home
USA News_Sen. Ted Cruz's 21-hour talkathon and President Obama's joint presence with previous president Clinton will keep Factcheck.org occupied briefly, yet so far they've seen their allotment of false, deluding and not-exactly right proclamations:
• Cruz erroneously guaranteed that the mates of 15,000 UPS workers will be "left without health protection" and constrained into "a trade with no head honcho subsidy." UPS is dropping scope for companions just assuming that they can get protection with their own particular business.
CRUZ: Marathon Obamacare dissent one for the ages
• Obama significantly exaggerated when he credited the medicinal services law for bowing the expense bend on human services using. Specialists say the down economy is the moving explanation for why that national health awareness using has been developing at generally abate rates as of late.
• Cruz said the "IRS workers union has asked to be exempted from Obamacare." Not so. The union needs its specialists to be treated as any possible laborer with boss furnished health protection. It restricts a GOP charge that it says, in opposition to law, might "take scope far from workers who as of recently get it through their
• Cruz said the unemployment rate for dark youngsters "is over 10 times higher than it is for school graduates — 38.2%." True, yet that is contrasting fruits with oranges. The unemployment rate for white adolescents, matured 16 to 19, is additionally high, at 20.5%. There's still a racial uniqueness, however the rate is almost twofold, not 10 times higher.
• Cruz refered to an antiquated quote from Mark Zandi, boss economist of Moody's Analytics, to go down his case that Obamacare is moderating work development. Zandi let us know the log jam in work development at modest organizations is "no more drawn out the case."
• Sen. Rand Paul wrongly contended that "everyone is set to pay more" for health protection under the law. The actuality is, some will pay more and some will pay less. Some as of now uninsured Americans will pay small or nothing as a result of the law's development of Medicaid.
• Cruz said Obama guaranteed three-and-a-half years prior — in 2010, when the Affordable Care Act was passed — that premiums "might drop $2,500? for the normal family by the finish of his first term. That is not precisely what the president said or when he said it.
Investigation
Cruz, the young recruit representative from Texas, appropriated the Senate floor for 21 hours in a rankling ambush on the Affordable Care Act. He even took a swipe at reality checkers, calling their specialty "an especially poisonous touch of yellow reporting that has sprung up that lets columnists be article journalists and imagine they are discussing destination truths." That's his assessment, and he's qualified for it. At the same time, as Daniel Patrick Moynihan said, individuals are not qualified for "their own actualities," and that might incorporate Cruz and Obama.
In this way, wouldn't it be great if we could perceive how they
UPS SPOUSES 'LEFT WITHOUT HEALTH INSURANCE'?
Cruz, whose discourse started the evening of Sept. 24, dishonestly asserted that the companions of 15,000 UPS workers will be "left without health protection" and compelled into "a trade with no business subsidy." UPS is dropping scope for mates just provided that they can get protection with their own particular manager.
Cruz: Just a couple of weeks prior UPS sent a letter to in the ballpark of 15,000 representatives colloquialism: We are dropping spousal health protection in light of Obamacare. That is 15,000 UPS workers who had protection for their spouses and wives, and abruptly those spouses and wives are left without health protection and being told: Go on a trade with no business subsidy.
This adulterates the effect that the UPS choice will have on mates. It's correct that UPS in August educated its workers that as of Jan. 1, 2014, it might no more extended expand health protection scope to "working mates" who are qualified to get scope from their own particular businesses. "Since the Affordable Care Act requires executives to furnish competitive scope, we accept your mate ought to be secured by their own particular management — all in all as U.p.s. has an authority to offer scope to you, our worker," UPS said in a reminder to workers.
Yet UPS said that it is "pressing on to blanket mates who either don't work, or work for executives that don't give health profits." UPS said it presently blankets in the vicinity of 33,000 companions and it evaluates that in the vicinity of 15,000 of the aforementioned can get protection through their businesses.
Cruz specified UPS twice. The first occasion when he utilized it — rightly — to show the indiscretion of President Obama's swear up and down to that "you can keep your own particular protection." As we've said, Obama can't make such a guarantee. Those working mates of UPS workers won't have the ability to keep their protection. Still, Cruz is wrong to say that those mates will be "left without
OBAMA EXAGGERATES Law's IMPACT ON 'COST CURVE'
President Obama spoke with previous President Bill Clinton before a live gathering of people at the Clinton Global Initiative Health Care Forum in New York on Sept. 24. Obama enormously exaggerated when he credited the human services law for bowing the expense bend on human services using. Specialists say the down economy is the moving excuse for why that national human services using has been developing at generally moderate rates lately.
Obama, Sept. 24: [b]ecause of these progressions we started as far as how we're paying suppliers, social insurance fetches have developed, as you brought up, Mr. President, at the slowest rate in 50 years. We are bowing the expense bend and getting at the issues that are making our shortfalls in Medicare and Medicaid.
Clinton had prior bragged of the moderate rate of development in national health awareness using — a measure that incorporates using by the administration, organizations and people — maxim that "[i]n the most recent three years, exactly as we began doing this, expansion in health awareness costs has dropped to 4% for three years in succession without precedent in 50 years."
Actually, the measure is health awareness using, not sets back the ol' finances, yet truly the development has been 4% in 2009, 2010 and 2011, the least rate of development since the information were initially gathered in 1960 by the National Health Expenditure Accounts (see Table 3). Furthermore that is relied upon to proceed through 2013. However what amount of that is because of the Affordable Care Act? Specialists say it may have assumed some part, however the fundamental purpose behind slower development in using is the once-floundering and as of now recouping economy.
The Kaiser Family Foundation investigated the pattern and discovered that the economy was answerable for 77% of the moderate development rate. Besides, the study said, the rate of development is relied upon to expand as the economy presses on to
KFF study, April 2013: Based on measurable investigation of 50 years of health using and investment inclines, the study uncovers that the economy, incorporating variables, for example Gross Domestic Product development and swelling, transforms a major however postponed impact on the country's health using. This impact extends over a time of six years, implying that the subsidence that finished in 2009 will press on to hose health awareness using for numerous more years and that using will build step by step as the economy fortifies.
The slower development likewise started in 2009, in the witness of the law was marked.
In 2011, specialists at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services indicated the economy as the explanation behind slower development in using: "Job misfortunes made numerous individuals lose head honcho supported health protection and, in a few cases, to swear off social insurance administrations they couldn't manage."
That is not to say the social insurance law didn't assume some part, but an altogether littler one. The Kaiser Family Foundation study, led with the Altarum Institute's Center for Sustainable Health Spending, said that the remaining 23% of the lull in development was because of "progressions in the health awareness framework, conceivably incorporating higher deductibles and other cost-offering that hose patients' utilization of administrations, and in addition different types of administered forethought and conveyance framework updates." The study said it "can't confirm the differentiate effect of these variables."
In this way, a few progressions in the human services framework, which could be a consequence of the law, were a component. Specialists told the New York Times in February that the law might have helped updates in how safety net providers pay suppliers, by offering monetary motivating forces. Furthermore there's been an exertion in social insurance to decrease waste and limit rehospitalizations. The Times said: "Health specialists say they don't yet completely comprehend what is driving the more level using trajectory. Yet there is a developing agreement that updates in how specialists and healing facilities convey medicinal services — instead of only a frail economy — are playing
This isn't the first run through Obama, or Clinton, bragged of the aforementioned low rates of using development. Throughout his State of the Union address in the not so distant future, Obama said the ACA "is serving to abate the development of health awareness costs." This time, he straight expressed that the moderate development was "on account of these progressions we launched as far as how we're paying suppliers." And at the 2012 Democratic National Convention, Clinton recommended the law was the purpose behind the log jam.
The ACA pushes for new installment demonstrates, as Obama said, for example paying for conclusions and supporting facilitated consideration. The Kaiser Family Foundation report said "significant reserve funds" were required to originate from Medicare, because of the law's decrease in the development of installments to social insurance suppliers and safety net providers. In any case much of that part of the law hasn't been executed yet. Says the study, in talking of what's to come: "Changes in the conveyance framework – through responsible forethought associations (Acos) and bunched installments to suppliers – might additionally yield results and serve to keep "overabundance" health takes down out in the open programs, and in addition in private protection."
The law is additionally anticipated that will build using as additional Americans buy health protection, some gaining government subsidies to do so or joining Medicaid. The Kaiser Family Foundation report said the law might make "a humble one-opportunity build in health using" on account of that.
In any case, once more, predominantly its the economy that is driving using. What's more the development rate is required to build in impending years as the economy further recoups. The Office of the Actuary for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services evaluates the development at 6.1% for 2014, and close to 6%'
IRS EMPLOYEES AND THE 'TRAIN WRECK'
Cruz said the "IRS representatives union has asked to be exempted from Obamacare." Not so.
Cruz: There is an excuse for why the IRS representatives union has asked to be exempted from Obamacare. These are the fellows who are accountable for implementing it on whatever is left of us. They have asked to be absolved since it is not meeting expectations. The realities are clear. It is a train wreck. As the lead creator Democratic congressperson put it: It is a train wreck.
Cruz is alluding to the National Treasury Employees Union, which speaks to over 150,000 office and section representatives, incorporating the IRS laborers.
However the union hasn't "asked to be exempted" from the law. NTEU contradicts H.r. 1780, a bill from Rep. Dave Camp, which might move elected representatives — incorporating the president, VP, parts of Congress and different workers as characterized by Title 5, Section 2105 of the U.s. Code — out of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program and into health plans or protection trades made under the Affordable Care Act.
The union doesn't have an issue with the human services law, however. Actually, it restricts Camp's enactment in light of the fact that the bill goes against the expectation of the law.
The union drafted a specimen letter for its parts to send to their agents in Congress, requesting that them restrict the enactment. It says the law's objective was "not to take scope far from representatives who as of recently get it through their head honchos."
NETU test letter: H.r. 1780 might put elected workers in an unique class where they might be restricted from accepting health protection through their management. It might treat elected workers uniquely in contrast to state and neighborhood government representatives and most representatives of extensive private division organizations who get health protection profits through their boss. The main role of the Affordable Care Act was to furnish a commercial center for the bargain and buy of health protection for the individuals who don't have such scope — not to take scope far from workers who recently appropriate it throughtheir employers.
Cruz claimed that the IRS union was seeking "to be exempted" because Obamacare is a "train wreck," attributing the phrase to the bill's lead author, Sen. Max Baucus. Cruz said, "As the lead author Democratic senator put it: It is a train wreck." We've already debunked that claim. As we've written, Baucus was only referring to how the law was being implemented this spring — not the law itself.
At an April budget hearing, the Montana Democrat upbraided Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius for her department's lack of planning to properly implement the law, and warned of "a huge train wreck coming down." Baucus "was clearly commenting specifically on a concern he had regarding one aspect of implementation of the law — the rollout of the public awareness campaign," Meaghan Smith, an aide to the senator, told us.
Baucus is no longer concerned about that, however. In a Sept. 16 interview with Fox Business Network's Stuart Varney, Baucus said "I don't expect a train wreck" when the exchanges open for business on Oct. 1.
RACIAL DISPARITY IN UNEMPLOYMENT RATES
Cruz cited an apples-to-oranges comparison of unemployment rates while making a point about how Obamacare disproportionately hurts minorities.
Cruz: If you are lucky enough to be a college graduate, your unemployment rate is 3.5%. … For black teens the unemployment rate is over 10 times higher than it is for college graduates — 38.2%.Cruz's numbers are correct. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the unemployment rate for blacks between the ages of 16 and 19 was 38.2% in August. And the unemployment rate for college graduates over the age of 25 was 3.5% in August. But he's comparing black teens to college graduates over the age of 25. The unemployment rate for whites aged 16 to 19 is also high — 20.5% in August.
In other words, there is a racial disparity, but it's not 10-to-1.
QUOTING MARK ZANDI
Cruz cited an outdated quote from Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody's Analytics, to back up his claim that Obamacare is slowing job growth.
Cruz: In May 2013 Moody's economist Mark Zandi noted a slowdown in small business hiring due to Obamacare.It's true that in an interview on CNBC on April 5, Zandi said just that when asked about a jobs trends.
Zandi, April 5: But again, I think health care reform might be having an impact. … [W]ith employees [totaling between] 50 to 499 — that's the group that would be affected by the health care reform — we've seen a rather sharp slowing in job creation.But that's not what Zandi has been saying more recently.
"There is little evidence that fiscal austerity and health care reform have had a significant impact on the job market," Zandi said in a Sept. 5 story in USA Today.
We reached out to Zandi and asked if Cruz had quoted him accurately and in context. Moody's sent this response from Zandi: "Yes, in the spring there appeared to be a slowdown in job growth at small businesses. But this is no longer the case. Job growth at small businesses picked up this summer. I don't see any meaningful impact on job growth from healthcare reform, at least not yet."
PAUL: OBAMACARE DRIVING UP COSTS
During his brief cameo in Cruz's lengthy speech, Sen. Rand Paul argued that due to Obamacare, "everybody is going to pay more." The fact is, some will pay more and some will pay less.
Paul, Sept. 24: We went through this whole debacle of giving people ObamaCare and it is going to be expensive. Everybody is going to pay more. Many people still will not have insurance. The ones who do have insurance are going to pay more.As we wrote recently in our wrap-up of Obamacare myths, how much you pay depends on such things as your age, health and whether or not you are currently insured. Those who are uninsured and have a preexisting condition will likely pay less than they would have otherwise. Those who are uninsured but young and healthy will likely pay more (without accounting for any subsidies they may receive). Those who are insured through their employer likely won't see much change either way. And some of the currently uninsured will pay little to nothing because they will join Medicaid — the program will expand by 13 million Americans by 2020 under the law, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates.
Employer-sponsored premiums did go up slightly due to the law from 2010 to 2011 (a 1% to 3% increase, according to experts), because of added benefits, such as coverage for dependents up to age 26, free preventive care and an increase in caps on coverage. Since then, premium growth has been 4% on average for 2012 and 2013, modest growth rates historically.
For those who buy their own insurance, it's difficult to make generalizations about who will pay less or more. Many who had purchased on the individual market in the past will get more generous benefits. And the vast majority buying their own exchange plans — 80%, according to the Congressional Budget Office — will receive subsidies that bring their total out-of-pocket costs down.
Plans sold to individuals can no longer charge more based on health status or gender, but they can vary premiums based on geography, age and tobacco use. A RAND study, published in August and sponsored by the Department of Health and Human Services and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, estimated there would be "no widespread trend toward sharply higher prices in the individual market," in the words of the lead author. Rates would likely vary from state to state and based on individual circumstances. So Paul is wrong to make the sweeping claim that "everybody is going to pay more."
OBAMA'S PREMIUM PROMISE
Cruz said Obama promised in 2010, when the Affordable Care Act passed, that premiums "would drop $2,500? for the average family by the end of his first term. That's not exactly what the president said or when he said it.
Cruz: President Obama three-and-a-half years ago promised the average American that by the end of his first term, by the end of last year, the average American family's premiums would drop $2,500.By saying three-and-a-half years ago, Cruz is placing Obama's comments in 2010, which is when the law was passed. But Obama initially promised to lower premiums $2,500 by the end of his first term in June 2008 while running for president. That's five-and-a-half years ago.
Obama, June 5, 2008: In an Obama administration, we'll lower premiums by up to $2,500 for a typical family per year. And we'll do it by investing in disease prevention, not just disease management; by investing in a paperless health care system to reduce administrative costs; and by covering every single American and making sure that they can take their health care with them if they lose their job. … And we won't do all this twenty years from now, or ten years from now. We'll do it by the end of my first term as president of the United States.At the time, we called Obama's promise "misleading" and "overly optimistic." That's because the campaign told us half of the savings would come from investing in electronic health records and the campaign relied on a study that projected those savings would not fully materialize until 2019 — well beyond Obama's first term. Plus, estimated savings wouldn't go just to families, but to all of those who pay into the health care system, including governments and businesses.
Now, Obama did repeat a version of his promise in 2009 during the congressional debate over the federal law, saying the legislation plus some effort to reduce costs from labor unions, and insurance, drug and medical industries "could save families $2,500 in the coming years — $2,500 per family." But this time the president didn't say by the end of his first term.
Obama, May 13, 2009: On Monday I met with representatives of the insurance and the drug companies, doctors and hospitals, and labor unions, groups that included some of the strongest critics of past comprehensive reform proposals. We discussed how they're pledging to do their part to reduce our nation's health care spending by 1.5% per year. Coupled with comprehensive reform, this could result in our nation saving over $2 trillion over the next 10 years, and that could save families $2,500 in the coming years — $2,500 per family.As we said at the time, the promise was "still optimistic." But, he didn't promise this would be done by the end of his first term and Obama didn't promise that premiums "would drop," as Cruz put it. The Obama administration told us that future spending could be $2,500 per family lower compared with what it was otherwise projected to be.
A year later, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Nancy-Ann DeParle told ABC News that the law needs to play out before savings materialize. She said "by 2019 we estimate that the average family will save around $2,000."
REPEATED CLAIMS
We also heard some claims that we have debunked before, including these:
- Cruz repeated the false claim that members of Congress are exempt from the health care law. As we have writtennumeroustimes, the law requires congressional members and their staffs to get insurance through the newly created exchanges, so they are not exempt. In fact, the law prevents them from getting insurance through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, like other federal employees. However, the federal government, will continue to make contributions toward the premiums of lawmakers and their staffs — just as most large employers do for their employees.
- Cruz said, "Obamacare has a philosophy: empower government over your life, put a government bureaucrat between you and your doctor." But, as we've said, the law doesn't create a government-run system. If anything, the law comes between you and your insurance company, forbidding them from capping your coverage or charging you more based on health status.
Home
Post a Comment