<p>That’s true about actingmt. Maybe a lack of sufficient morning coffee. :-)</p>
<p>Actually I think all of us on both sides are not careful enough vetting articles that seem to support our positions. When the article supports the other side’s point of view, we scrutinize it, but when it supports our point of view, we are not so picky.</p>
<p>True enough. I’m guilty of that too. </p>
<p>This is strange: In Florida, insurance companies are filing their rate increases next year for individual insurance. Except, none of the companies so far is asking for rate increase, and two companies are asking for rate <em>decreases</em>.</p>
<p>
<a href=“No Rate Increase? Can It Be? | Health News Florida”>No Rate Increase? Can It Be? | Health News Florida;
<p>Are you kidding, CF? Did you see the update to the article?</p>
<p>“The Daily Signal article is spectacularly dishonest.”</p>
<p>Don’t you think your being a little melodramatic. I would call it semantics rather than dishonest. Also, there are no reliable numbers for how many of the enrollees were uninsured. The 8 million on Medicaid is a shot in the dark.</p>
<p>You want to know what is spectacularly dishonest: “You can keep your health plan if you like it.”</p>
<p>Not all states allow insurers to lie, though. Overall it looks like single digit increases. Ohio for example</p>
<p><a href=“Most Obamacare premiums for 2015 aren't as high as claimed, review of Ohio filings shows - cleveland.com”>Most Obamacare premiums for 2015 aren't as high as claimed, review of Ohio filings shows - cleveland.com;
or Washington
<a href=“Most Obamacare premiums for 2015 aren't as high as claimed, review of Ohio filings shows - cleveland.com”>Most Obamacare premiums for 2015 aren't as high as claimed, review of Ohio filings shows - cleveland.com;
<p>Not the 50 pct increases so many have predicted</p>
<p>No I don’t think I’m being melodramatic. You know what the number of newly insured on Medicaid is not close to? Zero. But that’s what she says it is. She’s also ignoring the more than a million newly insured who bought their insurance off the exchanges. She’s lying deliberately, to deceive credulous people.</p>
<p>I couldn’t have seen the update. I posted at 2:18 pm California time. The update was published at 2:38 California time. Here it is:</p>
<p><a href=“State Backtracks on Rate Proposals | Health News Florida”>http://health.wusf.usf.edu/post/it-was-too-good-be-true</a>
</p>
<p>While looking for NJ increases, I found this for Maryland:</p>
<p>Maryland’s largest health insurer, CareFirst, has submitted premium increases of 23% to 30% for individual health plans for 2015 under guidelines required by the federal Affordable Care Act. </p>
<p>Coventry is seeking increases between 13% and 19% for two small group plans, while Kaiser Permanente is asking for a nearly 7% increase in a small group plan</p>
<p>Meanwhile, Kaiser and Evergreen Health Cooperative have filed requests for premium reductions for two individual plans of 12% and 10%, respectively.</p>
<p><a href=“QQPEDIA Situs Judi Slot Online JOKER123, Agen Casino Online”>QQPEDIA Situs Judi Slot Online JOKER123, Agen Casino Online;
<p>You caught the part about how “requests” are reviewed and need approval, right? (Because some here don’t. We dealt with posts, well before rate requests were due, telling us hikes would be in the 50-100% range, based on some talk by brokers not in the loop yet.) And how they cut back some hikes last year? Because the point is what we end up with, not some wild a$$ request.</p>
<p>Hmmm. I don’t have any idea how you guys can decide which links are honest and which are dishonest since the most dishonest information imaginable along with whatever questionable numbers meet the days needs are coming from official sources. But, I will say Sheryl Atkison is a great reporter with a decades long history of non-partisan investigative work. We need more of that. imho. Lot’s more.</p>
<p>I don’t know about any Sheryl Atkinson, but Sharyl Attkisson, the writer of the disputed article, parted ways with CBS News, reportedly because they thought she was too partisan. After her departure from CBS, she was then hired by Heritage. On her blog, she publishes lies and fabrications about Benghazi. She is in no way non-partisan, as her lying Obamacare piece once again demonstrates.</p>
<p>Yeah, that’s not exactly what happened with CBS and no-one claims to know what happened in Benghazi, hence investigating. But whatever. Thanks, for the spell check. lol.</p>
<p>Honesty can be manipulated. Of course. But people who assume something reported is automatically accurate just because it’s printed, who don’t look at the source, the supposed facts, the manner of the analysis or the conditions-- are born every minute.</p>
<p>You would think some of those posters whose links got repeatedly shot down would get the hang of checking, before linking more of the same. I’m not naming names. One other reason some may continuously post slant and inaccuracies is…maybe they are pulling our legs, stringing us along, on purpose. Hmm. Funny way to get jollies. Or, of course, maybe they can’t vet. </p>
<p>I don’t mean to be sarcastic- I really do wonder why we keep hearing the same, over and over. You won’t get a doctor, your rates will skyrocket, your cancer won’t be treated. Especially when so many are unwilling to speak up to their insurance commissioners or other reps. </p>
<p>Are my links repeatedly shot down? Well, my apologies. I didn’t realize. Actually, the last link I saw shot down on this thread came from the Commonwealth Club. I don’t have a clue who posted it but it was definitely not me. </p>
<p>Actingmt, do you believe the link you posted today is true?</p>
<p><a href=“Obamacare's Exchanges Fall Well Short of Enrollment Target”>http://dailysignal.com/2014/06/24/obamacare-exchanges-disappointing/</a></p>
<p>Let’s just look at the headline. You posted the link. Do you believe the headline is true?</p>
<p>“Do you believe the headline is true?”</p>
<p>Yeah, it could be true. The reality is that no one knows how many were uninsured and that includes you, dstark. Your back of the envelope estimates are no better than the phony Administration numbers. You may have noticed the White House and CMS are no longer putting out enrollment numbers because they don’t have a clue. </p>
<p>“Could be true” isn’t IS true. That’s a starter for you.</p>
<p>I guess I will just post the headline.</p>
<p>“Obamacare Exchanges Are ‘Disappointing’ With Fewer Than 4 Million Newly Insured. The Government Hoped for 26 Million.”</p>