Last week, Sean Hannity hosted an hour-long special designed to prove that the Affordable Care Act is "disastrous" and has provided "one big headache after another." During the show, Hannity trotted out three married couples to relate their horror stories with Obamacare. But a Salon.com writer became suspicious, did a little research, and found out some inconvenient truths to suggest that each could have been helped, not hurt, by the ACA if only the couples hadn't decided in advance they hated the law so much they didn't bother to check out the possibilities. And if only the Hannity show had bothered to do any honest fact checking. (h/t reader Jane S.)
Eric Stern, writing in Salon.com, said "none of it smelled right to me" when he happened to turn on the Hannity show last Friday night (10/11/13). And Stern should have a good nose in that regard. As the former counsel to Brian Schweitzer, the former governor of Montana, Stern says he advised on the implementation of the federal Affordable Care Act at the state level. So Stern decided to do some research. The results look like more of a disaster for the Hannity show than for any Obamacare user.
Stern contacted each of the guests and researched their claims. One small businessman complained that he couldn't expand his business because of Obamacare. Stern found out that the company only has four employees, way below the 50+ number that triggers mandatory health insurance by employers. Even better was what Stern found out about the third couple, Robbie and Tina Robison. They had complained on Hannity that their Blue Cross policy was being canceled because it did not comply with Obamacare. Stern wrote:
They told Hannity that the replacement plans Blue Cross was offering would come with a rate increase of 50 percent or even 75 percent, and that the new offerings would contain all sorts of benefits they don’t need, like maternity care, pediatric care, prenatal care and so forth. Their kids are grown and moved out, so why should they be forced to pay extra for a health plan with superfluous features?
When I spoke to Robbie, he said he and Tina have been paying a little over $800 a month for their plan, about $10,000 a year. And the ACA-compliant policy will cost 50-75 percent more? They said this information was related to them by their insurance agent.
Had they shopped on the exchange yet, I asked? No, Tina said, nor would they. They oppose Obamacare and want nothing to do with it. Fair enough, but they should know that I found a plan for them for, at most, $3,700 a year, a 63 percent less than their current bill. It might cover things that they don’t need, but so does every insurance policy.
The entire article is a gem.
Hannity's special was part of his solidarity with Senator Ted Cruz' "defund Obamacare" government shutdown. How fitting that it should turn out to be the same kind of sham as the shutdown effort.
Hannocchio holds unfavorable views of the poor, federal workers, unions, and people of color.
He, and his fellow mouthpieces, along with Carnival Cruz, have cost this country $24 billion dollars. Remind the masses 24/7 on blogs, television, radio and other social media of that horrific cost. Tie the $24 billion dollar loss around these frauds’ ankles for the rest of their miserable lives.
Hannocchio’s show is a snoozer who would put insomniacs to sleep. The suits need to cut this grandpa and replace him with a younger host with a fresh format.
Coming down the pipe: Hannocchio is in big trouble.
NOTE TO HANNITY
The way you’ve been eating lately you are going to need Affordable Care
I don’t know, but it seems like there’s “something something” kinda wrong with having to pay “60% more” for a canceled insurance policy.
However, you’ve completely missed the point of Eric Stern’s column. He wasn’t trying to give detailed examples and “naming names” of insurance companies. What he was doing was showing how these people—who’ve openly admitted they don’t like “Obamacare” to begin with—haven’t bothered to actually investigate for themselves to find out ALL THEIR OPTIONS.
My job offers a number of different health insurance providers from which I can choose. BUT, it’s MY job as a consumer to check out which of those various providers I should choose. And that’s what these numbskulls (and you, as well) need to do. Of course, if your right-wing teabagging politicians hadn’t stood in the way of what liberals and progressives had wanted (the “Medicaid for all” plan or “single-payer” option; the “public option” was a secondary choice), there really wouldn’t have been all this “research” needed. Your health care would be paid for by the government (just like Medicaid is) and most private physicians don’t really have any problems with Medicaid and Medicare. But, as it is, until you’re eligible for Medicaid, you’re going to have to buy your own insurance and do the same kind of investigative research that you (hopefully) do with your car insurance and homeowner’s/renter’s insurance and life insurance. (When I bought a new car about 10 years ago, because I was financing it, I was required to have full coverage on the car which meant my car insurance rates would more than double for the coverage. While I’d been with my auto insurance company for nearly 20 years at the time, I checked other insurance companies to see what their rates would be for the same coverage; the best I could find was only going to be about $30 a year less than I would pay with my long-time company so I didn’t see any real incentive to change insurance companies. If I could’ve found a savings of about $100 or so a year, I would’ve switched, but it wasn’t in the cards.)
