Quick Note Digest: Republicans Still Having Trouble With the Truth

1.  Scott Brown Anti-ACA Media Oops

Ex-senator from Massachusetts, Scott Brown (R) is now running for the U.S. Senate from New Hampshire where he apparently believes he has a better chance of returning to Washington.  He recently purchased a house there to up his NH bona fides.

The focus of his campaign is, no surprise here, the ACA-must-go.  With this in mind, his campaign organized a media event that included New Hampshire State Representative Herb Richardson (R).  At the meeting, Mr. Brown enthusiastically espoused his anti-ACA message, calling the law a "monstrosity."

Mrs. Richardson silenced him by exclaiming "Thank God for Obamacare!"

Mr. Richardson, explained that the law which Brown says he abhors, has proven to be a "financial lifesaver" for his family.  It turns out that Mr. Richardson had been injured on the job, forcing him and his family to live on $2000 a month in workers' comp payments and ultimately costing them their home.  Under the federal COBRA law, they had to pay $1100/month in order to keep their health coverage.  Thanks to being eligible for a subsidy under the ACA, they now will pay only $136 for their family plan.

Candidate Brown, the media noted, had no rebuttal and quickly moved on to other topics. 

In my head, I can hear Jack Nicholson in A FEW GOOD MEN: "You can't handle the truth!"

2.  The Horror Stories That Weren't

By now, we all have seen the ads paid for by the Koch brothers featuring people who have been "victimized" by the Affordable Care Act.  They decry the loss of a much loved health care policy and weep over the high cost of purchasing a new plan under the ACA.

Story after story has been debunked by fact-checkers--stories like the one from the Michigan woman who has leukemia.  She not only appeared in TV ads, but participated in a Republican National Committee event and was a guest at the State of the Union address in January.  The Washington Post investigated her story and found that, under her new ACA policy, she would actually save $1200 this year and will be able to keep her doctor.  When these facts were pointed out to her, she replied "I personally don't believe that."  

She didn't notice that the doctor she was seeing was the same?

Then there was the mother of three in Texas with multiple sclerosis who claimed her new ACA plan would cost $1000 a month, an amount she could not afford.  Turns out her plan actually costs $350/month.

 No one on the right seemed able to explain the discrepancy. 

Or another woman in Texas who quoted her high premium, again saying it was unaffordable, but never bothered to mention that she qualified for a subsidy that would cut her cost significantly or that she had refused to apply for it.

Or the California woman who was paying $293 for a catastrophic coverage only plan.  She was limited to two doctor visits a year; anything over that she paid fully on her own.  The plan required her to pay $5000 a year in deductible payments before the actual catastrophic coverage kicked in. When a media fact-checker looked closer, they found this woman could get ACA silver level coverage, which was better than that of her old plan, for $333/month and with only $2000 a year in deductible payments.

Republicans replied to the media scrutiny of these misleading ads by saying that the media should not investigate these people because they are private citizens with private problems.  The media's response was, if they choose to make their lives public by appearing on TV ads and at public events, then they should expect fact checkers to, well, fact check.

The result of all this scutiny is a new type of anti-ACA ad.  One of the latest features a woman in Arkansas who is upset that her existing plan has been canceled.  It doesn't say she is in any health danger or that she is being forced to pay more for coverage, only that her policy is being canceled. The Wall Street Journal checked out this story and found that, as a result of the ACA, exactly zero insurance plans have been canceled in her state.   The Arkansas Insurance Department issued a bulletin explaining that non-compliant insurance plans could be kept through 2017--a fact the ACA hating ad writers chose not to mention.  

By 2017, it is expected that any ACA shortcomings would be ironed out and people with plans like the ones deemed "non-compliant" would realize they could do better by signing up for government sponsored health care.

It should also be noted, that if anyone was trying to cancel existing health insurance policies it was Americans for Prosperity, the Koch backed group that paid for many of these ads, including the latest one in Arkansas.

Americans for Prosperity fought hard against Arkansas' expansion of Medicaid under the ACA.   After 100,000 people in Arkansas signed up under the state's new Medicaid expansion, they continued to push the legislature there to reverse it--to take coverage away, to cancel the policies of those 100,000 citizens.  Their efforts were unsuccessful.

As one pundit put it, in light of their own failed fight to disenfranchise 100,000 Arkansas citizens, their newest ads are an act of "incredible chutzpah."

If the ACA is so horrible, why are Republicans running a campaign based on lies? Where are the true horror stories? 

3.  Another Republican Candidate with a Foot-in-mouth Problem 

U.S. Representative Bill Cassidy (R-Louisiana) is running for the U.S. Senate.  

He recently spoke at a Louisiana Oil and Gas Association annual meeting where he explained that he supported a scaled-down alternative to the ACA, saying that it just isn't possible to cover everyone and that the problem lies, not with the insurance industry, but with the uninsured themselves.  He blamed the "reality of who the uninsured are: relatively less sophisticated, less comfortable with forms, less educated."

Democrats immediately jumped at his comments comparing them to just another attack on the poor, much like Representative Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin)'s recent remarks blaming inner city culture (which he claims was not meant to be racist) for poverty.

Republicans pushed back by suggesting that Mr. Cassidy's points just may be right.  They argued that if uninsured Americans who lack health insurance really are "less sophisticated" or "less comfortable with forms" or "less educated" and are often "illiterate", then he shouldn't be criticized for speaking the truth. 

That's a lot of "ifs."

There are so many things wrong with this that I'm not even going to try to address them all.  I will limit myself to this:  House Speaker John Boehner had a much publicized problem with signing up for health insurance and eventually asked for assistance to complete his application.  I have to assume that his fellow Republicans would not call Mr. Boehner "less sophisticated" or "less educated," but he still needed assistance--the same assistance that would be available to all those uninsured people who unfortunately live in Republican led states where such assistance has been outlawed.

Wouldn't it then, be more truthful to blame Republicans instead of the uninsured for the problem?