Another Romney Lie about Regulations

The Off-Topic forum for anything non-LDS related, such as sports or politics. Rated PG through PG-13.
_Droopy
_Emeritus
Posts: 9826
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 4:06 pm

Re: Another Romney Lie about Regulations

Post by _Droopy »

Oh, and about those regulations:

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/03/07/tal ... obamacare/


Tales of the Red Tape #28: Simplifying Insurance a la Obamacare

Diane Katz

March 7, 2012 at 6:00 pm

(4)

Obamacare requires health insurance companies to produce a summary of benefits and coverage (SBC) based on a government-imposed template and glossary. Below is a sampling of the requirements (70 pages) concocted by the Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, and the Treasury to simplify the task.

The summary of benefits and coverage “must be presented in a uniform format, cannot exceed four double-sided pages in length, and must not include print smaller than 12-point font.” It also must “replicate all symbols, formatting, bolding, and shading.”
Plans and issuers must provide the summary of benefits and coverage in a “culturally and linguistically appropriate manner.” (The government’s template and glossary are available in “Spanish, Tagalog, Chinese, and Navajo.”)
“The items shown on page 1 [of the template] must always appear on page 1, and the rows of the chart [in the template] must always appear in the same order. The chart starting on page 2 must always begin on page 2, and the rows shown in this chart must always appear in the same order. However, the chart rows shown on page 2 may extend to page 3 if space requires, and the chart rows on page 3 may extend to the beginning of page 4 if space requires. The Excluded Services and other Covered Services section may appear on page 3 or page 4, but must always immediately follow the chart starting on page 2. The Excluded Services and Other Covered Services section must be followed by the Your Rights to Continue Coverage section, the Your Grievance and Appeals Rights section, and the Coverage Examples section, in that order.”
“The footer must appear at the bottom left of every page.”
“The uniform glossary of health coverage and medical terms may not be modified by plans or issuers” (e.g., “Emergency Room Care” is to be defined as “Emergency services you get in an emergency room”; “Physician Services” is to be defined as “Health care services a licensed medical physician provides or coordinates”; and “Prescription Drugs” is to be defined as “Drugs and medications that by law require a prescription.” The glossary is intended to be educational in nature and the definitions may not be the same as definitions used by a plan or issuer.”)
“Plans and issuers have the option to use their logo instead of typing in the company name if the logo includes the name of the entity sponsoring the plan or issuing the coverage.”
In the “Answers” column for the question What Is The Overall Deductible? issuers must answer “$0” if there is no overall deductible. In the “Why This Matters” column for the same question, the following language must be used if there is no overall deductible: “See the chart starting on page 2 for your costs for services this plan covers.” In the “Answers” column for the question Are There Other Deductibles for Specific Services? the following statement must appear at the end of the list if the plan has more than three other deductibles and not all deductibles are shown: “There are other specific deductibles.” If the plan has fewer than three other deductibles, the following statement must appear at the end of the list: “There are no other specific deductibles.”
“List placement must be in alphabetical order for each box. The lists must use bullets next to each item.”
“Each plan or issuer must place all the following services in either the Services Your Plan Does Not Cover box or the Other Covered Services box according to the plan provisions…:

Acupuncture
Bariatric Surgery
Chiropractic Care
Cosmetic Surgery
Dental Care (Adult)
Hearing Aids
Infertility Treatment
Long-term Care
Non-emergency Care (when traveling outside the U.S.)
Private-duty Nursing
Routine Eye Care (Adult)
Routine Foot Care
Weight Loss Programs

“[T]he Departments authorize the SBC to be provided either as a stand-alone document or in combination with other summary materials (for example, a summary plan description), if the SBC information is intact and prominently displayed at the beginning of the materials (such as immediately after the Table of Contents in a summary plan description). For health insurance coverage provided in the individual market, the SBC must be provided as a stand-alone document.”
“The requirements to provide an SBC, notice of modification, and uniform glossary under PHS Act section 2715 and these final regulations apply for disclosures with respect to participants and beneficiaries who enroll or re-enroll in group health coverage through an open enrollment period (including re-enrollees and late enrollees), beginning on the first day of the first open enrollment period that begins on or after September 23, 2012. For disclosures to participants and beneficiaries who enroll in group health plan coverage other than through an open enrollment period (including individuals who are newly eligible for coverage and special enrollees), the requirements under PHS Act section 2715 and these final regulations apply beginning on the first day of the first plan year that begins on or after September 23, 2012. For disclosures to plans, and to individuals and dependents in the individual market, these requirements apply to health insurance issuers beginning on September 23, 2012.”
“Each plan or issuer must calculate and populate the Patient Pays total and sub-totals based upon the cost sharing and benefit features of the plan for which the document is being created. Each plan or issuer must calculate and populate the Plan Pays amount by subtracting the Patient Pays total from the Amount Owed to Providers total.”
“The row for communicating premium information has been removed from the summary of benefits and coverage template document and the instructions for completing this section have also been removed.”

The materials described in this guidance document are authorized by the departments for the first year of applicability only; the departments intend to issue updated materials for later years.

The total 2012 burden estimate for issuers to produce the summary of benefits and coverage is 1,500,000 hours, with an equivalent cost of about $63,000,000 and a cost burden of $9,000,000 for a total of $72,000,000.



Make no mistake, government built this.
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us

- President Ezra Taft Benson


I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.

- Thomas Sowell
_Droopy
_Emeritus
Posts: 9826
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 4:06 pm

Re: Another Romney Lie about Regulations

Post by _Droopy »

cinepro wrote:
Kevin Graham wrote:Regulations have "quadrupled" under Obama??

Where does he come up with this b***s***?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... der-obama/


Romney wasn't up burning the midnight oil looking through legislative records to come up with that number. And he didn't pull it out of thin air or intentionally lie.

As explained in the politifact article:

The Romney campaign told us the basis for the statement was research by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. An ongoing study by Heritage documents regulation activity by the federal government. Its latest update said President George W. Bush’s administration adopted 28 "major regulations" that increased burdens on the private sector in its first three years, compared with 106 by the Obama administration.


So Romney read research from a well regarded but admittedly right-wing think tank and believed it.



And he was essentially correct. Looking at new, significant regulations, and including those issuing from independent agencies responding to or in concurrence with the overarching ideology and political initiatives emanating from the White House, the ratio of new regulation to the Bush high mark is substantial during Obama's time in office.

But none of this is either news or in any way odd, given how Obama has governed since he entered the White House, and what we now know, without ambiguity, about his actual ideological beliefs and comittments.

Obama is a Marxist, he is a radical leftist (he is a member now of the Left that David Horowitz was a member of 40 years ago) but he is a clever and very smart cultural Marxist; he knows he cannot possibly govern under those ideological conditions in a nation with a population the substantial majority of which would throw up its hands and flee from the ideas held and believed by him and much of his party were they to be espoused clearly and honestly.

He has governed as a transformational socialist while restraining and fragmenting some of his major initiatives (such as Obamacare) and feeding them to Congress and the American people in piecemeal fashion, playing the "moderate" liberal, while claiming to be a conservative.
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us

- President Ezra Taft Benson


I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.

- Thomas Sowell
_cinepro
_Emeritus
Posts: 4502
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 10:15 pm

Re: Another Romney Lie about Regulations

Post by _cinepro »

It should also be pointed out that even if all the information in the rebuttal article were true, it still wouldn't indicate that Romney told a "lie".

Unless Kevin is willing to admit that, should the information in the rebuttal prove to be unreliable, he has told a "lie" for having believed it.
_Kevin Graham
_Emeritus
Posts: 13037
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 6:44 pm

Re: Another Romney Lie about Regulations

Post by _Kevin Graham »

Cinepro, Heritage is in fact a "spin factory" as Tarski put it. It has a history of producing really bad, and misleading talking points for Right Wing candidates. Of course they call it "research" as if it were some reliable source of information, but anyone vaguely familiar with Heritage's history knows that is just a charade. Heritage is the same organization that receives funding from corporations who rely on its spin pieces to help lobbyists push through their proposed legislation. The oil industry is a huge backer of Heritage, for example, so there is no wonder it is constantly producing spin pieces defending said industry. It is the same organization who supported the tobacco industry when it was lying about the effects of nicotine on the human body. It was also being bankrolled by Phillip Morris at the time. Coincidence?

So calling it "admittedly Right Wing" just doesn't quite tell the whole story about Heritage's overt bias and unreliability.
_cinepro
_Emeritus
Posts: 4502
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 10:15 pm

Re: Another Romney Lie about Regulations

Post by _cinepro »

Kevin Graham wrote:Cinepro, Heritage is in fact a "spin factory" as Tarski put it. It has a history of producing really bad, and misleading talking points for Right Wing candidates. Of course they call it "research" as if it were some reliable source of information, but anyone vaguely familiar with Heritage's history knows that is just a charade. Heritage is the same organization that receives funding from corporations who rely on its spin pieces to help lobbyists push through their proposed legislation. The oil industry is a huge backer of Heritage, for example, so there is no wonder it is constantly producing spin pieces defending said industry. It is the same organization who supported the tobacco industry when it was lying about the effects of nicotine on the human body. It was also being bankrolled by Phillip Morris at the time. Coincidence?

So calling it "admittedly Right Wing" just doesn't quite tell the whole story about Heritage's overt bias and unreliability.


I read a few articles from Heritage, and it looks like they were wrong about something once, so you must be right.

As for their receiving money from the tobacco companies, do you know if they received more or less than the ACLU?
_Bob Loblaw
_Emeritus
Posts: 3323
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2012 2:26 am

Re: Another Romney Lie about Regulations

Post by _Bob Loblaw »

cinepro wrote:I read a few articles from Heritage, and it looks like they were wrong about something once, so you must be right.

As for their receiving money from the tobacco companies, do you know if they received more or less than the ACLU?


cinepro,

If Romney cites a conservative study, it's a damnable lie. If Obama cites a liberal study, it's just an uncomfortable truth for us right-wing crazies.
"It doesn't seem fair, does it Norm--that I should have so much knowledge when there are people in the world that have to go to bed stupid every night." -- Clifford C. Clavin, USPS

"¡No contaban con mi astucia!" -- El Chapulin Colorado
_krose
_Emeritus
Posts: 2555
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 1:18 pm

Re: Another Romney Lie about Regulations

Post by _krose »

This is my favorite line introducing the Heritage list of regulations (many of which are increases and modifications of existing rules):

Inclusion of a regulation in our totals, however, is not meant to indicate that it is unjustified.

Interesting disclaimer, considering their reason for even compiling such a list seems to be that all these regulations must be harmful (and therefore unjustified).

According to right-wing radicals like Droopy, of course, all these regulations are not only unjustified, but are piecemeal implementation of Marxism.

You know, Marxist rules like increasing the energy efficiency standards for appliances, modifying airbag design to prevent ejections, and requiring shareholder approval for executive salaries and golden parachutes.
"The DNA of fictional populations appears to be the most susceptible to extinction." - Simon Southerton
_Bob Loblaw
_Emeritus
Posts: 3323
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2012 2:26 am

Re: Another Romney Lie about Regulations

Post by _Bob Loblaw »

krose wrote:This is my favorite line introducing the Heritage list of regulations (many of which are increases and modifications of existing rules):

Inclusion of a regulation in our totals, however, is not meant to indicate that it is unjustified.

Interesting disclaimer, considering their reason for even compiling such a list seems to be that all these regulations must be harmful (and therefore unjustified).

According to right-wing radicals like Droopy, of course, all these regulations are not only unjustified, but are piecemeal implementation of Marxism.

You know, Marxist rules like increasing the energy efficiency standards for appliances, modifying airbag design to prevent ejections, and requiring shareholder approval for executive salaries and golden parachutes.


That's why I don't understand why Obama didn't just say, "Every regulation we've passed, we've needed." The Democratic party is supposed to be the party who believes government should actively rein in the excesses of capitalism. Why not embrace that?
"It doesn't seem fair, does it Norm--that I should have so much knowledge when there are people in the world that have to go to bed stupid every night." -- Clifford C. Clavin, USPS

"¡No contaban con mi astucia!" -- El Chapulin Colorado
Post Reply