Anatomy of an Obamacare "horror story"

tafkats · Feb 2, 2014

... In which a reporter admits that she was told by her boss to find a story that fit the desired conclusion, and an editor decides the facts just aren't newsworthy.

http://www.healthinsurance.org/blog/2014/01/03/anatomy-of-an-obamacare-horror-story/

Anatomy of an Obamacare ‘horror story’
Texas daily went digging for victims of the ACA and Surprise! Reporter unearthed three Tea Partiers who hate the new law.

For months, health reform’s opponents have been feasting on tales of Obamacare’s innocent victims –Americans who lost their insurance because it doesn’t comply with the ACA’s regulations, and now have to shell out more than they can afford – or go without coverage.

Trouble is, many of those stories just aren’t true.

Yesterday I posted about a Fort Worth Star Telegram article that leads with the tale of Whitney Johnson, a 26-year-old new mother who suffers from multiple sclerosis (MS). Her insurer just cancelled her policy, and according to Johnson, new insurance would cost her over $1,000 a month.

That claim stopped me in my tracks. Under the ACA, no 26-year-old could be charged $1,000 monthly –even if she has MS.

Obamacare prohibits insurers from charging more because a customer suffers from a pre-existing condition. This rule applies to all new policies, whether they are sold inside or outside the exchanges.

At that point, I knew that something was wrong.

When I checked the exchange – plugging in Johnson’s county and her age – I soon found a Blue Choice Gold PPO plan priced at $332 monthly (just $7 more than she had been paying for the plan that was cancelled). Co-pays to see a primary care doctor would run just $10 ($50 to visit a specialist) and she would not have to pay down the $1,500 deductible before the insurance kicked in.

My radar went up. Recently, I have been reading more and more reports regarding “fake Obamacare victims.”

Now I couldn’t help but wonder: Who are these folks in the Star-Telegram story? The paper profiled four people who supposedly had been hurt by Obamacare. When I Googled their names, I soon discovered that three (including Johnson) were Tea Party members.

The paper describes them as among Obamacare’s “losers,” but the truth is that they didn’t want to be winners. Two hadn’t even attempted to check prices in the exchanges.

Meanwhile, it appeared that no one at the Star-Telegram even attempted to run a background check on the sources, or fact check their stories. I couldn’t help but wonder: “Why?”

The answer will surprise you.

‘Victim’ finds affordable insurance …

When I tried to phone the reporter, she didn’t return multiple calls. Finally, I reached an editor at the paper. He told me that the both Yamil Berard, the reporter, and her editor were out of the office. I expressed my concern that inaccuracies in the story would discourage readers who were thinking about signing up in the exchanges. He suggested that I sounded like an “advocate” for Obamacare.

To my surprise, two hours later he called me back.

He had just received an internal email, he told me, which revealed that Whitney Johnson had found affordable health insurance for $350 a month –just $25 more than the premium on her cancelled policy, and roughly what I thought she would pay in the exchange.

I asked the editor if he could send me a copy of the e-mail. “No,” he replied. “It’s an internal memo.”

Would the paper publish a follow-up, acknowledging that Johnson would not have to pay $1,000 for coverage?

“I’m not sure what we’ll do with it.” He sounded cautious.

… but that’s not newsworthy?

To this day –more than a month after the story appeared –theStar-Telegram still hasn’t told its readers that Johnson had found affordable coverage or that under Obamacare, no 20-something –including Johnson –will be charged $1,000 a month.

I then contacted Johnson, who confirmed that she had found a $350 Blue plan outside of the exchange. Based on the details she provided, I managed to locate it. (The premium is actually $347.92 a month.)

It turns out to be very similar to the exchange policy I had found. The premium is higher, but the deductible ($1,000 instead of $1,500) and co-pays for medications ($10/50/100 vs. $35/75/150) would be slightly lower. The provider network would be the same (Blue Choice).

The exchange plan offers a stronger safety net, and for someone with MS, this could be important: If her husband’s income drops, or he loses health benefits at work, they would immediately be eligible for a subsidy. Because her new policy is not on the exchange, they would have to wait until open enrollment in November 2014 to sign up for a 2015 plan with subsidies.

Editor: Find people caught in ‘quagmire’

Next, I spoke to Steve Kaskovich, the editor who assigned the story to Berard. He explained that he had asked the reporter to write a piece about people whose policies were cancelled, and as a result were “caught in the quagmire.”

He didn’t know how three Tea Party members found their way into the piece. He said he would ask Berard to call me. She didn’t.

When I called Kaskovich back, he said Berard wouldn’t be able to get back to me until after the holidays. I explained that I planned to post the piece soon, and I would like to give her a chance to tell her side of the story.

It still seemed to me remarkable that she had simply stumbled on three Tea Party sources. Had they sought her out? Why had she believed that one couple in the story would face a staggering $20,000 deductible? (Under the ACA the deductible on a family plan is capped at $12,750.)

I once again inquired whether the paper planned a follow-up. “Probably” he replied, “after Berard returns to the office.”

I also asked if he had suggested that the reporter balance the piece by writing about “winners” – people who would receive subsidies and wind up paying less for better policies under Obamacare. He paused, and replied that he had not set any “parameters” for the story.

Tight deadline

Finally, Yamil Berard called me. Now, the truth came out: “I was assigned the story and asked to complete it in a couple of days,” she said. She had turned it around in 1½ days, giving her little or no time to fact check.

To find sources, she had contacted a few people she knew –including an insurance broker. They spread the word, and friends of friends who had lost their policies turned up. She didn’t know that three were Tea Party members.

The young reporter also confessed that she didn’t know much about the Affordable Care Act. “I haven’t written about healthcare in a long time. We don’t have a healthcare writer. I cover about 15 other topics. Our staff is much smaller than it used to be,” she confided.

Her assignment had been clear: “To find people who were cancelled – and having some difficulty.”

After she turned in the piece, she told me that she had wanted to write a “good news” story about people who found better, more affordable coverage after their policies were cancelled. She pitched it to her editor. But he never assigned it. Despite the fact that the December deadline for enrolling in the exchanges was looming, “it wasn’t a priority.” Instead, “I got stuck on other stories” – one about an ice storm, and two business stories.”

A story not worth printing

This Star-Telegram story was doomed from the start: It certainly was hurt by the fact the newspaper has no healthcare reporter; that the story was assigned to a reporter who didn’t know much about the ACA; and that the reporter – admittedly spread thin – had only two days to find sources, interview them, and write the article.

Her editors obviously didn’t ask any questions about the sources. If someone had checked them out, they would have realized they were predisposed to hate the ACA.

What is most surprising is that her editors didn’t challenge the figures produced by the sources. A quick check at HealthCare.gov – or an interview with an exchange-certified broker – would have revealed that each source would have been a “winner” and not a loser.

Finally, the paper has no fact checkers. To be fair, this is not unusual. In the 1980s, all major publications employed staffers whose sole job was to verify facts. I began my career as a journalist at Time, Inc. doing just that. If a story was published and turned out to be inaccurate, the fact checker could lose her job. It was useful training. Today, the New Yorker is the only publication I know of that still uses fact checkers. (A few weeks ago, I received a phone call from one of them.)

No excuse for key omission

But a lack of fact checkers does not explain why the newspaper ignored the news that one of its “victims” had found good coverage. No editor’s note. No comment. No clarification.

Why is this important? This major daily’s nearly 200,000 daily readers saw the story that would lead them to believe that Americans who received cancellation notices were “left in limbo.” Most, it concluded, would wind up uninsured – or paying more than they could afford. As I’ve pointed out many times – and as more and more coverage is revealing – the opposite is true.

Is the Star-Telegram alone in its subpar reporting about Obamacare? I’ll talk more about that in my next post.
Click to expand...

garamet · Feb 2, 2014

So, which will happen first?

Face, Castle, or some other random idiot posts "TLDR" or

Ancalagon about "Too many Obamacare thredz!!!111!"

Captain X posts "garamet is trolling, therefore I'm not posting in this thread!"

tafkats · Feb 2, 2014

"There were just a lot of gaps in her story," says reporter who decided to start fact-checking other reporters:

http://bit.ly/1lvy2JQ

‘Gloves come off’ as journalists debunk each other’s Obamacare horror stories

When Los Angeles Times columnist Michael Hiltzik saw Deborah Cavallaro tell her story on television, something about it didn’t add up.

Cavallaro is a real-estate agent and investor in Westchester, Calif. She’s also become a minor media celebrity in the past few weeks, repeatedly sharing her story of how the Affordable Care Act will raise her medical costs. Since October 23, Cavallaro has been interviewed on the NBC Nightly News, CNBC, the public radio show “Marketplace,” two local Los Angeles TV newscasts, and in Hiltzik’s own newspaper.

As all the news reports have noted, Cavallaro’s insurer informed her that it’s canceling her policy and instead offering a new plan with a higher premium. “Her only option is to be forced into a policy she doesn’t want and can’t afford,” reported KCBS-TV. “For the first time in my whole life, I will be without insurance,” she lamented on KNBC-TV.

“There were just a lot of gaps in her story,” Hiltzik told me in a phone conversation this week. “It just seemed to me that all the people who were going on the air and telling her story were leaving critical things out.”

So Hiltzik – a Pulitzer Prize winner who regularly writes about health care — did something relatively uncommon for mainstream newspaper writers. He called Cavallaro, conducted his own interview, and used his blog to poke holes in the other news organizations’ stories.

Browsing on Covered California, the state’s new online insurance exchange, Hiltzik found little basis for Cavallaro’s fear – unchallenged in most of the news stories — that she’ll be forced to pay sharply higher premiums or be left without insurance at all. In fact, Hiltzik found that Cavallaro can choose among several health plans, including at least one with similar benefits and lower premiums than her current policy.

“[T]he reporters who interviewed her without getting all the facts produced inexcusably shoddy work,” Hiltzik wrote in an Oct. 30 blog post.
Click to expand...

garamet · Feb 2, 2014

^Why am I not surprised?

When you click through the link at the bottom of your article, you find this:

Cavallaro told me she hasn't checked the website of Covered California, the state's health plan exchange, herself. I did so while we talked.
Here's what I found. I won't divulge her current income, which is personal, but this year it qualifies her for a hefty federal premium subsidy.

At her age, she's eligible for a good "silver" plan for $333 a month after the subsidy -- $40 a month more than she's paying now. But the plan is much better than her current plan -- the deductible is $2,000, not $5,000. The maximum out-of-pocket expense is $6,350, not $8,500. Her co-pays would be $45 for a primary care visit and $65 for a specialty visit -- but all visits would be covered, not just two.

Is that better than her current plan? Yes, by a mile.

If she wanted to pay less, Cavallaro could opt for lesser coverage in a "bronze" plan. She could buy one from the California exchange for as little as $194 a month. From Anthem, it's $256, or $444 a year less than she's paying now. That buys her a $5,000 deductible (the same as she's paying today) but the out-of-pocket limit is lower, $6,350. Office visits would be $60 for primary care and $70 for specialties, but again with no limit on the number of visits. Factor in the premium savings, and it's hard to deny that she's still ahead.

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-debunked-20131030,0,6010994.story#ixzz2sD4Ulyzz
Click to expand...

The Original Faceman · Feb 2, 2014

garamet said: ↑

So, which will happen first?

Face, Castle, or some other random idiot posts "TLDR" or

Ancalagon about "Too many Obamacare thredz!!!111!"

Captain X posts "garamet is trolling, therefore I'm not posting in this thread!"

Click to expand...

This thread is about you.

garamet · Feb 2, 2014

Faceman said: ↑

garamet said: ↑

So, which will happen first?

Face, Castle, or some other random idiot posts "TLDR" or

Ancalagon about "Too many Obamacare thredz!!!111!"

Captain X posts "garamet is trolling, therefore I'm not posting in this thread!"

Click to expand...

This thread is about you.
Click to expand...

Because I showed everybody how predictable you are.

Where's Castle?

Dinner · Feb 2, 2014

I have yet to see a single right wing claim about the ACA to be anything but a lie. Literally EVERY one of these supposed cases are completely made up lies and not a single one so far has actually held up to outside scrutiny. They're just tea baggers and right wing nuts lying. You know if any of these were actually true then these political partisans would gladly share their details but when they refuse to provide verification and won't even provide even the basic details to reporters who call to fact check, well, its obvious they know they're telling porky pies.

The Original Faceman · Feb 2, 2014

garamet said: ↑

Faceman said: ↑

garamet said: ↑

So, which will happen first?

Face, Castle, or some other random idiot posts "TLDR" or

Ancalagon about "Too many Obamacare thredz!!!111!"

Captain X posts "garamet is trolling, therefore I'm not posting in this thread!"

Click to expand...

This thread is about you.
Click to expand...

Because I showed everybody how predictable you are.

Where's Castle?
Click to expand...

But u didn't.

garamet · Feb 2, 2014

Faceman said: ↑

But u didn't.
Click to expand...

No, but I did.

garamet · Feb 3, 2014

Wow. I thought the Kartoon Kommandoes would at least jump on that 3%.

Guess we can accept their surrender.

The Original Faceman · Feb 3, 2014

Kill yourself.

Volpone · Feb 3, 2014

...in other news, there are something upwards of 22,000 bugs reported by users that are just going into a big virtual bin labeled "to do".

Thousands of ObamaCare site error appeals reportedly going unfixed
Published February 03, 2014
FoxNews.com

Thousands of people who tried to sign up for a health plan via the federal healthcare exchange website, Healthcare.gov, have seen their appeals to fix site issues go unanswered.

The Washington Post, citing internal government data, reports that approximately 22,000 Americans have filed appeals to try and get site errors corrected. The complaints range from being denied coverage altogether to being overcharged for coverage to being steered into the wrong program.

So far, months after the site launched October 1, the appeals have been untouched. What's more, the Post reports, people who have tried to call the marketplace directly for assistance, have been told that the Healthcare.gov computer system is not yet allowing workers to correct enrollment records.

In theory, error appeals can be filed through the site itself, by phone, or by mail. However, only the mail appeal is currently available. But according to the Post, the appeal by mail process only goes as far as scanning the seven-page forms and transferring them to a computer system, where they currently sit unread and uncorrected.

A CMS spokesman told the Post "We are working to fully implement the appeals system." In the meantime, the paper reported, applicants are being told to go back to Healthcare.gov and start over...
Click to expand...

Lanzman · Feb 3, 2014

Now now, Volpone. It's all going swimmingly. Garamet said so.

garamet · Feb 3, 2014

Faceman said: ↑

Kill yourself.
Click to expand...

Shouldn't that have followed Volpone's post?

Lanzman said: ↑

Now now, Volpone. It's all going swimmingly. Garamet said so.
Click to expand...

garamet knows website =/= ACA.

Lanzman apparently still doesn't.

Ten Lubak · Feb 3, 2014

Sorry Garamet ruined your thread, tafkats.

garamet · Feb 3, 2014

Ten Lubak said: ↑

Sorry Garamet ruined your thread, tafkats.
Click to expand...

tafkats is an adult, apostle.

The Original Faceman · Feb 3, 2014

Shut. Up.

garamet · Feb 3, 2014

Faceman said: ↑

Shut. Up.
Click to expand...

TL;DR

http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/penalty.asp

Example: [Collected via e-mail, October 2013]

WARNING CONCERNING OBAMACARE

----Immediate Attention Required PLEASE -----

If you do not have to sign up with Obamacare on their website PLEASE DON'T! Once you see the cost of premiums and yearly deductible and choose to opt out from that point they will within a few hours email you stating your actual fees in which now they will by any means collect.

REAL EXAMPLE ---- Please Read & Please Forward ASAP!!!

A comment posted on the Affordable Care Act/Obamacare FB page:

I actually made it through this morning at 8:00 A.M. I have a preexisting condition (Type 1 Diabetes) and my income base was 45K-55K annually I chose tier 2 "Silver Plan" and my monthly premiums came out to $597.00 with $13,988 yearly deductible!!! There is NO POSSIBLE way that I can afford this so I "opt-out" and chose to continue along with no insurance. I received an email tonight at 5:00 P.M. informing me that my fine would be $4,037 and could be attached to my yearly income tax return. Then you make it to the "REPERCUSSIONS PORTION" for "non-payment" of yearly fine.

First, your drivers license will be suspended until paid, and if you go 24 consecutive months with "Non-Payment" and you happen to be a home owner, you will have a federal tax lien placed on your home. You can agree to give your bank information so that they can easy "Automatically withdraw" your "penalties" weekly, bi-weekly or monthly! This by no means is "Free" or even "Affordable."

Origins: One of the key (and most controversial) provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), commonly known as "Obamacare," is its establishment of an individual mandate to buy health insurance. Beginning in 2014, U.S. citizens and legal residents are required to either have PPACA-qualifying health insurance coverage (public or private) or pay a penalty for not carrying insurance.

Shortly after the opening of PPACA-created state- and federal-run insurance exchange marketplaces on 1 October 2013, which consumers could use to shop online for qualifying insurance plans, the item reproduced above began circulating on the Internet. This item claimed that after a consumer priced an insurance plan on one of the exchanges and found it to be unsuitably non-affordable (and so declined to enroll in it), he received a notice stating that he would be fined over $4,000 and have his driver's license suspended, and if he failed to pay the fine within two years the a federal tax lien would be placed on his home.

Without knowing more details about the person referenced in this item, it's difficult to accurately assess whether the figures quoted for insurance coverage ($597.00 per month with a $13,988 yearly deductible) are completely accurate. However, the PPACA sets annual limits on out-of-pocket expenses at $6,350 for individuals and $12,700 for families on plans offered through the state-based exchanges, so a yearly deductible of nearly $14,000 for someone shopping for coverage through an insurance exchange isn't a plausible offering.

The penalty for failing to carry qualifying health insurance coverage varies with household size, income, and year. In general, the penalties for non-compliance will be assessed as follows:
For individuals (whichever is greater):

2014 $95 or 1% of income above tax filing threshold
2015 $325 or 2% of income above tax filing threshold
2016 $695 or 2.5% of income above tax filing threshold

For families (whichever is greater):

2014 $285 or 1% of income above tax filing threshold
2015 $975 or 2% of income above tax filing threshold
2016 $2085 or 2.5% of income above tax filing threshold The $4,037 fine claimed in this item doesn't jibe with those figures. Since the non-compliance penalty for an individual in 2014 is $95 or 1% of income above the tax filing threshold (whichever is greater), that individual would have to earn a yearly income of $403,700 (above the tax filing threshold) in order to incur a fine of that magnitude for a single year — an income level which is far larger than the $45,000-$55,000 range claimed in this item. Even adding together all the potential fines for three straight years of non-compliance beginning in 2014 produces a figure in the $3,000 range, not one over $4,000. (The figures could be higher under a scenario in which multiple persons in the same household were non-compliant, but the item quoted above references only an individual.)

According to a Congressional Research Service (CRS) report on the PPACA Penalty Provision and the Internal Revenue Service, collection of the penalty for failure to maintain qualifying health insurance coverage may include the IRS' withholding money from federal income tax refunds and obtaining liens against the taxpayer's property, but the PPACA does not allow for criminal prosecution or the seizure of bank accounts or other property:
The Internal Revenue Code (IRC) limits the means the IRS may employ to collect the penalty established in the [PPACA]. First, the taxpayer is protected from either criminal prosecution or penalty for failure to pay the penalty. Second, the IRS is prohibited from either filing a notice of federal tax lien (NFTL) or levying any property in an effort to collect the penalty. There is no prohibition, however, on establishing a statutory lien against the taxpayer’s property. No additional limits are placed on the IRS using correspondence or phone calls, either through its own employees or through private collection agencies, in an effort to collect the amount owed. Additionally, no restriction was placed on the IRS's ability to use the refund offset as a means of collecting the amount due.

Those who are required to pay the penalty for failure to maintain minimum coverage but choose not to do so will be subject to increases in the amount owed due to interest and late payment penalties imposed on the penalty after it has been assessed by the IRS.

A taxpayer who chooses not to pay the required penalty may ultimately forfeit more than the amount of the penalty if that taxpayer is ever in the position of having an overpayment to the IRS for any reason, since the refund offset applies not only to overpayments shown on original tax returns, but also to any subsequent adjustments, for example an audit by the IRS that results in an overpayment. Further, as explained above, it is possible that the IRS could present its claim when property is being sold and collect both the original penalty amount along with accrued interest and applicable penalties.
(Note that a "lien" and a "levy" are two different things. A lien is a claim against property that does not involve the right to seize property, while a levy is a seizure of property. A lien does not allow the lienholder to sell another's property, but when property subject to the lien is sold, the lien establishes the right to receive proceeds from the sale of the property before they are distributed to the seller.)

In short, failure to pay the PPACA non-compliance penalty might result in the IRS' sending you warning letters and deducting the penalty amount from your future tax refunds (if you have any), but not throwing you in jail, forcibly taking money from your bank account, or seizing your house or other property. We have also found no provision of the PPACA or IRS code that would allow the federal government to suspend an individual's driver's license as a penalty for non-compliance with the individual mandate provision of the PPACA.

Last updated: 4 October 2013
Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/penalty.asp#DcivoGcoCrTTa3KV.99
Click to expand...

The Original Faceman · Feb 3, 2014

Tldr

garamet · Feb 3, 2014

Faceman said: ↑

Tldr
Click to expand...

But thanks for the placeholder.

Debunking Obamacare sob story
That horror story of the Obamacare fail for the Federal Way mom isn’t the horror it was made out to be. They usually aren’t.

Caboose · Feb 4, 2014

garamet said: ↑

Faceman said: ↑

garamet said: ↑

So, which will happen first?

Face, Castle, or some other random idiot posts "TLDR" or

Ancalagon about "Too many Obamacare thredz!!!111!"

Captain X posts "garamet is trolling, therefore I'm not posting in this thread!"

Click to expand...

This thread is about you.
Click to expand...

Because I showed everybody how predictable you are.

Where's Castle?
Click to expand...

Actually, the predictability was one where you were the target coming in right on tafkat's heels you did not disapoint.

garamet · Feb 4, 2014

Caboose said: ↑

garamet said: ↑

Faceman said: ↑

garamet said: ↑

So, which will happen first?

Face, Castle, or some other random idiot posts "TLDR" or

Ancalagon about "Too many Obamacare thredz!!!111!"

Captain X posts "garamet is trolling, therefore I'm not posting in this thread!"

Click to expand...

This thread is about you.
Click to expand...

Because I showed everybody how predictable you are.

Where's Castle?
Click to expand...

Actually, the predictability was one where you were the target coming in right on tafkat's heels you did not disapoint.
Click to expand...

"Posters Respond to Topics of Interest to Them...film at 11."

Log in or Sign up

Anatomy of an Obamacare "horror story"

tafkats scream not working because space make deaf Moderator

garamet "The whole world is watching."

tafkats scream not working because space make deaf Moderator

garamet "The whole world is watching."

The Original Faceman Lasagna Artist

garamet "The whole world is watching."

Dinner 2012 & 2014 Master Prognosticator

The Original Faceman Lasagna Artist

garamet "The whole world is watching."

garamet "The whole world is watching."

The Original Faceman Lasagna Artist

Volpone Zombie Hunter

Lanzman Vast, Cool and Unsympathetic Formerly Important

garamet "The whole world is watching."

Ten Lubak Salty Dog

garamet "The whole world is watching."

The Original Faceman Lasagna Artist

garamet "The whole world is watching."

The Original Faceman Lasagna Artist

garamet "The whole world is watching."

Caboose ....

garamet "The whole world is watching."

Log in or Sign up

Anatomy of an Obamacare "horror story"

tafkats scream not working because space make deaf Moderator

garamet "The whole world is watching."

tafkats scream not working because space make deaf Moderator

garamet "The whole world is watching."

The Original Faceman Lasagna Artist

garamet "The whole world is watching."

Dinner 2012 & 2014 Master Prognosticator

The Original Faceman Lasagna Artist

garamet "The whole world is watching."

garamet "The whole world is watching."

The Original Faceman Lasagna Artist

Volpone Zombie Hunter

Lanzman Vast, Cool and Unsympathetic Formerly Important

garamet "The whole world is watching."

Ten Lubak Salty Dog

garamet "The whole world is watching."

The Original Faceman Lasagna Artist

garamet "The whole world is watching."

The Original Faceman Lasagna Artist

garamet "The whole world is watching."

Caboose ....

garamet "The whole world is watching."

Useful Searches