 15.9 percent in the first quarter of 2014, the lowest level since 2008. Also, the Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan policy scorekeeper, estimates over time that the percentage of insured Americans will rise as a result of the health care law.
Boehner claimed the math, though, is simple. According to him, there were 6 million people told their policies were canceled because they didn't meet the health law's minimum benefits and coverage. And the administration announced that through February, 4.2 million had purchased insurance through the state and federal marketplaces. (A few days after Boehner spoke, the administration announced enrollment through the marketplace surpassed 5 million.)
By that logic, 1.8 million people must have lost insurance.
But Boehner misses a lot of important factors. We'll go through them one by one.
What happened to canceled plans
There were many Americans notified that their insurance plans were canceled because they did not meet Obamacare's standards of coverage, despite promises that wouldn't happen. Boehner puts this at 6 million. It's a hard figure to pin down exactly.
Through an extensive reporting project, the Associated Press found at least 4.7 million Americans received notices about canceled policies; it could be higher.
Some of those policies, about half, were restored when Obama administratively allowed canceled plans to continue for another year and later through 2016.
Many others were moved to new plans, either through their insurance company or by purchasing a new policy on the marketplaces set up for Obamacare. The administration estimated that of the people with canceled plans, just 500,000 were left without coverage, and catastrophic coverage was extended to those individuals.
That's not to say this wasn't a difficult ordeal for people who lost their plans, especially if they thought the law would allow them to keep their coverage. But most of them were able to find new plans, meaning Boehner's 6 million uninsured people basically vanishes.
We could probably stop there, but let's dissect the rest of the numbers, since this is a debate that won't subside any time soon.
Marketplace signups
Boehner also casts doubt that the administration's figures for new insurance purchases is inflated, which they put at 4.2 million (now 5 million).
He does have a point there.
First, many of the people who lost coverage due to Obamacare were shifted to the marketplace to buy coverage. Just as those individuals shouldn't be included in Boehner's figure of people without insurance, they also don't count as a net gain, since they previously had insurance.
It's ultimately difficult to tell how many people who bought insurance didn’t have coverage last year. A survey by McKinsey & Company found that 27 percent of the people who reported buying a new policy in February for 2014 were previously uninsured.
It's equally difficult to know how many of the people who bought plans actually paid their premiums. The New York Times reported that 20 percent of people buying insurance on the exchanges never made their first payment. The McKinsey & Company survey reported similar results for the previously uninsured.
So Boehner's skepticism toward that 4.2 million figure is not misguided. But even if it includes a lot of people who didn't pay their premiums or people who were previously insured, there were some previously uninsured people who found and paid for policies. That alone makes it a net gain.
It also doesn't include the people who are buying insurance directly from insurance companies or through other Obamacare approved third-party sites. In Washington state, for example, 184,000 of the 300,000 projected new enrollees bought coverage outside the marketplace.
Medicaid
Boehner also completely ignores individuals who gained coverage through the expansion of Medicaid, the federal-state health care program.
The administration says 4.4 million people were deemed eligible for Medicaid when signing up for coverage through the marketplace.
That doesn't count all of the people who signed up through local state offices, not through an exchange. But it also includes those who were assessed as eligible but didn’t complete the sign up. There could be duplication in the process as well.
But whatever the actual number is, it still points toward a net gain in insured Americans.
Kids up to 26
One of the earliest provisions of the law to take affect allowed children to stay on their parents' insurance until age 26.
The administration has estimated 3.1 million young adults took advantage of this change. The Washington Post Fact Checker noted the number hasn't been updated for a number of years and questioned whether it was that high.
Not all of those children were previously uninsured. And presumably some of those initial sign ups could have aged out of their parents insurance by now. It's possible many were included among the previously insured who transitioned to the marketplace.
But like the Medicaid number, for the purpose of this check the actual number isn't as significant as knowing there are a lot of young adults that gained insurance through this provision.
Our ruling
Boehner said the Affordable Care Act so far has caused "a net loss of people with health insurance." Boehner's logic is based on reports that about 5 million had their insurance policies canceled while 4.2 million signed up for policies on the state and federal marketplaces. It's bad math for two reasons.
First, most of the people who lost their insurance have seen those policies extended to them through an administrative fix, or they received new coverage through their previous insurer or they bought a new plan.
Second, he ignores the millions of people who bought coverage off the exchange, those who gained coverage through Medicaid and the under-26 crowd able to remain on their parents' insurance.
We don't yet know how many new Americans will ultimately gain coverage. But every indicator right now suggests it will be a net gain. We rate Boehner's statement False.
About this statement:
Published: Tuesday, March 18th, 2014 at 12:11 p.m.
Subjects: Health Care, Medicaid, Public Health
Sources:
House Speaker John Boehner weekly press conference, March 13, 2014
Email interview with Brendan Buck, spokesman for Boehner, March 14-17, 2014
Congressional Budget Office, "Insurance Coverage Provisions of the Affordable Care Act — CBO’s February 2014 Baseline," accessed March 17, 2014
Gallup, "U.S. uninsured rate continues to fall," March 10, 2014
Washington State Office of the Insurance Commissioner, "Individual health market projected to top 300,000 by March 31", Feb. 13, 2014
ABC News, "White House Allows Mandate Exemption Over Canceled Plans," Dec. 20, 2013
McKinsey & Company, "Individual market enrollment: Updated view," March 2014
Washington Post Fact Checker, "Boehner’s claim that Obamacare has resulted in a ‘net loss’ of people with health insurance," March 17, 2014
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, "Marketplace Enrollment Hits 5 Million Milestone," March 17, 2014
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, "New health care law helps more than 3 million young adults get and keep health coverage," June 19, 2012
The Associated Press, "Policy notifications and current status, by state," Dec. 26, 2013
The Associated Press, "2-year extension offered for current health plans," March 5, 2014
Healthcare.gov, "Can children stay on a parent’s plan until age 26?" accessed March 17, 2014

Written by: Steve Contorno
Researched by: Steve Contorno
Edited by: Angie Drobnic Holan

Americans for Prosperity claims people are getting less at a higher cost under Obamacare 20MAR14

THE +koch brother's +Americans For Prosperity  (it should be the 1% americans for prosperity) propaganda campaign against Obamacare is nothing but lies and deception and misrepresentation of the law and health care in the U.S. Their goal is the defeat of enough Senate Democrats in the 2014 elections to possibly pass legislation in Congress repealing Obamacare. While their propaganda campaign seeks to instill fear in gop / tea-bagger voters of loosing health care insurance because of +Obamacare the reality is they seek a return to the good old days of unfettered rate increases, denial of coverage due to preexisting conditions and personal bankruptcy due to medical bills. The americans for prosperity propaganda campaign's goal is to increase the profit margins of the health insurance companies and health care industries and the crippling of the Obama administration's last two years in power with a gop / teabagger controlled congress. This from +PolitiFact.....
The Truth-O-Meter Says:
Americans for Prosperity

Millions of Americans are "paying more and getting less" under Obamacare.

Americans for Prosperity on Monday, March 17th, 2014 in a political ad

Americans for Prosperity claims people are getting less at a higher cost under Obamacare

Americans for Prosperity has been active on the airwaves already this election cycle. The group, which opposes Obamacare, has run a handful of ads featuring people telling health care "horror stories" meant to tug on the heartstrings. We’ve looked at a couple and explained how they can be misleading.
But a pair of new ads take an entirely different tack to undercut support from Democratic Sens. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Mark Udall of Colorado.
In these ads, a woman on screen trashes political ads in her 30-second personal pitch.
"People don’t like political ads. I don’t like them either. But health care isn’t about politics," she says. "It’s about people. And millions of people have lost their health insurance, millions of people can’t see their own doctors, and millions are paying more and getting less."
We’ve tackled claims about lost insurance and access to personal doctors before. But we haven’t heard someone say that the health care law is causing people to pay more for less, so we decided to check it out.
Paying more
There are a lot of factors in the health care law — and health insurance in general — that make it difficult to pin down whether people are paying more or less for coverage.
In general, insurance premiums were increasing every year well before Obamacare became law. In fact, rates have increased consistently during the last 15 years. But there are signs that the rate of the increase has declined since the law was passed.
Kaiser Family Foundation, for example, surveyed people who purchase insurance through their employer. Here are the average annual cost of premiums:

Year Single % increase Family % increase
1999 $2,196 $5,791
2000 $2,471 12.52% $6,438 11.17%
2001 $2,689 8.82% $7,061 9.68%
2002 $3,083 14.65% $8,003 13.34%
2003 $3,383 9.73% $9,068 13.31%
2004 $3,695 9.22% $9,950 9.73%
2005 $4,024 8.90% $10,880 9.35%
2006 $4,242 5.42% $11,480 5.51%
2007 $4,479 5.59% $12,106 5.45%
2008 $4,704 5.02% $12,680 4.74%
2009 $4,824 2.55% $13,375 5.48%
2010 $5,049 4.66% $13,770 2.95%
2011 $5,429 7.53% $15,073 9.46%
2012 $5,615 3.43% $15,745 4.46%
2013 $5,884 4.79% $16,351 3.85%

Other than a sharp increase between 2010 to 2011, the Obama years have experienced the smallest rate increases of the last 14 years. Throughout much of the early 2000s, premium increases of 9 percent or more were the norm.
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid also found a slowdown in the increase in health costs during the last four years, including a modest 4 percent increase from 2011 to 2012.
The government attributed the decrease in health costs to the economic downturn. Kaiser, too, said the recession accounted for much of the decline, though they said the health care law may have played a role, too.
Because of the law, people making up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level are now eligible for subsidies to buy insurance, and for many of them, costs are going down. Those costs are capped at a percent of their income.
But some people may see rate increases on existing policies or as they transition to new plans.
Insurers can no longer deny individuals with pre-existing conditions, and there is now a much larger pool of people looking to purchase coverage. For younger, healthier people, this means they are now taking on some of the financial burden so older or sick people can buy insurance at a reasonable price. (This is especially true for young males, since young women were often charged more, and even more so if they don’t qualify for premium subsidies.)
There were also people who previously purchased very cheap plans. But those policies provided very little coverage or capped their benefits at low levels, which the new health care law bars. So they’re getting more coverage, albeit at a greater cost.
Getting less?
Which gets us to our next point.
We found it strange that the ad claimed that people are getting less under the Affordable Care Act. In fact, we’ve usually heard the opposite from critics of the law that people are now paying for types of coverage they don’t need.
The favorite example is single men who now will now have maternity coverage if they buy a plan on the individual market. In October 2013, Rep. Renee Ellmers, R-N.C., grilled Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius on this very point.
"An insurance policy has a series of benefits whether you use them or not," Sebelius said during her testimony on the Hill.
"And that is why the health care premiums are increasing this high," Ellmers said. "We’re forcing them to buy things that they will never need."
"Individual policies cover families. Men often do need maternity coverage for their spouses and for their families," Sebelius responded.
"To the best of your knowledge, has a man ever delivered a baby?" Elmers asked. The discussion ended there.
So are you getting less coverage, or getting more than you need? We asked Americans for Prosperity to clarify their position.
"Getting less speaks to a multitude of data points that has been America's Obamacare experience so far: botched website, shrinking provider networks, a string of broken promises, missed deadlines, and unilateral rule changes that have kept the entire country in limbo ever since this debacle rolled out," said spokesman Levi Russell.
That’s a pretty ambiguous definition of "less." We think most people would assume "less" is referring to the amount of coverage or benefits under the law.
Americans are getting more benefits under the law in a number of ways -- including, in some cases, being able to buy affordable insurance for the first time.
In addition, insurance purchased in the individual and small group marketplace must meet 10 essential health benefits. This includes coverage for emergency services and hospitalization, prescription drugs, free preventative coverage for things ranging from basic immunizations to HIV screening, and maternity care.
The law also caps out-of-pocket costs, providing greater protection from exorbitant hospital bills. The most a person could pay for health care in a year is $6,300; the most a family can pay is $12,600.
Before the law passed, some insurers capped annual or lifetime benefits, forcing people who thought they were covered to pay large hospital bills once they passed the threshold.
People with pre-existing conditions are also seeing a lot more benefits, since they previously couldn’t buy a policy at all.
So it’s a tough sell to say millions are getting less. And for many, they aren’t paying more, either.
Our ruling
Americans for Prosperity said "millions are paying more and getting less" under Obamacare. We found their explanation of "less" rather dubious. Most people on the individual market are getting more benefits under the law. At worst, they’re paying more to get more, though in many cases they’re actually paying less.
We rate this claim False.
About this statement:
Published: Thursday, March 20th, 2014 at 4:12 p.m.
Subjects: Health Care
Sources:
Americans for Prosperity, "AFP launches new ads in Louisiana, Colorado," March 17, 2014
Email interview with Levi Russell, spokesman for Americans for Prosperity, March 19, 2014
Kaiser Family Foundation, "Why Premiums Will Change for People Who Now Have Nongroup Insurance," Feb. 6, 2013
Kaiser Family Foundation, "The Flip Side of Higher Premiums: Better Coverage," March 21, 2013
Kaiser Family Foundation, "Health Cost Growth Is Down, Or Not. It Depends Who You Ask," March 5, 2014
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, National Health Expenditures 2012 Highlights, accessed March 20, 2014
Kaiser Family Foundation, 2013 Employer Health Benefits Survey, Aug. 20, 2013
Congressional Budget Office, The Slowdown in Health Care Spending, Sept. 19, 2013
National Bureau of Economic Research, "Is this time different? The slowdown in health care spending," Dec. 2013
Executive Office of the President of the United States, Trends in health care cost growth and the role of the Affordable Care Act, Nov. 2013
National Review, "GOP Rep. Asks Sebelius Why Single Men Need Maternity Coverage," Oct. 30, 2013
Healthcare.gov, "What does Marketplace health insurance cover?" accessed March 18, 2014
RAND Corp., "No Widespread Increase in Cost of Individual Health Insurance Policies Under Affordable Care Act," Aug. 29, 2013
Written by: Steve Contorno
Researched by: Steve Contorno
Edited by: Angie Drobnic Holan, Louis Jacobson http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/mar/20/americans-prosperity/americans-prosperity-claims-people-are-getting-les/

17 October 2013

THE CONGRESS PROBLEM, IT'S NOT THAT OTHER STATE'S REP OR SENATOR, IT MAY BE YOURS

Got this in an e mail from a friend, and the message is clear. The American people are sick of government that doesn't work, of a congress paralyzed by extremist who do not represent the majority of the electorate. Yes, each congressperson is elected by the people in their district and state and their job is to represent those who elected them. But their job is also to join together in congress to govern the nation, and while they have the right and responsibility to present their views, their opinions on legislation, to introduce legislation, and to support or oppose legislation up for a vote they do not have the right to shut down the government and hold the American people hostage while demanding their minority views become law. There will be elections for the house and a third of the senate in 2014. The American people have to consider what their representative's and senators roles were in this debacle, and if they were part of the cabal that shut down the government then it is time to vote them out of office and replace them with a more reasonable, responsible, politically mature representative and/or senator.