Showing posts with label making shit up. Show all posts
Showing posts with label making shit up. Show all posts

Friday, August 26, 2022

Fox News pushed falsehood that the Inflation Reduction Act adds 87,000 new IRS employees more than 200 times


MATT GERTZ/Media Matters

 Fox News has promoted the false claim that the Inflation Reduction Act adds 87,000 employees to the Internal Revenue Service at least 203 times since Senate Democrats announced the bill’s framework on August 5, according to a Media Matters review of the network’s programming. That false talking point fuels Fox’s incendiary smear that President Joe Biden is turning the IRS into a “new Gestapo” that will “hunt down and kill middle-class taxpayers.”

The IRA, which Biden signed into law on August 16, includes $80 billion over the next decade in additional funding for the IRS. A portion of those funds would support tougher tax enforcement targeted at Americans making more than $400,000, which the Congressional Budget Office estimates would raise $204 billion. The net gain of $124 billion, along with prescription drug pricing reform and tax increases on billion-dollar corporations, helps the bill fund investments in clean energy and health care while also reducing the deficit by over $300 billion over 10 years. 

Republicans and their right-wing media supporters oppose increased funding for the IRS; they prefer to hobble tax enforcement so that wealthy people can continue to cheat on their taxes with impunity. GOP politicians spent years defunding the tax police and have focused their IRA criticism on this provision, deceptively warning that the bill creates a “new army of 87,000 IRS agents” who “will be coming for you,” in the words of House minority leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA). 

Fox has played a key role in stoking right-wing ire against the IRS, including by spreading the false claim that the bill would lead to the hiring of 87,000 employees at least 203 times. The talking point has been commonplace both on “news side” programs like The Faulkner Focus (20 instances), America’s Newsroom (15), and America Reports (12), and on “opinion side” shows like Fox & Friends First (23 instances), Fox & Friends (16), The Ingraham Angle (15), Tucker Carlson Tonight (12), and Hannity (10). The purported 87,000 new hires were specifically described as “agents” at least 169 times.  

But it is false to claim that the IRA provides for 87,000 IRS hires, agents or not. The IRS has not announced any hiring plans in response to the IRA — the figure comes from a separate Treasury Department proposal from 2021 detailing what the IRS could do with additional funding, which predates that bill. That proposal includes 87,000 new hires across all positions, including secretarial and IT staff, not strictly auditors or “agents.” GOP-driven budget cuts in recent years have reduced the IRS headcount to near-1974 levels, and the hiring plan is meant to address a major loss of employees to retirement and “simply maintain current levels,” according to PolitiFact.

Fox has also regularly promoted the wildly inflammatory and false claim that the new IRS hires would all be armed, doing so at least 40 times over the same period, 9 of which came on Fox star Tucker Carlson’s program. That’s a conflation of a separate talking point the right has used to fearmonger about the IRS. In fact, as the network’s White House correspondent Jacqui Heinrich has noted on Twitter, only a tiny fraction of the service’s employees belong to the Criminal Investigation division, a century-old unit whose special agents carry firearms because they handle dangerous cases involving crimes like public corruption, narcotics, and money laundering.

These Fox falsehoods are part of a wave of right-wing demagoguery targeting the IRS. As I noted last week after Carlson alleged that the Biden administration is hiring “87,000 armed IRS agents to make sure you obey”:

Carlson’s falsehood follows a week of unhinged demagoguery from Fox and others in the right-wing media that links the new IRS funding with the Mar-a-Lago search as dark signs that the Biden administration has weaponized the government against Americans. Fox pundits have described the potential wave of IRS hiring as an “economic, financial militia against regular people” deployed by those who “want to control you”; a “new army” that will “hunt down and kill middle class taxpayers”; a “new Gestapo” Biden will use in an “abusive, corrupt manner”; “a Praetorian Guard that will be unleashed again” to “grab all the cash they can by any means necessary”; and “part of an orchestrated campaign to target Americans and have the federal government be at war with those Americans.”

The virulence of the right-wing attacks on the IRS has triggered concerns that its employees may be subject to violence. On Tuesday, IRS Commissioner Charles Rettig announced “a full security review of its facilities nationwide” in light of staff safety concerns, The Washington Post reported. Rettig, a Trump appointee, suggested that Republican criticisms of the service are fueling far-right extremism and threats.

That isn’t giving Fox hosts a reason for pause. On Tuesday, Laura Ingraham once again falsely claimed that the IRA funds “87,000 IRS agents,” and described Rettig’s statement as “preemptive action against its critics” by the Biden administration.

Methodology

Media Matters searched transcripts in the SnapStream video database for all original programming on Fox News Channel for any of the terms “Internal Revenue Service,” “IRS,” “Inflation Reduction Act,” or “IRA” or any variation of the phrase “tax enforcement” within close proximity of any of the terms “hire,” “employee,” “personnel,” “agent,” “armed,” “87,000,” “87000,” “87 thousand,” “eighty-seven thousand,” “80 billion,” or “eighty billion” from August 5, 2022, through August 23, 2022.

We counted segments, which we defined as instances when the Internal Revenue Service funding provision of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA) was the stated topic of discussion or instances when we found significant discussion of the provision. We defined significant discussion as instances when two or more speakers in the multitopic segment discussed the provision with one another. We also included passing mentions, which we defined as instances when a speaker mentioned the provision in a segment about another topic without another speaker engaging with the comment, and teasers, which we defined as instances when the anchor or host promoted a segment about the provision scheduled to air later in the broadcast.

We then reviewed all segments, mentions, and teasers for any claims suggesting that the IRA funding for the IRS would result in the hiring of 87,000 new employees. Within those claims, we also noted when speakers described the employees as “agents” or “armed.”

We split Fox programs into “news” and “opinion” sides. We defined “news” programs as those with anchors, such as Bret Baier or Martha MacCallum, at the helm, while we defined “opinion” programs as those with hosts, such as Tucker Carlson or Laura Ingraham. We used the designations from each anchor or host’s author page on FoxNews.com. We also considered the format of the program; we defined those using a panel format, such as Outnumbered and The Five, as opinion programs.

Right-wing media erroneously claim Biden “facilitated” search of Mar-a-Lago

 CYDNEY HARGIS & CHARIS HOARD/Media Matters

In their latest attempt to dismiss the hundreds of classified documents found at Mar-a-Largo, right-wing media coalesced around a bogus claim that President Joe Biden “facilitated” the search by rejecting former President Donald Trump’s executive privilege. 

On August 8, the FBI executed a judge-approved search warrant of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence as part of an investigation into possible mishandling of classified documents. Earlier this year, reports surfaced that the National Archives and Records Administration had retrieved 15 boxes of White House records from Mar-a-Lago in January, some of which contained classified materials. 

According to a recent report from The New York Times, over 300 classified documents have been seized from Trump’s Florida property over the course of three searches since January. Trump has since filed a motion asking for a special master to review the documents seized by the FBI, which would block the Department of Justice from further reviewing the documents until that third-party arbitrator is appointed, and return any property not within the scope of the search warrant. If a federal judge approves Trump’s request, it could delay a federal criminal investigation into whether Trump violated the Espionage Act and the Presidential Records Act. 

The August 8 search came after months of reported resistance from the Trump team; according to a May 10 letter from U.S. Acting Archivist Debra Steidel Wall to Trump lawyer Evan Corcoran released this week, Trump tried to delay the FBI’s review of the retrieved records and his lawyers consistently asked for more time to determine if the records included documents they considered protected by executive privilege. In the letter, Steidel Wall wrote that government lawyers determined that executive privilege rests with the current president, not a former one, and that Biden “defers to [her] determination” whether the FBI could view the records. After consulting with the Department of Justice, she ultimately decided not to honor Trump's claim of executive privilege, which allowed the FBI to begin viewing the documents. 

On Monday, August 22, conservative journalist and Trump liaison to the National Archives John Solomon published the Steidel Wall-Corcoran letter on his website Just the News in an attempt to prove that the Biden White House sparked the investigation by choosing to waive executive privilege. Despite zero evidence, right-wing media ran with the report and accused Biden of “siccing the FBI” on his political opposition.

Legal experts dispute Trump’s claims, and historical context confirms executive privilege can be revoked 

Conservative media have repeatedly framed rejecting Trump's claim of executive privilege as an extreme step that ignited the FBI's search of his Florida residence. This view ignores the fact that the former president was under investigation for mishandling classified documents for months prior to Steidel Wall's decision, that the current administration is well within its right to reject claims of executive privilege, and that the Biden administration is not the only one to have done it. 

  • National security lawyer Bradley Moss: “Ironically, Trump’s media guy shows how NARA was bending over backwards for Trump before it finally gave the FBI access to the classified records.” [Twitter, 8/23/22]  
  • Executive privilege is for the benefit of the republic, not the individual. According to forum Just Security, which provides legal analysis and is based out of the New York University Law School, the 1977 Supreme Court case Nixon v. GSA made it clear that executive privilege is “a governmental privilege, not a personal privilege.” Executive privilege, therefore, can be waived by the current president, even if it is asserted by the former president, especially when such a veto would benefit the enforcement of existing laws and statutes — such as the ones at question in the ongoing FBI investigation. [Just Security, 11/4/21]
  • The Supreme Court ruled that executive privilege is not unlimited, even for a sitting president. In the 1974 case United States v. Nixon, the Supreme Court found that the current president’s communications with advisers pertaining to “the process of shaping policies and making decisions” were privileged. However, that privilege yielded to a special prosecutor's need to obtain evidence as part of a criminal investigation. [Time, 10/8/21]
  • Biden is not the only president to reject a former president’s claims of executive privilege. Former President George W. Bush invoked executive privilege over White House documents related to the CIA’s advanced interrogation techniques. However, in 2014, former President Barack Obama rejected the privilege claim and released the documents as part of an ongoing court case. [Just Security, 9/30/21]

Right-wing media still baselessly claim that Biden “facilitated” the FBI’s search

  • Fox host Sean Hannity: “The Biden White House in fact actually facilitated the DOJ’s probe against” Trump. During the August 23 edition of his Fox News show, Hannity cited Solomon’s article to claim that the White House “facilitated” the search at Mar-a-Lago by waiving Trump’s claim of executive privilege. Hannity said that in doing so, the Biden administration “was actively paving the way for the FBI’s investigation into documents from Trump’s time as president that Trump had every legal right to possess.” [Fox News, Hannity8/23/22]
  • Fox’s Tucker Carlson: “If you have a political opponent, you just imprison him.” During the August 23 edition of Tucker Carlson Tonight, host Tucker Carlson implied the Solomon report confirmed what he knew all along — that the Biden administration coordinated with the DOJ on the criminal probe into Trump. Carlson concluded that Trump is running for president in 2024 and “they want to stop him. It’s what you do in the third world. If you have a political opponent, you just imprison him.” [Fox News, Tucker Carlson Tonight8/23/22]
  • Fox’s Jesse Watters: “Joe Biden has now been directly implicated in the raid on Mar-a-Lago.” Fox host Jesse Watters cited Solomon’s article during the August 23 edition of his show, Jesse Watters Primetime, to try claiming the president was “implicated in the raid” in Florida. Watters asserted that because Biden waived Trump’s claim of executive privilege, “that set the raid in motion.” Watters went on to say that “Biden’s White House had the chance to calm things down, but instead they set fire to Trump’s executive privilege and triggered a raid on his house.” [Fox News, Jesse Watters Primetime8/23/22]
  • Hannity: Biden personally intervened “to undermine President Trump’s claims of executive privilege.” During the August 23 edition of Premiere Radio Networks’ The Sean Hannity Show, Hannity baselessly claimed that John Solomon’s documents conclusively prove that Biden pushed his Department of Justice to “investigate records stored at” Mar-a-Lago with “President Biden personally intervening to undermine President Trump’s claims of executive privilege.” [Premiere Radio Networks, The Sean Hannity Show8/23/22]
  • Hannity asked Solomon if the DOJ’s “ultimate goal” is to arrest and charge Trump. During that same episode, Hannity conducted an interview with Solomon, asking if the Biden administration’s “ultimate goal here is to arrest Donald Trump and charge Donald Trump.” Solomon replied that there isn’t enough evidence to know yet, but laid out a timeline that implied the administration waived Trump’s executive privilege in order to “[raid] his home.” Hannity responded that the people running this investigation are “the same liars that have been there since the day he came down the escalator.” [Premiere Radio Networks, The Sean Hannity Show8/23/22]
  • Solomon: “Joe Biden himself was at the ignition point of this investigation.” During the August 23 edition of War Room: Pandemic, Solomon told host Steve Bannon that Biden “was at the ignition point of this investigation.” He went on to baselessly claim that Biden was “involved in siccing the FBI on his — on the leader of the political opposition party.” [Real America’s Voice, War Room: Pandemic8/23/22]
  • Mark Levin: “I knew it; Biden knew, the White House knew, they’re all behind it.” On his show Monday night, Mark Levin spoke about Solomon’s article, saying that “the memos provide the most definitive evidence to date of the current White House’s effort to facilitate a criminal probe of" Trump. He continued to dramatize the extent of the White House’s involvement, such as “eliminating one of the legal defenses that Trump might use to fight the FBI over access to his documents,” referring to the Biden administration’s denial of Trump’s claim on executive privilege. [Westwood One, The Mark Levin Show8/22/22]
  • Trump: “They Knew Everything.” In a post on Truth Social on Tuesday, the former president stated that he was told the White House “[was] NOT INVOLVED. … & that they didn’t know anything at all about the Break-In of Mar-a-Lago.” Trump also praised the “great reporting” of Solomon, saying that Solomon’s reporting on the subpoena documents revealed how the Biden administration in fact “led the charge” on the searches of Mar-a-Lago. [The Gateway Pundit, 8/23/22]
  • The Daily Caller claimed the White House “was involved with the DOJ probe” into classified documents at Mar-a-Lago. The Daily Caller relied entirely on Solomon’s reporting in an August 23 article that claimed Biden was involved in the FBI search. The Daily Caller went on to write that waiving executive privilege “effectively eliminated a legal defense” for Trump. [The Daily Caller, 8/23/22]

Tuesday, June 06, 2017

Trump blatantly lies while smearing London’s mayor for second straight day

Aaron Rupar/Think Progress

On Monday morning, President Trump told a blatant lie while smearing London Mayor Sadiq Khan for the second straight day.


Trump’s tweet takes out of context a comment Khan made following an attack in London on Saturday that left seven dead and dozens wounded. During a TV interview Sunday morning, Khan said, “My message to Londoners and visitors to our great city is to be calm and vigilant today. You will see an increased police presence today, including armed officers and uniformed officers. There is no reason to be alarmed by this.”

Khan’s “no reason to be alarmed” comment clearly referred to the extra police presence in London, not the weekend’s attacks themselves. But on Sunday, Trump distorted Khan’s words to suggest he’s is taking a laissez-faire approach to acts of violence.


Trump’s tweet was echoed by his White House social media director.

And Trump’s mischaracterization of Khan was amplified by his favorite morning TV showFox & Friends, which devoted a segment on Monday to criticizing the London mayor. (Trump live-tweeted another part of Monday’s show.)


The president’s decision to smear the mayor of London in the immediate aftermath of an attack on his city was widely condemned. Khan‘s spokesperson responded with a statement saying that the mayor “has more important things to do than respond to Donald Trump’s ill-informed tweet that deliberately takes out of context his remarks urging Londoners not to be alarmed when they saw more police — including armed officers — on the streets.”
Later Sunday, Lew Lukens, chargé d’affaires ad interim of the U.S. Embassy in London, contradicted Trump and tweeted that London’s response to the attack was “extraordinary” while praising Khan’s leadership.
 
But instead of walking his comments back or echoing what the top American diplomat in the U.K. had to say, Trump on Monday elected to double down on smears and lies.
This isn’t the first time the Trump family has taken Khan’s words out of context in an effort to smear him. Following an attack in London in March that killed, Donald Trump Jr. tweeted this:
But when the quote is read in context, it’s clear Khan was simply encouraging Londoners to be vigilant.
“Part and parcel of living in a great global city is you have to be prepared for these sorts of things, you have to be vigilant, you have to support the police doing an incredibly hard job, you have to support the security services,” Khan said.
Khan become London’s first Muslim mayor in May 2016. As ThinkProgress wrote at the time, he triumphed “after a nasty campaign in which his opponents tried to use his faith to tie him to ‘radical’ and ‘extremist’ figures.”
Shortly after becoming mayor, Khan criticized Trump’s proposed Muslim ban, saying Trump’s “ignorant view of Islam could make both our countries less safe — it risks alienating mainstream Muslims around the world and plays in to the hands of the extremists.”
“I want Donald Trump to come to London so I can introduce myself to him as a mainstream Muslim, very, very comfortable with Western liberal values, but also introduce him to hundreds of thousands, dare I say millions of Muslims in this country, who love being British, love being Western,” Khan added.
Trump responded by calling Khan “ignorant” and challenging him to an IQ test.
“I think they were very rude statements and, frankly, tell him I will remember those statements. They are very nasty statements,” Trump said. “When he won I wished him well. Now, I don’t care about him.”
In February, Khan publicly advocated for denying Trump a state visit, characterizing the new president’s immigration policies as “cruel” and his Muslim ban proposal as a particular outrage.
Trump used the latest attack in London to once again agitate for his Muslim ban, which is currently mired in federal courts. Instead of extending his condolences or offering help, Trump’s first public comment following Saturday’s violence in London said: “We need to be smart, vigilant and tough. We need the courts to give us back our rights. We need the Travel Ban as an extra level of safety!”

Saturday, June 03, 2017

Watch an economist call out CNN for hosting a Koch-backed Trump surrogate to lie about the Paris accord

From Media Matters



JEFFREY SACHS: It's just unbelievable. Every word has been a lie for the last two days. So much ignorance. And you have Stephen Moore and he is from the Heritage Foundation, paid for by the Koch brothers have engineered the whole story here. So it's just endless. Big money of the Koch brothers is behind this. And Mr. Moore and his Heritage Foundation is a Koch brothers-financed operation and this is corruption. And it's so clear and it's disgusting after a while because they are all lying.
ANA CABRERA (HOST): Jeffrey, this study was the National Economic Research Associates study that Stephen was just citing that we've heard from the Trump administration. Why do you not believe that's a credible source?
SACHS: There are about 20,000 coal miners in this country out of 150 million people. This is so bogus, it's unbelievable. Everything that Trump has said is bogus. And the idea that he has given to the American people that somehow this is an agreement that is against America, that's biased against America. This is a completely symmetrical agreement in which all 193 countries have agreed to the same thing. They have agreed to submit national plans of action under a common framework. And so it's all a lie. And the important thing for your viewers to understand is this is the future of their children and their grandchildren. And this man is wrecking the planet and it's because of the oil, gas, and coal interests that have funded the Heritage Foundation, that have funded Stephen Moore, and that have funded the 22 senators that wrote to the president last week saying to do this. This is a game and it's a game against my children and my grandchildren. And it's disgusting.
CABRERA: Stephen, I'll give you a chance to respond.
STEPHEN MOORE: Well, Jeff just needs to get his facts straight. We get less than three percent of our budget from the Kochs. So, Jeff I don't know where you're getting your facts from, but what you just said is a lie.
SACHS: I know where I'm getting my facts from. You're on the take.
[...]
SACHS: I'm shocked that you are a [contributor] for this network.

EPA chief cites flawed NYT column to justify Trump’s exit from Paris deal

Joe Romm/Think Progress
At the daily White House press briefing on Friday, one day after the Trump administration withdrew the U.S. from the Paris climate agreement, Press Secretary Sean Spicer handed the podium to EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt. Pruitt then ably provided the kind of nonstop falsehoods and misinformation the press and public have come to expect.
Pruitt said he didn’t know why people call him a “climate denier,” and then proceeded to quote and misquote Bret Stephens — the New York Times’ new columnist who has been widely criticized for spreading misinformation on climate change — as a basis for denying basic climate science.
Here’s the video, in which Pruitt tries to defend President Donald Trump’s catastrophic decision to exit the Paris climate deal:
First, Pruitt says some people call him a “climate denier,” but adds, “I don’t even know what it means to deny the climate.”
“Climate denier” is a shorthand for someone who rejects the well-established science of climate change. If you want to know why people call you a climate (science) denier, keep reading.
Pruitt then starts to quote from “Climate of Complete Certainty,” a recent column written by Stephens in the New York Times. That column, along with those that followed, was widely debunked by climate scientists and others weeks ago.
But here’s the most stunning aspect of that. The “very important quote,” as Pruitt called it, is actually a misquote: Pruitt eliminated the portion where Stephens, widely viewed as a climate misinformer, said the fact that the planet has warmed is “indisputable.”
Here is the key part of what Pruitt quotes (emphasis added):
“Anyone who has read the 2014 report of the IPCC knows that, while the modest 0.85 degrees Celsius warming of the earth has occurred since 1880much else that passes as accepted fact is really a matter of probabilities….”
Except that’s not what Stephens wrote, as you can see at the New York Times website:
“Anyone who has read the 2014 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change knows that, while the modest (0.85 degrees Celsius, or about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit) warming of the earth since 1880 is indisputable, as is the human influence on that warming, much else that passes as accepted fact is really a matter of probabilities….”
Yes, without informing the press or the public who were listening, Pruitt simply misquoted and rewrote the part where Stephens said the 1.5°F (0.85°C) warming since 1880 is “indisputable, as is the human influence on that warming.”
Stephens’ line is full of factual errors in itself. Indeed, dozens of scientists signed a letter debunking Stephens, and the Times even issued a correction for most egregious of his errors in that sentence.
But in his desperation to justify his boss’ unjustifiable decision, EPA chief Scott Pruitt can’t even bring himself to admit what Stephens admits — that both global warming and the human influence on that warming is “indisputable.”

So the man in charge of all environmental policy for this country can’t even utter the words conceded by a professional “climate change bullshitter,” as Vox labeled Stephens. Pruitt has more than earned the title “climate denier.”

Saturday, November 02, 2013

Report: Benghazi witness was nowhere near diplomatic compound during terrorist attack

By Travis Gettys/Raw Story
A security subcontractor who gave his account to CBS “60 Minutes” of the events leading up to the fatal attack at Benghazi had previously told his employers he was nowhere near the diplomatic compound at the time, according to a Washington Postreport.
The Oct. 27 television report was based on a yearlong investigation by reporter Lara Logan and producer Max McCellan and featured an interview with a man identified by the pseudonym “Morgan Jones,” who was described as “a security officer who witnessed the attack.”
A Fox News correspondent said the following day that the network had been working on a story with the same security officer, but those efforts ended when he asked for money in exchange for his participation.
Threshold Editions, which specializes in “conservative non-fiction,” published a bookTuesday by the same source, called The Embassy House: The Explosive Eyewitness Account of the Libyan Embassy Siege by the Soldier Who Was There.
The Washington Post report, published Thursday, said the book largely backs up the account provided to “60 Minutes,” but the newspaper says the source provided a written account to his employers three days after the attack that he’d spent the night of the Sept. 11, 2012, terrorist attack at his own beachside villa in Benghazi.
“We could not get anywhere near (the diplomatic compound) as roadblocks had been set up,” said the security contractor, whose real name was confirmed as Dylan Davies by officials who’d worked with him in Libya.
The newspaper reported that Davies provided a 2 ½-page incident report to his employer, Blue Mountain, the British contractor hired by the State Department to guard the compound’s perimeter.
Davies said he learned U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens had been killed in the raid showed him a cell phone photo of the diplomat’s charred remains, and the security officer visited the still-smoking compound the following day to photograph what was left.
The “60 Minutes” report claimed the security officer had scaled a 12-foot wall while it was still overrun with Al Qaeda forces, and Davies said on the program that he’d personally struck one of the terrorists in the face with the butt of his rifle.
He also told “60 Minutes” that he’d gone to the hospital and seen Stevens’ body.
Davies told CBS that he and a Foreign Service officer had been worried about security at the compound.
The security officer’s co-author told The Washington Post that Davies may have been dishonest in his incident report because his employer had asked him to stay away from the compound after he was told of the attack by telephone.
A CBS spokesman told the newspaper that the network stands firmly behind its story as it aired Sunday.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) used the “60 Minutes” report to justify calling Monday for additional hearings into Benghazi and threatened to block Senate appointments until lawmakers had heard from all the surviving witnesses to the attack.
However, Graham conceded Wednesday that witnesses have already been questioned by members of Congress, but their testimony hasn’t been publicly released because the investigations are still ongoing.
David Brock, chairman of Media Matters, has called on CBS to retract its Benghazi report based on the security officer’s comments.

Friday, November 01, 2013

How To Spot A Fake Obamacare Horror Story

BY IGOR VOLSKY/Think Progress
Since insurers have begun informing beneficiaries that their health care plans do not meet the new federal requirements of Obamacare, and will be either cancelled or significantly altered, the media has profiled countless middle class Americans who claim that the new health care law will force them to pay more for coverage.
Deborah Cavallaro, for instance, a real estate agent from Los Angeles, was enrolled in an individual plan that cost her just $293 per month. Under Obamacare, Cavallaro says she’ll have to pay over $400 for coverage she doesn’t need or want. But a higher premium doesn’t tell the whole story: while Cavallaro may spend more each month, she’ll be buying more comprehensive insurance with fewer out-of-pocket costs, better benefits that will cover more and cost her less if she actually falls ill, and much more robust consumer protections.
So before you buy into the sticker shock hysteria, here are four questions you should ask:
1. What does the old plan actually cover? Most of the policies in the existing individual health care market — which are currently issuing notices — offer low premiums, but also come with skimpy benefits and high out-of-pocket costs. These plans often have low limits for outpatient treatment, hospitalization or don’t offer any benefits for procedures like colonoscopy, chemotherapy or mental health treatment. Insurers market these policies to young and healthy people who don’t use their coverage — and never know the true extent of their benefits. (The market is also fairly mobile, with just 17 percent of individual subscribers purchasing the same plan for two years or longer.)
Under the Affordable Care Act, insurers cover 10 essential categories of benefits, offering far more comprehensive coverage than what’s available in most individual insurance plans.
2. Did this person go to the exchanges? Insurers informing policy holders that their health care costs will go up, often direct beneficiaries to their other brand products without telling them about competitive options and prices available through the exchanges. Cavallaro, for instance, got a quote from a broker, but did not explore the available options on her own.
Prices are lowest in areas with the most insurer competition. An analysis from the McKinsey Center for U.S. Health System Reform found that “new entrants into the market make up 26 percent of all insurers,” and “tend to price their plans lower than the median premiums in their market.” The average premium in the exchanges is 16 percent lower than previously projected.
3. Yes, the premium is low, but what are the co-pays and deductibles? This coverage often forces individuals who do use care to meet high deductibles — the amount you pay out-of-pocket before your insurance kicks in — pay high co-pays and co-insurance or limit the number of doctor visits that are allowed. Cavallaro, for instance, must meet a deductible of $5,000 a year and has an out-of-pocket cap of $8,500 a year. The plan covers just two doctors’ visits and each include a $40 co-pay.
As the LA Times’ Michael Hiltzik points out in California, Cavallaro could sign-up for a Silver level plan with a $2,000 deductible, maximum out-of-pocket cost of $6,350, pay $45 for a primary care visit and $65 for a specialty visit — “but all visits would be covered, not just two.”
The health law sets exchange enrollees’ maximum annual out-of-pocket costs at $6,350, and silver plans have deductibles ranging from $1,500 to $5,000.
4. Does this person qualify for subsidies? Americans between 100 and 400 percent of the federal poverty line ($46,000 for an individual, or about $78,000 for a family of three) qualify for tax credits under the law. Six of the 7 millionindividuals who are expected to sign up for insurance through the exchange will receive an average tax credit of $5,290 per year.
Cavallaro “qualifies her for a hefty federal premium subsidy,” Hiltzik reports and can purchase a silver plan for $333, $40 more than she’s paying now. A cheaper bronze plan would be in the $200s.